FW: de Burgh

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Clagett, Brice

FW: de Burgh

Legg inn av Clagett, Brice » 13 okt 2004 19:49:37

I am posting this again since it doesn't seem to have come through,
at least to me, the first time. If you received it previously please
forgive the repetition.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clagett, Brice
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:12 PM
To: 'gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com'
Subject: de Burgh


William de Burgh or de Burgo, d. 1205/6, was ancestor of both
the earls of Ulster and of the gaelicized Burkes of Clanricarde.
He is Said to have married a daughter of Domnall Mor O'Brien, King of
Thomond.
Until recently I have believed that he had two sons named Richard,
the elder being ancestor of the earls of Ulster and the younger
ancestor of the Clanricarde Burkes. See A New History of Ireland
9:170. The O'Brien daughter is supposed to have been mother
only of the younger Richard.

The new Oxford DNB, in its biographies of William de Burgh and
Richard de Burgh, says that William had only one son Richard,
ancestor of both the Ulster earls and the Clanricarde Burkes.
While the biographer of William expresses some skepticism
about the O'Brien marriage, as asserted by a late medieval
genealogy, it admits it is perfectly plausible and there seems to
be no evidence to contradict it. Since the genealogy says that
the O'Brian was mother of William's son Richard, if there was
only one Richard it would appear that the Ulster earls and their
many descendants share the O'Brien descent.

The only recent source cited in either of the de Burgh biographies
is A New History of Ireland 2:156-78, reprinted with corrections
in 1993. I have not yet been able to get hold of the corrected
version to see whether it supports ODNB in its assertion that
William had only one son Richard.

Be the way, I was a bit surprised to see ODNB give the surname
as "de Burgh." These days one usually sees it as de Burgo, due
perhaps to the influence of Sir Ian Moncrieffe, who wrote that
"de Burgh" was an absurd and unhistorical modern invention.


Stewart Baldwin

Re: FW: de Burgh

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 14 okt 2004 01:32:47

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:49:37 +0000 (UTC), bclagett@cov.com ("Clagett,
Brice") wrote:

William de Burgh or de Burgo, d. 1205/6, was ancestor of both
the earls of Ulster and of the gaelicized Burkes of Clanricarde.
He is Said to have married a daughter of Domnall Mor O'Brien, King of
Thomond.
Until recently I have believed that he had two sons named Richard,
the elder being ancestor of the earls of Ulster and the younger
ancestor of the Clanricarde Burkes. See A New History of Ireland
9:170. The O'Brien daughter is supposed to have been mother
only of the younger Richard.

The new Oxford DNB, in its biographies of William de Burgh and
Richard de Burgh, says that William had only one son Richard,
ancestor of both the Ulster earls and the Clanricarde Burkes.
While the biographer of William expresses some skepticism
about the O'Brien marriage, as asserted by a late medieval
genealogy, it admits it is perfectly plausible and there seems to
be no evidence to contradict it. Since the genealogy says that
the O'Brian was mother of William's son Richard, if there was
only one Richard it would appear that the Ulster earls and their
many descendants share the O'Brien descent.

The only recent source cited in either of the de Burgh biographies
is A New History of Ireland 2:156-78, reprinted with corrections
in 1993. I have not yet been able to get hold of the corrected
version to see whether it supports ODNB in its assertion that
William had only one son Richard.

[snip]

I went to the Auburn University library to check this, but they do not
have this "corrected" version. However, I did see the new Oxford DNB
for the first time, although I did not examine it for long. [I will
go back later to do so, but it is clearly less well documented than I
had hoped, with all bibliographic entries at the end of the article.]
Although I would not rule out the possibility that earl Richard was a
grandson of Domnall Mor Ua Briain, I still think that the ball is in
the court of those who would accept the link to provide the necessary
evidence. The Irish source for the Ua Briain - de Burgh marriage is
clearly noncontemporary, since it mentions that Richard was an
ancestor of Clann Ricaird (and was therefore not written until Clann
Ricaird was worthy of mention). This does not necessarily mean that
the information is false, but it does mean that the link should not be
made by simply combining the two Richards on the table on NHI 9:170
(which adds more problems than it solves, as a glance at the table
will show). A proper study would have to carefully examine the Clann
Ricaird genealogy in the primary sources to see what turns up, for
unless it can be shown that earl Richard was the ancestor of Clann
Ricaird (or at the very least plausibly so), the principle source
which is used for this marriage ends up undermining itself.

Stewart Baldwin

Gjest

Re: FW: de Burgh

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 okt 2004 04:24:08

Wednesday, 13 October, 2004



Dear Stewart, Brice, et al.,

In addition to Stewart's current post, a good read on this subject
should include his post of 29 August 2001 entitled <Re: Donnell
O'Brien, king of Thomond>.

One added problem that the O'Brien 'solution' does not solve was
discussed at length (and left unresolved) in the 2003 thread, <Re:
King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of
Rothesay>. As I contended in one particular post on 8 August 2003
(see a part thereof below), there is an unresolved relationship
between the de Burgh Earls of Ulster and the Kings of England, Edward
I through III, identified in the research of Douglas Richardson
[cf. Plantagenet Ancestry (2004)]. The most likely solution based on
chronology, onomastics (William's son being named Richard) and the
subsequent claim to kinship by Kings Edward I [ Cal. Chancery Warrants
(1927):261] and Edward II [H. Johnstone, Letters of Edward Prince of
Wales, 1304-1305 (1931): 17] to Richard, Earl of Ulster (d. 1326):

The unknown wife of William de Burgh, lord of Connaught (d. 1205)
and mother of his son, Richard the Justiciar (d. 1242), was a hitherto
unknown illegitimate daughter of Henry II of England [or, less likely,
of one of his sons - Richard Coeur-de-Lion being an interesting
alternative].

~ Given the subsequent marriages of William's brother Hubert de
Burgh to a royal divorcee (Isabel of Gloucester) and a Scots
princess (Margaret, dau. of William the Lion), a royal
English bastard is not far-fetched as a suitable wife for
King John's loyal servant in Ireland....

Cheers,

John



============================

From: Therav3@aol.com (Therav3@aol.com)
Subject: Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of
Rothesay
View: Complete Thread (36 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2003-08-08 20:08:42 PST


Friday, 8 August, 2003


Dear Douglas, Phil, et al.,

An avenue for resolving the relationship between Robert II,
King of Scots and Edward III of England (found by Douglas
Richardson in Foedera - 1st post in this thread) has been
identified.

One near relation of Robert II has been identified as being
related to Edward I of England, with the relationship not yet
resolved. In Douglas Richardson's as-yet unpublished manuscript
for "Plantagenet Ancestry (3rd ed)", there is evidence found in
the Chancery Warrants. One document in that collection records
that Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster (d. 1326) was styled by
Edward I as "king's cousin" [1]. The existence of this
relationship is further supported in the published Letters of
Edward [II], Prince of Wales, which Douglas also cites as
identifying this same Richard de Burgh (called "Earl of Ulster"
in the specific letter) as "cousin" [2].

The ancestry of Richard de Burgh is relatively well known,
with the significant exception of his great-grandmother, the wife
of William de Burgh, lord of Connaught (d. 1205). She was
previously identified as a daughter of Donnell/Domnall O'Brian,
king of Thomond: this has been corrected, as shown by Stewart
Baldwin (and possibly others) to show that this individual was
possibly a wife of William de Burgh, but not the mother of his
heir and successor in Connaught, Richard de Burgh (d. before 17
Feb 1242/3) [3]. The identity of the mother of Richard de Burgh,
ancestor of the Earls of Ulster, then reverted to "unknown".

It now appears likely that this unidentified wife of William
de Burgh was well connected with the royal house of England. This
would not be the sole example of such high association for the de
Burgh family in that generation - witness the marriages of Hubert
de Burgh, to the Countess of Gloucester as well as a daughter of
King William _the Lion_ [4].

Given the chronology both for William de Burgh and his
immediate descendants, I would suggest his wife was likely an
otherwise unidentified illegitimate daughter of Henry II of
England. Such a connection would yield the following
relationships:


~~~ NOTE: The following chart is conjectural ~~~


Eleanor = Henry II ~ _________
of Aquitaine I of England I
_______________I _ _ _ _ _
I I
John of England William de Burgh = NN
I d. 1205 I
I ____________I
I I
Henry III of England Richard de Burgh = bef 21 Apr 1225
I d. bef Feb 1242/3 I
I _____________I
I I
* EDWARD I of Walter de Burgh = Aveline FitzJohn
England d. 28 July 1271 I
I ____________________I________
I I I
* EDWARD II of RICHARD DE BURGH Giles (Egidia)
England d bef 29 Jul 1326 = James the Stewart
I * "Cousin" [E I, E II] I
I = Margaret [de Guines ?] I
I ____I_______ I
I I I I
** EDWARD III of V Elizabeth Walter the Stewart
England = Robert _the_ = Marjory Bruce
I Bruce (2nd wife) I
V I I
V ROBERT II
KING OF SCOTS
** "Our Cousin" [E III]


If such was the relationship of the de Burghs of Ulster to the
royal family of England, Richard de Burgh (d. 1326) was 2nd cousin
1x removed to Edward I and 3rd cousin to Edward II, both of whom
addressed him as "cousin". Robert II of Scotland, addressed by
Edward III of England as "our cousin", would then have been 4th
cousin 1x removed to that English king. Interestingly, it would
also make Elizabeth de Burgh, 2nd wife of Robert I (the Bruce) of
Scotland, a 2nd cousin 2x removed to her captor (in 1306) Edward
I of England.

Good luck, and good hunting.

John *

<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>

Douglas Richardson

Re: FW: de Burgh

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 okt 2004 14:39:22

bclagett@cov.com ("Clagett, Brice") wrote in message news:<B1F75BF666FCFD4F9B3EA0D0A58482BD0382D4E4@cbiexm01dc.cov.com>...

Be the way, I was a bit surprised to see ODNB give the surname
as "de Burgh." These days one usually sees it as de Burgo, due
perhaps to the influence of Sir Ian Moncrieffe, who wrote that
"de Burgh" was an absurd and unhistorical modern invention.

Dear Brice ~

The reason why ODNB gives the surname as "de Burgh" is because it is
the correct vernacular form of this name. The form "de Burgo" is the
ancient Latin form of this name. With due respect to Sir Ian, the
Latin form is inappropriate to use in a modern text written in
English.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: FW: de Burgh

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 okt 2004 15:27:02

Dear John ~

Thank you for your good post.

It is commonly assumed that William de Burgh, lord of Connaught in
Ireland (died 1205) was the brother of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
(died 1243). This is apparently due to the fact that William's son,
Richard, was called "nepos" of Earl Hubert in one record. However, I
have found that the Latin word "nepos" in this time period is used as
a designation for a male kinsman of any degree, not just a nephew or
grandson as in later periods. As such, Richard being called Hubert's
"nepos" tells us only that the two men were near related, but not how.

While it is still possible that William and Earl Hubert were brothers,
it seems unlikely to me. Earl Hubert had two known brothers, Thomas
de Burgh and Geoffrey de Burgh (clerk) [Archdeacon of Norwich].
Thomas's place as Hubert's brother is proved by the abstract of a
document from the Birmingham City Archives, which is found in the
helpful online A2A Catalogue at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/
index.asp:

Birmingham City Archives: Lyttleton of Hagley Hall, Reference: MS
3279/351062 -

Grant dated 1227/43 from Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent to Robert son
of Robert de Gloverina of land which the latter held from Thomas de
Burgh, brother of the said Hubert in Erleigh [Upper Arley],
Worcestershire. END OF QUOTE.

Thomas de Burgh and Geoffrey de Burgh, Archdeacon of Norwich,
elsewhere appear as brothers in a charter dated 1204 published in
English Episcopal Acta VI: Norwich 1070-1214 by C. Harper-Bill (1990):
291.

I note that there is a charter in existence in which Earl Hubert de
Burgh mentions his ancestor, William de Boseville [see S.H.F. Johnston
"The Lands of Hubert de Burgh" in English Hist. Rev. 50 (1935):
418-432]. I haven't yet proven the connection between these two men.
However, perhaps Keats-Rohan's books on Domesday families sheds some
light on the Boseville family. I might add that the Boseville family
is also ancestral to the Josselyn family of New England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Therav3@aol.com wrote in message news:<f7.42748e25.2e9f20e9@aol.com>...
Wednesday, 13 October, 2004



Dear Stewart, Brice, et al.,

~ Given the subsequent marriages of William's brother Hubert de
Burgh to a royal divorcee (Isabel of Gloucester) and a Scots
princess (Margaret, dau. of William the Lion), a royal
English bastard is not far-fetched as a suitable wife for
King John's loyal servant in Ireland....

Cheers,

John

Gjest

Re: FW: de Burgh

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 okt 2004 18:35:14

Friday, 15 October, 2004


Dear Doug,

Thanks for that very good post - the details re: Hubert de Burgh's
known brothers is especially appreciated.

On the subject of the de Burgh origins and the possible relationship
of William and Hubert, Richard Borthwick wrote some time ago (in part),

'(3) The parents of Hubert de Burgh (d.1243) were Alice & her husband
whose christian name was probably Walter. This Walter (d.1179/80)
held Burgh near Aylsham, Norfolk. Hubert had a brother, William
(d.1205) from whom the earls of Ulster as well as the Burkes of
Limerick, Tipperary, Clanricarde and Mayo descend. It would seem
that the family can be traced back no further than Hubert's mother
and probable father. "The false trail laid by Dugdale in the
seventeenth century was still being faithfully followed in the
nineteenth." [Ellis, 183]. The DNB article on Hubert is a notorious
example. The family were modest Norfolk gentry - nothing very
grand. [Ellis, C. *Hubert de Burgh: A Study in Constancy* (Phoenix
House: London, 1952), 183-202] ' [1]

The various de Burgh connections (de Boseville, William <-> Hubert,
and Richard de Burgh <-> King Edward I) all deserve further study.
Anything I might uncover will surely be passed along.

Cheers,

John



NOTES
[1] Richard Borthwick, <Re: William de Burgo>, SGM, 6 Nov 1998

Douglas Richardson

Re: FW: de Burgh

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 18 okt 2004 06:47:21

Dear John ~

Thank you for your input on the Burgh family. Much appreciated.

Earl Hubert de Burgh's mother was Alice Pouchard. However, the name
of his father is uncertain.

I found the abstract of the following document pertaining to a certain
Thomas son of Walter de Burgh in the National Archives catalogue at
the following website:

http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp.

"E 40/2948: Grant by Thomas son of Walter de Burgo, to Thomas de
Yford, for 10 marcs, of land called 'Cnoppecroft,' containing 16
acres, in Utwellys. Witnesses:- Sir Adam de Hagebeche, Robert de
Covenham, and others (named): [Norf.] Endorsed: "Blezwyk. de
Utwelles." END OF QUOTE.

If it can be proven that this Thomas de Burgh is the same person as
Earl Hubert's brother, Thomas de Burgh, then the name of Earl Hubert's
father would be known.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Therav3@aol.com wrote in message news:<89.17a1b6e7.2ea13a13@aol.com>...
Friday, 15 October, 2004


Dear Doug,

Thanks for that very good post - the details re: Hubert de Burgh's
known brothers is especially appreciated.

On the subject of the de Burgh origins and the possible relationship
of William and Hubert, Richard Borthwick wrote some time ago (in part),

'(3) The parents of Hubert de Burgh (d.1243) were Alice & her husband
whose christian name was probably Walter. This Walter (d.1179/80)
held Burgh near Aylsham, Norfolk. Hubert had a brother, William
(d.1205) from whom the earls of Ulster as well as the Burkes of
Limerick, Tipperary, Clanricarde and Mayo descend. It would seem
that the family can be traced back no further than Hubert's mother
and probable father. "The false trail laid by Dugdale in the
seventeenth century was still being faithfully followed in the
nineteenth." [Ellis, 183]. The DNB article on Hubert is a notorious
example. The family were modest Norfolk gentry - nothing very
grand. [Ellis, C. *Hubert de Burgh: A Study in Constancy* (Phoenix
House: London, 1952), 183-202] ' [1]

The various de Burgh connections (de Boseville, William <-> Hubert,
and Richard de Burgh <-> King Edward I) all deserve further study.
Anything I might uncover will surely be passed along.

Cheers,

John



NOTES
[1] Richard Borthwick, <Re: William de Burgo>, SGM, 6 Nov 1998

Gjest

Re: FW: de Burgh

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 okt 2004 14:59:17

I believe that Clarence Ellis' book 'Hubert de Burgh, A Study in Constancy'
concluded that his father was perhaps a Walter de Burgh (d bfr 1180), a small
holder in Bough next Ayleham, Norfolk by Alice (d bfr 1230, bur Walsingham).

Adrian


Dear John ~

Thank you for your input on the Burgh family. Much appreciated.

Earl Hubert de Burgh's mother was Alice Pouchard. However, the name
of his father is uncertain.

I found the abstract of the following document pertaining to a certain
Thomas son of Walter de Burgh in the National Archives catalogue at
the following website:

http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp.

"E 40/2948: Grant by Thomas son of Walter de Burgo, to Thomas de
Yford, for 10 marcs, of land called 'Cnoppecroft,' containing 16
acres, in Utwellys. Witnesses:- Sir Adam de Hagebeche, Robert de
Covenham, and others (named): [Norf.] Endorsed: "Blezwyk. de
Utwelles." END OF QUOTE.

If it can be proven that this Thomas de Burgh is the same person as
Earl Hubert's brother, Thomas de Burgh, then the name of Earl Hubert's
father would be known.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Therav3@aol.com wrote in message news:<89.17a1b6e7.2ea13a13@aol.com>...
Friday, 15 October, 2004


Dear Doug,

Thanks for that very good post - the details re: Hubert de Burgh's
known brothers is especially appreciated.

On the subject of the de Burgh origins and the possible relationship
of William and Hubert, Richard Borthwick wrote some time ago (in part),

'(3) The parents of Hubert de Burgh (d.1243) were Alice &her husband
whose christian name was probably Walter. This Walter (d.1179/80)
held Burgh near Aylsham, Norfolk. Hubert had a brother, William
(d.1205) from whom the earls of Ulster as well as the Burkes of
Limerick, Tipperary, Clanricarde and Mayo descend. It would seem
that the family can be traced back no further than Hubert's mother
and probable father. "The false trail laid by Dugdale in the
seventeenth century was still being faithfully followed in the
nineteenth." [Ellis, 183]. The DNB article on Hubert is a notorious
example. The family were modest Norfolk gentry - nothing very
grand. [Ellis, C. *Hubert de Burgh: A Study in Constancy* (Phoenix
House: London, 1952), 183-202] ' [1]

The various de Burgh connections (de Boseville, William <-> Hubert,
and Richard de Burgh <-> King Edward I) all deserve further study.
Anything I might uncover will surely be passed along.

Cheers,

John



NOTES
[1] Richard Borthwick, <Re: William de Burgo>, SGM, 6 Nov 1998


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»