Talk:Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk/Archive 1

Bramham Moor
One record I read said he was beheaded after this battle. So we need a few more good sources on his death please. David Lauder (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry III

 * Thus Mowbray was a great-great-grandson of King Edward I, and was also a descendant of Henry III of England.

Why is it worth specifying that Mowbray was descended not only from Edward but also from Edward's father? Neither of them is mentioned again. —Tamfang (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Henry III: Henry’s son Edmund Earl of Lancaster was the father of Henry Plantagenet, his daughter Joan of Lancaster was the mother of John de Mowbray, 4th Baron Mowbray, who was the father of Thomas de Mowbray
 * Edward I: Edward’s son Thomas of Brotherton, was the father of Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, Margaret’s daughter Elizabeth Segrave, was mother of Thomas de Mowbray.

Hi Tamfang, it is significant he was descended from the two kings, through his father via Henry III, and through his mother via Edward I, [NB: Edward I’s son (later Edward II) was 1st English Prince of Wales 1301]. The significance of this royal descent, can be seen in Mowbray's coat of arms, which shows the Royal arms of Richard II, and especially the Royal Arms (three lions) with “Label of three points argent”, being the definitive symbol of a Prince of Wales. This Label was issued to Mowbray by Royal Warrant of Richard II, who relinquished his title of Prince of Wales, and Label, in 1377 when he succeeded as king. As such, Mowbray was the Prince of Wales from 1377/99! Stephen2nd (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. The word Thus is misleading, as it appears to apply to the whole sentence. —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thomas of Brotherton adopted a plain white label (on the unquartered arms of England) at a time when the heir apparent used a blue one. What Richard II gave to Thomas's descendant (iirc) was the right to impale the Confessor's arms (differenced by a bordure or label, I forget which) with his inherited Norfolk arms.  I don't take seriously the implication that this made him Prince of Wales. —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Edward I had two wives, Eleanor (Castile) and Margaret (France). Edward decreed the (1st ever) white label to his 1st son Thomas, as he was heir apparent to his French line of descent. Notably, from that marriage, the Royal Arms of the kingdom continued to show the French, not Spanish, quartering’s. Mowbray blood lines include Earls of Chester and also through the de Clare family, the Tewdr Princes of Wales. Neither Richard II nor Mowbray’s arms had labels on the Ed Conf arms, which were only “attributed” in reference to the ancestry of Richard II, not in reference to the ancestry of the Mowbrays. Mowbray had the right from Edward I to bare the label, irrelevant of Richard II. The 'symbol' of the prince of Wales, awarded to Mowbray by Richard II, were the 'two feathers,' which, along with the white label, still represent the prince of Wales. Can you tell me the genealogical relationship, in reference to the Ed Conff arms, between Richard II and Mowbray? Stephen2nd (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your usual mishmash ...
 * Thomas was the first child of Edward's second marriage; he was thus heir apparent to Margaret (who had three brothers and thus was not an heiress) but not to Edward; his label on the arms of England cannot denote a status that he did not have. But do feel free to tell us again how Thomas's label is "the definitive symbol" of a title invented for his half-brother.
 * The French quarter in the English royal arms comes not from this marriage but from that of Edward II.
 * The badge of the Prince of Wales is three feathers, not two.
 * I don't know why Richard II adopted EtC's "arms" for himself, but I presume he granted it (with differences) to Norfolk and a few others as a mark of favor, rather than kinship; like the French quarter in the arms of Albret among others. —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Patronising as usual…


