Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: New Light on Sir Thomas Percy [living 1417], son of Thomas Percy, K.G., Earl of Worcester [died 1403]
60 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Sep 14, 2013, 2:06:22 PM9/14/13
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 2 (1812): 249–253 (sub Duke of Northumberland) includes a good biography of the interesting life of Sir Thomas Percy, K.G., Earl of Worcester, who was executed for treason in 1403. This biography may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t78s4p60m;view=1up;seq=263
The author states the following regarding his marital status and issue:
"He died without issue, having never been married; and left a monument of his greatness in the fine castle at Wressil in Yorkshire, which was built by him, and is now possessed by the Earl of Egremont." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage 12(2) (1959): 838–842 (sub Worcester) says the following:
"He died unmarried (so far is known) and s.p.m.s. legit., aged about 60." END OF QUOTE.
In footnote d on page 842, Complete Peerage says Earl Thomas "appears to have" left illegitimate issue. Here is specifically what is said:
"He appears, however, to have had a (presumably illegitimate) son Thomas, in whose favour a writ issued, 11 August 1403, in respect of 3 horses and other goods and harness of his taken at Calais (Cal. Close Rolls, 1402-05, p. 105). 'Thomas Percy the son' had a life grant of £40 yearly at the Exchequer, 22 Sep. 1401, which was renewed to him as the King's knight, 25 Aug. 1408 and 1 Oct. 1413, being later surrendered and cancelled (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 546; 1405-1408, p. 467; 1413-16, p. 173)." END OF QUOTE.
While Collins says Sir Thomas Percy left no issue, Complete Peerage says he "appears" to have had an illegitimate son, Thomas.
Recently I located a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas which establishes conclusively that Sir Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, in fact had a son, Sir Thomas Percy, Knt., who was living in 1417 at Westminster, Middlesex. Here are the particulars of the lawsuit:
In 1417 John Wynselowe, Citizen and draper of London, sued “Thomas Percy son of Thomas Percy late Earl of Worcester of the City of Westminster in the county of Middlesex knight” in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/624, rot. 82f].
The above lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H5/CP40no624/aCP40no624fronts/IMG_0082.htm).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 2 (1812): 249–253 (sub Duke of Northumberland) includes a good biography of the interesting life of Sir Thomas Percy, K.G., Earl of Worcester, who was executed for treason in 1403. This biography may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t78s4p60m;view=1up;seq=263
The author states the following regarding his marital status and issue:
"He died without issue, having never been married; and left a monument of his greatness in the fine castle at Wressil in Yorkshire, which was built by him, and is now possessed by the Earl of Egremont." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage 12(2) (1959): 838–842 (sub Worcester) says the following:
"He died unmarried (so far is known) and s.p.m.s. legit., aged about 60." END OF QUOTE.
In footnote d on page 842, Complete Peerage says Earl Thomas "appears to have" left illegitimate issue. Here is specifically what is said:
"He appears, however, to have had a (presumably illegitimate) son Thomas, in whose favour a writ issued, 11 August 1403, in respect of 3 horses and other goods and harness of his taken at Calais (Cal. Close Rolls, 1402-05, p. 105). 'Thomas Percy the son' had a life grant of £40 yearly at the Exchequer, 22 Sep. 1401, which was renewed to him as the King's knight, 25 Aug. 1408 and 1 Oct. 1413, being later surrendered and cancelled (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 546; 1405-1408, p. 467; 1413-16, p. 173)." END OF QUOTE.
While Collins says Sir Thomas Percy left no issue, Complete Peerage says he "appears" to have had an illegitimate son, Thomas.
Recently I located a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas which establishes conclusively that Sir Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, in fact had a son, Sir Thomas Percy, Knt., who was living in 1417 at Westminster, Middlesex. Here are the particulars of the lawsuit:
In 1417 John Wynselowe, Citizen and draper of London, sued “Thomas Percy son of Thomas Percy late Earl of Worcester of the City of Westminster in the county of Middlesex knight” in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/624, rot. 82f].
The above lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H5/CP40no624/aCP40no624fronts/IMG_0082.htm).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Matt A
Sep 14, 2013, 2:51:08 PM9/14/13
to
-Matt Ahlgren
Matt Tompkins
Sep 14, 2013, 3:28:08 PM9/14/13
to
> On Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:06:22 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
<snip>
> > Recently I located a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas which establishes conclusively that Sir Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, in fact had a son, Sir Thomas Percy, Knt., who was living in 1417 at Westminster, Middlesex. Here are the particulars of the lawsuit:
>
> > In 1417 John Wynselowe, Citizen and draper of London, sued “Thomas Percy son of Thomas Percy late Earl of Worcester of the City of Westminster in the county of Middlesex knight” in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/624, rot. 82f].
>
>
> > In 1417 John Wynselowe, Citizen and draper of London, sued “Thomas Percy son of Thomas Percy late Earl of Worcester of the City of Westminster in the county of Middlesex knight” in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/624, rot. 82f].
>
> > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H5/CP40no624/aCP40no624fronts/IMG_0082.htm).
>
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 19:51:08 UTC+1, Matt A wrote:
> Did you interpret the word 'knight' at the end of that sentence to refer to the son Thomas Percy? From legal language that I have seen from about this time period, it would seem that grammatically speaking, 'knight' refers still to the elder Thomas rather than referring back to the younger Thomas.
>
> -Matt Ahlgren
Since the enactment of the Statute of Additions in 1413 defendants had to be identified by their residence and status or occupation, so 'of the City of Westminster in the county of Middlesex, knight' must have applied to the defendant, the son Thomas Percy.
>
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 19:51:08 UTC+1, Matt A wrote:
> Did you interpret the word 'knight' at the end of that sentence to refer to the son Thomas Percy? From legal language that I have seen from about this time period, it would seem that grammatically speaking, 'knight' refers still to the elder Thomas rather than referring back to the younger Thomas.
>
> -Matt Ahlgren
Matt Tompkins
Douglas Richardson
Sep 14, 2013, 3:48:49 PM9/14/13
to
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:28:08 PM UTC-6, Matt Tompkins wrote:
< Since the enactment of the Statute of Additions in 1413 defendants had to be <identified by their residence and status or occupation, so 'of the City of <Westminster in the county of Middlesex, knight' must have applied to the <defendant, the son Thomas Percy.
> Matt Tompkins
I agree with Matt, er ... I mean Matt Tompkins.
< Since the enactment of the Statute of Additions in 1413 defendants had to be <identified by their residence and status or occupation, so 'of the City of <Westminster in the county of Middlesex, knight' must have applied to the <defendant, the son Thomas Percy.
> Matt Tompkins
The reason why I say that is that we know that the defendant in this lawsuit was a king's knight. If so, the lawsuit should have indicated that he was knighted. The word knight does not occur in the lawsuit except immediately following the statement of residence. Thus it was the defendant who resided at Westminster, not his father the earl.
Thanks to both Matt's for their comments. Much appreciated.
DR
0 new messages