ODNB error: Bartholomew Burghersh (d. 1369)
Chris Phillips
(d. 1369), his second wife is described as "Margaret, a close relative of
Bartholomew Badlesmere, his father's patron".
In the original (1886) article, she was stated to be "his cousin Margaret,
sister of Bartholomew, lord Badlesmere".
In contrast, the Complete Peerage describes her as "Margaret, widow of (---)
Pichard", and in a footnote ridicules Dugdale's identification of her as
"sister to Bartholomew, Lord Badlesmere", on the authority of Glover's MS
corrections, because this would make her Bartholomew Burghersh's great aunt.
It looks as though Glover's version has arisen through simple confusion
between Bartholomew Burghersh and his grandfather Robert, who married Maud,
sister of Bartholomew, lord Badlesmere. The attempt to rehabilitate a
clearly mistaken claim by making it vaguer seems misguided.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
Elizabeth of Burghersh b abt 1341 who married
Edward, 4th Lord le Despencer bef 2 Aug 1354.
Now the parents of Elizabeth are given at Leo's great site
http://www.genealogics.org as Bartholomew, 4th Lord Burghersh and his wife Cecily of Weyland.
The problem here is chronology. Leo's site states that his data on these
people comes from The Complete Peerage, 1936, H A & Lord Howard de Walden
But the site goes on to say that this Bartholomew was b abt 1329 to
Bartholomew, 3rd Lord Burghersh and Elizabeth of Verdun with this Elizabeth b
abt 1306.
I don't think the 4th Lord Burghersh has any call to be having children at
age 12, so I'm suspecting one or more of these dates needs to be re-arranged, OR
that this Elizabeth is actually the dau of the elder Lord Burghersh ? The
same name may have confused ...
Comments?
Will Johnson
Leo
I have printed your message and will double check. The English language
which is so precise also has a few dreadful words like -about- Bartholomew
was about 12, but he could also have been 14, and his daughter born about
1341 may have been born in 1343 and so on. I hope someone can give more
precise dates, or if the link is wrong tell us about it.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 1/06/05
>
>
Chris Phillips
> Elizabeth of Burghersh b abt 1341 who married
> Edward, 4th Lord le Despencer bef 2 Aug 1354.
>
> Now the parents of Elizabeth are given at Leo's great site
> http://www.genealogics.org as Bartholomew, 4th Lord Burghersh and his wife
Cecily of Weyland.
>
> The problem here is chronology. Leo's site states that his data on these
> people comes from The Complete Peerage, 1936, H A & Lord Howard de Walden
>
> But the site goes on to say that this Bartholomew was b abt 1329 to
> Bartholomew, 3rd Lord Burghersh and Elizabeth of Verdun with this
Elizabeth b
> abt 1306.
The younger Bartholomew's birth date comes from a statement that he was aged
26 and more at his father's death (1355), but Complete Peerage comments in a
footnote that he was probably aged _considerably_ more than 26. He married
before 10 May 1335 Cicely, whose age was then proved (unfortunately CP
doesn't state her date of birth). His parents were married before 11 June
1320, when his mother was of age.
So the solution must be that his father's inquisition post mortem
underestimated the younger Bartholomew's age. Elizabeth's paternity can't be
in any doubt, as she was her father's heir, and the estimate of her age
comes from her father's inquisition post mortem
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< The younger Bartholomew's birth date comes from a statement that he was
aged
26 and more at his father's death (1355), but Complete Peerage comments in a
footnote that he was probably aged _considerably_ more than 26. He married
before 10 May 1335 Cicely, whose age was then proved (unfortunately CP
doesn't state her date of birth). His parents were married before 11 June
1320, when his mother was of age. >>
What age is "of age" ?
And when you say that Cicely's "age was then proved" is this the same as
being "of age" ? So we would know she was "of age" on 10 May 1335? Is that right?
Thanks
Will
Tim Powys-Lybbe
What CP II (pub 1912), 426-7 says is that Eliz was 27 at her father's
death, which death was in April 1369 so she was born around 1341 or
1342; CP also says that her parents married in 1335.
Her father, Bartholomew was aged 26 and more at his father's
death which was in Aug 1355, so young Bartholomew was born in 1329 or
before. So young Bartholomew was at least 12 when his daughter Elizabeth
was born; while unusual that was quite permissible in those times.
No corrections in CP XIV (pub 1998).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Rosie Bevan
[CIPM vol. VI, no.227] taken on 15 April 1320 (Tuesday after SS
Tiburcius and Valerian 13 Edw II) states that Cecily was aged half a
year. She would appear to have been only just of age in 1335 and about
22 when she gave birth to Elizabeth. I would imagine Bartholomew was a
similar age.
Cheers
Rosie
Chris Phillips
> What age is "of age" ?
> And when you say that Cicely's "age was then proved" is this the same as
> being "of age" ? So we would know she was "of age" on 10 May 1335? Is
that right?
I wish there was a simple answer to this question, but the problem is that
different ages applied to different activities in different circumstances.
This point always confuses me, and I think that describing a woman as "of
age" without any context as CP does here doesn't convey any precise
information.
A person's age "being proved" refers to a formal process in which witnesses
(called jurors, confusingly to the modern eye) would swear to the date of
the person's birth from their own knowledge.
The consensus in past discussions here seems to be that if a woman's age was
proved, she would have to be at least 14. But if I understand correctly, if
her father died when she was unmarried and under 14, her guardian might
delay her marriage and her possession of her lands until she was 16.
In this case, from the information Rosie has posted, Cicely would have been
about 15 and a half years old when her age was proved.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
rbe...@paradise.net.nz writes:
Possibly, but Leo's site states that Elizabeth of Verdun (Bartholomew's
mother) was born abt 1306. So if he were born in 1319, his mother would be 13.
Not impossible, but I'm thinking that if that date of abt 1306 is to be believe,
its possible that Bart was a little younger than his wife Cecily of Wayland.
Will Johnson
Rosie Bevan
Verdun was born slightly earlier than 1306 (as Chris says) she had
given proof of age by 11 June 1320 by which time was already married
[CIPM VI no. 54]. She was probably born 1304/5. This is also reflected
by her father's inquisition which says variously that she was aged 10
and 12 in 1316. Bartholomew was obviously born after 1320 and was
probably two to three years younger than Cecily but that is what I
meant by a similar age i.e. there wouldn't have been a big difference
between their ages as suggested by the dates given in CP.
Cheers
Rosie