"Anno 20 Edw. III. Johannes de Cobham, Filius et Hæres Radulphi de
Cobeham defuncti. Probatio ætatis."

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."

It is remarkable that this discrepancy in Sir John Cobham's age, and the
time of his supposed mother's marriage with his father, has never before,
as far as my knowledge extends, been noticed by any of the numerous writers
who have repeated Dugdale's account of this family.

Before concluding I will mention another mistake respecting the Countess
which runs through most of our county histories where she is named. For a
short period she became an inmate of the Abbey of Langley, and is generally
stated to have entered it previously to her marriage with Sir Ralph de
Cobham. Clutterbuck, in his _History of Hertfordshire_ (vol. ii. p. 512.),