Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Correction/Addition: Sir Richard Talbot, 2nd Lord Talbot, and his wife, Elizabeth Comyn
329 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Jan 27, 2021, 6:10:33 PM1/27/21
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 12 Part I (1959): 612-614 (sub Talbot) has a good account of Sir Richard Talbot, 2nd Lord Talbot (died 1356).
Regarding his date of birth, Complete Peerage states that Richard Talbot was born about 1305. For this statement, the following sources are cited:
Cal. i.p.m. vol. viii, no 714; Cal Fine Rolls, vol. v, p. 457.
I've examined the first source cited by Complete Peerage. This is the inquisition post mortem of Sir Richard Gilbert's father, Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, who died in 1346. It can be viewed at the following weblink:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp518-525
One inquisition dated 1 March 1346 reveals that Gilbert Talbot's son and heir, Richard, was then aged 40 in 1346, or born about 1306, not about 1305.
The second source, Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. v, p. 457 merely states that on 23 March 1346 the king ordered that Richard Talbot, son and heir of Gilbert Talbot, tenant in chief, be granted the lands of his said father, he having done homage. There is no indication of Richard's age.
On pages 613 and 614, Complete Peerage states that Sir Richard Talbot and Elizabeth Comyn were married "between 24 July 1326 and 23 March 1326/7."
According to Chamber Account, Edward II, 1325/6, SAL MS 122, available at Society of Antiquaries Library, London, this couple were married clandestinely about 10 July 1326. This reference was kindly provided to me courtesy of Kathryn Warner.
On page 614, Complete Peerage states that his widow, Elizabeth Comyn, married "between 21 Feb. 1357/8 and 16 Feb. 1360/1" Sir John Bromwych.
There is a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Hilary term 1361 which involves Sir John and Elizabeth his wife. A brief abstract is provided below.
In Hilary term 1361 John Bromewych and Elizabeth his wife, executrix of the will of Richard Talbot, Knt., with John Keysyng, co-executor with the said Elizabeth of the said will, were summoned to respond to the Prior of the church of St. Leonard, Wormsley in a plea regarding a debt of £20. END OF ABSTRACT.
The lawsuit proves that the marriage of Sir John and Elizabeth took place in or before Hilary term 1361, which in that year fell between 23 Jan. and 13 Feb. 1361. This means that Sir John and Elizabeth were married before 13 Feb. 1361, which is a tiny bit earlier than 16 Feb. 1360/1 given by Complete Peerage.
The lawsuit also indicates that Sir Richard Talbot died testate, which fact is also not mentioned by Complee Peerage. Sir John Bromwich and his surviving widow, Katherine, also died testate.
For interest's sake, I've copied my current file account of Sir Richard Talbot, 2nd Lord Talbot, and his wife, Elizabeth Comyn. It includes a further record of the life of Sir John Bromwich and his 2nd marriage to Katherine _____.
Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
+ + + + + + + + + +
11. RICHARD TALBOT (or TALEBOT), Knt., 2nd Lord Talbot, of Eccleswall (in Linton) and Lea, Herefordshire, Blaenllyfni and Bwlch-y-dinas, Breconshire, etc., briefly Lord of Mar in Scotland, Steward of the King’s Household, 1341–45, Justice of the Peace for both Gloucestershire and Herefordshire, 1351, and for Gloucestershire only, 1353, and, in right of his wife, Goodrich Castle, Herefordshire, Shrivenham, Berkshire, Dorton, Buckinghamshire, Huntley, Moreton Valence, Painswick, and Whaddon, Gloucestershire, Hertingfordbury, Hertfordshire, Milton and Swanscombe, Kent, Bampton, Oxfordshire, Collingbourne Valence (in Collingbourne Kingston) and Swindon, Wiltshire, etc., son and heir, born about 1305. He and his father took up arms against the king at the Battle of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2. He married clandestinely about 10 July 1326 ELIZABETH COMYN, daughter of John Comyn, Knt., [nicknamed Red Comyn], of Badenoch, Inverness-shire, Scotland, Walwick (in Wardon), Thornton (in Wardon), and Henshaw (in Haltwhistle), Northumberland, etc., by Joan, daughter of William de Valence, Knt., Lord of Pembroke (sometime styled Earl of Pembroke) (half-brother of King Henry III of England) [see BALLIOL 8 for her ancestry]. She was born 1 Nov. 1299. They had one son, Gilbert, Knt. [3rd Lord Talbot], and one daughter, Joan (wife of Nicholas Poynings, Knt.). Elizabeth was co-heiress c.1316 to her nephew, Aymer Comyn, and co-heiress in 1324 to her uncle, Aymer de Valence, Knt., Earl of Pembroke. She was imprisoned by the Despensers for a year or more until under duress she granted her property to them. After the fall of the Despensers in 1326, she successfully appealed to King Edward III for the restitution of her lands. In 1329 Richard acknowledged that he owed Thomas son of Maurice de Berkeley a debt of 100 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in cos. Gloucester, Hereford, and Oxford. In 1330 John Talbot sued Richard and Elizabeth his wife in the Court of Common Pleas that they warranty to him the third part of two parts of one messuage, one mill, and lands in Shrivenham, Berkshire, which Ellen widow of John Fower claimed in dower. The same year John de Conyngton and Richard de Rykhall, executors of the will of Robert Myles, sued him in the Court of Common Pleas in a Herefordshire plea regarding a debt of £33 3s. He was summoned to Parliament 27 Jan. 1331/2, by writ directed "Ricardo Talbot." He joined Edward de Balliol in his invasion of Scotland in August 1332, contrary to the king’s orders. In September 1334 he was taken by the Scots near Linlithgow and imprisoned at Dumbarton, but was ransomed and returned to England. He acquired the manor of Ley (in Westbury-on-Severn), Gloucestershire from Aline, widow of Robert de Sapy in 1337. In 1342 and 1344 he sued John de Botiller in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Painswick, Gloucestershire. In 1342 he accompanied the king on his expedition to Brittany, and was present at the Siege of Morlaix, where he captured Geoffrey de Charny. He served on similar expeditions to Brittany in 1343 and 1345. In 1343 he sued Amaury son of John le Botiler, of Llantwit, Glamorgan, and others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Painswick, Gloucestershire. The same year he sued Henry Milkesop and others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Hertingfordbury, Hertfordshire. On 23 March 1346 the king ordered that Richard Talbot, son and heir of Gilbert Talbot, tenant in chief, be granted the lands of his said father, he having done homage. In 1347 he and Elizabeth his wife presented to the church of Great Melton, Norfolk. The same year he was granted a weekly market and yearly fair at his manor of Lea, Herefordshire. He presented to the churches of Hartley, Kent, 1348, Goodrich, Herefordshire, 1349, Huntley, Gloucestershire, 1349, 1350, and Credenhill, Herefordshire, 1351. In 1351, as “Richard son of Gilbert Talbot, Knt.,” he sued Roger de Hemenhale, of London, goldsmith, in the Court of Common Pleas in a Surrey plea regarding a reasonable account of the time he was his receiver of money. In 1354, as “Richard Talbot of Le Chastel Goodrich, Knt.,” he had letters nominating Fulk de Dene as his attorney in Ireland for two years. In July 1355 he had license to grant Thomas Talbot, clerk, John de Carew, Knt., and John de Laundels the manors of Bampton, Oxfordshire, Fernham (in Shrivenham), Berkshire, and Painswick, Moreton Valence, and Whaddon, Gloucestershire, to hold in survivorship, with reversion to the grantor and his heirs. In Nov. 1355, in consideration of his labors and heavy charges in the king’s wars in France, Scotland, and elsewhere, he was pardoned £105, wherein he was held to the king in the wardrobe of arrears of his farm for lands late of Laurence de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke; pardon to him also of 50 marks of £300 wherein he was held to the king at the exchequer of arrears of his farm for lands late of John Lovell. SIR RICHARD TALBOT, 2nd Lord Talbot, died testate 23 October 1356, and is said to have been buried at Flanesford Priory, Herefordshire. In June 1357 his widow, Elizabeth, had license to grant the manor and the advowson of the church of Swanscombe, Kent to Roger de Mortimer, K.G., 2nd Earl of March. In 1358–9 she had license to grant the manor of Whaddon, Gloucestershire to John de Bromwich for life. Elizabeth married (2nd) between 21 Feb. 1357/8 and Hilary term 1361 (date of lawsuit) JOHN [DE] BROMWICH (or BROMWYCH, BROMEWYCH), Knt., of Bromsberrow, Minchinhampton, and Nailsworth, Gloucestershire, Grendon, Herefordshire, and, in right of his wife, of Archenfield, Herefordshire, Knight of the Shire for Herefordshire, 1371, Justiciar of Ireland, 1379, and, in right of his 1st wife, of Painswick, Gloucestershire. They had no issue. In 1353 the king ordered that he be released from the Tower of London without delay. In 1358 he acknowledged that he owed Gilbert son of Richard Talbot a debt of £200. In 1361 John Bromewych and Elizabeth his wife, executrix of the will of Richard Talbot, Knt., with John Keysyng, co-executor with the said Elizabeth of the said will, were summoned to respond to the Prior of the church of St. Leonard, Wormsley in a plea regarding a debt of £20. He presented to the church of Credenhill, Herefordshire, 1361, 1368, and to a mediety of the church of Catfield, Norfolk, 1361. He was a legatee in the 1368 will of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, who bequeathed him a courser called Gerfacon. In August 1379 Robert de Evere and others were directed to arrest as many