Marriage date of Henry IV, King of England, to Mary de Bohun
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 417-418 (sub Lancaster) states that Henry,
then Earl of Derby (future King Henry IV) married "between 30 July
1380 and 10 Feb. 1381" at Rochford, Essex to Mary de Bohun, younger
daughter and co-heiress of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Essex,
and Northampton.
In the book, Women of the English Nobility and Gentry, 1066-1500, the
historian, Jennifer Ward, includes an account of this marriage by Sir
John Froissart who states the marriage took place at Arundel (see
Ward, pp. 21-22). He explains that Mary de Bohun had been placed in a
nunnery by her brother-in-law, Thomas, Earl of Buckingham. Earl
Thomas was reluctant to allow Mary to marry, for if she took a
husband, he would have to split the enormous Bohun inheritance with
Mary's husband. According to Froissart, John of Gaunt waited until
the Earl was out of the country, then he had Joan brought to Arundel
"where the marriage was instantly consumated" with his son, Henry.
Complete Peerage states Mary was about 11 at the time of the marriage.
Interestingly, Ms. Ward also includes a payment from John of Gaunt,
the groom's father, to Joan de Bohun, the bride's mother, "for the
maintenance of her daughter Mary after her marriage until she came of
age" (Ward, pg. 22). The exact wording of the payment states that
Joan de Bohun was to receive yearly payment from various properties
"to be delivered by the then receivers of the aforesaid manors at the
terms of Easter and Michaelmas, in equal portions, from 5 February in
the fifth year of the reign of King Richard [1382], until Lady Mary
countess of Derby, Lady Joan's daughter, reaches the age of fourteen
years, or for the time that Countess Mary shall live with Lady Joan at
her costs and expences." Ms. Ward provides this citation for the
document: Public Record Office, London, DL29/262/4070,m. 3; in Latin.
Gauging from this document and the Froissart chronicle, it would
appear that Henry, Earl of Derby, and Mary de Bohun were married 5
Feb. 1382 at Arundel. If so, this date and place are completely at
variance with the Complete Peerage account.
That 5 February 1382 is likely the correct date of marriage is clear
from another document Ms. Ward includes in her book. The other
document is the marriage agreement of Hugh de Courtenay and Margaret
de Bohun dated 1315 (see Ward, pp. 29-30). According to the terms of
the agreement, Hugh's father, Sir Hugh de Courtenay, grants "as soon
as the marriage shall take place, he will charge himself with the
maintenance of Hugh his son and Margaret his wife." This appears to
be what John of Gaunt was doing when he paid Mary de Bohun's mother
for her maintenance. Presumably the marriage between John of Gaunt's
son, Henry, and Mary de Bohun had already taken place, and John of
Gaunt had assumed the burden of paying for Mary's maintenance.
As with other problem areas in Complete Peerage, the editor provides
no citation or documentation for his statements regarding the date and
place of the marriage of Earl Henry and his wife, Mary. As such, I'd
appreciate it very much if anyone has any particulars which might
resolve the obvious discrepancy of the date and place of this
important marriage.
For interest sake, the following colonial immigrants descend from King
Henry IV and his wife, Mary de Bohun:
l. Rowland Ellis.
2. Nathaniel Littleton.
3. Thomas Lloyd.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Doug Thompson
at royala...@msn.com wrote on 2/9/02 11:20 am:
> As such, I'd
> appreciate it very much if anyone has any particulars which might
> resolve the obvious discrepancy of the date and place of this
> important marriage.
CP's end date of 10th Feb 1381 is probably the (correct) date of a document
which shows Mary to be married. BUT this date is the one that most of us
nowadays think of as 10th Feb 1382. Years then changed on March 25th, a
constant source of confusion to many of us.
So. No discrepancy on the date. You are ALL right!
But it looks like there is discrepancy on the place.
Doug Thompson
Douglas Richardson
I agree that the end date (10 Feb. 1381) provided by Complete Peerage
for the marriage of King Henry IV and Mary de Bohun could be intended
for 10 Feb. 1381/2. I'd thought of that possibibility. Fortunately,
we have John of Gaunt's payment to Joan de Bohun, which specifies
which month, day, and regnal year the reimbursements for Mary de
Bohun's maintenance commenced, namely 5 Feb. 1381/2. Regardless, you
can't count on the fact that the editor of Complete Peerage failed to
convert the date to our modern calendar. He may have intended 10 Feb.
1381 to mean 10 Feb. 1380/1. John of Gaunt, however, specified 5 Feb.
1381/2.
Froissart's story of Mary de Bohun's "immediate" consumation of her
marriage to to her husband, Henry, is surely a testimony of the times.
If Complete Peerage is correct, Mary was at best twelve years old.
This reflects another aspect of the complex personality of Mary's
father-in-law, John of Gaunt, who waited until Mary's brother-in-law
was out of the country and then pounced on the young girl.
Interestingly, in the end, it was all for nothing. John of Gaunt's
legitimate male issue eventually failed and with it the House of
Lancaster came to an end.
As an aside, I show that King Henry IV had three illegitimate
grandsons and two illegitimate granddaughters. I have only been able
to trace descendants for one of the granddaughters (Antigone, wife of
Henry de Gray). I assume there are descendants from one or more of
the other bastard grandchildren. If anyone knows any particulars
about the bastard grandchildren, I'd appreciate hearing from them.
This is a list of the bastard grandchildren of King Henry IV:
Child of Thomas, Duke of Clarence:
1.. JOHN OF CLARENCE, Knt., styled "the bastard of Clarence"; of
Esker, Newcastle-Lyons, Cromelyn, and Tassagard, co. Dublin, Ireland,
King's knight, Constable of Dublin Castle. He was living 20 Mar. 1431.
T. Blore, Hist. & Antiq. of the County of Rutland 1 Pt. 2 (1811): 98
(Lancaster pedigree). Cal. Patent Rolls, 1422-1429 (1901), pp.
489-490,543. Cal. Patent Rolls, 1429-1436 (1907), pp. 38, 41-42,122.
Cal. Close Rolls, 1429-1435 (1933), pg. 118.
Children of John, Duke of Bedford:
1. RICHARD OF BEDFORD, styled "the bastard of Bedford";
legitimized in 1434. He was a legatee in the 1435 will of his
father, who bequeathed him the castle and lordship of Harapute. He
was living in 1439. J. Nichols, Collection of All the Wills (1780),
pp. 270-277. Cal. Close Rolls, 1435-1441 (1937), pg. 252-254.
2. MARY OF BEDFORD.
Children of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester:
1. ARTHUR OF GLOUCESTER, living 1447. He and others were
condemned for treason soon after his father's death; he was pardoned
without further punishment. C.P. 5 (1926): 736, footnote g (sub
Gloucester).
2. ANTIGONE OF GLOUCESTER, married HENRY GRAY, Knt., of
Welshpool, co. Montgomery, Count of Tancarville in Normandy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Doug Thompson <doug.t...@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<B9991EB5.1F754%doug.t...@virgin.net>...
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: Marriage date of Henry IV, King of England, to Mary de Bohun
> Dear Doug ~
>
> I agree that the end date (10 Feb. 1381) provided by Complete Peerage
> for the marriage of King Henry IV and Mary de Bohun could be intended
> for 10 Feb. 1381/2. I'd thought of that possibibility. Fortunately,
> we have John of Gaunt's payment to Joan de Bohun, which specifies
> which month, day, and regnal year the reimbursements for Mary de
> Bohun's maintenance commenced, namely 5 Feb. 1381/2.
===We know that marriages in those days were business transactions, but do
we take 5 Feb 1382 as the marriage date "because the maintenance commenced"?
<snip>
> This reflects another aspect of the complex personality of Mary's
> father-in-law, John of Gaunt, who waited until Mary's brother-in-law
> was out of the country and then pounced on the young girl.
====It is not so strange, taking into account that Mary's brother-in-law was
John of Gaunt's own brother!
> Interestingly, in the end, it was all for nothing. John of Gaunt's
> legitimate male issue eventually failed and with it the House of
> Lancaster came to an end.
===The House of Lancaster came to an end but also did the House of
Gloucester (Thomas of Woodstock and Eleanor de Bohun's descendants)
Many thanks for those "bastards" it is always good to be able to verify
them. Antigone of Gloucester if a very "important" bastard because she is an
ancestor of, amongst many more,
The Dukes of Marlborough and Bedford, HM Queen Elizabeth II as well as of
Nathaniel Littleton 1605-1654 who left England for Virginia.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, ACT, Australia
Graeme Wall
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>
> I agree that the end date (10 Feb. 1381) provided by Complete Peerage
> for the marriage of King Henry IV and Mary de Bohun could be intended
> for 10 Feb. 1381/2. I'd thought of that possibibility. Fortunately,
> we have John of Gaunt's payment to Joan de Bohun, which specifies
> which month, day, and regnal year the reimbursements for Mary de
> Bohun's maintenance commenced, namely 5 Feb. 1381/2. Regardless, you
> can't count on the fact that the editor of Complete Peerage failed to
> convert the date to our modern calendar. He may have intended 10 Feb.
> 1381 to mean 10 Feb. 1380/1. John of Gaunt, however, specified 5 Feb.
> 1381/2.
>
As an aside, I`ve come across a reference[1] to a legitimate son of Henry IV
born before Henry V, aparently born in April 1382, died later the same year.
