History Forum / General / British History / September 2007

Although this appears to have been the case originally, their
contemporaries were perhaps unaware of the distinction.

The IPM for Thomas Botetourt, from 16 Edward II, calls him "Thomas
Boteturt alias Boutetorte alias de Botetourte" (PRO C 134/76/1).

The IPM for Joan Botetourt, from 16 Edward III, calls her "Joan
Butetourte alias de Botetourte" (PRO C 135/67/8).

Dugdale calls them "de Buteturt" and "de Botetourt".

MA-R

Dear Michael (aka Millerfairfi...@aol.com) ~

Thank you for your good post.  Much appreciated.

I'm certainly not disputing that the surname Botetourt(e) can be found
in contemporary records with a "de."  In the weblink below, for
example, there are eleven  instances of the surname, Botetourt(e),
drawn from contemporary records.  In ten of them, the surname
Botetourte appears without a "de."  In one instance (the first), it is
it spelled with a "de."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/searchresults.asp?SearchInit=0&txts
earchterm=Boutetourte&txtfirstdate=&txtlastdate=&txtrestriction=&hdnsorttype=Ref
erence&image1.x=35&image1.y=10&image1=GO

As I stated in my earlier post, the BEST evidence of whether or not a
family used "de" with their surname are the armorial seals which have
survived for that particular  family.  Such seals were created at the
request of the person whose seal it was and it bore their name in
Latin.  I've found references to ten surviving seals for the various
members of the Botetourt family.  Legends are legible on five of these
seals.  The surname was spelled without a "de" on all five seals.  The
surname is likewise spelled without a "de" in a seal (or seals) for
another member of the family reported in Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of London, 2nd Ser. 4 (1869): 200-201.  Like I say, this
is your BEST evidence.

Moving onto legal evidence, I find that in 1354 that Roger Knotte,
Osbert le Muleward, and others were attached to answer a plea of John
Buttourt, knight, that they had taken by force his goods and chattels
from Bobington, Staffordshire, namely, linen and woolen cloths, and
silver and brass vessels to the value of ?20, and had beaten, wounded,
and ill-treated his servant, Thomas Dawessone [Reference: Wrottesley,
Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 17) (1891):
103].  This entry can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eqI4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA103&dq=BOTTOURT

Likewise, in 1357, John Botetourt, Knt., sued Thomas Astley and his
brother John for taking vi et armis his goods and chattels from
Bobbington, Staffordshire, to the value of 40s. and imprisoning and
ill-treating his native William de Colewyk [Reference: Wrottesley,
Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 17) (1891):
103].

http://books.google.com/books?id=eqI4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA103&dq=BOTTOURT#PPA153,M1

In 1358 John Botetourt, Knt. sued Richard de Peshale and Adam his
brother, Philip de Chetewynd, and others for forcibly entering his
free warren at Mere, Staffordshire, and cutting down trees to the
value of 100s., and chasing and taking from it hares and rabbits,
partridges, and pheasants of warren, and for beating, wounding, and
ill-treating his servants. [Reference: Wrottesley, Staffordshire
Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 17) (1891): 157].

http://books.google.com/books?id=eqI4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA103&dq=BOTTOURT#PPA157,M1.

In all three of these instances, John Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt,
was the plaintiif.  The surname Botetourt is not employed with a
"de."  This is significant I think as they are drawn contemporary
legal proceedings in which the clerks were usually careful to spell
the parties' names correctly.  If a writ misspelled a name, for
example, then the entire lawsuit could be voided.  The whole process
would have to start all over.  All the same, I note passing references
in these same legal abstracts to "the deed of John de Botetourt" or "a
grant from John de Botetourt." [Reference: Wrottesley, Staffordshire
Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 17) (1891): 101, 105].  But in
neither of these instances is John Botetourt himself the plaintiff or
the defendant.  All the same, I would guess that that legal
proceedings can probably be found elsewhere in which Botetourt was
employed with a "de."

