Discussion:
C.P. Addition: Sir Thomas de Monthermer [died 1340], son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer, sometime Earl of Gloucester & Hertford [died 1325]
(too old to reply)
c***@gmail.com
2019-07-14 18:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 140–145 (sub Monthermer) has a good account of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, 1st Lord Monthermer, sometime Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who died in 1325. Sir Ralph de Monthermer's 1st wife was Joan of England, daughter of King Edward I of England, by which marriage he had two sons, Thomas, Knt., and Edward, Knt., and one daughter, Mary (wife of Duncan of Fife, Knt., 10th Earl of Fife). Further particulars of this family can be found in my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), published in 2013.

In Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 143, footnote a, there is a long discussion as to whether Thomas or Edward was Sir Ralph de Monthermer and Joan's eldest son. This discussion reads as follows:

"It is not certainly known which of the sons Thomas and Edward was the elder. In the remainder to the grants to Ralph in 1309 and 1310 Thomas is named first, but he is not invariably given precedence. Thomas also appears to have been summoned for service at an earlier date than his brother; on the other hand, Edward was summoned to Parliament and Thomas was not, a circumstance which, however, has not the significance which it would have at a later period. It might be argued that Edward was the elder because he was apparently named after his royal grandfather; but if Ralph's father was named Thomas, it is equally probable that the first born was named after him." END OF QUOTE.

So back in 1936, it was left hanging as to whether Thomas or Edward was the eldest son of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, by Joan of England. Even so, the author in his main text "presumed" Thomas was the elder son and "presumed" Edward was the younger son. Sadly, no additional information on this matter was provided in the Addenda and Corrigenda volume of Complete Peerage [Volume 14] published in 1998.

So which son was the eldest? Thomas or Edward?

Recently I located a Common Pleas lawsuit which establishes once and for all that Sir Thomas de Monthermer was in fact the eldest son and heir of his father, Sir Ralph de Monthermer. A brief abstract of the lawsuit is provided below:

In Michaelmas term 1334 Richard de Thorp and Alice his wife sued Thomas son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer in the Court of Common Pleas in a Yorkshire plea regarding a debt of £90.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/300, image 93 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no300/bCP40no300dorses/IMG_0093.htm).

We see here that Thomas de Monthermer is specifically styled "son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer." In this time period, the terminology "son and heir" is almost exclusively reserved for the eldest surviving son of a deceased parent.

Elsewhere, I find that in the following year, Hingeston-Randolph, Register of John de Grandisson Bishop of Exeter 2 (1897): 786 records "Thomas and Edward de Monthermer, Knights" (named in that order) presented to the church of Stokenham, Devon in 1335.

The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015022703857&view=1up&seq=192

