Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 9: Norfolk

NORFOLK

See also "proposed" section

Volume 9, page 589:
He [Roger (le Bigod), Earl of Norfolk (d. 1221)] m. Ida, whose parentage is not known.

Marc Morris [The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the thirteenth century (2005), p. 2], cites evidence that Roger's wife was Ida de Tosny, and that she was given to him in marriage by Henry II, together with the manors of Acle, Halvergate and South Walsham, which had been confiscated after his father's death. As Roger had been holding them for three-quarters of a year at Michaelmas 1182, Morris dates the marriage to around Christmas 1181 [citing Rotuli Hundredorum, vol. 1, pp. 504, 537; Pipe Roll 23 Henry II, pp. 125, 137; Pipe Roll 24 Henry II, pp. 26-7; Pipe Roll 28 Henry II, p. 64].

[Morris's work was pointed out by Linda Jack in September 2005. The question was also discussed by John P. Ravilious, James Cummings, Nichol Storm, Douglas Richardson, Todd A. Farmerie, Peter Stewart and Paul Reed.
Item last updated 24 October 2005.]

Volume 9, page 589, note f:
Besides Hugh, the heir, there were sons [of Roger (le Bigod), Earl of Norfolk (d. 1221) and his wife Ida] William ..., Ralph ..., and Roger, ...

The Liber Vitæ of Durham, f. 63d, lists the children of Roger and Ida as Hugh, William, Roger, John, Ralph, Mary, Margaret and Ida [Surtees Society, vol. 136 (1923)].

[This evidence was presented by Rosie Bevan in July 2002.]

Volume 9, page 600, note a:
Her [Margaret's, countess of Norfolk (d. 1398/9)] younger sister Alice m. Sir Edward Montagu, who was sum. to Parl. in 1348. ... It had been arranged earlier (1333) that she should marry Edward's elder brother William, afterwards Earl of Salisbury ...

This account is corrected by Complete Peerage, vol. 11, p. 389, note k. Edward was not the brother of William, but his uncle [see vol. 9, pp. 84, 85].

Volume 9, page 601:
[Thomas de Mowbray, first Duke of Norfolk (d.1399)] He was b. 22 Mar. 1365/6;(a)
Note a:
From statement of his age at death, his Inq. p. m. (London) [he died 1399].

The most precise statement in his inquisitions post mortem is that he was aged 33 years and 26 weeks on 22 September [1399] when he died [Cal. Inq. p.m., vol.18, no 268]. Another inquisition says he was aged 33 years and more when his grandmother Margaret died (the date being stated there as 11 August 1399) [no 270]. Two of Margaret's inquisitions say that she died 24 March 1398/9, and that Thomas was then 33 years of age [nos 235, 236].

Thomas de Mowbray's elder brother John was born 1 August 1365 [Complete Peerage, vol.9, p.780], so the date given, less than 8 months later, must be incorrect. Their father died in 1368, and was predeceased by their mother. If the "26 weeks" component is precise, the correct date must be 22 March 1366/7 or 1367/8.

Volume 9, page 605:
JOHN (DE MOWBRAY), EARL OF NORFOLK, EARL OF NOTTINGHAM, EARL MARSHAL, and LORD MOWBRAY and SEGRAVE, br. and h., b. 1392 [d. 1432].

The contradictory evidence about his date of birth is discussed by Mary Erler [in "Hoccleve's Portrait?", The Ricardian, vol. 13, p. 228, note 27 (2003)]. She finds the most prevalent date given in inquisitions to be 10 August 1390 (with others giving the year 1391 or occasionally 1389), though according to a proof of age in 1412 he was "born at Calais on 3 August 1390 and baptised in St Mary's church there on 9 August".

[This correction was supplied by Peter Hammond in April 2003.
Item last updated: 19 April 2003.]