Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherton, s
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherton, s
Dear Newsgroup ~
I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English royal
family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
is the first of a mulit-part post on the family of Thomas of
Brotherton and his first wife, Alice de Hales.
The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
includes an account of Thomas of Brotherton (died 1338), Earl of
Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided by
Complete Peerage:
"He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320) Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
marriage of Thomas and Alice, nor is the death date of Alice known.
And, when one checks the documentation provided for Alice de Hales'
maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
are references to two patent rolls items in which Alice's given name
is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0205.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0011.pdf
In the first item we see that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church of
Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wife Alice and the heirs of
Alice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance to
Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
(1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John de
Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference: Blomefield,
An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
(1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had in
fact been married to Alice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
Earl Thomas and Alice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor of
Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
good estate of Thomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
for his soul after death, and for the soul of Alice, sometime his
wife."
So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
maiden name or parentage of Alice, wife of Thomas of Brotherton. This
is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
see, it doesn't.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English royal
family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
is the first of a mulit-part post on the family of Thomas of
Brotherton and his first wife, Alice de Hales.
The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
includes an account of Thomas of Brotherton (died 1338), Earl of
Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided by
Complete Peerage:
"He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320) Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
marriage of Thomas and Alice, nor is the death date of Alice known.
And, when one checks the documentation provided for Alice de Hales'
maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
are references to two patent rolls items in which Alice's given name
is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0205.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0011.pdf
In the first item we see that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church of
Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wife Alice and the heirs of
Alice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance to
Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
(1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John de
Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference: Blomefield,
An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
(1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had in
fact been married to Alice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
Earl Thomas and Alice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor of
Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
good estate of Thomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
for his soul after death, and for the soul of Alice, sometime his
wife."
So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
maiden name or parentage of Alice, wife of Thomas of Brotherton. This
is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
see, it doesn't.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
Dear Newsgroup ~
This is the second part of a series of posts on the family of Thomas
of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk (died 1338), younger son of King Edward
I of England. In the next set of posts, we will examine the evidence
which proves the identity and parentage of Thomas of Brotherton's
first wife, Alice Hales.
In 1806 the noted antiquarian Francis Blomefield published an extract
from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas which relates to
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and his immediate family. This
account is found in Volume 5 of Blomefield's landmark series, An Essay
Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 (1806):
232-233. Interestingly, although Brotherton's wife, Alice, came from
a Norfolk family, this account does not identify her parentage, other
than to say that she was a "Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey." For
another version of this same account below, please see Mason, The
History of Norfolk 5 (1885): 13-14.
"... an extract from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas, now
remaining in the gild hall of the city of Norwich, at fo. 1, viz. ...
and the seid Thomas Brodirton Erle of Norfolke, cam doun into
Norfolke, and ther he wedded a Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey, and
thei hadden togedir ij Dowters, of the which, oon hight Margeret, and
the toder hight [Alice, who had a daughter] which was married to oon
Ser Wil. Ufford Erle of Suffolk; the forseid Margaret and [Alice]
Dowters of Thomas Brothirton Erle of Norf. after the Decesse of the
seid Thomas, possessed and hadden all his Londes, and it wern partid
between them to; and after the seid [Alice] Wif of (Edward) Montagew
deid; and hire (Part) fell to here Dowter (Joan) Wif of Ufford Erle of
Suthfolk; and after that, the seid Lady Ufford Countess of Suff. deied
without Heirs, and all here Part thanne fell unto the forseid Margaret
Dowter of the seid Thomas Brothirton, and sche was thenne Cuntese mad
of Norff. and dwellid at the Castell of Framelingham, and sche was
married to the Lorde Segrave, and the seid Lorde Segrave gaf to hire,
whenn he schuld wedden here, all his Londis, to hir and to hire Heirs;
and thei hadden togeder ij Dowters, wherof oon (Anne) was Abbesse of
Berkyng, and (Elizabeth) the todir, was married to the Lord Mowbrey
and Gower; and after that, the Lord Segrave deied, and thenn Dame
Margaret his Wif, the Countes of Norf. was both Countes of Norff. and
Lady Segrave, and after that, sche was married to Sere Water Maughney
Knyght, and thei had togedir (Thomas) a Son, and (Anne) a Dowter, the
which Son whenne he was of the age of x Yeres, he drauthe att
Chestirforthe, and he schuld a ben Erle of Northfolke and Lord
Segrave, if he had levid; and the forseid Dowter of the Countese of
Norff. and of Sir Water Maughney, was married to (John Hastings) the
Erle of Pembroke." END OF QUOTE.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Thomas of Broitherton, Earl of
Norfolk, and his wife, Alice Hales:
Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Dorothy Beresford,
Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph
Bolles, Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot,
William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne, Elizabeth & John
Mansfield, Richard More, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive
Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Oct 13, 1:14 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
< actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English
royal
< family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
< is the first of a mulit-part post on the family
ofThomasofBrothertonand his first wife,AlicedeHales.
<
< The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
< includes an account ofThomasofBrotherton(died 1338), Earl of
< Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
< King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
< Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided
by
< Complete Peerage:
<
< "He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320)Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
< de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
< whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
< before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
<
< At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
< marriage ofThomasandAlice, nor is the death date ofAliceknown.
< And, when one checks the documentation provided forAlicedeHales'
< maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
< neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
< are references to two patent rolls items in whichAlice'sgiven name
< is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
< parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0205.pdf
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0011.pdf
<
< In the first item we see thatThomasofBrotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
< had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church
of
< Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wifeAliceand the heirs
ofAlice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance to
< Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
< Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
< (1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John
de
< Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference:
Blomefield,
< An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
< (1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had
in
< fact been married toAlice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
< EarlThomasandAlice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
< that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
< Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
< presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
< altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
< Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor
of
< Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
< sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
<
< In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
< October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
< James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
< chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
< good estate ofThomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
< for his soul after death, and for the soul ofAlice, sometime his
< wife."
