Froissart's account of John of Gaunt's affair with Katherine de Ruet
Douglas Richardson
Recently the question of Cardinal Henry Beaufort's birth date was
brought up here on the newsgroup. As best I can determine, Henry
Beaufort was born about 1372/1375. However, I've found at least one
historian who places the Cardinal's birth in the 1360's, which date I
feel is too early.
The French historian, Froissart, includes a detailed account of John
of Gaunt's affair with Katherine de Roet (or Ruet), wife of Sir Hugh
Swynford. He plainly states that John of Gaunt commenced his affair
with Lady Katherine during her first husband's lifetime. Elsewhere
King Richard II, Duke John's nephew, is said to have claimed that the
eldest Beaufort child, John, was gotten in "double adultery" (that is,
when John of Gaunt and Katherine de Roet were both married to other
parties).
Since we know that Sir Hugh Swinford died in 1371, Froissart's
comments suggest that the births of one or more of Duke John and
Katherine's Beaufort children could pre-date the death date of
Katherine's husband. This matter surely deserves further study.
For interest sake, I've posted a copy of Froissart's interesting
account below. If nothing else, I'm sure that Cardinal Beaufort's
many descendants here on the newsgroup (including his numerous
Stradling-Dennis-Deighton descendants) will be keenly interested in
Froissart's comments. Froissart's account states that Cardinal Henry
Beaufort was a student at Oxford before becoming Bishop of Lincoln.
We know from Emden Henry Beaufort was a student at Oxford in the
period, 1390-1393. It is while Cardinal Beaufort was a student at
Oxford that I believe he fathered his illegitimate daughter, Joan, "it
is said" by Alice Arundel.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: Froissart, Chronicle, trans. Geoffrey Brereton (Harmonsdworth:
Penguin, 1968), pp. 418-420:
"Around that time the Duke of Lancaster entered into a third marriage
with a lady who had been the daughter of a knight of Hainault called
Sir Paon de Ruet, in his day one of the knights of good Queen Philippa
of England, who had loved the Hainaulters because she was of their
nation. This lady, whom the Duke of Lancaster now married, was called
Catherine; in her youth she had been placed in the household of the
Duke and Duchess Blanche of Lancaster. After Duchess Blanche had
passed away and also Madam Constance of Castile, daughter of King
Peter of Spain, whom the Duke of Lancaster married as his second wife
and by whom he had that daughter who became Queen of Spain; when,
then, this second Duchess Constance had died, the Duke of Lancaster
had maintained this lady, Catherine de Ruet, who for her part had
become married to an English knight. Both during and after the
knight's lifetime, Duke John of Lancaster had always loved and
maintained this lady Catherine, by whom he had three children, two
sons and a daughter. The elder son was named John, otherwise Beaufort
of Lancaster, and was a great favorite with his father. The other's
name was Henry; his father the Duke sent him to the school at Oxford
and made a great jurist of him. This learned man was later Bishop of
Lincoln, which is the noblest and richest diocese in the whole of
England. Out of love for his children, the Duke of Lancaster married
their mother, Madam Catherine de Ruet, which caused much astonishment
in France and England, for she was of humble birth compared to the
other two ladies, Duchess Blanche and Duchess Constance, whom the Duke
had had as his wives before her.
When the news of this marriage to Catherine de Ruet reached the great
ladies of England, such as the Duchess of Gloucester, the Countess of
Derby, the Countess of Arundel and other ladies with royal blood in
their veins, they were surprised and shocked, considering it
scandalous, and said: `The Duke of Lancaster has quite disgraced
himself by marrying his concubine. And since she has got so far, it
will mean that she will rank as the second lady in England when she
comes.' They went on to say: `We will leave her to do the honours all
by herself. We will not go to any place where she may be. It would
really demean us too much if that kind of duchess, who comes of humble
stock and was the Duke's concubine for a very long time, inside and
outside his marriage, were to take precedence over us. Our hearts
would burst with vexation, and rightly so.'
The two who had most to say about this were the Duke and Duchess of
Gloucester. They considered that the Duke of Lancaster had overstepped
all bounds when he took his concubine to wife and said they would
never recognize her marriage or call her lady or sister. The Duke of
York soon got over it, for he was most often in the company of the
King and his brother of Lancaster. The Duke of Gloucester was of
different stuff, for he respected no one's opinions, although he was
the youngest of all the brothers [the King's uncles]. He was inclined
by nature to be proud and overbearing and he was always in
dis-agreement at the King's councils, unless they went exactly as he
liked.
This Catherine de Ruet remained Duchess of Lancaster the rest of her
life. She was the second lady in England and elsewhere after the Queen
and she had a perfect knowledge of court etiquette because she had
been brought up in it continually since her youth. She loved the Duke
of Lancaster and the children she had with him, and she showed it in
life and in death." END OF QUOTE
Brad Verity
Comments interspersed.
> Recently the question of Cardinal Henry Beaufort's birth date was
> brought up here on the newsgroup.
It was brought up by you.
> As best I can determine, Henry
> Beaufort was born about 1372/1375.
On your post of February 1st, in which you shared with the newsgroup
your extract from your PA3 manuscript of the Beaufort/Stradling/Dennis
line, one of your many sources listed was: "G.L. Harriss, Cardinal
Beaufort (1988)".
I realize that Harriss's detailed modern biography, at 458 pages, is
quite a lot of material to read and absorb while you write PA3, so let
me refresh your memory.
Harriss, Pg. 1: "Although Henry Beaufort knew the day of his birth and
liked to celebrate it, we remain uncertain even of the year.
