I66323: Mary BAKER (ABT 1725

Notes

6th Lord Mowbray, 1st duke of Norfolk, another of the Lords Appellant; died of the plague. "Thomas Mowbray, Born 22 March 1365/6 (1366 in our present system), Thomas was of the blood royal through his mother, who as noted earlier, was descended from Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk and a son of Edward I. This was the first son of the family to be named Thomas and it is said his mother had him baptised so to mark her special reverence for St. Thomas of Canterbury, murdered in that cathedral as Thomas A'Becket.

Aged 17 on the death of his elder brother, Thomas inherited, in addition to great Mowbray barony in which were merged those of de Brewes and Segrave, the expectation of the still more splendid heritage of the Bigod family, previous Earls of Norfolk. Thomas and the future Richard II had been boyhood companions. By charter of 12 February1383, Richard II revived in favour of his young cousin the title of Earl of Nottingham which Thomas's brother had borne. Before October 1383, Thomas was given the Garter made vacant by the death of old Sir John Burley.

In the summer of 1385 Thomas was present in the expedition against the Scots which the king conducted in person. On the eve of departure, Thomas was conferred with the office for life of Earl Marshall of England. This office passed down through his descendants, and through the Howard line of his daughter Margaret (q.v.) so that the present-day Duke of Norfolk still retains the office. On the march northwards through Yorkshire, Thomas, with many English knights in witness, confirmed his ancestor Roger de Mowbray's charter of land to Byland Abbey.

Barely twenty years of age when the nobles rebelled at Court in October 1386, Thomas had been much in the company that year of the similarly-aged king. His name does not appear amongst those of the rebels, although he had married in 1385 a sister of Thomas, Earl of Arundel, who was the chief author of the revolution. In March 1387 he participated in the naval victory achieved by Arundel over the French, Flemings and Spaniards. He did not however accompany Arundel in the subsequent conquest of the castle of Brest. The two were received vey coldly by the Richard II when they predented themselves to report success, so they retired to their estates to get out of harm's way. Relations were obviously very strained between the cousins at the time, because Thomas was one of those whose destruction the king and his favourite, the Duke of Ireland, plotted after Easter. Yet Thomas does not seem to have taken any part in the armed demonstration in November by which Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick extorted from Richard a promise that his advisers should be brought before Parliament. It was not until the after the three lords had had fled from the court, and the Duke of Ireland was approaching with an army to relieve the king from constraint, that Thomas followed the example of Derby and appeared in arms with Derby and the other three lords at Huntingdon on 12 December 1387. Even now, if we can trust the story which Thomas and Derby told ten years later (when they were assisting Richard in bringing their old associates into account for these proceedings) they showed themselves more moderate than their elders. They claimed to have secured the rejection of Arundel's plan to capture and depose the king. The five confederates marched instead into Oxfordshire to intercept the Duke of Ireland before he could pass the river Thames. They divided their forces for the purpose on 20 December, and Thomas, like some of the others,seemingly did not come up in time to take part with Derby and Gloucester in the actual fighting at Radcot Bridge, from which the Duke of Ireland only escaped by swimming! The victors returned through Oxford, with Arundel and Thomas bringing up the rear. After spending Christmas Day at St. Albans they reached London on 26 December and encamped in the fields at Clerkenwell. As the London populace was siding with the formidable host encamped outside the city walls, the mayor opened the gates to the lords. they insisted on an interview with Richard in the Tower of London, and entered his presence with linked arms. the helpless young king consented to meet them next day at Westminster, and asked them to sup and stay the night with him, in a token of goodwill. Gloucester refused but Richard succeeded in keeping Derby and Thomas to supper. Next day they formally accused the king's favourites of treason at Westminster, and Richard was forced to order their arrest.

As one of the five appellants Thomas took part in the so-called Merciless Parliament which met 3 February 1388. On 10 March, as Marshall, he was joined by Gloucester, as Constable, to hear a suit between Matthew Gournay and Louis de Sancerre, Constable of France. In the early months of 1389 he is said to have been sent against the Scots, who were ravaging Northumberland, but being entrusted with only 500 lances he did not venture an encounter with the Scottish force of 30,000. On 3 May of the same year, Richard shook off the tutelage of the appellants, and Thomas and the others were removed from the Privy Council. But once his own master, Richard showed particular anxiety to conciliate the Earl Marshall, giving him overdue (Thomas being 23) livery of his lands, and a week later placing him on a commission appointed to negotiate a truce with Scotland. The great possessions of Thomas in the north, as well his grandfather's career in a similar capacity, must have suggested this employment. On 1 June, therefore, he was constituted warden of the East Marches (the eastern area on the English side of the Border), captain of Berwick-on-Tweed, and constable of Roxburgh Castle for a term of two years. By the middle of September both he and Derby had been restored to their places at the council board, which a month later was the scene of a hot dispute between Richard and his new chancellor, William of Wykeham, who resisted Richard's proposal to grant a large pension to Thomas. Whatever may have been the king's real feelings towards Gloucester and Arundel at this time, it was obviously to his interest to attach the younger and less prominent appellants to himself. Thomas was continuously employed in the service of the state and entrusted with responsible commands. On 28 June 1390, he was associated with the Treasurer, John Gilbert, Bishop of St. David's, and others to obtain redress from the Scots for recent infractions of the truce. In 1391 in an exchange of posts between him and the Earl of Northumberland, the latter returned to the office of Warden of the Marches, while Thomas Mowbray took the captaincy of Calais. In November 1392, this office was renewed to him for six years together with that of lieutenant of the king in Calais, Picardy, Flanders and Artois for the same term.

On 12 January 1394, Richard II recognized Thomas' just and hereditary right to bear for his crest a golden leopard with a crown ( in addition to the Mowbray coat of arms). In March of that year Thoams was appointed chief justice of North Wales, and two months later justice of Chester and Flint. That September, Thomas accompanied Richard to Ireland, and on his retutn was commissioned with others to negotiate a long truce with France and a marriage for the king with Isabella, daughter of Charles VI of France. He was present at the costly wedding festivities at Calais in October 1396. Thomas thus closely indentified himself with the French connection, which by its baneful influence on Richard's character and policy, and its unpopularity in the country contributed more than anything else to hastening his misfortunes. In the parliament of January 1397, Richard gave Thomas another signal proof of his favour by an express recognition of the Earl-Marshalship of England as hereditary in the Mowbray family, and permission to bear a golden truncheon on his arms, bearing the royal arms on the upper side and his own on the lower. At the same time Thomas secured a victory in a personal quarrel with the Earl of Warwick, whose father had, in 1352, obtained legal recognition of his claim to lordship of Gower, a part of the Mowbray inheritance. this judgement was reversed in Thomas' favour.

Thomas was out of England from the end of February until the latter part of June on a foreign mission, but returned to serve as one of the instruments of Richard's revenge on Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick, his fellow-appellants of 1388. how far Thomas' conduct was justifiable is a matter of opinion, but it is not unnatural. He was the last to join the appellants and probably the first to be rconciled to the king, and now for eight years had been loaded with exceptional favours. He had long drifted apart from his old associates, and with one was at open enmity. It must be confessed too that he was a considerable gainer by the destruction of his old friends. According to the king's story, Thomas and seven other young courtiers, all of whom were related to the royal family, advised Richard to arrest Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick on 8 and 9 July. At Nottingham on 5 August, they agreed to appeal them of treason in the parliament which had been summoned to meet at Westminster on 21 September. Thomas was present when Richard in person arrested Gloucester at his castle of Pleshy in Essex, and it was to his care as captain of Calais that the duke was consigned. He may have himself conducted his prisoner to Calais, but his prescence at Nottingham on 5 August proves he did not mount guard personally throughout the imprisonment. He had for some time been performing his duties at Calais by deputy.

