Hugh Revell Rector of Cosgrove

[Mike Clifford]

According to Cecil Humphery-Smith in his book ‘Hugh Revel: Master of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem 1258–1277’ there was a Hugh Revell Rector of Cosgrove ca 1200. Humphery-Smith goes on to suggest that this might be the elusive Hugh of the Knights Hospitaller, but provides no evidence and cites no references to support either statement.

Doug Thompson has kindly found the source in Bridges Northamptonshire and this cites (Reg. Hug. Wells. Ep. Linc.). Bridges gives no date but says that Hugh Revell is listed as previous to Richard Giffard who is dated at 1220.


The Episcopi Lincolniensis record is available at http://www.archive.org/stream/canterburyandyo00socigoog#page/n115/mode/1up and the abstract describes this as being the induction of Richard Giffard, clerk, and Hugh Revell renouncing his claim to the patronage.

Ricardus Giffard, clericus, presentus ad ecclesiam de Covesgrava per fratrem Hugonem de Alneto priorem fratrum hospitalis Jerosolimitani in Anglia, facta prius inquisitione per R., Archdiaconum Northamptonie, per quam etc, et Hugone revel qui in eadem ecclesia jus patronatus vendicavit, eidem juri in pleno capitulo coram ipso Archdiacono renunciate, admissus est, et in eadem ecclesia persona institutus. Et injunctum est eidem Archdiacono presente, etc, ita tamen quod dictus clericus veniat ad proximos ordines ordinandus.

There is a footnote: faciat nobis habere litteras presentationis

My attempt at translation is:
Richard Giffard, priest, is presented to the church of Cosgrove by Brother Hugh de Alneto, Prior of the Brothers of the Hospital of Jerusalem in England, enquiry having been made previously by R., Archdeacon of Northampton, by means of which, etc. And Hugh Revell who in the same church has claimed the right of patronage has publically renounced to the Archdeacon of the full cathedral court the same right ….

At this point I can’t sort out the subordinate clauses.

Is it correct to describe this Hugh Revell as Rector ? If so is it possible to infer anything from his relinquishing the patronage, such as he is retiring, or simply leaving the church to pursue a different career?

There are at least four Hugh Revells at this date, and my interest stems from trying to determine whether this is a fifth Hugh Revell or whether he is one of the four. Hugh the Rector must have been of age in 1220 and hence born no later than ca 1200, and if he had trained and served as Rector for some period, presumably he is older.

At this date, there is good evidence for
(1) Hugh Revell son of Robert probably born about 1174 and recorded up to ca 1229, associated with Alwins Field and Puxley. Quite well documented but no evidence to suggest that he is a priest;
(2) Hugh Revell the free tenant of the foregoing Hugh Revell associated with Alwins Field or Puxley, explicitly recorded in 1194. Nothing further known;
(3) Hugh Revell of the Knights Hospitaller who died 1277 but whose date of birth is not known. The Rector almost cetainly too old to be the Hospitaller; and
(4) Hugh Revell of Suffolk probably born no later than 1220 and recorded until at least 1252. A mystery, but geographically remote and probably not closely connected.

I will post separately a query relating to Hugh Revell of Suffolk.

Any insights appreciated.

Thanks,

Mike Clifford

[Matt Tompkins]

On Apr 20, 7:50 pm, Mike Clifford <m.cliff...@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
> According to Cecil Humphery-Smith in his book ‘Hugh Revel: Master of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem 1258–1277’ there was a Hugh Revell Rector of Cosgrove ca 1200.  Humphery-Smith goes on to suggest that this might be the elusive Hugh of the Knights Hospitaller, but provides no evidence and cites no references to support either statement.
>
> Doug Thompson has kindly found the source in Bridges Northamptonshire and this cites  (Reg. Hug. Wells. Ep. Linc.).  Bridges gives no date but says that Hugh Revell is listed as previous to Richard Giffard who is dated at 1220.
>

> The Episcopi Lincolniensis record is available athttp://www.archive.org/stream/canterburyandyo00socigoog#page/n115/mod...and the abstract describes this as being the induction of Richard Giffard, clerk, and Hugh Revell renouncing his claim to the patronage.

