GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-11 > 1069837067


From: (Brad Verity)
Subject: Cobham of Cobham Corrections - Part 1
Date: 26 Nov 2003 00:57:47 -0800


I've had a chance this week to delve into Historian Nigel Saul's 2001
book 'Death, art, and memory in medieval England: the Cobham family
and their monuments, 1300-1500' (thanks to Douglas Richardson for
referring this). So far it is a wealth of information - and I haven't
yet reached the chapters on the Cobhams of Sterborough.

Saul's information corrects and fleshes out most of the accounts of
the Lords Cobham in CP Volume 3, pp. 344-345. In this first post,
I'll focus on John de Cobham, 3rd Lord Cobham, his daughter, and their
spouses.

CP: "He [3rd Lord Cobham] m., when a minor, and apparently very young,
in 1332-33, Margaret, 1st da. of Hugh (Courtenay), Earl of Devon..."

Saul [p. 18]: "Lastly, and by way of fitting climax, in 1341 a match
was arranged between John, son of John, 2nd Lord Cobham, and Margaret,
daughter of Hugh Courtenay, earl of Devon. [footnote: In Glover's
notes from the College of Arms, the marriage is variously dated 5 Edw.
III and 6 Edw. III (i.e. 1331, 1332): Nichols, 'Memorials of the
Family of Cobham', 323, 324. However, these dates are probably
misreadings for 15 and 16 Edw. III (i.e. 1341, 1342). 15 Edward III
is the date of a grant of herbage in Chisbury [a Cobham manor] by Sir
John to his son and daughter-in-law (BL, Harley Ch. 48 E9); and the
grant may have coincided with the marriage. A further point is that
Sir John himself had not entered into his inheritance in 1331 or 1332,
whereas he had done so ten years later."]

Saul [p. 23]: "By now [1395] he [3rd Lord Cobham] was getting old--he
was probably in his sixties [footnote: Waller, 'The Lords of Cobham',
84, and DNB, II, 156, make him a nonagenarian. Waller, whom the DNB
followed, was misled by Glover's note to the effect that John was
married in 5 Edw. III (Nichols, 'Memorials of the Family of Cobham',
323). But this note is probably an error of transcription (above, n.
46). It is more likely that John was married in 15 Edw. III (i.e.
1341). On the assumption that in that year he was aged around ten to
fifteen, he would have been in his seventies in the 1390s.]"

This of course has an effect on the chronology and birth order of
Margaret Courtenay, Lady Cobham. CP states that the 2nd Earl of Devon
and his wife were married on 11 Aug. 1325, and that their eldest son
Hugh was born 22 Mar. 1326/7 - these dates would make the son the
firstborn child of the couple. He was married in 1341 "before Sep."
to Elizabeth, daughter of the Earl of Oxford. Meanwhile, Hugh's
sister Elizabeth Courtenay was married "probably in July 1341
[footnote: On 24 July his father had licence to make a settlement on
the marriage ('Cal. Patent Rolls', 1340-43, p. 254)]" [CP, Vol. 10, p.
225] - probably at the same time - to John de Vere, eldest son and
heir of the Earl of Oxford.

Most genealogies, including CP, make Margaret, Lady Cobham, older than
her sister Elizabeth, Lady Vere, and indeed the eldest daughter of the
2nd Earl of Devon. This must be based on her 1331-32 marriage date to
John de Cobham, which Saul has shown to be faulty. It seems
Elizabeth, who made the grander match in 1341, would be the eldest
daughter, followed closely by Margaret.

At any rate, the 1331/2 marriage date of John de Cobham and Margaret
de Courtenay is virtually impossible. The second son of the 2nd Earl
of Devon - Thomas Courtenay - was born in 1329 ["12 Kal. Dec. 1344,
Avignon. To Thomas son of Hugh, earl of Devon and kinsman of king
Edward, in his fifteenth year. Indult to hold a sinecure dignity or
office, and, on attaining his twentieth year, any other benefice."
Cal. Papal Registers]. This leaves 1328 as the only possible year
Margaret could've been born if the 1331/2 marriage date were true.
Rushing to marry a three-year-old to the Cobhams, a lesser baronial
family, seems highly unlikely. In 1331/2, Margaret's grandfather had
not yet been created Earl of Devon, but 10 years later, her father
succeeded as 2nd Earl. It's likely that both Elizabeth and Margaret
Courtenay were born between 1330 and 1335.

