Cecil George Savile Foljambe Liverpool.

The house of Cornewall online

. (page 5 of 33)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Berkhamstead, Anno 1272."

" Richard, a base son, died 1272. He died at Berkhamstead Castle, and

ma. Joane, da. of . . and was buried in the Abbey of Hayles."

\ \ \

Sir Jefferie Cornewall. Edmund, 2nd son. (3) Sir Walter Cornewall.

This dubious entry makes Sir Jefferie ancestor of the Barons of Burford ;
Edmund, the second son of Kynlett ; and gives Sir Walter for issue William,
father of John, whose sole heir, Isabel, married Hendar (Hendower). But the
Cotton MSS. Claud C. VIII. make WiUiam de Cornubia brother and heir of
Walter, not son.

Of Richard, the base son, Uttle is known. Lysons, who draws a distinction
between the Manor of Brannel, and its Sub-Manor of Court in Brannel,
states that Richard, King of the Romans, gave the former to Richard de
Cornubia or Cornwall, his natural son by Joan de VaUetort, widow of Sir
Alexander Okeston. But in the Cal. Rot. Pat., p. 61, we find Confirmation
granted in 28 Edward I., to Walter de Cornubia, brother of Edmund, Earl of
Cornwall, of 18 libratas terrcB in the Manor of Brannel, and undoubtedly the
said Walter's descendants held the Manor of Court in Brannel ; while in the
Cotton MSS., Claud, c. ii., fo. 64 — dated 24 May, 25 Edw. I. (1297), is a writ
addressed to the Sheriff of Cornwall, commanding him to make a return of all
persons within his Baihwick holding lands of the yearly value of £20 and
upwards, who had previously been summoned to repair to the King at
London on Sunday, July 7th, 1297, with horses and arms, in readiness to go
abroad with him. In the Sheriff's return we find the name of Dominus
Walterus de Cornubia ; and Gilbert — History of Cornwall — states that in 1311
he was summoned to Parliament for the County of Cornwall. According to
the Cotton MSS. — Claud c. ii., fo. 102 — Sir Walter bore " Arg. 3 lozenges in
bende vi cross-crosslets sa. But while this was given as the coat of the Cornish
Comewalls, for those of Devon we find " Arg : crosse paty sa. 5 bezants or."


And in the Roll of arms of Peers and Knights in the reign of Edw. II. — from a
contemporary MS. — published or edited by Sir Harris Nicholas, 1828, under
the heading " Cornewaille a Devengshire," we have " Sir Wauter de Corne-
waUle," De argent a une crois de sable besante de or," and in Harl : MSS.,
1386, fol. 40, the coat is " arg. : a cross gules with 5 bezants." Whichever coat
he bore it seems evident that he did not, hke Sir Edmund and Sir Geoffrey,
assume the coat of Earl Richard.

In the pedigree of Tregarthian the following descent is given : —

Richard Earl of Cornwall=

^1 !

Edmund, Earl Richard, base son by Joan, also base,

of Comwail Joan de Valletort= . ■ . =Richard Champernon.

Walter deCornewall (called William by Gilbert)= . . . Geoffrey, whence the Barons of Burford ?



William de Cornewall (omitted by Polwhele) = . . . Godfrey, a Carmelite Monk.

John de Corne\vall=Margery, dau. of Sir John Trejago,
I M.P. for Truro 6 Ed. III.
I (called Richard by Lysons).

Margery=David de Hendower,
I a Welshman.

David Hendower= . . . Query Devereux ?

Richard, als.TnoMAS, Hendower= Katherine, dau. of John Chamberlayne, by the heiress of Pcver.

Margaret Hendower-Thomas Tregarthian (Sheriff 1492), M.P. for Liscard.

John Tregarthian=Jane. . . .



Margaret=George Tanner, of CuUompton. (i) John Kellaway=Joan=(2) John


I ^1

Mary=Thomas Codrington. Agnes=Henry Lyte,
(d. 1607, et 78).

John Wadham of Merifield and Edge=
(will 1577), descendant of I
Sir J ohn Wadham of
Edge, 1366. I

Nicholas = Dorothy, dau. of Sir Wm. Petre of Ingatestone. FLORENCE=Sir John

Founder of d. 1618 at 84, and buried at

Wadham CoU., Ilminster.


d . s.p. 1609,

and buried at



Sir John Wyndham=Joan, dau. of
Henry Portman
(Whence the Earls of Egremont, and Wyndham
of Dinton (inde Leconfield of Petworth).



In the above pedigree the family of Hendower, who, coming from Wales
settled at Brannel after the marriage of David with Margery de CornewaU,
was probably identical with that of the historical Glendowers. Arms, " a lion
rampant between an orle of escallop shells or." The Renders of Bottreaux
Castle, a younger branch of the same stem, intermarried with the great Cornish
Houses of Robartes, Molesworth, Hele and Cotton. Their arms granted by
Cooke Clarencieux, temp Eliz., were, " az. semee of escallop shells, a lion ram-
pant, or." Godfrey, the Carmelite Monk, is not included in the Trevarthian
pedigree, but has been inserted on the authority of Lysons, who states that he
was bom at Court in Brannel circa 1300, and wrote many learned works. Of
this family may have been Thomas, Chancellor and Canon of York, appointed
by Edward I. paymaster to the forces during the Scotch war, and later to the
same of&ce in Ireland. We note also in the Rotulus Romse, 6 Edw. II., a letter
from the Pope to the King respecting the promotion of Richard De CornewaU
to a Prebend in the Church of York. In his will Earl Edmund bequeathed a
ring of gold for the use of tlie Archbishop of York. This was duly delivered
to Archbishop Greenfield, August 4th, 1303. [Fasti Eborac, vol. i., p. 360.]

We find moreover certain references to a John de Cornwall who can scarcely
be identical with John, son or grandson of Sir Walter de CornewaU in the above
pedigree. The first is 22 Edw. I. appointing him one of the Commissioners
to levy the tenths due to the King in Lancashire, — this in Rot. Pat. of that
date. The next is in the Close RoUs of 25 Edw. I., addressed to John de CornwaU,
and informing him that the King, before his departure abroad had enjoined on
his son Edward, his lieut. in England, to transact certain affairs respecting which
he would hold conference with the said John ; and commanding him by his
love and fealty to be \vith his said son with horses and arms at London in the
Octaves of St. Michael next, Oct. 6, 1297. " And this as ye love our honour
and welfare." — tested by Edw. Prince of Wales at St. Paul's, London, Sep. 16,

It may be weU perhaps at this point if mention be made of Sir Lawrence
de CornewaU, who may have been a brother of Sir Walter, and wJw bore precisely
the same arms* — albeit, his name has never been included in any of the published
pedigrees of the CornewaU family. Thus, Cotton MSS., Nero c. viii., fo. 92.

* But in Harl: MSS., 1386, folio 44, the coat given is arg : a cross patonce gu. with 5


" Wardrobe account of the year 5 Edw. II. On the 19th day of May Sir Lawrence
de CornewaU, Knight, was admitted to receive the King's fee and robes as a
simple Knight of the said King's household, the intelligence being communicated
on the King's behalf by Sir Edward de Mauley." Sir Lawrence, however, does
not appear to have treated the widowed Lady Giffard of Heneton in knightly
fashion, inasmuch as in 8 Edw. II., 1314, she petitioned Parliament {vide
Pari. Rolls, vol. i., p. 292) for redress, alleging that he with others came to the
Ville of Heneton and took from her 4 horses, 2 silver cups, 16 silver spoons,
" napes," towels, cloth of miniver, robes, and gold and silver to the amount of
£200. So a Commission of enquiry was appointed, with what result does not
appear. His arms, albeit, he perpetrated the above outrage in Cornwall,
are entered under the head of Westmoreland in the vol. edited by Sir Harris

