SWYNFORD
Tony Ingham
probably
married Robert Deyncourt (1364-1441).
I don't know when Blanche died or whether she bore him any children.
Does anyone know if she was alive when John of Gaunt and her mother were
married in 1396 please?
The following are from John of Gaunt's Register. (Camden Society)
1 Jan 1375 THE SAVOY
181 Johan etc. a touz etc. Faisons savoir que nous, de nostre grace
especiale, avons done et grante a nostre tres chere et bien amee dame
Kateryn de Swynford la garde des terres et del heir de monsire Robert
Deyncourt chivaler, qu'est a Dieu comande, et le marriage del dit heir
pur Blaunche, file du dit dame Kateryn, et les quelles apres la mort du
dit monsire Robert, par cause del maindre age de son dit filz et heir,
sont devenuz es noz mains, a avoir et tenir au dite dame Kateryn ses
heirs et executours la garde de les terres et heir suisditz ovesque la
mariage le dit heir pur Blaunche suisdite tanque al plain age le dit
heir. Eu tesmoignance etc. Donne etc. a Sauvoye le primer jour de
Janver l'an xlviij.
13 Jan 1375 HERTFORD
1607 Johan etc. a nostre bien ame Oliver de Barton saluz. Pource que
nous avons entenduz coment vous avez seisez es noz maines le filz et
heir de monsire Robert Deyncount a cause de son non age, et nous avons
grante a nostre tres cher et bien ame dame Kateryne de Swynford la garde
et mariage de ly pur Blaunche sa file marier, ensemblement ovesque la
garde de les terres de nous tenuz a ly appartenantz tanque a son plain
age ; voulons et vous mandons que le dit heir vous faces sauvement
garder tanque a temps que la dite dame Katerine envoiera a vous pur
l'eir suisdit, et que a cel temps vous ly delivrez au dite dame Katerine
ovesque la garde de les terres avantditz. Et cestes etc. Donnee etc. a
Hertford le xiij. jour de Janver l'an xlviij.
This Robert Deyncourt, son and heir of Robert Deyncourt, was born
about 1364 and seems to have lived until 1441.
1442 (1 Hy VI.) No. 28, Oct 10
Robert Deincourt died, seized of Walley Hall in Creswell [Derby], by
charter dated 25 Oct. 20 Hy. VI. - he died in November following. Alice
wife of William Lord Lovell aet 32, and Margaret ux Ralf Lord Cromwell,
aet 30, his cousins and heirs.
Tony Ingham
Amanda Jones
(Tony Ingham) wrote:
> Blanche Swyford daughter of Katherine Swynford was alive in 1375, and
> probably
> married Robert Deyncourt (1364-1441).
>
> I don't know when Blanche died or whether she bore him any children.
>
> Does anyone know if she was alive when John of Gaunt and her mother were
> married in 1396 please?
As far as I can remember, her death date is unknown, but thought to be
before the re-marriage (as nothing is heard of her after that, when the
whole family would have been higher profile.)
Amanda
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
Blanche Swynford actually married shortly before 6 March 1381 Sir
Thomas Morieux, of Thorpe Morieux, Suffolk, Constable of the Tower of
London. Sir Thomas died without issue in 1392. To my knowledge,
Blanche Swynford has no known descendants.
For information on Sir Thomas Morieux, see Sir N. Harris Nicolas,
Controversy between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor, 2
(1832): 183-187.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
\nug...@netgazer.net.au (Tony Ingham) wrote in message news:<3BCD80FA...@netgazer.net.au>...
Nichol
brother Thomas sure did. Here's a line that connects to lots of
interesting folk:
(1) Hugh Swynford, d.1371. He m.Katherine Roet (mistress & later 3rd
wife of John of Gaunt, and ancestress by him of the Tudors & Stuarts)
& had issue:
(1.1) Thomas Swynford, Sheriff of Lincolnshire, b.1369 & d.1492. He
m.Jane Crophill & had issue:
(1.1.1) Thomas Swynford, b.1406 & d.1440. He m.1428 Elizabeth
Beauchamp (daughter of William Beauchamp of Powick) & had issue:
(1.1.1.1) Margaret Swynford, b.ABT 1430. She m.Thomas Pauncefote
(b.1410) & had issue:
(1.1.1.1.1) Jane Pauncefote m.George Beaumont of Stoughton (d.1531) &
had issue:
(1.1.1.1.1.1) William Beaumont, d.1528. He m.Mary Basset & had issue:
(1.1.1.1.1.1.1) Anthony Beaumont of Glenfield m.Anne Armstrong & had
issue:
(1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1) Mary, Countess of Buckingham m.Sir George Villiers &
was mother of the Duke of Buckingham.
.:Nichol:.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nichol" <pha...@worldnet.att.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: SWYNFORD
> Blanche Swynford doesn't seem to have had any descendants, but her
> brother Thomas sure did. Here's a line that connects to lots of
> interesting folk:
>
> (1) Hugh Swynford, d.1371. He m.Katherine Roet (mistress & later 3rd
> wife of John of Gaunt, and ancestress by him of the Tudors & Stuarts)
> & had issue:
> (1.1) Thomas Swynford, Sheriff of Lincolnshire, b.1369 & d.1492.
=========1492 is a typing error, should be 1432
It is quite hard to find genealogical details about this family, for
instance,
I understand this Thomas was married twice, who was his other wife?
Strange as it may seem but this Thomas Swynford has today quite a few
prominent descendants, for instance
HM Queen Elizabeth II
Rainier III Prince of Monaco
Sir Winston Churchill
The Aga Khan
Lady Diana Spencer
Sarah Ferguson
10th Duke of Roxburghe
10th Duke of Richmond
12th Duke of Argyll
7th Earl of Harewood
9th Duke o9f Buccleuch
HRH 2nd Duke of Gloucester
11th Duke of Beaufort
11th Duke of Grafton
6th Duke of Westminster
17th Duke of Norfolk
8th Duke of Wellington
and many others
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Ian Cairns
news:83b02775.01101...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> (1.1) Thomas Swynford, Sheriff of Lincolnshire, b.1369 & d.1492. He
> m.Jane Crophill & had issue:
> .:Nichol:.
I think at least one of the above dates might be incorrect?
Ian
Douglas Richardson
THOMAS SWYNFORD, Knt., of Kettlethorpe, Fenton and Newton, co.
Lincoln, Sheriff of Lincolnshire, captain of Calais, was born about
1368. He married (lst) before 12 May 1393 JOAN CROPHILL, by whom he
had at least two sons, Thomas, Esq., and William, and one daughter,
Katherine (wife of William Drury, Knt., of Rougham, Suffolk). He
served in the retinue of Henry, Earl of Derby (later King Henry IV) as
early as 1382, and was with him in Calais in 1390. He also
accompanied him on an expedition to Prussia. His wife Joan was
living in 1403. He married (2nd) before 12 July 1421 MARGARET GREY,
widow of John Darcy, 4th Lord Darcy, of Knaith, co. Lincoln, and
daughter of Henry de Grey, Lord Grey of Wilton, by Elizabeth, daughter
of Gilbert Talbot, 3rd Lord Talbot. They had no known issue. Thomas
Swynford died 2 April 1432. His widow died 1 June 1454.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas) wrote in message news:<00a401c15798$5c2ec8e0$37703bcb@leo>...
Nichol
> From: "Nichol" <pha...@worldnet.att.net>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:01 PM
> Subject: Re: SWYNFORD
>
>
> > Blanche Swynford doesn't seem to have had any descendants, but her
> > brother Thomas sure did. Here's a line that connects to lots of
> > interesting folk:
> >
> > (1) Hugh Swynford, d.1371. He m.Katherine Roet (mistress & later 3rd
> > wife of John of Gaunt, and ancestress by him of the Tudors & Stuarts)
> > & had issue:
> > (1.1) Thomas Swynford, Sheriff of Lincolnshire, b.1369 & d.1492.
> =========1492 is a typing error, should be 1432
Yes Leo, you're right, I made a mistake. I must've had Columbus on my
mind when I was typing that out!
.:Nichol:.
Tony Ingham
Thank you for your reply to my query.
I have on file pages 460-463 photocopied from what is probably one of
the John of Gaunt Register volumes produced by the Camden Society.
They form part of the Appendix. Two items, which are covered in their
entirety, relate to Dame Blanche Morieux & Katharine Swynford.
The author states :
"But the attempt to identify the Duke's daughter and the daughter of his
later mistress breaks down hopelessly. (It was made by Sir N. Nicolas,
Scrope v. Grosvenor Controversy ii. 185)."
He then proceeds to lay out the argument for his case.
I haven't read Mr. Nicolas' book. But I notice on the 'Net several
quotes which were interesting to say the least. I'd be extremely
grateful if you or any other who might read this could possibly send me
a copy of the material relating to Blanche Morieux / Swynford.
All the best,
Tony Ingham.
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Tony ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
> Blanche Swynford actually married shortly before 6 March 1381 Sir
> Thomas Morieux, of Thorpe Morieux, Suffolk, Constable of the Tower of
> London. Sir Thomas died without issue in 1392. To my knowledge,
> Blanche Swynford has no known descendants.
>
> For information on Sir Thomas Morieux, see Sir N. Harris Nicolas,
> Controversy between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor, 2
> (1832): 183-187.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. I forgot where I first saw a reference
to Blanche, wife of Sir Thomas Morieux, as being the daughter of John
of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. However, I think someone here on the
newsgroup told me that Blanche was actually the daughter of the Duke's
3rd wife, Katherine Swynford, by her lst husband, Hugh de Swynford.
As best I can tell, the Duke didn't have a bastard daughter named
Blanche. Katherine Swynford, on the other hand, definitely had a
legitimate daughter by her lst marriage named Blanche Swynford. It is
Nicolas' position that Blanche Swynford married Sir Thomas Morieux.
I see elsewhere from this week's postings that Katherine Swynford
acquired the marriage of Robert de Deincourt for the use of her
daughter, Blanche. However, sometimes such marriages never occurred.
This happened for various reasons, among them, either the bride or
groom refused to give consent to the marriage. This happened
occasionally. Another wild card would be if the groom's father was
executed and attainted, leaving the groom penniless. Then the bride's
family would likely try to void the marriage contract. If a marriage
actually took place, though, it could still be annulled if one of the
parties had an existing contract to marry another party or was unable
to consummate the marriage. A marriage could also be annulled if the
two parties were too closely related. I came across a case last week
where the couple were married as children, but, when they came of age,
neither was inclined to consummate the marriage and both applied for a
divorce. The divorce was granted. The woman in question, Cecily de
Eton, subsequently married Sir Edward de Warenne, the bastard son of
John de Warenne, 8th Earl of Surrey, by whom she had legitimate issue.
In other words, unless you have evidence that Blanche Swynford
actually married Robert Deincourt, it is best not to assume they
married each other.
By the way, you mentioned that the author laid out the argument for
his case. Can you tell us what that is?
As ever, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
nug...@netgazer.net.au (Tony Ingham) wrote in message news:<3BCF953D...@netgazer.net.au>...
Leo van de Pas
I did not see the previous email referring to Blanche as possible daughter
of John of Gaunt, but your message made me look up what I have on John of
Gaunt.
Both Gerald Paget in his huge book on the ancestors and relatives of Prince
Charles (Volume I page 22) and Cahiers de Saint Louis (Volume 30 page 12)
make John of Gaunt father a child by Marie de Sainte Hilaire, this daughter
is Blanche married to Thomas Morieux, the latter died before 5 May 1387 and
this marriage is recorded as childless.
This issue of Cahiers de Saint Louis is a correction of all the information
in all the earlier volumes.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
> As ever, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
>
> nug...@netgazer.net.au (Tony Ingham) wrote in message
news:<3BCF953D...@netgazer.net.au>...
Tony Ingham
Tony Ingham wrote:
> Hello Douglas,
>
> Thank you for your mail. I appreciate the reasons for the possible
> failure of an earlier affiance, but must point out that in this
> particular case I see no reason why the marriage should not have gone
> ahead.
>
> Sir Robert Deyncourt was in the Duke's retinue. Reading between the
> lines it seems that Robert was ailing on January 1, 1374/5 and had
> died by January 13. Robert the son was heir to a reasonable estate
> granted by his grandfather William Deyncourt of Granby ( -1364 to his
> younger sons and their heirs. This William was named as the successor
> to Edmund Deyncourt of the Barony of Deyncourt, which he assumed in
> 1337.
>
> Robert the son was involved in various actions from 1387-1392, seeking
> the restitution of some of his father's lands.
>
> Sir John Deyncourt ( -1393), my ancestor, described in John of Gaunt's
> Register as parker of the park of Kenilworth and receiver of
> Kenilworth, and elsewhere as constable of Kenilworth Castle is somehow
> closely aligned to this family. Thomas Deyncourt of Upminster Essex,
> prob. son and heir of Roger Deyncourt (1377 -1455), son and heir of
> Sir John Deyncourt, made a quitclaim of the properties, lands and
> rents previously belonging to Robert Deyncourt the son. This was done
> in 1458, some seventeen years after Robert the son's decease.
>
> The whole of the text mentioned in my last mail follows:
>
> ............................................
>
> APPENDIX
>
>
> (ii) DAME BLANCHE MORIEUX
>
>
> Of this mysterious daughter little is known. Her parentage rests
> on the authority of a single passage of Froissart, who speaking of the
> Duke’s army in 1386 says : “Et maréchal (étoit) messire Thomas
> Moriaux lequel avoit aussi par mariage une de ses filles à femme ;
> mais elle étoit bastarde, et fut mere à la Dame Morielle demoiselle
> Marie de Saint-Hylaire de Haynau [K. de L. xi., 326]. The English
> chroniclers, curiously enough, have nothing to say about the Duke’s
> daughter Blanche. From the Register it appears (i) that on her
> wedding day Lancaster gave her twelve silver spoons, twelve silver
> saucers, two basins and two ewers, a basket with a silver top, etc.
> (March 6, 1381) ; (ii) that he settled upon Blanche and her husband
> for their lives £100 a year out of the issues of the manors of
> Snettisham and Fackenham in Norfolk (June 1, 1382). There is one
> unimportant reference to Dame Blanche Morieux in the Patent Rolls, a
> pardon for homicide “at the supplication of Blanche, wife of Thomas
> de Murrieux, the King’s knight.” (Rot. Pat. Rich. II, vol. ii. 295,
> dated Aug. 1, 1383).
> Her mother, Marie de Saint Hilaire, is equally obscure. The facts
> are (i) that as late as 1399 Marie is in receipt of a pension from the
> Duke “for the good and agreeable service she has rendered for a long
> time to our honoured Lady and mother Philippe, late Queen of
> England” (confirmation of grant dated April 7, 22 Rich II, Rot. Pat.
> Part III. m. 3) ; (ii) that in 1360 she received a pension of £20 per
> annum from Edward III to be paid at the Exchequer, which was exchanged
> in 1390 for an annuity of £20 charged on the issues of the Counties of
> Cambridge and Huntingdon. (Issue Roll of Brantingham, p. 359, and Rot.
> Pat. Feb. 19, 1390). Marie was therefore a maid of honour of Queen
> Philippa, and a native of Hainault. Kervyn de Lettenhove (Froissart i
> a, 442-4) gives as her probable ancestry –
>
> Jean dit Vilain de Saint Hilaire = Mahaut de Wasnes.
>
> John of Gaunt = Marie de Saint Hilaire.
>
> Blanche = Sir Thomas Morieux.
>
> In detirmining the date of this liason the significant facts are
> (1) that Marie received the considerable pension of £20 per annum as
> early as 1360, and (2) that Blanche her daughter was already married
> in 1381.
> There is no evidence that any amour disturbed the married life of
> John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster. The Duke married Blanche in
> 1359. Probability therefore points to the conclusion that Blanche,
> afterwards wife of Thomas Morieux, was the fruit of a very early
> liason (? 1358 or 9), before the first marriage, and before the Duke’s
> actions were being scrutinised by the chroniclers. An amour with one
> of the Queen’s maids of honour would have delighted the Monk of Saint
> Albans, and would certainly not have passed unnoticed in later years .
>
> The problem has been complicated by the existence of a second
> Blanche, daughter of Katharine Swynford, vouched for by the Register
> (e.g. grant to Katharine Swynford for her, and for her daughter
> Blanche, of the wardship of the lands and heir to Sir Robert
> Deyncourt, Jan 1374, Reg. I. f. 41).
> But the attempt to identify the Duke’s daughter and the daughter
> of his later mistress breaks down hopelessly. (It was made by Sir N.
> Nicolas, Scrope v. Grosvenor Controversy ii. 185). For (i) there is
> Froissart’s explicit statement quoted above ; (ii) Blanche is never
> mentioned among the Beauforts ; (iii) the is the insuperable
> difficulty of age. Katharine Swynford, born in 1350, and married to
> Sir Hugh Swynford in 1367, whose elder child, Sir Thomas Swynford, was
> born in 1368, could not possibly have been the mother of Blanche, who
> was married to Sir Thomas Morieux in 1381.
> The matter is settled by a passage in the last published volume of
> Papal Letters. In 1396 the Duke and Katharine pray the Pope to
> sanction their marriage. Among the impediments recited are, first,
> the fact that they have been living in adultery during the lifetime of
> the Duchess Constance ; second, the fact that they are already united
> by the bond of compaternity (a canonical bar to marriage), the Duke
> having been godfather to Blanche, a daughter of Katherine by another
> husband, i.e. Sir Hugh Swynford. (Papal Letters, Kal. Sep. 7, Boniface
> IX, 1396, iv. 545.)
> As for Sir Thomas Morieux, there is no mystery. He was a
> well-known public character of the reigns of Edward III and Richard
> II. A son of Sir Thomas Morieux, of Thorpe Morieux, Suffolk, he was a
> sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk in 1367 and 1368, and from time to time
> held a score of commissions of the Peace and of Oyer and Terminer. In
> 1376 he was one of Lord Latimer’s surities ; in 1381 he was made
> Constable of the Tower, and two years later Master of the Horse to
> Richard II. In 1384 he was one of the knights who tortured the
> Carmelite Friar. In all the campaigns in France, Gascony, Spain and
> Scotland he had his share. The campaign in Castile was his last. He
> died worn out by fighting in Galicia before May 5, 1387. (See
> Nicolas, Scrope and Grosvenor Case, ii. 183).
>
>
>
> (iii) KATHARINE SWYNFORD
>
>
> It is difficult to fix an accurate date for the beginning of the
> liason of John of Gaunt with Katharine Swynford.
> The Monk of Eversham, speaking of Katharine, says: “Quam ut
> concubinam multo tempore, vivente uxore Constancia carnaliter
> cognovit (p. 128),” which, if true, limits it to 1371-1394, while
> Froissart’s account narrows the period still further, viz. : “Quant .
> . . celle seconde duchesse Constance fut morte, le duc de Lancastre,
> la dame vivante, avoit tenu celle Katherine de Ruet, qui aussi avoit
> esté mariée à ung chevallier d’Angleterre. Le chevallier vivant et
> mort, tousjours le duc Jehan de Lancastre avoit amé et tenu celle dame
> Katherine . . .” [K. de L. xv. 239].
> Only the years 1371 and 1372 fit in with this statement, a
> conclusion which harmonises with other available evidence. For
> instance, the petition to the Pope above quoted mentions the adultery
> in the life of Duchess Constance, not in the life of Duchess Blanche.
> The Chronicon Angliae (p. 196) speaks of the notoriety of the affair
> almost as something new in 1378, while according to Knighton (ii.
> 147), it was a well-established fact in 1381. No contemporary
> evidence supports the statement of Percy MS. 78 (quoted below), which
> place the birth of the Beauforts in the life of the Duchess Blanche.
> There is no doubt, however that most historians have postdated the
> birth of the Beauforts, or at least of the eldest of them, for in 1390
> Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort, bastart de Lancastre, was old enough to
> bear himself with credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert [Froissart,
> K. de L. xiv. 416], though on the other hand Henry Beaufort could be
> described as admondum puer, when in 1398 he obtained the Bishopric of
> Lincoln, and Thomas Beaufort, being described in the patent of
> legitimation as domicellus in 1397, was evidently too young for
> knighthood in that year.
> The evidence of the Register, though inconclusive because
> incomplete, points to the same conclusion, viz., that the liason began
> in 1371 or 1372.
> At that date the Duke’s gifts and grants to Katharine are no
> greater than might have been made to any other member of his household
> ; immediately after they begin to become significant. Here are the
> principal instances :— (i) May 1, 1372, gift of 10£. ; (ii) May 15,
> 1372, grant of an annuity of 20 marcs ; (iii) June 20, 1372, grant of
> the wardship of the lands of her late husband, excepting the marriage
> fees and advowsons ; (iv) June 23, 1373, gift of three bucks ; (v)
> June 28, 1373, gift of oaks ; (vi) Jan. 1, 1375, grant of the wardship
> of the lands and heir of Sir Robert Deyncourt, and the marriage of the
> heir for her daughter Blanche ; (vii) Jan. 7, 1377, grant of the
> manors of Gringley and Wheatley, and gift of a tun of wine ; (viii)
> July 23, 1377 grant of tenements, late of Geoffrey de Sutton, in St.
> Botolph’s ; (ix) July 24, 1377, gift of 50 oaks for the repair of her
> houses at Ketelthorp ; (x) July 25, 1379, grant of the wardship of
> the lands and heir of Bertram de Savenby ; (xi) Jan. 20, 1381, grant
> of the wardship of the lands, and the marriage of the heir of Elys de
> Thoresby ; (xii) Sept. 7, 1381, grant of an annuity of 200 marcs.
> The presents, already noticed, made to Katharine by the Mayor of
> Leicester belong to the years 1375 and 1379.
>
> ...........................................
>
> While I don't concur with all the authors argument, I feel it is of
> some import.
>
> Thanks once again for your interest in this topic.
>
> Regards,
>> snip
Amanda Jones
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> Thank you for your good post. I forgot where I first saw a reference
> to Blanche, wife of Sir Thomas Morieux, as being the daughter of John
> of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. However, I think someone here on the
> newsgroup told me that Blanche was actually the daughter of the Duke's
> 3rd wife, Katherine Swynford, by her lst husband, Hugh de Swynford.
> As best I can tell, the Duke didn't have a bastard daughter named
> Blanche. Katherine Swynford, on the other hand, definitely had a
> legitimate daughter by her lst marriage named Blanche Swynford. It is
> Nicolas' position that Blanche Swynford married Sir Thomas Morieux.
It is, perhaps, less likely that the Duke had an illegitimate daughter
named after his first wife?
Amanda
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your excellent and informative post. Reading the
material you've presented, it seems clear that Mary de St. Hilary, the
alleged mistress of John of Gaunt, definitely existed as a person.
As such, I have no trouble accepting the fact that the Duke had an
illegitimate daughter by Mary de St. Hilary named Blanche. I can also
accept Froissart's statement that the Duke and Mary's bastard
daughter, Blanche, married Sir Thomas Morieux. As I have stated
previously, Sir Thomas Morieux died without issue. On his death, his
properties fell to the descendants of his sister, Mary, who still held
them in the reign of King Henry VII (the descendants were surnamed
Strange). As such, it appears that the Duke's daughter, Blanche,
seemingly left no descendants.
As for Katherine Roet's daughter, Blanche Swynford, as you have noted,
Katherine Roet obtained the marriage of Robert de Deincourt for the
use of her daughter, Blanche. In most cases, such marriages took
place. As with Blanche Morieux, you have shown that Robert de
Deincourt died without issue. So, if the planned Deincourt marriage
took place, Blanche Swynford also seemingly died without surviving
issue.
The confusion over the two Blanche's is not surprising, especially
given that both women died without surviving issue. I'm glad to have
this mess straightened out. If any additional evidence surfaces,
please let me know. Again, thanks for your excellent post. I
appreciate the time you took to assemble the information. This is
the great value of the newsgroup, people sharing information in a
cordial and friendly manner.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
nug...@netgazer.net.au (Tony Ingham) wrote in message news:<3BD13FE8...@netgazer.net.au>...
> > Duke’s army in 1386 says : “Et maréchal (étoit) messire Thomas
> > Moriaux lequel avoit aussi par mariage une de ses filles à femme ;
> > mais elle étoit bastarde, et fut mere à la Dame Morielle demoiselle
> > Marie de Saint-Hylaire de Haynau [K. de L. xi., 326]. The English
> > chroniclers, curiously enough, have nothing to say about the Duke’s
> > daughter Blanche. From the Register it appears (i) that on her
> > wedding day Lancaster gave her twelve silver spoons, twelve silver
> > saucers, two basins and two ewers, a basket with a silver top, etc.
> > (March 6, 1381) ; (ii) that he settled upon Blanche and her husband
> > for their lives £100 a year out of the issues of the manors of
> > Snettisham and Fackenham in Norfolk (June 1, 1382). There is one
> > unimportant reference to Dame Blanche Morieux in the Patent Rolls, a
> > pardon for homicide “at the supplication of Blanche, wife of Thomas
> > de Murrieux, the King’s knight.” (Rot. Pat. Rich. II, vol. ii. 295,
> > dated Aug. 1, 1383).
> > Her mother, Marie de Saint Hilaire, is equally obscure. The facts
> > are (i) that as late as 1399 Marie is in receipt of a pension from the
> > Duke “for the good and agreeable service she has rendered for a long
> > time to our honoured Lady and mother Philippe, late Queen of
> > England” (confirmation of grant dated April 7, 22 Rich II, Rot. Pat.
> > Part III. m. 3) ; (ii) that in 1360 she received a pension of £20 per
> > annum from Edward III to be paid at the Exchequer, which was exchanged
> > in 1390 for an annuity of £20 charged on the issues of the Counties of
> > Cambridge and Huntingdon. (Issue Roll of Brantingham, p. 359, and Rot.
> > Pat. Feb. 19, 1390). Marie was therefore a maid of honour of Queen
> > Philippa, and a native of Hainault. Kervyn de Lettenhove (Froissart i
> > a, 442-4) gives as her probable ancestry –
> >
> > Jean dit Vilain de Saint Hilaire = Mahaut de Wasnes.
> >
> > John of Gaunt = Marie de Saint Hilaire.
> >
> > Blanche = Sir Thomas Morieux.
> >
> > In detirmining the date of this liason the significant facts are
> > (1) that Marie received the considerable pension of £20 per annum as
> > early as 1360, and (2) that Blanche her daughter was already married
> > in 1381.
> > There is no evidence that any amour disturbed the married life of
> > John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster. The Duke married Blanche in
> > 1359. Probability therefore points to the conclusion that Blanche,
> > afterwards wife of Thomas Morieux, was the fruit of a very early
> > liason (? 1358 or 9), before the first marriage, and before the Duke’s
> > actions were being scrutinised by the chroniclers. An amour with one
> > of the Queen’s maids of honour would have delighted the Monk of Saint
> > Albans, and would certainly not have passed unnoticed in later years .
> >
> > The problem has been complicated by the existence of a second
> > Blanche, daughter of Katharine Swynford, vouched for by the Register
> > (e.g. grant to Katharine Swynford for her, and for her daughter
> > Blanche, of the wardship of the lands and heir to Sir Robert
> > Deyncourt, Jan 1374, Reg. I. f. 41).
> > But the attempt to identify the Duke’s daughter and the daughter
> > of his later mistress breaks down hopelessly. (It was made by Sir N.