In summary, reviewing the evidence, I find it conclusive that Sir Thomas de Monthermer was the eldest son and heir of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, by his wife, Joan of England. He is so styled in a contemporary lawsuit dated 1334; he is named first ahead of his brother, Edward, in grants dated 1309 and 1310; he was summoned for military service first before his brother, Edward; and he is named ahead of Edward in the presentation to a church in 1335.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Howarth
2019-07-14 20:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 140–145 (sub Monthermer) has a good account of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, 1st Lord Monthermer, sometime Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who died in 1325. Sir Ralph de Monthermer's 1st wife was Joan of England, daughter of King Edward I of England, by which marriage he had two sons, Thomas, Knt., and Edward, Knt., and one daughter, Mary (wife of Duncan of Fife, Knt., 10th Earl of Fife). Further particulars of this family can be found in my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), published in 2013.
"It is not certainly known which of the sons Thomas and Edward was the elder. In the remainder to the grants to Ralph in 1309 and 1310 Thomas is named first, but he is not invariably given precedence. Thomas also appears to have been summoned for service at an earlier date than his brother; on the other hand, Edward was summoned to Parliament and Thomas was not, a circumstance which, however, has not the significance which it would have at a later period. It might be argued that Edward was the elder because he was apparently named after his royal grandfather; but if Ralph's father was named Thomas, it is equally probable that the first born was named after him." END OF QUOTE.
So back in 1936, it was left hanging as to whether Thomas or Edward was the eldest son of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, by Joan of England. Even so, the author in his main text "presumed" Thomas was the elder son and "presumed" Edward was the younger son. Sadly, no additional information on this matter was provided in the Addenda and Corrigenda volume of Complete Peerage [Volume 14] published in 1998.
So which son was the eldest? Thomas or Edward?
In Michaelmas term 1334 Richard de Thorp and Alice his wife sued Thomas son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer in the Court of Common Pleas in a Yorkshire plea regarding a debt of £90.
Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/300, image 93 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no300/bCP40no300dorses/IMG_0093.htm).
We see here that Thomas de Monthermer is specifically styled "son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer." In this time period, the terminology "son and heir" is almost exclusively reserved for the eldest surviving son of a deceased parent.
Elsewhere, I find that in the following year, Hingeston-Randolph, Register of John de Grandisson Bishop of Exeter 2 (1897): 786 records "Thomas and Edward de Monthermer, Knights" (named in that order) presented to the church of Stokenham, Devon in 1335.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015022703857&view=1up&seq=192
In summary, reviewing the evidence, I find it conclusive that Sir Thomas de Monthermer was the eldest son and heir of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, by his wife, Joan of England. He is so styled in a contemporary lawsuit dated 1334; he is named first ahead of his brother, Edward, in grants dated 1309 and 1310; he was summoned for military service first before his brother, Edward; and he is named ahead of Edward in the presentation to a church in 1335.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
To add to the mixture -
The elder son of Ralph de Monthermer would have borne his father's arms: 'vert, an eagle displayed or'.
The younger son's arms were: vert, an eagle displayed or, a border gules semy of lions passant guardant or'; the border represents his mother's arms.

Thomas given younger son's arms: William Jenyns’ Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 417.

Edward given elder son's arms: Cotgrave’s Ordinary (c.1340) CG 105, Thomas Jenyns’ Book (c.1350-1410) TJ 217, William Jenyns’ Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 413.
Edward given younger son's arms: Powell’s Roll (c.1350) PO 555, Styward’s Roll (temp Edw III) R 4.

Four entries make Edward the elder, two make him the younger.

Nothing is straightforward.

Peter Howarth
Peter Stewart
2019-07-15 02:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 140–145 (sub Monthermer) has a good account of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, 1st Lord Monthermer, sometime Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who died in 1325. Sir Ralph de Monthermer's 1st wife was Joan of England, daughter of King Edward I of England, by which marriage he had two sons, Thomas, Knt., and Edward, Knt., and one daughter, Mary (wife of Duncan of Fife, Knt., 10th Earl of Fife). Further particulars of this family can be found in my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), published in 2013.
"It is not certainly known which of the sons Thomas and Edward was the elder. In the remainder to the grants to Ralph in 1309 and 1310 Thomas is named first, but he is not invariably given precedence. Thomas also appears to have been summoned for service at an earlier date than his brother; on the other hand, Edward was summoned to Parliament and Thomas was not, a circumstance which, however, has not the significance which it would have at a later period. It might be argued that Edward was the elder because he was apparently named after his royal grandfather; but if Ralph's father was named Thomas, it is equally probable that the first born was named after him." END OF QUOTE.
So back in 1936, it was left hanging as to whether Thomas or Edward was the eldest son of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, by Joan of England. Even so, the author in his main text "presumed" Thomas was the elder son and "presumed" Edward was the younger son. Sadly, no additional information on this matter was provided in the Addenda and Corrigenda volume of Complete Peerage [Volume 14] published in 1998.
So which son was the eldest? Thomas or Edward?
In Michaelmas term 1334 Richard de Thorp and Alice his wife sued Thomas son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer in the Court of Common Pleas in a Yorkshire plea regarding a debt of £90.
Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/300, image 93 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no300/bCP40no300dorses/IMG_0093.htm).
We see here that Thomas de Monthermer is specifically styled "son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer." In this time period, the terminology "son and heir" is almost exclusively reserved for the eldest surviving son of a deceased parent.
Elsewhere, I find that in the following year, Hingeston-Randolph, Register of John de Grandisson Bishop of Exeter 2 (1897): 786 records "Thomas and Edward de Monthermer, Knights" (named in that order) presented to the church of Stokenham, Devon in 1335.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015022703857&view=1up&seq=192
In summary, reviewing the evidence, I find it conclusive that Sir Thomas de Monthermer was the eldest son and heir of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, by his wife, Joan of England. He is so styled in a contemporary lawsuit dated 1334; he is named first ahead of his brother, Edward, in grants dated 1309 and 1310; he was summoned for military service first before his brother, Edward; and he is named ahead of Edward in the presentation to a church in 1335.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
To add to the mixture -
The elder son of Ralph de Monthermer would have borne his father's arms: 'vert, an eagle displayed or'.
The younger son's arms were: vert, an eagle displayed or, a border gules semy of lions passant guardant or'; the border represents his mother's arms.
Thomas given younger son's arms: William Jenyns’ Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 417.
Edward given elder son's arms: Cotgrave’s Ordinary (c.1340) CG 105, Thomas Jenyns’ Book (c.1350-1410) TJ 217, William Jenyns’ Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 413.
Edward given younger son's arms: Powell’s Roll (c.1350) PO 555, Styward’s Roll (temp Edw III) R 4.
Four entries make Edward the elder, two make him the younger.
Nothing is straightforward.
According to the will of Ralph de Monthermer all that was left to his
widow Isabel was to revert on her death to his son Edward, and in the
event of Edward's dying without legitimate heirs to his son Thomas,
Edward's brother ("revertant et remaneant Thome filio meo fratri
predicti Edwardi").

But then the grant of Stoke by their uncle Edward II names Thomas first
("fideli nostro Radulfo de Monte Hermerii et Thome et Edwardo filiis
eius nepotibus nostris manerium de Stoke in Hamme") and in the agreement
made between the brothers after Ralph's death Thomas held Stoke with
Edward receiving £20 annually ("Thomas de Mounthermer ... conferme a
Edward de Mounthermer mon frere un annuel rente de vint livres a terme
de ma vie a prendre de mon manoir de Stoke in Hamme annuelment").

Given the status of Ralph's father compared to Joan's, it seems unlikely
to me that their elder son would have been named after his father rather
than hers.

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2019-07-15 06:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Howarth
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 140–145 (sub Monthermer) has a good account of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, 1st Lord Monthermer, sometime Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who died in 1325. Sir Ralph de Monthermer's 1st wife was Joan of England, daughter of King Edward I of England, by which marriage he had two sons, Thomas, Knt., and Edward, Knt., and one daughter, Mary (wife of Duncan of Fife, Knt., 10th Earl of Fife). Further particulars of this family can be found in my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), published in 2013.
"It is not certainly known which of the sons Thomas and Edward was the elder. In the remainder to the grants to Ralph in 1309 and 1310 Thomas is named first, but he is not invariably given precedence. Thomas also appears to have been summoned for service at an earlier date than his brother; on the other hand, Edward was summoned to Parliament and Thomas was not, a circumstance which, however, has not the significance which it would have at a later period. It might be argued that Edward was the elder because he was apparently named after his royal grandfather; but if Ralph's father was named Thomas, it is equally probable that the first born was named after him." END OF QUOTE.
So back in 1936, it was left hanging as to whether Thomas or Edward was the eldest son of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, by Joan of England. Even so, the author in his main text "presumed" Thomas was the elder son and "presumed" Edward was the younger son. Sadly, no additional information on this matter was provided in the Addenda and Corrigenda volume of Complete Peerage [Volume 14] published in 1998.
So which son was the eldest? Thomas or Edward?
In Michaelmas term 1334 Richard de Thorp and Alice his wife sued Thomas son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer in the Court of Common Pleas in a Yorkshire plea regarding a debt of £90.
Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/300, image 93 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no300/bCP40no300dorses/IMG_0093.htm).
We see here that Thomas de Monthermer is specifically styled "son and heir of Ralph de Monthermer." In this time period, the terminology "son and heir" is almost exclusively reserved for the eldest surviving son of a deceased parent.
Elsewhere, I find that in the following year, Hingeston-Randolph, Register of John de Grandisson Bishop of Exeter 2 (1897): 786 records "Thomas and Edward de Monthermer, Knights" (named in that order) presented to the church of Stokenham, Devon in 1335.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015022703857&view=1up&seq=192
In summary, reviewing the evidence, I find it conclusive that Sir Thomas de Monthermer was the eldest son and heir of Sir Ralph de Monthermer, by his wife, Joan of England. He is so styled in a contemporary lawsuit dated 1334; he is named first ahead of his brother, Edward, in grants dated 1309 and 1310; he was summoned for military service first before his brother, Edward; and he is named ahead of Edward in the presentation to a church in 1335.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
To add to the mixture -
The elder son of Ralph de Monthermer would have borne his father's arms: 'vert, an eagle displayed or'.
The younger son's arms were: vert, an eagle displayed or, a border gules semy of lions passant guardant or'; the border represents his mother's arms.
Thomas given younger son's arms: William Jenyns’ Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 417.
Edward given elder son's arms: Cotgrave’s Ordinary (c.1340) CG 105, Thomas Jenyns’ Book (c.1350-1410) TJ 217, William Jenyns’ Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 413.
Edward given younger son's arms: Powell’s Roll (c.1350) PO 555, Styward’s Roll (temp Edw III) R 4.
Four entries make Edward the elder, two make him the younger.
Nothing is straightforward.
According to the will of Ralph de Monthermer all that was left to his
widow Isabel was to revert on her death to his son Edward, and in the
event of Edward's dying without legitimate heirs to his son Thomas,
Edward's brother ("revertant et remaneant Thome filio meo fratri
predicti Edwardi").
But then the grant of Stoke by their uncle Edward II names Thomas first
("fideli nostro Radulfo de Monte Hermerii et Thome et Edwardo filiis
eius nepotibus nostris manerium de Stoke in Hamme") and in the agreement
made between the brothers after Ralph's death Thomas held Stoke with
Edward receiving £20 annually ("Thomas de Mounthermer ... conferme a
Edward de Mounthermer mon frere un annuel rente de vint livres a terme
de ma vie a prendre de mon manoir de Stoke in Hamme annuelment").
Given the status of Ralph's father compared to Joan's, it seems unlikely
to me that their elder son would have been named after his father rather
than hers.
Peter Stewart
Extra confusion through the possibility of Edward and Thomas being "twins"?

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2019-07-15 09:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Extra confusion through the possibility of Edward and Thomas being "twins"?
Possibly - there would still be an order of birth, but it's conceivable
that in the event they were twins there may have been confusion or
dispute over which was the elder.

However there is no reference to their being twins, and given their
proximity to the crown this would be expected.

Peter Stewart
Brad Verity
2019-07-16 04:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Extra confusion through the possibility of Edward and Thomas being "twins"?
Possibly - there would still be an order of birth, but it's conceivable
that in the event they were twins there may have been confusion or
dispute over which was the elder.
However there is no reference to their being twins, and given their
proximity to the crown this would be expected.
“Anno ab incarnatione Domini mccc. primo, et regni regis Edwardi xxix...Quarto non. Octobris Johanna comitissa Gloucestriae peperit filium, quem octavo idus ejusdem Johannes episcopus Landavensis Thomam in baptismate nominavit.” [ 549-550 (Annales Prioratus de Wigornia).]

“Hoc anno Domini mcccxl...Et in festo sancti Johannis baptistae, mane, classis Franciae, se dividens in tres turmas, movit se per spatium unius milliaris versus classem regis Angliae...summa nostrorum occisorum circa iiij. millia, inter quos fuerunt iiij. milites, scilicet dominus Thomas de Mounthermer, consanguineus regis.” [Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum. Robertus de Avesbury De gestis mirabililbus regis Edwardi Tertii: 103, 106, 109.]