Before entering more fully into the moot problem of Earl Richard's des-
cendants, it may be well to quote the various accounts given. First, Gilbert :
" Of this family (i.e., of Brannel), which descended from a natural son of
Richard, Earl of Cornwall, by Joan de Valletort, was Walter de CornewaU,
who served the County in Parliament in 131 1 ; John de CornewaU, served as
Member for Tniro in 1332. The elder line of this noble family became extinct
in the latter part of the fourteenth century, when an heiress carried the estate
in marriage to Hendover, whose heiress married Tregarthian." Next, Lysons :
" The Manor of Brannel was granted by King John to Richard, Earl of CornwaU
and Rex Romanorum, who gave it to Richard de Cornubia, his natural son by
Joan de Valletort (widow of Sir Alexander de Okeston). From the CornwcJls
it passed to the Hendowers,etc." Further, Carew : " Court in this Parish
appertained to the Earls of CornewaU. King John settled them (query, why
plural ?) to his second son, Richard, in 1209, who had issue by his concubine,
Jone de VaUetorta, widow of Sir Alexander Okestin, a base son named Richard
de CornewaU, and a daughter Joan married to Champernonne." More to the
same purport might be added, but we now turn to Sandford (1677), who has this
to say, differing toto ccelo from the others as regards the parentage of Walter :
" Natural children of Richard, King of the Romans ; Richard de CornewaU,
one of his natural sons. Walter de CornewaU, another base son of Richard,
Earl of CornwaU, to whom his natural brother, Edmund, Earl of CornwaU,
granted 18 Libratas Terrcs in his Manor of Brannel, by the name of Waltero de
Cornubia jratri srio. These two brethren (Richard and Walter) nothi erant


saith my authority (Vincent apparently) and (you will know his reason) Quia
Rex fuit consanguineus et hares propinquior dicti Comitis (sc. Earl Edmund)
which, if they had been lawfully begotten, they had had a right of succession
in the Earldom of Cornwall. But it seemeth the King was by an Inquisition
found to be his heir. Thirdly, Isabel de Cornwall, a natmral daughter of
Richard, King of the Romans, whom the King Henry III. called niece — she was
wife to Maurice, Lord Berkeley, and said King, by warrant dated St. Paul's, loth
August, in the 48th year of his reign, commanded the Sheriff of Kent to deliver
the Jlanors of Harrietsham and Horcliffe, Isabella uxori Mauritii de Berkeli
nupti ad siistentionem stiam liberorum suorum. Concerning the fourth, Joan,
there is a Uttle discrepancy, but in certain deeds relating to Meodbury I find as
follows : — ' Meodbury was the ancient lands of the Valletorts, Barons of
Harberton, Roger de Valletort conveying it amongst other lands unto Sir
Alexander de Oakston which had married Joan, a woman which was concubine
of Richard Erie of Cornwall and King of Almayne, which Sir Alexander left
Sir James de Okeston, which died without issue. With command of King
Edward hee conveyed Meodbury and other lands formerly granted unto his
father by R. de Valletort, unto Sir Richard Champernonne (De Campo Armdphi)
and Joan, daughter of Joan above mentioned, whom Edmund Earl of Cornwall
caUeth by the name of sister in a grant made by him unto the said Richard
and Jone (the Assize of Bread and Ale, dated 12th of King Edward). The
said Richard the father was younger sonne of Sir Henry Champernon of
Clyst Champernon.' "

Passing over for the moment the question of Sir Walter's paternity, we
turn to the statements concerning the alleged two daughters of Joan de Valletort,
viz. : — Isabel and Joan.

First as regards Isabel and her alleged union with Maurice de Berkeley,
John Smyth of Nibley has somewhat to reveal. He was tutor to Thomas, heir
of the r7th Lord Berkeley and with him entered Magdalen College, Oxford,
1589. In 1597, appointed Steward of the Manor of Berkeley, he became an
enthusiastic antiquarian. As such he was employed to coUate the MSS. in
Berkeley Castle by the then Earl, who, after the custom of the day, employed
among his staff of retainers, a jester. This person perpetrated a piece of folly
so ponderous as to be not unworthy of a German origin. In a word he col-
lected all the ropes he could find to tie Berkeley Castle to the Church, lest


forsooth John Smyth should cart it off to Nibley with the Berkeley muni-
ments. [See " Diet. Nat. Biography," and " The Smith Family."] It had been a
tradition at Berkeley that they shared the CornewaU blood, and Sandford, as
we have seen, iterates it. The error originated with Abbot Newland, 1490. The
RoU of his Abbey is now in the possession of the Kingscotes of Kingscote,
and therein is a document styhng itself the " pedigree of WiUiam, Marques
Berkeley, Earl of Nottingham and great Marshall of England, A.D. i486." It
was translated by John Newland, " Abbot of St. Augustins, by Bristowye," and
the alliance between Berkeley and CornewaU is presented in double columns.
The error of the good Abbot may be partly excused because the arms of Corne-
waU are found in Berkeley Castle. Thus : —

" Isabell, the wife of Morice, Lord Morice, the eldest sone and hyre

of Berkeley, was the daughter of of the said Thomas had bi Isabell his

Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, the son wife issue as it foUowingly apperith.

of Richard, King of Almayne and and decessed the 4th day of Aprile,

Jerusalem, wiche Richard was the and is buried in the arch next to

sone of John, Kinge of England. Seint Morice."
And this said Ladye, Dame Isabell,
died 7 day of Julye.

This Richard, Grauntefader of the foresaide lady Dame Isabell, first Erie of
CornewaUe and son of King John ; and after King of Allmayne and of Jerusalem ;
funded the Abbey of Hayles, where he lies buried honourably. And also he
funded Askerugge."

The following is John Smyth's trenchant criticism of the worthy Abbot's
legend : —

" About the parentage of the Lady Isabel, wife to this
Lo. Maurice, a longe question (or rather a two-fold error)
hath bene amongst the genealogists o f tliis family.

Newi. Fed. I. — Abbot Newland in his Pedigree often before men-

tioned, written in the fifth yeare of Kinge Henry the Seventh,
and three others, gathered in the tymes cf King Henry the
Sixth, and of King Edward the fourth, in the Castle of

Carew, to. 79. Berkeley. Mr. Carew in his description of Cornwall, Stow,

ow, o. 29 an 313. ^^^ divers others, make her the daughter of Edmund, Earl

of Cornwall, sonne of Richard, King of Alemaine and



Hayles MS. in
Robte. Cotton, fol. 42.

Esc. 28 Edw. I.
in Arce Lend.

Jerusalem, younger brother of King Henry III., sonnes of
King John. And some of them make her the base daughter
of the said Edmund. But the ancient manuscript of Hayles
Abbey in the County of Gloucester, whereof the said Richard
was founder, plainly sheweth the birth of this Edmond to
bee in the five and thirtieth yeare of Henry IH., Anno 1250 ;
longe before which tjmie this Isabell was maryed and had
children by this lord, and so not possible to bee his daughter
lawful nor base. And further the office found after the saide
Edmund's death in the 28th of Edward I., sheweth that he
died the first of October without issue.

Rot. claus. 4S Hen. 3,
m. 4 Code in dorso in
Com. Essex.

Robt. de Glouc. MSS.
cum Robt. Cotton.

Chron. de Hayles
predict., fol. 40.

2. — Others will have her to bee the base daughter, not
of the sayd Edmond, but of the sayd Richard, Kinge of
Alemaine, Edmond's father, and soe Niece to Kinge Henry
III., elder brother of the said Richard, and insist upon the
authority of the Manuscript rithmicall Chronicle of Robert
de Glouc, who in the tjmie of H. 6 wrote thus :

Sr. Richard le fitzroy of whom we spoke before
Gentleman he was enough, tho' he was the last I bore.
For the laster daughter of Warren his good Moder was,
And his Fader King John, that begat a princes.
Sr. Jlaurice of Berkeley wedded such bycas.
His daughter and begat on her the good Knight Sr.Thomas.
But this may not pass for truth, for aU histories agree
that this Richard was borne in the yeare 1210 (i.e., Jan. 5,
1209-10) the xii. yeare of Kinge John, and proofs and
records are playne, that this IsabeU was maryed and had
issue by this Lord Maurice her husband in the yeare 1240,
the 25th of Hen. III., which space of thirty yeares, all men
will hold too short a tyme for Richard (a Kinge's sonne)
to bee so mangrowne as in fifteen years to have a base
daughter borne, and shee in fifteen more to be lawfully
maryed and bare issue. Neither was the saide Earles'
daughter of Warren mother to the sayd Richard, as Robert
our poet rhymeth. But Isabell Aymer's daughter and


