There are some difficulties in Dugdale's account of the Cobham family which
it may be well to bring before your readers; especially as several other
historians and genealogists have repeated Dugdale's account without
remarking on its inconsistencies. In speaking of a junior branch of the
family, he says, in vol. ii. p. 69., "There was also Ralphe de Cobham,
brother of the first-mentioned Stephen." He only mentions one Stephen but
names him twice, first at page 66., and again at 69. Perhaps he meant the
_above_-mentioned Stephen. He continues:--
"This Ralphe took to wife Mary Countess of Norfolk, widdow of Thomas of
Brotherton. Which Mary was Daughter to William Lord Ros, and first
married to William Lord Braose of Brembre; and by her had Issue John,
who 20 E. III., making proof of his age, and doing his Fealty, had
Livery of his lands."
At page 64. of the same volume he states that Thomas de Brotherton died in
12 Edward III., which would be only eight years before his widow's son, by
a subsequent husband, is said to have become of age. That he did become of
age in this year we have unquestionable evidence. In _Cal. Ing. P. Mortem_,
vol. iv. p. 444., we find this entry:--
"Anno 20 Edw. III. Johannes de Cobham, Filius et Hæres Radulphi de
Cobeham defuncti. Probatio ætatis."
There is also abundant proof that Thomas de Brotherton died in 12 Edward
III. The most natural way of removing this difficulty would be to conclude
that John de Cobham was the son of Ralph by a previous marriage. But here
we have another difficulty to encounter. He is not only called the son of
Mary, Countess of Norfolk, or Marishall, by Dugdale, but in all
contemporaneous records. See Rymer's _Foed._, vol. vi. p. 136.; _Rot.
Orig._, vol. ii. p. 277.; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, p. 178., again at p. 179.;
_Cal. Ing. P. Mortem_, vol. iii. pp. 7. 10. Being the son-in-law of the
Countess, he was probably called her son to distinguish him from a kinsman
of the same name, or because of her superior rank. She is frequently styled
the widow, and sometimes the wife of Thomas de Brotherton, even after the
death of her subsequent husband, Sir Ralph de Cobham. In the escheat at her
death she is thus described:--
"Maria Comitissa Norfolc', uxor Thome de Brotherton, Comitis Norfolc',
Relicta Radi de Cobeham, Militis."
It is remarkable that this discrepancy in Sir John Cobham's age, and the
time of his supposed mother's marriage with his father, has never before,
as far as my knowledge extends, been noticed by any of the numerous writers
who have repeated Dugdale's account of this family.
Before concluding I will mention another mistake respecting the Countess
which runs through most of our county histories where she is named. For a
short period she became an inmate of the Abbey of Langley, and is generally
stated to have entered it previously to her marriage with Sir Ralph de
Cobham. Clutterbuck, in his _History of Hertfordshire_ (vol. ii. p. 512.),
for instance, relates the circumstance in these words:--
{54}
"In the 19th year of the reign of Edward III., she became a nun in the
Abbey of Langley, in the country of Norfolk; but quitting that
religious establishment, she married Sir Ralph Cobham, Knt., and died
anno 36 Edward III."
By _Cal. Ing. P. Mortem_, vol. i. p. 328., we find that Ralph Cobham died
19th Edward III.[2], that is, the same year in which the Countess entered
the Abbey, from whence we may conclude that she retired there to pass in
seclusion the period of mourning.