ships as necessary to convey John de Bromwich, Justiciar of Ireland, to Ireland with 60 men at arms. In October following, however, the king appointed Edmund de Mortimer, Earl of March, the King’s Lieutenant in Ireland, and Bromwich was commanded to deliver the office of Justiciar to him. In 1371 he sued John Walle in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass in Newland, Gloucestershire. In 1372 he sued John Hales and Isabel his wife in the Court of Common Pleas in a Gloucestershire plea regarding a debt of £10. Elizabeth, Lady Talbot, died 20 Nov. 1372. In 1375 the manor of Credenhill, Herefordshire was settled on him and his heirs, with reversion in default of such heirs to his step-son, Gilbert Talbot, Knt. The same year he sused Eve Josep in the Court of Common Pleas in a Gloucestershire plea regarding a debt of £12. In 1376, he then staying in England, he had letters appointing attorneys for him in Ireland. In 1379 he was granted an annuity of 100 marks by Edmund de Mortimer, Earl of March, he being retained to stay with the said earl for life. He was custodian of Clifford Castle, Herefordshire in 1382–3, 1394, during the minority of Roger de Mortimer, Earl of March. In 1383, he then staying in England, he had letters nominating Robert Eure and another his attorneys in Ireland for one year. In 1384 he sued Philip Rodbarwe in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £20. In 1385 he sued Simon Olyver, of Bristol, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Bisley, Gloucestershire. In 1386 he sued _____ Frompton and his son, John, Hugh atte Grene, and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire. The same year he sued William Plonfield, of Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire, and others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire. He married (2nd) before 17 May 1387 (date of fine) KATHERINE _____. They had no issue. In 1387 Richard Nasshe and Hugh Haresfeld settled the manors of Credenhill and Eaton Tregoz (in Foy), Herefordshire and Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire on John and Katherine his wife and the heirs of their bodies. SIR JOHN BROMWICH died testate shortly before 20 Sept. 1388. His widow, Katherine, presented to the church of Credenhill, Herefordshire in 1388. In 1389 his widow, Katherine, the Prior of Llanthony in Wales, and four others, executors of John Bromwich, Knt., were pardoned of all waste and trespasses by the said John while farmer of the lands and tenements in England of the Abbess of Caen. Katherine married (2nd) before Easter terrn 1398 (date of lawsuit) (as his 2nd wife) HUGH WATERTON, Knt., of Eaton Tregoz (in Foy) and Credenhill, Herefordshire, Tibberton, Worcestershire, etc., King’s knight, Chamberlain of Henry, Earl of Derby [future King Henry IV], 1386–93, Constable of Brecon and Hay Castles, 1387–97, Chamberlain of the Duchy of Lancaster, Steward and receiver of Swansea Castle, 1399–1401, Constable of Queenborough Castle, 1399–1402, Constable of St. Briavels Castle, 1399, Constable of Windsor Castle, 1405–9, son of William de Waterton, of Waterton, Lincolnshire, by ____, daughter of Thomas Methley. They had no issue. In 1398 Nicholas Clerk, Burgess of the town of Gloucester, sued Hugh Waterton, of Eaton Tregoz (in Foy), Herefordshire, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 15 marks, and Hugh Waterton, of Tibberton, Worcestershire, and Katheine his wife regarding a debt of 10 marks. In 1399 he and Katherine his wife were granted the manor of Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire at farm. He held Goodrich Castle, Herefordshire in 1402, in wardship of Gilbert, son and heir of Richard Talbot. In 1402 the king ordered that he dwell at Berkhamstead Castle, Hertfordshire and govern the king’s children, John and Philippe, and the Earl of March and his brother, until the king returned from Wales. In 1406 the king granted Katherine his wife the manors of Stretton, Derbyshire and Ashperton, Herefordshire, as well as other property in Monmouthshire. He presented to the church of Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire in 1407. His wife, Katherine, received robes of the Garter in 1408, 1409, 1413, and 1416. SIR HUGH WATERTON left a will dated 1 July 1409, proved 7 July 1409. His widow, Katherine, presented to the church of Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire in 1411, 1412, and 1419. She was granted the manor of Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire at an increased farm in 1413. She married (3rd) before October 1414 (as his 2nd wife) ROGER LECHE, Knt., of Chatsworth, Bubnell, and Nether Haddon, Derbyshire, Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, 1400–1401, Knight of the Shire for Derbyshire, 1402, 1406, 1413–14, Controller of the Household of King Henry IV, 1404–5, Keeper of the City of York, 1405–6, Steward of the Household to Henry, Prince of Wales [future King Henry V], 1407–13, Sheriff of Flintshire, 1407–16, Treasurer of the Household of King Henry V, 1413–16, Chief Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster north of Trent, 1413–16, Treasurer of the Household, 1413–16, Chamberlain of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1416, Treasurer of England, 1416. They had no issue. He was appointed ambassador to treat for peace and the surrender of prisoners with the Scots in 1404. In 1413 custody of Combermere Abbey, Cheshire and its possessions were granted to him and two others. In 1415 he and Katherine his wife, late wife of Hugh Waterton, Knt., were granted a general pardon. SIR ROGER LECHE died testate shortly before 30 Nov. 1416. Katherine died testate 4 May 1420. William Loveney, executor of the wills of both Sir Roger Leche and his widow, Katherine, was involved in a protracted and costly lawsuit against Bishop Langley of Durham; the case was submitted to arbitration in October 1421.
References:
Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 5 (1775): 849; 9 (1808): 290–293. Lodge, Peerage of Ireland 2 (1789): 116–138 (sub Talbot, Earl of Waterford). Throsby, Thoroton’s Hist. of Nottinghamshire 3 (1790): 236–237. Pegge, Hist. Account of Beauchief Abbey (1801): 171 (obits kept at Beauchief Abbey: “vii. Id. (7) Dec. Com’ D’ni Rogeri Leche, militis, de Bubnyll, et Emmæ uxoris ejus, qui obijt anno Domini, 1416.”). Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 5 (1806): 13–14. Fosbroke, Abs. of Recs. & MSS respecting the County of Gloucester 1 (1807): 348–349, 369–372. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 3 (1812): 1–49 (sub Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury). Hunter, Hallamshire (1819): 43–44 (Talbot ped.). Banks, Gen. Hist. of Divers Fams. of the Ancient Peerage of England (1826): 160–161 (sub Bromwich). Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 70–71 (will of Lionel, Duke of Clarence), 92–93 (will of Thomas Lord Poynings dated 1374; Hugh Waterton appointed an executor). Hodgson, Hist. of Northumberland Pt. 2 Vol. 2 (1832): 41–42 (Valence-Balliol ped.). Nicolas, Controversy between Scrope & Grosvenor 2 (1832): 190–192 (biog. of Hugh Waterton). Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northampton 2 (1836–41): 315 (Munchensi-Valence ped.). Banks Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 160–161 (sub Bromwich). Stonehouse Hist. & Topog. of the Isle of Axholme (1839): 446–454. Banks Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 55 (sub Bromwich). Lipscomb, Hist. & Antiqs. of Buckingham 1 (1847): 27–28 (Talbot ped.). Arch. Cambrensis 3rd Ser. 7 (1861): 185–204. Norfolk Arch. 6 (1864): 92–102 (Hastings ped.). Duncumb et al., Colls. towards the Hist. & Antiqs. of Hereford 2(2) (1866): 375–383; 3 (1882): 79, 81. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 37 (1876). 50, 160, 357, 441, 537. Turner, Cal. Charters & Rolls: Bodleian Lib. (1878): 674, 678. Cooke Vis. of Herefordshire 1569 (1886): 3–5 (Apharry or Parry ped.: “Hughe Waterton, mar. doughter to Alexander Wolder. = (Ellen d. of Robert Mowbray.).” (Editorial footnote on pg. 4: “Ash 831 gives Alex. Wallen. Harl. MS 1571, f. 34b, gives d. of Alex. Walton; another pedigree gives Eleonora, d. of Alex. Walweyn. There were two Sir Hugh Watertons and contemporaries.”). Bain, Cal. Docs. Rel. Scotland 3 (1887): 242. Birch, Cat. Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 681 (seal of Elizabeth Comyn dated 1322–6 — A shield of arms: three garbs, two and one [COMYN]. Suspended by a strap from a hook; between two small slipped quatrefoils; and within a carved and pointed quatrefoil ornamented with ball-flowers along the inner edge. Legend: * . SIGILLVM . ELIZABETH . COMYN *. Beaded border.). Smith, Expeditions to Prussia & the Holy Land made by Henry Earl of Derby in the Years 1390–1 & 1392–3 (Camden Soc. n.s. 52) (1894): 293 (“Hugh de Waterton, knight, held the manor of Vgglee in Essex from Derby by farm of 20 marks annually; which sum in 1392 he paid to the Earl while abroad with him (Leventhorp’s accounts, 15 to 18 R. II, D. of L. records, cl. 28, bdle. 3, No. 5, fo. 4). We find him acting as Derby’s receiver of monies in 1377–8 and 1381–2, and as his chamberlain in 1386 (D. of L. rec. cl. 28, bdle. 3, Nos. 1, 3; and ib. bdle. 1. No. 1), in which last office he continues through 1390–1, and probably 1392–3, the years of our accounts. He had charge of Henry’s children Philippa and John at Berkhamstead in 1402 (Mrs. Everett Green’s Princesses of England, iii., 343). A letter about 1403 (July) as to the troubles in Wales desires his influence with the king to go to the rescue (Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2nd ser., I. 20), and there is one from Hugh de Waterton himself to his master on the same subject (Hingeston’s Letters of Henry IV., Rolls Ser. i., p. 149). In 5 and 7 Henry IV. he was one of the king’s council (Rot. Parl. iii., 530a, 572b.). He married Ellen daughter of Thomas Mowbray, and died in 1409.”), 311–312 (Lady Katerina Bromwych. The only fact that I have gleaned about this lady, who appears to have paid some money to the treasurer on Derby’s account at Lynn when sailing for Prussia in 1392, is that she held for life the manor of Michelhampton, a charge on which was granted to Joan (the second) queen of Henry IV., and which afterwards was to pass to the new Convent of Sion. Rot. Parl. iv., 343b.). C.C.R. 1327–1330 (1896): 563. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 261 (John Clanvowe styled “nephew of Richard Talbot, knight” in papal petition dated 1354). Williams, Parl. Hist. of Hereford (1896): 25 (biog. of John de Bromwich). C.P.R. 1381–1385 (1897): 99, 326. List of Procs. in the Court of Star Chamber 1 (Lists & Indexes 13) (1901): 71. C.P.R. 1388–1392 (1902): 61, 100–101. C.P.R. 1345–1348 (1903): 349. Scots Peerage 1 (1904): 508–509 (sub Comyn, lord of Badenoch). Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 22–23, 84, 176. C.C.R. 1349–1354 (1906): 585. Jeayes, Desc. Cat. Derbyshire Charters (1906): 81, 84, 97, 99, 151, 241. List of Inqs. ad Quod Damnum 2 (PRO Lists and Indexes 22) (1906): 502, 611, 730. Baddeley, Cotteswold Manor: Being the Hist. of Painswick (1907): 12–13 (ped.). C.P.R. 1350–1354 (1907): 89, 91, 327, 508. C.C.R. 1354–1360 (1908): 499. VCH Buckingham 2 (1908): 271–281; 4 (1927): 45–48. C.P.R. 1354–1358 (1909): 15, 268, 314, 570. D.N.B. 19 (1909): 329–330 (biog. of Richard Talbot). Miscellanea 5 (Thoresby Soc. 15) (1909): 81–102. VCH Hampshire 4 (1911): 51–56. Cal. IPM 8 (1913): 518–525; 11 (1935): 328–340. C.P.R. 1367–1370 (1913): 463. C.Ch.R. 5 (1916): 70. Mascall, Registrum Roberti Mascall, Episcopi Herefordensis, A.D. MCCCCIV–MCCCCXVI (Canterbury & York Soc. 21 ) (1917): 170, 177, 185. Trans. Bristol & Gloucestershire Arch. Soc. 45 (1923): 102, 132. VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 531–543. Tout, Chapters in the Administratve Hist. of Mediæval England 6 (1933): 43. Hethe, Reg. Hamonis Hethe Diocesis Roffensis 2 (Canterbury & York Soc. 49) (1948): 668. C.P. 12(1) (1953): 612–614 (sub Talbot). Somerville, Hist. of the Duchy of Lancaster 1 (1953): 170, 385, 417, 419, 424. Holmes, Estates of the Higher Nobility in 14th Cent. England (1957): 60–61. London Topog. Rec. 22 (1965): 36. Chancery Miscellanea 4 (List & Index Soc. 38) (1968): 26. VCH Wiltshire 9 (1970): 119–124. VCH Gloucester 10 (1972): 86, 208–213; 11 (1976): 65–70, 190–193, 211. Rees, Cal. Ancient Petitions Rel. Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. & Law 28) (1975): 493–494. Ellis, Cat. Seals in the P.R.O. 2 (1981): 103 (seal of Richard Talbot dated 1336 — In a richly traceried circle, a shield of arms: a lion rampant within a bordure engrailed, and a label of three points. In the tracery are three roundels, below and beside the shield, each containing a garb. Legend: ..SIGILLVM./ RICARDI/ [TAL]EBOT). Walker, Lancastrian Affinity 1361–1399 (1990): 90. Barry et al., Colony & Frontier in Medieval Ireland (1995): 99–100, 102. Fryde & Greenway, Handbook of British Chronology (1996): 162. VCH Oxford 13(1) (1996): 22–30. Rickard, Castle Community (2002): 66, 94, 100, 106, 214, 224, 239, 242, 252, 255, 274. McAndrew, Scotland’s Hist. Heraldry (2006): 42 (Comyn ped.). Clemmensen, William Jenyns’ Ordinary (2008): 34 (arms of Rich. Talbot dated c.1355: lion & border engrailed). Chamber Account, Edward II, 1325/6, SAL MS 122, available at Society of Antiquaries Library, London (re. marriage of Richard Talbot and Elizabeth Comyn); citation courtesy of Kathryn Warner). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/281, image 98f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no281/aCP40no281fronts/IMG_0098.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/282, image 382f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no282/aCP40no282fronts/IMG_0382.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/283, image 1f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no283/cCP40no283fronts/IMG_0001.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/331, image 108f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no331/aCP40no331fronts/IMG_0108.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/334, image 24d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no334/bCP40no334dorses/IMG_0024.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/334, image 69d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no334/bCP40no334dorses/IMG_0069.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/338, image 130f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no338/aCP40no338fronts/IMG_0130.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/366, image 3322d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/CP40no366/bCP40no366dorses/IMG_3322.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/381, image 8463f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/CP40no381/aCP40no381fronts/IMG_8463.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/381, image 8837d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/CP40no381/bCP40no381dorses/IMG_8837.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/405, image 519f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no405/aCP40no405fronts/IMG_0510.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/442, image 192f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no442/aCP40no442fronts/IMG_0192.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/448, image 234f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no448/aCP40no448fronts/IMG_0234.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/459, image 669d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no459/bCP40no459dorses/IMG_0669.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/494, image 68 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no494/494_0068.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/499, image 291 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no499/499_0291.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/501, image 131f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no501/501_0131.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/503, image 19 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no503/503_0019.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/507, image 1363 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no507/507_1363.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/549, image 17f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/R2/CP40no549/aCP40no549fronts/IMG_0017.htm). National Archives, SC 8/160/7956; SC 8/163/8132; SC 8/310/15484 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). National Archives, CP 25/1/83/47, #260; CP 25/1/286/35, #1; CP 25/1/289/55, #160 [see abstract of fines at http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
Complete Peerage 12 Part I (1959): 612-614 (sub Talbot) has a good account of Sir Richard Talbot, 2nd Lord Talbot (died 1356).
Regarding his date of birth, Complete Peerage states that Richard Talbot was born about 1305. For this statement, the following sources are cited:
Cal. i.p.m. vol. viii, no 714; Cal Fine Rolls, vol. v, p. 457.
I've examined the first source cited by Complete Peerage. This is the inquisition post mortem of Sir Richard Gilbert's father, Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, who died in 1346. It can be viewed at the following weblink:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp518-525
One inquisition dated 1 March 1346 reveals that Gilbert Talbot's son and heir, Richard, was then aged 40 in 1346, or born about 1306, not about 1305.
The second source, Cal. of Fine Rolls, vol. v, p. 457 merely states that on 23 March 1346 the king ordered that Richard Talbot, son and heir of Gilbert Talbot, tenant in chief, be granted the lands of his said father, he having done homage. There is no indication of Richard's age.
On pages 613 and 614, Complete Peerage states that Sir Richard Talbot and Elizabeth Comyn were married "between 24 July 1326 and 23 March 1326/7."
According to Chamber Account, Edward II, 1325/6, SAL MS 122, available at Society of Antiquaries Library, London, this couple were married clandestinely about 10 July 1326. This reference was kindly provided to me courtesy of Kathryn Warner.
On page 614, Complete Peerage states that his widow, Elizabeth Comyn, married "between 21 Feb. 1357/8 and 16 Feb. 1360/1" Sir John Bromwych.
There is a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Hilary term 1361 which involves Sir John and Elizabeth his wife. A brief abstract is provided below.
In Hilary term 1361 John Bromewych and Elizabeth his wife, executrix of the will of Richard Talbot, Knt., with John Keysyng, co-executor with the said Elizabeth of the said will, were summoned to respond to the Prior of the church of St. Leonard, Wormsley in a plea regarding a debt of £20. END OF ABSTRACT.
The lawsuit proves that the marriage of Sir John and Elizabeth took place in or before Hilary term 1361, which in that year fell between 23 Jan. and 13 Feb. 1361. This means that Sir John and Elizabeth were married before 13 Feb. 1361, which is a tiny bit earlier than 16 Feb. 1360/1 given by Complete Peerage.
The lawsuit also indicates that Sir Richard Talbot died testate, which fact is also not mentioned by Complee Peerage. Sir John Bromwich and his surviving widow, Katherine, also died testate.
For interest's sake, I've copied my current file account of Sir Richard Talbot, 2nd Lord Talbot, and his wife, Elizabeth Comyn. It includes a further record of the life of Sir John Bromwich and his 2nd marriage to Katherine _____.
Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
+ + + + + + + + + +
11. RICHARD TALBOT (or TALEBOT), Knt., 2nd Lord Talbot, of Eccleswall (in Linton) and Lea, Herefordshire, Blaenllyfni and Bwlch-y-dinas, Breconshire, etc., briefly Lord of Mar in Scotland, Steward of the King’s Household, 1341–45, Justice of the Peace for both Gloucestershire and Herefordshire, 1351, and for Gloucestershire only, 1353, and, in right of his wife, Goodrich Castle, Herefordshire, Shrivenham, Berkshire, Dorton, Buckinghamshire, Huntley, Moreton Valence, Painswick, and Whaddon, Gloucestershire, Hertingfordbury, Hertfordshire, Milton and Swanscombe, Kent, Bampton, Oxfordshire, Collingbourne Valence (in Collingbourne Kingston) and Swindon, Wiltshire, etc., son and heir, born about 1305. He and his father took up arms against the king at the Battle of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2. He married clandestinely about 10 July 1326 ELIZABETH COMYN, daughter of John Comyn, Knt., [nicknamed Red Comyn], of Badenoch, Inverness-shire, Scotland, Walwick (in Wardon), Thornton (in Wardon), and Henshaw (in Haltwhistle), Northumberland, etc., by Joan, daughter of William de Valence, Knt., Lord of Pembroke (sometime styled Earl of Pembroke) (half-brother of King Henry III of England) [see BALLIOL 8 for her ancestry]. She was born 1 Nov. 1299. They had one son, Gilbert, Knt. [3rd Lord Talbot], and one daughter, Joan (wife of Nicholas Poynings, Knt.). Elizabeth was co-heiress c.1316 to her nephew, Aymer Comyn, and co-heiress in 1324 to her uncle, Aymer de Valence, Knt., Earl of Pembroke. She was imprisoned by the Despensers for a year or more until under duress she granted her property to them. After the fall of the Despensers in 1326, she successfully appealed to King Edward III for the restitution of her lands. In 1329 Richard acknowledged that he owed Thomas son of Maurice de Berkeley a debt of 100 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in cos. Gloucester, Hereford, and Oxford. In 1330 John Talbot sued Richard and Elizabeth his wife in the Court of Common Pleas that they warranty to him the third part of two parts of one messuage, one mill, and lands in Shrivenham, Berkshire, which Ellen widow of John Fower claimed in dower. The same year John de Conyngton and Richard de Rykhall, executors of the will of Robert Myles, sued him in the Court of Common Pleas in a Herefordshire plea regarding a debt of £33 3s. He was summoned to Parliament 27 Jan. 1331/2, by writ directed "Ricardo Talbot." He joined Edward de Balliol in his invasion of Scotland in August 1332, contrary to the king’s orders. In September 1334 he was taken by the Scots near Linlithgow and imprisoned at Dumbarton, but was ransomed and returned to England. He acquired the manor of Ley (in Westbury-on-Severn), Gloucestershire from Aline, widow of Robert de Sapy in 1337. In 1342 and 1344 he sued John de Botiller in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Painswick, Gloucestershire. In 1342 he accompanied the king on his expedition to Brittany, and was present at the Siege of Morlaix, where he captured Geoffrey de Charny. He served on similar expeditions to Brittany in 1343 and 1345. In 1343 he sued Amaury son of John le Botiler, of Llantwit, Glamorgan, and others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Painswick, Gloucestershire. The same year he sued Henry Milkesop and others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Hertingfordbury, Hertfordshire. On 23 March 1346 the king ordered that Richard Talbot, son and heir of Gilbert Talbot, tenant in chief, be granted the lands of his said father, he having done homage. In 1347 he and Elizabeth his wife presented to the church of Great Melton, Norfolk. The same year he was granted a weekly market and yearly fair at his manor of Lea, Herefordshire. He presented to the churches of Hartley, Kent, 1348, Goodrich, Herefordshire, 1349, Huntley, Gloucestershire, 1349, 1350, and Credenhill, Herefordshire, 1351. In 1351, as “Richard son of Gilbert Talbot, Knt.,” he sued Roger de Hemenhale, of London, goldsmith, in the Court of Common Pleas in a Surrey plea regarding a reasonable account of the time he was his receiver of money. In 1354, as “Richard Talbot of Le Chastel Goodrich, Knt.,” he had letters nominating Fulk de Dene as his attorney in Ireland for two years. In July 1355 he had license to grant Thomas Talbot, clerk, John de Carew, Knt., and John de Laundels the manors of Bampton, Oxfordshire, Fernham (in Shrivenham), Berkshire, and Painswick, Moreton Valence, and Whaddon, Gloucestershire, to hold in survivorship, with reversion to the grantor and his heirs. In Nov. 1355, in consideration of his labors and heavy charges in the king’s wars in France, Scotland, and elsewhere, he was pardoned £105, wherein he was held to the king in the wardrobe of arrears of his farm for lands late of Laurence de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke; pardon to him also of 50 marks of £300 wherein he was held to the king at the exchequer of arrears of his farm for lands late of John Lovell. SIR RICHARD TALBOT, 2nd Lord Talbot, died testate 23 October 1356, and is said to have been buried at Flanesford Priory, Herefordshire. In June 1357 his widow, Elizabeth, had license to grant the manor and the advowson of the church of Swanscombe, Kent to Roger de Mortimer, K.G., 2nd Earl of March. In 1358–9 she had license to grant the manor of Whaddon, Gloucestershire to John de Bromwich for life. Elizabeth married (2nd) between 21 Feb. 1357/8 and Hilary term 1361 (date of lawsuit) JOHN [DE] BROMWICH (or BROMWYCH, BROMEWYCH), Knt., of Bromsberrow, Minchinhampton, and Nailsworth, Gloucestershire, Grendon, Herefordshire, and, in right of his wife, of Archenfield, Herefordshire, Knight of the Shire for Herefordshire, 1371, Justiciar of Ireland, 1379, and, in right of his 1st wife, of Painswick, Gloucestershire. They had no issue. In 1353 the king ordered that he be released from the Tower of London without delay. In 1358 he acknowledged that he owed Gilbert son of Richard Talbot a debt of £200. In 1361 John Bromewych and Elizabeth his wife, executrix of the will of Richard Talbot, Knt., with John Keysyng, co-executor with the said Elizabeth of the said will, were summoned to respond to the Prior of the church of St. Leonard, Wormsley in a plea regarding a debt of £20. He presented to the church of Credenhill, Herefordshire, 1361, 1368, and to a mediety of the church of Catfield, Norfolk, 1361. He was a legatee in the 1368 will of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, who bequeathed him a courser called Gerfacon. In August 1379 Robert de Evere and others were directed to arrest as many ships as necessary to convey John de Bromwich, Justiciar of Ireland, to Ireland with 60 men at arms. In October following, however, the king appointed Edmund de Mortimer, Earl of March, the King’s Lieutenant in Ireland, and Bromwich was commanded to deliver the office of Justiciar to him. In 1371 he sued John Walle in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass in Newland, Gloucestershire. In 1372 he sued John Hales and Isabel his wife in the Court of Common Pleas in a Gloucestershire plea regarding a debt of £10. Elizabeth, Lady Talbot, died 20 Nov. 1372. In 1375 the manor of Credenhill, Herefordshire was settled on him and his heirs, with reversion in default of such heirs to his step-son, Gilbert Talbot, Knt. The same year he sused Eve Josep in the Court of Common Pleas in a Gloucestershire plea regarding a debt of £12. In 1376, he then staying in England, he had letters appointing attorneys for him in Ireland. In 1379 he was granted an annuity of 100 marks by Edmund de Mortimer, Earl of March, he being retained to stay with the said earl for life. He was custodian of Clifford Castle, Herefordshire in 1382–3, 1394, during the minority of Roger de Mortimer, Earl of March. In 1383, he then staying in England, he had letters nominating Robert Eure and another his attorneys in Ireland for one year. In 1384 he sued Philip Rodbarwe in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £20. In 1385 he sued Simon Olyver, of Bristol, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Bisley, Gloucestershire. In 1386 he sued _____ Frompton and his son, John, Hugh atte Grene, and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire. The same year he sued William Plonfield, of Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire, and others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire. He married (2nd) before 17 May 1387 (date of fine) KATHERINE _____. They had no issue. In 1387 Richard Nasshe and Hugh Haresfeld settled the manors of Credenhill and Eaton Tregoz (in Foy), Herefordshire and Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire on John and Katherine his wife and the heirs of their bodies. SIR JOHN BROMWICH died testate shortly before 20 Sept. 1388. His widow, Katherine, presented to the church of Credenhill, Herefordshire in 1388. In 1389 his widow, Katherine, the Prior of Llanthony in Wales, and four others, executors of John Bromwich, Knt., were pardoned of all waste and trespasses by the said John while farmer of the lands and tenements in England of the Abbess of Caen. Katherine married (2nd) before Easter terrn 1398 (date of lawsuit) (as his 2nd wife) HUGH WATERTON, Knt., of Eaton Tregoz (in Foy) and Credenhill, Herefordshire, Tibberton, Worcestershire, etc., King’s knight, Chamberlain of Henry, Earl of Derby [future King Henry IV], 1386–93, Constable of Brecon and Hay Castles, 1387–97, Chamberlain of the Duchy of Lancaster, Steward and receiver of Swansea Castle, 1399–1401, Constable of Queenborough Castle, 1399–1402, Constable of St. Briavels Castle, 1399, Constable of Windsor Castle, 1405–9, son of William de Waterton, of Waterton, Lincolnshire, by ____, daughter of Thomas Methley. They had no issue. In 1398 Nicholas Clerk, Burgess of the town of Gloucester, sued Hugh Waterton, of Eaton Tregoz (in Foy), Herefordshire, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 15 marks, and Hugh Waterton, of Tibberton, Worcestershire, and Katheine his wife regarding a debt of 10 marks. In 1399 he and Katherine his wife were granted the manor of Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire at farm. He held Goodrich Castle, Herefordshire in 1402, in wardship of Gilbert, son and heir of Richard Talbot. In 1402 the king ordered that he dwell at Berkhamstead Castle, Hertfordshire and govern the king’s children, John and Philippe, and the Earl of March and his brother, until the king returned from Wales. In 1406 the king granted Katherine his wife the manors of Stretton, Derbyshire and Ashperton, Herefordshire, as well as other property in Monmouthshire. He presented to the church of Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire in 1407. His wife, Katherine, received robes of the Garter in 1408, 1409, 1413, and 1416. SIR HUGH WATERTON left a will dated 1 July 1409, proved 7 July 1409. His widow, Katherine, presented to the church of Bromsberrow, Gloucestershire in 1411, 1412, and 1419. She was granted the manor of Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire at an increased farm in 1413. She married (3rd) before October 1414 (as his 2nd wife) ROGER LECHE, Knt., of Chatsworth, Bubnell, and Nether Haddon, Derbyshire, Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, 1400–1401, Knight of the Shire for Derbyshire, 1402, 1406, 1413–14, Controller of the Household of King Henry IV, 1404–5, Keeper of the City of York, 1405–6, Steward of the Household to Henry, Prince of Wales [future King Henry V], 1407–13, Sheriff of Flintshire, 1407–16, Treasurer of the Household of King Henry V, 1413–16, Chief Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster north of Trent, 1413–16, Treasurer of the Household, 1413–16, Chamberlain of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1416, Treasurer of England, 1416. They had no issue. He was appointed ambassador to treat for peace and the surrender of prisoners with the Scots in 1404. In 1413 custody of Combermere Abbey, Cheshire and its possessions were granted to him and two others. In 1415 he and Katherine his wife, late wife of Hugh Waterton, Knt., were granted a general pardon. SIR ROGER LECHE died testate shortly before 30 Nov. 1416. Katherine died testate 4 May 1420. William Loveney, executor of the wills of both Sir Roger Leche and his widow, Katherine, was involved in a protracted and costly lawsuit against Bishop Langley of Durham; the case was submitted to arbitration in October 1421.
