Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry
Douglas Richardson
According to Blomfield's Norfolk (vol. x, pg. 265), Hubert de Burgh,
Earl of Kent, was the son of 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 coheiress of Fulk
d'Oyry, lord of Gedney).
In support of this statement, we may note that Geoffrey de Burgh,
Bishop of Ely, brother of Earl Hubert de Burgh, was styled "nepos" of
Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de Nerford, daughter and heiress of
John Pouchard, son of Sir William Pouchard in the foundation history of
Creake Abbey [Reference: A.L. Bedingfield, ed., A Cartulary of Creake
Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35) (1966): 1-2]. However, since the word
"nepos" in this time period can mean near male kinsman just as easily
as it does nephew, further evidence is needed before the correct
meaning of the word can be established.
The answer to this question is found in Curia Regis Rolls, 6 (1932):
199-200, which covers a lawsuit dated Hilary Term, 13 John [1212],
between Philip Gulafre plaintiff and Richard de Belhouse and Maud his
wife regarding two carucates of land with appurtenances in Tuddenham,
Norfolk. According to the lawsuit, Richard de Belhouse for himself and
his wife defended their right to the property, stating that it was
Maud's share of the inheritance of her father, John "Poucard." Richard
further stated that his wife, Maud, had a sister, Alice, wife of Robert
de Nerford, who had other land ["aliam terrum"] as her share of the
inheritance. Philip Gulafre by his attorney said that after the lands
of John Poucard were parted between his daughters, that Ita, their
mother, held the land in dower. After her death, Robert Tregoz who
held the fee of the lord king seised the property in his hand.
As we see above, John Pouchard and his wife, Itta, had two daughters
and co-heiresses, Maud, wife of Richard de Belhouse, and Alice, wife of
Robert de Nerford. No mention is made of a third daughter and
co-heiress. As such, it would appear the Blomfield incorrectly stated
that there was a third co-heiresss, Joan, who married Reyner de Burgh.
Who then was Reyner de Burgh and his wife, Joan? It appears that
Blomfield latched onto a Burgh couple who lived in Earl Hubert de
Burgh's own time and turned them into Earl Hubert's parents. The
Genealogist n.s. vol. 10 gives a pedigree from the Plea Rolls dated
Hilary term 8 Edward III [1335]. This lawsuit sets forth the
descendants of Fulk d'Oyry, lord of Gedney, Lincolnshire, who was
stated to be living in the time of King Henry III. According to the
pedigree, Fulk de Oyry had three daughters and co-heiresses, Alice,
Ela, and Emytine, all of whom had issue. The daughter, Alice, in turn
had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, who was
living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251]. Joan de Burgh's representative in
1335 is further identified as her grandson, Robert Burgilioun [sic].
Elsewhere, I find that the individual who heads the pedigree, Fulk
d'Oyry, was living in 1227, and that his co-heirs in 1281 were Walter
le Burgyllon (then a minor), Peter de Goushill, and Simon le Constable
[see the online resource, Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516:
Lincolnshire, at the following weblink:
http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/lincs.html#Hol]. Thus, it would
appear that Earl Hubert de Burgh had no connection whatsoever with the
family of Fulk de Oyry, of Gedney, Lincolnshire, as alleged by
Blomfield.
Given the above information, it appears that Earl Hubert de Burgh and
his brother, Bishop Godfrey, were near kinsmen but not nephews to Alice
Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de Nerford. Earl Hubert surely knew Alice
Pouchard well, however, as I show she held the manor of Wreningham,
Norfolk in 1232-1233 of the honour of Wormegay [Reference; Book of
Fees, 2 (1923): 1466]. The honour of Wormegay was then in the
possession of Earl Hubert de Burgh, by curtesy of England, he having
previously married the heiress of the honour, Beatrice de Warenne, as
his first wife.
Elsewhere, it has been stated that Earl Hubert de Burgh gave the
advowson of Oulton, Norfolk to Walsingham for the soul of Alice his
mother who was buried in Walsingham church [Reference: Complete
Peerage, 7 (1929): 133, footnote a]. I believe I have seen in
Blomfield a competing statement that it was Earl Hubert de Burgh's
wife, Alice (not his mother), who was buried at Walsingham. That Alice
was Earl Hubert's mother, not his wife, is proven by an article in
English Historical Review, 19 (1904): 707-711, which cites a passage
in Dunstable Annals (Ann. Mon. iii. 28), which refers to Hubert de
Burgh's 2nd and 3rd wives:
"Super divortio vero tertiae uxoris suae, scilicet filiae regis
Scotiae, conventus, super eo quod erat consanguinea secundae uxoris
suae, scilicet comitissae Gloverniae," etc.
Here we are informed by Dunstable Annals that Earl Hubert de Burgh's
2nd wife, [Isabel], Countess of Gloucester, was near kin to his 3rd
wife, [Margaret], the daughter of the King of Scotland. A similar
statement is apparently made in Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. vi,
pg. 71, which source is cited by Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 691,
footnote h (sub Gloucester). Although Hubert de Burgh denied
knowledge of their kinship, the two women were in fact closely related
in the 3rd degree of kinship (that is, second cousins) by virtue of
common descent from Isabel de Vermandois.
Inasmuch as we have a full record of Earl Hubert de Burgh's three
wives, Beatrice de Warenne, Isabel of Gloucester, and Margaret of
Scotland, the last of whom survived him, that leaves no place for
another wife, Alice. Consequently, it would appear that the Alice
buried at Walsingham, Norfolk was his mother as stated in the
Walsingham Cartulary.
Given the gross misstatements of Blomfield in the matter of the
parentage and ancestry of Earl Hubert de Burgh, this should give us all
pause before accepting statements of such antiquarians at face value
without checking the accuracy of their words.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< According to the pedigree, Fulk de Oyry had three daughters and
co-heiresses, Alice, Ela, and Emytine, all of whom had issue. The daughter, Alice, in
turn had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de
Burgh, who was living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251]. Joan de Burgh's
representative in 1335 is further identified as her grandson, Robert Burgilioun [sic].
Elsewhere, I find that the individual who heads the pedigree, Fulk d'Oyry,
was living in 1227, and that his co-heirs in 1281 were Walter
le Burgyllon (then a minor), Peter de Goushill, and Simon le
Constable [see the online resource, Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516:
Lincolnshire, at the following weblink:
http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/lincs.html#Hol]. Thus, it would appear
that Earl Hubert de Burgh had no connection whatsoever with the family of Fulk
de Oyry, of Gedney, Lincolnshire, as alleged by Blomfield. >>
Given the name Ela d''Oyry and the fact that in 1281 one of the co-heirs was
Piers (Peter) de Goushill of Lincolnshire who married Ela de Camoys, this
should tell us something about Ela de Camoys ancestry shouldn't it?
