C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
If I understand the implications of an ancient document correctly, it
appears that Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the
name of Earl Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's
mother was actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress
of John Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham,
Norfolk.
The evidence for Earl Hubert's mother's family is recorded in the
published account of the foundation of Creake Hospital and Abbey in
Norfolk, which information is found in the book, A.L. Bedingfield, ed.,
A Cartulary of Creak Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35 (1936): 1-2.
This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
... Subsequently, Robert de Nerford, who had been appointed Governor of
Dover Castle by Lord Hubert de Burgh, then Justiciar and Regent of the
realm, on obtaining a naval victory on Saint Batholomew's Day over the
French who had attacked the English, had, at the desire and agreement
of this pious woman, Lady Alice, built a chapel in honour of St.
Bartholomew the Apostle with an hospital for 13 paupers seeking refuge
there at any time ... In 1221 this chapel and all the endowed land was
dedicated by Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, suffragan of Bishop Pandulph,
nephew of Lady Alice and brother of Hubert de Burgh." END OF QUOTE.
As we see above, Earl Hubert be Burgh's brother, Geoffrey, Bishop of
Ely, is called nephew of Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
Nerford. If so, it would appear that Earl Hubert's mother was the
sister of Lady Alice Pouchard.
There are various charters recorded in the published Creake Abbey
cartulary issued by Alice Pouchard, her husband, Robert de Nerford,
Knt., and by their son and heir, Richard de Nerford, Knt. Most of the
charters have no witnesses, although I see one on pp. 3-4 issued by
Alice Pouchard in the period, c. 1225-1230, is witnessed by John de
Burgo and Reymund de Burgo. I also note another charter on pg. 4 also
dated c. 1225-1230 in which Alice Pouchard gave the patronage of a
moiety share of the church of All Saints at Wreningham, Norfolk, of
which she states she is the "rightful patron." By this, I judge that
the half share of the advowson of Wreningham was part of Alice's
Pouchard inheritance. If this is correct, presumably the other half
share of the Wreningham advowson fell to her sister's son and heir,
Earl Hubert de Burgh.
At a later date, c. 1255-1265, I note that Earl Hubert de Burgh's son
and heir, Sir John de Burgh, granted Creake Abbey 20 shillings of rent
in Brunham, Norfolk (see pp. 126, 129). If correct, then it would
appear the Brunham, Norfolk was also part of the Pouchard inheritance.
We know from the foundation charter cited in part above (pp. 1-2) and
from another charter (pg. 9) that Sir William Pouchard, grandfather of
Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford, obtained 40 acres of lands in
Lingerescroft in Brunham from East Acre Priory, which property became
the first site of the church of Creake Abbey in 1206. The editor dates
Sir William Pouchard's acquisition of the original 40 acres in Brunham
as being c. 1200-1205, but this date is surely much, much too late.
If Sir William Pouchard was Earl Hubert de Burgh's great-grandfather,
he would have been active in the reign of King Stephen back in the
1130's-1140's, not c. 1200.
While this matter needs further research, I believe that the Creake
Abbey material provides a clear indication that Earl Hubert de Burgh's
mother was a Pouchard by birth.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Earl Hubert de Burgh:
1. Elizabeth Alsop.
2. William Asfordby.
3. William Bladen.
4. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.
5. Thomas Bressey.
6. Elizabeth Butler.
7. Francis Dade.
8. William Farrer.
9. Elizabeth & John Harleston.
10. Anne Humphrey.
11. Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow.
12. Simon Lynde.
13. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.
14. John Oxenbridge.
15. Herbert Pelham.
16. William Skepper.
17. John Stockman.
18. John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote:
< 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
Douglas Richardson
As a followup of my earlier post this evening, I should mention that an
abstract of the original Latin version of the foundation history of
Creake Abbey, Norfolk can be found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglican, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 487-488. This abstract may be viewed by
going to www.monasticmatrix.com.
The Latin version of the foundation history confirms that Geoffrey de
Burgh, Bishop of Ely, is styled "nepotem dictae Aliciae" (that is,
nephew of the said Alice [Pouchard]). Bishop Geoffrey is also styled
"fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti") (that is, brother of the foresaid
Hubert de Burgh).
Douglas Richardson
I found my copy of Complete Peerage's account of Hubert de Burgh, Earl
of Kent, just now. The biographical record of Earl Hubert de Burgh is
found in Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 133-142 (sub Kent). In the
general account on page 133, it states that Earl Hubert's parentage is
unknown. However, in footnote "a" on the same page, the writer quotes
Blomfield's Norfolk, vol. x, pg. 265, in which Earl Hubert's parents
are identified as "Reyner de Burgh (probably of Burgh, near Yarmouth),
by Joan, one of the three daughters and coheirs of John, son of Sir
William Punchard (by Alice, daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry,
lord of Gedney)." It is further stated that there is "no authority but
Blomfield's for this descent."
