GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-08 > 0965193715


From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: BIGOD of Settrington, co. Yorks., and Stocton, co. Norfolk [part 1]
Date: 02 Aug 2000 05:21:55 GMT


[part 2 of 3]

IDENTITY OF SIR JOHN BIGOD, OF STOCTON, CO. NORFOLK [D. 1405]


Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, surety of the Magna Charta, m. Maud Marshal,
senior coheir of William Marshal, hereditary Marshal of England. They had three
sons:

Roger le Bigod, b. 1212, d. 1270, succeeded as Earl of Norfolk, but died
without issue leaving Sir Roger Bigot, son of the late Sir Hugh, brother of the
late Earl, aged 24/25/26, as his heir [CIPM 1:239-41 (no. 744)].
Hugh le Bigod, an influential man who became Chief Justiciar of England, d.
1266. He m. (2) Joan de Stuteville [d. 1276], widow of Hugh Wake [(d. 1241) by
whom she had an heir, Baldwin Wake].
Sir Ralph Bigod, who had interests in Stockton, co. Norfolk, and Settrington,
co. York.
CP 9:592, note h, states that Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, wrote the King
[an original letter sewn back on the Close Roll] in 1270 requesting that Roger,
son of his brother Hugh, be his attorney as Marshal. Earl Roger died July 1270,
being succeeded by his nephew Roger, son of the late Earl's brother Hugh Bigod,
by his wife Joan de Stutevlille [daughter and heir of Nicholas de Stuteville
(by his wife Devorguille of Galloway)]. The new Earl's parents, Hugh and Joan,
were married by Michaelmas 1244, and he was born shortly thereafter, as the
IPMs of his uncle Roger stated his age to be 24-26.

On 8 Apr. 1302, Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, was allowed to alienate the
manor and advowson of Settrington, Yorkshire, to his "KINSMAN" John le Bigod,
his wife Isabel, and their two sons, John and Roger, in tail successively. This
Earl Roger died without issue in 1306. His IPMs state his heir was HIS BROTHER
John, aged 40 and more [born by 1266].

The author of the 1936 article in the YAJ 32:179 states:

"Some have thought that Sir John was not brother but cousin of the last Earl,
viz., son of his uncle Ralph, but although in several deeds he is called his
‘kinsman,’ in the Earl’s Inquisition he is distinctly said to be his
brother. This is contemporary evidence, as is also an entry on a Charter Roll 4
Aug. 1301, where ‘Sir John Bygod, the Earl’s brother,’ and Sir John Bygod
of Sutton, are said to have witnessed a deed of the Earl. Walsingham also
speaks of him as his brother."

The author admits that the inquisition states that the Earl’s heir, his
brother John, was aged 40, but according to the terms of the surrender of the
Earldom made before Roger’s death, the lands fell to the King. "The last
statement was, of course, correct, for Roger had no issue, but as John had been
dead more than twenty months, he could not have been his heir."

The confusion seems to be that though the last Earl Roger le Bigod had a
brother named John, he was not the same man as John Bigod, his kinsman, on whom
the Earl settled the manor and advowson of Settrington. The brother John [a
cleric who apparently died without issue] survived the Earl and was apparently
disinherited by his brother and the King. There are a number of facts about
which the author of the 1936 article was ignorant.

JOHN BYGOD, the Earl’s BROTHER

John Bygod, brother of Roger, Earl of Norfolk, was found to be aged 40 or more
[born ca. 1266] in many of the inquisitions taken after the Earl’s death [d.
1306]. The jury for the lands in Essex determined that "John le Bigod, his
brother, aged 40, is his next heir, but this manor ought to remain to the king
and his heirs by the form of the grant aforesaid" [CIPM 4:291 (no. 434)]. The
juries for Sussex and Suffolk came to the same finding. That for Berkshire
simply stated that the brother John was of full age. All the inquisitions
indicate he was alive. If the Earl’s brother had died more than a year before
leaving several sons, as the YAJ article claims, the many juries who were
required by both law and god to determine the next proper heir would not have
stated that the Earl’s brother was then alive and the next heir; they would
have found the heir to be a nephew, especially if that nephew were a minor
whose lands should fall into the King’s hands [Ralph, son and heir of John le
Bygod of Stocton was a minor in the King’s custody on 16 July 1305 (CPR
1301-7, 374-5), but received livery of his lands 17 Sep. 1306 (CCR)].