[footnote: T.F. Kirby, 'The Oratory of the Holy Trinity at Barton in
the Isle of Wight', 'Archaeologia', 52 (1890), 311.] ... The births,
of Henry in about 1375, and of Thomas and Joan in 1377 and 1379,
suggest that it was only after Gaunt's great march to Bordeaux in
1373-4 that the relationship with Catherine was resumed, and it was in
these years that rumours of it reached the chroniclers. [footnote: S.
Armitage-Smith, 'John of Gaunt', 390-1, 462-3.]"
Do you propose that Gaunt dragged his mistress along on his French
military campaign in 1373-4?
> However, I've found at least one
> historian who places the Cardinal's birth in the 1360's, which date I
> feel is too early.
Is this historian Froissart who places the Cardinal's birth in the
1360s? Blanche of Lancaster died in Sept. 1369, and Froissart doesn't
say at all that Gaunt's affair with Catherine Swynford started while
Blanche was alive, so he cannot be said to have placed the Cardinal's
birth in the 1360s. Must be another historian.
> The French historian, Froissart, includes a detailed account of John
> of Gaunt's affair with Katherine de Roet (or Ruet), wife of Sir Hugh
> Swynford. He plainly states that John of Gaunt commenced his affair
> with Lady Katherine during her first husband's lifetime.
Well, define 'affair'. Froissart states that "Both during and after
the
knight's lifetime, Duke John of Lancaster had always loved and
maintained this lady Catherine". This doesn't necessarily mean they
were having a sexual liaison, Gaunt could've loved her without
consummation. Since Catherine Swynford and her husband were part of
the Lancastrian household, they were maintained by the duke anyway.
> Elsewhere
> King Richard II, Duke John's nephew, is said to have claimed that the
> eldest Beaufort child, John, was gotten in "double adultery" (that is,
> when John of Gaunt and Katherine de Roet were both married to other
> parties).
This statement doesn't apply to Henry Beaufort.
> Since we know that Sir Hugh Swinford died in 1371, Froissart's
> comments suggest that the births of one or more of Duke John and
> Katherine's Beaufort children could pre-date the death date of
> Katherine's husband.
Nope. Froissart said, "Both during and after the knight's lifetime,
Duke John of Lancaster had always loved and maintained this lady
Catherine," Stop. First statement. You can suggest he meant the
sexual affair started when her husband was alive, but Froissart
doesn't make that clear.
"by whom he had three children, two sons and a daughter." Stop.
Second statement. Froissart states Gaunt had three children by this
mistress, he doesn't say when. Plus the fact that Froissart
completely leaves out Thomas Beaufort should suggest that the
chronicler may not have been as intimately aware of the goings on in
the Lancaster household as he believed.
> This matter surely deserves further study.
And it's getting it. Check out the most recent issue of the journal
'Foundations'.
> For interest sake, I've posted a copy of Froissart's interesting
> account below. If nothing else, I'm sure that Cardinal Beaufort's
> many descendants here on the newsgroup (including his numerous
> Stradling-Dennis-Deighton descendants) will be keenly interested in
> Froissart's comments.
I should hope the Deighton descendants on this newsgroup would take
more interest in the following:
1) You have yet to produce any contemporary (late 14th/early 15th
century) evidence of a link between the Beauforts and the Arundels, or
any contemporary indication of an acquaintance, let alone affair,
between Henry and Alice.
2) You have yet to show any contemporary (early 15th century) evidence
of a link between Sir Edward Stradling and Beaufort and his daughter
Jane prior to 1422.
3) You have yet to produce any contemporary (15th century) evidence
that a Katherine, daughter of Sir Edward Stradling and wife of Maurice
Dennis, existed.
4) You have not shown any contemporary (15th century) evidence of any
post-1431 (when Maurice came of age and received his lands) link
between Maurice and/or Walter Dennis and the Stradlings.
5) Even after it was brought to your attention on this newsgroup, you
dismissed the 1480 IPM of Joan Stradling as not being the same as
Jane, daughter of Cardinal Beaufort, without consulting it, even
though it turns out to provide vital genealogical information (date of
death) of a woman whom you purport to be an ancestress of the Deighton
descendants you express such concern for.
> Froissart's account states that Cardinal Henry
> Beaufort was a student at Oxford before becoming Bishop of Lincoln.
Which means it was written after 1398, and yet no mention of an affair
or bastard daughter for Henry Beaufort.
> We know from Emden Henry Beaufort was a student at Oxford in the
> period, 1390-1393.
Emden wrote in the mid-20th century. Have you checked his sources?
> It is while Cardinal Beaufort was a student at
> Oxford that I believe he fathered his illegitimate daughter, Joan, "it
> is said" by Alice Arundel.
What was Alice doing at Oxford? It wasn't co-ed in the 1390s.
> Source: Froissart, Chronicle, trans. Geoffrey Brereton (Harmonsdworth:
> Penguin, 1968), pp. 418-420:
> When the news of this marriage to Catherine de Ruet reached the great
> ladies of England, such as the Duchess of Gloucester, the Countess of
> Derby, the Countess of Arundel and other ladies with royal blood in
> their veins, they were surprised and shocked, considering it
> scandalous, and said: `The Duke of Lancaster has quite disgraced
> himself by marrying his concubine. And since she has got so far, it
> will mean that she will rank as the second lady in England when she
> comes.'
The Countess of Derby (Gaunt's own daughter-in-law) thought it
"scandalous"? The wife of the Earl of Arundel, thought it
"scandalous", and yet this is after you, a trained historian, have her
stepdaughter Alice giving birth to a bastard daughter by one of the
sons of this "scandalous" union?
There's an old saying: when you're digging yourself a hole, stop
digging.
Cheers, ------Brad
D. Spencer Hines
for this sort of thing.
Apparently Richardson is completely ignorant of that simple fact.
I'm not surprised.
DSH
"Brad Verity" <bat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ed1b63.04031...@posting.google.com...