“On the 4th of October, 1301, Joanna presented her husband with a son, who was baptized, on the 6th of December following, by the name of Thomas. John, Bishop of Llandaff, a prelacy which, as we have already noted, was in the gift of the Countess of Gloucester, officiated at the ceremony (Cott. MS., Vesp., A. ii., f.73b. Chron. Norw., Calig., A. x., f.181b.). The king gave forty marks to the valet who brought him tidings of the child’s birth (Wardrobe book, 29 Edw. I., f.9b, Addit. MS., No. 7966A, Brit. Mus.)." [Everett Green, Lives of the Princesses of England Vol. 2 (1850): 351, 359.]

“Besides Mary and Thomas, already mentioned, she had another son, born in April, 1304 (Rot. exit., 32 Edw. I., Pasch.), and named Edward, after his grandfather." [Ibid: 352, 359].

Hope this helps.

Cheers, -----Brad
Peter Stewart
2019-07-16 09:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Extra confusion through the possibility of Edward and Thomas being "twins"?
Possibly - there would still be an order of birth, but it's conceivable
that in the event they were twins there may have been confusion or
dispute over which was the elder.
However there is no reference to their being twins, and given their
proximity to the crown this would be expected.
“Anno ab incarnatione Domini mccc. primo, et regni regis Edwardi xxix...Quarto non. Octobris Johanna comitissa Gloucestriae peperit filium, quem octavo idus ejusdem Johannes episcopus Landavensis Thomam in baptismate nominavit.” [ 549-550 (Annales Prioratus de Wigornia).]
“Hoc anno Domini mcccxl...Et in festo sancti Johannis baptistae, mane, classis Franciae, se dividens in tres turmas, movit se per spatium unius milliaris versus classem regis Angliae...summa nostrorum occisorum circa iiij. millia, inter quos fuerunt iiij. milites, scilicet dominus Thomas de Mounthermer, consanguineus regis.” [Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum. Robertus de Avesbury De gestis mirabililbus regis Edwardi Tertii: 103, 106, 109.]
“On the 4th of October, 1301, Joanna presented her husband with a son, who was baptized, on the 6th of December following, by the name of Thomas. John, Bishop of Llandaff, a prelacy which, as we have already noted, was in the gift of the Countess of Gloucester, officiated at the ceremony (Cott. MS., Vesp., A. ii., f.73b. Chron. Norw., Calig., A. x., f.181b.). The king gave forty marks to the valet who brought him tidings of the child’s birth (Wardrobe book, 29 Edw. I., f.9b, Addit. MS., No. 7966A, Brit. Mus.)." [Everett Green, Lives of the Princesses of England Vol. 2 (1850): 351, 359.]
“Besides Mary and Thomas, already mentioned, she had another son, born in April, 1304 (Rot. exit., 32 Edw. I., Pasch.), and named Edward, after his grandfather." [Ibid: 352, 359].
Thanks Brad, well found - as far as I'm aware, the exchequer issue rolls
for the reign of Edward I have not been published, and if so we will
have to take Green's word for the April 1304 record she cited (Easter in
that year was in March, when I assume the roll in question started), but
with that small reservation it clears up that Thomas was the elder son.

Peter Stewart
c***@gmail.com
2019-07-16 18:51:45 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 10:55:22 PM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:

Dear Brad ~

Thanks for your post. Much appreciated.

You've mentioned that Green, Lives of the English Princesses 2 (1850): 352 states that Thomas de Monthermer was born 4 October 1301, and was baptized 6 December 1301.

The record Green was using as her source was surely the subsequently published Annals of Worcester, which indicates that Thomas was born 4 October 1301, and baptized 8 idus. of the same month, that is 8 October 1301.

Luard, Annales Monastici 4 (Rolls Ser. 36) (1869): 550 (Annals of Worcester sub A.D. 1301 — “Quarto non. Octobris [4 Oct.] Johanna comitissa Gloucestriæ peperit filium, quem octavo idus ejusdem [8 Oct.] Johannes episcopus Landavensis Thomam in baptismate nominavit.”).

The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=1EY7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PT540

If I read this correctly, Green gave the wrong date for the baptism of Thomas de Monthermer. She says he was baptized 6 December, but the actual record gives this date as 8 October.

Green was clearly not consulted by Complete Peerage when their Monthermer account was written, otherwise C.P. would have avoided creating the unnecessary confusion over whether Thomas or Edward was the elder son of Sir Ralph de Monthermer and Joan of England.

The 1334 Common Pleas lawsuit I found re-confirms Green's findings that Thomas was the elder son, and was followed by his brother, Edward. Hopefully this issue can now be laid to rest.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Brad Verity
“Hoc anno Domini mcccxl...Et in festo sancti Johannis baptistae, mane, classis Franciae, se dividens in tres turmas, movit se per spatium unius milliaris versus classem regis Angliae...summa nostrorum occisorum circa iiij. millia, inter quos fuerunt iiij. milites, scilicet dominus Thomas de Mounthermer, consanguineus regis.” [Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum. Robertus de Avesbury De gestis mirabililbus regis Edwardi Tertii: 103, 106, 109.]
“On the 4th of October, 1301, Joanna presented her husband with a son, who was baptized, on the 6th of December following, by the name of Thomas. John, Bishop of Llandaff, a prelacy which, as we have already noted, was in the gift of the Countess of Gloucester, officiated at the ceremony (Cott. MS., Vesp., A. ii., f.73b. Chron. Norw., Calig., A. x., f.181b.). The king gave forty marks to the valet who brought him tidings of the child’s birth (Wardrobe book, 29 Edw. I., f.9b, Addit. MS., No. 7966A, Brit. Mus.)." [Everett Green, Lives of the Princesses of England Vol. 2 (1850): 351, 359.]
“Besides Mary and Thomas, already mentioned, she had another son, born in April, 1304 (Rot. exit., 32 Edw. I., Pasch.), and named Edward, after his grandfather." [Ibid: 352, 359].
Hope this helps.
Cheers, -----Brad
Brad Verity
2019-07-17 03:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Thanks for your post. Much appreciated.
You're welcome - glad it's helped.
Post by c***@gmail.com
If I read this correctly, Green gave the wrong date for the baptism of Thomas de Monthermer. She says he was baptized 6 December, but the actual record gives this date as 8 October.
You are correct - nice catch.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Green was clearly not consulted by Complete Peerage when their Monthermer account was written, otherwise C.P. would have avoided creating the unnecessary confusion over whether Thomas or Edward was the elder son of Sir Ralph de Monthermer and Joan of England.
It seems as a woman, Green wasn't considered a serious scholar in Victorian England. Sir George Edward Cokayne was a herald who rose to Clarenceaux King of Arms. I'm hoping his overlooking of Green's work was accidental and not intentional, but we'll probably never know for sure.
Post by c***@gmail.com
The 1334 Common Pleas lawsuit I found re-confirms Green's findings that Thomas was the elder son, and was followed by his brother, Edward. Hopefully this issue can now be laid to rest.
To add to the mixture -
The elder son of Ralph de Monthermer would have borne his father's arms: 'vert, an eagle displayed or'.
The younger son's arms were: vert, an eagle displayed or, a border gules semy of lions passant guardant or'; the border represents his mother's arms.
Thomas given younger son's arms: William Jenyns’ Ordinary (c.1360-80) WJ 417.
Given the status of Ralph's father compared to Joan's, it seems unlikely
to me that their elder son would have been named after his father rather
than hers.
Thomas Monthermer was named for St Thomas Becket (as was Thomas of Brotherton, born the prior year). The fact that Joan of Acre chose this name, and not 'Edward', for him, is certainly indication of the high regard Joan, herself granddaughter of a saint, held the onetime Archbishop of Canterbury.

In turn, the fact that Thomas Monthermer incorporated his mother's arms into his father's coat, indicates the high regard in which she was held by him, as well the family's desire to memorialize the lady who created the Monthermer dynasty.

It's a nice example of how symbolism within heraldry and naming, often overlooked by historians, can reveal small but significant clues to the personalties of these medieval figures. Thank you to all who contributed to this enjoyable post.

Cheers, ----Brad
Peter Stewart
2019-07-17 08:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Post by c***@gmail.com
Thanks for your post. Much appreciated.
You're welcome - glad it's helped.
Post by c***@gmail.com
If I read this correctly, Green gave the wrong date for the baptism of Thomas de Monthermer. She says he was baptized 6 December, but the actual record gives this date as 8 October.
You are correct - nice catch.
I wouldn't quite so readily dismiss Green on this point - Luard may be
more reliable, but she was not incompetent and evidently read "decemb."
where he later read "ejusdem": which is correct can only be determined
for certain by checking the manuscript. This has not yet been digitised
by the British Library.

It's never a safe practice to assume that every word as transcribed by a
modern editor is exactly what the medieval writer intended.

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2019-07-18 15:55:28 UTC
Permalink
The birth dates of Thomas and Edward de Monthermer were stated in at least two additional secondary sources.

Frances A. Underhill, _For her Good Estate, The life of Elizabeth de Burgh_ (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999), 156, "Mary (b. 1297) married Earl Duncan of Fife: CCW 1:256; Joan (b. 1299), a nun at Amesbury, is almost unknown to history; Thomas (b. October 4, 1301) and Edward (b.ca. April 11, 1304) had lands from King Edward II: CChR, 3:131-32."

The above statement is in a footnote citing Henry Murray Lane, _The Royal Daughters of England (London: Constable, 1910), I:182-184. Lanes book is available at https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/63850-the-royal-daughters-of-england-and-their-representatives-v-01?offset=2. On page 183 Lane does state the above dates, but without citation. Lane also argues that Ralph de Monthermer's daughter Joan, attributed to his second wife by Green, was the daughter of his first wife Joan.
Brad Verity
2019-07-18 16:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
The above statement is in a footnote citing Henry Murray Lane, _The Royal Daughters of England (London: Constable, 1910), I:182-184. Lanes book is available at https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/63850-the-royal-daughters-of-england-and-their-representatives-v-01?offset=2. On page 183 Lane does state the above dates, but without citation. Lane also argues that Ralph de Monthermer's daughter Joan, attributed to his second wife by Green, was the daughter of his first wife Joan.
What great news that Royal Daughters of England is finally available online - thank you Family History Library!! Can't wait to re-visit beautiful Salt Lake City next month.

Cheers, -----Brad

c***@gmail.com
2019-07-16 06:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Here are two additional Common Pleas lawsuits which list Thomas de Monthermer and his brother, Edward, as executors of their father's will. Thomas is listed first ahead of Edward in both lawsuits indicating his seniority.

1. In 1327 the executors of the will of William son of Henry de Spersholt, of London, sued Thomas de Monthermer and Edward de Monthermer, executors of the will of Ralph de Monthermer, in the Court of Common Pleas in a Devon plea regarding a debt of £7 8d. References: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/270, image 118d (available at http://‌aalt.law.uh.edu/‌AALT2/‌E3/‌CP40no270/‌bCP40no270dorses/‌IMG_0118.htm); Index of Placita de Banco 1327–1328 1 (PRO Lists and Indexes 32) (1910): 111.

2. In Trinity term 1329 John Pikbon sued Thomas de Monthermer and Edward his brother, executors of the will of Ralph de Monthermer, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £22 10s. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/278, image 45d (available at http://‌aalt.law.uh.edu/‌AALT2/‌E3/‌CP40no278/‌bCP40no278dorses/‌IMG_0045.htm).

Contemporary records show that in 1309 King Edward II granted Ralph de Monthermer and Thomas and Edward his sons, the king’s nephews, the manor of Stokenham, the borough of Cheldon, and hundred of Coleridge, Devon, two thirds of the manor of Oakford and the manors of Sterte and Pyworthy, Devon, the manor of Hunton, Hampshire, and the manor of Erlestoke, Wiltshire, together with the reversion of the manors of Yealmpton, Devon and Warblington, Hampshire, to be held by the said Ralph, Thomas and Edwards and the heirs of the body of the said Thomas; with remainder to the heirs of the body of the said Edward. Reference: Cal.of Charter Rolls 3 (1908): 131–132.

In the above record, several manors on settled on Ralph de Monthermer and his sons, Thomas and Edward, and the heirs of Thomas, with remainder in default of Thomas' issue, to the issue of Edward. Thomas' heirs are given priority to those of Edward again indicating Thomas' seniority to Edward.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Loading...