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
> Who then was Reyner de Burgh and his wife, Joan? It appears that
> Blomfield latched onto a Burgh couple who lived in Earl Hubert de
> Burgh's own time and turned them into Earl Hubert's parents. The
> Genealogist n.s. vol. 10 gives a pedigree from the Plea Rolls dated
> Hilary term 8 Edward III [1335]. This lawsuit sets forth the
> descendants of Fulk d'Oyry, lord of Gedney, Lincolnshire, who was
> stated to be living in the time of King Henry III. According to the
> pedigree, Fulk de Oyry had three daughters and co-heiresses, Alice,
> Ela, and Emytine, all of whom had issue. The daughter, Alice, in turn
> had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, who was
> living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251]. Joan de Burgh's representative in
> 1335 is further identified as her grandson, Robert Burgilioun [sic].
> Elsewhere, I find that the individual who heads the pedigree, Fulk
> d'Oyry, was living in 1227, and that his co-heirs in 1281 were Walter
> le Burgyllon (then a minor), Peter de Goushill, and Simon le Constable
> [see the online resource, Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516:
> Lincolnshire, at the following weblink:
> http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/lincs.html#Hol].
FWIW, a second pedigree derived from De Banco, Easter, 7 Edw III, gives
the third daughter as "Emecina", while the de Burgo heir appears as
"Robert le Burguyllon".
The plea you summarize (at least as it appears in Lincs N&Q) is clearly
flawed. The De Banco pedigree (correctly) gives the heir of the Goushill
line as Margaret Goushill (b. 1294), who had married Philip le
Despencer, while in your 8 Ed III Coram Rege, the king is said to be
suing as guardian of _Margaret's father_, "Ralph (under age, and in ward
to the King)". This is just plain wrong. Even Margaret's son Philip
would have achieved his majority by 1335 (barely, but then Margaret was
still living, so he would not have been vested with the claim anyhow).
It is unclear for what minor Rex was acting as guardian, but it wasn't
her father Walter de Goushill.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Given the name Ela d''Oyry and the fact that in 1281 one of the co-heirs was
> Piers (Peter) de Goushill of Lincolnshire who married Ela de Camoys, this
> should tell us something about Ela de Camoys ancestry shouldn't it?
????? should it? How so? (Piers was son of Giles, son of Emecina
d'Oyry, sister of Ela.)
taf
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/6/2006 6:22:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:
The daughter, Alice, in turn
had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, who was
living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251].
Are you saying here that Reyner de Burgh was living in 35 Henry III ?
If so, then I find it remarkable that a historian or antiquarian would
attempt to say that Reyner was the father of a man who was surely long dead
already, and after a long career.
How Reyner could be thrust backward two centuries without serious harm is
beyond me.
Perhaps Reyner and Joan really are the parents of *some* Hubert, just not
*the* Hubert?
Otherwise I cannot see how anyone could make such an outrageous mistake.
Perhaps there is more than one Alice Pouchard? The whole thing has now
achieved a new high-water mark for confusion.
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 1/6/2006 6:22:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> royala...@msn.com writes:
>
> The daughter, Alice, in turn
> had three daughters, among them Joan, wife of Reyner de Burgh, who was
> living in 35 Henry III [1250-1251].
>
>
> Are you saying here that Reyner de Burgh was living in 35 Henry III ?
That is the indication of the two plea roll pedigrees. They relate to a
dispute over the presentation to Gedney. One of the pedigrees can be
interpreted as indicating that 35 Henry III is the date that Reyner's
sister-in-law Alice enfeoffed her share to Roger de Thurkelby, but I
suspect that this is just an artifact of the compressed syntax, that it
is simply indicating that Roger (and also the others) was living in that
date, presumably that of a prior presentation.
In full (fixed-font, with minor adjustments to better fit screen-width):
De Banco. Easter. 7. E. 3. m. 77.
Lincoln - James de Ros sued the Abbot of Croyland for the advowson of
the church of Gedeneye. The pleadings give this pedigree:
Fulk de Oyry, temp. Hen. 3
_____________|_________________________________
Alice Ela Emecina
______________________|____________________ | |
Joan=Reyner de Ela=Hervey de Alice, who William le Giles de
Burgo. 35 Stanhowe, enfeoffed Constable, Gousille,
Hen. 3 35 Hen. 3 Roger de 35 Hen. 3 35 Hen. 3
| who enfe- Thurkelby | |
William offed the of her pur- Simon, who Peter
| Abbot party enfeoffed |
Robert le Burguyllon Robert de Ralph
Ros, father |
of James the Ralph
plaintiff |
Margaret
=Philip le
Despencer
Coram Rege. Hillary. 8. E. 3. m. 24. Rex.
Linc. - The King sued James de Ros for the next presentation to the
church of Gedeneye which he claimed as guardian of Ralph de Goushill.
The pleadings give this pedigree.
Fulk de Oery, temp. Hen. 3
_____________|___________________________________
Alice Ela Emytine
____________________|_______________ | |
Joan Ela Alice, enfeoffed William le Constable Giles de
=Reyner =Hervey de Roger de Thur- 35 H. 3 Goushill,
de Burgo Stanhowe, kelby, 35 H. 3 | 35 H. 3
35 H. 3 35 H. 3 who enfeoffed Simon, who enfeoffed |
| the Abbot of Robert de Ros and Peter
William Croyland Erneburga his wife |
| | Ralph
Robert Burgilioun James de Ros, |
the defendant Ralph, underage,
and in ward to
the King
And a related suit:
De Banco. Mich. 7. E. 3. m. 222.
Linc. - William de Calthorp Chivaler, sued the Abbot of Croyland for
one-third of the manor of Gedeneye,
Ela=Hervey de Stanhowe, lord of Stanhowe & Berewyk Co. Norfolk
|
John
|
Ela=Walter de Calthorp
|
William the plaintiff, and see suit of Easter 7 E 3
(this William was also plaintiff in a Mich. 19 Edw. 2 De Banco suit
regarding Berewyk, Beremere, and Stanhowe giving the same pedigree,
minus the first Ela)
taf
Chris Phillips
> Perhaps Reyner and Joan really are the parents of *some* Hubert, just not
> *the* Hubert?