"John Bigot, clerk, and [R]oger his brother, earl Marshal, patron of Thetford,"
were ordered to desist from interference in the priory of Thetford, co.
Norfolk, in 1301 [CPapR 1:594]. The Earl died in 1306. On 6 March 1312, order
was given "to the escheator beyond Trent to take into the king’s hand the
lands late of John Bygot, clerk, deceased, tenant by knight service of the heir
of John Wake, tenant in chief of Edward I, a minor in the king’s ward. The
like to the escheator on this side Trent" [CFR 2:127]. The IPM of Joan, late
the wife of John Wake, in reply to a petition by the said Joan for dower in the
manor of Skeldynghopp, co. Lincoln, stated that John Bygot "who holds the manor
answered that the escheator requires a warrant from the exchequer so that he
may allow seisin" [CIPM 4:123-4 (no. 196)]. An educated man.

On 31 May 1312, order was given by the King to stay the inquisition to be made
concerning the land of John le Bygod, clerk, deceased, and not to intermeddle
further with the same lands [CCR Edw. II 1:426]. If the lands had been held by
this John in his own right, and if he had been lawfully seised of them at his
death, this would [according to my understanding] have been an unjust order.
But should the lands be only those to which he might have had some right as
only surviving brother and heir of the late Earl of Norfolk, the King would be
justified in stopping the inquisition as the deceased would have had no rights
in the inheritance or lands by reason of the 1302 settlement.

There was a fine for a John le Bygod, parson of the church of Cotyngham, in
1306, but I don’t know if this is our man or not.

Though chronicles did mention the Earl’s brother John, I am not aware that
any of them stated he married or had issue, or was knighted, or that he was "of
Stocton." The chronicler who goes into most detail, Walter of
Guisborough/Hemingburgh [Camden Soc./Roy. Hist. Soc., 3s, 89:352] relates that
the Earl of Norfolk had borrowed money from his brother John, a wealthy man.
The brother John demanded repayment. The Earl stated that when he died John
would be heir to all he had. John replied, why should that interest him? He
wanted the money. So the Earl repaid him, but disinherited him by granting the
Earldom of Norfolk and all its lands to the King.

If we examine this account, it would seem odd that a man—a knight with three
sons to represent the male line—would be uninterested in the title or
inheritance of the Earldom. A cleric, on the other hand, not having expectancy
of any legitimate issue, might have thought otherwise. Further, though the IPMs
of the Earl state his brother was named John, none of them state that his
brother was a knight, or call him ‘of Stocton.’ Also, the age found of this
brother [40] by several juries does not agree with the age of Sir John Bygod of
Stocton.

The grant of lands to John le Bigod of Stokton dated 10 July 1302 [CChartR
3:25, 34] does not call him brother of the Earl, nor does the final concord.
"Sir John le Bigod" was a witness to several of the Earls charters [CChartR
3:31], but none of them state he was the Earl’s brother. In fact, the ONLY
charter which states that a Sir John Bygod was brother of the Earl is a charter
produced by the monks of St. Mary Tyntern after the Earl's death, one of five
(at least one of which is clearly falsified). It is only in this one specific
charter [CChartR 3:106] that the witnesses include "Sir John Bygod, the
earl’s brother, Sir John le Bygod of Sutton, Sir Nicholas de Kyngeston,
knights," and others, supposedly dated at Modesgat [Wales?] 4 Aug. 1301. Note
that this does not state that the Earl’s brother was "of Stocton."

One might also wonder if the brother should indeed have been styled "Sir," but
only in the honorific sense (not have been listed as a knight), rather being
"dom." as a cleric. In any case, it is ONLY this document that presents any
possible confusion between the two John Bygods. I would assume if the witnesses
to the charter in question were not fictional that the Sir John Bygod of Sutton
[of whom I saw no mention in any other record] was a son or relation of William
Bigod, a son of Hugh, Earl of Norfolk (by his second wife Gundred) [CP 9:586,
note e] and Cart. Antiq. (Pipe Roll Soc., ns 17)]. This William Bigod married
Margery, daughter and heir of Robert de Sutton, of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk
[Norfolk Arch. 30:20].

[end of part 2]

Paul C. Reed, FASG

[copyright, hence to publication in sundry journals without my permission]

This thread: