C.P. Correction: Edward of Angoulême, son of Edward the Black Prince and Joan of Kent
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 437, footnote b (sub Cornwall) indicates
that the famous medieval prince, Edward the Black Prince (died 1376),
Prince of Aquitaine and Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, and
his wife, Joan of Kent, had two sons, Edward (who died young) and
Richard (who subsequently became King Richard II of England).
Specifically Complete Peerage says the following regarding the elder
son, Edward:
"The eldest, 'Edward of Angoulême,' was born there 1365, and died
young, v.p., 1372 in Gascony." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage provides no documentation for this statement, so we
are left without any idea where the author obtained this information.
The matter of Edward of Angoulême's date of birth has been discussed
in an earlier thread on soc.genealogy.medieval. Interested parties
can review the material in that thread in the newsgroup's archives.
Suffice to say, Edward's birth date is established by a letter written
by his own mother, Joan of Kent, immediately following his birth:
Sharpe, Calendar of Letter-Books of London: D (1902): 301–311 (Folio
clxviii b.: “Letter from Johanna, Princess of Wales, to the Mayor and
Aldermen, announcing the birth of a son [Prince Edward of Angoulême,
eldest son of the Black Prince] on 27 Jan., 39 Edward III. [A.D.
1365]. Dated at the Castle of ‘Engolesme,’ 4 Feb.”).
Establishing Edward of Angoulême's date of death is another matter.
Various authorities say different things. Some say he died at aged
six, some say he died at age seven, No one gives an exact date of
death. Here are just a few sources which comment on the matter:
1. Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 335
(“Edward, born at Angolesme, in 1365, the news of whose birth was so
acceptable to his royal grandfather, that the king conferred upon the
messenger, John Delves, an annuity of forty pounds per annum for
life. But this young prince afterwards died in Gascoigne, in the 7th
year of his age, before his father).
2. Beltz, Mems. of the Order of the Garter (1841): 18 (“Edward, born
at Angoulême in February 1365 (according to Hollinshed, and in 1364,
according to Leland), who died at Bordeaux, in the sixth year of his
age.”).
3. Martin, Hist. de France, depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’en
1789 5 (1855): 281 (sub A.D. 1370: “Vers ce même temps, le Prince Noir
vit mourir près de lui son fils aîné âgé de six ans.”).
4. Reliquary 8 (1867–8): 151–153 (“… a son, Edward, who was born at
the Castle of Angouleme, in Gascony, on the 27th of March, 1365, and
died at the age of seven years, at Bourdeaux”).
5. Finch, Lives of the Princesses of Wales 1 (1883): 36 (“Returning
to Cognac ... the Prince of Wales rejoined his wife and little son,
who had remained there during his absence, and journeyed with them
back to Bourdeaux. They had scarcely arrived there when their eldest
boy, Prince Edward, his father’s namesake and heir, a child of seven
years old, breathed his last. His loss was a bitter grief to the
Prince and Princess, and, says old Froissart, “not without reason.”
Edward’s sorrow increased the weakness of health from which he
suffered, and by the advice of his physicians he departed at once for
England, not even waiting for the child’s funeral, which he left to
the care of John of Gaunt, who succeeded him as Governor of
Aquitaine.”).
6. Froissart, Chron. of Froissart 2 (1901): 365 (sub A.D. 1371: “The
same season in the cyte of Burdeaux dyed the eldest sonne of the
Prince and Princesse, wherof they were right sorie as reasone was.
Than the Prince was counsayled that he shulde retourne into Englande
into his owne countre, to thentent the rather therby to recover his
helth.”), 367 (sub A.D. 1371: “Anone after that the Prince was
departed from Burdeux, the duke of Lancastre made the obsequy of his
cosyn Edwarde, sone to the Prince his brother, the whiche was nobly
done in the cytie of Burdeux, and therat were all the barons of
Gascoyne, and Poictou, such as had sworne obeysance to him.”).
7. D.N.B. 6 (1908): 508–519 (biog. of Edward, Prince of Wales: “The
Black Prince’s health had by this time so entirely given way that his
physicians ordered his immediate return to England. To add to his
troubles, his eldest son, Edward, died at the beginning of 1371, in
his seventh year, while preparations were being made for the
embarkation … Edward, born at Angoulême on 27 July 1364 (Eulogium),
1365 (Murimuth), or 1363 (Froissart), died immediately before his
father’s return to England in Jan. 1371, and was buried in the church
of the Austin Friars, London (Weever, Funeral Monuments, pg. 419).”).
8. Galbraith, Anonimalle Chron. 1333 to 1381 (1927): 51 (“Mesme celle
an mille CCCLXIIII [1364], fuist nee en Gascoigne Edward le quynt,
fitz al tresnoble prince Dengleterre et de Gales, Edward le quart; mes
il morust deinz le septisme an.”).
And so forth. So exactly when did Edward of Angoulême die? Well, all
that seems to be certain is that young Edward died while his father,
Edward the Black Prince, was involved in besieging and capturing the
city of Limoges. Edward the Bllack Prince is known to have left
Angoulême for Limoges on 7 September 1370. The date that Limoges fell
is well known, i.e., 20 September 1370:
Mélanges Paul Fabre: Études d’Hist. du Moyen Âge (1902): 415 (Chron.
d’Uzerche: “Nota quod anno Domini. Mo.CCCo.LXXo. in vigilia sancti
Mathei apostoli [20 Sept. 1370], civitas Lemovicensis fuit capta per
dominum principem [Edward Prince of Wales] qui ipsam tenuit circuatam
per .III. septimanas; dicta vero civitas fuit combusta, penitus
destructa, disruta, spoliata et pentitus desolata”).
Following the capture of Limoges, Edward the Black Prince returned to
Bourdeaux and, it is reported that on his arrival, he was informed of
his son's death. Given the chronology, it would seem likely that
Edward of Angoulême would have to have died around 20 Sept. 1370, give
or take a couple of weeks.
Fortunately, in recent time, a transcript of the usually reliable
Wigmore chronicle has appeared in print and it states that Edward of
Angoulême died about the feast of Saint Michael [29 September] in
1370. Here is an exact quote:
Taylor, English Historical Literature in the 14th Century (1987): 296
(Wigmore Chron. sub 1370: “Circa festum sancti michaelis [29 Sept.]
obiit Edwardus filius Edwardi principis Aquitanie et Wallie in
partibus transmarinis natus ex Johanna uxore dicti principis etate sex
annorum.”).
The approximate ("circa") death date for Edward of Angoulême provided
by Wigmore Chronicle is within 10 days of the capture of Limoges and
the subsequent return of Edward's father to Bourdeaux. It would
appear to be an accurate date of Edward's death.
As for Edward's place of burial, some historians assume that Edward of
Angoulême was buried in Aquitaine, after his parents returned to
England. However, Weever, Antient Funeral Monuments (1767): 204,
specifically states that Edward of Angoulême was buried in the church
of the Austin Friars in London.
Weever may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Um0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=false
Due to his early death, there are obviously no living descendants of
Edward of Angoulême. However, his mother, Joan of Kent, left
surviving issue by her 1st marriage and has many modern descendants.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Joan of Kent and her 1st husband,
Thomas of Holand, K.G., Earl of Kent:
John Barclay, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, Elizabeth
Bosvile, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, St. Leger Codd, Edward Digges,
Robert Drake, Rowland Ellis, Henry Fleete, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth &
John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Patrick Houston, Anne Humphrey,
Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip &
Thomas Nelson, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Henry & William
Randolph, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Mary Johanna
Somerset, Samuel & Samuel & William Torrey, John & Lawrence
Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Brad Verity
> As for Edward's place of burial, some historians assume that Edward of
> Angoulême was buried in Aquitaine, after his parents returned to
> England. However, Weever, Antient Funeral Monuments (1767): 204,
> specifically states that Edward of Angoulême was buried in the church
> of the Austin Friars in London.
>
> Weever may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Um0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=...
How do you know Weever didn't mistake the tomb of Edmund Holland,
first son of Joan of Kent, in the Austin Friars Church for that of
Edward of Angoulême? Shouldn't Edward have appeared in the extensive
list of burials in the Austin Friars London if he was actually buried
there? Consult a modern biography of Richard II for more details on
his brother Edward's burial & monuments.
Cheers, ---Brad
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c942a8d5-e416-4582...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 437, footnote b (sub Cornwall) indicates
> that the famous medieval prince, Edward the Black Prince (died 1376),
> Prince of Aquitaine and Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, and
> his wife, Joan of Kent, had two sons, Edward (who died young) and
> Richard (who subsequently became King Richard II of England).
>
> Specifically Complete Peerage says the following regarding the elder
> son, Edward:
>
> "The eldest, 'Edward of Angoulême,' was born there 1365, and died
> young, v.p., 1372 in Gascony." END OF QUOTE.
>
> Complete Peerage provides no documentation for this statement, so we
> are left without any idea where the author obtained this information.
We are also left with the usual recourse of anyone seeking information about
a person who did not hold a peerage - LOOKING ELSEWHERE.
Will you ever get a grip on the plain fact that Complete Peerage was never
meant or claimed to be the sole repository of information on relatives of
peers?
Or is this absurd post, trying so hard to crack an old walnut with a
new-looking sledge-hammer, only meant to distract attention from your
failure to address difficulties in another thread?
<snip of tiresome & specious blather>
> And so forth. So exactly when did Edward of Angoulême die? Well, all
> that seems to be certain is that young Edward died while his father,
> Edward the Black Prince, was involved in besieging and capturing the
> city of Limoges.
And exactly how does this "seem to be certain"? None of the "just a few
sources" (i.e. not sources at all but secondary works) that you thought
worth quoting at such length mentions anything about this. Or were these few
just chosen in order to show off that you know more than them - although
like the delinquent author in CP you provide "no documentation for this
statement, so we are left without any idea where the author obtained this
information"? Or rather, we are left to shift for ourselves, a circumstance
which you appear to resent whenever it happens to you. Or are the constant
demands for sources and weblinks only applicable to others?
> Edward the Bllack Prince is known to have left
> Angoulême for Limoges on 7 September 1370. The date that Limoges fell
> is well known, i.e., 20 September 1370:
>
> Mélanges Paul Fabre: Études d’Hist. du Moyen Âge (1902): 415 (Chron.
> d’Uzerche: “Nota quod anno Domini. Mo.CCCo.LXXo. in vigilia sancti
> Mathei apostoli [20 Sept. 1370], civitas Lemovicensis fuit capta per
> dominum principem [Edward Prince of Wales] qui ipsam tenuit circuatam
> per .III. septimanas; dicta vero civitas fuit combusta, penitus
> destructa, disruta, spoliata et pentitus desolata”).
>
> Following the capture of Limoges, Edward the Black Prince returned to
> Bourdeaux and, it is reported that on his arrival, he was informed of
> his son's death.
"It is reported" - surpringly similar to the formula "said to be" that you
so often complain about here in CP.
> Given the chronology, it would seem likely that
> Edward of Angoulême would have to have died around 20 Sept. 1370, give
> or take a couple of weeks.
>
> Fortunately, in recent time, a transcript of the usually reliable
> Wigmore chronicle has appeared in print and it states that Edward of
> Angoulême died about the feast of Saint Michael [29 September] in
> 1370. Here is an exact quote:
>
> Taylor, English Historical Literature in the 14th Century (1987): 296
> (Wigmore Chron. sub 1370: “Circa festum sancti michaelis [29 Sept.]
> obiit Edwardus filius Edwardi principis Aquitanie et Wallie in
> partibus transmarinis natus ex Johanna uxore dicti principis etate sex
> annorum.”).
Surely even you can do better than that. Taylor had already printed this, by
the way, in 1964, so "fortunately" people did not have to wait until "recent
time" to read it.
> The approximate ("circa") death date for Edward of Angoulême provided
> by Wigmore Chronicle is within 10 days of the capture of Limoges and
> the subsequent return of Edward's father to Bourdeaux. It would
> appear to be an accurate date of Edward's death.
An approximate date, when the Wigmore chronicler gave precise but otherwise
unverifiable dates for so many events relating to the Mortimer family - why
is that, do you suppose?
> As for Edward's place of burial, some historians assume that Edward of
> Angoulême was buried in Aquitaine, after his parents returned to
> England.
Assume? Or do they actually learn that from a "usually reliable" medieval
source - or two?
However, Weever, Antient Funeral Monuments (1767): 204,
> specifically states that Edward of Angoulême was buried in the church
> of the Austin Friars in London.
>
> Weever may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Um0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=...
And Weever "specifically states" that Edward was born in 1375 [sic] and died
at seven years of age. A good example of your inane preference for
18th-century or earlier antiquarians cited in out-of-copyright books instead
of simply looking up the work of contemporary historians. If only you could
Google up a course in scholarly method....
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> How do you know Weever didn't mistake the tomb of Edmund Holland,
> first son of Joan of Kent, in the Austin Friars Church for that of
> Edward of Angoulême?
Once again Mr. Verity has asked a dumb question. Is this deliberate?
DR
Peter Stewart
Richardson is projecting again - Brad's question is perfectly sensible, but
not the foolish response.
This "trained historian" and professional genealogist still doesn't realise
that he can't get around difficulties by stonewalling, much less by such a
crude attempt.
The list of burials in the church of the Austin Friars in Harleian MS 6033
starts with Joan's son Edmund but does not include Edward - see Thomas Hugo,
'Austin Friars' in *Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archæological
Society* 2/4 (1861) for a transcript, pp 5-8.
This has already been cited to Richardson in another thread where he had
overlooked it, so he should be able to provide his own weblink.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> This "trained historian" and professional genealogist still doesn't realise
> that he can't get around difficulties by stonewalling, much less by such a
> crude attempt.
>
> Peter Stewart
Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated.
John
What exactly is "dumb" about this question? It seems perfectly
logical, and it suggests some paths of research that the great DR has
overlooked. Only the current answer is dumb, and the answer is
certainly deliberate.
And, Brad, it's good to see you posting again, even if only
occasionally. I hope you can put up with the flack from trolls like
DR.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> So exactly when did Edward of Angoulême die? Well, all that seems
> to be certain is that young Edward died while his father, Edward the
> Black Prince, was involved in besieging and capturing the city of
> Limoges. Edward the Bllack Prince is known to have left Angoulême
> for Limoges on 7 September 1370. The date that Limoges fell is well
> known, i.e., 20 September 1370:
<snip>
> Following the capture of Limoges, Edward the Black Prince returned to
> Bourdeaux and, it is reported that on his arrival, he was informed of
> his son's death. Given the chronology, it would seem likely that
> Edward of Angoulême would have to have died around 20 Sept. 1370, give
> or take a couple of weeks.
>
> Fortunately, in recent time, a transcript of the usually reliable
> Wigmore chronicle has appeared in print and it states that Edward of
> Angoulême died about the feast of Saint Michael [29 September] in
> 1370. Here is an exact quote:
>
> Taylor, English Historical Literature in the 14th Century (1987): 296
> (Wigmore Chron. sub 1370: “Circa festum sancti michaelis [29 Sept.]
> obiit Edwardus filius Edwardi principis Aquitanie et Wallie in
> partibus transmarinis natus ex Johanna uxore dicti principis etate sex
> annorum.”).
>
> The approximate ("circa") death date for Edward of Angoulême provided
> by Wigmore Chronicle is within 10 days of the capture of Limoges and
> the subsequent return of Edward's father to Bourdeaux. It would
> appear to be an accurate date of Edward's death.
Richardson appears to have lost interest in this thread since questions were
raised - little wonder, as his initial post was for the most part a rehash
of one he made in 2002. No doubt he keeps a reserve of these verbose
outpourings so that he can quickly change subjects in case the going gets
sticky on another topic.
In this case "all that seems to be certain" is just an interpretation of
some lines in the verse 'Life and Deeds' of the Black Prince written by the
Chandos herald. This was written in the rough French of a native of Hainaut,
and the only extant manuscript was copied apparently by an English-speaking
scribe who mangled the language he found in a partly defective earlier copy.
The lines in question are:
Apres que limoge fust pris
Ly noble Prince de haut empris
En Anguileme sen reuynt
Dont autre ensegne ly auient
Car adonqes troua trespassee
Son filtz Edward primer nee
Dont bien fut dolantz en son coer
The literal meaning is:
After Limoges was captured the noble prince of high prowess returned to
Angoulême. Then another omen eventuated to him, for then he found his
first-born son Edward passed away, at which there was much grief in his
heart.
This does not necessarily mean that on his return to Angoulême Edward
learned of his son's death - it could just as well mean that at some time
after his return he personally found his son dead. However, in his 1883
translation Francisique Michel spun this into the version that Richardson is
relying on, as follows:
"After Limoges was taken, the noble Prince of high price returned to
Angoulême, where other news awaited him; for then he found his son Edward,
his first born, dead, whereat he was very grieved in his heart."
The Chandos herald was very vague on chronology in most matters, but here he
was not even defining a sequence more specific than return/death/grief.
The Black Prince had been ailing before he went to Limoges, and was carried
into the city in a litter: the signs of his own mortality were clearly upon
him. Froissart stated that the child Edward was "newly" deceased when his
father left for England (in early January 1371) and that John of Gaunt along
with attendant lords saw to the funeral after the departure - NB in
Bordeaux, not at the Austin Friars church in London:
"En ce temps trespassa li aisnés fils dou prince de Galles Édouwars ... Or
lairons-nous àparler dou prinche qui singla tant qu’il arriva en Cornuaille
en Engleterre, et parlerons de son frère le duc de Lancastre et des
seigneurs dessus nommés qui estoitent demourés à Bourdiaux. Apriès le
département dou prinche de Galles, si firent faire le obsèque moult
révéramment de Édouwart fil au dit prinche de Galles, qui estoit
nouvellement trepassés ensi que vous avés oy."
It seems highly unlikley to me that the child's corpse would have been left
unburied for more than three months, from late September until some time in
January. The Wigmore chronicler was perhaps guessing when he gave "circa
festum sancti Michaelis" - it was his habit to give precise dates for births
and deaths in the Mortimer family, but it's hard to account for information
he might have had that was oddly approximate about the death of this boy
which indirectly contributed to his patron's claim to the throne.
Peter Stewart
Tony Hoskins
----
© Oxford University Press 2004-10 All rights reserved
Anthony Tuck, 'Richard II (1367-1400)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2009 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23499, accessed 3 Dec 2010]
Richard II (1367-1400): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23499
Richard II (1367-1400), king of England and lord of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine, was born in the abbey of St André at Bordeaux on the feast of the Epiphany, 6 January 1367.
Infancy and early life, 1367-1377
Richard was the second son of Edward, prince of Wales (the Black Prince) (1330-1376), and Joan, the 'Fair Maid of Kent' (c.1328-1385), widow of Thomas Holland, earl of Kent (d. 1360). His father had been created prince of Aquitaine in 1362 and established his court at Bordeaux. According to the chronicle of William Thorne, a monk of St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, three 'magi' were present at his birth, 'the king of Spain, the king of Navarre and the king of Portugal, and these kings gave precious gifts to the child' (Thorne, 91). The symbolism of the story meant much to Richard and throughout his life the feast of the Epiphany remained of special significance to him. He was baptized three days later, on 9 January 1367, by the archbishop of Bordeaux, with Jaume, the titular king of Majorca, acting as his chief sponsor. Richard remained at his father's court in Bordeaux for the first four years of his life. In January 1371, however, his elder brother, Edward of Angoulême, who had been born in 1364, died, and shortly afterwards Richard left for England with his father and mother.
--------------
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
Sonoma County Archivist
Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
211 E Street
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Brad Verity
> Anthony Tuck, 'Richard II (1367-1400)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2009
> In January 1371, however, his elder brother, Edward of Angoul me, who had been born in 1364, died, and shortly afterwards Richard left for England with his father and mother.
Thanks, Tony. I posted yesterday from the office, now that I'm home I
can cite some sources:
“Edward died in September 1370, opening the way for his younger
brother Richard (II) to become King of England in 1377.” [Charity
Scott-Stokes & Chris Given-Wilson (eds.), 'Chronicon Anonymi
Cantuariensis: The Chronicle of Anonymous of Canterbury 1346-1365',
Clarendon Press (Oxford: 2008).]
“The prince and princess embarked in December, delayed probably by the
illness and death of their son Edward, the future Richard II’s elder
brother. The prince’s sorry state is reflected in his failure to stay
for his son’s funeral: Gaunt arranged this in the cathedral of St
André at Bordeaux (Froissart J 1869, Vol. 8, pp. 60-1).” [Anthony
Goodman, 'John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-
Century Europe', St Martin’s Press (New York: 1992).]
“Richard cherished the memory of his deceased elder brother: in 1391
he had a tomb made for him at King’s Langley (E403/533, 27
April).” [Nigel Saul, 'Richard II', Yale English Monarchs (New Haven:
1997): 453 n. 76.]
It should be noted that the latter two books are cited by Douglas as
sources in his PA3, though not for Edward of Angoulême. It makes me
wonder if he actually read them.
On Dec 3, 5:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Once again Mr. Verity has asked a dumb question. Is this deliberate?
>
It was facetious, not dumb. And meant to steer you toward further
research before you made your firm (and erroneous) conclusion. You're
welcome.
Cheers, ---Brad
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for posting this information from the ODNB biography of King
Richard II. Much appreciated.
As we can see, the ODNB biography states that Edward of Angoulême was
born in 1364, when the true date of his birth was 27 Jan. 1364/5,
The correct date could have been found if the ODNB author had dug a
little deeper.
And, as with so many other sources I've cited already, I see ODNB left
the death date of Edward of Angoulême essentially blank. As I posted
earlier, the Wigmore Chronicle (which was only published in recent
time) states that Edward of Angoulême died about 29 September 1370. I
believe that is a correct date of Edward's death.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 3, 3:03 pm, Tony Hoskins <thosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
< "Consult a modern biography of Richard II for more details on his
brother Edward's burial & monuments".
>
< ----
< Oxford University Press 2004-10 All rights reserved
<
< Anthony Tuck, 'Richard II (1367-1400)', Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan
2009 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23499, accessed 3 Dec
2010]
<
< Richard II (1367-1400): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23499
<
< Richard II (1367-1400), king of England and lord of Ireland, and
duke of Aquitaine, was born in the abbey of St Andr at Bordeaux on the
feast of the Epiphany, 6 January 1367.
< Infancy and early life, 1367-1377
< Richard was the second son of Edward, prince of Wales (the Black
Prince) (1330-1376), and Joan, the 'Fair Maid of Kent' (c.1328-1385),
widow of Thomas Holland, earl of Kent
< (d. 1360). His father had been created prince of Aquitaine in 1362
and established his court at Bordeaux. According to the chronicle of
William Thorne, a monk of St Augustine's < Abbey, Canterbury, three
'magi' were present at his birth, 'the king of Spain, the king of
Navarre and the king of Portugal, and these kings gave precious gifts
to the child' (Thorne, < 91). The symbolism of the story meant much to
Richard and throughout his life the feast of the Epiphany remained of
special significance to him. He was baptized three days
< later, on 9 January 1367, by the archbishop of Bordeaux, with Jaume,
the titular king of Majorca, acting as his chief sponsor. Richard
remained at his father's court in Bordeaux
< for the first four years of his life. In January 1371, however, his
elder brother, Edward of Angoul me, who had been born in 1364, died,
John
> Dear Tony ~
>
> Thanks for posting this information from the ODNB biography of King
> Richard II. Much appreciated.
>
> As we can see, the ODNB biography states that Edward of Angoulême was
> born in 1364, when the true date of his birth was 27 Jan. 1364/5,
> The correct date could have been found if the ODNB author had dug a
> little deeper.
>
And the correct information on the burial site of Edward of Angouléme
could have been found if our enthusiastic poster DR had dug a little
deeper. See the post above in this thread from Brad Verity - which DR
has not yet acknowledged, no doubt because it finds him in error.
You'd do better to just stick to relating the facts, rather than
gratuitously using them as opportunities to disparage the authors of
earlier works such as CP and ODNB.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> The matter of Edward of Angoulême's date of birth has been
> discussed in an earlier thread on soc.genealogy.medieval.
> Interested parties can review the material in that thread in the
> newsgroup's archives. Suffice to say, Edward's birth date is
> established by a letter written by his own mother, Joan of
> Kent, immediately following his birth:
>
> Sharpe, Calendar of Letter-Books of London: D (1902):
> 301–311 (Folio clxviii b.: “Letter from Johanna, Princess of
> Wales, to the Mayor and Aldermen, announcing the birth of
> a son [Prince Edward of Angoulême, eldest son of the Black
> Prince] on 27 Jan., 39 Edward III. [A.D. 1365]. Dated at
> the Castle of ‘Engolesme,’ 4 Feb.”).
As so often happens, Richardson didn't have the nous to follow the reference
given in a footnote - if he had done so (as in future he will represent
himself as having done), he would have found a translation of the letter
from Joan (written in Norman French) as copied into Letter-book D, folio
clxviii.
This is in *Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth and
XVth Centuries*, edited & translated by Henry Thomas Riley (London, 1868),
on pp. 315-326:
'Be it remembered, that a certain letter was delivered to Adam de Bury,
Mayor, and the Aldermen, by Janian de Sharnefeld, on the last day of March,
in the 39th year of the reign of King Edward etc., as to the birth of the
first-born son of Edward, Prince of Gascoigne and of Wales, in the following
words:-
"By the Princess of Gascoigne and Wales. - Dear and well beloved. Forasmuch
as we do well know that you desire right earnestly to hear good tidings of
us and of our estate, be pleased to know that on this Monday, the 27th day
of January, we were delivered of a son, with safety to ourselves and to the
infant, for the which may God be thanked for His might; and may he always
have you in His keeping. Given under our seal, at the Castle of Engolesme,
the 4th day of February."'
The addition of Monday fully corrects the combined misinformation given in
Eulogium and by John of Reading: the author of Eulogium placed the birth on
Sunday ("Hoc anno Edwardo principi Aquitaniæ natus est filius qui vocatus
est Edwardus ... Natus est etiam in Januario, XXVII. die mensis, prima die
hebdomadæ") while John wrongly amended the date to 26 January ("septimo
kalendas Februarii ... natus est domino Edwardo, filio regis Angliae ac
principi utriusque, masculus, qui baptizatus in ecclesia dignissima ejusdem
civitatis, paterno nomine vocari meruit").
Peter Stewart