> Otherwise I cannot see how anyone could make such an outrageous mistake.
>
> Perhaps there is more than one Alice Pouchard? The whole thing has now
> achieved a new high-water mark for confusion.
Frankly, I think the moral of this episode is simply that we should be
sceptical about statements in secondary sources unless they can be confirmed
by contemporary evidence, and that speculation should be firmly reined in
unless there is a solid basis for it.
No evidence has been supplied to indicate that Reyner was father of Hubert,
or of _any_ Hubert. Such evidence as there is seems to point to Hubert being
associated with a different Burgh entirely. Presumably Blomefield assumed
that "nepos" in the Creake narrative meant "nephew", and made Alice the aunt
of Hubert on that basis.
Apparently we can conclude much the same as is stated in the Complete
Peerage accounts - that Hubert was a brother of William de Burgh (apparently
a younger brother), that Hubert's mother was named Alice, that his brother
was related in some way to Alice Pouchard/Punchard, and that there are
certain possibilities as to his parentage - one of which, involving Reyner,
can now be ruled out.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/7/2006 9:52:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Presumably Blomefield assumed
that "nepos" in the Creake narrative meant "nephew", and made Alice the aunt
of Hubert on that basis.
Is not one Alice of a different generation from the other Alice?
Will Johnson
Chris Phillips
> Is not one Alice of a different generation from the other Alice?
I don't think we know, as one of them is Hubert's mother, and Hubert's
brother is described as "nepos" of the other. If "nepos" meant nephew, they
would be of the same generation, but apparently it doesn't (unless some kind
of half-sibling relationship is involved).
As far as I can see, there's no reason to think the kinship with Alice
Pouchard/Punchard arose through Hubert's mother Alice.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/7/2006 1:37:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I don't think we know, as one of them is Hubert's mother, and Hubert's
brother is described as "nepos" of the other. If "nepos" meant nephew,
But aren't you missing the information that the father was supposed to be
active during the reign of Henry III ? That's quite some time later then
Hubert.
Chris Phillips
> But aren't you missing the information that the father was supposed to be
> active during the reign of Henry III ? That's quite some time later then
> Hubert.
I'm assuming that Blomefield's assertion that Reyner was Hubert's father is
incorrect. As Hubert's brother was active by the 1180s, I think it's safe to
rule out his father still being alive by 1250-1.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/8/2006 1:07:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I'm assuming that Blomefield's assertion that Reyner was Hubert's father is
incorrect. As Hubert's brother was active by the 1180s, I think it's safe to
rule out his father still being alive by 1250-1.
And this still leaves us with two seperate Alice Pouchard's.
Chris Phillips
> And this still leaves us with two seperate Alice Pouchard's.
As far as I can see, there is only one Alice Pouchard/Punchard, who appears
in the Creake cartulary. She appears to be related somehow to Hubert's
brother, who is called her 'nepos'.
And then there is Hubert's mother Alice. In Blomefield's version, Hubert's
mother was Joan Punchard. But that seems to be incorrect - based on the
assumption that "nepos" meant "nephew". If that's not the case, there's no
reason to think Hubert's mother was a Pouchard/Punchard. She may or may not
have been related somehow to Alice Pouchard/Punchard.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:07:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
As far as I can see, there is only one Alice Pouchard/Punchard, who appears
in the Creake cartulary. She appears to be related somehow to Hubert's
brother, who is called her 'nepos'.
And then there is Hubert's mother Alice. In Blomefield's version, Hubert's
mother was Joan Punchard.
But see you're still missing one. That is the one described in the lawsuit.
Who, in my opinion, cannot be the same Alice.
WJho...@aol.com
Alice de Burgh is who I meant. Not Alice Pouchard
WJho...@aol.com
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux)
Hawise, countess of Aumale (d. 1214), granted Fulk d'Oyry free warren in
Dunnington, (fn. 66) and in 1223 he had 2 carucates there. (fn. 67) The estate
evidently passed to Sir Geoffrey d'Oyry and then to Fulk's grandson Sir William
Constable and his successors. (fn. 68) In 1282 William's son Sir Simon
Constable settled DUNNINGTON manor on his son Robert and his wife, (fn. 69) and
their son Sir John (d. 1349) held a house and ½ carucate there of the
Hospitallers by knight service. (fn. 70) In 1542 the estate apparently included eight
houses. (fn. 71) Sir John Constable sold land at Dunnington to George
Creswell in 1566, and it presumably descended with the rest of Cresswell's estate
there. (fn. 72)
From: 'North division: Beeford', A History of the County of York East
Riding: Volume 7: Holderness Wapentake, Middle and North Divisions (2002), pp.
223-45. URL:
_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux_ (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux)
. Date accessed: 08 January 2006.
66 R.D.B., 281/194/163; 1651/271/216.
67 Datestone (weathered) on bridge (transcribed at E.R.A.O., PE/114/7);
E.R.A.O., Bridges reg. 2, bridge 108.
68 H.U.L., DWB/1/3; E.R.A.O., Bridges reg. 2, bridge 109; dates on bridges;
O.S. Map 1/10,560, TA 15 NW. (1956 edn.).
69 Brid. Chart. 163; Chron. de Melsa, i. 225.
70 R.D.B., AN/391/27; E.R.A.O., DDX/674.
71 R.D.B., AK/57/6.
72 Directories.
From: 'North division: Beeford', A History of the County of York East
Riding: Volume 7: Holderness Wapentake, Middle and North Divisions (2002), pp.
223-45. URL:
_http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux_ (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16148&strquery=Meaux)
. Date accessed: 08 January 2006.
WJho...@aol.com
relationships mentioned in this thread so far.
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/111 - DDCC/135]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s): Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton,
Swine, East Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
Papers relating to VARIOUS DEEDS - ref. DDCC/135
FILE - "Records and Deeds mentioned in the large Pedigree of the
Constables" - ref. DDCC/135/51 - date: c. 1700
[from Scope and Content] 19 Gift: William the Constable to Hugh son of
Geoffrey de Oyry for life property all lands in Lutham which he inherited from his
uncle Geoffrey Oyri and which Dame Ida le Oyri held in dower on death of G.
her husband Witn. Sir Robert de Rye, Sir Giles de Gowsell, Sir Peter his
brother, Sir Fulk the Constable, "Lave", Gilbert de Cheyle, William de
Trig'gillm., Thomas the physician ("medico"), Thomas de Westm', John son of Bernard,
Roger de Geyt, Geoffrey de Oyri, William de Oyri, Robert de Rigsted.