If this is true it would make the Feb 1381 date more realistic. More likely
the infant was one of his bastards.
[1] Unfortunately I didn`t make a note of the reference as at the time it
wasn`t relevant to my research, doh!
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
ADRIANC...@aol.com
contract is stated to be 27 July 1380; "Lines of Succession" by Jiri Louda &
Michael Maclagan has "1380". (My notes has 1380 at Arundel, but I have not
noted the source)
Adrian
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree that the end date (10 Feb. 1381) provided by Complete Peerage
> > for the marriage of King Henry IV and Mary de Bohun could be intended
> > for 10 Feb. 1381/2. I'd thought of that possibibility. Fortunately,
> > we have John of Gaunt's payment to Joan de Bohun, which specifies
> > which month, day, and regnal year the reimbursements for Mary de
> > Bohun's maintenance commenced, namely 5 Feb. 1381/2. Regardless, you
> > can't count on the fact that the editor of Complete Peerage failed to
> > convert the date to our modern calendar. He may have intended 10 Feb.
> > 1381 to mean 10 Feb. 1380/1. John of Gaunt, however, specified 5 Feb.
> > 1381/2.
> >
Graeme Wall relpy;
Douglas Richardson
Calendar of Close Rolls, 1377-1381 (1914), pg. 440, shows that Henry,
Earl of Derby (later King Henry IV) was married to his wife, Mary de
Bohun, before 11 February 1381. I didn't have a chance to check the
Patent Rolls. If the Close Rolls are correctly dated, then the
marriage of Henry and Mary predates John of Gaunt's payment of
maintenance for Mary by at least one year. Perhaps there was an
earlier payment by John of Gaunt that Jennifer Ward did not locate.
If the marriage contract of Henry and Mary was dated 27 July 1380 at
Arundel, that would fit with Froissart's account which places the
marriage at Arundel. Froissart says that the marriage was "consumated
immediately." If so, I imagine the marriage took place on or shortly
after 27 July 1380. Complete Peerage indicates that Mary was been
born about 1370. Does anyone know the source for this birthdate? I
suspect this date comes from her father's I.P.M.
Also, does anyone know a better source for the marriage contract which
Adrian has mentioned?
In a related vein, I've discovered that a day book of King Henry IV
(then Earl of Derby) has survived for 1381-2. The source for it is:
PRO DL 28/1
This day book might contain some reference to Henry's marriage to Mary
de Bohun. Also, it might contain a detailed record of Amy de
Gavaston's parentage (just kidding).
Best always, Douglas Richardson
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote in message news:<117.16cfd5...@aol.com>...
Douglas Richardson
King Henry IV and Mary de Bohun's first child (sex not stated) was
born about 16 April 1382. This is indicated by a document included
by Jennifer Ward in her interesting book, Women of the English
Nobility and Gentry 1066-1500 (1995), pp. 69-70.
52. The birth of a first child to Henry earl of Derby, later Henry
IV, and Mary de Bohun, 1382. [From Public Record Office, London,
DL28/1/1,fo.5r, in Latin].
Given by order of my lord Lancaster on 16 April to an esquire of my
lord Buckingham called Westcombe who brought my lord the news that his
lady was delivered of a child, 66s. 8d. And at Rochford on 18 April
the lord gave to the mistress of the said child by mandate of my lord
Lancaster, 40s. And given on the same day to the nurse of the said
child, 26s. 8d."
The citation for this item indicates it comes from the day book of
King Henry IV (then Henry, Earl of Derby) dated 1381/2.
If this child was truly born about 16 April 1382, it seems unlikely to
me that Mary de Bohun was born about 1370, as stated by Complete
Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Graeme Wall <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<76399d704b%Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk>...
Graeme Wall
[snip]
>
> If this child was truly born about 16 April 1382, it seems unlikely to
> me that Mary de Bohun was born about 1370, as stated by Complete
> Peerage.
>
But not impossible, girls matured a lot earlier in those days, even today
there are cases of 12 year old mothers. And earlier in the thread it was
stated that the marriage was consumated immediately before her brother
reurned from overseas, if I`ve kept track of it all.
Thanks for confirming that the child existed.
The Bibliographer
Graeme Wall <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <5cf47a19.02090...@posting.google.com>
>But not impossible, girls matured a lot earlier in those days, even today
>there are cases of 12 year old mothers.
developed countries, than it did in former times -- partly because of
higher volumes of protein consumed in infancy and childhood. Easy to
verify. Pregnancy at eleven or twelve has never been very strange, as you
have observed, however.
--
Regards, Frank Young
tip...@wam.umd.edu 703-527-7684
Post Office Box 2793, Kensington, Maryland 20891
"Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate... Nunc cognosco ex parte"