On 24/08/17 15:22, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 14:17:37 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson escreveu:
>>John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. [...]
>
> Also where was his age said?
Assuming you mean where was John Beauford's age stated, CP 2nd ed, vol
12A, p 40 cites CPR Ric II, vol 5, p 63. The patent roll entry, which
is dated 7 June 1392, says:
"Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de
Beaufort, retained to stay with the king for life, of 100 marks a year
at the Exchequer. By p.s.
"Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because the king granted that sum
to him from the issues and profits of the castle and lordship of
Wallyngford, со. Berks, 10 September in his twenty-first year."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008966072;view=1up;seq=77
While I'm hesitant to disagree with the editor of Complete Peerage, I'm
certain this patent roll entry has been misunderstood. I think this
means the grant of Wallingford was in 10 Sept 21 Ric II (1397), and says
nothing about John Beaufort's age.
We can readily confirm this as there is another patent roll entry on 10
Sept 1397 saying exactly this [CPR Ric II, vol 6, p 205]:
"Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de
Beaufort of 100 marks a year from the issues of the castle and lordship
of Walyngford, co. Berks, instead of at the Exchequer, as granted to him
by letters patent dated 7 June in the fifteenth year, now surrendered."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337604;view=1up;seq=221
If, as seems to be the case, this is the only source putting John's
birth in c1371, I think we can discount it. Other modern secondary
sources put the birth in c1373, after Sir Hugh Swynford's death. This
seems far more likely to me, and there's a good description of this in
Nathen Amin's new book on the House of Beaufort. Amin argues that, as
Gaunt was open in his admission of adultery on his part and incest (as
the Catholic church then regarded a liaison between a man and the mother
of his goddaughter, presumably here being Blanche Swynford), he would
hardly have omitted to mention adultery on the part of Katherine, had
there been any, especially if John Beaufort were living proof of the
adultery. Being caught in such an omission would have risked nullifying
the Pope's dispensation for the marriage, something no-one concerned
would have wanted.
If all we have left is Richard III's statement, made more than a century
after the event, that John Beaufort was born of double adultery, I think
we can dismiss this as politically motivated. For the reasons just
outlined, if John Beaufort were born of double adultery, the
dispensation for his parents subsequent marriage was arguably invalid,
which brought into question the Beauforts' legitimacy and with it the
validity of Henry Tudor's (already weak) claim to be heir to the
Lancastrian claim. That was clearly in Richard's interest, and it is
easy to believe he would have made up this claim in an attempt to weaker
Henry's position.
Richard