GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0978474314


From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 22:25:14 +0000


According to CP, Thomas of Brotherton, the 5th (of 6) son of Edward I,
but first by his 2nd wife, Margaret, dau of Philip III of France, married
Alice Hales about 1320. Her father, Sir Roger de Hales, was Coroner of
Norfolk from 1303 until his death in 1313. She died before 1330.

Renia

wrote:

> Cheers and Happy New Year to all!
>
> I've always been curious about the marriage of Thomas of
> Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, to Alice Hayles. This is an
> extraordinarily obscure marriage for a Prince of the royal blood.
>
> Thomas was next in line to the throne after his brother King
> Edward II, at least until the birth of the future Edward III in 1312.
> Even after that, especially with the infant death rate in the 14th
> century, he was still quite possibly a candidate to inherit the
> throne.
>
> About 1316, according to Burke's Peerage, he married Alice
> Hayles, the daughter of a knight (an official in a county that I can't
> remember offhand). Thomas of Brotherton was born in 1300, so
> that would make him 16 at the time of his marriage.
>
> Considering that Richard of Cornwall (younger brother of King
> Henry III) and Edmund of Lancaster (younger brother of King
> Edward I) both were wed to great heiresses and/or royal wives,
> why was the younger brother of Edward II married to such an
> obscure woman?
>
> I find no reasons given in the works I've read on the life of Edward
> II. It's very odd that Edward II or Thomas's mother Dowager Queen
> Margaret (who didn't die until 1318) did not arrange a more
> splendid match for the young prince. Were there political
> reasons?
>
> Is it possible that Thomas of Brotherton and Alice Hayles were a
> teenaged love match that was allowed to go forward?
>
> If anyone can shed light or direct me to possible further sources of
> info, I would very much appreciate it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> ----Brad Verity
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.co

This thread: