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
