Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-01T09:46:23.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XIX. On the Measures taken for the Apprehension of Sir Thomas de Gournay, one of the Murderers of King Edward the Second, and on their final Issue: in a Letter to Hudson Gurney, Esq. F.R.S., V.P. from the Rev. Joseph Hunter, F.S.A.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2012

Joseph Hunter
Get access

Extract

Among the ancient compotuses in the Exchequer which have been lately brought to light by the exertions of the Honourable Board of Commissioners on the Public Records, are several which relate to the measures taken by King Edward the Third to bring to justice Sir Thomas de Gournay, the principal actor, as was alleged, in the murder of his father in Berkeley Castle: and as they place the circumstances of his capture, and his ultimate fate, in a light entirely different from that in which they are placed by the old Chroniclers De la Moor and Walsingham, and by modern historians, who, in addition to the Chronicles, have had the benefit of the letters relating to this affair which are printed in the Fœdera, it has occurred to me, that it might be acceptable to the Society of Antiquaries if I were to lay a summary of the contents of these documents before it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Archaeologia , Volume 27 , 1838 , pp. 274 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1838

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 275 note a Bereford had made preparation for a flight, by depositing a treasure valued at no less a sum than 2000l. in the care of Andrew de la Done, Prior of Takkeley, and Nicholas the valet of the said Prior, at the Prior's house in Silver Street, in the ward of Cripplegate. It consisted in vessels of gold and silver, in sterling money to the amount of 700l.and in florins valued at 268l. sterling. They were brought soon after the arrest of Mortimer and Bereford and the committal of them to the Tower, by one Richard, clerk to Simon de Bereford, whose surname (cognomen) says the record is unknown, to be kept for Bereford's use, to be carried beyond sea, or elsewhere at his pleasure, if he escaped or were delivered out of prison. It was seized by the King.

page 275 note b Gournay is throughout considered as the principal malefactor, or at least the person of highest rank concerned in the deed. There is much to be found concerning him in Palgrave's Parliamentary Writs, vol i. and ii.; in the Rolls of Parliament; and in the Fædera. He had been of the party of Thomas Earl of Lancaster, on whose defeat and death his lands were forfeited, but restored in I Edward III. Foedera, 689 and 690. The chief of his lands lay in the county of Somerset.

page 285 note e Thus I confidently translate the “Item, menestrallis Regis Arragoniae,” of the record; though “menestrallus” seems to have been sometimes used for any officer in a household. The other is its more usual acceptation; and the word “serviens” is immediately afterwards applied to another officer of the King of Arragon.

page 286 note f In Leland's notes out of the Scala Chronica (Coll. I. 555) we find the following passage, which seems to show that there was a strong feeling in England against Gournay; “There was a great trobyll in Balliols hoste for an esquier caullid Gurnay, whom the Marchers killid upon a surmise that one of [his] name was consenting to the deth of the kinges father.” This was some time after the execution of Mortimer.

page 291 note a The portion within brackets is not in a duplicate of this account.

page 293 note b The portion within brackets is not in the duplicate.

page 294 note c Rodberghe in the counter roll.

page 295 note d These words are cancelled in the account, but retained in the counter roll.

page 295 note e Byfflet', in Contr.

page 296 note f In the contr. the word tunc is omitted.

page 296 note g Cancelled in the account, but retained in the counter roll.