CP: "She [Margaret Courtenay, Lady Cobham] d. 2 Aug. 1385, and was
bur. at Cobham."

Saul [p. 100-101]: "When his wife Margaret died in August 1395, he
laid on the most lavish funeral for her at Cobham. [footnote: He
ordered four sets of heraldic banners and 100 pennons from a London
painter: BL, Harley Ch.54 G 48. It is evident from this that the
church was to be decked out with all the emblematic display of lineage
and descent.]" Later [p. 121]: "Cobham also wanted [for his wife's
funeral in 1395] the arms of Edward Courtenay, earl of Devon, of other
members of the Courtenay family, and of Lord Grey of Codnor, who was
related to the Cobhams of Sterborough."

CP: "He [John, 3rd Lord Cobham] d.s.p.m., at an advanced age (74 years
after his marriage), 10 Jan. 1407/8."

Saul [p. 196]: "...and her father, the 3rd Lord, [was betrothed] to
his wife when he had been around twelve." Saul earlier [p. 21]
estimates the 3rd Lord's birthdate to be 1330/5, which would make him
under age 12 in 1341. Even if born as late as 1335, the 3rd Lord
Cobham was well into his 70s at his death.

CP: "His [3rd Lord Cobham's] brass, probably set up in his lifetime,
is in Cobham Church, but he was bur. at the Grey Friars, London."

Saul [p. 24]: "According to an account of his household expenses, he
[3rd Lord Cobham] died at the Augustinian house of Maiden Bradley
(Wilts.) in January 1408. [footnote: H.C. Maxwell Lyte, 'An Account
Relating to Sir John Cobham, A.D. 1408', "Antiquaries Journal", 2
(1922), 339-43. This account settles the doubt over John's place of
interment. A puzzling reference in a sixteenth-century list of
burials at Grey Friars, London, suggests that he was buried there: 'in
a tomb raised up at the end of that altar by the door under the cross
(transept) lies John de Cobham, Baron of the County of Kent' (J.G.
Nichols, 'Register of the Sepulchral Inscriptions in the Church of the
Grey Friars', "Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica", 5, 1838, 274;
see also 387). Since there is absolutely no doubt that John was
buried at Cobham, it is unclear whose tomb the note refers to. One
possibility is that it was that of Sir John Cobham, 'son of the
Countess Marshal' (d. 1378), a collateral kinsman who was active in
the military affairs of the day. This John, being childless, left his
estates to the crown 'out of love and affection' for the Black Prince:
'Rotuli Parliamentorum', iii, 8-9. His connections with Kent were
few--which would explain his burial in London.]"

CP: "Sir John de la Pole, of Chrishall, Essex (s. of Sir William de la
Pole, of Castle Ashby), by Joan, only child of John, Lord Cobham
abovenamed, which last named Joan (who m. in 1362, cont. dat. 21
Oct.)..."

Saul [p. 26]: "The couple's only child--or, at least, their only
surviving child--was a daughter, Joan. While the girl was still an
infant, John secured her betrothal to Sir John de la Pole of Castle
Ashby (Northants.)." Later [p. 196] Saul states "Joan Cobham was
betrothed to John de la Pole when she was seven".

If the 1362 date was what Saul was working from, then Joan Cobham was
born in 1355.

Saul [p. 26]: "The match was a promising one. Sir John was a wealthy
man. He owned six manors in Northamptonshire and Suffolk, and another
seven elsewhere. [footnote: L.H. Butler, 'Robert Braybrooke, Bishop of
London (1381-1404), and his Kinsmen' (Univ. of Oxford D.Phil. thesis,
1952), 94-6.]"

If CP's 1362 marriage date is correct, Sir John de la Pole had not yet
inherited the family estates - his father Sir William de la Pole was
still alive in 1364. John was, apparently, of age in 1362, though,
for Saul states [p. 202]: "Sometime before 1361, Sir William granted
the manor of Potton (Beds.) to his son and heir Sir John. [footnote:
'CPR 1358-61', 584.]"

Of John's heritage, Saul goes into further detail [p. 200]: "Sir John
de la Pole was the grandson of the Hull wool merchant Richard de la
Pole, the elder brother of the better-known Sir William de la Pole.
The two de la Poles both made immense fortunes from trading. William
was probably the more innovative of the two, reaping huge rewards from
lending to Edward III. But Richard was also heavily involved with the
crown, serving both Edward II and Edward III as butler. [footnote: For
the de la Poles, and Richard in particular, see R. horrox, 'The de la
Poles of Hull' (East Yorkshire Local History Society; Hull, 1983).]
Both brothers were anxious to establish themselves in the ranks of the
gentry. In 1333 Richard acquired the manor of Milton (Northants.),
which became his main residence. Towards the end of his life he
arranged for his son and heir William to be married to a
Northamptonshire lady. Through the influence of Ralph, Lord Basset, a
courtier of local origin, a match was arranged with Margaret, the
sister of John Peverel of Castle Ashby. The match offered the promise
of respectability but little financial gain. Peverel might well sire
a son and heir, and in that case the inheritance would pass down
through the Peverel line. But in 1349 John unexpectedly died without
issue, perhaps a victim of the plague. [footnote: 'CIPM', ix, no.180.]
Margaret was named as his heir. Contrary to their expectation, the de
la Poles suddenly found themselves the possessors of a substantial
inheritance. In addition to the main manor of Castle Ashby, the
estate comprised the manors of Ashley and Chadstone (Northants.),
Arlesey, Everton, and Potton (Beds.), Fulbrook and Westhall (Oxon.),
Seething (Norfolk), Aspall, Debenham, and Grimston (Suffolk), and
Chrishall (Essex). This far-flung string of manors had been assembled
by dubious means by Bishop Walter Langton. On his death in 1321 they
had passed to his nephew Edward Peverel and on the latter's death to
his son, John, whose sister married William de la Pole."

CP: "...Which last named Joan ... d.v.p., about 1388."

Saul has Sir John de la Pole's year of death as 1380 throughout the
book, but unfortunately does not cite a source. [p. 194]: "On
stylistic grounds, it [the de la Pole memorial brass at Chrishall] can
be dated to very shortly after John's death in 1380."

There is no date of death for Joan, Lady de la Pole. Saul [p. 256]:
"By the late 1380s his [3rd Lord Cobham's] granddaughter, Joan, was
heiress to both the Cobham and the de la Pole inheritances ... She had
had possession of the de la Pole estates since 1388." Earlier [p.
236]: "Until her death in the mid-1380s his [3rd Lord Cobham's]
heiress was his daughter, Joan, Lady de la Pole".

Sir John de la Pole and Joan Cobham had had a son. "Joan bore her
husband only one son, William, who died prematurely in 1380. The heir
to the combined fortunes of the two families was their daughter,
another Joan." [Saul, p. 26.]

Finally, before I end the post, Douglas Richardson had posted back on
8-13-2002, in the thread 'CP Addition: Death of Joan Cobham, wife of
John de la Pole':

"I haven't found any satisfactory death date for Joan Cobham, wife of
Sir John de la Pole. However, she was clearly deceased before January
1393/4, when a chapel for a chantry founded by her father was
dedicated in St. Clement's parish, Rochester. The arrangements
creating this chantry stipulate that the chaplains there were to pray
for Lord Cobham's soul "and for the souls of the dead, viz., John atte
Pole and his wife Joan, and Margaret wife of John de Cobham."
[Reference: Arthur Hussey, Kent Chantries, Kent Archaeological Society
Records Branch, 12 (1936): 234-235]. From this document, it is
evident that Joan Cobham, wife of John de la Pole, died sometime prior
to January 1393/4."

The date of January 1393/4 for the foundation of a chantry in St.
Clement's parish, Rochester, is incorrect. For Margaret (Courtenay),
Lady Cobham, was not dead until August 1395.

Saul [p. 25]: "From 1387 he [3rd Lord Cobham] was involved with Sir
Robert Knolles in the rebuilding of Rochester bridge, and in 1395 he
undertook the endowment of a chantry in the bridge chapel. [footnote:
R. Britnell, 'The New Bridge', in N. Yates and J.M. Gibson (eds.),
"Traffic and Politics: The Construction and Management of Rochester
Bridge, AD 43-1993" (Woodbridge, 1994), 43-59.]" Later [p. 235]: "In
a move utterly characteristic of him, Cobham provided for a chantry
chapel to be included in the design [of the bridge]. According to his
letters of instruction, transcribed in the Rochester register, prayers
were to be said for the souls of his wife, his daughter and
son-in-law, Robert Knolles, and others. [footnote: 'CPR 1391-6', 550;
BL, MS Faustina C V, fos. 91r-92r (Rochester priory letter book).]"

As there are many descended from these families, I hope this
information is useful. In a following post, I'll detail Joan (de la
Pole), Lady Cobham, and her five(!) husbands.

Cheers, ----Brad


This thread: