Well, I thought I’d sussed a “tradition” for the illegitimate offspring of medieval noblemen to be named after their father’s title, not given his surname. The family surname was reserved for legitimate children only. Think of Sir Edmund Arundel, who ceased to be Sir Edmund Fitzalan (and heir to a great earldom) when his father, the 3rd Earl of Arundel, discarded Edmund’s mother (Isabel Despenser) and children in order to marry his mistress, Eleanor of Lancaster. The charming earl then proceeded to see to it that the children of his second marriage succeeded to the title, etc. Naturally enough, Sir Edmund wasn’t best pleased, and fought all he could for this great injustice to be righted. To no avail. Arundel he was and Arundel he remained, along with the ignominy of being illegitimate. The earl was laid to rest hand-in-hand with his second wife in Chichester Cathedral.
So this surname/title tradition for illegitimate children seemed further confirmed when I came upon William Huntingdon, who was the illegitimate son of John Holand, 1st Earl of Huntingdon. William, who was at St James Garlickhythe in the city of London for fifty years, becoming master, did not become William Holand.
Right, sorted. No! Not sorted. This morning it suddenly dawned on me that I had a glaring exception in front of me. Sir Thomas Mortimer, a thorn in Richard II’s side, is generally considered to be the illegitimate son of Roger Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March (see above). But Thomas was always a Mortimer, brought up in the family as if he were a full brother of the earl’s other children. So…was Thomas really illegitimate? Was he even the son of the earl? Or was there another Mortimer male to whom he could have been born legitimately?
Or am I entirely wrong about this surname/title thing?
murreyandblue 
My apologies in advance, since this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but did Roger Mortimer have an injury or deformity to his left eye? It looks remarkably like the one depicted on Perkin Warbeck in the Burgundy tapestry shown in a previous article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kelly, I don’t know about the 2nd Earl of March having such an injury, only that he died in France at Rouvray near Avalon on 26 February 1360. It seems to have been a sudden death, and I can’t find anything in my research to suggest any previous injuries. That’s not to say they didn’t happen. I’m no scholar. The only lord I know of who definitely suffered an eye injury was Thomas Holand, 1st Earl of Kent, who was rendered one-eyed (he did start off with two!) It was this disfigurement that identified him to some French knights who wished to surrender to him. Sorry I can’t help more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an area that interests me because it poses many questions: for example, who has the right to describe someone as illegitimate? Some cases were obvious, such as the Beaufort offspring of Gaunt’s adultery. But where any shade of doubt existed, who decided short of taking the matter to court? I have a memory lurking in my synapses to the effect that if a father recognized a child of his wife as having been fathered by him, the child was consequently recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the law. Can any of our knowledgeable readers verify this? I believe this is what probably underpinned the legitimacy of Edward of Lancaster despite the tales spread about his birth. It could explain the case of Thomas Mortimer. If my synapses do not deceive me!
LikeLiked by 2 people
hello annette – yes i read about this legal convention in connection with the parentage of richard earl of cambridge. although there were roumers that he might have been john hollands son, edmund of langley acknowleded him so he was legally legitimate. i just cant remeber where i read it. i’ll have to do some research to see if i can trace the source!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jay, this is also my understanding concerning Richard of Conisbrough. Edmund of Langley doesn’t seem to have acknowledged Richard…but the important thing was that he didn’t reject him either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is Mortimer different because the family was Welsh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jenna, I don’t think that had anything to do with Thomas Mortimer’s case. The Mortimers were lords of the Welsh Marches but I don’t think they regarded themselves as Welsh.
LikeLike
The Statute of Merton applies here.
It states that a child born to a married woman is deemed to be that of her husband unless proven otherwise – he is infertile, absent at war or for another reason.
See “A genealogical mystery deepens”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
yes indeed visountess – edmund was distinctly stingy -leaving richard nothing in his will. but might that have been because his elder brother was childless and likely to remain so as his wife was considerably older than him – so richard would have becaome duke of york if he hadnt got himself involved in the southampton plot? just a thought!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d love to get inside Edmund’s head. All I do think is that he loved his flighty wife, and after John Holand she seems to have been faithful etc. There was definitely something going on with John Holand because he gave her expensive gifts and she kept them all. Apparently they’re the only items of jewellery etc. that she mentions in her will. Richard of Conisbrough became important in the end, being the father of our 3rd Duke of York.
LikeLike
i find edmund rather interesting too – not the typical ambitious medieval aristocrat – he seems to have adopted a quite pragmatic approach to life – marrying isabel to support brother johns hopes of becomming a king etc. i dont think he was as wealthy as his brothers either – so perhaps that was why he didnt want to start splitting the york inheritance. pure speculation – but history often turns on someones ‘character’ – thank goodness edmund was the tolerant husband!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Edmund of Langley, compared to his brothers, was dirt poor. I have never found any evidence that he dowered his daughter – he was ‘given’ Despenser’s marriage for her by the King, and it was very valuable. Much of his income came from Exchequer grants which were quite unreliable at times. He certainly was not in a position to buy land to provide for a second son – there was a convention you did *not* alienate inherited land from the eldest son and this rule was rarely broken. Not even Gaunt, who had more land than he knew what to do with, alienated any inherited land from Bolingbroke.
On that subject, the incredibly tight-fisted Gaunt seems not to have given Edmund a single penny of the huge sums he had extorted from Castile, though Edmund’s wife was as much King Pedro’s daughter as his own was.
On the Arundels – the legitimate ones often used ‘Arundel’ as a surname. The best example, is Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury (a very nasty piece of work.) He is always called Archbishop Arundel, never Archbishop Fitzalan. I have read it somewhere – sadly I can’t recall where – that the Fitzalan name was not used at all for a time. Personally, I can’t be bothered to check all the numerous records that would prove/disprove this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
point taken sighthound! i knew that ralph nevilles ‘flexible’ approach to primogeniture was exceptional – but then i read that edmund crouchback the first earl of lancaster did split his lands between his 3 sons – thomas the 2nd earl got the lions share – but henry – the eventual 3rd earl got lands in wales and the 3rd son john got the french lands. but as thomas and john died childless the lands were all inherited by henry and reabsobed into the lancaster ‘earldom’ – so i just wondered if some medieval noblemen did try to help their younger sons. i suppose the usual method would have been to find richard an heiress – but as edmund didnt find one for his eldest son and heir -then i guess its not significant that richard wasnt provided for. a really unusual medieval parent?
LikeLike
Richard was provided for. His mother left most of her jewels to Richard II with a request that he give her younger son an annuity, which he did. It is important to note that as a married woman she could only make her will with her husband’s permission. So Edmund clearly allowed this. The same fact demonstrates they were on reasonable terms as a couple. Young Richard was not *adequately* endowed, but that’s another matter. The York lands really did not amount to much, and they only really moved into the Premier League when, almost by chance, they gained the Mortimer inheritance. I find people tend to bracket Edmund of Langley with John of Gaunt, and wonder why he doesn’t measure up. It’s rather like asking why Bradford City can’t be Manchester City. Similar title, same game, but vastly different resources.
LikeLiked by 1 person