tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post2323537851234314707..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: The Earl of Norfolk Tries to Steal his Stepson's LandsKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-11799106948598480502014-10-26T05:48:15.656+00:002014-10-26T05:48:15.656+00:00Hi Michi! Sorry, I missed your comment before! W...Hi Michi! Sorry, I missed your comment before! Women often kept the name of their first husband during later marriages, but this was normally when their first husband was of higher rank. It's interesting that Aline kept Hugh's name, which must have been her own choice and tends to indicate that she remembered him with affection.<br /><br />Yes, like the Mortimers with Roger and Edmund, another example!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-49285775000688842562014-10-25T18:27:16.102+01:002014-10-25T18:27:16.102+01:00To be fair, Edward II was only the fourth son of E...To be fair, Edward II was only the fourth son of Edward I. Edward I chose the names John, Henry and Alfonso for his first three. One of them would have become king instead of another Edward if he'd lived.<br /><br />Yeah, documents of Edward II's reign call him 'King Edward son of King Edward' whereas his father was 'King Edward son of King Henry'. 'King Edward son of King Edward son of King Edward' for Edward III was getting a bit much.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-34938175811734984122014-10-25T18:25:01.261+01:002014-10-25T18:25:01.261+01:00Hello!
Thank you, that was very interesting- as is...Hello!<br />Thank you, that was very interesting- as is your whole blog.<br />I have a question, though. Do you know why Hugh the Elder`s mother was, even after marrying again, still called "la Depensere"? Is there any indication it was perhaps her own choice? Or am I being obtuse and the reason is obvious?<br />Anyway, really fascinating.<br />Michi<br /><br />P.S. Regarding the names: I think the Bigods were not a whole lot more creative than the Despensers; as far as I recall, their heirs were, in turn, called Roger and Hugh since the early 12th century until the Roger you mentioned. Imagine he had also been called Hugh...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-54056323649073895882014-10-25T18:08:30.884+01:002014-10-25T18:08:30.884+01:00It is perhaps a bit hard to criticise the Despence...It is perhaps a bit hard to criticise the Despencers for lacking imagination in names at a time when the royal family produced four Edwards in a row. (Is it true, as I've heard, that the practice of numbering English kings arose because identifying them by patronymics became confusing when you had two Edward fitz Edwards in succession?)chris yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07556240635442613879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-28605135690767823692014-10-25T07:40:52.375+01:002014-10-25T07:40:52.375+01:00Anerje, 'Hugh the even younger' was Hugh t...Anerje, 'Hugh the even younger' was Hugh the younger's son, who was active from the mid-1320s to his death in 1349 ;)<br /><br />Sonetka, I'm not sure about the law, though I remember Thomas, Lord Berkeley (1353-1417) being a beneficiary of it, and holding the Lisle lands of his late wife Margaret for a quarter of a century after her death.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-9077282007929443892014-10-25T05:35:17.696+01:002014-10-25T05:35:17.696+01:00I'm reminded of a passage in John Julius Norwi...I'm reminded of a passage in John Julius Norwich's book about Venice where he mentions a family who named all of their sons Alvise. Not just all of their eldest sons, ALL of their sons. He said he had renewed respect for Venetian genealogists after trying to untangle them from each other.<br /><br />As for the delightful Earl of Norfolk -- I understand why such a law would exist if there were a living child of the marriage, but what was the justification for giving the surviving spouse rights if the child had died long ago? Was a loophole beloved by the unscrupulous or was it intentional?Sonetkahttp://anneboleynnovels.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-9964602489198452302014-10-24T19:39:09.194+01:002014-10-24T19:39:09.194+01:00Enjoyed finding out about the earlier history of t...Enjoyed finding out about the earlier history of the Despencer family. Perhaps they could have gone on to have 'Hugh the even younger'? :)Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-22480385290532712462014-10-24T19:23:05.891+01:002014-10-24T19:23:05.891+01:00Absolutely! In the mid-1320s, three of them were ...Absolutely! In the mid-1320s, three of them were active: Hugh the Elder, Hugh the Younger, and Hugh the Younger's son Hugh. Guh.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-53235156583054321022014-10-24T19:12:55.200+01:002014-10-24T19:12:55.200+01:00Great post! The Earl of Norfolk sounds like a nic...Great post! The Earl of Norfolk sounds like a nice guy ... wonder if his attempt somehow traumatized the Despenser family -- or gave them ideas. (Seriously ... couldn't the Despensers think of other first names besides "Hugh" for the heirs?)<br /><br />EstherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com