Be that as it may, you seem to have skirted that issue regarding
whether or not "de" was ever employed with the surname, Longesp?e, in
contemporary records.  I know for a fact that Longesp?e can be found
in contemporary records with a "de."  Yet you say that Longesp?e was
not a place name, and therefore no "de" should have been used.  This
is an interesting contradiction I'd say.  Either Longesp?e took a "de"
or it did not.  Are you suggesting that the clerks erred in their
records, or perhaps you have misunderstood the correct nonemclature of
this time period?  Or, are you formulating a new rule of thumb?  Which
is it?

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord
Botetourt, and his wife, Maud, daughter of Thomas Fitz Otes, Knt.:

Dannett Abney, Barbara Aubrey, Marmaduke Beckwith, John Bevan, William
Bladen, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles, & Robert
Brent, Nathaniel Browne, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Kenelm
Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Henry Corbin, Francis Dade,
Frances, Jane, & Katherine Deighton, George Elkington, Edward Foliot,
Muriel Gurdon, Katherine Hamby, Edmund Jennings, Thomas Ligon, Henry,
Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger, & Sarah Ludlow, Anne & Katherine
Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas Nelson,
Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Anthony Savage, Mary Johanna Somerset,
Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, Olive Welby, Thomas
Wingfield, Amy Wyllys.

I should point out that Sir John Botetourt's father-in-law, Thomas
Fitz Otes, was definitely a knight, although this fact is not
mentioned by Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 223 (sub Botetourt).  So,
this would appear to be yet another addition for Complete Peerage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. I have in front a me lengthy description of two seals used by
John Botetourt, 2nd Lord Botetourt, who died in 1386.  These seals are
described in detail by Birch in his work, Catalogue of Seals in the
British Museum, 2 (1892): 540-541.  This material may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JhMaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA541&dq=Boutetort#PPA540,M1

The first of these seals was attached to a document dated 1358, and it
shows an annulet for a difference.  However, when the same seal was
used later in 1363, Birch relates that "the annulet for difference in
the field of the shield above the saltire engrailed, has been
apparently removed from, or filled up in the matrix before impression;
and faint traces of it remain."  If Birch is correct, the matrix was
altered to remove to annulet for difference.  In the first impression
dated 1358, the name "Bottourt" appears in the legend without a "de."
The legend on the second impression unfortunately is not complete.

Interesting, I find that the A2A Catalogue includes reference to a
lease dated 27 Sept. 1383 issued by John Bottord [Botetourt], knight,
et al. to John Knyght of Coventre of the water mill in the fields of
Pynleye called Alresfordemulle [Reference: Shakespeare Birthplace
Trust Records Office: Gregory of Stivichall, Reference: DR10/479
(abstract of document available online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)].
Please note that the grantor is called "John Bottord, knight" (surname
without a "de").  Yet, according to the modern archivist who prepared
this entry, this document bears an armorial seal on tag: a saltire in
an elaborate rosace with a legend  which allegedly reads: "SIGIL[LUM
JOHA]NNIS DE BOTTOURT."

I suspect the seal on the 1383 document is the very same one that was
used for the 1358 and 1363 documents, as all three seals display a
very elaborate rosace, albeit with the change in the matrix to remove
the annulet.  I note that the surname is spelled "Bottourt" on the
1358 impression just as it is on the 1383 impression.  Buttourt is one
the rarer variant spellings of Botetourt.  As such, I'd venture a
guess that the modern archivist erred in reporting a "de" on the
legend of the 1383 seal.   When I have a moment later this week, I'll
contact the Records Office in question and ask them to check on this.
I'll post their reply when I have it.

I dare say you all will correct me but to a degree you all alright in
bits in pieces,French
was the language of the English court as far a Edward II,Bo is French
but into English
it can become Bu.
In French of variants "du"is an ordinary man from a place but "de"
indicates a seignor
or lord of some sort depending on the land and it can be indicative of
tittle.
My understanding of Botecourt is that his the iilegitimate son of
Edward ii,in which
his attempting to recreate a title but is using of "court" rather than
using "leroy"
Hugh