Strangely, this same Complete Peerage footnote makes reference to the
foundation history of Creake Abbey (which I have cited), which Complete
Peerage says identifies Earl Hubert's brother, Geoffrey de Burgh,
Bishop of Ely, as "nepos of Alice de Nerford, daughter of John Punchard
and widow of Robert de Nerford." The source Complete Peerage uses for
the Creake Abbey foundation history is the Latin version of the
foundation history found in William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglican, vol.
vi, pg. 487. Complete Peerage is not fully correct in its
representation of the Creake Abbey history, as Alice, wife of Robert de
Nerford, is there called Alice Pouchard, not Punchard, and her husband
was a knight. Also, Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, is specifically called
the brother of Earl Hubert de Burgh in the text. As such, tthe
parentage of Earl Hubert de Burgh given by Blomfield is certainly
partly supported by the Creake Abbey foundation history, which fact is
obscured by the Complete Peerage footnote.
To add to the confusion, in the same footnote in Complete Peerage, Earl
Hubert de Burgh is stated to have given the advowson of Oulton church,
Norfolk to Walsingham "for the soul of Alice my mother who rests in the
church of Walsingham." But, in another source which I have seen
elsewhere (possibly Blomfield or Ellis), it is stated that the person
buried at Walsingham was actually Hubert's wife, Alice, not his mother.
If so, it would remove a apparent contradictory bit of evidence which
detracts from the descent provided by Blomfield. It would also provide
Earl Hubert with an additional wife not mentioned by Complete Peerage.
ADRIANC...@aol.com
It must have been a while ago since I wrote that.
I think you need to look at Clarence Ellis' book before you state that he is
wrong. I only have my notes from this book (I have no easy access to it) He
states that Hubert's mother was Alice based on Hubert's gift to Walsingham -
for the soul of my mother Alice. He discusses Alice (dau of John Punchard
and wdw of Robert de Nerford) whom Geoffrey de Burgh calls _nepos_, but
concludes there is not sufficient evidence for her exact connection to the de
Burghs.
Adrian
>>>>
In a message dated 02/01/2006 07:15:16 GMT Standard Time,
1. Elizabeth Alsop.
2. William Asfordby.
3. William Bladen.
5. Thomas Bressey.
6. Elizabeth Butler.
7. Francis Dade.
8. William Farrer.
10. Anne Humphrey.
12. Simon Lynde.
14. John Oxenbridge.
15. Herbert Pelham.
16. William Skepper.
17. John Stockman.
18. John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.
I've already looked at Ellis' book. He appears to have discounted the
Pouchard/Punchard information in Blomfield and in the foundation
history of Creake Abbey without giving the matter serious thought. I
may be wrong, but I believe that Earl Hubert de Burgh was the nephew of
Alice Pouchard, just as is indicated in the records of Creake Abbey.
In general I find that many historians have trouble assembling pieces
of genealogical evidence scattered through many medieval sources. This
is due I think because historians feel it is their job is to tell the
history of a single individual, not set the individual's place in his
family network.
Be that as it may, as I stated in my earlier post, I've seen a
reference (perhaps in Blomfield) which states that it was Hubert de
Burgh's wife, Alice, not his mother, who was buried at Walsingham,
Norfolk. If so, then Ellis is doubly wrong.
To muddle matterrs further, here is what the new DNB has to say about
Hubert de Burgh's family:
"Burgh, Hubert de, earl of Kent (c.1170-1243), justiciar, has been
wrongly said to have been the son of a brother of William fitz Aldhelm,
steward of Henry II. It is possible, though doubtful, that his father
was the Walter whose daughter Adelina, with her son William, owed 40
marks in the pipe roll of 26 Henry II (1179/80) for recognition of
their right to a knight's fee at Burgh, Norfolk. His mother's name was
Alice, for in his grant (c.1230) of the advowson of the church of
Oulton to the prior of Walsingham, Hubert stated that the gift was
'for the soul of my mother Alice who rests in the church at
Walsingham' (BL, Cotton MS Nero E.vii, fol. 91). His elder brother
was William de Burgh (d. 1206) who, in 1185, accompanied the king's
youngest son, John, to Ireland, where he eventually became lord of
Connacht; William's son would later refer to Hubert as uncle. Two
younger brothers, Geoffrey and Thomas, became respectively archdeacon
of Norwich (1202) and then bishop of Ely (1225), and castellan of
Norwich (1215-16). Hubert has been said to have been born in 1175,
but if his brother William was of knightly age in 1185, a date some
years earlier is more probable." END OF QUOTE.
