Why is there a Chantry to Sir John de Botetourt in Belchamp Walter?
I have to start this page with making the statement that my first assumpsion was that the chantry is to the first Sir John de Botetourt and not his grandson, the 2nd Lord Botetourt. Now, I am not so sure.
I also have to state that from the research that I have performed over the last few years that Botetourt was NOT an "underlord" of the de Veres. The origins of the de Vere family is shrouded in enough mystery and neither the de Veres or the de Botetourts were participants in the Norman Conquest.
However, there is no doubt that the chapel was dedicated to a Botetourt and this is supported by the heraldry on the entrance arch. Thomas de Botetourt is recorded to have resided in Belchamp Walter in Mary Hall
Halies Abbey Chronicals - a theory from Preswich
Michael Prestwich in his book Edward I (1997) suggests that the changed entry in the Hailes Chronical could be that the name of John Botetourt was over-written the name of the husband of Edward I's daughter, Elizabeth. The statement that John was the son of Edward I stems from this.
Subsequent historians dispute this and Sir John is generally thought to be the son of Guy de Botetourt of Ellingham, Norfolk. This would explain the Botetourt name.
The changed entry in the Hailes Abbey Chronicals cannot be proved as the Chronical probably met the same fate as the Abbey itself. In any case whatever the Chronical was recording was not an offspring of Edward I as the husband of his daughter was most likely not to have been directly related to Edward. The husband could have been John I, Count of Holland or Humphrey de Bohum.
Humphrey de Bohum, 4th Earl of Hereford was one of the Lords Ordainer. Sir John de Botetourt was a baron that was one of the signataries of the Ordinances of 1311.
However, the apparent "favour" that the Sir John (1st Lord), who died in 1324 and could possibly be commemorated in Belchamp Walter, had placed on him does not "jive" with the Norfolk connection.
Why would this Sir John (1st Lord) have been given the important roles for Edward I and Edward II unless there was some other reason.