Another CP Correction: Margaret of Windsor, wife of John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 10 (1945): 393 (sub Hastings) states that John de
Hastings, Earl of Pembroke (died 1375) married (1st) in 1359 Margaret,
"4th da. of Edward III, by Philippe of Hainault, b. 1347 at Calais."
That King Edward III's daughter, Margaret, was born at Windsor,
Berkshire, not Calais, is indicated by the following contemporary
record which refers to Margaret as the king's daughter:
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1350–1354 (1907): 294 ("the king's daughter
Margaret de Wyndesore").
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Leo van de Pas
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 8:15 PM
Subject: Another CP Correction: Margaret of Windsor, wife of John de
Hastings, Earl of Pembroke
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage 10 (1945): 393 (sub Hastings) states that John de
> Hastings, Earl of Pembroke (died 1375) married (1st) in 1359 Margaret,
> "4th da. of Edward III, by Philippe of Hainault, b. 1347 at Calais."
>
> That King Edward III's daughter, Margaret, was born at Windsor,
> Berkshire, not Calais, is indicated by the following contemporary
> record which refers to Margaret as the king's daughter:
>
> Margaret de Wyndesore").
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I think it is strange that CP Volume XIV does not have this correction as
Burke's Guide to The Royal family, published in 1973, page 202, also tells
that
Margaret, 5th daughter (NOT 4th daughter as CP Vol X page 393 records) was
born 20 July 1346 (NOT 1347 as CP Vol X page 393 records) at Windsor.
Cahiers de Saint Louis, Page 819 (Published 1978/1979) also gives 20 July
1346 in Windsor.
Dear Douglas advises one error, when there were three. Strange, if he had
looked at my site, he would have found both sources mentioned and then he,
too, would have given a fuller correction.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
D. Spencer Hines
Cheers,
Spencer
Uva Uvam Videndo Varia Fit.
"All America lies at the end of the wilderness road, and our past is not a
dead past, but still lives in us. Our forefathers had civilization inside
themselves, the wild outside.
We live in the civilization they created, but within us the wilderness still
lingers. What they dreamed, we live, and what they lived, we dream."
T. K. Whipple ---- "Study Out The Land"
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:007d01c36afd$e23ca040$360afea9@old...
Reedpcgen
David Williamson's _Debrett's Kings and Queens of Britain."
If such items are already widely known, are they discoveries (beyond being new
to that person)?
Who should get the credit, the person first into print - or the person who
discovers it is already in print? It is the credit for the 'discovery' that is
important, or saving that person from publishing errant information already
widely available?
Paul
Leo van de Pas
As the knowledge is already fairly widespread that Margaret was born in
Windsor (Where did David Williamson and several others get this
information?) it seems Douglas Richardson found a primary source for the
information. As it is so well known, I would have gone direct to Chris
Philips as it obviously is not in CP Volume XIV and this knowledge should be
with him. However, had Richardson looked a little further, he would have
found other discrepancies in regards to this Margaret of England, and he
could have looked for primary sources for her proper date of birth. The fact
that she is a 5th daughter and not the 4th, anyone could have checked that.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Correction on a Correction Re: Another CP Correction: Margaret
of Windsor, wife of John de Hastings, Ear
Brad Verity
> If such items are already widely known, are they discoveries (beyond being new
> to that person)?
No, certainly not discoveries.
> Who should get the credit, the person first into print - or the person who
> discovers it is already in print? It is the credit for the 'discovery' that is
> important, or saving that person from publishing errant information already
> widely available?
It depends. If Edward III's daughter Margaret's birth was mentioned
in an article, then a source for date and place should be cited.
But in the newsgroup, I think the heading "CP Correction: Etc., Etc."
is fine. Most medieval genealogists turn first to CP, and it's good
to have the information it provides corrected or expanded as more
resources and records get scrutinized.
Chris Phillips does an excellent job of cataloguing all of these CP
Corrections on his website, and pointing to the proper newsgroup
discussions should someone want to investigate the details further.
When I come across a CP correction, I post it to the newsgroup. Most
are relatively straightforward (the exact death date of Joan
(Stafford), Lady Cherleton; the full birthdate and birthplace of Alice
(Cergeaux), Countess of Oxford, for example), and lead to little
newsgroup discussion.
And, I might add, they don't entail intensive research. As Paul
mentioned in another post, they usually result from simply reading an
already published primary record source (Chancery Rolls, Bishop's
Registers, etc.).
They're not earthshaking genealogical discoveries at all, but for
folks who don't have easy access to the sources, they're good to have
posted, I think.
Cheers, -----Brad
Sutliff
not claiming this as a "discovery."
The identity of the children of Edward III by their birthplaces has been a
fundamental part of the naming of these children and how historians refer to
them. We know of the fourth son John less by his titles (Earl of Richmond or
Duke of Lancaster) than by his birthplace (Gaunt). The 12 children were
known as:
Edward of Woodstock
Isabella of Woodstock
Joanna of Woodstock
William of Hatfield
Lionel of Antwerp
John of Gaunt
Edmund of Langley
Blanche of the Tower
Mary of Waltham
Margaret of Windsor
William of Windsor
Thomas of Woodstock
Edward III's brother is frequently called John of Eltham, also his
birthplace.
These names are used in histories and biographies as far back as I have
looked (at this point as far back as Agnes Strickland's Lives of the Queens
of England in 1844). So any claim to anything beyond a correction to CP
would not only be ludicrous, but disrespectful of other authors and
historians who have published the correct information.
Henry Sutliff
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030826043435...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Don Stone
> What Douglas Richardson has done is point out an error in CP. I hope he is
> not claiming this as a "discovery."
His only claim was in the original title of this thread:
"Another CP Correction: Margaret of Windsor, wife of John de Hastings..."
-- Don Stone