Augustine de Brethmete, of Mobberly - Historical Information for The manor of BREIGHTMET

Started by Private User on Sunday, December 3, 2017
Problem with this page?

Participants:

  • Private User
    Geni member
  • Geni Pro
  • Private User
    Geni member

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 8 posts
Private User
12/3/2017 at 9:06 PM

The manor of BREIGHTMET formed a moiety of the Marsey fee in the parish of Bolton, (fn. 4) and was in the 12th century held as one plough-land by Augustin de Breightmet. (fn. 5) By his wife Edith de Barton he had as his heir a daughter, Cecily, who married William de Notton, (fn. 6) the tenant in 1212. (fn. 7) Some forty years later it was held by Avina de Samlesbury, and divided among her three daughters; (fn. 8) but as Margery the eldest had no issue, the other two ultimately had each a moiety of the manor. (fn. 9)

Of these Cecily married Sir John D'Ewias, and her moiety descended to the Southworths of Samlesbury, who retained it till the beginning of the 16th century. (fn. 10) In 1510 it was in the possession of the Gerards of Aughton, (fn. 11) then of the Ainsworths, (fn. 12) from whom, in the 17th century, it passed to a branch of the Banastre family. (fn. 13) In 1725 Breightmet Hall and estate were purchased from the Baguley family by John Parker, (fn. 14) high sheriff of the county in 1732, (fn. 15) in whose family it remained for over a century. (fn. 16) No manor seems now to be claimed in respect of this part.

The other daughter, Elizabeth, married Sir Robert de Holland, (fn. 17) and her moiety of the manor descended in the male line of this family (fn. 18) until 1461, when it became forfeit together with the other possessions of Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter. (fn. 19) In 1484 it was granted by Richard III to Thomas, Lord Stanley, and his son Lord Strange, (fn. 20) and this moiety of the manor has descended to the present Earl of Derby. (fn. 21)

Footnotes :
5. Augustin de Breightmet about 1180 gave to his brother Patrick de Mobberley a moiety of Mobberley with reversion of the rest after his own death; Lord Edmund Talbot's MSS. (Hist. MSS. Com. Various Coll. ii, 290).
6. See the account of Barton-on-Irwell; also Ormerod, Ches. (ed. Helsby), i, 422.
7. Inq. and Extents, loc. cit.; he paid a rent of 8s. Later, Breightmet was described as the eighth part of a knight's fee.

Thiscomes from Lancaster British History Website

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol5/pp266-268#p9

6/16/2021 at 1:18 PM

Anne Brannen could I trouble you for assistance here?

Private User Writes

I am contacting you about this profile: https://www.geni.com/people/wife-of-Augustine-de-Brethmete/60000000.... Doing my research, I found "Brethmete" could also be Brethmet, Brethma, Brightmet, & Breightmet. The last spelling is where I found Augustine de Breightmet, 1170-1212, married in 1188 to Edith de Barton, 1170-1220, parents of John de Mobberley. Augustine's father was Gilbert de Brightmet, 1145-1222, and his mother was Julianna de Norton, 1143-unknown. Gilbert's father was Reginald Breightmet, 1119-unknown, mother unknown. I was on familysearch.com. The birth years for Gilbert & Julianna were determined by the info that Gilbert was 27 & Juliana was 25 when Augustine was born in 1170

6/16/2021 at 1:30 PM

http://powys.org/pl_tree/ps53/ps53_092.html

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Barton-275

She was one of four daughters and heirs.

Edith, 'lady of Barton', granted half of Cadishead to Stanlaw Abbey, which she made "with the assent and good will of my husband, Sir Gilbert de Notton, for the health of our souls, and for the health of John de Barton, my son, and for the health of my daughter, to wit, the wife of William de Notton." She and her husband were in other ways benefactors of Stanlaw Abbey also. (In 1222 there were two under-tenants, Geoffrey de Dutton and Alexander de Cadishead, each apparently paying 2s. yearly. Before this date Edith had granted to the monks of Stanlaw the land which Alexander held of her, they paying the king the customary rent of 2s.)

6/16/2021 at 1:31 PM

http://www.mobleyhistory.co.uk/html/Early%20History.pdf

First mentioned in a charter dated 1190 when King Richard ‘The Lionheart’ sold his English estates and set out for Palestine on the third Crusade, Augustine de Brethmete inherited Mobberley and gave a moiety (half) to his younger brother, Patrick, for Patrick’s lifetime. It was Patrick, mentioned in charters between 1190 and 1220, who first took the name Mobberley as his surname. In 1206 he founded a small priory of regular Canons of the order of St. Augustine, and also took an interest in two salt houses at Northwich. But due to a reducing number of canons, Patrick handed over the foundation to Rocester Priory in Staffordshire. Because of irregularities in its endowment, the Mobberley priory was finally closed.

The Mobberley’s of Mobberley - John de Mobberley was Patrick’s younger brother and heir of Augustine.

6/16/2021 at 2:23 PM

So is this Augustine de Breightmet the same person as Augustine de Brethmete, of Mobberly And they should be merged?

Private User
6/17/2021 at 5:20 AM

Sounds to me like they should, especially since in a previous post, Edith de Barton refers to her son John de Barton and her daughter showing there were 2 children but Cecily is the only one listed. It could be John was born before the marriage & took Edith's name. I'll leave the merging decision to you but as far as the family tree I'm making for my grandson, I'm going with Augustine de Breightmet's father and grandfather info. Thanks!

Private User
6/17/2021 at 5:48 AM

I was curious about Edith de Barton & per freepages.rootweb.com, she was married to Augustine de Breightmet about 1190 and then to Gilbert de Notton about 1205

6/17/2021 at 5:53 AM

Where’s the Patrick of one source?

——

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Breightmet-2

In this case, knowing that Augustine had held Barton temp Henry II, and Matthew was Edith's father, he figured that Augustine was Matthew's father.

But on the Corrections page in the same book, he decides that Augustine was more probably Edith's 1st husband. This became a definite statement in later books.

Farrer, Lancs Fines, Pt 1 (1899), 12-19 Henry III, footnote 15 (note "It may be assumed").

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/lancs-final-concords/vol1/pp54-74...

Farrer, Lancs Fines, Pt 1 (1899), A & C (correction to p.62).

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/lancs-final-concords/vol1/i-v

Farrer, VCH, Lancashire, Vol 5 (1911), pages 266-8, Breightmet.

Showing all 8 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion