Sir William Brugges

[Geoff Cook]

Does anyone have any information on the above gentleman. He was the
first Garter King of Arms so was presumably alive around 1348.

I have a Baldwin de Brugges b.1328 m Isabel Grandison b.1340 who was the
son of John de Brugges b.1296.

Can anyone tell me if I have the right family and how/if Sir William
fitted into it.

TIA

Geoff 'Researching Knights of the Garter 1361' Cook

--
Geoff...@Parallax.co.uk
"Unarmed combat is all very well, but why not carry an axe ?"

[Portculis]

I include the following for others descended from this family (ancestral to
Lord Chandos) as there is no account in print which is entirely correct.
Brydges' Collins' Peerage 6:706ff comes close, but even he, who claimed to be
Lord Chandos of Sudeley unsuccesfully, but accepted a Baronetcy in leu, was
careful to disclaim the information in the various pedigrees. I do not have
space [read: time] for the citations, but the following is based strictly on
original sources, such as charters, Feudal Aids, CPR, CCR, IPM, etc., which
have been compared to the standard printed accounts and pedigrees. I
haven't tried to clean it up, so it reads rough, but for those who want the
information, here it is.

The earliest ancestor who can be factually traced is:

1. Simon de Brugges, who forfeited the manor of Brugge-upon-Wye [Bridge Solers]
in 49 Henry III [1264/5]. He was still one of the leading men in
Herefordshire in 1272. Simon attempted to recover the lands in 1282. He
appears to have left a widow named Juliana who held land at Bruges-on-Wye in
1314. Simon is bifurcated in the MS. of Gregory King, and the second Simon
was supposed to have married (---) Walwayn.
Children:
2. i. John (see below).
ii. ? Gyles, a cleric in 1292.
iii. ?Walter, a tenant in Herefordshire in 1314.
iv. ?Edmund, sheriff of Hereford, is said to have married Jane, daughter
and heir of Thomas Pychard, lord of Staundon, co. Hereford. An Edmund Brugge
was sheriff of Worcester in 38 Edw. III [1365], and presented to Staundon in
1379. He might be son of John, below, but there is no proof. He is supposed
to be father of John Brugge, of Staundon (first mentioned in 1401). John was
associated with William Poleyn (one of his feoffees in 1405), John de Merbury
(1418) and the estate of John Oldcastle (which included Dimmock, co.
Gloucs.), Part of the Oldcastle estate had been granted to Edward Brugge
(second son of John, no. 2), William Poleyn and John Merbury. The dispute was
still continuing in 1433. John Brugge of Staundon died 30 Sep. 1436, leaving
a widow, Joane, whose will was proved by 1456. She is supposed to have been
daughter and heir of Philip de la Mare of Urchenfield, and to have had a
daughter and heir who married Sir John Baskerville. This heir would have to
have been born about 1385-90, so chronology would indicate that John was son
of Edmund living in 1365, not a younger son of Baldwin (below). Ralph
Baskerville, esquire, was suing Henry Clifford, feoffee of John Brugge of
Staundon over the manor of Little Sudbury, co. Gloucester, in Chancery
sometime between 1442 and 1457. The Baskerville pedigree (they were seated at
Iccombe, co. Gloucester) states that Ralph was born 21 Oct. 1410, son of Joan
Brugge. This accounts for this branch of the family and leaves no place here
for Thomas Brugge, esquire, of Dymock, co. Gloucester (see below).

2. John de Brugge, called son of Simon in 1325 (there is no evidence that there
was an intervening Simon between this John and the above man). One might
argue that John was called 'son of Simon' to differentiate him from another
John (and therefore it did not mean his father had to necessarily be alive).
John is not old enough to have fathered the Edmund who was sheriff, but a Hugh
de Brugg of Hereford gave his age as 49 in 1377, and might therefore have been
a son. John was probably also father of Simon, b. 1325 (occurred in the same
proof of age the following Baldwin was in), who's sister (in 1352) was Alice
de la Maunz. There was a Simon who left a will in 1385 (see below), but a
Simon de Brugge, draper, was murdered about 1364, so there may be Simons in
both generations.
John's wife was named Sarah according to Brydges (p. 707). He was a
Member of Parliament 16 Edw. II (and will therefore eventually have a
biography in that series). John has one proven son:

3. Baldwin de Brugge (not a knight), mentioned in 1337. He stated his age
to be 60 in 1373, and was therefore born about 1313. He occurred again in 1374
and 1377. He is said to have married Isabel, daughter and coheir of Sir Piers
Grandison, but this does not agree with original documents or evidence (the
Grandison estates are traceable, but not into this family). This connection
was probably added into later pedigrees to make the earlier generations of
this family more acceptable to the later Barons who descended from them. His
proven son was:

4. Thomas de Brugge (called son of Baldwin in 1387), of Haresfield and Matson,
co. Glocester, died 7 Apr. 1408. These four generations can be proven from
primary documentation. Connections to other branches and marriages before
this generation are based on much later pedigrees, which may or may not be
accurate. He married, as his second wife, Alice, daughter and coheir of Sir
Thomas Berkeley of Coberley, co. Gloucester, by his wife, Joan, sister and
coheir of Sir John Chaundos, 3rd Lord Chaundos. It was the inheritance
through this marriage that vaulted the Brugge or Bridges family into
prominence. Her lands were held in chief.
Children:
i. "Ed'us"Bruuge was son and heir of his father, aged 23 in 1408 (b. abt.
1386). He would presumably be the Edward Brugge of co. Gloucs. in the 1434
list of prominent men (if then alive).
ii. ? John Brugge, esquire, of co. Hereford in 1434.
iii. Sir Gyles Brugges, minor at his mother's death, b. at Hasfield 21 Dec.
1396. He was not heir to his father, but was heir to his mother, so his
father had at least one older son by a first wife. Gyles, or Giles, succeeded
as fourth Lord Chaundos at the death of his cousin in 1458. From here the
family is well accounted for.
iv. ?Thomas Brugge, of Brugge in 1434. It is possible that this Thomas was
ancestor of the Brugge/Brydges family of Dimmock, co. Gloucester. A pedigree
(without evidence) has been faked purporting to show that this branch descends
from Thomas Bridges of Ley who married a Maud, daughter and heiress of Thomas
Henborow, of Dimmock, but this seems to be fraudulent.
Sir John Brugges, Lord Mayor of London in 1520, was son of Thomas Brug of
Dimmock according to his monumental inscription. He died in 1530, leaving
issue sons and four daughters, including Winifred, mother of Thomas Sackville,
Earl of Dorset, the poet.
Another son was William Brugge, of Estington, co. Worcs., Esq. (d. 29 Apr.
1523), "sonne and heire" of Thomas Brugge of "Dimmoche" esquire, and his wife
Alice, daughter and heir of William Estington, of Estington in Longdon,
according to his M. I.
The third son of Thomas is stated to be Edmund Brugge, draper, of London.
The printed pedigrees call his daughter "Henborough," thus providing the seed
for the fictitious decsent from the Henborough family of Dimmock. Her name
was actually KINBOROUGH. She was called "Kymboro" in the will of her first
husband Thomas Pickner, and "Kinbero" in the marriage entry of her second
husband William Dummer. She was called "Kynbero" when she was buried 13 [not
14] Dec. 1544. So no Henborough. The later pedigree makers read it wrong and
forgedthe wrong pedigree. Edmund Brugge was apprenticed as a draper in 1480,
indicating a birth about 1466. If third son, his father would have married
about 1460 or earlier, and was therefore born before 1440. How the Dimmock
branch fits in is still a mystery, as there were three Thomas Brugges listed
in the 1434 list of prominent men in cos. Hereford and Gloucester.

There was a branch at Lee (par. Weobley). Simon de Brugge left a will,
1385, which mentioned Leye, his wife Isabel, and son Walter (his executors).
Edmund Brugge of Lee in the forest of Dene died seized of the manor 10 Hen. IV
[1409], leaving a wife, Blanche, and a son, Thomas, aged less than a year old.
Thomas Brugge of Lee was listed in the 1434 list of the leading men of co.
Hereford.
There was also a Thomas Brugge of Yventon and a John Brugge of Rosse in
Hereford in the 1434 list (a Thomas Brugge of Ross occurred in 1470), and a
John Brugge in Shropshire.
There was a Sir John Brugge who fought at Agincourt, according to Brydges,
in 1415, was sheriff of Hereford, sheriff of Gloucestershire, and M. P. for
Hereford 8 Hen. V [1421]. But he could not actually be a knight (there is a
difference between 'chivaler' and 'militis') if he was the John, esquire, in
the 1434 list (the only Brugge called esquire in that list). Brydges says he
had a son named Richard whose daughter and heir married Thomas Blount, of
Grindon, co. Hereford.

So, there is no William in this family. Sir John Chandos (d. 31 Dec. 1369) was
the 20th Knight of the Garter, but I see none of the Brugge line until no.
358, Edmund Brydges, Lord Chandos, no. 1572.
There were others in England whose surname Brugge or Brugges is actually
thought to have come from that place on the Continent (Flanders). I expect
you are left with the rough road of checking original sources such as
Calendars of Patent Rolls, Close Rolls, Fine Rolls, Inquisitiones Post Mortem, etc. You've checked the various histories of the College of Arms?

: )

[Paul Mackenzie]

You may be interested in the following articles

Expenses of the Great Wardrobe of Edward 111 &
Observations of the institutions of the most noble order of the Garter
ARCHAEOLOGIA or MISCELLANEOUS TRACTS relating to ANQUITY
published by the SOCIETY of ANTIQUARIES of LONDON
VOL XXXL

If you ever come across a Peter de Brewes in your research in this area
, I would be grateful to know. Please send by email at
macp...@ozemail.com.au (ps it is macpaul(one)).

Regards
Paul