heire, as now foUoweth. But certainly she was a daughter

of Maurice de Credonia, als. Croun in the County of Lincohie

Speed, foi. 507, and of the Lady Isabell, his wife, sister of William de

Brook Herald. ' VaUence, Earle of Pembroke, which Isabell and Earl William

were the children of Hugh de Brun, Earle of March, and of

the Lady Isabell his wife, daughter and heire of A3mier,

Earl of Angloisme {sic.) grandchild of Lewis the Gross, King

of France and widow of Kinge John, father by her of this

ciaus. 48, Hen. III., King Henry III. And soe was this Isabell, wife of this Lord

™' '^' Maurice, neece to the sayd Kinge Henry, as being daughter

of the sayd Isabell, his half-sister. As in his graunts

Dated 12 July. to her of land in Essex appeareth, wherein hee styleth her,

in one, by the name of dilecta consanguinea nostra, his

Dated 10 Aug. vvel belove kinswoman ; and in the second, dilecta neptis

nostra, his well belove neece."*

After perusing this we are led to the conclusion that the base-born Isabel
is a myth. Isabel, the daughter of Isabel de Clare, as we have already shown,
died as a child in 1234.

We now come to Joan, the other alleged illegitimate daughter of Earl
Richard — for we may fairly dismiss the allegation that Earl Edmund had a
daughter born out of wedlock, as suggested in the Mount Edgcumbe pedigi'ee
and elsewhere. The following extract from Prince's Worthies, entitled, "Survey
of Devon in Modbury " may throw some light on this Joan. The writer deals
with the Champernonne family : —

" The occasion of the settlement of the family of Cliamperon at Modbury,
County Devon, I find was thus : these lands were anciently the Valletorts',
Barons of Harberton near Totnes, from whom they came to Sir Alexander de

* That local opinion did not coincide with John Smyth's view may be inferred from the
following monumental inscription, of the date 1628, in Down Ampney Church, e.g. :
Christus est Resurrectio Mortuorum.

Hie jacet Maria Domina

Hongerford nuper uxor

Johannis Hongerford de Downe Ampney MiUtis,

FiUaque Richardi Barkly {sic) MiUtis, Qui a

Mauricio Domino Barkly Per Dominam

Isabeleam, uxorem ejus, Filiam Richardi

Plantaginet (sic) Comitis Cornubia; ac Regis

Romanorum, Filii Johannis, Regis AngUa;

Lineahter discendebat {sic).
Here follows a catalogue of the Lady's virtues, and the whole bears the sigaatiure of WilUchuus
Piatt, possibly Vicar of the Parish.


Okeston, who married Joan, widow of Ralph Valletort, who, as is probable,
had been concubine unto Richard Earl of Cornwall and King of the Romans,
younger son to John, King of England, by which Earl she had a natural daughter
called Joan, married unto Richard, the younger son of Sir Henry Chambernon
of Clyst Chambernon, as is aforementioned. Sir Alexander de Okeston and Joan
aforesaid left issue Sir James de Okeston, who, dying without issue, by com-
rrmndment of K. Edw. I., conveyed Modbiry (sic.) and all other lands formerly
granted unto his father by Roger de Valletort, unto Sir Richard Champernon,
the son of Richard Champernon and Joan, the natural daughter of the King
of the Romans aforementioned. This, we may suppose, was the ground upon
which Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, son of Richard, King of the Romans, in a
grant made by him to the said Richard and Joan, Anno 12 Edw. I., 1248, calleth
her sister. Where by the way we may observe, that this family hath flourished
in this place upwards of 400 years, and from the match with Valletort's daughter
proceeded the occasion of those royal attributes which Richard Champernon
took unto himself in a certain deed, which my author (query Vincent ?) says he
saw running in this style :

" Ego Richardus de Campo Arntdphi, Rex Romanorum, semper Augustus."