>
> Ricardus Giffard, clericus, presentus ad ecclesiam de Covesgrava per fratrem Hugonem de Alneto priorem fratrum hospitalis Jerosolimitani in Anglia, facta prius inquisitione per R., Archdiaconum Northamptonie, per quam etc, et Hugone revel qui in eadem ecclesia jus patronatus vendicavit, eidem juri in pleno capitulo coram ipso Archdiacono renunciate, admissus est,  et in eadem ecclesia persona institutus.  Et injunctum est eidem Archdiacono presente, etc, ita tamen quod dictus clericus veniat ad proximos ordines ordinandus.
>
> There is a footnote:  faciat nobis habere litteras presentationis
>
> My attempt at translation is:
> Richard Giffard, priest, is presented to the church of Cosgrove by Brother Hugh de Alneto, Prior of the Brothers of the Hospital of Jerusalem in England, enquiry having been made previously by R., Archdeacon of Northampton, by means of which, etc.  And Hugh Revell who in the same church has claimed the right of patronage has publically renounced to the Archdeacon of the full cathedral court the same right ….
>
> At this point I can’t sort out the subordinate clauses.
>
> Is it correct to describe this Hugh Revell as Rector ?  If so is it possible to infer anything from his relinquishing the patronage, such as he is retiring, or simply leaving the church to pursue a different career?
>
> There are at least four Hugh Revells at this date, and my interest stems from trying to determine whether this is a fifth Hugh Revell or whether he is one of the four.  Hugh the Rector must have been of age in 1220 and hence born no later than ca 1200, and if he had trained and served as Rector for some period, presumably he is older.
>
> At this date, there is good evidence for
> (1)     Hugh Revell son of Robert probably born about 1174 and recorded up to ca 1229, associated with Alwins Field and Puxley.  Quite well documented but no evidence to suggest that he is a priest;
> (2)     Hugh Revell the free tenant of the foregoing Hugh Revell associated with Alwins Field or Puxley, explicitly recorded in 1194.  Nothing further known;
> (3)     Hugh Revell of the Knights Hospitaller who died 1277 but whose date of birth is not known.  The Rector almost cetainly too old to be the Hospitaller; and
> (4)     Hugh Revell of Suffolk probably born no later than 1220 and recorded until at least 1252.  A mystery, but geographically remote and probably not closely connected.
>
> I will post separately a query relating to Hugh Revell of Suffolk.
>
> Any insights appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Clifford


Ricardus Giffard, clericus, presentus ad ecclesiam de Covesgrava per

fratrem Hugonem de Alneto Priorem Fratrum Hospitalis Jerosolimitani in
Anglia, facta prius inquisitione per R., Archidiaconum Northamptonie,
per quam etc, et Hugone Revel qui in eadem ecclesia jus patronatus
vendicavit, eidem juri in pleno capitulo coram ipso Archidiacono
renunciante, admissus est, et in eadem ecclesia persona institutus.
Et injunctum est eidem Archidiacono presenti, etc, ita tamen quod

dictus clericus veniat ad proximos ordines ordinandus.

Marginal note: faciet nobis habere litteras presentationis

"Richard Giffard, clerk, presented to the church of Cosgrove by

Brother Hugh de Alneto, Prior of the Brothers of the Hospital of
Jerusalem in England, enquiry having been made previously by R.,

Archdeacon of Northampton, by which, etc., and Hugh Revel, who had
claimed the right of patronage in the same church, having renounced
the same right in full Chapter before the same Archdeacon, was
admitted and instituted as parson in the same church. And the same
Archdeacon, present, was ordered etc., on condition that the said
clerk should come to the next ordinations to be ordained."

Marginal note: "Get the letters of presentation"

Hugh Revel wasn't the rector, or claiming to be him - he was claiming
to be the patron of the living, ie to own the advowson. He was
probably not a priest but a landowner - advowsons were valuable
properties and many aristocrats and gentry owned them. They liked
particularly to own the advowson of their local church - manor and
advowson often went together - so my guess would be that this is the
Hugh Revel in (1) above, the one who was a landowner in Puxley, next
door to Cosgrove.

Matt Tompkins

[Mike Clifford]

Matt,

Thank you very much. I realise now that BHOL http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22781, quoting Feet of Fines, records in 1221 Hugh Revell son of Robert confirming his father’s gift of the advowson of Cosgrove to the Knights Hospitaller. That must relate to the foregoing.

Mike

[wendy...@gmail.com]

Hi guys

Help me sort out Hugh Revell -
Here in Cosgrove (http://www.cosgrovehistory.co.uk/) we know that Puxley was part of the parish of Cosgrove later on and was always given as part of the living until medieval times.

We don't regard either of the Revells as Rectors at all - we assume that they were just in charge of installing or recommending men sympathetic to them as priests - our first proper recorded priest is Giffard who was sponsored by Hugh Revell.

Any information prior to 1219 gratefully received!

Wendy Page