GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-01 > 1137530651


From: "Chris Phillips" <>
Subject: Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part IIIa
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:44:11 -0000
References: <1137177359.970330.244330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1137386862.676706.320730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1137393215.141269.129140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1137529353.440600.39230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


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


If this is the case, it may tend to confirm Ellis's suggestion as to the
parentage of William de Burgh, mentioned in CP, vol. 12 part 2, p. 171, note
f (on p. 172):

"The parentage of William and Hubert has not been ascertained but
Ellis, in a well documented Appendix, "The Ancestry and Birthplace of
Hubert de
Burgh" ([Hubert de Burgh], pp. 183-202), suggests, with reservations, that
their father may have
been Walter de Burgh, of Burgh-next-Aylsham, Norfolk; cf. Her. and Gen.,
vol. iv,
pp. 337-40 ..."

Incidentally, is there a particular reason to interpret the "Vtwell" of the
charter as "Upwell"? There is another place called Outwell just across the
border in Cambridgeshire, which looks like a better match.

Chris Phillips


This thread: