That he did become of
age in this year we have unquestionable evidence. In _Cal. Ing. P. Mortem_,
vol. iv. p. 444., we find this entry:--
"Anno 20 Edw. III. Johannes de Cobham, Filius et Haeres Radulphi de
Cobeham defuncti. Probatio aetatis."
There is also abundant proof that Thomas de Brotherton died in 12 Edward
III. The most natural way of removing this difficulty would be to conclude
that John de Cobham was the son of Ralph by a previous marriage. But here
we have another difficulty to encounter. He is not only called the son of
Mary, Countess of Norfolk, or Marishall, by Dugdale, but in all
contemporaneous records. See Rymer's _Foed._, vol. vi. p. 136.; _Rot.
Orig._, vol. ii. p. 277.; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, p. 178., again at p. 179.;
_Cal. Ing. P. Mortem_, vol. iii. pp. 7. 10. Being the son-in-law of the
Countess, he was probably called her son to distinguish him from a kinsman
of the same name, or because of her superior rank. She is frequently styled
the widow, and sometimes the wife of Thomas de Brotherton, even after the
death of her subsequent husband, Sir Ralph de Cobham. In the escheat at her
death she is thus described:--
"Maria Comitissa Norfolc', uxor Thome de Brotherton, Comitis Norfolc',
Relicta Radi de Cobeham, Militis.
Pages:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34