References:
Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 5 (1775): 849; 9 (1808): 290–293. Lodge, Peerage of Ireland 2 (1789): 116–138 (sub Talbot, Earl of Waterford). Throsby, Thoroton’s Hist. of Nottinghamshire 3 (1790): 236–237. Pegge, Hist. Account of Beauchief Abbey (1801): 171 (obits kept at Beauchief Abbey: “vii. Id. (7) Dec. Com’ D’ni Rogeri Leche, militis, de Bubnyll, et Emmæ uxoris ejus, qui obijt anno Domini, 1416.”). Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 5 (1806): 13–14. Fosbroke, Abs. of Recs. & MSS respecting the County of Gloucester 1 (1807): 348–349, 369–372. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 3 (1812): 1–49 (sub Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury). Hunter, Hallamshire (1819): 43–44 (Talbot ped.). Banks, Gen. Hist. of Divers Fams. of the Ancient Peerage of England (1826): 160–161 (sub Bromwich). Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 70–71 (will of Lionel, Duke of Clarence), 92–93 (will of Thomas Lord Poynings dated 1374; Hugh Waterton appointed an executor). Hodgson, Hist. of Northumberland Pt. 2 Vol. 2 (1832): 41–42 (Valence-Balliol ped.). Nicolas, Controversy between Scrope & Grosvenor 2 (1832): 190–192 (biog. of Hugh Waterton). Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northampton 2 (1836–41): 315 (Munchensi-Valence ped.). Banks Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 160–161 (sub Bromwich). Stonehouse Hist. & Topog. of the Isle of Axholme (1839): 446–454. Banks Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 55 (sub Bromwich). Lipscomb, Hist. & Antiqs. of Buckingham 1 (1847): 27–28 (Talbot ped.). Arch. Cambrensis 3rd Ser. 7 (1861): 185–204. Norfolk Arch. 6 (1864): 92–102 (Hastings ped.). Duncumb et al., Colls. towards the Hist. & Antiqs. of Hereford 2(2) (1866): 375–383; 3 (1882): 79, 81. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 37 (1876). 50, 160, 357, 441, 537. Turner, Cal. Charters & Rolls: Bodleian Lib. (1878): 674, 678. Cooke Vis. of Herefordshire 1569 (1886): 3–5 (Apharry or Parry ped.: “Hughe Waterton, mar. doughter to Alexander Wolder. = (Ellen d. of Robert Mowbray.).” (Editorial footnote on pg. 4: “Ash 831 gives Alex. Wallen. Harl. MS 1571, f. 34b, gives d. of Alex. Walton; another pedigree gives Eleonora, d. of Alex. Walweyn. There were two Sir Hugh Watertons and contemporaries.”). Bain, Cal. Docs. Rel. Scotland 3 (1887): 242. Birch, Cat. Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 681 (seal of Elizabeth Comyn dated 1322–6 — A shield of arms: three garbs, two and one [COMYN]. Suspended by a strap from a hook; between two small slipped quatrefoils; and within a carved and pointed quatrefoil ornamented with ball-flowers along the inner edge. Legend: * . SIGILLVM . ELIZABETH . COMYN *. Beaded border.). Smith, Expeditions to Prussia & the Holy Land made by Henry Earl of Derby in the Years 1390–1 & 1392–3 (Camden Soc. n.s. 52) (1894): 293 (“Hugh de Waterton, knight, held the manor of Vgglee in Essex from Derby by farm of 20 marks annually; which sum in 1392 he paid to the Earl while abroad with him (Leventhorp’s accounts, 15 to 18 R. II, D. of L. records, cl. 28, bdle. 3, No. 5, fo. 4). We find him acting as Derby’s receiver of monies in 1377–8 and 1381–2, and as his chamberlain in 1386 (D. of L. rec. cl. 28, bdle. 3, Nos. 1, 3; and ib. bdle. 1. No. 1), in which last office he continues through 1390–1, and probably 1392–3, the years of our accounts. He had charge of Henry’s children Philippa and John at Berkhamstead in 1402 (Mrs. Everett Green’s Princesses of England, iii., 343). A letter about 1403 (July) as to the troubles in Wales desires his influence with the king to go to the rescue (Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2nd ser., I. 20), and there is one from Hugh de Waterton himself to his master on the same subject (Hingeston’s Letters of Henry IV., Rolls Ser. i., p. 149). In 5 and 7 Henry IV. he was one of the king’s council (Rot. Parl. iii., 530a, 572b.). He married Ellen daughter of Thomas Mowbray, and died in 1409.”), 311–312 (Lady Katerina Bromwych. The only fact that I have gleaned about this lady, who appears to have paid some money to the treasurer on Derby’s account at Lynn when sailing for Prussia in 1392, is that she held for life the manor of Michelhampton, a charge on which was granted to Joan (the second) queen of Henry IV., and which afterwards was to pass to the new Convent of Sion. Rot. Parl. iv., 343b.). C.C.R. 1327–1330 (1896): 563. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 261 (John Clanvowe styled “nephew of Richard Talbot, knight” in papal petition dated 1354). Williams, Parl. Hist. of Hereford (1896): 25 (biog. of John de Bromwich). C.P.R. 1381–1385 (1897): 99, 326. List of Procs. in the Court of Star Chamber 1 (Lists & Indexes 13) (1901): 71. C.P.R. 1388–1392 (1902): 61, 100–101. C.P.R. 1345–1348 (1903): 349. Scots Peerage 1 (1904): 508–509 (sub Comyn, lord of Badenoch). Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 22–23, 84, 176. C.C.R. 1349–1354 (1906): 585. Jeayes, Desc. Cat. Derbyshire Charters (1906): 81, 84, 97, 99, 151, 241. List of Inqs. ad Quod Damnum 2 (PRO Lists and Indexes 22) (1906): 502, 611, 730. Baddeley, Cotteswold Manor: Being the Hist. of Painswick (1907): 12–13 (ped.). C.P.R. 1350–1354 (1907): 89, 91, 327, 508. C.C.R. 1354–1360 (1908): 499. VCH Buckingham 2 (1908): 271–281; 4 (1927): 45–48. C.P.R. 1354–1358 (1909): 15, 268, 314, 570. D.N.B. 19 (1909): 329–330 (biog. of Richard Talbot). Miscellanea 5 (Thoresby Soc. 15) (1909): 81–102. VCH Hampshire 4 (1911): 51–56. Cal. IPM 8 (1913): 518–525; 11 (1935): 328–340. C.P.R. 1367–1370 (1913): 463. C.Ch.R. 5 (1916): 70. Mascall, Registrum Roberti Mascall, Episcopi Herefordensis, A.D. MCCCCIV–MCCCCXVI (Canterbury & York Soc. 21 ) (1917): 170, 177, 185. Trans. Bristol & Gloucestershire Arch. Soc. 45 (1923): 102, 132. VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 531–543. Tout, Chapters in the Administratve Hist. of Mediæval England 6 (1933): 43. Hethe, Reg. Hamonis Hethe Diocesis Roffensis 2 (Canterbury & York Soc. 49) (1948): 668. C.P. 12(1) (1953): 612–614 (sub Talbot). Somerville, Hist. of the Duchy of Lancaster 1 (1953): 170, 385, 417, 419, 424. Holmes, Estates of the Higher Nobility in 14th Cent. England (1957): 60–61. London Topog. Rec. 22 (1965): 36. Chancery Miscellanea 4 (List & Index Soc. 38) (1968): 26. VCH Wiltshire 9 (1970): 119–124. VCH Gloucester 10 (1972): 86, 208–213; 11 (1976): 65–70, 190–193, 211. Rees, Cal. Ancient Petitions Rel. Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. & Law 28) (1975): 493–494. Ellis, Cat. Seals in the P.R.O. 2 (1981): 103 (seal of Richard Talbot dated 1336 — In a richly traceried circle, a shield of arms: a lion rampant within a bordure engrailed, and a label of three points. In the tracery are three roundels, below and beside the shield, each containing a garb. Legend: ..SIGILLVM./ RICARDI/ [TAL]EBOT). Walker, Lancastrian Affinity 1361–1399 (1990): 90. Barry et al., Colony & Frontier in Medieval Ireland (1995): 99–100, 102. Fryde & Greenway, Handbook of British Chronology (1996): 162. VCH Oxford 13(1) (1996): 22–30. Rickard, Castle Community (2002): 66, 94, 100, 106, 214, 224, 239, 242, 252, 255, 274. McAndrew, Scotland’s Hist. Heraldry (2006): 42 (Comyn ped.). Clemmensen, William Jenyns’ Ordinary (2008): 34 (arms of Rich. Talbot dated c.1355: lion & border engrailed). Chamber Account, Edward II, 1325/6, SAL MS 122, available at Society of Antiquaries Library, London (re. marriage of Richard Talbot and Elizabeth Comyn); citation courtesy of Kathryn Warner). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/281, image 98f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no281/aCP40no281fronts/IMG_0098.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/282, image 382f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no282/aCP40no282fronts/IMG_0382.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/283, image 1f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no283/cCP40no283fronts/IMG_0001.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/331, image 108f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no331/aCP40no331fronts/IMG_0108.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/334, image 24d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no334/bCP40no334dorses/IMG_0024.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/334, image 69d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no334/bCP40no334dorses/IMG_0069.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/338, image 130f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no338/aCP40no338fronts/IMG_0130.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/366, image 3322d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/CP40no366/bCP40no366dorses/IMG_3322.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/381, image 8463f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/CP40no381/aCP40no381fronts/IMG_8463.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/381, image 8837d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/CP40no381/bCP40no381dorses/IMG_8837.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/405, image 519f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no405/aCP40no405fronts/IMG_0510.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/442, image 192f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no442/aCP40no442fronts/IMG_0192.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/448, image 234f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no448/aCP40no448fronts/IMG_0234.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/459, image 669d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no459/bCP40no459dorses/IMG_0669.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/494, image 68 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no494/494_0068.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/499, image 291 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no499/499_0291.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/501, image 131f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no501/501_0131.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/503, image 19 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no503/503_0019.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/507, image 1363 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT6/R2/CP40no507/507_1363.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/549, image 17f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/R2/CP40no549/aCP40no549fronts/IMG_0017.htm). National Archives, SC 8/160/7956; SC 8/163/8132; SC 8/310/15484 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). National Archives, CP 25/1/83/47, #260; CP 25/1/286/35, #1; CP 25/1/289/55, #160 [see abstract of fines at http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
Mark Jennings
Jan 27, 2021, 7:53:58 PM1/27/21
to
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 11:10:33 PM UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage 12 Part I (1959): 612-614 (sub Talbot) has a good account of Sir Richard Talbot, 2nd Lord Talbot (died 1356).
>
> Regarding his date of birth, Complete Peerage states that Richard Talbot was born about 1305. For this statement, the following sources are cited:
>
> Cal. i.p.m. vol. viii, no 714; Cal Fine Rolls, vol. v, p. 457.
>
> I've examined the first source cited by Complete Peerage. This is the inquisition post mortem of Sir Richard Gilbert's father, Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, who died in 1346. It can be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp518-525
>
> One inquisition dated 1 March 1346 reveals that Gilbert Talbot's son and heir, Richard, was then aged 40 in 1346, or born about 1306, not about 1305.
(snip of much blather)
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage 12 Part I (1959): 612-614 (sub Talbot) has a good account of Sir Richard Talbot, 2nd Lord Talbot (died 1356).
>
> Regarding his date of birth, Complete Peerage states that Richard Talbot was born about 1305. For this statement, the following sources are cited:
>
> Cal. i.p.m. vol. viii, no 714; Cal Fine Rolls, vol. v, p. 457.
>
> I've examined the first source cited by Complete Peerage. This is the inquisition post mortem of Sir Richard Gilbert's father, Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, who died in 1346. It can be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp518-525
>
> One inquisition dated 1 March 1346 reveals that Gilbert Talbot's son and heir, Richard, was then aged 40 in 1346, or born about 1306, not about 1305.
Eh? "About 1305" would embrace 1306, would it not?
In any case, CP is more correct than you, since someone aged 40 on 1 March 1346 would more likely have been born in 1305 (ie had a birthday between 2 March and 31 December) than in 1306 (ie born between 1 January and 1 March) by virtue of the sheer preponderance of available days for their birth.
Douglas Richardson
Jan 27, 2021, 8:35:46 PM1/27/21
to
> Eh? "About 1305" would embrace 1306, would it not?
DR
Mark Jennings
Jan 28, 2021, 3:54:06 AM1/28/21
to
taf
Jan 28, 2021, 9:14:22 AM1/28/21
to
On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 12:54:06 AM UTC-8, Mark Jennings wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 1:35:46 AM UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > > Eh? "About 1305" would embrace 1306, would it not?
> > In answer to your question, the inquisition of Gilbert Talbot states that his son
> > and heir, Richard Talbot, was aged 40 on 1 March 1346. Most historians take
> > the year 1346 and subtract 40 years which gives you an approximate birth date
> > of 1306, not 1305. I was merely following standard practice.
> >
> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 1:35:46 AM UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > > Eh? "About 1305" would embrace 1306, would it not?
> > In answer to your question, the inquisition of Gilbert Talbot states that his son
> > and heir, Richard Talbot, was aged 40 on 1 March 1346. Most historians take
> > the year 1346 and subtract 40 years which gives you an approximate birth date
> > of 1306, not 1305. I was merely following standard practice.
> >
> No, you were just trying to score cheap tricks against CP and looking foolish as
> a consequence (as well as being wrong). "About 1305" is the more accurate
> birthdate given the evidence available.
First off, the 1 March date being talked about is just plain wrong. The writs to carry out the inquests were issued 1 March, 20 Edward III, but that is not when the actual inquests that reported Talbot's age were carried out. The Gloucester inquest is clearly stated to have taken place the Monday after the feast day of St Gregory the Pope (12 March), which places the actual date when Talbot was found to be 'aged 40' on 13 March, while a second inquest, one of several for Hereford and adjacent Wales, was taken the Tuesday following St. Gregory's day, 14 March. Now, given the calendar in use at the time, 13/14 March of 20 Edward III fell in 1345, before the late-March change of calendar year (what would now best be written as 1345/6, as the modern calendar with its 1 January year commencement would place it in 1346). That means that were he exactly 40 on that date, he was born in the calendar year of 1305, or even in the last few days of 1304 in the reckoning of the day, and as Mark has pointed out, the majority of the period covered by the range fell within 1305 (by either their calendar or ours) .
> a consequence (as well as being wrong). "About 1305" is the more accurate
> birthdate given the evidence available.
However, there is a larger issue. When one sees an age of 40, (the same is true for any even-decade age) this cannot be presumed to have been a precise indication of age. I have seen the same person called 30 and 50 in two inquests held the same year. An age of 40 was sometimes given just to represent 'full adulthood', and since the primary question of interest, 'is the heir a minor?', was moot for a man of such age, there was much less effort placed on determining the age precisely. Thus we are not talking 'aged 40' meaning he was born 13/14 September 1305 (+/- 6 months). It is more like 1305 (+/- many years). As such, a 'correction' that changes 'about 1305' to 'about 1306' is an exercise in inappropriate precision - trying to make precise mathematical distinctions when dealing with highly imprecise data is inherently flawed. (Example: If someone says 'there are about a million grans of sand on this beach', and you pick up one, there are not now 'about 999,999 grains of sand'. No attempt should be made to perform single-grain calculations based on an initial estimate that never intended to indicate that level of precision. There are still 'about a million'.)
So, Complete Peerage was entirely correct, for as precise as one can rightly be.
taf
John Higgins
Jan 28, 2021, 2:33:47 PM1/28/21
to
Douglas Richardson
Jan 28, 2021, 2:52:22 PM1/28/21
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
This matter in hand concerns an interpretation of the inquisition post mortem of Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, who died in 1346. As I stated in my first post, this inquisition can be viewed of the following weblink:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp518-525
Based on this inquisition, Complete Peerage, 12 Part I (1959): 612 (sub Talbot) states that Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, "died 24 February 1345/6 at Eccleswell." But does the inquisition really say that? In this case, the actual inquisition is divided in seven parts, one inquest being taken in Gloucestershire and six in Herefordshire. They are dated respectively as follows:
1. Inq. taken at Westbury on Monday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III [i.e., 13 March 1346].
2. Inq. taken at la Mere on Monday after St. Gregory 20 Edward III [13 March 1346].
3. Inq. taken at Rosse, Tuesday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III [14 March 1346].
4. Inq. taken in the castle of Hereford on Wednesday, the feast of St. James, 26 Edward III [25 July 1352].
5. Inq. taken in the castle of Hereford on Saturday after St. Margaret, 26 Edward III [21 July 1352].
6. Inq. taken at Gokrate by le Mere of Blaynleveny on Friday, the feast of St. Lawrence, 26 Edward III [10 August 1352].
7. Inq. taken at Hereford, Sunday after St. Lawrence, 26 Edward III [12 August !352].
Three of the above inquests give statements as to Sir Gilbert’s date of death. Only one gives his place of death. Two inquests name his son and heir, Richard Talbot, but only one gives Richard’s age.
In the first and second inquests taken immediately following Sir Gilbert Talbot’s death, it is stated that he died on Friday, 24 February, 20 Edward III [1346]. No place of death is given. The death date in these two inquests agrees with what Complete Peerage published.
The fourth inquest gives a slightly different story. It states that "Sir Gilbert Talbot died on the night following Monday, 20 February, 20 Edward III, but whether he died soon after midnight, or in the last quarter of the said night, the jurors know not. He died at Ekleswalle." END OF QUOTE.
The fourth inquest indicates that Sir Gilbert Talbot died the night of Monday, 20 February 1346 "soon after midnight [i.e., 21 February 1346], or in the last quarter of the said night” [i.e., 3:30 AM to sunrise, 21 February 1346]. Sir Gilbert's place of death is given as Eccleswall, Herefordshire.
In this case, Complete Peerage appears to have morphed the information from the first, second, and fourth inquests and derived a death date and death place for Sir Gilbert Talbot as "24 Feb. 1345/6, at Eccleswall." But taken collectively, the three inquests indicate that Sir Gilbert died 21 or 24 February 1346, at Eccleswall, Herefordshire. Only one inquest [the last] states he died at Eccleswall. Eccleswall is actually located in the parish of Linton, Herefordshire. So to be perfectly accurate, Complete Peerage should have stated that Sir Gilbert Talbot died at Eccleswall (in Linton), Herefordshire.
What are we to make of this? Obviously Complete Peerage was trying to simplify the confusion of dates by picking the one that the author felt was the most accurate. I often find myself in the same position of having to pick one date or one account over another. All historians grapple with this problem. In this case, the author went with the date provided by the two inquests which were taken immediately following the death of Sir Gilbert Talbot, as opposed to one taken six years after his death. That makes good sense. Some accounts in Complete Peerage, however, will show competing dates of death, even those which are in serious discrepancy. This approach is obviously is more accurate. Which is better? Simplification or accuracy? What’s your choice?
In the case of the age of Sir Gilbert Talbot’s son and heir, Richard, his age is given as aged 40 years in first inquest dated 13 March 1346. Inquisitions often add the phrase “and more” following the age of the heir, such as “aged 40 and more.” In this case, the phrase “and more” is not included in the published abstract of the inquisition. As such, I have to assume that the original document reads that Richard Talbot was aged 40 period. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether this was an exact age or an estimate of his age. If exact, it means he was born about 1306, not about 1305 as stated by Complete Peerage. Thanks to Kathryn Warner, we now have an exact date of Richard Talbot’s marriage as being in the year 1326. This would put his marriage at aged 20 which certainly seems reasonable.
As to the need of double dating, I used to show dates in early March, for example as 1345/6. I tried to do so consistently in my record keeping.
I felt double-dating was more accurate. Once upon a time, I even criticized a fellow poster for not using double dates. However, over the course of time, I've found that most historians no longer observe the custom of using double dates. They usually usually refer to early March as 1346, which reflects our modern calendar, and they avoid the double date of 1345/6, which reflects the older calendar. Again, I think it depends on whether you prefer simplification over accuracy. What's your choice?
Wikipedia, by the way, states that Sir Gilbert Talbot died in 1346 (no double dating) and that his son, Richard Talbot, was born about 1306. This is modern convention. And that's the way I've interpreted the inquisition post mortem of Sir Gilbert Talbot above.
In closing, I've listed below the names of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Richard Talbot (died 1356) and his wife, Elizabeth Comyn. Do you descend from this couple? If so, I'd very much appreciate if you would post your line of descent here on the newsgroup.
Robert Abell, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Francis Dade, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane, Nicholas, & Vincent Lowe, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, Thomas Rudyard, Richard Saltonstall, Samuel & William Torrey.
This matter in hand concerns an interpretation of the inquisition post mortem of Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, who died in 1346. As I stated in my first post, this inquisition can be viewed of the following weblink:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp518-525
Based on this inquisition, Complete Peerage, 12 Part I (1959): 612 (sub Talbot) states that Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, "died 24 February 1345/6 at Eccleswell." But does the inquisition really say that? In this case, the actual inquisition is divided in seven parts, one inquest being taken in Gloucestershire and six in Herefordshire. They are dated respectively as follows:
1. Inq. taken at Westbury on Monday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III [i.e., 13 March 1346].
2. Inq. taken at la Mere on Monday after St. Gregory 20 Edward III [13 March 1346].
3. Inq. taken at Rosse, Tuesday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III [14 March 1346].
4. Inq. taken in the castle of Hereford on Wednesday, the feast of St. James, 26 Edward III [25 July 1352].
5. Inq. taken in the castle of Hereford on Saturday after St. Margaret, 26 Edward III [21 July 1352].
6. Inq. taken at Gokrate by le Mere of Blaynleveny on Friday, the feast of St. Lawrence, 26 Edward III [10 August 1352].
7. Inq. taken at Hereford, Sunday after St. Lawrence, 26 Edward III [12 August !352].
Three of the above inquests give statements as to Sir Gilbert’s date of death. Only one gives his place of death. Two inquests name his son and heir, Richard Talbot, but only one gives Richard’s age.
In the first and second inquests taken immediately following Sir Gilbert Talbot’s death, it is stated that he died on Friday, 24 February, 20 Edward III [1346]. No place of death is given. The death date in these two inquests agrees with what Complete Peerage published.
The fourth inquest gives a slightly different story. It states that "Sir Gilbert Talbot died on the night following Monday, 20 February, 20 Edward III, but whether he died soon after midnight, or in the last quarter of the said night, the jurors know not. He died at Ekleswalle." END OF QUOTE.
The fourth inquest indicates that Sir Gilbert Talbot died the night of Monday, 20 February 1346 "soon after midnight [i.e., 21 February 1346], or in the last quarter of the said night” [i.e., 3:30 AM to sunrise, 21 February 1346]. Sir Gilbert's place of death is given as Eccleswall, Herefordshire.
In this case, Complete Peerage appears to have morphed the information from the first, second, and fourth inquests and derived a death date and death place for Sir Gilbert Talbot as "24 Feb. 1345/6, at Eccleswall." But taken collectively, the three inquests indicate that Sir Gilbert died 21 or 24 February 1346, at Eccleswall, Herefordshire. Only one inquest [the last] states he died at Eccleswall. Eccleswall is actually located in the parish of Linton, Herefordshire. So to be perfectly accurate, Complete Peerage should have stated that Sir Gilbert Talbot died at Eccleswall (in Linton), Herefordshire.
What are we to make of this? Obviously Complete Peerage was trying to simplify the confusion of dates by picking the one that the author felt was the most accurate. I often find myself in the same position of having to pick one date or one account over another. All historians grapple with this problem. In this case, the author went with the date provided by the two inquests which were taken immediately following the death of Sir Gilbert Talbot, as opposed to one taken six years after his death. That makes good sense. Some accounts in Complete Peerage, however, will show competing dates of death, even those which are in serious discrepancy. This approach is obviously is more accurate. Which is better? Simplification or accuracy? What’s your choice?
In the case of the age of Sir Gilbert Talbot’s son and heir, Richard, his age is given as aged 40 years in first inquest dated 13 March 1346. Inquisitions often add the phrase “and more” following the age of the heir, such as “aged 40 and more.” In this case, the phrase “and more” is not included in the published abstract of the inquisition. As such, I have to assume that the original document reads that Richard Talbot was aged 40 period. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether this was an exact age or an estimate of his age. If exact, it means he was born about 1306, not about 1305 as stated by Complete Peerage. Thanks to Kathryn Warner, we now have an exact date of Richard Talbot’s marriage as being in the year 1326. This would put his marriage at aged 20 which certainly seems reasonable.
As to the need of double dating, I used to show dates in early March, for example as 1345/6. I tried to do so consistently in my record keeping.
I felt double-dating was more accurate. Once upon a time, I even criticized a fellow poster for not using double dates. However, over the course of time, I've found that most historians no longer observe the custom of using double dates. They usually usually refer to early March as 1346, which reflects our modern calendar, and they avoid the double date of 1345/6, which reflects the older calendar. Again, I think it depends on whether you prefer simplification over accuracy. What's your choice?
Wikipedia, by the way, states that Sir Gilbert Talbot died in 1346 (no double dating) and that his son, Richard Talbot, was born about 1306. This is modern convention. And that's the way I've interpreted the inquisition post mortem of Sir Gilbert Talbot above.
In closing, I've listed below the names of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Richard Talbot (died 1356) and his wife, Elizabeth Comyn. Do you descend from this couple? If so, I'd very much appreciate if you would post your line of descent here on the newsgroup.
Robert Abell, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Francis Dade, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane, Nicholas, & Vincent Lowe, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, Thomas Rudyard, Richard Saltonstall, Samuel & William Torrey.
taf
Jan 28, 2021, 3:19:28 PM1/28/21
to
On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> This matter in hand concerns an interpretation of the inquisition post mortem of Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, who died in 1346. As I stated in my first post, this inquisition can be viewed of the following weblink:
>
> https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp518-525
>
> Based on this inquisition, Complete Peerage, 12 Part I (1959): 612 (sub Talbot) states that Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, "died 24 February 1345/6 at Eccleswell." But does the inquisition really say that? In this case, the actual inquisition is divided in seven parts, one inquest being taken in Gloucestershire and six in Herefordshire. They are dated respectively as follows:
>
> 1. Inq. taken at Westbury on Monday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III [i.e., 13 March 1346].
> 2. Inq. taken at la Mere on Monday after St. Gregory 20 Edward III [13 March 1346].
> 3. Inq. taken at Rosse, Tuesday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III [14 March 1346].
> 4. Inq. taken in the castle of Hereford on Wednesday, the feast of St. James, 26 Edward III [25 July 1352].
> 5. Inq. taken in the castle of Hereford on Saturday after St. Margaret, 26 Edward III [21 July 1352].
> 6. Inq. taken at Gokrate by le Mere of Blaynleveny on Friday, the feast of St. Lawrence, 26 Edward III [10 August 1352].
> 7. Inq. taken at Hereford, Sunday after St. Lawrence, 26 Edward III [12 August !352].
>
> Three of the above inquests give statements as to Sir Gilbert’s date of death. Only one gives his place of death. Two
> inquests name his son and heir, Richard Talbot, but only one gives Richard’s age.
GLOUCESTER. Inq. taken at Westbury on Monday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III.
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> This matter in hand concerns an interpretation of the inquisition post mortem of Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, who died in 1346. As I stated in my first post, this inquisition can be viewed of the following weblink:
>
> https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol8/pp518-525
>
> Based on this inquisition, Complete Peerage, 12 Part I (1959): 612 (sub Talbot) states that Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, "died 24 February 1345/6 at Eccleswell." But does the inquisition really say that? In this case, the actual inquisition is divided in seven parts, one inquest being taken in Gloucestershire and six in Herefordshire. They are dated respectively as follows:
>
> 1. Inq. taken at Westbury on Monday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III [i.e., 13 March 1346].
> 2. Inq. taken at la Mere on Monday after St. Gregory 20 Edward III [13 March 1346].
> 3. Inq. taken at Rosse, Tuesday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III [14 March 1346].
> 4. Inq. taken in the castle of Hereford on Wednesday, the feast of St. James, 26 Edward III [25 July 1352].
> 5. Inq. taken in the castle of Hereford on Saturday after St. Margaret, 26 Edward III [21 July 1352].