WJho...@aol.com
to offer to the date other than "pre-1230" which is a little vague.
Will Johnson
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s):
Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine, East
Riding of Yorkshire
RENTALS AND SURVEYS - ref. DDCC/141
FILE - "SURVEY OF SIR J. CONSTABL ESTATE IN HOLDER. 1575 & COPIES OF
DEEDS OF HALSHAM" - ref. DDCC/141/68 - date: 14th century - 1578
[Access Conditions] Returned
item: Quitclaim - ref. DDCC/141/68/p21/a - date: pre-1230
[from Scope and Content] Stephen of Halsam to Lady Ela of Hausam property
Robert Lende and his family Witn. Sir Fulk of Oyry, William Pasmer and his son
Stephen then bailiff of Earl Samson of Bracel', Luke of Hedon.
Chris Phillips
> I think I mispoke....
> Alice de Burgh is who I meant. Not Alice Pouchard
I can see there is another Alice in Douglas Richardson's post - a daughter
of Fulk d'Oiry, who is also the mother-in-law of Reyner de Burgh. But I'm
assuming that Blomefield was incorrect in making these people the ancestors
of Hubert. He made this Alice a Pouchard by marriage, as a result of his
shoehorning the two families together - in turn a result of his assumption
that "nepos" means "nephew". But it seems that was an error, and I think
this other Alice is out of the picture.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:52:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I can see there is another Alice in Douglas Richardson's post - a daughter
of Fulk d'Oiry, who is also the mother-in-law of Reyner de Burgh. But I'm
assuming that Blomefield was incorrect in making these people the ancestors
of Hubert. He made this Alice a Pouchard by marriage, as a result of his
shoehorning the two families together - in turn a result of his assumption
that "nepos" means "nephew". But it seems that was an error, and I think
this other Alice is out of the picture.
No one, me included, is arguing that Blomefield was correct. However I
think the situation is a little more complex than you are describing. I need to
go back through and collect more primary documents, but I have a feeling
these three Alice's are all related... to each other. It's just a hunch right
now. Unless someone has some specifics that could solve it all.
Will
Chris Phillips
> No one, me included, is arguing that Blomefield was correct. However I
> think the situation is a little more complex than you are describing. I
need to
> go back through and collect more primary documents, but I have a feeling
> these three Alice's are all related... to each other. It's just a hunch
right
> now. Unless someone has some specifics that could solve it all.
Presumably there's a 50-50 chance that Hubert's mother Alice is related
_somehow_ to Alice Pouchard/Punchard - assuming he was a full brother of
Geoffrey, the "nepos" of the latter Alice.
But I'd be more sceptical about fitting Alice the mother-in-law of Reyner de
Burgh into the picture. It looks to me as though Blomefield thought along
these lines: (1) For some reason he thought Hubert was son of Reyner de
Burgh; (2) He knew Reyner's wife was a daughter of Alice, the daughter of
Fulk d'Oiry; (3) He knew Hubert's brother Geoffrey was "nepos" of Alice the
daughter of John Pouchard/Punchard. Therefore, assuming "nepos" meant
"nephew", he deduced that Reyner's wife must also have been a daughter of
John Pouchard/Punchard, so her mother Alice the daughter of Fulk d'Oiry must
have been John's wife.
Given that (1) is incorrect, I don't see any reason to think that Reyner de
Burgh's mother-in-law Alice is related to the other Alices - Hubert de
Burgh's mother and Geoffrey de Burgh's female blood relation (presumably).
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
(1) For some reason he thought Hubert was son of Reyner de
Burgh;
The problem being the people he was talking about lived at least a century
apart. That doesn't strike you as odd? That a historian would put together
people so far apart as one family? It stikes me as odd, and tells me that
perhaps something else more complex is going on here.
WJho...@aol.com
This document is a little confusing. At first it seemed to me that
Geoffrey, the father of Hugh was the same as Geoffrey the uncle of William. But now
I'm not so sure. It appears that William inherited from his uncle Geoffrey,
but than we see a Geoffrey de Oyri as a witness to this document. So now I'm
thinking that there were two Geoffrey's. Does everyone agree with that?
Will Johnson
In a message dated 1/8/2006 11:44:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
WJho...@aol.com writes:
East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
Family [DDCC/111 - DDCC/135]
Records of the Chichester-Constable family
Catalogue Ref. DDCC
Creator(s): Chichester-Constable family of Burton Constable, West Newton,
Swine, East Riding of Yorkshire
Constable, Chichester-, family of Burton Constable, West Newton, Swine,
East
Riding of Yorkshire
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> This document is a little confusing. At first it seemed to me that
> Geoffrey, the father of Hugh was the same as Geoffrey the uncle of William. But now
> I'm not so sure. It appears that William inherited from his uncle Geoffrey,
> but than we see a Geoffrey de Oyri as a witness to this document. So now I'm
> thinking that there were two Geoffrey's. Does everyone agree with that?
There were clearly at least two - the deceased and the witness. It is
still possible that Hugh was son of the uncle, but only if illegitimate.
taf
Douglas Richardson
In an earlier post, we determined that Earl Hubert de Burgh (died 1243)
was kinsman (not nephew) of Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
Nerford, and daughter and co-heiress of John Pouchard, of Tuddenham,
Norfolk, by his wife, Itta.
Besides Tuddenham and Brunham, Norfolk, it appear that Wreningham,
Norfolk was another Pouchard family property. I find that Lady Alice
(Pouchard) de Nerford gave a 1/2 share in the advowson of that place to
Creake Abbey in the period, 1225-1230 [Reference: Bedingfield, ed., A
Cartulary of Creake Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35) (1966): 4].
Presumably the other half share of the advowson was inherited by
Alice's sister, Maud (Pouchard) de Belhouse. The source, Book of Fees,
shows that Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford held 1 knight's fee in
Wreningham, Norfolk in 1232-1233, and that her son, Richard de Nerford,
held 1/2 knight's fee in this place in 1242-1243 [Reference: Book of
Fees, 2 (1923): 905, 1466]. Both Alice Pouchard and her son, Sir
Richard de Nerford, held Wreningham under the honour of Wormegay, which
was held in this time period by Earl Hubert de Burgh in right of his
1st wife, Beatrice de Warenne.
