Talk:Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough
edit- Daryll Lundy's page is based on the book by George Edward Cokayne, he cites his source, and is quoted above. I think we should go with Cokayne on this one but with the name "V. Thomas de Cobham" instead of "V. Reynold de Cobham". For my reasoning in the box below this:
Extended content
|
---|
Looking at the A genealogical history of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited, and extinct ... by Sir Bernard Burke (pp. 124,125). COBHAM—BARONS COBHAM OF KENT. By Writ of Summons, dated 8 January, 1313.
I don't see a Thomas de Cobham in there. page 125,126 also has: COBHAM—BARONS COBHAM, OF STERBOROUGH, CO. KENT. By Writ of Summons, dated 25 February, 1342.
Son ii must be the man in your sandbox but Berke does not state he was a baron nor does he state that his nice Margret was. (BTW I also see that a sockpuppet of user:G.-M. Cupertino has been busy in the articles Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland and Baron Borough in the same sort of way). Cokayne pp. 353,55: COBHAM (of Sterborough)
[After (1372) 46 Edw. III no writ of summons was issued to any members of the family. Presuming the writ of 1347 to have established an hereditary dignit, those that would have been entitled thereto are as under.]
I think I have found the discrepancy. The entry for "Margaret, Countess of Westmorland" says "when the family estates were settled (by her grandfather) on her and her issue, with rem. to her uncle, Sir Thomas de Cobham." and then the V. one says "He suc. to the family estates on the death, s.p., of his niece abovenamed" So it is a mistake by Cokayne the V entry should read
|
--PBS (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (From User talk:Lady Meg) -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Cokayne, George Edward, ed. (1913). Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, extant, extinct or dormant (Canonteign to Cutts). Vol. 3. London: The St. Catherine Press, ltd. p. 355.
The text comes in several formats, one easy to read is page 355 the other is in plain OCR text:
V. 1460? 5. Sir REYNOLD DE COBHAM, of Sterborough Castle,
apparently, according to modern doctrine. Lord Cobham, but never so styled, uncle and h., being 2nd but 1st surv. s. and h. of Sir Reynold de C, by his 1st wife, Eleanor, da. of Sir Thomas COLEPEPER abovenamed. He suc. to the family estates on the death, s.p., of his niece abovenamed. He m. Anne, widow of Aubrey de Veer (beheaded with his father, the Earl of Oxford, 26 Feb. 1461/2), da. of Humphrey (Stafford), Duke of Buckingham, by Anne, da. of Ralph (Nevill), 1st Earl of Westmorland. He d. s.p.m. legit. ,[a 1] 1471, and was bur. at Lingheld. Will dat. 2 Apr., pr. 10 July 1471.[a 2] His widow d. Apr. 1472, and was bur. at Lingfield. Will dat. 12 Apr., pr. 2 May 1472.
- Notes
As I explained above, I think that REYNOLD should be struck out and replaced with THOMAS.
But this leave one question, should an article on this man who is not known in many older sources as 5th Baron Cobham be under the "5th Baron Cobham"? -- PBS (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
--PBS (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I must agree with the substitution of Thomas. Without further evidence, it would not be clear which place in CP was wrong, but ODNB agrees (and does not call any of the last four Lord or Lady Cobham). Your extract from Cockayne omits that the second Lord Cobham and his wife were cousins (I forget if there is a footnote); after the birth of their son, they got an annulment and remarried; the son had to sue for his inheritance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It states on page 355 that "After 1372, No writ of summons was issued to any members of the family. Presuming the writ of 1347 to have established a hereditary dignity, those that would have been entitled thereto are listed under" -- and it continues with the 3rd Lord Cobham, I'm assuming as de jure and according to modern doctrine, as he was never accordingly styled. The 3rd Lord Cobham was the father of Thomas and Reginald. Also, Margaret was not Countess of Westmorland in her own right. I see now where in Margaret's entry, they mention her uncle Sir Thomas Cobham. Perhaps it was a typo on Cockayne's part because I don't understand how Margaret's father Reginald would succeed her and from the other sources listed, there is no other Reginald in the family -- the 2nd son was Sir Thomas. Then in the V. Baron -- it says 'succeeded to the family estates on the death, s.p., of his niece abovenamed.' What a mess this has been sorting this all out. Also, in the notes (b) for Margaret it says 'inq p.m. Sir Thomas de Cobham, 2 Edw. IV' -- which means? -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I asked this on my talk page I think -- since the Baron Willoughby de Broke page lists every de jure Baron -- should we list these on the main Baron Cobham page? The barony does pass to the Burgh family after Anne.. what do you think.. too redundant? -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Corrections of The Complete Peerage
editSee Baron Cobham of Sterborough Corrections -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)