> 6. Inq. taken at Gokrate by le Mere of Blaynleveny on Friday, the feast of St. Lawrence, 26 Edward III [10 August 1352].
> 7. Inq. taken at Hereford, Sunday after St. Lawrence, 26 Edward III [12 August !352].
>
> Three of the above inquests give statements as to Sir Gilbert’s date of death. Only one gives his place of death. Two
> inquests name his son and heir, Richard Talbot, but only one gives Richard’s age.
Lydeneye. A moiety of a knight’s fee, held of the earl of Warrewik by knight’s service.
Longehope. The manor, held of the earl of Lancaster by service of a moiety of a knight’s fee.
He died on Friday, 24 February, 20 Edward III. Richard Talebot, aged 40 years, is his next heir.
HEREFORD AND THE ADJACENT MARCH OF WALES. Inq. taken at Rosse, Tuesday after St. Gregory the Pope, 20 Edward III.
Lynton. The manor held of the king in chief by service of a knight’s fee.
Credenhull. The manor held of the king by service of a knight’s fee.
Blanleveny and Bukedynas. The castles and lordship held as in preceding inquisition.
Date of death as above. Richard his son, aged 40 years, is his next heir.
I know they don't teach math the same way as they did back when I was in school, but by my count that is two, not one, giving Richard's age.
> In the case of the age of Sir Gilbert Talbot’s son and heir, Richard, his age is given as aged 40
> years in first inquest dated 13 March 1346. Inquisitions often add the phrase “and more” following
> the age of the heir, such as “aged 40 and more.” In this case, the phrase “and more” is not included
> in the published abstract of the inquisition. As such, I have to assume that the original document
> reads that Richard Talbot was aged 40 period. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether this
> was an exact age or an estimate of his age. If exact, it means he was born about 1306, not about 1305
> as stated by Complete Peerage.
> Thanks to Kathryn Warner, we now have an exact date of Richard Talbot’s marriage as being in the year
> 1326. This would put his marriage at aged 20 which certainly seems reasonable.
> Wikipedia, by the way, states that Sir Gilbert Talbot died in 1346 (no double dating) and that his son,
> Richard Talbot, was born about 1306.
taf
Mark Jennings
Jan 28, 2021, 4:10:05 PM1/28/21
to
On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 7:52:22 PM UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
(mega-snip)
> Dear Newsgroup ~
"About 1305" it is then.
Best etc.
Douglas Richardson
Jan 28, 2021, 4:12:58 PM1/28/21
to
On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
< I doubt that you can provide any evidence at all for your broad assertion that "most historians" would use this method of calculation. "Most
< historians" are more sensible and would recognize that, if a man is said to be 40 on 1 March 1346, he's much more likely to have been born in 1305
< rather than in 1306. And that's assuming that he actually WAS 40 on that date - the age is likely to be just a guess.
John ~
< I doubt that you can provide any evidence at all for your broad assertion that "most historians" would use this method of calculation. "Most
< historians" are more sensible and would recognize that, if a man is said to be 40 on 1 March 1346, he's much more likely to have been born in 1305
< rather than in 1306. And that's assuming that he actually WAS 40 on that date - the age is likely to be just a guess.
I made no "broad assertion." I made a factual statement about the modern convention currently employed by historians regarding double-dating.
Here is a perfect example. Rickard, Castle Community (2002): 103 states that Gilbert Talbot was tenant in chief of Crickhowell Castle "to 24 February 1346." He cites as his source: IPM IX, no. 714 (R.I.P.).
Rickard is citing the very same inquisition of Sir Gilbert Talbot as his source which I've been discussing. The date he uses here is Sir Gilbert's date of death as found in the 1st and 2nd inquests of that inquisition. He does NOT double-date this to read 1345/6.
Rickard can be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=GgTBxtdwzk8C&pg=PA103
Rickard did get the wrong volume of Cal. IPM. Sir Gilbert Talbot's IPM is in Cal. IPM, volume 8, not volume 9.
I suppose you are going to say how dare Rickard agree with Richardson! What a fool! Actually it's the other way around. Rickard is a competent historian. I am the one agreeing with him. And I very much like agreeing with my historian brothers.
Douglas Richardson
Jan 28, 2021, 4:35:04 PM1/28/21
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
As I have indicated in my earlier posts, Complete Peerage states that Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, died 24 February 1345/6, at Eccleswall, Herefordshire. No mention is made of his will.
My file records indicate that the Register of Edward the Black Prince 1 (1930): 30 indicates that on 8 Nov. 1346 Edward the Black Prince wrote to Sir Thomas Talbot, executor of the will of Sir Gilbert Talbot, late justice of South Wales, requesting that he deliver up the rolls of the sessions of South Wales to John Lucas, the prince's attorney in those parts; Sir Richard Talbot wrote to him about the same business.
This record can be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000000340150&view=1up&seq=42&q1=%22Thomas%20Talbot%22
So yes, it appears that Sir Gilbert Talbot died testate. Another fact overlooked by Complete Peerage in its Talbot account.
I checked to see if the author used double-dating. As far as I can tell, he uses all modern dates. No double dates. And yes this is a work by a competent modern historian. Go figure.
As I have indicated in my earlier posts, Complete Peerage states that Sir Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord Talbot, died 24 February 1345/6, at Eccleswall, Herefordshire. No mention is made of his will.
My file records indicate that the Register of Edward the Black Prince 1 (1930): 30 indicates that on 8 Nov. 1346 Edward the Black Prince wrote to Sir Thomas Talbot, executor of the will of Sir Gilbert Talbot, late justice of South Wales, requesting that he deliver up the rolls of the sessions of South Wales to John Lucas, the prince's attorney in those parts; Sir Richard Talbot wrote to him about the same business.
This record can be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000000340150&view=1up&seq=42&q1=%22Thomas%20Talbot%22
So yes, it appears that Sir Gilbert Talbot died testate. Another fact overlooked by Complete Peerage in its Talbot account.
I checked to see if the author used double-dating. As far as I can tell, he uses all modern dates. No double dates. And yes this is a work by a competent modern historian. Go figure.
Douglas Richardson
Jan 28, 2021, 4:37:42 PM1/28/21
to
> "About 1305" it is then.
>
> Best etc.
I didn't say "about 1305." I said "about 1306." And my statement is entirely accurate.
>
> Best etc.
taf
Jan 28, 2021, 4:50:07 PM1/28/21
to
On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 1:37:42 PM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > "About 1305" it is then.
> >
> > "About 1305" it is then.
> >
> I didn't say "about 1305." I said "about 1306." And my statement is entirely accurate.
It is indeed 'entirely accurate' to say 'about 1306', because of the inherent imprecision both of the age and the term 'about'.
However the implication that 'about 1306' is entirely correct while 'about 1305' required your correction is entirely fatuous.
taf
Mark Jennings
Jan 28, 2021, 5:40:56 PM1/28/21
to
On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 9:12:58 PM UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> < I doubt that you can provide any evidence at all for your broad assertion that "most historians" would use this method of calculation. "Most
> < historians" are more sensible and would recognize that, if a man is said to be 40 on 1 March 1346, he's much more likely to have been born in 1305
> < rather than in 1306. And that's assuming that he actually WAS 40 on that date - the age is likely to be just a guess.
> John ~
>
> I made no "broad assertion." I made a factual statement about the modern convention currently employed by historians regarding double-dating.
Ah, the old bait-and-switch. Didn't take long for this tired old chestnut to be trolleyed out. You most certainly did make such a broad assertion - the archives here show it forever. Your exact words, preserved in electronic print above:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> < I doubt that you can provide any evidence at all for your broad assertion that "most historians" would use this method of calculation. "Most
> < historians" are more sensible and would recognize that, if a man is said to be 40 on 1 March 1346, he's much more likely to have been born in 1305
> < rather than in 1306. And that's assuming that he actually WAS 40 on that date - the age is likely to be just a guess.
> John ~
>
> I made no "broad assertion." I made a factual statement about the modern convention currently employed by historians regarding double-dating.
"Most historians take the year 1346 and subtract 40 years which gives you an approximate birth date of 1306, not 1305. I was merely following standard practice."
> Here is a perfect example. Rickard, Castle Community (2002): 103 states that Gilbert Talbot was tenant in chief of Crickhowell Castle "to 24 February 1346." He cites as his source: IPM IX, no. 714 (R.I.P.).
>
> Rickard is citing the very same inquisition of Sir Gilbert Talbot as his source which I've been discussing. The date he uses here is Sir Gilbert's date of death as found in the 1st and 2nd inquests of that inquisition. He does NOT double-date this to read 1345/6.
A perfect example indeed - of your low cunning and the mendaciousness that mars your work, more of a stain than a hallmark. You can read, can't you? As you know perfectly well, John (and others) were talking of your asinine insistence that March 1346 minus 40 can only = 1306 rather than the more likely 1305 that all the adults here can easily see. John is clearly not talking about 1345/6 or other double dates. Your attempts to avoid your own feculence, as usual, just result in you smearing it even further. Sheesh.
>
> Rickard is citing the very same inquisition of Sir Gilbert Talbot as his source which I've been discussing. The date he uses here is Sir Gilbert's date of death as found in the 1st and 2nd inquests of that inquisition. He does NOT double-date this to read 1345/6.
> Rickard can be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=GgTBxtdwzk8C&pg=PA103
>
> Rickard did get the wrong volume of Cal. IPM. Sir Gilbert Talbot's IPM is in Cal. IPM, volume 8, not volume 9.
>
> I suppose you are going to say how dare Rickard agree with Richardson! What a fool! Actually it's the other way around. Rickard is a competent historian. I am the one agreeing with him. And I very much like agreeing with my historian brothers.
> Douglas Richardson, Historian and Genealogist
Best etc
John Higgins
Jan 29, 2021, 12:40:36 AM1/29/21
to
0 new messages