Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherton, son of King Edward I of England

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English royal
family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
is the first of a mulit-part post on the family of Thomas of
Brotherton and his first wife, Alice de Hales.

The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
includes an account of Thomas of Brotherton (died 1338), Earl of
Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided by
Complete Peerage:

"He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320) Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
before 1330." END OF QUOTE.

At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
marriage of Thomas and Alice, nor is the death date of Alice known.
And, when one checks the documentation provided for Alice de Hales'
maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
are references to two patent rolls items in which Alice's given name
is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v5/body/Edward2vol5page0205.pdf

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v2/body/Edward3vol2page0011.pdf

In the first item we see that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church of
Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wife Alice and the heirs of
Alice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance to
Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
(1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John de
Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference: Blomefield,
An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
(1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had in
fact been married to Alice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
Earl Thomas and Alice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor of
Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.

In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
good estate of Thomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
for his soul after death, and for the soul of Alice, sometime his
wife."

So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
maiden name or parentage of Alice, wife of Thomas of Brotherton. This
is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
see, it doesn't.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

This is the second part of a series of posts on the family of Thomas
of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk (died 1338), younger son of King Edward
I of England. In the next set of posts, we will examine the evidence
which proves the identity and parentage of Thomas of Brotherton's
first wife, Alice Hales.

In 1806 the noted antiquarian Francis Blomefield published an extract
from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas which relates to
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and his immediate family. This
account is found in Volume 5 of Blomefield's landmark series, An Essay
Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 (1806):
232-233. Interestingly, although Brotherton's wife, Alice, came from
a Norfolk family, this account does not identify her parentage, other
than to say that she was a "Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey." For
another version of this same account below, please see Mason, The
History of Norfolk 5 (1885): 13-14.

"... an extract from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas, now
remaining in the gild hall of the city of Norwich, at fo. 1, viz. ...
and the seid Thomas Brodirton Erle of Norfolke, cam doun into
Norfolke, and ther he wedded a Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey, and
thei hadden togedir ij Dowters, of the which, oon hight Margeret, and
the toder hight [Alice, who had a daughter] which was married to oon
Ser Wil. Ufford Erle of Suffolk; the forseid Margaret and [Alice]
Dowters of Thomas Brothirton Erle of Norf. after the Decesse of the
seid Thomas, possessed and hadden all his Londes, and it wern partid
between them to; and after the seid [Alice] Wif of (Edward) Montagew
deid; and hire (Part) fell to here Dowter (Joan) Wif of Ufford Erle of
Suthfolk; and after that, the seid Lady Ufford Countess of Suff. deied
without Heirs, and all here Part thanne fell unto the forseid Margaret
Dowter of the seid Thomas Brothirton, and sche was thenne Cuntese mad
of Norff. and dwellid at the Castell of Framelingham, and sche was
married to the Lorde Segrave, and the seid Lorde Segrave gaf to hire,
whenn he schuld wedden here, all his Londis, to hir and to hire Heirs;
and thei hadden togeder ij Dowters, wherof oon (Anne) was Abbesse of
Berkyng, and (Elizabeth) the todir, was married to the Lord Mowbrey
and Gower; and after that, the Lord Segrave deied, and thenn Dame
Margaret his Wif, the Countes of Norf. was both Countes of Norff. and
Lady Segrave, and after that, sche was married to Sere Water Maughney
Knyght, and thei had togedir (Thomas) a Son, and (Anne) a Dowter, the
which Son whenne he was of the age of x Yeres, he drauthe att
Chestirforthe, and he schuld a ben Erle of Northfolke and Lord
Segrave, if he had levid; and the forseid Dowter of the Countese of
Norff. and of Sir Water Maughney, was married to (John Hastings) the
Erle of Pembroke." END OF QUOTE.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Thomas of Broitherton, Earl of
Norfolk, and his wife, Alice Hales:

Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Dorothy Beresford,
Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph
Bolles, Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot,
William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne, Elizabeth & John
Mansfield, Richard More, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive
Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Oct 13, 1:14 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
< actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English
royal
< family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
< is the first of a mulit-part post on the family
ofThomasofBrothertonand his first wife,AlicedeHales.
<
< The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
< includes an account ofThomasofBrotherton(died 1338), Earl of
< Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
< King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
< Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided
by
< Complete Peerage:
<
< "He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320)Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
< de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
< whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
< before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
<
< At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
< marriage ofThomasandAlice, nor is the death date ofAliceknown.
< And, when one checks the documentation provided forAlicedeHales'
< maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
< neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
< are references to two patent rolls items in whichAlice'sgiven name
< is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
< parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v5/body/Edward2vol5page0205.pdf
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v2/body/Edward3vol2page0011.pdf
<
< In the first item we see thatThomasofBrotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
< had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church
of
< Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wifeAliceand the heirs
ofAlice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance to
< Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
< Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
< (1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John
de
< Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference:
Blomefield,
< An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
< (1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had
in
< fact been married toAlice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
< EarlThomasandAlice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
< that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
< Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
< presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
< altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
< Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor
of
< Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
< sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
<
< In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
< October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
< James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
< chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
< good estate ofThomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
< for his soul after death, and for the soul ofAlice, sometime his
< wife."
<
< So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
< maiden name or parentage ofAlice, wife ofThomasofBrotherton. This
< is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
< see, it doesn't.
<
< TO BE CONTINUED.
<
< Best always, DouglasRichardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

This is the second part of a series of posts on the family of Thomas
of Brotherton, Knt., Earl of Norfolk (died 1338), younger son of King
Edward
I of England. In the next set of posts, we will examine the evidence
which proves the identity and parentage of Thomas of Brotherton's
first wife, Alice de Hales.

In 1806 the noted antiquarian Francis Blomefield published an extract
from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas which relates to
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and his immediate family. This
account is found in Volume 5 of Blomefield's landmark series, An Essay
Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 (1806):
232-233. Interestingly, although Brotherton's wife, Alice, came from
a Norfolk family, this account does not identify her parentage, other
than to say that she was a "Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey." For
another version of this same account below, please see Mason, The
History of Norfolk 5 (1885): 13-14.

"... an extract from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas, now
remaining in the gild hall of the city of Norwich, at fo. 1, viz. ...
and the seid Thomas Brodirton Erle of Norfolke, cam doun into
Norfolke, and ther he wedded a Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey, and
thei hadden togedir ij Dowters, of the which, oon hight Margeret, and
the toder hight [Alice, who had a daughter] which was married to oon
Ser Wil. Ufford Erle of Suffolk; the forseid Margaret and [Alice]
Dowters of Thomas Brothirton Erle of Norf. after the Decesse of the
seid Thomas, possessed and hadden all his Londes, and it wern partid
between them to; and after the seid [Alice] Wif of (Edward) Montagew
deid; and hire (Part) fell to here Dowter (Joan) Wif of Ufford Erle of
Suthfolk; and after that, the seid Lady Ufford Countess of Suff. deied
without Heirs, and all here Part thanne fell unto the forseid Margaret
Dowter of the seid Thomas Brothirton, and sche was thenne Cuntese mad
of Norff. and dwellid at the Castell of Framelingham, and sche was
married to the Lorde Segrave, and the seid Lorde Segrave gaf to hire,
whenn he schuld wedden here, all his Londis, to hir and to hire Heirs;
and thei hadden togeder ij Dowters, wherof oon (Anne) was Abbesse of
Berkyng, and (Elizabeth) the todir, was married to the Lord Mowbrey
and Gower; and after that, the Lord Segrave deied, and thenn Dame
Margaret his Wif, the Countes of Norf. was both Countes of Norff. and
Lady Segrave, and after that, sche was married to Sere Water Maughney
Knyght, and thei had togedir (Thomas) a Son, and (Anne) a Dowter, the
which Son whenne he was of the age of x Yeres, he drauthe att
Chestirforthe, and he schuld a ben Erle of Northfolke and Lord
Segrave, if he had levid; and the forseid Dowter of the Countese of
Norff. and of Sir Water Maughney, was married to (John Hastings) the
Erle of Pembroke." END OF QUOTE.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Thomas of Broitherton, Earl of
Norfolk, and his wife, Alice de Hales:

Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Dorothy Beresford,
Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph
Bolles, Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot,
William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne, Elizabeth & John
Mansfield, Richard More, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive
Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Oct 13, 1:14 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
< actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English
royal
< family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
< is the first of a mulit-part post on the family of
ThomasofBrothertonand his first wife, AlicedeHales.
<
< The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
< includes an account ofThomasofBrotherton(died 1338), Earl of
< Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
< King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
< Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided
by
< Complete Peerage:
<
< "He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320)Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
< de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
< whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
< before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
<
< At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
< marriage ofThomasandAlice, nor is the death date ofAliceknown.
< And, when one checks the documentation provided forAlicedeHales'
< maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
< neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
< are references to two patent rolls items in whichAlice'sgiven name
< is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
< parentage. These two items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v5/body/Edward2vol5page0205.pdf
<
< http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v2/body/Edward3vol2page0011.pdf
<
< In the first item we see thatThomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
< had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church
of
< Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wife Alice and the heirs
< of Alice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance
to
< Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
< Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
< (1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John
de
< Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference:
Blomefield,
< An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
< (1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had
in
< fact been married to Alice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
< EarlThomasandAlice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
< that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
< Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
< presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
< altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
< Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor
of
< Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
< sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
<
< In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
< October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
< James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
< chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
< good estate ofThomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
< for his soul after death, and for the soul of Alice, sometime his
< wife."
<
< So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
< maiden name or parentage of Alice, wife ofThomas of Brotherton.
This
< is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
< see, it doesn't.
<
< TO BE CONTINUED.
<
< Best always, DouglasRichardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
This is the second part of a series of posts on the family of Thomas
of Brotherton, Knt., Earl of Norfolk (died 1338), younger son of King
Edward
I of England. In the next set of posts, we will examine the evidence
which proves the identity and parentage of Thomas of Brotherton's
first wife, Alice de Hales.
In 1806 the noted antiquarian Francis Blomefield published an extract
from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas which relates to
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and his immediate family. This
account is found in Volume 5 of Blomefield's landmark series, An Essay
232-233. Interestingly, although Brotherton's wife, Alice, came from
a Norfolk family, this account does not identify her parentage, other
than to say that she was a "Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey." For
another version of this same account below, please see Mason, The
History of Norfolk 5 (1885): 13-14.
"... an extract from an old manuscript called the Book of Pleas, now
remaining in the gild hall of the city of Norwich, at fo. 1, viz. ...
and the seid Thomas Brodirton Erle of Norfolke, cam doun into
Norfolke, and ther he wedded a Knygthis Doughter, fast be Bungey, and
thei hadden togedir ij Dowters, of the which, oon hight Margeret, and
the toder hight [Alice, who had a daughter] which was married to oon
Ser Wil. Ufford Erle of Suffolk; the forseid Margaret and [Alice]
Dowters of Thomas Brothirton Erle of Norf. after the Decesse of the
seid Thomas, possessed and hadden all his Londes, and it wern partid
between them to; and after the seid [Alice] Wif of (Edward) Montagew
deid; and hire (Part) fell to here Dowter (Joan) Wif of Ufford Erle of
Suthfolk; and after that, the seid Lady Ufford Countess of Suff. deied
without Heirs, and all here Part thanne fell unto the forseid Margaret
Dowter of the seid Thomas Brothirton, and sche was thenne Cuntese mad
of Norff. and dwellid at the Castell of Framelingham, and sche was
married to the Lorde Segrave, and the seid Lorde Segrave gaf to hire,
whenn he schuld wedden here, all his Londis, to hir and to hire Heirs;
and thei hadden togeder ij Dowters, wherof oon (Anne) was Abbesse of
Berkyng, and (Elizabeth) the todir, was married to the Lord Mowbrey
and Gower; and after that, the Lord Segrave deied, and thenn Dame
Margaret his Wif, the Countes of Norf. was both Countes of Norff. and
Lady Segrave, and after that, sche was married to Sere Water Maughney
Knyght, and thei had togedir (Thomas) a Son, and (Anne) a Dowter, the
which Son whenne he was of the age of x Yeres, he drauthe att
Chestirforthe, and he schuld a ben Erle of Northfolke and Lord
Segrave, if he had levid; and the forseid Dowter of the Countese of
Norff. and of Sir Water Maughney, was married to (John Hastings) the
Erle of Pembroke." END OF QUOTE.

The "fast be Bungey" quotation is given (from Blomefield) by Brad Verity
in his excellent, recent article on Thomas of Brotherton, "Love Matches
and Contracted Misery: Thomas of Brotherton and his Daughters,"
_Foundations_ 2.2 (July 2006):91-111, at 96.

Brad's article is fresh and readable; it focuses on Thomas's marriage to
Alice de Hales and presents a great deal of interesting material and
original interpretation.

I'm sure Douglas has neglected to mention Brad's excellent article by
simple oversight.

Best always,

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Douglas Richardson]

On Nov 27, 1:36 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <***@nltaylor.net> wrote:

< I'm sure Douglas has neglected to mention Brad's excellent article
by
< simple oversight.
<
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

This was not an oversight at all. I abandoned my subscription to
Foundations journal some time ago. In issue after issue, I found that
the journal continued to publish inferior articles which badly needed
editing. Their decision to include the dreadful "Medieval Lands"
database by Charles Cawley on their website was the final straw. The
Cawley material is no better than what you read in Burke from the
1880's! And, if you personally recommended that they add the Cawley
database to their website, shame on you, Nat. Shame on you.

That being said, I can, however, highly recommend Martin Hollick's
excellent article on Thomas Bradbury's Fulnetby ancestry which
appeared in a recent edition of the New England Register. This
article was prepared by Mr. Hollick, and based on research done by the
late Marshall Kirk. Simply put - it is a superior article - well
written AND well reasoned. Thanks go to Mr. Hollick for showing us
all how to write an outstanding article. I trust he will continue to
grace us with more articles in the future.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by Douglas Richardson
< I'm sure Douglas has neglected to mention Brad's excellent article
by
< simple oversight.
<
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
This was not an oversight at all. I abandoned my subscription to
Foundations journal some time ago. In issue after issue, I found that
the journal continued to publish inferior artiacles which badly needed
editing.

It behooves a trained historian to look in the relevant current
journals--however peeved he might be at their past reaction to his
submissions--before touting something as a novelty.

In this case, it would have saved you the embarrassment of this entirely
unoriginal (and gratuitously crossposted) Thomas of Brotherton material.

Read Brad's article, then find something to add to it: that would be
welcome.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Research indicates that the previous historical literature is filled
with references which flatly state that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of
Norfolk (younger son of King Edward I) married Alice de Hales,
daughter of Sir Roger de Hales, of Harwich, Essex.

Here are three examples:

1. Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 205-206:
identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of Sir Roger Halys of
Harwich."

2. Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topog. Hist. of the County of
Norfolk 5 (1806): 228-229: identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich, Knt."

3. Dictionary of National Biography, D.N.B. 19 (1909): 632-633 (biog.
of Thomas of Brotherton): identifies first wife as "Alice, daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich."

Although his existence is stated often and frequently in print,
curiously no such person as Sir Roger Hales of Harwich ever existed.
Rather, it would seem that these good authors are referring to a real
individual named Sir Roger de Hales, who presumably resided at
Norwich, Norfolk, not Harwich, Essex.

Regardless, as one goes back in time to something more contemporary to
the events in question, one finds that the noted English chronicler,
Nicholas Trivet (died 1328), allegedly states that Thomas of
Brotherton "married the daughter of a franklin named Alice:" The
following quote comes from Gordon Hall Gerould "The Social Status of
Chaucer's Franklin} in Pubs. Modern Language Assoc. [PMLA] 41(2)
(1926): 262-279:

" ... Nor, surely, would Nicholas Trivet have set down in his Anglo-
Norman Chroniques that 'T'homas Brotherton (filius R. Edouardi I)
apres le mort son pere esposa la fille de un Fraunclein appelle
Alice.' It makes no difference that modern historians aver that the
Earl of Norfolk's father-in-law was Sir Thomas Hales of Harwich, or
that Trivet's statement is manifestly absurb in one particular since
Thomas of Brotherton ..." END OF QUOTE.

Clearly, there is much confusion in the historical literature
regarding Thomas of Brotherton's father-in-law. What is equally clear
is that Thomas of Brotherton married someone far down the social scale
from his lofty place in English medieval society.

I wish to thank my good friend, Michael Welch, for his assistance in
this post.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Research indicates that the previous historical literature is filled
with references which flatly state that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of
Norfolk (younger son of King Edward I) married Alice de Hales,
daughter of Sir Roger de Hales, of Harwich, Essex.
identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of Sir Roger Halys of
Harwich."
2. Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topog. Hist. of the County of
Norfolk 5 (1806): 228-229: identifies first wife Alice as "daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich, Knt."
3. Dictionary of National Biography, D.N.B. 19 (1909): 632-633 (biog.
of Thomas of Brotherton): identifies first wife as "Alice, daughter of
Sir Roger Hales of Harwich."
Although his existence is stated often and frequently in print,
curiously no such person as Sir Roger Hales of Harwich ever existed.
Rather, it would seem that these good authors are referring to a real
individual named Sir Roger de Hales, who presumably resided at
Norwich, Norfolk, not Harwich, Essex.

On Roger's identity, career and residence, see Brad Verity, "Love
Matches and Contracted Misery: Thomas of Brotherton and his Daughters,"
_Foundations_ 2.2 (July 2006), 91-111, especially at 97-98. We learn
there of the names and locations of Sir Roger de Hales' manorial
holdings in Norfolk (none, apparently, in Norwich itself); we also learn
that the 'Harwich' mistake comes from Ralph Brooke's _Catalogue of
Nobility_ (1619).

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Douglas Richardson]

On Nov 28, 11:54 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

< Regardless, as one goes back in time to something more contemporary
to
< the events in question, one finds that the noted English chronicler,
< Nicholas Trivet (died 1328), allegedly states that Thomas of
< Brotherton "married the daughter of a franklin named Alice:" The
< following quote comes from Gordon Hall Gerould "The Social Status of
< Chaucer's Franklin} in Pubs. Modern Language Assoc. [PMLA] 41(2)
< (1926): 262-279:
<
< " ... Nor, surely, would Nicholas Trivet have set down in his
Anglo-
< Norman Chroniques that 'T'homas Brotherton (filius R. Edouardi I)
< apres le mort son pere esposa la fille de un Fraunclein appelle
< Alice.' It makes no difference that modern historians aver that the
< Earl of Norfolk's father-in-law was Sir Thomas Hales of Harwich, or
< that Trivet's statement is manifestly absurb in one particular since
< Thomas of Brotherton ..." END OF QUOTE.

For those interested in reading about the English chronicler, Nicholas
Trivet, they may do so at the following weblinks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Trevet

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15063b.htm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[wjhonson]

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e1v4/body/Edward1vol4page0190.pdf
CPR, E1 V4 pg 190
1303, May 7 at Newcastle-on-Tyne
Membrane 27d--cont.

May 7. The like [oyer and terminer] to Henry Spigumel and Robert de
Retford, touching Geoffrey Newcastle-on- Kempe, John Graunt, John
Gerard and Robert Topyn of Norwich, and the Tyne. whole commonalty of
that town, who assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the county of
Norfolk, in the execution of his office on a body found dead in a
place in Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, assaulted Richard de
Hakeford, bailiff of the king's hundred of Bloufeld, and other men of
that hundred who were there by summons of the bailiff, made on the
mandate of the coroner in the king's name, snatched the coroner's
rolls from his hands, tore and trampled them, and prevented him
exercising his office, notwithstanding that the said place belongs to
the said hundred and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
the coroners of the county outside the town have been accustomed to
exercise their office there when requisite, and the bailiffs of that
hundred have been accustomed to be answerable before the justices in
eyre in those parts as well as before the said coroners in all matters
touching that place. By K.

...

May 6. The like to William Haward and John le Bretun. on complaint by
the Newcastle-on- prior of Holy Trinity, Norwich, that whereas he
holds by grant of William, sometime king of England, a place in
Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, which belongs to the king's
hundred of Blofeld and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
he and his predecessors have been wont to hold a fair by charters of
the king's ancestors from Whitsunday until the morrow of Holy Trinity
in the said place as elsewhere in the said town; and whereas the
coroners of the county of Norfolk have been wont to exercise their
office in the said place, and the bailiffs of the said hundred have
been wont to be answerable in the eyres of the justices in those parts
as well as before the coroners of the county in all matters touching
the eaid place, so that the bailiffs of the town might not carry the
wand in the time of the fair within the said town or perform any
office belonging to their bailiwick, or intermeddle in anything
concerning the said place at any time of the year, and have not been
wont to do ; yet Geoffrey Kempe, John le Graunt, John de Thirston and
Robert de Lopham, bailiffs of the said town, have begun to make
summonses, attachments and distraints in the said place, as though it
were within their liberty, and Roarer de Morlee, coroner of that town,
has exercised his office there and the said bailiffs and coroner and
Robert de Hegham, Roger le Maresehal, Peter de Bunstede, John Gerard,
Richard Springald and Edmund le Sherere, burgesses of the town, with
the whole commonalty thereof assaulted Roger de Hales,

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e1v4/body/Edward1vol4page0191.pdf
[continued to page 191]
coroner of the county, in the execution of his office on a body found
dead there, and assaulted Richard de Hakeford, bailiff of the said
hundred, and other, men of the hundred who were present by summons of
the bailiff on the coroner's mandate in the king's name, and beat some
of them and snatched the coroner's rolls from his hands, and tore and
trampled them and prevented him from executing his office, prevented
[merchants] from trading with the divers merchandise in their houses
in the town during the fair, extorted by grievous distraints customs
from merchants coming with merchandise to the fair, and prevented the
prior and his ministers from levying and collecting the toll and other
customs belonging to the fair. By p.s, Vacated because surrendered and
cancelled.

Will Johnson

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is a transcript of two Patent Rolls items which concern an
assault in Norwich, Norfolk in 1303 on Roger de Hales, then coroner of
Norfolk, which individual was the future father-in-law of Thomas of
Brotherton, Knt., Earl of Norfolk (younger son of King Edward I of
England).

These items may be found at the following weblinks:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e1v4/body/Edward1vol4page0190.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e1v4/body/Edward1vol4page0191.pdf

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307 (1898), pg. 190:

Date: 7 May 1303, at Newcastle-on-Tyne

The like [commission of oyer and terminer] to Henry Spigumel and
Robert de Retford, touching Geoffrey Kempe, John Graunt, John Gerard
and Robert Topyn of Norwich, [Norfolk] and the whole commonalty of
that town, who assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the county of
Norfolk, in the execution of his office on a body found dead in a
place in Norwich called Tomeland and Ratounerawe, assaulted Richard de
Hakeford, bailiff of the king's hundred of Bloufeld, and other men of
that hundred who were there by summons of the bailiff, made on the
mandate of the coroner in the king's name, snatched the coroner's
rolls from his hands, tore and trampled them, and prevented him
exercising his office, notwithstanding that the said place belongs to
the said hundred and not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and
the coroners of the county outside the town have been accustomed to
exercise their office there when requisite, and the bailiffs of that
hundred have been accustomed to be answerable before the justices in
eyre in those parts as well as before the said coroners in all matters
touching that place. By K.

Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307 (1898), pp. 190-191:

Date: 6 May 1303, at Newcastle-on-Tyne

The like to William Haward and John le Bretun. on complaint by the
prior of Holy Trinity, Norwich, that whereas he holds by grant of
William, sometime king of England, a place in Norwich called Tomeland
and Ratounerawe, which belongs to the king's hundred of Blofeld and
not to the liberty of the town of Norwich, and he and his predecessors
have been wont to hold a fair by charters of the king's ancestors from
Whitsunday until the morrow of Holy Trinity in the said place as
elsewhere in the said town; and whereas the coroners of the county of
Norfolk have been wont to exercise their office in the said place, and
the bailiffs of the said hundred have been wont to be answerable in
the eyres of the justices in those parts as well as before the
coroners of the county in all matters touching the said place, so that
the bailiffs of the town might not carry the wand in the time of the
fair within the said town or perform any office belonging to their
bailiwick, or intermeddle in anything
concerning the said place at any time of the year, and have not been
wont to do; yet Geoffrey Kempe, John le Graunt, John de Thirston and
Robert de Lopham, bailiffs of the said town, have begun to make
summonses, attachments and distraints in the said place, as though it
were within their liberty, and Roger de Morlee, coroner of that town,
has exercised his office there and the said bailiffs and coroner and
Robert de Hegham, Roger le Maresehal, Peter de Bunstede, John Gerard,
Richard Springald and Edmund le Sherere, burgesses of the town, with
the whole commonalty thereof assaulted Roger de Hales, coroner of the
county, in the execution of his office on a body found dead there, and
assaulted Richard de Hakeford, bailiff of the said hundred, and other
men of the hundred who were present by summons of the bailiff on the
coroner's mandate in the king's name, and beat some of them and
snatched the coroner's rolls from his hands, and tore and trampled
them and prevented him from executing his office, prevented
[merchants] from trading with the divers merchandise in their houses
in the town during the fair, extorted by grievous distraints customs
from merchants coming with merchandise to the fair, and prevented the
prior and his ministers from levying and collecting the toll and other
customs belonging to the fair. By p.s. Vacated because surrendered
and cancelled.

[wjhonson]

Seven hours after I made my post, why would you post the exact same
thing?

Will

[Merilyn Pedrick]

I thought I was having a bad case of the deja vu's!

Merilyn





-------Original Message-------



From: wjhonson

Date: 11/29/07 15:40:23

To: gen-***@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherton, son
of King Edward I of England



Seven hours after I made my post, why would you post the exact same

thing?



Will





-------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[p***@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

I’ve been contemplating the connection between Sir William Jermy and his purported grandfather Sir John Jermy and his wife Joan/Jane de Hales, daughter of Sir Roger de Hales and sister of Alice de Hales, wife of Thomas de Brotherton (brother of King Edward II). I set forth below a few items that may be of interest in assisting corroborating the Visitation pedigree which includes a Thomas Jermy as the son of Sir John and father of Sir William. He, like his son William, apparently died young and there is little historical evidence of his existence apart from the Visitation pedigree. However, I have found an interesting document in the Nation Archives which I thought I would share with the group.

The book, ‘The visitation of Norfolk Volume 32 of Publications of the Harleian Society’ (The Visitations of Norfolk, 1563, 1589, and 1613)), (1891), by William Harvey, Robert Cooke, John Raven (Richmond herald.), College of Arms (Great Britain), edited by Walter Rye, p. 172, provides a pedigree chart of the Jermy family of Norfolk as follows: http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Norfolk/visitation/

Sir John Jermy’s purported wife was Joan/Jane de Hales (please see below):

The book, ‘Notes and queries’, (1886), by Oxford Journals (Firm), published by Oxford University Press, (September 25, 1886), p. 258, states the following with respect to Jane/Joan:

“HALYS FAMILY (7th S. ii. 189) [September 25, 1886, p. 258].—I shall be as glad as MR. DAVIES if any of your correspondents can throw light on the genealogy of Alice, Countess of Norfolk. But though I cannot do this, I can supply some interesting notes concerning her sister, who seems to have been a favourite with the royal family, and whom I do not remember to have seen mentioned in any printed book. She is variously called Joan Jermye, Jeremie, Jermyne, and De Germye; but I find no intimation to show whether this was her maiden or married name. The notices which I have found of her are the following :—

"Jan. 28 [1326]. To Joan, sister of the Countess Marshal, coming to the King in her suite to Burgh, a silver gilt cup, enamelled, with foot and cover, weight 40S. 10d., price 75s."—Wardrobe Roll, 19 Edw. II., 25/1.

"Feb. 20 [ib.]. Joan Jeremye sent to Plesby to dwell with the King's daughters."—lb.

"May 8 [ib.]. At the request of Thomas, Earl of Norfolk, our brother, and our beloved sister Alice his wife, and for the advantage of Joan Jermye, sister of the said Countess, we grant to the said Joan the marriage of John, son and heir of John Lovel, deceased, minor, and in our custody, to hold without disparagement."—Patent Roll, 19 Edw. II., part ii.

"Aug. [ib.]. 34 pairs of sotlars, at sixpence each, for Joan Jermyne.—20th. Shoes and linen sent to Joan Jermyne at Porchester; expenses, 2d. per day."—Wardrobe Account, 20 Edw. II., 26/3.

"Oct. [ib.]. From John Keller, 8 lbs. of soap, at 2d. per lb., for Joan Jermyne."—lb.

"Nov. 1 [ib.]. A robe of 'blueto,' of three garments, with fur, given to Joan de Germye, sister of the Countess Marshal, £9 3S. Id."—Wardrobe Account, 20 Edw. II., 26/4.

"Nov. 9 [ib.]. Returned, one palfrey of Joan Jeremie's, which my Lord [Prince John of Eltham] gave to Master Adam de Suthwick."—Compotus of William de Culpho, clerk of John of Eltham; Wardrobe Account, 31/18.

It is not improbable that Joan Jermyne was much younger than her sister, and served as a playfellow for the royal children. I have found no notice of her at any later date, nor can I discover any evidence that she married John Lovel.

HERMENTRUDE.

"Barry of ten pieces argent and azure, in a canton gules a lion passant guardant or" (Sandford's 'Genealogical History,' ch. vi. fo. 206). There is no descent given of Sir Roger Halys.

H. G. GRIFFINHOOFE.” (source: http://books.google.ca/books?id=-3ACAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=%22joan+jermye%22&source=bl&ots=LEmBVpg7CA&sig=egX3WOd1gdIsa1D5uwqLLhEFN5A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xutvT4q3Ferb0QH086jZBg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22joan%20jermye%22&f=false)

Blog posts by Kathryn Warner dated March 1, 2010 and June 23, 2011, respectively, on the blog, ‘Edward II’, state the following with respect to Jane/Joan:

“Turning now to Maud's daughter Maud Burnell, she married her first husband sometime before 1312: John, Lord Lovel of Titchmarsh in Northamptonshire, who was born in 1288 or 1289 and was the son of another John, Lord Lovel and Joan, daughter of Robert, Lord Ros of Helmsley. Both John Lovels, father and son, served in the retinue of Edward II's kinsman Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke. [6] Maud Burnell and John Lovel had a daughter in 1312, named Joan after John's mother. John was killed at Bannockburn in June 1314, leaving Maud pregnant, and she gave birth in September to a son, inevitably named John after his father. When the little boy was mere weeks old, on 2 October 1314, he was given into the wardship of the earl of Pembroke. Pembroke died in 1324, and in May 1326 Edward II granted young John's wardship to Joan Jermy, sister of his sister-in-law Alice Hales, countess of Norfolk; Joan was appointed mestresse, governess, of the king's daughters Eleanor and Joan around the same time. [7]

7) Cal Fine Rolls 1307-1319, p. 211; Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 267; Society of Antiquaries MS 122, p. 81.” (source: http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.ca/2010/02/maud-fitzalan-and-maud-burnell.html)

- and -

“18 June: Edward and Isabella's elder daughter Eleanor was born at the palace of Woodstock in 1318, and named after Edward's mother Eleanor of Castile. Edward - then thirty-four - had been in Canterbury, apparently on pilgrimage, but arrived in Woodstock on the day of his daughter's birth. His Wardrobe account records a payment of 500 marks to "Lady Isabella, queen of England, of the king's gift, for the feast of her purification after the birth of the Lady Alienora her daughter." Eleanor married, shortly before her fourteenth birthday in 1332, Count (later Duke) Reynald II of Gelderland, and had two sons, named after her husband and her father; the marriage to King Alfonso XI of Castile planned for her by Edward didn't come off. Edward's chamber journal of 1326 reveals that he appointed Jonete Germye (or Jermy) sister of his sister-in-law Alice Hales, countess of Norfolk, as the governess (mestresse) of his two daughters, and paid a messenger five shillings to take his letters to the little girls, then aged eight and five, in Marlborough on 25 July that year.” (source: http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.ca/2011_06_01_archive.html)

Sir John Jermy’s purported son with Joan/Jane de Hales was Thomas Jermy - http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9536296

Reference:C 131/14/8B
Description:
Debtor: Thomas Jermye of Suffolk, knight, Roger Hales of Mendham, of Norfolk, and Thomas de Glemesford of Suffolk.
Creditor: Roger Chalk, citizen and pepperer of London [now deceased. His executor is Agnes, his wife]
Amount: £120
Before whom: John Pyel, Mayor of the Staple of Westminster.
When taken: 20/09/1359
First term: 21/12/1359
Last term: 21/12/1359
Writ to: Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk
Sent by: Chancery
Endorsement: Thomas de St Omer, Sheriff, replies that Thomas Jermye is dead . Roger Hales of Mendham and Thomas de Glemesford were not found in the bailiwick. He sent the writ to be executed by William de Rushbrook, Steward of the liberty of St Edmunds, and by Thomas atte Cok, Bailiff of the liberty of the hundred of Bosmere, but they sent no replies.
Note: Inquisition and return: Date to be returned to Chancery: 16.4.1363. Attached (1) is the extent made before Thomas de St Omer, Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk at Mendham, on Wed. 8.3.1363. The jury say that Thomas Jermye had no lands or tenements, goods or chattels on the day of the recognisance. Roger de Hales of Mendham hasd on the day of the recognisance a messuage with a garden worth 12d a year after expenses. He had 180 acres of arable worth 30s. a year at 2d an acre; 12 acres of undergrowth worth 2s. at 2d an acre; 9 acres of meadow worth 9s. 6d at 12d an acre, and 10 acres of pasture and alder-grove worth 20d at 2d an acre. he had assize rents worth 13s. 4d a year, and in Norton next to Loddon a messuage worth 6d after expenses. He had there 50 acres of arable worth 12s. 6d at 3d an acre, and 60 acres of pasture and marsh worth 10s. at 2d an acre. He had in Sturston next to Herbiston [Grimshoe Hundred] 20 acres of arable worth 3s. 4d at 2d an acre and 5 acres of undergrowth worth 10d. at 2d an acre. Roger had no lands, goods or chattels on the day of the recognisance outside the liberty of Queen Philippa, and Thomas de Glemsford had none either. (2) A second writ from the King to the Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, dated 18.4.1363, about the same debt, authorising the Sheriff to enter the liberties of the Abbot of Bury St Edmunds and of Queen Philippa, of the hundred of Bosmere, and of the Duke of Lancaster of Sproughton [Samford Hundred, Suffolk] to execute the enforcement of the debt.
Date: 1363 Feb 3”

I found the above entry quite interesting as it both provides some evidentiary basis for the existence of a Thomas Jermy and also ties him to the Hales family. I understand (but have not confirmed at all) that Sir Roger de Hales (father of both Sir John Jermy and Thomas de Brotherton’s wives) had a grandson named Roger.

As always, all thoughts, suggestions, corrections, and additions are most welcome.

Cheers,

Pete

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English royal
family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
is the first of a mulit-part post on the family of Thomas of
Brotherton and his first wife, Alice de Hales.
The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
includes an account of Thomas of Brotherton (died 1338), Earl of
Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided by
"He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320) Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
marriage of Thomas and Alice, nor is the death date of Alice known.
And, when one checks the documentation provided for Alice de Hales'
maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
are references to two patent rolls items in which Alice's given name
is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v5/body/Edward2vol5page0205.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v2/body/Edward3vol2page0011.pdf
In the first item we see that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church of
Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wife Alice and the heirs of
Alice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance to
Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
(1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John de
Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference: Blomefield,
An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
(1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had in
fact been married to Alice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
Earl Thomas and Alice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor of
Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
good estate of Thomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
for his soul after death, and for the soul of Alice, sometime his
wife."
So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
maiden name or parentage of Alice, wife of Thomas of Brotherton. This
is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
see, it doesn't.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Wjhonson]

Oh oh oh... I just realized there is something stunning about the way this Vis has been set up.
I had always thought that the internal index *had* to be used because the URL is not fully expressed, but it turns out that is not true....

More to follow, where this Vis will be fully exposed laid out side by sidee







-----Original Message-----
From: pdale <***@peterdale.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 20, 2012 1:13 am
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Family of Thomas of Brotherton, son of King Edward I of England


Greetings,

I’ve been contemplating the connection between Sir William Jermy and his
purported grandfather Sir John Jermy and his wife Joan/Jane de Hales, daughter
of Sir Roger de Hales and sister of Alice de Hales, wife of Thomas de Brotherton
(brother of King Edward II). I set forth below a few items that may be of
interest in assisting corroborating the Visitation pedigree which includes a
Thomas Jermy as the son of Sir John and father of Sir William. He, like his son
William, apparently died young and there is little historical evidence of his
existence apart from the Visitation pedigree. However, I have found an
interesting document in the Nation Archives which I thought I would share with
the group.

The book, ‘The visitation of Norfolk Volume 32 of Publications of the Harleian
Society’ (The Visitations of Norfolk, 1563, 1589, and 1613)), (1891), by William
Harvey, Robert Cooke, John Raven (Richmond herald.), College of Arms (Great
Britain), edited by Walter Rye, p. 172, provides a pedigree chart of the Jermy
family of Norfolk as follows: http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Norfolk/visitation/

Sir John Jermy’s purported wife was Joan/Jane de Hales (please see below):

The book, ‘Notes and queries’, (1886), by Oxford Journals (Firm), published by
Oxford University Press, (September 25, 1886), p. 258, states the following with
respect to Jane/Joan:

“HALYS FAMILY (7th S. ii. 189) [September 25, 1886, p. 258].—I shall be as glad
as MR. DAVIES if any of your correspondents can throw light on the genealogy of
Alice, Countess of Norfolk. But though I cannot do this, I can supply some
interesting notes concerning her sister, who seems to have been a favourite with
the royal family, and whom I do not remember to have seen mentioned in any
printed book. She is variously called Joan Jermye, Jeremie, Jermyne, and De
Germye; but I find no intimation to show whether this was her maiden or married
name. The notices which I have found of her are the following :—

"Jan. 28 [1326]. To Joan, sister of the Countess Marshal, coming to the King in
her suite to Burgh, a silver gilt cup, enamelled, with foot and cover, weight
40S. 10d., price 75s."—Wardrobe Roll, 19 Edw. II., 25/1.

"Feb. 20 [ib.]. Joan Jeremye sent to Plesby to dwell with the King's
daughters."—lb.

"May 8 [ib.]. At the request of Thomas, Earl of Norfolk, our brother, and our
beloved sister Alice his wife, and for the advantage of Joan Jermye, sister of
the said Countess, we grant to the said Joan the marriage of John, son and heir
of John Lovel, deceased, minor, and in our custody, to hold without
disparagement."—Patent Roll, 19 Edw. II., part ii.

"Aug. [ib.]. 34 pairs of sotlars, at sixpence each, for Joan Jermyne.—20th.
Shoes and linen sent to Joan Jermyne at Porchester; expenses, 2d. per
day."—Wardrobe Account, 20 Edw. II., 26/3.

"Oct. [ib.]. From John Keller, 8 lbs. of soap, at 2d. per lb., for Joan
Jermyne."—lb.

"Nov. 1 [ib.]. A robe of 'blueto,' of three garments, with fur, given to Joan de
Germye, sister of the Countess Marshal, £9 3S. Id."—Wardrobe Account, 20 Edw.
II., 26/4.

"Nov. 9 [ib.]. Returned, one palfrey of Joan Jeremie's, which my Lord [Prince
John of Eltham] gave to Master Adam de Suthwick."—Compotus of William de Culpho,
clerk of John of Eltham; Wardrobe Account, 31/18.

It is not improbable that Joan Jermyne was much younger than her sister, and
served as a playfellow for the royal children. I have found no notice of her at
any later date, nor can I discover any evidence that she married John Lovel.

HERMENTRUDE.

"Barry of ten pieces argent and azure, in a canton gules a lion passant guardant
or" (Sandford's 'Genealogical History,' ch. vi. fo. 206). There is no descent
given of Sir Roger Halys.

H. G. GRIFFINHOOFE.” (source: http://books.google.ca/books?id=-3ACAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=%22joan+jermye%22&source=bl&ots=LEmBVpg7CA&sig=egX3WOd1gdIsa1D5uwqLLhEFN5A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xutvT4q3Ferb0QH086jZBg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22joan%20jermye%22&f=false)

Blog posts by Kathryn Warner dated March 1, 2010 and June 23, 2011,
respectively, on the blog, ‘Edward II’, state the following with respect to
Jane/Joan:

“Turning now to Maud's daughter Maud Burnell, she married her first husband
sometime before 1312: John, Lord Lovel of Titchmarsh in Northamptonshire, who
was born in 1288 or 1289 and was the son of another John, Lord Lovel and Joan,
daughter of Robert, Lord Ros of Helmsley. Both John Lovels, father and son,
served in the retinue of Edward II's kinsman Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke.
[6] Maud Burnell and John Lovel had a daughter in 1312, named Joan after John's
mother. John was killed at Bannockburn in June 1314, leaving Maud pregnant, and
she gave birth in September to a son, inevitably named John after his father.
When the little boy was mere weeks old, on 2 October 1314, he was given into the
wardship of the earl of Pembroke. Pembroke died in 1324, and in May 1326 Edward
II granted young John's wardship to Joan Jermy, sister of his sister-in-law
Alice Hales, countess of Norfolk; Joan was appointed mestresse, governess, of
the king's daughters Eleanor and Joan around the same time. [7]

7) Cal Fine Rolls 1307-1319, p. 211; Cal Pat Rolls 1324-1327, p. 267; Society of
Antiquaries MS 122, p. 81.” (source: http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.ca/2010/02/maud-fitzalan-and-maud-burnell.html)

- and -

“18 June: Edward and Isabella's elder daughter Eleanor was born at the palace of
Woodstock in 1318, and named after Edward's mother Eleanor of Castile. Edward -
then thirty-four - had been in Canterbury, apparently on pilgrimage, but arrived
in Woodstock on the day of his daughter's birth. His Wardrobe account records a
payment of 500 marks to "Lady Isabella, queen of England, of the king's gift,
for the feast of her purification after the birth of the Lady Alienora her
daughter." Eleanor married, shortly before her fourteenth birthday in 1332,
Count (later Duke) Reynald II of Gelderland, and had two sons, named after her
husband and her father; the marriage to King Alfonso XI of Castile planned for
her by Edward didn't come off. Edward's chamber journal of 1326 reveals that he
appointed Jonete Germye (or Jermy) sister of his sister-in-law Alice Hales,
countess of Norfolk, as the governess (mestresse) of his two daughters, and paid
a messenger five shillings to take his letters to the little girls, then aged
eight and five, in Marlborough on 25 July that year.” (source:
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.ca/2011_06_01_archive.html)

Sir John Jermy’s purported son with Joan/Jane de Hales was Thomas Jermy -
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C9536296

Reference:C 131/14/8B
Description:
Debtor: Thomas Jermye of Suffolk, knight, Roger Hales of Mendham, of Norfolk,
and Thomas de Glemesford of Suffolk.
Creditor: Roger Chalk, citizen and pepperer of London [now deceased. His
executor is Agnes, his wife]
Amount: £120
Before whom: John Pyel, Mayor of the Staple of Westminster.
When taken: 20/09/1359
First term: 21/12/1359
Last term: 21/12/1359
Writ to: Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk
Sent by: Chancery
Endorsement: Thomas de St Omer, Sheriff, replies that Thomas Jermye is dead .
Roger Hales of Mendham and Thomas de Glemesford were not found in the bailiwick.
He sent the writ to be executed by William de Rushbrook, Steward of the liberty
of St Edmunds, and by Thomas atte Cok, Bailiff of the liberty of the hundred of
Bosmere, but they sent no replies.
Note: Inquisition and return: Date to be returned to Chancery: 16.4.1363.
Attached (1) is the extent made before Thomas de St Omer, Sheriff of Norfolk and
Suffolk at Mendham, on Wed. 8.3.1363. The jury say that Thomas Jermye had no
lands or tenements, goods or chattels on the day of the recognisance. Roger de
Hales of Mendham hasd on the day of the recognisance a messuage with a garden
worth 12d a year after expenses. He had 180 acres of arable worth 30s. a year at
2d an acre; 12 acres of undergrowth worth 2s. at 2d an acre; 9 acres of meadow
worth 9s. 6d at 12d an acre, and 10 acres of pasture and alder-grove worth 20d
at 2d an acre. he had assize rents worth 13s. 4d a year, and in Norton next to
Loddon a messuage worth 6d after expenses. He had there 50 acres of arable worth
12s. 6d at 3d an acre, and 60 acres of pasture and marsh worth 10s. at 2d an
acre. He had in Sturston next to Herbiston [Grimshoe Hundred] 20 acres of arable
worth 3s. 4d at 2d an acre and 5 acres of undergrowth worth 10d. at 2d an acre.
Roger had no lands, goods or chattels on the day of the recognisance outside the
liberty of Queen Philippa, and Thomas de Glemsford had none either. (2) A second
writ from the King to the Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, dated 18.4.1363, about
the same debt, authorising the Sheriff to enter the liberties of the Abbot of
Bury St Edmunds and of Queen Philippa, of the hundred of Bosmere, and of the
Duke of Lancaster of Sproughton [Samford Hundred, Suffolk] to execute the
enforcement of the debt.
Date: 1363 Feb 3”

I found the above entry quite interesting as it both provides some evidentiary
basis for the existence of a Thomas Jermy and also ties him to the Hales family.
I understand (but have not confirmed at all) that Sir Roger de Hales (father of
both Sir John Jermy and Thomas de Brotherton’s wives) had a grandson named
Roger.

As always, all thoughts, suggestions, corrections, and additions are most
welcome.

Cheers,

Pete

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
I always say they're not making new royal princes anymore. But,
actually if one looks far and wide, new material on the English royal
family can still be found, although usually in obscure places. This
is the first of a mulit-part post on the family of Thomas of
Brotherton and his first wife, Alice de Hales.
The authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 596-599 (sub Norfolk)
includes an account of Thomas of Brotherton (died 1338), Earl of
Norfolk, Marshal of England, which individual was the younger son of
King Edward I of England, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France.
Regarding his first marriage, the following information is provided by
"He married, 1stly (probably circa 1320) Alice, daughter of Sir Roger
de Hales, coroner of Norfolk 1303 till his death in 1313. She, on
whom he had licence to make a settlement 8 Jan. 1325/6, died in or
before 1330." END OF QUOTE.
At first glance, it is noted thar no actual date is provided for the
marriage of Thomas and Alice, nor is the death date of Alice known.
And, when one checks the documentation provided for Alice de Hales'
maiden name and parentage, we find that NOTHING at all is provided,
neither in the text or in the footnotes. Rather, all we are given
are references to two patent rolls items in which Alice's given name
is affirmed, and her approximate date of death, but not her
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v5/body/Edward2vol5page0205.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v2/body/Edward3vol2page0011.pdf
In the first item we see that Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk,
had license in 1326 to settle the manor and advowson of the church of
Redenhall, Norfolk on himself and his wife Alice and the heirs of
Alice. Curiously, this property subsequently fell by inheritance to
Audrey de Montagu, wife of Hugh de Strauley (or Strelley), of
Derbyshire [see C.P.R. 1364-1367 (1912): 349, 374; C.P.R. 1367-1370
(1913): 173]. It later was held by Audrey's son and heir, Sir John de
Strauley (or Strelley), who was living in 1414 [Reference: Blomefield,
An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk 5
(1806): 368]. Although Audrey's father, Sir Edward de Montagu, had in
fact been married to Alice, the younger daughter and co-heiress of
Earl Thomas and Alice, Audrey de Montagu herself was not a child of
that marriage. Rather, Audrey was unquestionably the child of Sir
Edward de Montagu's second wife, Joan. Given these facts, one must
presume that a later settlement of the Redenhall manor must have
altered the course of the earlier settlement made back in 1326.
Otherwise, on the death of Sir Edward de Montagu in 1361, the manor of
Redenhall should have reverted to his first wife's sole surviving
sister, Margaret Marshal, Duchess of Norfolk.
In the second item cited by Complete Peerage, we see that on 12
October 1330, the king granted a license to Laurence de Rustiton and
James de Northstoke to alienate property in Bosham, Sussex to find a
chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in that church "for the
good estate of Thomas, earl of Norfolk, Marshal of England, in life,
for his soul after death, and for the soul of Alice, sometime his
wife."
So, we have two cited references, but neither of them tells us the
maiden name or parentage of Alice, wife of Thomas of Brotherton. This
is how an authoritative source documents its statements. As we can
see, it doesn't.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[Wjhonson]

I have begun the work

https://sites.google.com/site/countyhistorian/visitation-of-norfolk-1563-1613-edited-by-walter-rye-1891

[p***@peterdale.com]

Greetings,

Just a short note to say that I believe the 2 items below might be of assistance in establishing the range for the date of death of Joan de Hales (1360-71), daughter of Sir Roger de Hales. She was the wife of Sir John Jermy (b c 1300 and d c 1347-55). Joan’s sister was Alice who was the 1st wife of Thomas de Brotherton, brother of King Edward II.

I’d appreciate any commentary or other thoughts with respect to the above and anything regarding the Hales and Jermy families is most welcome. Thank you.

Cheers,

Pete

********

The book, ‘Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents preserved in the Public Record Office’, (1921), Vol. X, Edward III, published by His Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, states the following with respect to ‘the lady of Germy’:

“p. 513, 638. John de Veer, Earl of Oxford. Writ, Redying, 28 January, 34 Edward III. [1360]

p. 521. Suffolk …

Mendham. A fourth part of a knight’s fee held by the lady of Germy; a fourth part of a knight’s fee held by John de Breus.”

The book, ‘Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents preserved in the Public Record Office’, (1954), Vol. XIII, Edward III, published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, states the following with respect to ‘the lady de Jermy’:

“p. 92, 125. Thomas de Veer, Earl of Oxford. Writ, 20 September, 45 Edward III. ...

p. 99, Suffolk. Extent (indented) made at Kerseye, 2 November, 45 Edward III. [1371] ...

Mendham. A fourth part of a fee, held by the heirs of the lady de Jermy; and a fourth part of a fee, held by John de Brewes.”