Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent

It should be remembered that Hubert de Burgh's estates is largely based on
his holdings in 1232. This date is a long time after his brother's Williams
death, usually said to have died in early 1205, so unless there is evidence
that Hubert held the "hereditary" property before that date, he may have
inherited them via his brother rather than his father.

It is perhaps possible that both William and Hubert (through his brother)
were heirs to their father. Traditional pedigrees give William a son Richard,
Lord of Connought, but from what has been said I'm not sure how solid this
filtration is.

Adrian

In a message dated 05/01/2006 00:08:56 GMT Standard Time, WJhonson@xxxxxxx
writes:
In a message dated 1/3/06 3:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@xxxxxxx writes:

<< If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB. >>


I want to point out one more thing. Douglas here is assuming that certain
laws of inheritence are at work here. That is, in particular, that the
eldest
son inherited everything, or at least the *main* land or the ancestral land.

Appropos of that, recently I was forwarded an article "Arms and the Man, but
which Man? A look at Early Murray arms" by Alex Maxwell Findlater. I do not
know when or where this may have been published, that was not included in
what
I was sent. On this particular point, however, of whether all lands
descended
to the eldest surviving son, he has something germane to say, which I quote:

"Working on this hypothesis, we can perhaps suggest that the very large
combined Olifard, Calder and Murray inheritance was divided to give the
younger son
a good estate. This was certainly not uncommon at that time, in that often
the Scottish estates were left to one son and the English to another. We
know
that in both the Vipont and Balliol families the inheritance was split more
than
two ways. Sir Walter Murray made a grant in 1278, in the lifetime of both
his
father and brother, to the monks of Dryburgh, releasing them from the
multures which they paid from their lands in Smallham, sheriffdom of
Berwick. This is
probably an indication of a substantial division of the lands."

So it's quite possible that the reason Burgh went to a younger son, was
simply because the eldest was already provided for.

Will Johnson


.

Relevant Pages