<
< So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
< maiden name or parentage ofAlice, wife ofThomasofBrotherton. This
< is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
< see, it doesn't.
<
< TO BE CONTINUED.
<
< Best always, DouglasRichardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
This is the second part of a series of posts on the family of Thomas
of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk (died 1338), younger son of King Edward
I of England. In the next set of posts, we will examine the evidence
which proves the identity and parentage of Thomas of Brotherton's
first wife, Alice Hales.
In 1806 the noted antiquarian Francis Blomefield published an extract
from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas which relates to
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and his immediate family. This
account is found in Volume 5 of Blomefield's landmark series, An Essay
Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 (1806):
232-233. Interestingly, although Brotherton's wife, Alice, came from
a Norfolk family, this account does not identify her parentage, other
than to say that she was a "Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey." For
another version of this same account below, please see Mason, The
History of Norfolk 5 (1885): 13-14.
"... an extract from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas, now
remaining in the gild hall of the city of Norwich, at fo. 1, viz. ...
and the seid Thomas Brodirton Erle of Norfolke, cam doun into
Norfolke, and ther he wedded a Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey, and
thei hadden togedir ij Dowters, of the which, oon hight Margeret, and
the toder hight [Alice, who had a daughter] which was married to oon
Ser Wil. Ufford Erle of Suffolk; the forseid Margaret and [Alice]
Dowters of Thomas Brothirton Erle of Norf. after the Decesse of the
seid Thomas, possessed and hadden all his Londes, and it wern partid
between them to; and after the seid [Alice] Wif of (Edward) Montagew
deid; and hire (Part) fell to here Dowter (Joan) Wif of Ufford Erle of
Suthfolk; and after that, the seid Lady Ufford Countess of Suff. deied
without Heirs, and all here Part thanne fell unto the forseid Margaret
Dowter of the seid Thomas Brothirton, and sche was thenne Cuntese mad
of Norff. and dwellid at the Castell of Framelingham, and sche was
married to the Lorde Segrave, and the seid Lorde Segrave gaf to hire,
whenn he schuld wedden here, all his Londis, to hir and to hire Heirs;
and thei hadden togeder ij Dowters, wherof oon (Anne) was Abbesse of
Berkyng, and (Elizabeth) the todir, was married to the Lord Mowbrey
and Gower; and after that, the Lord Segrave deied, and thenn Dame
Margaret his Wif, the Countes of Norf. was both Countes of Norff. and
Lady Segrave, and after that, sche was married to Sere Water Maughney
Knyght, and thei had togedir (Thomas) a Son, and (Anne) a Dowter, the
which Son whenne he was of the age of x Yeres, he drauthe att
Chestirforthe, and he schuld a ben Erle of Northfolke and Lord
Segrave, if he had levid; and the forseid Dowter of the Countese of
Norff. and of Sir Water Maughney, was married to (John Hastings) the
Erle of Pembroke." END OF QUOTE.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Thomas of Broitherton, Earl of
Norfolk, and his wife, Alice Hales:
Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Dorothy Beresford,
Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph
Bolles, Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot,
William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne, Elizabeth & John
Mansfield, Richard More, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive
Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Oct 13, 1:14 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
< actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English
royal
< family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
< is the first of a mulit-part post on the family
ofThomasofBrothertonand his first wife,AlicedeHales.
<
< The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
< includes an account ofThomasofBrotherton(died 1338), Earl of
< Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
< King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
< Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided
by
< Complete Peerage:
<
< "He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320)Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
< de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
< whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
< before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
<
< At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
< marriage ofThomasandAlice, nor is the death date ofAliceknown.
< And, when one checks the documentation provided forAlicedeHales'
< maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
< neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
< are references to two patent rolls items in whichAlice'sgiven name
< is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
< parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0205.pdf
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0011.pdf
<
< In the first item we see thatThomasofBrotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
< had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church
of
< Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wifeAliceand the heirs
ofAlice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance to
< Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
< Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
< (1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John
de
< Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference:
Blomefield,
< An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
< (1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had
in
< fact been married toAlice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
< EarlThomasandAlice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
< that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
< Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
< presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
< altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
< Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor
of
< Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
< sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
<
< In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
< October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
< James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
< chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
< good estate ofThomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
< for his soul after death, and for the soul ofAlice, sometime his
< wife."
<
< So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
< maiden name or parentage ofAlice, wife ofThomasofBrotherton. This
< is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
< see, it doesn't.
<
< TO BE CONTINUED.
<
< Best always, DouglasRichardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
Dear Newsgroup ~
This is the second part of a series of posts on the family of Thomas
of Brotherton, Knt., Earl of Norfolk (died 1338), younger son of King
Edward
I of England. In the next set of posts, we will examine the evidence
which proves the identity and parentage of Thomas of Brotherton's
first wife, Alice de Hales.
In 1806 the noted antiquarian Francis Blomefield published an extract
from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas which relates to
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and his immediate family. This
account is found in Volume 5 of Blomefield's landmark series, An Essay
Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 (1806):
232-233. Interestingly, although Brotherton's wife, Alice, came from
a Norfolk family, this account does not identify her parentage, other
than to say that she was a "Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey." For
another version of this same account below, please see Mason, The
History of Norfolk 5 (1885): 13-14.
"... an extract from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas, now
remaining in the gild hall of the city of Norwich, at fo. 1, viz. ...
and the seid Thomas Brodirton Erle of Norfolke, cam doun into
Norfolke, and ther he wedded a Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey, and
thei hadden togedir ij Dowters, of the which, oon hight Margeret, and
the toder hight [Alice, who had a daughter] which was married to oon
Ser Wil. Ufford Erle of Suffolk; the forseid Margaret and [Alice]
Dowters of Thomas Brothirton Erle of Norf. after the Decesse of the
seid Thomas, possessed and hadden all his Londes, and it wern partid
between them to; and after the seid [Alice] Wif of (Edward) Montagew
deid; and hire (Part) fell to here Dowter (Joan) Wif of Ufford Erle of
Suthfolk; and after that, the seid Lady Ufford Countess of Suff. deied
without Heirs, and all here Part thanne fell unto the forseid Margaret
Dowter of the seid Thomas Brothirton, and sche was thenne Cuntese mad
of Norff. and dwellid at the Castell of Framelingham, and sche was
married to the Lorde Segrave, and the seid Lorde Segrave gaf to hire,
whenn he schuld wedden here, all his Londis, to hir and to hire Heirs;
and thei hadden togeder ij Dowters, wherof oon (Anne) was Abbesse of
Berkyng, and (Elizabeth) the todir, was married to the Lord Mowbrey
and Gower; and after that, the Lord Segrave deied, and thenn Dame
Margaret his Wif, the Countes of Norf. was both Countes of Norff. and
Lady Segrave, and after that, sche was married to Sere Water Maughney
Knyght, and thei had togedir (Thomas) a Son, and (Anne) a Dowter, the
which Son whenne he was of the age of x Yeres, he drauthe att
Chestirforthe, and he schuld a ben Erle of Northfolke and Lord
Segrave, if he had levid; and the forseid Dowter of the Countese of
Norff. and of Sir Water Maughney, was married to (John Hastings) the
Erle of Pembroke." END OF QUOTE.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Thomas of Broitherton, Earl of
Norfolk, and his wife, Alice de Hales:
Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Dorothy Beresford,
Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph
Bolles, Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot,
William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne, Elizabeth & John
Mansfield, Richard More, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive
Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Oct 13, 1:14 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
< actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English
royal
< family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
< is the first of a mulit-part post on the family of
ThomasofBrothertonand his first wife, AlicedeHales.
<
< The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
< includes an account ofThomasofBrotherton(died 1338), Earl of
< Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
< King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
< Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided
by
< Complete Peerage:
<
< "He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320)Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
< de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
< whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
< before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
<
< At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
< marriage ofThomasandAlice, nor is the death date ofAliceknown.
< And, when one checks the documentation provided forAlicedeHales'
< maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
< neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
< are references to two patent rolls items in whichAlice'sgiven name
< is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
< parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0205.pdf
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0011.pdf
<
< In the first item we see thatThomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
< had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church
of
< Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wife Alice and the heirs
< of Alice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance
to
< Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
< Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
< (1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John
de
< Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference:
Blomefield,
< An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
< (1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had
in
< fact been married to Alice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
< EarlThomasandAlice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
< that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
< Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
< presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
< altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
< Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor
of
< Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
< sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
<
< In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
< October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
< James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
< chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
< good estate ofThomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
< for his soul after death, and for the soul of Alice, sometime his
< wife."
<
< So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
< maiden name or parentage of Alice, wife ofThomas of Brotherton.
This
< is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
< see, it doesn't.
<
< TO BE CONTINUED.
<
< Best always, DouglasRichardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
This is the second part of a series of posts on the family of Thomas
of Brotherton, Knt., Earl of Norfolk (died 1338), younger son of King
Edward
I of England. In the next set of posts, we will examine the evidence
which proves the identity and parentage of Thomas of Brotherton's
first wife, Alice de Hales.
In 1806 the noted antiquarian Francis Blomefield published an extract
from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas which relates to
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and his immediate family. This
account is found in Volume 5 of Blomefield's landmark series, An Essay
Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 (1806):
232-233. Interestingly, although Brotherton's wife, Alice, came from
a Norfolk family, this account does not identify her parentage, other
than to say that she was a "Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey." For
another version of this same account below, please see Mason, The
History of Norfolk 5 (1885): 13-14.
"... an extract from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas, now
remaining in the gild hall of the city of Norwich, at fo. 1, viz. ...
and the seid Thomas Brodirton Erle of Norfolke, cam doun into
Norfolke, and ther he wedded a Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey, and
thei hadden togedir ij Dowters, of the which, oon hight Margeret, and
the toder hight [Alice, who had a daughter] which was married to oon
Ser Wil. Ufford Erle of Suffolk; the forseid Margaret and [Alice]
Dowters of Thomas Brothirton Erle of Norf. after the Decesse of the
seid Thomas, possessed and hadden all his Londes, and it wern partid
between them to; and after the seid [Alice] Wif of (Edward) Montagew
deid; and hire (Part) fell to here Dowter (Joan) Wif of Ufford Erle of
Suthfolk; and after that, the seid Lady Ufford Countess of Suff. deied
without Heirs, and all here Part thanne fell unto the forseid Margaret
Dowter of the seid Thomas Brothirton, and sche was thenne Cuntese mad
of Norff. and dwellid at the Castell of Framelingham, and sche was
married to the Lorde Segrave, and the seid Lorde Segrave gaf to hire,
whenn he schuld wedden here, all his Londis, to hir and to hire Heirs;
and thei hadden togeder ij Dowters, wherof oon (Anne) was Abbesse of
Berkyng, and (Elizabeth) the todir, was married to the Lord Mowbrey
and Gower; and after that, the Lord Segrave deied, and thenn Dame
Margaret his Wif, the Countes of Norf. was both Countes of Norff. and
Lady Segrave, and after that, sche was married to Sere Water Maughney
Knyght, and thei had togedir (Thomas) a Son, and (Anne) a Dowter, the
which Son whenne he was of the age of x Yeres, he drauthe att
Chestirforthe, and he schuld a ben Erle of Northfolke and Lord
Segrave, if he had levid; and the forseid Dowter of the Countese of
Norff. and of Sir Water Maughney, was married to (John Hastings) the
Erle of Pembroke." END OF QUOTE.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Thomas of Broitherton, Earl of
Norfolk, and his wife, Alice de Hales:
Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Dorothy Beresford,
Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph
Bolles, Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot,
William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne, Elizabeth & John
Mansfield, Richard More, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive
Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Oct 13, 1:14 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
< actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English
royal
< family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
< is the first of a mulit-part post on the family of
ThomasofBrothertonand his first wife, AlicedeHales.
<
< The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
< includes an account ofThomasofBrotherton(died 1338), Earl of
< Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
< King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
< Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided
by
< Complete Peerage:
<
< "He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320)Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
< de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
< whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
< before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
<
< At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
< marriage ofThomasandAlice, nor is the death date ofAliceknown.
< And, when one checks the documentation provided forAlicedeHales'
< maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
< neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
< are references to two patent rolls items in whichAlice'sgiven name
< is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
< parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0205.pdf
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0011.pdf
<
< In the first item we see thatThomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
< had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church
of
< Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wife Alice and the heirs
< of Alice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance
to
< Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
< Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
< (1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John
de
< Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference:
Blomefield,
< An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
< (1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had
in
< fact been married to Alice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
< EarlThomasandAlice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
< that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
< Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
< presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
< altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
< Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor
of
< Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
< sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
<
< In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
< October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
< James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
< chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
< good estate ofThomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
< for his soul after death, and for the soul of Alice, sometime his
< wife."
<
< So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
< maiden name or parentage of Alice, wife ofThomas of Brotherton.
This
< is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
< see, it doesn't.
<
< TO BE CONTINUED.
<
< Best always, DouglasRichardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
In article
<31b68d98-d594-44e1-97c3-3b19c05e6fd5@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
The "fast be Bungey" quotation is given (from Blomefield) by Brad Verity
in his excellent, recent article on Thomas of Brotherton, "Love Matches
and Contracted Misery: Thomas of Brotherton and his Daughters,"
_Foundations_ 2.2 (July 2006):91-111, at 96.
Brad's article is fresh and readable; it focuses on Thomas's marriage to
Alice de Hales and presents a great deal of interesting material and
original interpretation.
I'm sure Douglas has neglected to mention Brad's excellent article by
simple oversight.
Best always,
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
<31b68d98-d594-44e1-97c3-3b19c05e6fd5@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
This is the second part of a series of posts on the family of Thomas
of Brotherton, Knt., Earl of Norfolk (died 1338), younger son of King
Edward
I of England. In the next set of posts, we will examine the evidence
which proves the identity and parentage of Thomas of Brotherton's
first wife, Alice de Hales.
In 1806 the noted antiquarian Francis Blomefield published an extract
from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas which relates to
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and his immediate family. This
account is found in Volume 5 of Blomefield's landmark series, An Essay
Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 (1806):
232-233. Interestingly, although Brotherton's wife, Alice, came from
a Norfolk family, this account does not identify her parentage, other
than to say that she was a "Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey." For
another version of this same account below, please see Mason, The
History of Norfolk 5 (1885): 13-14.
"... an extract from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas, now
remaining in the gild hall of the city of Norwich, at fo. 1, viz. ...
and the seid Thomas Brodirton Erle of Norfolke, cam doun into
Norfolke, and ther he wedded a Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey, and
thei hadden togedir ij Dowters, of the which, oon hight Margeret, and
the toder hight [Alice, who had a daughter] which was married to oon
Ser Wil. Ufford Erle of Suffolk; the forseid Margaret and [Alice]
Dowters of Thomas Brothirton Erle of Norf. after the Decesse of the
seid Thomas, possessed and hadden all his Londes, and it wern partid
between them to; and after the seid [Alice] Wif of (Edward) Montagew
deid; and hire (Part) fell to here Dowter (Joan) Wif of Ufford Erle of
Suthfolk; and after that, the seid Lady Ufford Countess of Suff. deied
without Heirs, and all here Part thanne fell unto the forseid Margaret
Dowter of the seid Thomas Brothirton, and sche was thenne Cuntese mad
of Norff. and dwellid at the Castell of Framelingham, and sche was
married to the Lorde Segrave, and the seid Lorde Segrave gaf to hire,
whenn he schuld wedden here, all his Londis, to hir and to hire Heirs;
and thei hadden togeder ij Dowters, wherof oon (Anne) was Abbesse of
Berkyng, and (Elizabeth) the todir, was married to the Lord Mowbrey
and Gower; and after that, the Lord Segrave deied, and thenn Dame
Margaret his Wif, the Countes of Norf. was both Countes of Norff. and
Lady Segrave, and after that, sche was married to Sere Water Maughney
Knyght, and thei had togedir (Thomas) a Son, and (Anne) a Dowter, the
which Son whenne he was of the age of x Yeres, he drauthe att
Chestirforthe, and he schuld a ben Erle of Northfolke and Lord
Segrave, if he had levid; and the forseid Dowter of the Countese of
Norff. and of Sir Water Maughney, was married to (John Hastings) the
Erle of Pembroke." END OF QUOTE.
The "fast be Bungey" quotation is given (from Blomefield) by Brad Verity
in his excellent, recent article on Thomas of Brotherton, "Love Matches
and Contracted Misery: Thomas of Brotherton and his Daughters,"
_Foundations_ 2.2 (July 2006):91-111, at 96.
Brad's article is fresh and readable; it focuses on Thomas's marriage to
Alice de Hales and presents a great deal of interesting material and
original interpretation.
I'm sure Douglas has neglected to mention Brad's excellent article by
simple oversight.
Best always,
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
On Nov 27, 1:36 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
< I'm sure Douglas has neglected to mention Brad's excellent article
by
< simple oversight.
<
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
This was not an oversight at all. I abandoned my subscription to
Foundations journal some time ago. In issue after issue, I found that
the journal continued to publish inferior articles which badly needed
editing. Their decision to include the dreadful "Medieval Lands"
database by Charles Cawley on their website was the final straw. The
Cawley material is no better than what you read in Burke from the
1880's! And, if you personally recommended that they add the Cawley
database to their website, shame on you, Nat. Shame on you.
That being said, I can, however, highly recommend Martin Hollick's
excellent article on Thomas Bradbury's Fulnetby ancestry which
appeared in a recent edition of the New England Register. This
article was prepared by Mr. Hollick, and based on research done by the
late Marshall Kirk. Simply put - it is a superior article - well
written AND well reasoned. Thanks go to Mr. Hollick for showing us
all how to write an outstanding article. I trust he will continue to
grace us with more articles in the future.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< I'm sure Douglas has neglected to mention Brad's excellent article
by
< simple oversight.
<
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
This was not an oversight at all. I abandoned my subscription to
Foundations journal some time ago. In issue after issue, I found that
the journal continued to publish inferior articles which badly needed
editing. Their decision to include the dreadful "Medieval Lands"
database by Charles Cawley on their website was the final straw. The
Cawley material is no better than what you read in Burke from the
1880's! And, if you personally recommended that they add the Cawley
database to their website, shame on you, Nat. Shame on you.
That being said, I can, however, highly recommend Martin Hollick's
excellent article on Thomas Bradbury's Fulnetby ancestry which
appeared in a recent edition of the New England Register. This
article was prepared by Mr. Hollick, and based on research done by the
late Marshall Kirk. Simply put - it is a superior article - well
written AND well reasoned. Thanks go to Mr. Hollick for showing us
all how to write an outstanding article. I trust he will continue to
grace us with more articles in the future.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
In article
<93c5e630-e353-4b92-be4c-97ed0edccfc6@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
It behooves a trained historian to look in the relevant current
journals--however peeved he might be at their past reaction to his
submissions--before touting something as a novelty.
In this case, it would have saved you the embarrassment of this entirely
unoriginal (and gratuitously crossposted) Thomas of Brotherton material.
Read Brad's article, then find something to add to it: that would be
welcome.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
<93c5e630-e353-4b92-be4c-97ed0edccfc6@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:36 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
I'm sure Douglas has neglected to mention Brad's excellent article
by
simple oversight.
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
This was not an oversight at all. I abandoned my subscription to
Foundations journal some time ago. In issue after issue, I found that
the journal continued to publish inferior artiacles which badly needed
editing.
It behooves a trained historian to look in the relevant current
journals--however peeved he might be at their past reaction to his
submissions--before touting something as a novelty.
In this case, it would have saved you the embarrassment of this entirely
unoriginal (and gratuitously crossposted) Thomas of Brotherton material.
Read Brad's article, then find something to add to it: that would be
welcome.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
Dear Newsgroup ~
Research indicates that the previous historical literature is filled
with references which flatly state that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of
Norfolk (younger son of King Edward I) married Alice de Hales,
daughter of Sir Roger de Hales, of Harwich, Essex.
Here are three examples:
1. Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 205-206:
identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of Sir Roger Halys of
Harwich."
2. Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topog. Hist. of the County of
Norfolk 5 (1806): 228-229: identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich, Knt."
3. Dictionary of National Biography, D.N.B. 19 (1909): 632-633 (biog.
of Thomas of Brotherton): identifies first wife as "Alice, daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich."
Although his existence is stated often and frequently in print,
curiously no such person as Sir Roger Hales of Harwich ever existed.
Rather, it would seem that these good authors are referring to a real
individual named Sir Roger de Hales, who presumably resided at
Norwich, Norfolk, not Harwich, Essex.
Regardless, as one goes back in time to something more contemporary to
the events in question, one finds that the noted English chronicler,
Nicholas Trivet (died 1328), allegedly states that Thomas of
Brotherton "married the daughter of a franklin named Alice:" The
following quote comes from Gordon Hall Gerould "The Social Status of
Chaucer's Franklin} in Pubs. Modern Language Assoc. [PMLA] 41(2)
(1926): 262-279:
" ... Nor, surely, would Nicholas Trivet have set down in his Anglo-
Norman Chroniques that 'T'homas Brotherton (filius R. Edouardi I)
apres le mort son pere esposa la fille de un Fraunclein appelle
Alice.' It makes no difference that modern historians aver that the
Earl of Norfolk's father-in-law was Sir Thomas Hales of Harwich, or
that Trivet's statement is manifestly absurb in one particular since
Thomas of Brotherton ..." END OF QUOTE.
Clearly, there is much confusion in the historical literature
regarding Thomas of Brotherton's father-in-law. What is equally clear
is that Thomas of Brotherton married someone far down the social scale
from his lofty place in English medieval society.
I wish to thank my good friend, Michael Welch, for his assistance in
this post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Research indicates that the previous historical literature is filled
with references which flatly state that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of
Norfolk (younger son of King Edward I) married Alice de Hales,
daughter of Sir Roger de Hales, of Harwich, Essex.
Here are three examples:
1. Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 205-206:
identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of Sir Roger Halys of
Harwich."
2. Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topog. Hist. of the County of
Norfolk 5 (1806): 228-229: identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich, Knt."
3. Dictionary of National Biography, D.N.B. 19 (1909): 632-633 (biog.
of Thomas of Brotherton): identifies first wife as "Alice, daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich."
Although his existence is stated often and frequently in print,
curiously no such person as Sir Roger Hales of Harwich ever existed.
Rather, it would seem that these good authors are referring to a real
individual named Sir Roger de Hales, who presumably resided at
Norwich, Norfolk, not Harwich, Essex.
Regardless, as one goes back in time to something more contemporary to
the events in question, one finds that the noted English chronicler,
Nicholas Trivet (died 1328), allegedly states that Thomas of
Brotherton "married the daughter of a franklin named Alice:" The
following quote comes from Gordon Hall Gerould "The Social Status of
Chaucer's Franklin} in Pubs. Modern Language Assoc. [PMLA] 41(2)
(1926): 262-279:
" ... Nor, surely, would Nicholas Trivet have set down in his Anglo-
Norman Chroniques that 'T'homas Brotherton (filius R. Edouardi I)
apres le mort son pere esposa la fille de un Fraunclein appelle
Alice.' It makes no difference that modern historians aver that the
Earl of Norfolk's father-in-law was Sir Thomas Hales of Harwich, or
that Trivet's statement is manifestly absurb in one particular since
Thomas of Brotherton ..." END OF QUOTE.
Clearly, there is much confusion in the historical literature
regarding Thomas of Brotherton's father-in-law. What is equally clear
is that Thomas of Brotherton married someone far down the social scale
from his lofty place in English medieval society.
I wish to thank my good friend, Michael Welch, for his assistance in
this post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
In article
<1ededc58-bb21-4820-89ed-a8f0fd9a32f0@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
On Roger's identity, career and residence, see Brad Verity, "Love
Matches and Contracted Misery: Thomas of Brotherton and his Daughters,"
_Foundations_ 2.2 (July 2006), 91-111, especially at 97-98. We learn
there of the names and locations of Sir Roger de Hales' manorial
holdings in Norfolk (none, apparently, in Norwich itself); we also learn
that the 'Harwich' mistake comes from Ralph Brooke's _Catalogue of
Nobility_ (1619).
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
<1ededc58-bb21-4820-89ed-a8f0fd9a32f0@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Research indicates that the previous historical literature is filled
with references which flatly state that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of
Norfolk (younger son of King Edward I) married Alice de Hales,
daughter of Sir Roger de Hales, of Harwich, Essex.
Here are three examples:
1. Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 205-206:
identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of Sir Roger Halys of
Harwich."
2. Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topog. Hist. of the County of
Norfolk 5 (1806): 228-229: identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich, Knt."
3. Dictionary of National Biography, D.N.B. 19 (1909): 632-633 (biog.
of Thomas of Brotherton): identifies first wife as "Alice, daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich."
Although his existence is stated often and frequently in print,
curiously no such person as Sir Roger Hales of Harwich ever existed.
Rather, it would seem that these good authors are referring to a real
individual named Sir Roger de Hales, who presumably resided at
Norwich, Norfolk, not Harwich, Essex.
On Roger's identity, career and residence, see Brad Verity, "Love
Matches and Contracted Misery: Thomas of Brotherton and his Daughters,"
_Foundations_ 2.2 (July 2006), 91-111, especially at 97-98. We learn
there of the names and locations of Sir Roger de Hales' manorial
holdings in Norfolk (none, apparently, in Norwich itself); we also learn
that the 'Harwich' mistake comes from Ralph Brooke's _Catalogue of
Nobility_ (1619).
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
On Nov 28, 11:54 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
< Regardless, as one goes back in time to something more contemporary
to
< the events in question, one finds that the noted English chronicler,
< Nicholas Trivet (died 1328), allegedly states that Thomas of
< Brotherton "married the daughter of a franklin named Alice:" The
< following quote comes from Gordon Hall Gerould "The Social Status of
< Chaucer's Franklin} in Pubs. Modern Language Assoc. [PMLA] 41(2)
< (1926): 262-279:
<
< " ... Nor, surely, would Nicholas Trivet have set down in his
Anglo-
< Norman Chroniques that 'T'homas Brotherton (filius R. Edouardi I)
< apres le mort son pere esposa la fille de un Fraunclein appelle
< Alice.' It makes no difference that modern historians aver that the
< Earl of Norfolk's father-in-law was Sir Thomas Hales of Harwich, or
< that Trivet's statement is manifestly absurb in one particular since
< Thomas of Brotherton ..." END OF QUOTE.
For those interested in reading about the English chronicler, Nicholas
Trivet, they may do so at the following weblinks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Trevet
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15063b.htm
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Regardless, as one goes back in time to something more contemporary
to
< the events in question, one finds that the noted English chronicler,
< Nicholas Trivet (died 1328), allegedly states that Thomas of
< Brotherton "married the daughter of a franklin named Alice:" The
< following quote comes from Gordon Hall Gerould "The Social Status of
< Chaucer's Franklin} in Pubs. Modern Language Assoc. [PMLA] 41(2)
< (1926): 262-279:
<
< " ... Nor, surely, would Nicholas Trivet have set down in his
Anglo-
< Norman Chroniques that 'T'homas Brotherton (filius R. Edouardi I)
< apres le mort son pere esposa la fille de un Fraunclein appelle
< Alice.' It makes no difference that modern historians aver that the
< Earl of Norfolk's father-in-law was Sir Thomas Hales of Harwich, or
< that Trivet's statement is manifestly absurb in one particular since
< Thomas of Brotherton ..." END OF QUOTE.
For those interested in reading about the English chronicler, Nicholas
Trivet, they may do so at the following weblinks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Trevet
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15063b.htm
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
wjhonson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0190.pdf
CPR, E1 V4 pg 190
1303, May 7 at Newcastle-on-Tyne
Membrane 27d--cont.
May 7. The like [oyer and terminer] to Henry Spigumel and Robert de
Retford, touching Geoffrey Newcastle-on- Kempe, John Graunt, John
Gerard and Robert Topyn of Norwich, and the Tyne. whole commonalty of
that town, who assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the county of
Norfolk, in the execution of his office on a body found dead in a
place in Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, assaulted Richard de
Hakeford, bailiff of the king's hundred of Bloufeld, and other men of
that hundred who were there by summons of the bailiff, made on the
mandate of the coroner in the king's name, snatched the coroner's
rolls from his hands, tore and trampled them, and prevented him
exercising his office, notwithstanding that the said place belongs to
the said hundred and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
the coroners of the county outside the town have been accustomed to
exercise their office there when requisite, and the bailiffs of that
hundred have been accustomed to be answerable before the justices in
eyre in those parts as well as before the said coroners in all matters
touching that place. By K.
....
May 6. The like to William Haward and John le Bretun. on complaint by
the Newcastle-on- prior of Holy Trinity, Norwich, that whereas he
holds by grant of William, sometime king of England, a place in
Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, which belongs to the king's
hundred of Blofeld and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
he and his predecessors have been wont to hold a fair by charters of
the king's ancestors from Whitsunday until the morrow of Holy Trinity
in the said place as elsewhere in the said town; and whereas the
coroners of the county of Norfolk have been wont to exercise their
office in the said place, and the bailiffs of the said hundred have
been wont to be answerable in the eyres of the justices in those parts
as well as before the coroners of the county in all matters touching
the eaid place, so that the bailiffs of the town might not carry the
wand in the time of the fair within the said town or perform any
office belonging to their bailiwick, or intermeddle in anything
concerning the said place at any time of the year, and have not been
wont to do ; yet Geoffrey Kempe, John le Graunt, John de Thirston and
Robert de Lopham, bailiffs of the said town, have begun to make
summonses, attachments and distraints in the said place, as though it
were within their liberty, and Roarer de Morlee, coroner of that town,
has exercised his office there and the said bailiffs and coroner and
Robert de Hegham, Roger le Maresehal, Peter de Bunstede, John Gerard,
Richard Springald and Edmund le Sherere, burgesses of the town, with
the whole commonalty thereof assaulted Roger de Hales,
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0191.pdf
[continued to page 191]
coroner of the county, in the execution of his office on a body found
dead there, and assaulted Richard de Hakeford, bailiff of the said
hundred, and other, men of the hundred who were present by summons of
the bailiff on the coroner's mandate in the king's name, and beat some
of them and snatched the coroner's rolls from his hands, and tore and
trampled them and prevented him from executing his office, prevented
[merchants] from trading with the divers merchandise in their houses
in the town during the fair, extorted by grievous distraints customs
from merchants coming with merchandise to the fair, and prevented the
prior and his ministers from levying and collecting the toll and other
customs belonging to the fair. By p.s, Vacated because surrendered and
cancelled.
Will Johnson
CPR, E1 V4 pg 190
1303, May 7 at Newcastle-on-Tyne
Membrane 27d--cont.
May 7. The like [oyer and terminer] to Henry Spigumel and Robert de
Retford, touching Geoffrey Newcastle-on- Kempe, John Graunt, John
Gerard and Robert Topyn of Norwich, and the Tyne. whole commonalty of
that town, who assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the county of
Norfolk, in the execution of his office on a body found dead in a
place in Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, assaulted Richard de
Hakeford, bailiff of the king's hundred of Bloufeld, and other men of
that hundred who were there by summons of the bailiff, made on the
mandate of the coroner in the king's name, snatched the coroner's
rolls from his hands, tore and trampled them, and prevented him
exercising his office, notwithstanding that the said place belongs to
the said hundred and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
the coroners of the county outside the town have been accustomed to
exercise their office there when requisite, and the bailiffs of that
hundred have been accustomed to be answerable before the justices in
eyre in those parts as well as before the said coroners in all matters
touching that place. By K.
....
May 6. The like to William Haward and John le Bretun. on complaint by
the Newcastle-on- prior of Holy Trinity, Norwich, that whereas he
holds by grant of William, sometime king of England, a place in
Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, which belongs to the king's
hundred of Blofeld and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
he and his predecessors have been wont to hold a fair by charters of
the king's ancestors from Whitsunday until the morrow of Holy Trinity
in the said place as elsewhere in the said town; and whereas the
coroners of the county of Norfolk have been wont to exercise their
office in the said place, and the bailiffs of the said hundred have
been wont to be answerable in the eyres of the justices in those parts
as well as before the coroners of the county in all matters touching
the eaid place, so that the bailiffs of the town might not carry the
wand in the time of the fair within the said town or perform any
office belonging to their bailiwick, or intermeddle in anything
concerning the said place at any time of the year, and have not been
wont to do ; yet Geoffrey Kempe, John le Graunt, John de Thirston and
Robert de Lopham, bailiffs of the said town, have begun to make
summonses, attachments and distraints in the said place, as though it
were within their liberty, and Roarer de Morlee, coroner of that town,
has exercised his office there and the said bailiffs and coroner and
Robert de Hegham, Roger le Maresehal, Peter de Bunstede, John Gerard,
Richard Springald and Edmund le Sherere, burgesses of the town, with
the whole commonalty thereof assaulted Roger de Hales,
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0191.pdf
[continued to page 191]
coroner of the county, in the execution of his office on a body found
dead there, and assaulted Richard de Hakeford, bailiff of the said
hundred, and other, men of the hundred who were present by summons of
the bailiff on the coroner's mandate in the king's name, and beat some
of them and snatched the coroner's rolls from his hands, and tore and
trampled them and prevented him from executing his office, prevented
[merchants] from trading with the divers merchandise in their houses
in the town during the fair, extorted by grievous distraints customs
from merchants coming with merchandise to the fair, and prevented the
prior and his ministers from levying and collecting the toll and other
customs belonging to the fair. By p.s, Vacated because surrendered and
cancelled.
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is a transcript of two Patent Rolls items which concern an
assault in Norwich, Norfolk in 1303 on Roger de Hales, then coroner of
Norfolk, which individual was the future father-in-law of Thomas of
Brotherton, Knt., Earl of Norfolk (younger son of King Edward I of
England).
