Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II

CED wrote:
> I understand that you are not well read; but that is no excuse for
> crediting Richardson with Walter as being the (supposed) father of
> Hubert de Burgh. Clarence Ellis in_Hubert de Burgh_, Appendix I, made
> that suggestion more than 50 years ago.

> CED

Ellis made the suggestion, but, as you are well aware, he had no
evidence to prove the connection. I believe I've found evidence which
proves the connection. Please see a copy of my post below.

Mr. Ellis was evidently not aware that Thomas son of Walter de Burgh
who held lands at Outwell, Norfolk was the same individual as Earl
Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh. Once that is
established, then we should know once and for all that Earl Hubert de
Burgh's father was Walter de Burgh.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

Dear Mike ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

It appears virtually certain that "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh" who
held property at Upwell, Norfolk is the same person as Sir Thomas de
Burgh, brother of Sir Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent. We can be fairly
sure of this for three reasons: We know that both men were knights;
both are found associated with a Geoffrey de Burgh; also Thomas son of
Walter was holding property at Upwell under the honour of Wormegay,
which was held by Sir Hubert de Burgh in this time period.

The reason why Sir Hubert's brother referred to himself as "Thomas son
of Walter de Burgh" in the one charter at Upwell, Norfolk is because
there was another nearby Sir Thomas de Burgh seated at Borough Green,
Cambridgeshire. The two men were about the same age, both were
knights, and they were evidently related to each other (I'll discuss
their kinship in a future post). The Cambridgeshire man appears in
some records as "Thomas son of Thomas de Burgh," again to distinguish
him from "Thomas son of Walter de Burgh." As pure coincidence, Thomas
son of Thomas de Burgh arranged to marry Alice d'Oyry (the woman who
Blomfield erroneously alleged was Sir Hubert de Burgh's grandmother).
Thomas son of Thomas de Burgh did not marry Alice d'Oyry; instead, she
married William de Beaumont, by whom she was the mother of Joan de
Beaumont, wife of Reyner de Burgh. So, once again, we come full circle
to Joan and Reyner de Burgh.

VCH Worcester 3 (1913): 6-7 states that Thomas de Burgh (brother of
Hubert) was granted the manor of Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire in
1199-1200 by the king. He was still holding the manor in 1225. In
March 1227 the king granted the manor to Hubert brother of Thomas. It
eventually passed to Hubert's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, who
granted the manor to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the
1270's.

>>From this information, we learn that Thomas de Burgh (brother of

Hubert) was living in 1225, but evidently dead without issue in or
before March 1227. This agrees well with Copinger's statements that
Thomas de Burgh's widow, Nesta, gave the advowson of Kersey, Suffolk to
Kersey Priory and that Thomas de Blundeville, Bishop of Norwich,
"appropriated" Kersey church "to the use of the canons" in 1227
[Reference: W.A. Copinger, The Manors of Suffolk (1905): 84]. I
believe Bishop Blundeville's appropriation followed the gift of Thomas
de Burgh's widow, Nesta. Taken together, this means that Thomas de
Burgh (brother of Hubert) died without issue sometime between 1225 and
March 1227.

If so, then there is a tight time frame for Thomas (brother of Hubert)
to fit as the Thomas son of Walter who held property at Upwell,
Norfolk. We know that Thomas son of Walter de Burgh of Upwell was
living at the time that Angerus was abbot of West Dereham, Norfolk.
The book, Heads of Religious Houses in England and Wales, 2nd edition,
2001), pg. 199, shows that a certain Ralph occurs as abbot of West
Dereham from 1218-1225, and that he was followed by Angerus who occurs
in 1236. Dugdale says that "Angerius" was abbot in 1231-1232.
Provided that Angerus became abbot in or before March 1227, then there
is sufficient time for Thomas brother of Hubert to have witnessed
Angerus' charter just before Thomas died.

For conclusive proof that Thomas brother of Hubert de Burgh is the same
man as Thomas son of Walter de Burgh of Upwell, one will need to
examine the Burgh family charters cited by VCH Cambridge, vol. 4, which
involve grants by Burgh family members at Upwell to Walsingham Priory
and West Dereham Abbey. These charters are unpublished. For
interest's sake, the reference for them again is as follows:

1. Walsingham Priory: B.M. Cott. MS. Nero E. VII, ff 132-5.

2. West Dereham Abbey: B.M. Add. MS. 5805, f. 98b.

These charters should confirm whether or not Thomas son of Walter de
Burgh of Upwell is the same individual as Thomas, brother of Hubert de
Burgh, especially if they are witnessed by Thomas and Hubert's other
brother, Geoffrey de Burgh, who was Archdeacon of Norwich in this time
period. Once it has been confirmed that Thomas son of Walter at Upwell
is the same person as Thomas brother of Hubert, then we should have
conclusive evidence that Sir Hubert de Burgh's father was named Walter
de Burgh. We already know that Sir Hubert de Burgh made at least one
grant to Walsingham Priory. So that part looks good.

As a final comment, I might add that the passage of Thomas de Burgh's
lands at Upper Arleigh, Staffordshire to his brother, Hubert de Burgh,
in 1227 makes it highly unlikely that Thomas and Hubert were younger
brothers of William de Burgh (died 1206), lord of Connaught in Ireland,
as claimed by Ellis. Had Thomas and Hubert really been William de
Burgh's younger brothers, then Thomas' manor at Upper Arleigh should
have gone to William de Burgh's son and heir, Richard de Burgh, not to
Hubert de Burgh.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

.

Relevant Pages