Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., of Okehampton, Devon, etc., son and heir of John de Courtenay, Knt., and Isabel de Vere, was born on 25 March 1251.[1][2] Hugh de Courtenay was the holder of the ancient feudal barony of Okehampton. This honour consisted of at least 176 separate land holdings at the time of the Domesday Survey in 1086.[3]
Hugh married Eleanor le Despenser, daughter of Sir Hugh le Despenser, Justiciar of England, and his wife Aline (or Aveline), daughter and heiress of Sir Philip Basset.[1][2] The date and place of their marriage are unknown and are estimated. They had three sons and four daughters (see Research Note, below):
Hugh, Knt., 9th Earl of Devon,[4] 1st Lord Courtenay, born 14 September 1276, died 23 December 1340, married Agnes de Saint John and had issue[1][2]
John, died young,[4] in or before 1306 with no issue[1][2]
Philip, slain 24 June 1314[4] at the Battle of Bannockburn leaving no known issue[1][2]
Isabel, wife of Sir John de Saint John, 1st Lord Saint John[4] of Basing[1][2]
Aveline, wife of Sir John Giffard,[4] 2nd Lord Giffard; they had no issue[1][2]
Margaret[4] (or Margery), wife of Nicholas de Moels, 2nd Lord Moels[1][2]
Hugh was in the Army of West Wales in 1282 and was summoned to attend the King at Shrewsbury on 28 June 1283.[1][2]
Sir Hugh de Courtenay died on 28 February 1291/2 at Colecombe (or Cullicomb), Devon, England, and was buried at Cowick Priory, near Exeter, Devon.[1][2] Inquisitions Post Mortem by writ dated 24 March, 20 Edw. I. (1291/2) state that: "He died on Thursday after St. Peter in Cathedra, 20 Edw. I." (Feb. 28, 1291/2). Hugh his son, aged 16 on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross next (Sept. 14, 1292), is his next heir.[5]
Hugh's widow, Eleanor, was assigned dower 16 May 1292[6] and died at London on 30 September 1328 and is buried with her husband at Cowick Priory.[1][2]
Research Notes
Disputed Children
Not listed by Richardson, but included as a child of Hugh and Eleanor in Visitations of Cornwall and Wikipedia (citing Visitations), and remains connected to this profile:
Robert, died young.[4] Visitations/Wikipedia also names a daughter, Alice, who died young.
Not listed by Richardson and their profiles were disconnected as children of Hugh and Eleanor in 2015:
↑ 1.001.011.021.031.041.051.061.071.081.091.101.11 Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. 2nd edition, 4 vols., ed. Kimball G. Everingham. Salt Lake City, UT: the author, 2011. Vol. I, pages 536-538, COURTENAY 4.
↑ 2.002.012.022.032.042.052.062.072.082.092.102.11 Douglas Richardson. Royal Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 5 vols., ed. Kimball G. Everingham, Salt Lake City, UT: the author, 2013: vol. II, pages 321-322, COURTENAY 5.
↑ Though one of of the king's barons and holder of this large honour, these early feudal baronies did not confer a peerage title, and it is incorrect to give him the title of Baron of Okehampton.
↑ 4.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.7 J. L. Vivian. The Visitations of Cornwall: comprising the Heralds' visitations of 1530, 1573, & 1620. Exeter: William Pollard & Co., 1887. Online at FamilySearch, page 106.
↑Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem. Vol. 3 Edward I., Years 20-28. (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1912). Online at Archive.org, pages 23-29: #31 Hugh de Curtenayalias de Curteye, de Curteneye, de Cortenay.
↑Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem. Vol. 3 Edward I., Years 20-28. (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1912). Online at Archive.org, Page 29-30: #32 "Eleanor late his wife"
Richardson, Douglas. Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 4 vols., ed. Kimball G. Everingham. 2nd edition. (Salt Lake City, UT: the author, 2011). See also WikiTree's source page for Magna Carta Ancestry.
Richardson, Douglas. Royal Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 5 vols., ed. Kimball G. Everingham. (Salt Lake City, UT: the author, 2013). See also WikiTree's source page for Royal Ancestry.
See also:
Lewis, Marlyn. Sir Hugh de Courtenay entry in Our Royal, Titled, Noble, and Commoner Ancestors and Cousins website, accessed 28 Apr 2020.
Shortt, William T. Peter. Collectanea Curiosa Antiqua Dunmonia. (Exeter: W.C. Featherston, 1852). Online at Google Books, page 48: he was "buried in the Abbey of Cowick, opposite the Bonhay, in 1290, the 18th of Edward I."
Acknowledgements
Click the Changes tab to see the edits to this profile. Thank you to everyone who contributed.
Magna Carta Project
This profile was re-reviewed and approved for the Magna Carta Project on 29 April 2020 by Thiessen-117.
It is correct to refer to Hugh de Courtenay as "Feudal Baron / Baron of Okehampton", contradicting the statement in his biography, "Sir Hugh de Courtenay is often described as the Baron of Okehampton, but this was not a formal peerage title at that date. His son was the first recognised peer in the line." He wasn't "described as", he was the Baron of Okehampton, this being a feudal barony pre-dating the peerage. A number of feudal barons were later summoned to Parliament as 1st Baron X, as the peerage came to supplant the medieval baronage.
I think the distinction being made is that these early feudal baronies did not confer a peerage title. So it is true that Hugh de Courteney was the holder of the Honour of Okehampton, and he held the lands directly of the king per baroniam with certain rights, privileges and responsibilities, and he was subject to special baronial fees. However, it is incorrect to call him Hugh de Courtenay, Baron of Okehampton. This peerage title never existed.
Thank you, for your response Joe. I follow your response up to the point of: "it is incorrect to call him Hugh de Courtenay, Baron of Okehampton. Insofar that the baronage preceded the peerage (which is what it didn't confer a peerage, no?) and the peerage came to supplant the baronage, what else would one call him? Not simply Sir Hugh. He would probably be referred to as "Lord Okehampton" or "Lord of Okehampton". As a member of the baronage, he would have been entitled to being called "lord", which mostly implied a feudal baronial title at that time. I've seen it on documents in Latin, myself, that is, men with feudal baronies referred to as "dominus" of that barony, which is not to be confused with the hollow meaning of "lord of the manor". The Magna Carta Barons, for example, were not entirely composed of peers--but they were barons and referred to as such, i.e. "lord of" / "dominus of". Perhaps most correct, today, in English, would be to refer to him as, Hugh de Courtenay, Feudal Baron of Okehampton.
I would agree with and have no problem with calling him Hugh de Courtenay, fuedal baron of Okehampton in the biography. Though I think of him as a baron with a little "b", I am sure he was never called Baron Okehampton in his lifetime. The question is, and the reason for the distinction, what do we put in the Other Nicknames field for a title. We reserve this for titles of recognized peers as found in Complete Peerage, this essentially eliminates all of the ancient feudal baronies that go back to the Domesday Book. The primary reason for this rule is we do not want all of the Lord of the Manors put in this field which we use for titles. It gets ridiculous when every minor land holder gets called Lord of X.
I understand now and I can't speak to the name / title / nickname section of Wikitree--I was only commenting on his biography, which suggested he was a "fake baron", as lord of the manor is a fake lord--to put it crudely. The two simply can not be compared; the peerage was merely an evolution of the medieval baronage.
Joe, PS: I simply don't understand the reasoning behind Wikitree's manner of representing aristocrats, so I can't really respond to that--it's mystifying to me. It's somewhat a pity to me that notions of the peerage have somehow confused the baronial status of the original barons.
It is not an intentional slight, and is maybe something we need to address on WikiTree. We are not really disagreeing. To me, this discussion is really about the naming standards on WikiTree, while you are more focused on his actual social rank and status.
The early baronies are certainly recognized by WikiTree, and someone has actually started a project of categorizing the early feudal baronies. In fact, if you go to the bottom of this page you will see Hugh de Courtenay is already categorized in the Early Barony of Okehampton.
Yes, I understand. In any case, none of these sites is set up for aristocratic / royal identities, which I understand on some level; only a few persons, relative to the rest, hold aristocratic titles / don't have surnames (because dynastic names, such as Schleswig-Holstein, were not surnames--a completely recent manner of naming people from sovereign dynastic houses).
edited by Joe Cochoit
edited by Felix Pfeifle
The early baronies are certainly recognized by WikiTree, and someone has actually started a project of categorizing the early feudal baronies. In fact, if you go to the bottom of this page you will see Hugh de Courtenay is already categorized in the Early Barony of Okehampton.