A tale of three Philips

The Woozle effect, or an example of it, is when an idea becomes accepted as a result of repetition of something that was always wrong (or not relevant). Winnie the Pooh and Piglet one day walked round and round a spinney, in snowy conditions. As they completed their first circuit, they saw that they were following footsteps, which they assumed to have been made by a Woozle. At the end of the second circuit they saw that another Woozle had joined the first, and so on until Christopher Robin came, and put them right! 

Each time they went round, what they saw reinforced what they had first thought. 

We see the Woozle effect in the endless repetition of the phrase "of the Oaks," when talking about the Beaumonts of Darton, and "of Highampton" when talking about Devon Beaumonts.

Going back to the Hundred Acre Wood that snowy day, there was a Woozle, and then there were two, and then three. On another occasion Piglet thought he saw a Heffalump, a "Heffable Horralump," but it was only Pooh with a honey jar stuck on his head. A reversed Woozle effect, might be this. If Piglet had seen a real Heffalump in the wood three days running, he would have assumed it was the same Heffalump.

I have been looking at multiple references circa 1190-1250 to the name Philip Beaumont, and published secondary sources appear largely to have assumed this to be one person. But just in the English sources, it has to be three of them!

Number one Philip was some sort of lawyer or advocate in the courts, in Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset and Warwickshire and perhaps other counties. He first appears in 1201. He had property at Dorsington, which it appears he bought rather than inherited. He was not a major landowner. Circa 1215 he died, leaving a widow called Felicia and two sons, John and Walter, There was also Richard, referred to once as John's brother (but is that the same John?).

Number two Philip was the heir to a substantial inheritance mainly in Devon. It was held from major Devon baronies, Okehampton and Plympton, and involved places including Shirwell (near Barnstaple) and Ilsington. His father Richard had inherited this from his elder brother Thomas, and Philip's grandfather had also been a Thomas. Philip came of age round about 1220. Cases document his disputes or settlements with his father's widow Alice, his uncle Thomas's widow Rose, and with Forde Abbey about lands in North Devon. Philip no.2 had a kinsman William Beaumont, whose father had been called Joel.

Number two Philip lived until the 1240s or longer. I think he lived until about 1272, when a Richard de Beaumont succeeded. Descendants continued as Devon landowners for a couple of hundred years. 

Number three Philip was in one reference clearly stated to be the son of a Thomas Beaumont. 

From Curia Regis Rolls vol. 6 p.139, the date being 1211
The reference to Devon, an editorial error of some kind, has caused confusion!

This Philip was thus under age in 1211 and his father Thomas not very many years dead. The case came back in about 1223 or 1224.

The Foot of Fine, 1223/24 case, from AALT, part of 
PRO CP 25/1/187/3

It was now settled by Philip, whose main role in this was to "warrant" the gift made by Thomas. 

The name Philip de Beaumont appears twice on a list of knights in 1229!

From Patent Rolls 1225-1232 p.311
This is an order for protection for the men, lands etc of the named knights who were about to depart by the king’s orders ....  dated at Portsmouth, 19th October...... 

Published works on the Court System have now distinguished Philip no. 1 but - perhaps relying too much on the Victoria County History (on Pyrton) - have continued to assume Nos 2 and 3 to be a single individual. The VCH had attributed certain sources wrongly (citing information which relates only to Devon as authority on Philip No.3).

I do not know the origins of Philip no.1. Confusion has arisen due to a supposed connection with an earlier Norman de Bellomonte in the Warwick honour. I would not be surprised were Philip No. 1 in fact to be related to Nos. 2 and 3. But my mind is open!

It looks likely that Philip no. 2 must have been a descendant of a family that had been in Devon since Domesday Book, with origins in the Cotentin Peninsular of Normandy.

I suspect that Philip no. 3 may be somehow related to No. 2.  Philip No. 2's grandfather, Thomas (of Devon, apparently had a brother called Philip, who I think is a generation too old to be Philip No.1, but I suspect might be grandfather of Philip No.3.

A few sources on each:-

Philip No. 1. Curia Regis Rolls vol.5 pp.46-47, vol. 6 p.67 and p.231, and evidently after his death vol. 9 p.140, vol. 10 pp.210, 218, 279. Gaillard Lapsley, "Buzones," in English Historical Review, Volume XLVII, Issue CLXXXVI, April 1932, Pages 177–193. Robert C Palmer, The County Courts of Medieval England,  1150-1350, 2019. Palmer I think concluded that this was not Devon Philip but of course the question whether Devon & Pyrton Philips might be the same would not have been his concern.

Philip No. 2 (Devon). Curia Regis Rolls vol.10 pp.298-299 a 1222 case, the family structure given. In 1229 Cal. Pat. Rolls Henry III vol. 2, p.311. There are various published sources on the Devon Beaumonts but I do not think most of them are very sound before about 1300.

Philip No.3 (Pyrton). Curia Regis Rolls vol. 6 p.139 (in 1211 he is under age) and vol. 11 p.505 ..... In 1229 Cal. Pat. Rolls Henry III vol. 2, p.311.  Victoria County History (on Pyrton) has a good account but with errors and some wrong references.

There was yet another Philip Beaumont in the Cotentin in the early thirteenth century who, because of the separation of England from Normandy, cannot I think be no. 1, 2, or 3 but who might be related. If not, then the naming pattern gives a false lead.

EMB 18 November 2023

Beaumonts in the Cotentin - the name from the place?

The conventional thing in the past has been to identify the origin of the name Beaumont (applying to people from the Cotentin) with Beaumont-Hague, west of Cherbourg.

But I had noticed that many of the early Beaumont references (twelfth and early thirteenth centuries) were to a group of places east of Cherbourg, including Neville-sur-mer, Fermanville, and Cosqueville. I then spotted that there is a place called Beaumont in or near that group of places, where there is a substantial perhaps seventeenth century house called the Manoir de Beaumont.

From Beaumont-Hague to le Manoir de Beaumont is about forty kilometres whereas the other places associated with these Beaumonts are all within five or six kilometres of one another.

It did not seem to make entire sense to associate the east side people with Beaumont-Hague, but I now need to reconsider that.

The main reason for this is that I realised I had references which look entirely sound, to the effect that a certain Juhel de Bellomonte was patron of the church of Bello Monte (certainly here meaning Beaumont-Hague) in the mid-thirteenth century (this being from the Livre Noir, or Black Book, of the Diocese of Coutances).

Also from the Black Book Juhel de Bellomonte was patron of the church of Cosqueville, whilst a Guillaume (William) de Bellomonte was patron of the church of Fermanville. 

This makes Juhel - surely there cannot have been two of that name at the same time - to be a proprietor both west and east of Cherbourg. That removes the reason for thinking the origin must be east side, and leaves me thinking it could be either.

There may well be other Beaumont references (various first names) that can be confirmed as west side and I believe there are further references to the name Juhel (and certainly other names) that can be confirmed as east side.

It is said in several books etc that during the fourteenth century both Beaumont-Hague and the places east of Cherbourg were in the hands of people called d'Argouges, one of whom had married an heiress called Thomasse de Beaumont, in 1332.

Deciphering the genealogy may well be impossible, but suggestions might be along the lines that there were related families - cousins using the surname Beaumont - based both west and east of Cherbourg, and that by one or more inheritances it all came in the end to Thomasse and her husband.

Moreover I think that this family (in the wider sense) was divided by the separation of Normandy from England in 1204, and that there was at least one branch of it in England, as I have hinted before.

EMB 9-10 October 2023

Notes:

A parish by parish summary from the Livre Noir is printed in the Recueil des Historiens de la France vol. 23 (Paris, 1894) from page 493, with Beaumont-Hague at p.528 (Juhel), and Fermanville (Willelmus, Guillaume), and Cosqueville (Juhel) at p.531. 

There is an incorrect statement that Guillaume de Beaumont was patron of both Cosqueville and Fermanville in Louis Drouet's book Recherches Historiques sur les Vingt Communes du Canton de Saint-Pierre-Eglise, at p.253 repeated at p.278, citing the Livre Noir. That book is not concerned with west side places, though in passing, it does mention Beaumont-Hague as one of the places the family had lands (pages 280 and 409).

An article in Memoires de la Societe Nationale Academique de Cherbourg, 1871 (Pouilles Inedits de la Hague et de Carentan, collected & translated by M. de Pontaumont) contains the same information from the Livre Noir about Beaumont-Hague, and adds that the Livre Blanc (White Book) of c.1340 shows that the church was then held by the heirs of Juhel. That article is not concerned with Cosqueville etc.

An example which I came across just after writing the above, which seems to both reinforce the early association with Beaumont-Hague, and to suggest that a member of the family had opted to go to the English side, is a charter of king Philip Augustus dated 1207 in which he granted all of the land of Richard de Bello monte in Hague (Haiga) to a new holder (Cartulaire Normand no. 161).