Again, we see above that no reference whatsoever is made to Hubert de
Burgh's Pouchard/Punchard connection. Also, Hubert de Burgh is
presented as younger brother of William de Burgh, lord of Connaught in
Ireland, which I suspect is in error. I say that because I believe
Hubert de Burgh was the eldest son and heir of his father. William is
thought to have been older than Hubert. If Hubert was the son and heir
of his father, and, if William was older than Hubert, then Hubert and
William can not have been brothers.
This matter certainly deserves further study. When we are finished, I
believe the Pouchard/Punchard link will be proven and it will be found
that Earl Hubert de Burgh wasn't the brother of William de Burgh of
Connaught as claimed.
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Adrian ~
>
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
>
> If I understand the implications of an ancient document correctly, it
> appears that Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the
> name of Earl Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's
> mother was actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress
> of John Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham,
> Norfolk.
>
> The evidence for Earl Hubert's mother's family is recorded in the
> published account of the foundation of Creake Hospital and Abbey in
> Norfolk, which information is found in the book, A.L. Bedingfield, ed.,
> A Cartulary of Creak Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35 (1936): 1-2.
>
> This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson quotes the following from a secondary source implying that
it is valid evidence standing alone. What is the document from which
the following quote is taken? When and by whom was it written? Just
reading the language of "this account of the foundation of Creake
Abbey", one would guess that it is late Victorian; if so, it is no
evidence without the underlying sources.
CED
CED
To the Newsgroup:
If Richardson wants us to believe his contention that William de Burgh
was not the brother of Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, he should refute
that ample evidence showing that the two were brothers set out by
Clarence Ellis, on page 192 and the following pages, in _Hubert de
Burgh: A Study in Constancy_ (London, 1952).
CED
Douglas Richardson
I heartily recommend that you read the transcript of the original Latin
text of the foundation history of Creake Abbey published by William
Dugdale. This document can be found online at www.monasticmatrix.com.
I've already provided you the correct volume and page references for
you to consult. To make it real easy for you, I've copied the
references to Dugdale's volume and pages again below for you. If you
don't read Latin, I'll be glad to lend you a hand.
The document makes it clear that Bishop Geoffrey de Burgh (brother of
Earl Hubert de Burgh) was "nepos" to Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert
de Nerford. This record lends support to Blomfield's statement that
Earl Hubert de Burgh's mother was Joan Punchard, "one of the three
daughters and coheirs of John, son of Sir William Punchard."
I doubt Blomfield's assertion, however, that Joan Pouchard's mother was
a daughter and co-heiress of Fulk d'Oyry, lord of Gedney, Lincolnshire.
I believe he is wrong about that part of it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST
Douglas Richardson wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< As a followup of my earlier post this evening, I should mention that
an
< abstract of the original Latin version of the foundation history of
< Creake Abbey, Norfolk can be found in William Dugdale, Monasticon
< Anglican, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 487-488. This abstract may be viewed by
< going to www.monasticmatrix.com.
<
< The Latin version of the foundation history confirms that Geoffrey de
< Burgh, Bishop of Ely, is styled "nepotem dictae Aliciae" (that is,
< nephew of the said Alice [Pouchard]). Bishop Geoffrey is also styled
< "fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti") (that is, brother of the
foresaid
< Hubert de Burgh).
>
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear CED ~
>
> I heartily recommend that you read the transcript of the original Latin
> text of the foundation history of Creake Abbey published by William
> Dugdale. This document can be found online at www.monasticmatrix.com.
To the Newsgroup:
I have tried to get the Monasticon on the wed, as Richardson so nicley
recommended, but something is wrong the the URL supplied.
At any rate he does not tell us who wrote the "foundation history of
Creake Abbey published by William Dugdale" or when it was written.
Setting aside the Victorian English used in the translation, the
internal evidence in the "foundation history" would indicate that is
was written as a "puff" piece for a grantor's family long after that
family was gone. Note the language about the French invasion. It
looks suspiciously similar to language by Matthew Paris. This
foundation history is of no value as evidence until its writer and date
can be established.
CED
Douglas Richardson
I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father. The new DNB states, however,
that William de Burgh was Hubert de Burgh's elder brother. If Hubert
was his father's son and heir, then it is impossible for William and
Hubert to have been brothers, if William was older than Hubert I trust
this makes sense to you.
If DNB is wrong, then you should tell us why you think this is so.
Best always, Douglas Richatdson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.com
Douglas Richardson
This URL should work for you:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliographia/index.php?function=detail&id=2659
If not, you can find the Latin text by Dugdale by going through the
home page which is:
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/
To say that the Creake Abbey document has no value is a bit harsh I
think, CED. Especially since the authoriative Complete Peerage quotes
from it.
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear CED ~
>
> I've already refuted Mr. Ellis.
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson has said nothing about the evidence set out on the pages
following page 192 of Ellis' book.
He simply says that, since Hubert was heir to his father (not proven,
we do not know who his father was, nor the lands he held), William
could not be his brother. That does not refute Ellis' straight forward
evidence.
Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?
CED
Richardson must have some motive for this latest move. Let us wait to
see what it is.
Of course if he uses evidence in his usual manner, it will be of no
useful consequence, other than marketing his writings.
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear CED ~
>
> This URL should work for you:
>
> http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliographia/index.php?function=detail&id=2659
>
> If not, you can find the Latin text by Dugdale by going through the
> home page which is:
>
> http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/
>
> To say that the Creake Abbey document has no value is a bit harsh I
> think, CED. Especially since the authoriative Complete Peerage quotes
> from it.
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson is ignoring the fundamental question: who wrote the
foundation history and when was it written? Foundation histories, by
definition, are just that: histories, written sometime after the deeds
described. Foundation histories are not primary evidence. They are
secondary sources having value only as to who writes them, when they
were written, and for what purpose they were written. It up to
Richardson to show us the value of this foundation history.
By the way, since we do not know the name (or holding) of the father of
either Hubert de Burgh or of Bishop Geoffrey, it is possible that the
aunt (or some other relation) of Geoffrey was not the aunt (or some
other relation) of his more famous brother, Hubert.
Moreover, there is evidence that Alice was the name of Hubert's mother
(shown by Ellis, p. 191). Properly read, Ellis has shown that there
were two Alice's: one the mother of Bishop Geoffrey, the other an aunt,
great aunt, grandmother, or some other relation. Richardson has given
us nothing of value otherwise.
CED
The burden is on Richardson to prove his assertions. So far he has not
carries the burden of proof.
CED
Douglas Richardson
You're sidestepping the issue. Let's get you back on track.
I stated very clearly that it appears that Earl Hubert de Burgh was his
father's eldest son and heir. But, the new DNB says that Hubert de
Burgh's elder brother was William de Burgh. If Hubert was his father's
son and heir, then William can not have been Hubert's brother, assuming
that William was older than Hubert. Does this make sense to you?
Is the new DNB wrong, CED?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > Dear CED ~
> >
> > I've already refuted Mr. Ellis.
>
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
> Burgh was the son and heir of his father.
Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?
And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
brother?
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?
Douglas Richardson
> Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
> of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
> Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
> son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
> Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?
>
Dear CED ~
Can you quote the language of the original Close Rolls for us? Thank
you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear CED ~
>
> I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
> problem now? Do you not read Latin?
To the Newsgroup:
It is not the Latin (we all know Richardson's history with languages);
it is the document. Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. If
Richardson uses it as evidence, he must establish its reliability. Its
status as evidence to support Richardson's original contention is the
question. Richardson has an old habit of twisting the question and
shifting the burden of proof. He is using it again.
CED
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> CED wrote:
> > Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
> > of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
> > Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
> > son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
> > Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?
> >
>
> Dear CED ~
>
> Can you quote the language of the original Close Rolls for us? Thank
> you.
To the Newsgroup:
Again, Richardson is twisting and shifting. Of course he knows that I
do not have access to the Close Rolls. I do believe that I can rely
upon Ellis' citation. I have followed Ellis and Cazel on Hubert de
Burgh for many years and have never seen the veracity or competence of
either questioned before Richardson's challenge with these postings.
If Richardson wants to challenge Ellis' reading of the Close Rolls, he
can do so; but he has the burden - not me.
CED
Douglas Richardson
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
Chris:
Another possibility is that Hubert was heir to his mother, but not of
his father. Almost certainly William was the elder brother (on the
basis of the chronology of the acts of William and his son, Richard, as
they coincide with those of Hubert. See Ellis, p. 191).
CED
>
> Chris Phillips
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> You're dodging the question, CED.
>
> Do you read Latin?
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
To the Newsgroup:
Whether I read Latin is not the question. Richardson is raising a new
issue to hide the original question - his old habit for dodgery.
However, if history is a guide on Richardson's secondary and irrelevant
question, my Latin is as good as his.
Douglas Richardson
I'm quoting from memory. In his biography of Hubert de Burgh, Mr.
Ellis indicated that at the time of Earl Hubert's downfall, there were
several properties which were stated to be of Hubert's own inheritance.
One of these properties was a manor called Burgh in Norfolk, which was
surely Earl Hubert's patrimony. If so, then I think it's virtually
certain that Hubert de Burgh was his father's son and heir. If this is
correct, then William de Burgh can not possibly have been Hubert de
Burgh's elder brother as claimed by the new DNB.
Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that Hubert de Burgh inherited
these properties through his mother who was allegedly a Pouchard
heiress. If so, then William de Burgh could still be an older brother
to Earl Hubert, but they were have to be half-brothers by different
mothers.