Interestingly, there is a rather complete record of later Norfolk
manorial lords dated 1316, which was published in 1952 in Norfolk
Archaeology, vol. 30. This list shows the following major land owners
at Wreningham (with Nayland), Norfolk in 1316 to be:
Sir John de Thorp
Prior of Wymundham
Richard de Belhous
Emma de la Penne
Abbot of Crek
Presumably the Abbot of Creake obtained his interest in Wreningham,
Norfolk by gift from Lady Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford. As we can see,
the Nerford interest in Wreningham has seemingly disappeared by 1316.
The interest of Alice Pouchard's sister and co-heiress, Maud de
Belhouse, in Wreningham is presumably represented in 1316 by a certain
Richard de Belhous.
Elsewhere, I find that Sir John de Burgh (son and heir of Earl Hubert
de Burgh) enfeoffed a Thomas de Belhouse and his wife, Floria, with the
manor of Stanway, Essex in 1273-1274. I assume that Thomas de Belhouse
was related somehow to Maud (Pouchard) de Belhouse, sister of Lady
Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford. My files indicate that this Thomas de
Belhouse, of Stanway, Essex, is the lineal ancestor of at least three
17th Century New World colonists listed below.
1. William Clopton.
2. Thomas Culpeper.
3. Elizabeth & John Harleston.
Todd A. Farmerie
> As is this one. It's interesting that the archivist evidently had no clue
> to offer to the date other than "pre-1230" which is a little vague.
> Will Johnson
>
>
> East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service: Chichester-Constable
> Family [DDCC/136 - DDCC2/G]
>
> Records of the Chichester-Constable family
>
"Records and Deeds mentioned in the large Pedigree of the Constables"
- ref. DDCC/135/51 - date: c. 1700
hit[from Scope and Content] 14 Memorandum of adoption by Simon le
Constable son of William, and grandchild and heir of Adela de Ory of the
Oiry arms (barry or and azure) in place of those of his ancestors (or a
fess chequy argent and azure, in chief a lion passant gules).
hit[from Scope and Content] 11 Gift: Fulk de Oiri to Robert the
Constable in marriage with his daughter Ela property ½ carucate in
Newton which Robert the Constable (uncle of the said Robert) gave to
Walter de Tharet Witn. Adam de Torno, John de Melsa, Simon de Sketling,
William Passemer, John de Humbleton, Walter de Weton, William de
Holbechia, William de Welsonia, Robert de Glocestre, William de.
"SURVEY OF SIR J. CONSTABL ESTATE IN HOLDER. 1575 & COPIES OF DEEDS OF
HALSHAM" - ref. DDCC/141/68 - date: 14th century - 1578
[Access Conditions] Returned
item: Gift in free dower - ref. DDCC/141/68/p22/a - date: c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Robert son of William Constable to
his wife Ela daughter of Fulk de Oiri property the whole town of Hausam,
also Tarlestorp and Grosse with all appurtenances for as long as Hawise
of Blossevill lives. And if the premises are not equal to a third of his
fee, then she shall profit from a third of his other lands. Witn.
Jordan, abbot of "Horent'" (Thornton Curtis, Lincs.?) Torrington) Gamel
the chaplain, John Belet, Ralph son of Gilly ("Eillon'") of Gousia
(Goxhill), Hugh of Bereford, William Salvain, Peter his brother, John
the clerk of Humbleton, William of Walsoke, Walter of Witon, Herbert of
Flinton, William del Fur', Peter and Jake the clerks, William le Fol,
Robert of Gloucester, William of Cadena', Richard "racun Golding", W. of
Holebec.
item: Demise - ref. DDCC/141/68/p29/b - date: n.d. (c.1201)
hit[from Scope and Content] Hawise of Blossevill daughter of
Jordan of Blossevill to Fulk of Oiri, his heirs and assigns property all
her desmesne of Halsham Nor her life, rendering 10 marks of silver
yearly in the octave of St. Martin in Winter to her or her messenger at
Torenton (Thornton Curtis, Lincs.?) who carries her letters patent to Fulk.
item: Grant - ref. DDCC/141/68/p43/a - date: c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Fulk of Oiri to Robert the
Constable, with Fulk's daughter Ela in marriage and his heirs by her
property ½ carucate in Neuton (Constable) with its totfs and
appurtenances which Robert the Constable, uncle of the said Robert, gave
to Walter of Thanet.
Papers relating to PAULL - ref. DDCC/74
FILE - Quitclaim for £10 - ref. DDCC/74/1 - date: c1210
hit[from Scope and Content] Isabel daughter of Pain of Holm and
of Matilda daughter of Robert de Pagla, to Fulk de Oiri property: all
her land in Holm to be held of her maternal aunt Alice daughter of
Robert de Pagla. Witn. Adam de Thorne, John de Beverley, Saer de Sunt'
(Sutton?), Adam de Preston, Hugh de Halsam, Peter de Spin(etc?), Robert
de Witona, Peter Grimbald, Ranulf the Sheriff, William Passemer, Thomas
the clerk. William de Walsoken.
Papers relating to WEST NEWTON - ref. DDCC/103
FILE - Quitclaim for £5 marks of silver - ref. DDCC/103/1 - date:
c.1200
hit[from Scope and Content] Adam de Melsa to Fulk de Oiri
property: ½ carucate in Neuton which Adam bought from Walter Thanet to
be held from Robert the Constable and his heirs. Rendering a pound of
cummin yearly for all services and doing forinsec service for ½ carucate
where 8 carucates make a knight's fee.
hit[from Scope and Content] Witn. Walter de Faukenbergia. Adam de
Thorna, Simon de Soeftling, Adam de Prestun, John de Harpeham, William
de Areines, Seier de Sutthona, Robert de Witun, Richard de Hesint'
clerk, Simon de Wainfled, Robert de Gloucestre, Hugh de Oiri, Ranulf the
clerk, Adam son of Alan, Peter Grimbaud, Richard Buch, Matthew de
Houstwic. Endorsed BXIX.
FILE - Gift - ref. DDCC/103/2 - date: c.1210
hit[from Scope and Content] Fulk de Oiri to Robert the Constable
with his daughter Ela in marriage and his heirs by her property: ½
carucate in Neuton which Robert the Constable, uncle of the said Robert,
gave to Walter de Thanet With reversion to Fulk. Rendering one pound of
cummin yearly for all services. With Adam de Torna, John de Melda, Simon
de Skeflinge, Ranulf the sheriff, William Passemer, John de Humbelton,
Walter de Witon, (William?) de Holbechia, Gilbert de Walsoken, Robert de
Gloucesteria, William de Furnis.
hit[from Scope and Content] Seal, a classical head, helmeted, in
profile to the right, "SIGILLUM FULCONIS DE OIRI".
