It has taken me a long time, but I have finally figured out how Matilda, wife of Thomas Chaucer, fits into the Burghersh family tree. I was confused because Matilda is sometimes called ‘the Burghersh heiress’. Odd that, I thought, given that Elizabeth, wife of Edward Despenser was ‘the Burghersh heiress.’ Truth is, they were both heiresses, although Elizabeth was the senior and her share was far more valuable.
Once upon a time there were four children, Joan, Matilda, Bartholomew and John. Their parents were Sir Bartholomew Burghersh (d 1355) and Elizabeth de Verdun (1306-1360).
Joan, the eldest, grew up to be Lady Mohun, who was a wealthy and influential woman at the court of Richard II. Among her three daughters was Philippa, whose last husband was no less a person than Edward, Duke of York.
Matilda married John de Grey of Rotherfield and although she had many important descendants need not detain us here.
Bartholomew married Cecily de Wayland. Their only daughter, the aforesaid Elizabeth, married Edward Despenser. She has any number of descendants including Anne and Isabel Neville, to name but two.
John married Matilda Kerdeston, and they had a son, also John. This second John married Ismania Hanham, widow of John Raleigh, who outlived him and married again, to Sir Lawrence Berkerolles, Lord of Coity in Glamorgan.
John and Ismania had two daughters, Margaret and Matilda. At the time of her father’s death 1n 1391, Margaret (b about 1376) was already safely married to Sir John Grenville. She later married Sir John Arundell of Bideford.
Matilda, the younger daughter, fell into wardship, and into the loving hands of her great-aunt, Joan, Lady Mohun. Remember what I said about Joan having influence at court? Having been banished by the Appellants in 1388, she was evidently back in place.
Joan Mohun decided to sell Matilda on, to John of Gaunt. Matilda was co-heiress to her father’s share of the Burghersh lands, so she was a reasonably valuable prize. Gaunt bestowed her on Thomas Chaucer in marriage, Thomas being, of course, the nephew of his close friend and eventual third wife, Katherine de Roet. (Some people allege Thomas was actually John’s son by Philippa de Roet – who knows?)
Thomas and Matilda had but one child (or at least one who grew up). This was of course the famous Alice Chaucer, later Duchess of Suffolk and mother of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk.
murreyandblue 
posting to get email notifications.
LikeLike
For what it is worth, I am now persuaded that Thomas Chaucer was *not* the son of Gaunt. Judy Perry has pointed out that the relationship was not covered in the dispensation for Gaunt to marry Katherine. As the whole point of the dispensation was to make the marriage legal in canon law, it would have been absolute folly not to mention the relationship with Philippa had there been one. Gaunt was many things, but not a fool. The absence of Chaucer arms on the tombs almost certainly reflects social status. The Roets were simply ‘posher’ than the Chaucers, as were the Burghersh family. ‘Trade’ carried a social stigma, even then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wonderful job! It was very common for people to claim that Thomas Chaucer was not the son of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer because of the heraldry on his tomb and as displayed within the church at Ewelme being that of Roet. This continued to be said until fairly recently when a seal of Thomas’ was discovered in the special collections department of I believe Harvard showing that Thomas did indeed use his father’s arms and not any that his mother might have had the right to use. I was always interested where his wife Mathilda came from but there are many Burgheresh’s and I’d already been down way too many medieval genealogical rabbit holes. Thank you again for writing this!
LikeLiked by 1 person