Still another C.P. Correction: Dead Man Walking - The Tale of Sir John de Beaumont
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 60–61 (sub Beaumont) includes a brief
account of the life of Sir John de Beamont, Knt., 2nd Lord Beaumont,
who was born c.1318, and died in 1342. His wife was Eleanor of
Lancaster, who subsequently married (2nd) Richard de Arundel, Knt.,
Earl of Arundel and Surrey.
Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Beaumont died between 10 and
25 May 1342. Yet, it would seem that Sir John de Beaumont actually
died shortly before these dates, he being killed at a tournament at
Northampton 14 April 1342 [Reference: Antonia Gransden, Legends,
Traditions and History in Medieval England (1992), pp. 267-278, citing
Adam Murimuth]. See the following weblink for the Gransden material:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5TcZNIlSh8C&pg=RA1-PA270&dq=Beaumont+1342+tournament
Incredibly Complete Peerage makes the claim that John de Beaumont was
summoned to Parliament 13 Feb. 1342/3, by writ directed Johanni de
Bello Monte. Since Sir John de Beaumont had lain in his grave for
several months at that date, this would appear to be misstatement on
the part of the editor of Complete Peerage. A careful reading of
C.P.'s text in fact indicates that the summons to Parliament was dated
16 Edward III, which would be 1341/2, not 1342/3. Thus, John de
Beaumont was actually summoned to Parliament 13 Feb. 1341/2, a few
months previous to his death at the tournament.
Stranger still, Nichols, History and Antiquities of Leicestershire, 3
(1) (1800): 138 claims that in 1344 John de Beaumont was "retained to
serve the king in his fleet at sea, with 61 men at arms, ... in which
year also he was in the wars of Scotland ... having been summoned to
Parliament in 1345 (and not before), ... died the same year."
So now we not only have a dead corpse walking, we have him fighting on
land and at sea, and serving in Parliament. I would doubt my own
sanity, were it not for the fact that Antonia Gransden shows that
inquisition post mortem following the death of John de Beaumont is
dated 26 June 1342. So the dates provided by Nichols are definitely
in error.
So no dead man walking, they're just typos. Common enough. We can
relax now.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
John P. Ravilious
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 60–61 (sub Beaumont) includes a brief
> account of the life of Sir John de Beamont, Knt., 2nd Lord Beaumont,
> who was born c.1318, and died in 1342. His wife was Eleanor of
> Lancaster, who subsequently married (2nd) Richard de Arundel, Knt.,
> Earl of Arundel and Surrey.
>
> Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Beaumont died between 10 and
> 25 May 1342. Yet, it would seem that Sir John de Beaumont actually
> died shortly before these dates, he being killed at a tournament at
> Northampton 14 April 1342 [Reference: Antonia Gransden, Legends,
> Traditions and History in Medieval England (1992), pp. 267-278, citing
> Adam Murimuth]. See the following weblink for the Gransden material:
>
>
> Incredibly Complete Peerage makes the claim that John de Beaumont was
> summoned to Parliament 13 Feb. 1342/3, by writ directed Johanni de
> Bello Monte. Since Sir John de Beaumont had lain in his grave for
> several months at that date, this would appear to be misstatement on
> the part of the editor of Complete Peerage. A careful reading of
> C.P.'s text in fact indicates that the summons to Parliament was dated
> 16 Edward III, which would be 1341/2, not 1342/3. Thus, John de
> Beaumont was actually summoned to Parliament 13 Feb. 1341/2, a few
> months previous to his death at the tournament.
>
> Stranger still, Nichols, History and Antiquities of Leicestershire, 3
> (1) (1800): 138 claims that in 1344 John de Beaumont was "retained to
> serve the king in his fleet at sea, with 61 men at arms, ... in which
> year also he was in the wars of Scotland ... having been summoned to
> Parliament in 1345 (and not before), ... died the same year."
>
> So now we not only have a dead corpse walking, we have him fighting on
> land and at sea, and serving in Parliament. I would doubt my own
> sanity, were it not for the fact that Antonia Gransden shows that
> inquisition post mortem following the death of John de Beaumont is
> dated 26 June 1342. So the dates provided by Nichols are definitely
> in error.
>
> So no dead man walking, they're just typos. Common enough. We can
> relax now.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
=============================
Dear Doug,
You wrote in part,
Stranger still, Nichols, History and Antiquities of Leicestershire, 3
(1) (1800): 138 claims that in 1344 John de Beaumont was "retained to
serve the king in his fleet at sea, with 61 men at arms, ... in which
year also he was in the wars of Scotland ... having been summoned to
Parliament in 1345 (and not before), ... died the same year."
I note that dead men have on occasion made effective warriors
(e.g., the traitorous dead in "Lord of the Rings: Return of the
King". Also note an oft-told story concerning the last battle of
Rodrigo Diaz, El Cid). Lord Beaumont may have been a rather
frightening fellow, living or dead....
Cheers,
John
Douglas Richardson
< So no dead man walking, they're just typos. Common enough. We can
< relax now.
<
< Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Speaking of typos, I made one myself. For "Beamont," read "Beaumont."
DR
D. Spencer Hines
> His wife was Eleanor of Lancaster, who subsequently married (2nd)
> Richard de Arundel, Knt., Earl of Arundel and Surrey.
Eleanor and Richard are reportedly my 18th Great-Grandparents...
And I'll wager they are also the ancestors of many others here. <g>
Richard [c 1313 - 24/25 January 1375/6], "Copped Hat", was reportedly the
10th Earl of Arundel, 9th Earl of Surrey. Earl of Warenne. He commanded
the 2nd Division at the Battle of Crecy and had been Admiral of the West
before that. A major commander in the Hundred Years War with France.
You say they dropped the FITZALAN surname about 1314 or so and adopted
ARUNDEL?
Could you please tell us about that again?
Cheers,
Spencer
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d407de9c-75b1-4e7d...@n10g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 60–61 (sub Beaumont) includes a brief
account of the life of Sir John de Beaumont, Knt., 2nd Lord Beaumont,
D. Spencer Hines
> His wife was Eleanor of Lancaster, who subsequently married (2nd)
> Richard de Arundel, Knt., Earl of Arundel and Surrey.
Eleanor and Richard are reportedly my 18th Great-Grandparents...
And I'll wager they are also the ancestors of many others here. <g>
Richard [c. 1313 - 24/25 January 1375/6], "Copped Hat", was reportedly
the 10th Earl of Arundel, 9th Earl of Surrey. Earl of Warenne. He
commanded the 2nd Division at the Battle of Crecy and had been Admiral
of the West before that. A major commander in the Hundred Years War
with France.
You say they dropped the FITZALAN surname about 1314 or so and adopted
ARUNDEL?
Could you please tell us about that again?
Cheers,
Spencer
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d407de9c-75b1-4e7d...@n10g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 60-61 (sub Beaumont) includes a brief
http://books.google.com/books?id=_5TcZNIlSh8C&pg=RA1-PA270&dq=Beaumont+1342+tournament
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Douglas Richardson
The source cited by the historian, Antonia Gransden, for the death of
Sir John de Beaumont at a tournament in 1342 is the chronicle of Adam
Murimuth. Adam Murimuth was a contemporary of Sir John Beaumont, and
so should be considered reliable. A biography of Murimuth may be
found in Wikipedia at the following weblink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Murimuth
The actual text in Adam Murimuth reads as follows:
Sub A.D. 1342:
“Item, in quindena Paschæ habuit rex hastiludia apud Northamptonam,
ubi multi nobiles fuerunt graviter læsi et aliqui mutilati, et perditi
multi equi, et dominus J[ohannes] de Bello monte occisus.” [Reference:
Thompson, Adæ Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum (Rolls Ser. 93) (1889):
124].
For those interested in seeing the actual text in Adam Murimuth, they
may do so at the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-124772&M=chemindefer
For interest's sake, the following is a list of fhe 17th Century New
World colonists that descend from Sir John de Beaumont, 2nd Lord
Beaumont, and his lovely wife, Eleanor of Lancaster. The list belows
includes the immigrant, William Crymes, of Virginia, whose English
origin and royal/noble connections were kindly pointed out to me this
past year by a descendant, Stephen McLeod:
Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen,
George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Charles Calvert, William Crymes, William
Farrar, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Anne Humphrey, Anne, Elizabeth &
John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, John Nelson, Herbert Pelham,
Edward Raynsford, William Skepper, Mary Johanna Somerset,.John
Stockman, John West, George Yate.
Rob
> Stranger still, Nichols, History and Antiquities of Leicestershire, 3
> (1) (1800): 138 claims that in 1344 John de Beaumont was "retained to
> serve the king in his fleet at sea, with 61 men at arms, ... in which
> year also he was in the wars of Scotland ... having been summoned to
> Parliament in 1345 (and not before), ... died the same year."
>
> So now we not only have a dead corpse walking, we have him fighting on
> land and at sea, and serving in Parliament. I would doubt my own
> sanity, were it not for the fact that Antonia Gransden shows that
> inquisition post mortem following the death of John de Beaumont is
> dated 26 June 1342. So the dates provided by Nichols are definitely
> in error.
>
> So no dead man walking, they're just typos. Common enough. We can
> relax now.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Or consider the possibility that there was another John de Beaumont
who was summoned to the Parliament in 1345 and not the John de
Beaumont who died in 1342/3.
John was a common name and the Beaumont families were plentiful in
England and France (Beaumont is Anglicized from Bellomont in French, I
suppose).
Douglas Richardson
There was only one Beaumont family that were barons in England at this
time.
DR
Patricia A. Junkin
however, there is a John de Beaumond who held fees in
Black Torrington, Devon and is mentioned there from 1308 to 1344.
Pat
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message