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In an earlier post, we determined that Earl Hubert de Burgh (died 1243)
> was kinsman (not nephew) of Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
> Nerford, and daughter and co-heiress of John Pouchard, of Tuddenham,
> Norfolk, by his wife, Itta.
To the Newsgroup:
In which of the earlier posts did we establish that Hubert de Burgh was
a kinsman of Alice Pouchard?
Richardson should point out specifically which post did establish the
relationship (some relationship of any kind). He seems now to be
trying to do by the side door what he found that he could not do by the
front door with his post of O2 January - that is to reinterpret the
many posts on this subject to say what we refused to let him say with a
so-salled "ancient" document.
Why is Richardson so determined to create a relationship between Hubert
de Burgh and the Pouchard family? He should at least let us know his
motive.
CED
Chris Phillips
I wrote:
> (1) For some reason he thought Hubert was son of Reyner de
> Burgh;
Will Johnson replied:
> The problem being the people he was talking about lived at least a century
> apart. That doesn't strike you as odd? That a historian would put
together
> people so far apart as one family? It stikes me as odd, and tells me
that
> perhaps something else more complex is going on here.
I don't think the discrepancy is anything like a century - couldn't Hubert's
parents have survived well into the 1200s, if they lived to a ripe age?
I can't really imagine what sort of more complex relationship could have
provoked Blomefield's error. It seems more likely that he simply didn't have
firm dates for Reyner (and/or Hubert).
I suppose it's possible that Blomefield had seen a record involving an
earlier Reyner, but that would still leave the younger Reyner's
mother-in-law out of the picture.
Chris Phillips
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Catalogue
> (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). The first charter dated
> c.1100
> involves the gift of a tenement at Stow Bardolph, Norfolk by Philip de
> Burgh
> to Carrow Priory, which gift was made for the soul of William son of
> Reynold
> de Warenne. The second charter dated c. 1150 was issued by William son
> of
> Reynold de Warenne. My research indicates that William son of Reynold
> de
> Warenne, of Wormegay, occurs as an adult between 1180-1208 [Reference:
> C.T.
> Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters, 8 (1949): 32-33]. As such, I believe
> both
> of these charters are badly misdated in the A2A Catalogue. At present,
> the
> identity of Philip de Burgh is unknown.
>
> These charters are significant due to the fact that Earl Hubert de
> Burgh is
> known to have married as his first wife, Beatrice de Warenne, daughter
> and
> heiress of William son of Reynold de Warenne, of Wormegay. We know
> that
> Earl Hubert de Burgh's kinswoman, Alice Pouchard,
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson repeats his assertion that Alice Pouchard was a kinswoman of
Hubert de Burgh. What is his evidence for that assertion? ( That
foundation history will not do.) Repetition does not make it so.
So long as he maintains that which he asserts without proof, the rest
of what he says means nothing.
He should realize that for the dozen or so vills called Burgh in East
Anglia, there are probably a dozen or more families being called 'of
Burgh,' most of whom were of such minor status as to leave no record.
Something similar to Smith when true hereditary surnames came to be
used.
Richardson should also realize that we have a complete record of Hubert
de Burgh's holdings at his fall in 1232. Unless he can prove that that
list is incomplete, to search for holdings of his son as evidence of
Hubert's ancestry would appear to be futile.
CED
>was a tenant of the
> honour
> of Wormegay, held by the Warenne family. Were members of the Burgh
> family
> also tenants of the Warenne family?
>
> Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 4 (1823): 68, discusses the history of
> Carrow Priory and states that Reynold de Warenne and Alice his wife
> gave the
> advowson of Stow Bardolph, Norfolk to the priory. This couple were the
>
> parents of William son of Reynold de Warenne, of Wormegay, who occurs
> 1180-1208. Dugdale states that William de Warenne confirmed the gift
> of the
> Stow Bardolph advowson about A.D. 1273 [sic]. William de Warenne also
> gave
> to the monastery a messuage and 40 acres of land in Stow Bardolph,
> together
> with his sister, Muriel, who became a nun of the house.
>
> Interestingly, Dugdale further reveals that a moiety of the rectory of
> Great
> Wreningham, Norfolk was donated by one of the Thorpes of Ashwellthorpe
> to
> Carrow Priory. This is evidently the other half of the advowson of
> Wreningham granted to Creake Abbey c. 1220-1225 by Earl Hubert de
> Burgh's
> kinswoman, Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de Nerford. If so,
> this
> could mean that the Thorpe family of Ashwellthorpe were the heirs of
> Lady
> Alice Pouchard. Dugdale further states that the prioress of Carrow
> presented to the mediety of Wreningham until 1414, when she conveyed it
> to
> Sir Edmund de Thorpe, knight, "who then purchased mediety belonging to
> the
> abbat of Creke."
>
> In an earlier post today, I noted that Sir John de Thorp is listed
> among
> land owners at Wreningham, Norfolk in 1316. If so, he could well be
> the
> successor and heir to the interests held at Wreningham, Norfolk in the
> early
> 1200's by Alice Pouchard and her son, Sir Richard de Nerford. The
> history
> of the Thorpe family is treated by Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1953):
> 717-725, but this account does not mention how the Thorpe family came
> to
> possess the half share of the advowson of Wreningham, Norfolk, or
> mention
> any connection to the Nerford family or Carrow Priory. It does state
> that
> in 1349, Joan, widow of John de Thorpe, the younger (died 1340), was
> holding
> a half share in the advowson of Fresingfield, Suffolk.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Norfolk Record Office: Hare Family, Baronets of Stow Bardolph
>
> 1. Reference: Hare 3541 206 x 6
> Charter - Feoffment
>
> Creation dates: c1100
>
> Physical characteristics: Seal tag
>
> Scope and Content
>
> Philip de Bergh to God and Blessed Mary of Carhowe and the nuns serving
> God
> there for the soul of William son of Reginald de Warren
>
> Tenement in the town of Stowe with all appurtenances
>
> Yearly rent 3s.5¾d
>
> 2. Reference: Hare 3542 206 x 6
> Charter - Feoffment
>
> Creation dates: c1150
>
> Physical characteristics: Torn; Seal tag
>
> Scope and Content
>
> William de Warenn, son of Reginald de Warenn to Philip Lippo, servant
> of
> Stowe
>
> 30 acres of land at Langeland, at Cravesend, at Scorteland, at
> Aethelingeshill, at Brungeresacre, in Garfurlang, at Benecroft, at
> Snape, at
> Bulewrthe, at Muse Hill, at Udgang, at Alepot, at Bekeswell, in
> Nortmade and
> at Torp bridge in the fields of Stowe
>
> Yearly rent 3s.6¾d
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/9/2006 3:15:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lees...@cox.net writes:
Richardson repeats his assertion that Alice Pouchard was a kinswoman of
Hubert de Burgh. What is his evidence for that assertion? ( That
foundation history will not do.)
Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
I pointed out the exact location where it resides and even quoted the latin
to you.
Are you disputing that its a quote from their cartulary? And instead a
forgery of some sort?
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
The following two charters were located in the helpful online A2A
Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). The first charter
dated c.1100 involves the gift of a tenement at Stow Bardolph, Norfolk
by Philip de Burgh to Carrow Priory, which gift was made for the soul
of William son of Reynold de Warenne. The second charter dated c. 1150
was issued by William son of Reynold de Warenne. My research indicates
that William son of Reynold de Warenne, of Wormegay, occurs as an adult
between 1180-1208 [Reference: C.T Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters, 8
(1949): 32-33]. As such, I believe both of these charters are badly
misdated in the A2A Catalogue. At present, the identity of Philip de
Burgh is unknown.
These charters are significant due to the fact that Earl Hubert de
Burgh is known to have married as his first wife, Beatrice de Warenne,
daughter and heiress of William son of Reynold de Warenne, of Wormegay.
We know that Earl Hubert de Burgh's kinswoman, Alice Pouchard, was a
tenant of the honour of Wormegay, held by the Warenne family. Were
members of the Burgh family also tenants of the Warenne family?
Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 4 (1823): 68, discusses the history of
Carrow Priory and states that Reynold de Warenne and Alice his wife
gave the advowson of Stow Bardolph, Norfolk to the priory. This couple
were the parents of William son of Reynold de Warenne, of Wormegay, who
occurs 1180-1208. Dugdale states that William de Warenne confirmed the
gift of the Stow Bardolph advowson about A.D. 1273 [sic]. William de
Warenne also gave to the monastery a messuage and 40 acres of land in
Stow Bardolph, together with his sister, Muriel, who became a nun of
the house.
Interestingly, Dugdale further reveals that a moiety of the rectory of
Great Wreningham, Norfolk was donated by one of the Thorpes of
Ashwellthorpe to Carrow Priory. This is evidently the other half of
the advowson of Wreningham granted to Creake Abbey c. 1220-1225 by
Earl Hubert de Burgh's kinswoman, Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir
Robert de Nerford. If so, this could mean that the Thorpe family of
Ashwellthorpe were the heirs of Lady Alice Pouchard. Dugdale further
states that the prioress of Carrow presented to the mediety of
Wreningham until 1414, when she conveyed it to Sir Edmund de Thorpe,
knight, "who then purchased mediety belonging to the abbat of Creke."
In an earlier post today, I noted that Sir John de Thorp is listed
among land owners at Wreningham, Norfolk in 1316. If so, he could well
be the successor and heir to the interests held at Wreningham, Norfolk
in the early 1200's by Alice Pouchard and her son, Sir Richard de
Nerford. The history of the Thorpe family is treated by Complete
Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 717-725, but this account does not mention
how the Thorpe family came to possess the half share of the advowson of
Wreningham, Norfolk, nor mention any connection to the Nerford family
or Carrow Priory. It does state that in 1349, Joan, widow of John de
Thorpe, the younger (died 1340), was holding a half share in the
advowson of Fresingfield, Suffolk.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Norfolk Record Office: Hare Family, Baronets of Stow Bardolph
1. Reference: Hare 3541 206 x 6
Charter - Feoffment.
Creation dates: c1100.
Physical characteristics: Seal tag.
Scope and Content.
Philip de Bergh to God and Blessed Mary of Carhowe and the nuns serving
God there for the soul of William son of Reginald de Warren.
Tenement in the town of Stowe with all appurtenances.
Yearly rent 3s.5¾d.
2. Reference: Hare 3542 206 x 6
Charter - Feoffment.
Creation dates: c1150.
Physical characteristics: Torn; Seal tag.
Scope and Content.
William de Warenn, son of Reginald de Warenn to Philip Lippo, servant
of Stowe.
30 acres of land at Langeland, at Cravesend, at Scorteland, at
Aethelingeshill, at Brungeresacre, in Garfurlang, at Benecroft, at
Snape, at Bulewrthe, at Muse Hill, at Udgang, at Alepot, at Bekeswell,
in Nortmade and at Torp bridge in the fields of Stowe.
Yearly rent 3s.6¾d.
Chris Phillips
> Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
> I pointed out the exact location where it resides and even quoted the
latin
> to you.
> Are you disputing that its a quote from their cartulary? And instead a
> forgery of some sort?
If it's any help, the VCH account of Creake Abbey, online at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=38278, includes this
footnote, which suggests that the account of the foundation dates from the
13th century:
<<
There are articles on this abbey by the late Mr. Carthew, F.S.A. in Norf.
Arch. (vi. 314-59; vii, 153-69), which give many interesting extracts from,
and accounts of, charters and rolls among the muniments of Christ's College,
Cambridge. The statements in this sketch, where no reference is given, are
taken from these articles. There is a short thirteenth-century chartulary of
Creake, opening with an account of the foundation, which is given, with two
early charters in the Mon. (vi, 487-8). Bishop Kennett's extracts from it
are in Lansd. MS. 1040, fols. 203-4.
>>
The abbey does seem to have had some connection with Gedney, as earlier on
it says:
<<
Land was also held by the abbey in Gedney, Lincolnshire, by the service of
finding a canon to celebrate daily in the chapel of St. Thomas the Martyr,
on the site of a messuage formerly belonging to Thomas Dory, and supporting
there five paupers, giving them daily a loaf of fifty shillings' weight,
broth, and beer, and a portion of either meat or fish, and a cloth tunic
every other year. This service Margaret, widow of John de Roos, alleged in
1341, had been discontinued for two years or more by the abbot.
>>
Chris Phillips
CED
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/9/2006 3:15:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> lees...@cox.net writes:
>
> Richardson repeats his assertion that Alice Pouchard was a kinswoman of
> Hubert de Burgh. What is his evidence for that assertion? ( That
> foundation history will not do.)
>
>
> Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
Dear Will:
I am refering to the document Richardson quoted in his original posting
of 02 January. It is what it says it is a "foundation history."
It begins as follows, (to quote Richardson - see his original post of
02 January):
"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
....."
This is an account, as it says, of the foundation of Creake Abbey.
This kind of history was written about religious foundations usually
many years after the grants were made and the grantors were dead.
Whatever else it may be, a foundation history is not primary evidence.
It is not from the original cartulary. At best it is a later addition,
as all histories are. Whatever this little history says about Hubert
de Burgh, it is hearsay, probably (since the report of the Battle of
Dover is included) from a reading of Matthew Paris.
CED
CED
Chris Phillips wrote:
> Will Johnson wrote:
> > Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
> > I pointed out the exact location where it resides and even quoted the
> latin
> > to you.
> > Are you disputing that its a quote from their cartulary? And instead a
> > forgery of some sort?
>
>
> If it's any help, the VCH account of Creake Abbey, online at
> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=38278, includes this
> footnote, which suggests that the account of the foundation dates from the
> 13th century:
To the Newsgroup:
It should be noted that the following is included in the document
quoted by Richardson (which is later material ):
... "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"
Where in the cartulary is this found? I cannot find any evidence that
Hubert de Burgh held the title "Regent of the Realm." What is the
basis for this statement?
CED
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/9/2006 12:37:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lees...@cox.net writes:
It is what it says it is a "foundation history."
It begins as follows, (to quote Richardson - see his original post of
02 January):
"This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
But this means you did *not* read the link that was posted that recites the
Latin of the foundation charter, at least alledgedly. This charter was not
writen in the 18th century or whatever you're proposing. It is possible the
translation was done then, but again, the original Latin document is there
transcribed and you can read it yourself.
I posted the relevant phrase from it, earlier in this thread, where the word
"nepos" is used as Richardson pointed out.
Will Johnson
CED
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/9/2006 12:37:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> lees...@cox.net writes:
>
> It is what it says it is a "foundation history."
>
> It begins as follows, (to quote Richardson - see his original post of
> 02 January):
>
> "This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:
>
>
> But this means you did *not* read the link that was posted that recites the
> Latin of the foundation charter, at least alledgedly. This charter was not
> writen in the 18th century or whatever you're proposing.
Will:
The documment is not a charter. It is a history written after the
fact. I did not see a link to a charter. Would you post it again? (I
did see a link posted by Chris and followed it. That is not the same
as that which was posted by Richardson.)
If you read through the foundation history posted by Richardson, you
will find references to Hubert de Burgh, specifically to the Battle of
Dover. This is not charter language.
CED
Chris Phillips
> > But this means you did *not* read the link that was posted that recites
the
> > Latin of the foundation charter, at least alledgedly. This charter was
not
> > writen in the 18th century or whatever you're proposing.
I suspect there may have been a gateway problem that stopped this message
getting through to the newsgroup. For me, using Google Groups, it shows up
only because someone accidentally reposted a whole digest of the mailing
list.
You quoted:
"Et dicta capella, cum toto loco praedicto circumjacente, dedicata fuit anno
Domini M.CC.XXI. per dominum Galfridum Eliensem episcopum, nepotem dictae
Aliciae, et fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti, suffraganeum episcopi
Randulfi praedicti;...."
I think there's no doubt that, as CED says (as did Douglas Richardson and
the VCH account), this is an excerpt from a narrative account of the
foundation rather than a quotation from a foundation charter. On the other
hand, if VCH is correct, it at least comes from the same century as the
foundation, so the statement about Geoffrey's relationship to Alice may be
correct.
I note that the statement is that Geoffrey was the "nepos" of Alice, and
that Geoffrey was the brother of Hubert. This doesn't quite imply that
Hubert was the "nepos" of Alice, as they may have been only half brothers.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/10/2006 9:28:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
think there's no doubt that, as CED says (as did Douglas Richardson and
the VCH account), this is an excerpt from a narrative account of the
foundation rather than a quotation from a foundation charter
What is the basis for your "no doubt" that this is an excerpt from a
narrative account of the foundation? Rather than a quotation from a charter? I'm
curious about why you think it's so obvious?
Will Johnson
CED
Chris:
The style is such that the references to Hubert de Burgh were possibly
later insertions, added after Hubert's exploits at the Battle of Dover
were made famous by Matthew Paris. (The awkward inclusion of Hubert de
Burgh as a brother of Bishop Geoffrey and the inclusion of Hubert and
governorship of Dover Castle - for which I would like to a
verification.)
Why would the writer (and I do not concede the date until the writer is
known) use the references to Hubert in each case to elevate the status
of a grantor unless it was after Hubert had been rehabilitated, in
part, by Matthew Paris? More probably is was written after Henry III
became very unpopular in the 1260's, with a "touch-up" later.
In any case, even if the entire history were written in the late 13th
Century, it is not a primary source as to Hubert de Burgh (much less as
to his parentage), the references to whom are obviously second hand, if
not total hearsay based on Matthew Paris.
CED
>
> Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> What is the basis for your "no doubt" that this is an excerpt from a
> narrative account of the foundation? Rather than a quotation from a
charter? I'm
> curious about why you think it's so obvious?
It's essentially that this seems clearly to be a chunk of narrative history,
of a kind that I've never seen in a charter.
You have the advantage of having seen the context of the part you quoted (I
tried to download the PDF from "Monastic Matrix" but it was too large to be
practicable over a narrowband connection), but from the English translation
posted earlier by Douglas Richardson, this is part of a narrative account
going at least from 1206 to the dedication of the chapel in 1221. (Does
Dugdale give it a title? This kind of thing would often be known as
"Historia Fundatorum" or something similar.)
I am not an expert on the wording of charters, but it seems to me that this
just wouldn't fit into one at all.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
lees...@cox.net writes:
<< Why would the writer (and I do not concede the date until the writer is
known) >>
Go here
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/Royals/Creke/
and you can read all four pages very quickly without needing to download a
humungous pdf.
Will Johnson
CED
Will:
Thanks! We now have the Latin from which Richardson's document was
translated (with a quibble or two on that). We know that it is a
history, written as a preface to a folio of the 13th Century charters.
It is not a charter itself. The date of the charters of the folio does
not necessarily date the foundation history. On a quick reading, the
latest document is 1231. I'll take some time looking at what you have
been so kind to share with us.
CED
>
> Will Johnson
Chris Phillips
> Go here
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/Royals/Creke/
> and you can read all four pages very quickly without needing to download a
> humungous pdf.
Thank you for providing these images, which are much more convenient to look
at than the Monastic Matrixix PDF.
I see that Dugdale does entitle this "Fundationis Historia" - "History of
the Foundation".
Chris Phillips