This matter needs further research I think before any firm conclusions
can be drawn. First we need to establish what properties the Pouchard
family held and then determine if any of them passed to Earl Hubert de
Burgh or his heirs. For starters, Alice Pouchard indicated that she
had a moiety share of the advowson of Wreningham, Noffolk. If this was
part of her Pouchard inheritance, it would be good to know what became
of the other half interest of the Wreningham advowson.
DR
Douglas Richardson
Do you read Latin?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Chris Phillips wrote:
> > Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > > I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
> > > Burgh was the son and heir of his father.
> >
> > Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?
> >
> > And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
> > William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
> > brother?
> >
> > Chris Phillips
>
> I'm quoting from memory. In his biography of Hubert de Burgh, Mr.
> Ellis indicated that at the time of Earl Hubert's downfall, there were
> several properties which were stated to be of Hubert's own inheritance.
> One of these properties was a manor called Burgh in Norfolk, which was
> surely Earl Hubert's patrimony. If so, then I think it's virtually
> certain that Hubert de Burgh was his father's son and heir.
To the Newsgroup:
Ellis lists (on the basis of a Letter Close of 13 November 1232) four
manors as being of Hubert de Burgh's 'of his heredity.' Yet, there is
ample evidence, according to Ellis, that two of the four were not
inherited according to any custom of England at the time. Regarding
the other two, nothing indicates that either of them were inherited,
other than that odd locution 'of his heredity.' There seems to be no
evidence that Hubert inherited any of the four were from his father, or
for that matter, any evidence of Hubert's father or any holding of his
father.
This 'Burgh' (there were a number of Burghs in East Anglia, this Burgh
is only a guess) which was later associated with Hubert could have any
number of attachments. It could have been a hidden place at which the
bastard children of a prominent person were reared. A search of the
records will show the Hubert had a number of 'nephews' with no more
specific connection known. Treating Hubert's parentage and 'heredity'
by normal custom and usage raises more questions than should be the
case. Something out of the ordinary is more likely.
CED
Chris Phillips
> You're dodging the question yet again, CED.
>
> Do you read Latin?
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
If we are interested in determining the truth of the matter, can we not have
some sensible discussion of the evidence, rather than this daft stuff?
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
> some sensible discussion of the evidence, rather than this daft stuff?
>
> Chris Phillips
I agree. Let's see your evidence.
DR
Douglas Richardson
CED wrote:
< Ellis lists (on the basis of a Letter Close of 13 November 1232) four
< manors as being of Hubert de Burgh's 'of his heredity.'
If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB.
< Something out of the ordinary is more likely.
This matter requires further research. The first thing to be done I
think is to identify the properties held by the Pouchard family and
determine if any of them fell to Hubert de Burgh or his heirs. If
Blomfield is correct, then the Pouchard estates should have be split
among the three Pouchard co-heiresses.
I have suggested two potential Pouchard properties so far: Brunham and
Wreningham, Norfolk. The first property is almost certainly a Pouchard
property. We know from the Creake Abbey cartulary that Hubert de
Burgh's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, had land interests at Brunham.
This is good evidence in support of Hubert de Burgh's mother being a
Pouchard heiress and that Hubert de Burgh was her heir.
> CED
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> CED wrote:
>
> < Ellis lists (on the basis of a Letter Close of 13 November 1232) four
> < manors as being of Hubert de Burgh's 'of his heredity.'
>
> If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
> record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
> his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
> surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
> certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
> correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
> as alleged by the new DNB.
To the Newsgroup:
As a preface, note this: hard and fast rules of hereditary succession
to lands held of the king prior to the reign of Richard I cannot be
discerned with certainty. Assumptions (and most certainly
presumptions) based on 13th Century practice ought not be carried back
to the previous century. Regarding lands held of persons other than
the king, rules of succession were even less rigid. The case law (as
law rather than the king's will) behind English common law was
developed about the time of Henry III's minority (ironically during
this discussion, while Hubert de Burgh was justiciar, in charge of the
king's court).
First, regarding William de Burgh, the elder brother of Hubert de
Burgh:
William de Burgh went to Ireland in 1185, as part of John's (later King
John) expedition. He was a favorite of John who granted him large
portions of Muster and as much of Connaught as he could conquer. (I do
not have the exact language of the grant. It was among my notes 25
years ago and lost in two cross country moves.) So far as I can
determine, William was singular among John's men to have had such a
grant. It would not be surprising if, with such interests in Ireland,
he would have resigned (to a younger brother) his rights to a couple of
insignicant manors in East Anglia. There appears to be no evidence
that William returned to England.
An unanswered question: why did William de Burgh, the son of an unknown
minor land holder, stand in such high favor with John (and by
implication Henry II and Richard I)?
Second, regarding the manor of Burgh:
There were at least four manors called Burgh in Norfolk, six or more
such manors in Suffolk, and an unknown number in Essex and the border
areas of the ancient kingdom of East Anglia. Burgh was a common name
for manors and for persons associated with them.
That Hubert's Burgh was Burgh-next-Aylsham in Norfolk is a guess at
best, a guess based on its proximity to three other manors of 'his
heredity,' two of which (Beeston and Newton) can be shown not to have
been inherited. If Beeston and Newton were not inherited, the medieval
term 'quod habuit de hereditate sua' must, in some instances, have some
meaning different from our modern understanding. The guess also takes
into consideration an itinerary of Henry III's visit to Hubert's estate
in 1232. Hubert's holding an estate in 1232 (considering his
aquisitive nature) does not create a presumption of its being held by
his brother, or father (or mother), forty years earlier.
Richardson fails to take into consideration the fact that the term
'quod habuit de hereditate sua' was used with respect to Beeston and
Newton, two manors that Hubert did not inherit in any sense now
understood.
CED
>
> < Something out of the ordinary is more likely.
>
> This matter requires further research. The first thing to be done I
> think is to identify the properties held by the Pouchard family and
> determine if any of them fell to Hubert de Burgh or his heirs. If
> Blomfield is correct, then the Pouchard estates should have be split
> among the three Pouchard co-heiresses.
>
> I have suggested two potential Pouchard properties so far: Brunham and
> Wreningham, Norfolk. The first property is almost certainly a Pouchard
> property. We know from the Creake Abbey cartulary that Hubert de
> Burgh's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, had land interests at Brunham.
We have what appears to be a complete inventory of Hubert's holdings at
his his fall from the king's favor. Neither Brunham nor Wreningham,
Norfolk, is among them; nor is any other Ponchard (Pouchard ?)
property. If John de Burgh held any such property, he did not inherit
it from his father.
CED
Chris Phillips
> > If we are interested in determining the truth of the matter, can we not
have
> > some sensible discussion of the evidence, rather than this daft stuff?
Douglas Richardson replied:
> I agree. Let's see your evidence.
I hope I can be excused from providing "my evidence", as I'm not making any
assertion - only trying to follow a rather obscure argument that's not made
any clearer by the personal stuff.
Regarding the Close Roll entry, could you explain what alternative
interpretations you envisage? That William was Hubert's _younger_ brother?
That the entry refers to a different Hubert de Burgh? That the word
translated as "uncle" denotes a different relationship? Or maybe some other
interpretation that I haven't thought of?
I'm also not clear why you seem to prefer the claim you remember reading
somewhere (perhaps in Blomefield) that the Alice buried at Walsingham was an
otherwise unknown wife of Hubert, rather than his mother. The extract from
the new DNB which you posted quotes a grant of Hubert 'for the soul of my
mother Alice', and refers to BL, Cotton MS Nero E.vii, fol. 91. This is a
late 13th-century Walsingham cartulary. It's difficult to imagine how
Blomefield or anyone else could have more accurate information, unless he
had access to the original grant.
Chris Phillips
John P. Ravilious
A 'final solution' concerning the parentage of Hubert de Burgh is
likely now in the works, based on the information now made available in
this thread. I hope (together with many on the list) that the end
result will justify the means
Lee, you wrote in part:
<<<<<< Snip >>>>>>>>>>>
>
> First, regarding William de Burgh, the elder brother of Hubert de
> Burgh:
> William de Burgh went to Ireland in 1185, as part of John's (later King
> John) expedition. He was a favorite of John who granted him large
> portions of Muster and as much of Connaught as he could conquer. (I do
> not have the exact language of the grant. It was among my notes 25
> years ago and lost in two cross country moves.) So far as I can
> determine, William was singular among John's men to have had such a
> grant. It would not be surprising if, with such interests in Ireland,
> he would have resigned (to a younger brother) his rights to a couple of
> insignicant manors in East Anglia. There appears to be no evidence
> that William returned to England.
>
> An unanswered question: why did William de Burgh, the son of an unknown
> minor land holder, stand in such high favor with John (and by
> implication Henry II and Richard I)?
>
<<<<<<<<<<< Snip >>>>>>>>>>>>
The answer to this question is also, I believe, 'in the works'.
Prior discussion on the subject, in SGM threads, included reference to
Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster (d. 1326) and great-grandson of
William de Burgh, being styled "king's cousin" by King Edward I
(Douglas Richardson, citing Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927), pg. 261).
Subsequent references also to Earl Richard's great-nephew Robert II,
King of Scots as 'king's cousin' by Edward III of England, further
support the notion that there is something early in the de Burgh
ancestry linking them to the Kings of England.
I had previously theorized that William de Burgh was likely
married (1st) to an illegitimate daughter of John, Count of Mortain
(later King John of England), by whom he fathered the line of the Earls
of Ulster. Doug Richardson put forward the theory that his wife may
well have been a hitherto unknown daughter of John's brother, King
Richard 'Coeur de Lion'. The latter version would have a nice
onomastic twist if correct, what with William's son and heir being
named Richard.....
With some luck and the collegiality for which SGM is primarily
known, this unanswered question will hopefully be resolved soon, to the
interest of all.
Cheers,
John
CED
John P. Ravilious wrote:
> Dear Lee, Doug, et al.,
>
> A 'final solution' concerning the parentage of Hubert de Burgh is
> likely now in the works, based on the information now made available in
> this thread. I hope (together with many on the list) that the end
> result will justify the means
John:
Is somebody going to suggest that Henry II had children by Alice of
France, that because of her status, the fact of their being cousins to
the kings had to be kept secret?
CED
Leo van de Pas
is, never mind the language.
John P. Ravilious
Not that I'm aware of. I believe the link will be found amongst
the illegitimate issue of a child of Henry II, not a bastard of Henry
himself.
Cheers,
John
Leo van de Pas
The sentence from Richardson you quote is ambiguous to say the least "states
clearly" seems to imply a fact were as "appears" appears to leave room for
doubt and so no fact seems there to be found. .
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
> In a message dated 1/3/06 11:49:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> royala...@msn.com writes:
>
> << I stated very clearly that it appears that Earl Hubert de Burgh was his
> father's eldest son and heir. >>
>
> But what is your evidence?
> Will Johnson
>
>
Chris Phillips
> I'm quoting from memory. In his biography of Hubert de Burgh, Mr.
> Ellis indicated that at the time of Earl Hubert's downfall, there were
> several properties which were stated to be of Hubert's own inheritance.
> One of these properties was a manor called Burgh in Norfolk, which was
> surely Earl Hubert's patrimony. If so, then I think it's virtually
> certain that Hubert de Burgh was his father's son and heir.
I was surprised to find that pretty much all the relevant evidence that's
been mentioned in this thread has already been discussed in the CP footnotes
on Earl Hubert's parentage [vii 133 note a] and Walter de Burgh's ancestry
[xii/2 171 note f]. (However, there does seem to be a bona fide addition in
the shape of the relationship between Hubert and William de Burgh, Lord of
Connaught, which is stated in the second footnote but not the first.)
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that according to the footnote,
Blomefield [xi 152] says that "Burgh was held by the Crown, but was in 1201
given to Hubert". If this were true, it would obviously dispose of the
argument above in favour of Hubert being the elder son.
Another point (reflecting the fact that several Burghs are available in
Norfolk, as pointed out by CED) is that while Hubert's father according to
Blomefield, Reyner de Burgh, was "probably of Burgh, near Yarmouth", Ellis
(following Walter Rye) argued that the Burgh held by Hubert was probably the
one near Aylsham. This was based on a grant to him from King John of lands
in Aylsham, and the manor of Cawston nearby. Among other things, this might
imply that the Burgh held by Hubert was not the same Burgh his family took
its name from, or else that Blomefield was wrong about him belonging to the
same family as Reyner.
Finally, the CP footnote, like the new DNB, cites Nero E vii, f. 91 (the
late 13th-century Walsingham cartulary) for the grant in which Hubert calls
his mother Alice. The author was aware that this contradicted Blomefield's
claim that Hubert's mother was Joan Punchard, and commented that "According
to Blomefield he had a grandmother Alice". (Perhaps this explains Douglas
Richardson's recollection that he had read of an alternative placement for
Alice, possibly in Blomefield.)
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
I believe the burial of Alice, wife of Earl Hubert de Burgh, is
mentioned in Blomfield's Norfolk in his account of Walsinghan, Norfolk.
I'm saying this purely from memory, and my recollection may be in
error. I saw this volume over ten years ago.
Regarding Earl Hubert's alleged Pouchard connection, I note that Earl
Hubert de Burgh's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, was dealing with
lands in Brunham, Norfolk in the period, 1255-1265 [see Bedingfield, A
Cartulary of Creake Abbey (1966): 127, 129]. If so, if there are no
identifiable descendants of Alice Pouchard, it is possible that Sir
John de Burgh may have been the heir and successor to Alice Pouchard's
grandson, Robert de Nerford. This might would explain how Sir John de
Burgh came to hold lands in Brunham, Norfolk.
I note that Robert de Nerford was living c. 1240, when he confirmed the
grants of his family to Creake Abbey in Creake, Brunham, Wreningham,
and Habeton, Norfolk. The evidence shows that Robert de Nerford's
great-great-grandfather, Sir William Pouchard, held lands in Brunham,
Norfolk. If Sir John de Burgh was heir to Robert de Nerford, they
would both presumaby be descendants of the Pouchard family. This would
not prove Blomfield's assertion that Sir John de Burgh's grandmother
was a Pouchard, only that Sir John de Burgh was descended in some
manner from Sir William Pouchard.
Lastly, I note that the Creake Abbey Cartulary indicates that the Prior
of Walsingham had lands in Brunham, Norfolk in 1245-1265 [see
Bedingfield, ibid., 129]. If so, it is possible that Earl Hubert de
Burgh who was a known benefactor to Walsingham was the person who
donated the lands in that parish to Walsingham Priory. It does not
appear that the cartulary of Walsingham Priory has ever been published.
I have copied below the information regarding the Walsingham Priory
Cartulary which I've found online.
Suffice to say, this matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: http://www.shef.ac.uk/hri/bl/mss/ner5.htm
MS British Library Cotton Nero E. vii.
ARTICLE:
FOLIATION:
CONTENT:
Cartulary of the Augustinian canons' priory of Walsingham (co. Norf.).
Arranged topographically in sections, by deaneries; there are copies of
a few royal, papal and episcopal charters in the Walsingham section,
and (ff. 147v-152v) copies of a few inquisitions and lawsuits as well
of the taxation assessment of the priory's temporalities in 1291.
A 15th-century index (ff. 139-146) includes the contents of some leaves
(ff. 63-82 in the medieval foliation) that are missing from between the
present ff. 68 and 69, of which two (ff. 77, 78 in the medieval
foliation) are now Oxford, Bodl., MS Top. Norf. b. 1 (S.C. 31413;
apparently detached by Jan. 1673).
Latin, with a little Anglo-Norman.
ORIGIN:
DATING: Late 13th century, not before 1293; with many later additions.
PROVENANCE:
Belonged to Samuel Roper the younger (d. 1678), by whom it was given to
the Cotton Library in 1670: on f. 1 there is a drawing of his arms
(quarterly, 1. Roper, 2. Musard, 3. Furneaux, 4. Chevercourt), with
mantling, crest and motto ("Lux Anglis crux Francis"), and also an
inscription in Sir William Dugdale's hand ("Ex dono Samuelis Roper de
Heanoure in com. Derb. ar. ao 1670"). The name "Thomas Rooper", in a
mid 16th-century hand, occurs among the pen- trials etc. on f. 180.
CODICOLOGY:
To judge from the 15th-century foliation, leaves are wanting after the
present ff. 47 (1 leaf), 68 (20 leaves), 73 (1 leaf), 88 (1 leaf), 93
(10 leaves), 94 or 95 (1 leaf), 118 (10 leaves), and 137 (2 leaves).
COPIES:
ILLUSTRATED:
PRINTED:
* J. Lee-Warner, "Petition of the Prior and Canons of Walsingham,
Norfolk, to Elizabeth, Lady of Clare. Circa A.D. 1345", Archaeol. Jnl.,
xxvi (1869), pp. 166-73, at 169-73. [From Nero E. vii, ff. 159v-160; in
Anglo-Norman.]
LITERATURE:
* Dugdale, Monasticon, new edn., VI, pt. 1, p. 72 note b. [List of
places under which the charters are arranged.]
* Davis, Medieval Cartularies, no. 988.
EXHIBITED:
AUTHOR: Dr Nigel Ramsay
DATE: 22-7-98
SORTCODE: A-COTNER-E7
Chris Phillips
> I believe the burial of Alice, wife of Earl Hubert de Burgh, is
> mentioned in Blomfield's Norfolk in his account of Walsinghan, Norfolk.
> I'm saying this purely from memory, and my recollection may be in
> error. I saw this volume over ten years ago.
If so, it's curious that CP didn't refer to this when discussing the
discrepancy between the Walsingham cartulary and Blomefield's version of
Hubert's parentage. I suppose we'll just have to wait until someone can
check what Blomefield says.
Incidentally, I'm still curious to know whether you're arguing that Ellis
was wrong in saying that Hubert de Burgh was the brother of William de
Burgh, Lord of Connaught, and if so what alternative interpretation you have
in mind for the reference to Hubert as the uncle of Richard, son of William
de Burgh.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< An interesting identification has been noted on this subject, in "A
New General Biographical Dictionary" by the Rev. Hugh James Rose (1857).....
"His son, Richard de Burgo, by Isabel, natural daughter of Richard I., was
lord of Connaught and Trim, and was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland in
1227, where he died in 1242, after having built the castles of Galway and
Loughrea." [1]
<snip>
The source for this statement may or may not be reliable, but sounds too
detailed to have been fabricated (at least, by Rev. Rose himself).
<snip>
This would also work with the Irish text from the Annals of the Four
Masters, cited by Douglas, late though the current version may be, which
states of Richard de Burgh, ' Richard 'the old' (whose mother was daughter of the
Saxon king) ' ["Riocaird mhoir (ingen righ Saxan a mathair)"]. >>
I doubt however, the independence of these two quotes. I suggest that the
source of Rose's belief is, in the fact the Irish text cited by Douglas. So
therefore they don't support each other, they merely repeat each other.
Will Johnson