These items may be found at the following weblinks:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0190.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0191.pdf
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307 (1898), pg. 190:
Date: 7 May 1303, at Newcastle-on-Tyne
The like [commission of oyer and terminer] to Henry Spigumel and
Robert de Retford, touching Geoffrey Kempe, John Graunt, John Gerard
and Robert Topyn of Norwich, [Norfolk] and the whole commonalty of
that town, who assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the county of
Norfolk, in the execution of his office on a body found dead in a
place in Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, assaulted Richard de
Hakeford, bailiff of the king's hundred of Bloufeld, and other men of
that hundred who were there by summons of the bailiff, made on the
mandate of the coroner in the king's name, snatched the coroner's
rolls from his hands, tore and trampled them, and prevented him
exercising his office, notwithstanding that the said place belongs to
the said hundred and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
the coroners of the county outside the town have been accustomed to
exercise their office there when requisite, and the bailiffs of that
hundred have been accustomed to be answerable before the justices in
eyre in those parts as well as before the said coroners in all matters
touching that place. By K.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307 (1898), pp. 190-191:
Date: 6 May 1303, at Newcastle-on-Tyne
The like to William Haward and John le Bretun. on complaint by the
prior of Holy Trinity, Norwich, that whereas he holds by grant of
William, sometime king of England, a place in Norwich called Tomeland
and Ratounerawe, which belongs to the king's hundred of Blofeld and
not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and he and his predecessors
have been wont to hold a fair by charters of the king's ancestors from
Whitsunday until the morrow of Holy Trinity in the said place as
elsewhere in the said town; and whereas the coroners of the county of
Norfolk have been wont to exercise their office in the said place, and
the bailiffs of the said hundred have been wont to be answerable in
the eyres of the justices in those parts as well as before the
coroners of the county in all matters touching the said place, so that
the bailiffs of the town might not carry the wand in the time of the
fair within the said town or perform any office belonging to their
bailiwick, or intermeddle in anything
concerning the said place at any time of the year, and have not been
wont to do; yet Geoffrey Kempe, John le Graunt, John de Thirston and
Robert de Lopham, bailiffs of the said town, have begun to make
summonses, attachments and distraints in the said place, as though it
were within their liberty, and Roger de Morlee, coroner of that town,
has exercised his office there and the said bailiffs and coroner and
Robert de Hegham, Roger le Maresehal, Peter de Bunstede, John Gerard,
Richard Springald and Edmund le Sherere, burgesses of the town, with
the whole commonalty thereof assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the
county, in the execution of his office on a body found dead there, and
assaulted Richard de Hakeford, bailiff of the said hundred, and other
men of the hundred who were present by summons of the bailiff on the
coroner's mandate in the king's name, and beat some of them and
snatched the coroner's rolls from his hands, and tore and trampled
them and prevented him from executing his office, prevented
[merchants] from trading with the divers merchandise in their houses
in the town during the fair, extorted by grievous distraints customs
from merchants coming with merchandise to the fair, and prevented the
prior and his ministers from levying and collecting the toll and other
customs belonging to the fair. By p.s. Vacated because surrendered
and cancelled.
Below is a transcript of two Patent Rolls items which concern an
assault in Norwich, Norfolk in 1303 on Roger de Hales, then coroner of
Norfolk, which individual was the future father-in-law of Thomas of
Brotherton, Knt., Earl of Norfolk (younger son of King Edward I of
England).
These items may be found at the following weblinks:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0190.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0191.pdf
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307 (1898), pg. 190:
Date: 7 May 1303, at Newcastle-on-Tyne
The like [commission of oyer and terminer] to Henry Spigumel and
Robert de Retford, touching Geoffrey Kempe, John Graunt, John Gerard
and Robert Topyn of Norwich, [Norfolk] and the whole commonalty of
that town, who assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the county of
Norfolk, in the execution of his office on a body found dead in a
place in Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, assaulted Richard de
Hakeford, bailiff of the king's hundred of Bloufeld, and other men of
that hundred who were there by summons of the bailiff, made on the
mandate of the coroner in the king's name, snatched the coroner's
rolls from his hands, tore and trampled them, and prevented him
exercising his office, notwithstanding that the said place belongs to
the said hundred and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
the coroners of the county outside the town have been accustomed to
exercise their office there when requisite, and the bailiffs of that
hundred have been accustomed to be answerable before the justices in
eyre in those parts as well as before the said coroners in all matters
touching that place. By K.
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307 (1898), pp. 190-191:
Date: 6 May 1303, at Newcastle-on-Tyne
The like to William Haward and John le Bretun. on complaint by the
prior of Holy Trinity, Norwich, that whereas he holds by grant of
William, sometime king of England, a place in Norwich called Tomeland
and Ratounerawe, which belongs to the king's hundred of Blofeld and
not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and he and his predecessors
have been wont to hold a fair by charters of the king's ancestors from
Whitsunday until the morrow of Holy Trinity in the said place as
elsewhere in the said town; and whereas the coroners of the county of
Norfolk have been wont to exercise their office in the said place, and
the bailiffs of the said hundred have been wont to be answerable in
the eyres of the justices in those parts as well as before the
coroners of the county in all matters touching the said place, so that
the bailiffs of the town might not carry the wand in the time of the
fair within the said town or perform any office belonging to their
bailiwick, or intermeddle in anything
concerning the said place at any time of the year, and have not been
wont to do; yet Geoffrey Kempe, John le Graunt, John de Thirston and
Robert de Lopham, bailiffs of the said town, have begun to make
summonses, attachments and distraints in the said place, as though it
were within their liberty, and Roger de Morlee, coroner of that town,
has exercised his office there and the said bailiffs and coroner and
Robert de Hegham, Roger le Maresehal, Peter de Bunstede, John Gerard,
Richard Springald and Edmund le Sherere, burgesses of the town, with
the whole commonalty thereof assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the
county, in the execution of his office on a body found dead there, and
assaulted Richard de Hakeford, bailiff of the said hundred, and other
men of the hundred who were present by summons of the bailiff on the
coroner's mandate in the king's name, and beat some of them and
snatched the coroner's rolls from his hands, and tore and trampled
them and prevented him from executing his office, prevented
[merchants] from trading with the divers merchandise in their houses
in the town during the fair, extorted by grievous distraints customs
from merchants coming with merchandise to the fair, and prevented the
prior and his ministers from levying and collecting the toll and other
customs belonging to the fair. By p.s. Vacated because surrendered
and cancelled.
-
wjhonson
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
Seven hours after I made my post, why would you post the exact same
thing?
Will
thing?
Will
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherto
I thought I was having a bad case of the deja vu's!
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: wjhonson
Date: 11/29/07 15:40:23
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherton, son
of King Edward I of England
Seven hours after I made my post, why would you post the exact same
thing?
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: wjhonson
Date: 11/29/07 15:40:23
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherton, son
of King Edward I of England
Seven hours after I made my post, why would you post the exact same
thing?
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message