 * Edwards 1st marriage &/or whether Margaret was an heiress, &/or had brothers, is irrelevant in this context.
 * The “Mowbray” label on the arms of England, in the relevant context, denotes his hereditary royal-blood-line status.
 * The (1) Edward + Eleanor = Alphonse & Ed II blood-line = ‘blue label,’ is different to the (2) Edward + Margaret = Thomas blood-line = ‘white label’. The John Mowbray + Elizabeth Segrave = Thomas Mowbray = ‘white label,’ denotes the (2) royal-blood-line from Brotherton/Segrave + the Mowbray blood-lines. Edward II &/or Alphonse (a very questionable! Earl of Chester) did not inherit any Welsh blood-lines from (1) Edward I + Eleanor. The royal Welsh-blood-line from Wales came from the Mowbray + de Clare marriage & other Mowbray + earls of Chester descents.
 * The 1399 Richard II decree; the Earl of Chester = Prince of Wales = the Heir apparent, was in specific reference to the “Mowbray blood-line”, irrelevant of other claims. NB: Since 1399, all princes of Wales have used a ‘white label,’ none of these have used a ‘blue label’!
 * Can you tell us what are the colours (and such identity) of Mowbray’s two feathers decreed by Richard II? (See Fox-Davies)And also the colours of his three feathers in (‘Archeologia 1842, V.xxix, app 387.10)? Stephen2nd (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Edward I's first marriage is relevant in that it is why Thomas of Brotherton was never his heir apparent.
 * The coat of arms of England denotes Mowbray's royal descent. The label thereon denotes that he was not the king.  That's all.  At the time of its adoption, the heir apparent (the first English prince of Wales) used a blue label; therefore, his white label could not denote either the dignity of prince of Wales or the position of heir apparent.
 * White labels were increasingly used by royal cadets after 1340, when the addition of the French quarter made a blue label impractical. (Gules and or were already out.) Thomas of Brotherton was dead by then; so it's unlikely that Thomas's choice of label (inherited by Mowbray) was influenced by the same concerns.
 * Edward II's lack of Welsh ancestry does not change the fact that the title Prince of Wales was created for him, rather than for some Mowbray descendant of his younger half-brother.
 * If you want to persuade me that Richard II's decree concerning the earldom of Chester "was in specific reference to the 'Mowbray blood-line'," you'll have to show better evidence than the white label that Mowbray inherited from before such a label had any special significance relative to other royal labels. —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Art of Heraldry, by AC Fox-Davies.
 * feather silver with the pen gold is the King’s.
 * feather and pen silver is the princes (ie the Prince of Wales)
 * feather gold and pen ermine is the Duke of Lancaster’s.

The Feathers. (Ch xxxiii. p335, fig 813) The arms granted by Richard II to Thomas de Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, showing the ostrich feather badges.
 * [Crest = Lion passant crowned – no label. Shield. Dexter = Mowbray (Edward the Confessor) – no label. Sinister = Segrave (Brotherton) + label]

The Crest: (Ch xxv, p258, fig 699). Crest of Thomas de Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham, and Earl Marshal. (from a drawing of his seal (1389): MS. Cott, Julius.C vii).
 * [Crest = Lion passant crowned + label of five points. Shield = 3 Lions of England + Label of 5 points].

The Crest: (Ch xxv, p255, fig 692). From the seal (1395) of Richard of Carnarvon, Prince of Wales:
 * [Crest = fan shaped erection. Shield = 3 Lions of England + Label of 5 points].

Stephen2nd (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no way Thomas de Mowbray could be heir apparent, and even if he was heir designate, that did not make him Prince of Wales. Fox-Davies quotes letters patents by Richard II, where the King refers to Mowbray as his kinsman and confirms the hereditary right to the lion passant crest, and changed the mark of difference from a label to a crown. Which he(the King) describes as the crest of his eldest son if he had one. However, this makes him neither the Prince of Wales nor heir to the throne. It seems Richard II treated de Mowbray as a son, but never made him heir. offhttp://www.archive.org/stream/completeguidetoh00foxdrich#page/340/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinynanorobots (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

ancestry
This ancestry is a but odd. I don't understand the title(?) I suppose it is suppose to show descent from Kings Henry III and Edward I. As for the arms, while appearing in the tree is a nice touch, I don't suppose them accurate. As it is, it has the Mowbrays using the arms of England with an argent label prior to and simultaneously with Thomas of Botherton. This is ridiculousness. Obviously, the arms were inherited by the Duke of Norfolk from his mother. Then we are expected to believe Margaret de Quincy is the heiress of the Earl of Chester? Additionally, some of the other arms seem quite dubious, such as the Segraves using the arms of Normandy, and the Margret of Norfolk being given the arms of a daughter of a French King married to an English King. Additionally, some additional arms are added next to Mowbray, my guess is that these are inherited quarters that are unused. They are unlabeled, and not being used, the right to them is in question and their placement here unnecessary. I would also point out that User:Stephen2nd seems to be responsible for these and some other edits. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further looking into the arms of Segrave and Mowbray, I have found that they are both a lion rampant. also, some of the persons don't seem to belong. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephen2nd (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The title principally associated with the Heir Apparant is that of Prince of Wales, with which the Earldom of Chester has always been associated .... the titles have always been conferred together and were declared inseparately linked by a statute of 1398. (Burkes)


 * William d'Aubigny, 3rd Earl of Arundel. Married Mabel of Chester daughter of Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester, and Bertrade de Montfort. They were the parents of Avice de Aubigny (1196-1214), the wife of William Mowbray. Hugh de Kevelioc, (1147 – 1181) was the son of Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester and Maud of Gloucester, daughter of Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester (the illegitimate son of Henry I of England, making her Henry's granddaughter).


 * Blason ville 44 La-Marne.svgThe arms of Ranulf de Gernon Earl of Chester were: gules, a lion rampant argent
 * Roger Mowbray, gules, a lion rampant argent (1295)
 * Sir John Mowbray, gules, a lion rampant argent (1308)
 * Thomas Mowbray, England with a label 3 argent, charged with 3 eagles displayed of the 1st, quarterly with, gules a lion rampant argent
 * Thomas de Mowbray Duke of Norfolk KG EM, England with a label of 5 points argent quarterly with gules a lion rampant argent (1398)

Stephen2nd (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are saying. Hugh de kevelioc was not Prince of Wales or heir apparent. Anyway, the arms assigned to the Earls of Lincoln is that of Lincoln the town. Also, what is the source for Maud de Lacy marring Segrave? Tinynanorobots (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the pedigree of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard -- Sir Thomas Mowbray, father of the 1st Duke of Norfolk, did not have the England with a label 3 argent, etc. His coat of arms was still a lone lion as shown above. His son, the 1st Duke of Norfolk, was the one with English arms along with half of Edward, the Confessor's supposed coat of arms; his England side with lions did have a label 3 argent. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The arms added to the ancestry chart are rather disruptive and not needed. Why are they even there? To stress the "importance" of his ancestry? Some of the boxes don't even have the full name of the person; they just have a first name with a coat of arms after the name. I would suggest removing the coat of arms and putting full names and their main title in the box. Just a suggestion though.
 * As for the question of Maud -- it was Maud de Lucy who married a Sir Nicholas, 1st Baron Segrave (1238-1295). Sir Nicholas and Maud were parents to Sir John de Segrave, 2nd Baron, listed below.
 * Maud de Lacy married Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester. It isn't even stated on her own page that she married a Segrave! It is an easy mix up though because a few generations before you had the same names; they did this back in those times, kept naming their heir and sons after their father.
 * Sir Gilbert de Segrave (c.1185-1254) who married Anabel Chaucomb, who are listed on the page as of right now (10.13.11), were grandparents to the 2nd Baron listed below in the genealogy. Gilbert and Anabel's son was Sir Nicholas, 1st Baron Segrave who married a Matilda (Maud) de Lucy. No mention of the Lacy family anywhere.
 * The correct lineage to fit into the table would be from Douglas Richardson's books:
 * Sir John de Segrave, 2nd Baron married Christian de Plessetis.
 * their son, Sir Stephen de Segrave, 3rd Baron married Alice FitzAlan.
 * their son, Sir John de Segrave, 4th Baron married Margaret Plantagenet.
 * Here are a few soures:
 * Dictionary of National Biography by Sir Sidney Lee.
 * Genealogical History by Sir Bernard Burke. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Margaret MANNY?
What is the basis for "Manny" being the surname of Margaret, Countess of Norfolk, a predecessor to this Thomas, Earl and later Duke of same? Click the link and go to the article ON this predecessor Margaret, and the word "Manny" can't be found there. The only noteworthy and historical Margaret Manny that Google knows is Wikipedia's flag-seamstress active in North America in the revolutionary 1770's. As Jon Lovitz might say, "So, that would be later".2604:2000:C6AA:B400:7456:5EE0:243F:BF4C (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Conflicting statements
Confused at these 2 sentences....1st it says:

On 29 September 1397 he was created Duke of Norfolk.

Then in the next paragraph it says:

While in exile, he succeeded as Earl of Norfolk when his grandmother, Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, died on 24 March 1399.

If he was succeeding his grandmother, a duchess, then how is it he ended up an earl? And if he'd already been created Duke of Norfolk a yr & a half before Granny's demise, then how did he succeed Granny in the 1st place?

Something's not right here....which is it? ScarletRibbons (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * According to her article, Margaret inherited the earldom of Norfolk, and was later created Duchess for life; thus her descendant inherited the earldom but not the dukedom. —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Armory
The article states, "They are never indicated to bear the arms of Thomas Brotherton, nor any other English Royal Arms" yet both emblazons on this page show the arms of Brotherton. Either the text is wrong, or the emblazons are. CsikosLo (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)