> > Nicolas, Scrope v. Grosvenor Controversy ii. 185). For (i) there is
> > Froissart’s explicit statement quoted above ; (ii) Blanche is never
> > mentioned among the Beauforts ; (iii) the is the insuperable
> > difficulty of age. Katharine Swynford, born in 1350, and married to
> > Sir Hugh Swynford in 1367, whose elder child, Sir Thomas Swynford, was
> > born in 1368, could not possibly have been the mother of Blanche, who
> > was married to Sir Thomas Morieux in 1381.
> > The matter is settled by a passage in the last published volume of
> > Papal Letters. In 1396 the Duke and Katharine pray the Pope to
> > sanction their marriage. Among the impediments recited are, first,
> > the fact that they have been living in adultery during the lifetime of
> > the Duchess Constance ; second, the fact that they are already united
> > by the bond of compaternity (a canonical bar to marriage), the Duke
> > having been godfather to Blanche, a daughter of Katherine by another
> > husband, i.e. Sir Hugh Swynford. (Papal Letters, Kal. Sep. 7, Boniface
> > IX, 1396, iv. 545.)
> > As for Sir Thomas Morieux, there is no mystery. He was a
> > well-known public character of the reigns of Edward III and Richard
> > II. A son of Sir Thomas Morieux, of Thorpe Morieux, Suffolk, he was a
> > sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk in 1367 and 1368, and from time to time
> > held a score of commissions of the Peace and of Oyer and Terminer. In
> > 1376 he was one of Lord Latimer’s surities ; in 1381 he was made
> > Constable of the Tower, and two years later Master of the Horse to
> > Richard II. In 1384 he was one of the knights who tortured the
> > Carmelite Friar. In all the campaigns in France, Gascony, Spain and
> > Scotland he had his share. The campaign in Castile was his last. He
> > died worn out by fighting in Galicia before May 5, 1387. (See
> > Nicolas, Scrope and Grosvenor Case, ii. 183).
> >
> >
> >
> > (iii) KATHARINE SWYNFORD
> >
> >
> > It is difficult to fix an accurate date for the beginning of the
> > liason of John of Gaunt with Katharine Swynford.
> > The Monk of Eversham, speaking of Katharine, says: “Quam ut
> > concubinam multo tempore, vivente uxore Constancia carnaliter
> > cognovit (p. 128),” which, if true, limits it to 1371-1394, while
> > Froissart’s account narrows the period still further, viz. : “Quant .
> > . . celle seconde duchesse Constance fut morte, le duc de Lancastre,
> > la dame vivante, avoit tenu celle Katherine de Ruet, qui aussi avoit
> > esté mariée à ung chevallier d’Angleterre. Le chevallier vivant et
> > mort, tousjours le duc Jehan de Lancastre avoit amé et tenu celle dame
> > Katherine . . .” [K. de L. xv. 239].
> > Only the years 1371 and 1372 fit in with this statement, a
> > conclusion which harmonises with other available evidence. For
> > instance, the petition to the Pope above quoted mentions the adultery
> > in the life of Duchess Constance, not in the life of Duchess Blanche.
> > The Chronicon Angliae (p. 196) speaks of the notoriety of the affair
> > almost as something new in 1378, while according to Knighton (ii.
> > 147), it was a well-established fact in 1381. No contemporary
> > evidence supports the statement of Percy MS. 78 (quoted below), which
> > place the birth of the Beauforts in the life of the Duchess Blanche.
> > There is no doubt, however that most historians have postdated the
> > birth of the Beauforts, or at least of the eldest of them, for in 1390
> > Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort, bastart de Lancastre, was old enough to
> > bear himself with credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert [Froissart,
> > K. de L. xiv. 416], though on the other hand Henry Beaufort could be
> > described as admondum puer, when in 1398 he obtained the Bishopric of
> > Lincoln, and Thomas Beaufort, being described in the patent of
> > legitimation as domicellus in 1397, was evidently too young for
> > knighthood in that year.
> > The evidence of the Register, though inconclusive because
> > incomplete, points to the same conclusion, viz., that the liason began
> > in 1371 or 1372.
> > At that date the Duke’s gifts and grants to Katharine are no
> > greater than might have been made to any other member of his household
> > ; immediately after they begin to become significant. Here are the
> > principal instances :— (i) May 1, 1372, gift of 10£. ; (ii) May 15,
> > 1372, grant of an annuity of 20 marcs ; (iii) June 20, 1372, grant of
> > the wardship of the lands of her late husband, excepting the marriage
> > fees and advowsons ; (iv) June 23, 1373, gift of three bucks ; (v)
> > June 28, 1373, gift of oaks ; (vi) Jan. 1, 1375, grant of the wardship
> > of the lands and heir of Sir Robert Deyncourt, and the marriage of the
> > heir for her daughter Blanche ; (vii) Jan. 7, 1377, grant of the
> > manors of Gringley and Wheatley, and gift of a tun of wine ; (viii)
> > July 23, 1377 grant of tenements, late of Geoffrey de Sutton, in St.
> > Botolph’s ; (ix) July 24, 1377, gift of 50 oaks for the repair of her
Don Stone
>
> I have on file pages 460-463 photocopied from what is probably one of
> the John of Gaunt Register volumes produced by the Camden Society.
>
> They form part of the Appendix. Two items, which are covered in their
> entirety, relate to Dame Blanche Morieux & Katharine Swynford.
and then later wrote:
> > The whole of the text mentioned in my last mail follows:
> >
> > ............................................
> >
> > APPENDIX
> >
> > (ii) DAME BLANCHE MORIEUX
> >
> > Of this mysterious daughter little is known. Her parentage rests
> > on the authority of a single passage of Froissart, who speaking of the
> > Duke’s army in 1386 says
Because of my interest in the Swynford family, I happen to have copied these
pages 460-463. They are from _John of Gaunt_ by Sydney Armitage-Smith. I
consulted and copied from a 1964 Barnes & Noble reprint of this book; the
book originally came out early in the 20th century (the preface was dated
1904).
-- Don Stone
Tony Ingham
Thank you for the citation.
My copy is obviously from the early (?1904) edition, as is indicated by the page
edges.
My incorrect assumption that it was one of the John of Gaunt registers from the
Camden Series was based on the condition of the original.
Thank you for clarifying the matter for me.
Tony Ingham
Don Stone wrote:
> Tony Ingham wrote:
> >
> > I have on file pages 460-463 photocopied from what is probably one of
> > the John of Gaunt Register volumes produced by the Camden Society.
> >
> > They form part of the Appendix. Two items, which are covered in their
> > entirety, relate to Dame Blanche Morieux & Katharine Swynford.
>
> and then later wrote:
>
> > > The whole of the text mentioned in my last mail follows:
> > >
> > > ............................................
> > >
> > > APPENDIX
> > >
> > > (ii) DAME BLANCHE MORIEUX
> > >
> > > Of this mysterious daughter little is known. Her parentage rests
> > > on the authority of a single passage of Froissart, who speaking of the
> > > Duke’s army in 1386 says
>
Nichol
> Dear Douglas
> I did not see the previous email referring to Blanche as possible daughter
> of John of Gaunt, but your message made me look up what I have on John of
> Gaunt.
>
> Both Gerald Paget in his huge book on the ancestors and relatives of Prince
> Charles (Volume I page 22) and Cahiers de Saint Louis (Volume 30 page 12)
> make John of Gaunt father a child by Marie de Sainte Hilaire, this daughter
> is Blanche married to Thomas Morieux, the latter died before 5 May 1387 and
> this marriage is recorded as childless.
>
> This issue of Cahiers de Saint Louis is a correction of all the information
> in all the earlier volumes.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
I always doubted that Blanche was John's daughter for a single reason
-- if he had thought she was, why didn't he legitimate her as his with
the Beaufort bastards when he married Katherine? Surely, if Blanche
was his, her being born during Katherine's marriage to Hugh Swynford
wouldn't be much of an obstacle; after all, wasn't John Beaufort got
in "double adultery"? John of Gaunt certainly knew the Beauforts were
his, and legitimated them. If either of Katherine's two Swynford
children were his, why didn't he do the same? Surely being the
quasi-legitimated daughter of a Royal Duke would be a grander thing
than being the legitimate daughter of a knight. With all the trouble
John of Gaunt went through to legitimate his Beautforts, I can't
imagine him being so cruel as to ignore two others, born also to his
wife. So she must have been born before his liaison with Katherine
began, or else resembled Hugh so much that he knew Blanche couldn't be
his.
.:Nichol:.
Leo van de Pas
See below.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nichol" <pha...@worldnet.att.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Nichol recorded :
>
> I always doubted that Blanche was John's daughter for a single reason
> -- if he had thought she was, why didn't he legitimate her as his with
> the Beaufort bastards when he married Katherine?
=======The huge difference is that he married the mother of the Beaufort
children, he did not marry Marie de Sainte Hilaire. Had John of Gaunt not
married Katherine Swynford, I doubt the Beaufort children would have been
'legitimised'.
Nichol
No, no, no, darling, we're talking about two different Blanches. Your
Blanche is John of Gaunt's illegitimate daughter by Marie de Sainte
Hilaire. My Blanche is Katherine Roet's legitimate daughter by Hugh
Swynford. They're separate and distinct. Somewhere along the line one
or both of us got mixed up.
.:Nichol:.
Leo van de Pas
Please read your own message again. You doubted whether Blanche is John of
Gaunt's daughter because he did not legitimise her, I explained why I think
she was not legitimised. Yes, it confusing having two Blanches...
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas