Gents Mag 1848 part 2 p.139

Gents Mag 1848 part 2 p.139




	introduction


	list, 2nd qtr 19th century


	previous page next page

	Gentleman's Magazine 1848 part 2 p.139 over the gateway in old English characters, "This made Roger." 2nd. "Neither was Udard de Brohan or Broham Governor of Appleby Castle temp. King Henry II." but Gospatrick son of Orm, as is clearly shown by the following entry in the Pipe Rolls for Yorkshire, 23 Hen.II. rot.5, m.2, the year that Appleby Castle was taken by the King of Scots, "Gospatricius, filius Orm, reddit compotum de cc. et xxvj. li. et xiil. s. et iiij. d. de misericordia, quia reddit castrum Regis de Appelbi Regi Scottie." Jordan Fontosme says, "The King very soon had the castle of Appleby; there were no people in it, but it was quite unguarded. Gospatric, son of Orm, an old grey-headed Englishman, was the constable; he soon cried mercy." But no mention of Udard de Brohan or Broham is to be found at that time as in any way connected with Appleby Castle. 3rd. "Nor have that family been located there from the time of the Heptarchy." Where is there a shadow of evidence that they were? Hugh de Morville, a "kinsman" too! (see April, p.875), who forfeited the barony of Westmorland in 18th Hen. II. A.D. 1171 for the murder of Becket, possessed Brougham, for in that reign he converted tenure by drengage into free tenure at Brougham,* and it is clear that Gilbert de Broham (if ever there was such a person at Brougham) had not thrown off that slavish service in the 2nd of King John; for Mr. G. Shaw tells us that he then appears as a drenge. After the forfeiture of Hugh de Morville, the honour of Westmorland remained in the crown till the 4th of King John, when it was, with the castles of Appleby and Brough, intrusted to the keeping of Robert de Veteripont, to whom in the next year it was given in perpetuity, and from him it has descended, without alienation, to the present Earl of Thanet. Brougham Castle has always accompanied it; and, this being so, how can Mr. G. Shaw pretend "to compile from memory" that the Broughams have been here "located since the time of the heptarchy!" with not even the help of a Domesday Book† to shed its dim twilight on the tangled path which would lead him to the time of the Confessor, say A.D. 1050, much less to that of the heptarchy, say A.D. 600 or 700! Nor is the name de Broha, which is as often spelt Brohan as Broham, any more connected with Brougham, that we can find, than that of Robert de Broi, which appears near the same year in the same Pipe Rolls for Westmorland. The reasoning in this case much resembles that of Fluellin, who thought the birthplace of Alexander the Great was like Monmouth, because there was a river at Monmouth and another in Macedon - or like Mr. G. Shaw's own illogical conclusion in his last letter - that because Horsley in his Britannia says the word Brougham is a compound of Burgh and Ham, argal, as the grave-digger has it, the family have been located there since the time of the heptarchy! particularly as it smacks of the much older Roman name Brovocum, - which is incorrect, for Horsley calls it Brocavum. 4th. "The Hall does not stand on the Roman station." This point we need not dwell upon, for the station itself is still in existence, and rises up in evidence against Mr. G. Shaw's history. Brougham Castle stands close on its north vallum, and is three-quarters of a mile from Brougham Hall. Horsley says, "Brocavum I conclude to be Brougham Castle, in which I have the general concurrence of others." See Roy's Military Roads, fol. and various authors passim. So much for Brougham Hall standing on the Roman station! 5th. "Nor is the manor of Brougham theirs." The first evidenece which is adduced in support of this assertion is a riding of the boundary of Brougham in the reign of Richard the Second, when it is said Sir John Burgham was present along with Sir John Clifforth. We have seen a copy of this boundary perambulation quite different from the one quoted from by Mr. G. Shaw. There is no Sir John Burgham there, but plain John. Nor are the words alike. But supposing this to be a genuine document, of which we have some doubt, it does not prove that John Burgham had
	* Mag. Rot. 24 Hen. II. rot.5. † The Domesday Book of William the Conqueror does not extend to this part of Westmoreland and the three other northern counties.

	next page


	gazetteer links
	-- Brougham Hall

Lakes Guides menu.