On Friday 21 September, Thomas and his fellow-appellants "in red silk robes, banded with white silk and powdered with letters of gold", renewed in parliament the appeal they had made at Nottingham. Arundel was forthwith tried, condemned and beheaded on Tower Hill. Popular belief as early as 1399 has it that Thomas led Arundel (his father-in-law) to execution, bandaged his eyes and performed the act, but he official record has it that the despatching was carried out by Thomas' lieutenant. On the same day, the king issued a writ, addresses to Thomas as captain of Calais, or his deputy, to bring up the Duke of Gloucester before parliament to answer the charges of the appellants.Parliament seems to have been adjourned to Monday 24 September, when Thomas' answer was read, curtly intimating he could produce the duke, as he had died in his custody at Calais. Next day a confession, purporting to have been made by Gloucester, was read in parliament, and the dead man was found guilty of treason. the whole affair is shrouded in mystery, and there is a strong suspicion that Richard and Thomas were responsible for Gloucester's death, as shortly after the accession of Henry IV, a certain John Hall, servant to Thomas (who was by then dead), being arrested as an accomplice in the murder of Gloucester, deposed in writing to parliament that he had been called from his bed by Thomas one night in September 1397, had been informed that the king had ordered Gloucester to be murdered, and had been enjoined to be present with other esquires and servants of Thomas and of the Earl of Rutland. Hall had at first refused, but Thomas struck him on the head and said that he should obey or die. He then took an oath of secrecy with eight other squires and yoemen, whose names he gave, in the church of Notre-Dame in the presence of his master. Thomas then took them to a hostelry called Prince's Inn, and there left them. Gloucester was handed over to them by John Lovetot, and was suffocated under a feather bed. Hall was at once condemned, without being produced, and executed. However, Thomas' guilt is not proved, though the balance of evidence is against him.

His services, whatever their extent, were rewarded on 28 September 1397 by a grant of the greater part of the Arundel estates in Sussex and Surrey, and of seventeen of the Earl of Warwick's manors in the midlands. The commons representing to the king that Derby and Thomas had been "innocent of malice" in their appeal of 1388, Richard vouched for their loyalty. On 29 September, Thomas was created Duke of Norfolk, and his grandmother Margaret, Countess of Norfolk, was at the same time created Duchess of Norfolk for her life.

But new wealth and honours did not render Norfolk's position inviolable. the king was vindictive by nature, and had not forgotten that Norfolk was once his enemy; he afterwards declared that Thomas had not persued the appeal of his old friends with such zeal as those who had never turned their coats. At the same time the inner circle of the king's confidantes - the Earl of Kent (now Duke of Surrey), sir William le Scrope (now Earl of Wiltshire), and the Earl of Salisbury were urging the king to rid himself of all who had ever been his enemies.

Thoams is said to confided his fears to Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Hereford (and the future Henry IV) as they rode From Brentford to London in December 1397. Richard was informed of Norfolk's language; obtained from Hereford, who probably was jealous of Thomas' power, obtained a written account of the interview with Norfolk, and summoned both parties to appear before the adjourned parliament, which was to meet at Shrewsbury on 30 January 1398. Hereford appears to have accompanied the king on his way to Shrewsbury, for on 25 January, Richard gave him a full pardon for all treasons and other offences of which he may have been guilty in the past. Thomas did not appear to answer the charges which Hereford then presented against him, and on 4 February, the king ordered his sheriffs to proclaim that he must appear within fifteen days.

At Oswestry on 23 February, Norfolk was present and gave full denial to the charges, and it was settled by the king and council at Bristol that unless sufficient proofs of guilt were forthcoming in the meantime, the matter should be referred to a court of chivalry at Windsor. The court met on the day appointed, and decided that the matter should be settled by trial of battle at Coventry on 16 September . The lists were prepared at Gosford Green outside the city, and on the day the combatents duly appeared. they were both magnificently arrayed, Thomas, we are told having secured his armour from Germany, and Hereford's being a present from Gian Galeaxzo of Milan. Before they joined issue, however, the king took the battle into his own hands, on the grounds that treason was in question, and that it was undesirable that royal blood should be dishonoured by the defeat of either. Richard then decided that inasmuch as Thomas had confessed at Windsor to some of the charges which he had repelled at Oswestry, and was thus self-convicted of conduct which was likely to have roused great trouble in the kingdom, he should quit the realm before the octaves of St. Edward, to take up his residence in Germany, Bohemia and Hungary, and "pass the great sea in pilgrimage". He was to go nowhere else in Christendom on pain of incurring the penalties of treason. Hereford was banished to France for ten years, and communication between them was expressly forbidden. the same veto was laid upon all intercourse with Archbishop Arundel.

Thomas' share of the lands of Arundel and Warwick, and all his offices were declared forfeited, because he had resisted the abrogation of the acts of the 'Merciless Parliament', and failed in his duty as an appellant. the rest of his estates were to be taken into the king's hands, and the revenues, after paying him 1,000 pounds a year, were devoted to covering the heavy losses in which it was alleged his maladministration of his governorship of Calais had involved the king. Next day his office of Marshal of England was granted to the king's nephew, Thomas Holland, Duke of Surrey.

On 3 October the king ordered his admirals to allow free passage to Norfolk from any port between Scarborough and Orwell; licensed the duke to take with him a suite of 40 persons, 1,000 pounds in money, with jewels, plate and harness, and issued a general request to all princes and nations to allow him safe-conduct. A few days later, Thomas took ship near Lowestoft, for Dordrecht, in the presence of several country gentry, who testified to the fact, and added that by sunset he was six leagues and more from that port, and was favoured with with "bon vent et swef".

Of the subsequent wanderings of the banished Thomas Mowbray, we know no more than that he reached Venice, where on 18 February 1399 the senate, at the request of King Richard, granted him (disguised in their notes as the Duke of 'Gilforth') the loan of a galley for his intended visit to the Holy Sepulchre. He induced some private Venetians to advance him money for his journey, on the express undertaking, inserted in his will, that their claims should rank above all others. On the death of Thomas' grandmother, Richard revoked the law by which Thomas had been able to receive inheritances by attorney, and thus prevented him from enjoying - even in exile - the revenue of the old Bigod (earls of Norfolk prior to Edward I ) estates.

It cannot be regarded as certain that he ever made his journey to Palestine, for he died at Venice on 22 September of the same year (1399). the register of Newburgh Priory says, however, that it was after his return from the Holy Land, and that he died of the plague. He was buried in Venice, and through his son John left instructions in his will that his ashes should be brought to England. Nothing seems to have been done until his descendant, Thomas Howard, third Duke of Norfolk, preferred a request for them to the Ventian authorities in December 1532 through the Venetian ambassador in London.

Thomas left lands in most counties of England and Wales, whose mere enumeration fills eleven closely printed folio pages in the 'Inquisitiones Post Mortem'. He was twice-married. his first wife, Elizabeth, dau. of John/Roger(?), Lord Strange of Blackmere, died almost immediately and in 1385 he married Lady Elizabeth Fitz-Alan dau of Richard, Earl of Arundel, sister and co-heir of Thomas, Earl of Arundel and widow of William de Montacute, by whom he had issue:"

"Lord Segrave, Earl of Nottingham, Lord Mowbray 6th. The two daughters eventually became the two co-heirs of the Dukedom of Norfolk. The Complete Peerage conflicts with itself on which was the elder daughter. Under Ferrers Vol.V, p357 it says that Isabel was the eldest, but under Norfolk Vol.IX,p.610 note c it says that Margaret was probably older as her son inherited the title."

^[S1034] ^[S633]

[140939]
died of the plague, while in exile

My Southern Family

Mary BAKER

ABT 1725 - ____

ID Number: I66323

Notes

Sources

Dr. Coleman BONDURANT

ABT 1812 - ____

ID Number: I22260

Notes

Sources

Grace BROWN

1748 - ____

ID Number: I93897

Notes

Sources

Nancy Ann "Nannie" BURNETT

1835 - 1931

ID Number: I68693

Notes

Sources

Sallie (Sarah) COLLIER

ABT 1664 - ABT 1721

ID Number: I91527

Notes

Sources

William Spencer FLOURNEY

1821 - ____

ID Number: I103884

Sources

Count SIMON III de MONTFORT Earl of Evereaux

ABT 1100 - 13 Mar 1180

ID Number: I18344

Notes

Sources

THOMAS de MOWBRAY 6th Baron of Norfolk

22 Mar 1365 - 22 Sep 1399

ID Number: I27627

Notes

Sources

Myrtle O'MARY

Elizabeth SPENCER

1664 - by 1764

ID Number: I43548

Notes

Sources

Mary Florence WATKINS

27 Mar 1847 - 14 Apr 1934

ID Number: I30944

Sources