The remarkable feature in this account is the statement that Joan was not
born de Valletort, but married as her first husband Ralph de Valletort, becoming
after that mistress to Earl Richard, and finally wife to Sir Alexander Okeston.
Truly an inexphcable tangle ! Moreover, we note according to the pedigree
cited above that Ralph de Valletort died 43 Hen. IH. If the writer in Prince's
Worthies be accurate as regards this detail, then Earl Richard's liaison with
Joan de Valletort must be dated cirxa 1261, i.e., immediately after the decease
of Sanchia of Provence. This sounds impossible, for in the first place the
writer offers no proofs — merely bold assertion — and next, if the Harl. MSS.
entry be correct, how, on such an hypothesis, could Richard, the base son of
Joan de Valletort, born not earlier than 1261, have been married and had issue
on his death in 1272 ? The entire problem seems to be hopelessly insoluble.

We have focussed our attention on Sir Walter and his sister or sisters,
with Sir Lawrence, his probable brother, because their illegitimacy seems to
need no proof. He bore a coat of arms totally distinct from that of his father,
Earl Richard, and his uncle Earl Edmund, or if you date him a generation
later, of his grandfather and great uncle. There is no evidence to show his


proper place in the pedigree, except that of the devolution of the Manor of
Brannel. This, if Lysons be correct, was given by Earl Richard to a Richard,
i.e., either a legitimate or an illegitimate son, and by Edmund confirmed to
Sir Walter. It may be argued that he must have been granted the Manor by
his father, presumably the illegitimate Richard, but, as we have seen, Sandford,
ill the main a sound authority, makes him son of Earl Richard, and brother of
the base born Richard by Joan de Valletort. So far as the Cornewalls, of Burford
and Berrington, are concerned, this scarcely comes into the calculation. He
was at best a collateral, and apparently illegitimate by birth or by origin. His
being styled Earl Edmund's brother, which confirms Sandford's view, does not
establish legitimacy. According to Norman law, or custom, the sons of Princes
when base born, were always accorded blood-relationship. Judge Bayley —
" MS. Cornwall pedigree " — has this valuable note : In Normandy there was
no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children of Princes and
Nobles until 1660 — Us partageaient cgalement la succession du Pcre. [" Nobili-
aire de Normandie. National Library. Paris, Cabinet des Titres. No. 753].

We now come to the crucial difficulty of this Chapter. The parentage of
Sir Walter and his sister Joan — setting aside that of Sir Lawrence and the
Isabel demolished so successfully by John Smyth — has been established so far
as meagre records permit. There remains the more important question of the
parentage of Sir Edmund of Kinlet and of Sir Geoffrey, jure uxoris Baron of
Burford, who carried forward the CornewaU strain. Were these two brothers
base-born or legitimate — the sons of the bastard Richard, or of Richard, son of
Sancliia of Provence, slain at the siege of Berwick, 1297 ?

Inasmuch as this question was never raised formally prior to the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, and then by Brooke, the Herald who was notorious for his
inaccuracies, and did not come up for decision seriously until the following
reign, when, as will appear, it received the consideration of two capable members
of the Heralds' College, MiUes and Vincent — the latter primus inter pares —
we will revert to what occurred between 1619 and 1624. Sir Thomas CornewaU,
the then Baron of Burford, in the former year would seem to have engaged the
ser%dces of Vincent, Rougecroix Pursuivant, to draw up his pedigree, placing
at his disposal the archives preserved at Burford Castle* — a very valuable

* Brilliana, Lady Harley, styles it Burford Lodge, but the traditional site is styled The
Castle Mead. Mrs. Baldwya Childe possesses a CornewaU pedigree of the date 1615, t.«., earlier
than that at High Legh ascribed to Vincent. Both give the legitimate descent, i.e., from Sir
Richard, second sou of Sanchia, the second wife of Earl Richard, King of the Romans.


collection of ancient documents. Vincent accordingly drew up a pedigree which
he caused to be emblazoned, which pedigree remains in the possession of Colonel
Cornwall Legh of High Legh, the representative, in the female line, of the
Barons of Burford. In that pedigree Vincent stated, in opposition to Brooke,
that Sir Geoffrey de Cornewall was son of Richard, who was the youngest son