GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-04 > 1019964637


From: "Paul Mackenzie" <>
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Correction - Mary countess of Norfolk
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:30:37 +1000
References: <3CCB3457.30CAFA81@earthlink.net>


To Paul Davis and others

Hi Paul

I refer to your proposal concerning the parentage of Mary countess of
Norfolk.

I do owe you an apology. Not all my references I sent you are correctly
catalogued. You will find more references to Mary de Brewes under the
Chapter called John de Brewes of Wauton.

I did indeed have some doubts about the parentage of Mary de Brewes,
Countess of Norfolk, Marshall of England, (Aunt of Edward 111). However in
recent years, I have tended to move towards Complete Peerage's position on
her parentage. Even though the evidence is some what circular.

I refer to your citation, which is as far as I am aware the only reference
to Mary's relatives, excluding her husband(s) and children:

>The Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, volume 8, item 529, beginning on
page 374, is for Oliver de >Ingham. The relevant paragraph, dated 9 March,
18 Edward III (1344/5), is on page 377
>and reads, in part: "Endorsed that Thomas de Brewes, brother of Mary
countess of Norfolk, guardian of Mary >daughter of John Curzoun, kinswoman
and one of the heirs of the said Oliver ..."

However, there are a number of other citations concerning the sanity of John
de Brewes, son and heir of John de Brewes, which touch this issue. These
citations are quite complex. Apparently, John de Brewes was found to be
insane, and the wardship of his lands in Lincoln were granted in 1356 to
John Cobham (son of Mary de Brewes by her first marriage with Ralph
Cobham???) (CC 1354-1360 p 472,473) and the keeping of his lands in Surrey
and Sussex (same date ??) were granted to Thomas de Brewes the son of Peter
de Brewes of Tetbury (CP 1361-1364 p416). In one citation dated 1356
concerning the sanity of John de Brewes (CIPM 10 page 318), it is mentioned
that after the death of his father John de Brewes in 1348, his properties in
Surry and Sussex passed through numerous hands, one of which was the Mary
Countess Marshall ( viz Mary de Brewes) and another was Thomas de Brewes,
knight, who apparently held these until date of the inquisition. However,
there is no mention in this IPM that the latter two are related. The result
of the Inq.p.m. was that John de Brewes, son and heir of John de Brewes, was
found to be an idiot, and all his lands, presumably in Surrey and Sussex,
were to be taken into the kings hands. Subsequently, the keeping of these
lands were granted to Thomas de Brewes the son of Peter de Brewes of Tetbury
(see above)

It could be argued that all the lands in Surrey and Sussex of John de Brewes
Snr, which were subsequently in the possession of Thomas de Brewes, were
taken into the kings hands (see IPM), and the keeping of the same were then
granted by the king to the same Thomas de Brewes (see CP). If the latter is
indeed the case, Mary de Brewes was indeed the daughter of Peter de Brewes
of Tetbury. Otherwise, there were two Thomas de Brewes. It would seem the
latter is unlikely, in view of the above circumstances.

I know, this is somewhat inconclusive. I was never able to get a copy of
the reference Cott. MS., Jul., C vii, fo. 174 cited by Complete Peerage as
evidence, and would be interested if any one has seen it.

Regards

Paul Mackenzie


P.S. This John de Brewes, "the idiot" and his branch of the tree is also
elusive. Does anyone know of the descent of the manors Wauton, SURREY and
la Lee, Gaytbirton, and Herlaston, LINCOLN from about 1370.


Paul Davis wrote in message <>...
>People,
>
> This is a proposed correction to Complete Peerage in regard
>to Mary, second wife of Thomas of Brotherton.
>
>ACKNOWLEDGMENT
> This matter was first brought to the attention of
>Gen-Medieval, to my knowledge, by Paul Mackenzie, on 1997 Jan
>28, who expressed it as a matter of interest, and cited primary
>sources, but did not take the step of calling it a correction to
>Complete Peerage.
>
>CURRENT COMPLETE PEERAGE
> "The Complete Peerage", volume IX (Moels to Nuneham), 1936,
>under Norfolk, on page 598, says of Thomas of Brotherton: "He
>m., 2ndly, Mary, widow of Sir Ralph de Cobham [Lord Cobham, d.
>Feb. 1325/6], sister of Sir Thomas de Brewes (or Brewose) [Lord
>Brewes], and da. of Sir Piers de Brewes, of Tetbury.(g)" and the
>footnote reads: "(g) Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. viii, no 529 (p.
>377); Cott. MS., Jul., C vii, fo. 174."
> Volume XIV (Addenda & Corrigenda) makes no change to this.
> For reference, volume III (Canonteign to Cutts), 1913, under
>Cobham, on page 338, says of Sir Ralph de Cobham: "He m. Mary."
>and "His widow m., as 2nd wife, Thomas (of Brotherton), Earl of
>Norfolk and Marshal of England." but makes no reference to any
>family of origin for her.
>
>CONTEMPORARY SOURCES
> The Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, volume 8, item 529,
>beginning on page 374, is for Oliver de Ingham. The relevant
>paragraph, dated 9 March, 18 Edward III (1344/5), is on page 377
>and reads, in part: "Endorsed that Thomas de Brewes, brother of
>Mary countess of Norfolk, guardian of Mary daughter of John
>Curzoun, kinswoman and one of the heirs of the said Oliver ..."
> Mary's own IPM is in volume 11, item 397, beginning on page
>305. It mostly deals with lands held in dower from Thomas of
>Brotherton. One paragraph, dated Wednesday before St. Margaret,
>36 Edward III (1362/3), on page 307, refers to her with a
>surname, and reads, in part: "Thomas, being seised thereof,
>married a certain Alice, by whom he had two daughters Margaret
>and Alice, of whom Margaret was married to Walter de Maunny and
>Alice to Edward de Monte Acuto. Edward and Alice had a daughter
>Joan, who was married to William de Ufford. Alice wife of
>Thomas died, and after her death Thomas married Mary de Brewes
>as his second wife, and afterwards gave the castle and manor &c.
>to the present king, who gave them to Thomas and Mary and the
>heirs of the body of Thomas, with reversion in default of such
>heirs to himself and his heirs. Thomas died without issue by
>the said Mary."
>
>ANALYSIS
> The IPM of Oliver de Ingham, since it does not concern the
>inheritance of Thomas de Brewes or Mary countess of Norfolk,
>would be unlikely to suffer from a dishonest motive, but there
>is also no reason to assume "brother" means full brother, as
>opposed to half brother, step brother, or brother in law (to use
>the modern terms). The Thomas de Brewes was evidently alive at
>the time, as was the Thomas de Brewes, son of Sir Piers de
>Brewes of Tetbury. I cannot presently eliminate the possibility
>that the Thomas de Brewes related to Mary countess of Norfolk
>was of some other branch of the family, however.
> The reference to "Mary de Brewes" in her own IPM, I find
>peculiar. I would have expected it to say "Mary, late the wife
>of Ralph de Cobham", or "Mary, daughter of Sir Piers de
>Brewes". I don't believe I have seen, in any other IPM, a
>reference to a widow by her maiden name, though I have not done
>any sort of extensive survey. I would hypothesize that the "de
>Brewes" is a supposition by the scribe, based on knowledge of
>the previous IPM. Since this is Mary's own IPM, she could not
>be queried on her family of origin, and it might not have been
>generally known.
>
>CORRECTION
> I believe the state of our knowledge would be best
>represented by correcting the first quote to read something like
>"He m., 2ndly Mary, widow of Sir Ralph de Cobham [...], sister
>(in some sense of the word) or a Thomas de Brewes, who may have
>been the Sir Thomas de Brewes (...) [...] who was son of Sir
>Piers de Brewes, of Tetbury."
>
>FURTHER COMMENTARY
> I find it surprising there is not more solid information on
>the origin of a woman as important and highly placed as this
>Mary.
> The most natural interpretation of the contemporary sources
>would be that Mary, after Ralph de Cobham's death, married the
>brother of a Thomas de Brewes, who died before she married
>Thomas of Brotherton. I find no indication of any brother of
>the Thomas de Brewes identified above who could have been this
>husband.
> Some older sources identify this Mary as Mary de Ros, widow
>of William de Brewes father of the Sir Piers de Brewes
>identified above. This is impossible. This latter Mary's IPM
>is also known. Nevertheless, some contemporary databases give
>the surname "de Ros" to a Mary listed as daughter of Piers de
>Brewes and wife of Ralph de Cobham and/or Thomas of Brotherton!
> I have seen reference to a branch of the de Braose (however
>spelled) family, which was "of Norfolk". I have not searched
>for further information on them, but they would be more natural
>for the relatives of a countess of Norfolk than Sir Piers'
>branch, whose lands were in Sussex, Gloucestershire, and the
>marches of Wales.
>
> I would welcome any further contemporary sources, any
>assistance in better interpreting the contemporary sources, or
>any improved analyses.
>
> Thanks.
>
>- PKD [Paul K Davis - ]
>
>


This thread: