Queen Philippa's birth date
John Carmi Parsons
I have at last located the published document that gives the date of Queen
Philippa of Hainaut's birth as (on or about) 24 June 1310. The document
appears in D.A. Trotter, "Walter of Stapeldon and the Premarital Inspection of
Philippa of Hainault," *French Studies Bulletin: A Quarterly Supplement*,
no. 49 (Winter 1993), pp. 1-4, with the text itself at the bottom of p. 2.
Walter of Stapeldon was bishop of Exeter, and in 1319 served on an English
diplomatic mission to the Low Countries to negotiate a naval agreement.
As part of their responsibilities, the emissaries also visited Hainaut and
gave Philippa the once-over. It is interesting that she was even then
being considered as a possible future queen of England, nearly a full
decade before Queen Isabella finally closed the negotiations.
The document gives a fairly full physical description of the young girl:
she was well built, without any obvious deformity; good hair, neither
light nor dark; neat head, with a somewhat bulbous forehead (considered a
sign of beauty); her eyes were dark brown, almost black, and fairly close
together (NOT a good sign). Her nose was all right, except the tip was a
bit broad and the nostrils a tad large. The lips were full, especially the
lower one. Her teeth were good, some whiter than others, and the lower row
was noticeably irregular while the upper row protruded just a bit--not too
much. Her skin was brownish, not the translucent white of a romance heroine.
She resembled her father a good deal (a good sign as it suggested she was
more masculine and might well have more sons than daughters), both parents
were very fond of her, and all the courtiers of Hainaut thought well of her
too, as far as the envoys were able to determine.
According to her mother, Philippa would have her ninth birthday at the next
feast of the Nativity of St John Baptist (24 June), which puts her birth on or
near that day in the year 1310. She was thus about two and one-half years
older than her future husband, and would have been about 45 when she bore her
last child Thomas in 1355.
This evidence underlines one point of interest that bears on the recent
thread concerning approximate dates. For a long time Philippa has been
assumed to have been born ca 1314, apparently on the assumption that she
was surely younger than her husband, born in 1312. We were wrong, as
guesswork so often is, even in these ranking families.
John Parsons
Leo van de Pas
>
>I have at last located the published document that gives the date of Queen
>Philippa of Hainaut's birth as (on or about) 24 June 1310. The document
>appears in D.A. Trotter, "Walter of Stapeldon and the Premarital
Inspection of
>Philippa of Hainault," *French Studies Bulletin: A Quarterly Supplement*,
birthday at the next
>feast of the Nativity of St John Baptist (24 June), which puts her birth
on or
>near that day in the year 1310.
This all sounds great and sounds possible/probable but we have to look
further because there are other things to consider. I have to translate
some abbreviated notes from Dutch.
William III (Willem/Guillaume) Count of Holland and Hainault, married
Jeanne de Valois on 23 May 1305 at Longpont. The marriage contract was
finalised on 19 May at Chauny sur Oise according to the Reg. Hann. (What
the latter means I don't know).
Jeanne de Valois was born about 1294 and so was about ten or
eleven years old when she married.
The order of her nine children is not certain, but we may presume the first
three were girls. Sibylla, Margaretha and thirdly Philippa.
Sibylla is recorded (Dr. Dek, Graven van Holland) as born in 1310,
mentioned in 1319, died young. Source : B.C. Hardy, "Philippa of Hainault
and her times" 1910, pages 30-33.
The mother, Jeanne de Valois, was then about 16 years old.
Margaretha, born 1311, footnote maintains she was younger than Sibylla and
(having married 26 Febr.1324) became a mother in 1325.
Margaretha, as subsequent heiress of their father, must have been older
than Philippa to be heiress after their brother's death, thank goodness as
otherwise we might have had a "Hundred Years War" in the low countries as
well.
I am starting to wonder whether those descriptions, including the date of
birth, apply to Sibylla---remember, born in 1310
and "mentioned in 1319" when those descriptions, referred to by John
Parsons, were made? I read only in the preamble the name Philippa, not in
the description. I would presume that Sibylla died before 26 February 1324,
the date Margaretha
married Ludwig IV the Emperor, and as it was Philippa who married Edward
III it became assumed that those desriptions applied to her?
Perhaps we should think it out again---who said that again?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Reedpcgen
"The Birth Date of Queen Philippa: Some Observations," by Neil D. Thompson
[with information from Andrew B. W. MacEwen] was published in The Genealogist
1:(1980)138-9.
It quotes the information from
F. C. Hingeston-Randolph, ed., _The Register of Walter de Stapledon, Bishop of
Exeter (A. D. 1307-1322)_ (London, 1892), p. 169, pointing out that the
information has been available since 1892, but missed by most publications.
To quote:
Et sera la Damoisele del age de ix anz a la Feste de la Nativite Seint Johan
prochein avenir, si come la Mere dit. [And the damsel will be of the age of
nine years on St. John's day next to come, as her mother saith.]
So, since it was her mother's testimony, it is credible evidence. A birth date
of 24 June 1311 [not 1310] agrees with the date of birth of her eldest son
Edward 'the Black Prince' on 15 June 1330.
This information was also made available by George Gordon Coulton in _Chaucer
and His England_ (London, 1908), which has gone through eight editions, being
reprinted in the U. S in 1957 (pp. 180-2).
But again, as John Parsons points out, that's why we have to be careful when we
estimate dates. I personally do not like to use the term "ca." unless it is a
calculated date.
pcr
Leo van de Pas
>Just for the general information of the group,
>
>"The Birth Date of Queen Philippa: Some Observations," by Neil D. Thompson
>[with information from Andrew B. W. MacEwen] was published in The Genealogist
>1:(1980)138-9.
>
>It quotes the information from
>
>F. C. Hingeston-Randolph, ed., _The Register of Walter de Stapledon,
Bishop of
>Exeter (A. D. 1307-1322)_ (London, 1892), p. 169, pointing out that the
>information has been available since 1892, but missed by most publications.
>
>To quote:
>Et sera la Damoisele del age de ix anz a la Feste de la Nativite Seint Johan
>prochein avenir, si come la Mere dit. [And the damsel will be of the age of
>nine years on St. John's day next to come, as her mother saith.]
..........Dear Paul,
Did you see my contribution? Which damsel were they talking about?
Sibylla? or Philippa? If it is Philippa we have to presume (and that would
be possible) that if Philippa, the third child, was born in June 1311 her
mother must have been about 15 when giving birth to her first child.
It is interesting to see that Schwennicke, who omits Sibylla,
gives 1312 as the year of Philippa's birth. The first mentioned son,
Jan/Johann, is marked off as having died in 1316 and Dr. Dek makes a note
that he was probably younger than Philippa and Johanna, which also makes
sense as Schwennicke (like Dr.Dek) gives the year 1311 for Margaretha's
birth.
>
>So, since it was her mother's testimony, it is credible evidence.
.....My question is still, which daughter? Sibylla is still a contender as
she was 'mentioned' in 1319.
A birth date
>of 24 June 1311 [not 1310] agrees with the date of birth of her eldest son
>Edward 'the Black Prince' on 15 June 1330.
......please explain the significance and how it has bearing on the birth
of her son. Her sister, Margaretha, may have been 14 when giving birth.
I still think it is not clear-cut, yet.......
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
>
Reedpcgen
The statement was specifically about Philippa.
I should remark that some women have frequent pregnancies every 15 or 18
months, often losing children during birth. So we have to take that into
consideration. Also, how do we know there were no multiple births (twins)?
Even in the event of twins, the eldest is carefully noted when inheritence is
concerned.
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> William III (Willem/Guillaume) Count of Holland and Hainault, married
> Jeanne de Valois on 23 May 1305 at Longpont. The marriage contract was
> finalised on 19 May at Chauny sur Oise according to the Reg. Hann. (What
> the latter means I don't know).
Probably "Registrum Hannonense" or "Hannoniensis," that is "The register
of Hainaut" (or even "A register of Hainaut"). No way to tell from such a
short cite whether this is a specific MS known as the Hainaut Register
(which I would assume is a collection of acts by the counts of Hainaut),
or if an antiquarian collector was speaking imprecisely--as they so often
did--of "a register I saw someplace in Hainaut."
> Sibylla is recorded (Dr. Dek, Graven van Holland) as born in 1310, mentioned
> in 1319, died young. Source : B.C. Hardy, "Philippa of Hainault and her
> times" 1910, pages 30-33. The mother, Jeanne de Valois, was then about 16
> years old.
A book published in 1910 may well be questioned. I've read Hardy and would
not consider it major ammunition.
> Margaretha, born 1311, footnote maintains she was younger than Sibylla and
> (having married 26 Febr.1324) became a mother in 1325.
> Margaretha, as subsequent heiress of their father, must have been older
> than Philippa to be heiress after their brother's death, thank goodness as
> otherwise we might have had a "Hundred Years War" in the low countries as
> well.
> I am starting to wonder whether those descriptions, including the date of
> birth, apply to Sibylla---remember, born in 1310 and "mentioned in 1319"
> when those descriptions, referred to by John Parsons, were made? I read only
> in the preamble the name Philippa, not in the description.
It is true that the rubric to this entry in Stapeldon's register (a short
marginal description of the paragraphs' contents), the part that gives
Philippa's name, was added to the original rubric, which read only
"Inspection and Description of the daughter of the Count of Hainaut." The
latter part, "who is called Philippa, and was the queen of England, married to
Edward III," was added in the second hand. However the hand is virtually
contemporary with the original entry--that is, it was not made so late
that we could entertain any doubts as to its reliability on chronological
grounds. (That is to say, we might well suspect the latter part of the
rubric if it were added in a late 15th-century hand; but it's an early-
to mid-14th century hand, from right around the same time the original
document was written.)
The editor of the original register, the estimable F. C. Hingeston-Randolph,
thought the second hand was, in fact, that of Bishop Stapeldon's immediate
successor Bishop Grandison. Since Grandison became bishop of Exeter following
Stapeldon's murder in 1326, and was bishop until 1369, the rubric was
consequently expanded precisely during Philippa's years as queen of England.
And as a ranking bishop, Stapeldon would have been in an excellent position to
verify the identity of the girl inspected in 1319. He might even have got the
information from a clerk or someone else in the Exeter entourage who was
present in Hainaut in 1319 and witnessed the "inspection."
John Parsons
John Carmi Parsons
Hingeston-Randolph also edited Bishop Grandison's register. That, plus his
intimately familiarity with the episcopal records at Exeter (he in fact edited
several other Exeter bishops' registers from the 14th century) would have
equipped him to recognize Grandison's handwriting beyond challenge. He would,
then, have been well able to identify as Grandison's the hand in which the
critical portion of the "Philippa" rubric is written.
New bishops customarily took into their entourages members of their
predecessors' households and clerical staffs. Such people would know the "lay
of the land," details of any ongoing disputes over rights to ecclesiastical
patronage, presentation of parish priests, property disputes, and so on; and
they would be familiar with the operations of the episcopal administration in
that particular diocese. While I don't know if a special study has been made
of continuity between Stapeldon and Grandison's administrations, it is likely
that some people who had served Stapeldon and were with him in Hainaut in 1319,
were with Grandison in 1328 when Edward III married Philippa, and of course
even later. Alternatively, it is equally possible that anyone else on the
1319 mission who was still living in 1328 (or later) could have told Grandison
that the "daughter of the count of Hainaut" examined in 1319 was now the queen
of England.
John Parsons
John Carmi Parsons
what time of year the "Inspection" took place. If it took place before 24
June 1319, then the birth year must be 1310. If it took place after 24
June 1319, then "the next feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist"
would obviously mean 24 June 1320, which would put the girl's birth in
1311. I will have to check the original edition by Hingeston-Randolph to
see if such a date for the "Inspection" is really indicated. It might be
possible to determine from the calendared Chancery rolls just when this
mission was sent to the Low Countries--before or after 24 June in 1319.
John P.
On 11 Dec 1998, Reedpcgen wrote:
> Just for the general information of the group,
>
> "The Birth Date of Queen Philippa: Some Observations," by Neil D. Thompson
> [with information from Andrew B. W. MacEwen] was published in The Genealogist
> 1:(1980)138-9.
>
> It quotes the information from
>
> F. C. Hingeston-Randolph, ed., _The Register of Walter de Stapledon, Bishop of
> Exeter (A. D. 1307-1322)_ (London, 1892), p. 169, pointing out that the
> information has been available since 1892, but missed by most publications.
>
> To quote:
> Et sera la Damoisele del age de ix anz a la Feste de la Nativite Seint Johan
> prochein avenir, si come la Mere dit. [And the damsel will be of the age of
> nine years on St. John's day next to come, as her mother saith.]
>
> So, since it was her mother's testimony, it is credible evidence. A birth date
> of 24 June 1311 [not 1310] agrees with the date of birth of her eldest son
> Edward 'the Black Prince' on 15 June 1330.
>
John Carmi Parsons
On 11 Dec 1998, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> Dear Paul,
> Did you see my contribution? Which damsel were they talking about?
> Sibylla? or Philippa? If it is Philippa we have to presume (and that would
> be possible) that if Philippa, the third child, was born in June 1311 her
> mother must have been about 15 when giving birth to her first child.
(a) See my remarks in two earlier postings this morning. The reference to
"Philippa" in the expanded rubric to the original register entry of the
"Inspection and Description" is contemporary with Philippa herself and was,
in the opinion of the register's expereience editor, written by someone
who was perfectly situated to identify the "daughter of the count of Hainaut"
correctly.
(b) Nothing surprising in that a girl had a child at 15. We have plenty of
incontrovertibly documented cases of noble girls bearing children at 13.
John P.
Leo van de Pas
>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Leo van de Pas wrote:
>> William III (Willem/Guillaume) Count of Holland and Hainault, married
>> Jeanne de Valois on 23 May 1305 at Longpont. The marriage contract was
>> finalised on 19 May at Chauny sur Oise according to the Reg. Hann. (What
>> the latter means I don't know).
>
>Probably "Registrum Hannonense" or "Hannoniensis," that is "The register
>of Hainaut" (or even "A register of Hainaut"). No way to tell from such a
>short cite whether this is a specific MS known as the Hainaut Register
>(which I would assume is a collection of acts by the counts of Hainaut),
>or if an antiquarian collector was speaking imprecisely--as they so often
>did--of "a register I saw someplace in Hainaut."
>
>> Sibylla is recorded (Dr. Dek, Graven van Holland) as born in 1310,
mentioned
>> in 1319, died young. Source : B.C. Hardy, "Philippa of Hainault and her
>> times" 1910, pages 30-33. The mother, Jeanne de Valois, was then about 16
>> years old.
>
>A book published in 1910 may well be questioned. I've read Hardy and would
>not consider it major ammunition.
The book by Dr. Dek, published in 1969, has four very finely printed pages
of sources, not many refering to the Avesnes family. This book covers all
the families that were Counts of Holland. The original family, Avesnes,
Bavaria and Habsburg. One source seems interesting : H. J. Smit : De
rekeningen der graven en gravinnen uit het Henegouwsche Huis, published in
3 volumes 1924, 1929 and 1939.
>> I am starting to wonder whether those descriptions, including the date of
>> birth, apply to Sibylla---remember, born in 1310 and "mentioned in 1319"
>> when those descriptions, referred to by John Parsons, were made? I read
only
>> in the preamble the name Philippa, not in the description.
>
>It is true that the rubric to this entry in Stapeldon's register (a short
>marginal description of the paragraphs' contents), the part that gives
>Philippa's name, was added to the original rubric, which read only
>"Inspection and Description of the daughter of the Count of Hainaut." The
>latter part, "who is called Philippa, and was the queen of England,
married to
>Edward III," was added in the second hand.
.....That it was added can be telling. How much difference would be
remembered about a girl aged nine or eight, or her sister only about two
years younger? The record was written in 1319, Stapeldon murdered in 1326
and the marriage took place in 1328. The added description saying "was the
queen"
seems to me to have been written after the death of Philippa in 1369 the
same year as when Bishop Grandison died. Grandison had been a bishop for 43
years, how old was he when he became bishop? How reliable was he in 1369?
How can he verify if he was not there in 1319? Talking to clerks is still
only second hand. Adding something fifty years after the event, when he was
not there himself, does not spell certainty. Substituting children for
deceased elder ones is so common in history. I still find it telling that
Sibylla was 'mentioned in 1319'. I wish there were more Dutch people but
living in Holland in this group. Perhaps I should ask on the Benelux group
and see if someone can enlighten us.
Leo van de Pas
However the hand is virtually
>contemporary with the original entry--that is, it was not made so late
>that we could entertain any doubts as to its reliability on chronological
>grounds. (That is to say, we might well suspect the latter part of the
>rubric if it were added in a late 15th-century hand; but it's an early-
>to mid-14th century hand, from right around the same time the original
>document was written.)
>
>The editor of the original register, the estimable F. C. Hingeston-Randolph,
>thought the second hand was, in fact, that of Bishop Stapeldon's immediate
>successor Bishop Grandison. Since Grandison became bishop of Exeter
following
>Stapeldon's murder in 1326, and was bishop until 1369, the rubric was
>consequently expanded precisely during Philippa's years as queen of
England.
>And as a ranking bishop, Stapeldon would have been in an excellent
position to
>verify the identity of the girl inspected in 1319. He might even have got
the
>information from a clerk or someone else in the Exeter entourage who was
>present in Hainaut in 1319 and witnessed the "inspection."
>
>
>John Parsons
>
>
*********************
Leo van de Pas Mosman Park, Western Australia
*********************
"Friend Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 6723"
Home Page :
http://www.iinet.net.au/~leovdpas/genealogics.html
Books :
http://www.genealogy.com/~brigitte/booksale.htm
*********************
John Carmi Parsons
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> At 04:10 AM 12/11/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> Sibylla is recorded (Dr. Dek, Graven van Holland) as born in 1310,
>> mentioned
>> in 1319, died young. Source : B.C. Hardy, "Philippa of Hainault and her
>> times" 1910, pages 30-33. The mother, Jeanne de Valois, was then about 16
>> years old.
> The book by Dr. Dek, published in 1969, has four very finely printed pages
> of sources, not many refering to the Avesnes family. This book covers all
> the families that were Counts of Holland. The original family, Avesnes,
> Bavaria and Habsburg. One source seems interesting : H. J. Smit : De
> rekeningen der graven en gravinnen uit het Henegouwsche Huis, published in
> 3 volumes 1924, 1929 and 1939.
I have used Dek and have no particularly quarrel with his scholarship; it's
the 1910 book's scholarship I question. If Dek had nothing else available, he
was justified in citing it, but remember that a chain is only as strong as its
weakest link. If the 1910 book was wrong, then so is Dek on this point,
however strong he is in other respects.
> .....That it was added can be telling. How much difference would be
> remembered about a girl aged nine or eight, or her sister only about two
> years younger? The record was written in 1319, Stapeldon murdered in 1326
> and the marriage took place in 1328. The added description saying "was the
> queen" seems to me to have been written after the death of Philippa in 1369
> the same year as when Bishop Grandison died.
Not necessarily after she died. Latin is a rhetorical language, and for
someone reading the notice long in the future--and Grandison clearly expected
that would be the case--it would always be true that Philippa "was" or "had
been" queen of England. I would not, in fact, have expected Grandison or
anybody else to have written "est" in these circumstances. For example,
contemporary chroniclers such as Matthew Paris, referring to the unique
case of the four daughters of Count Raymond Berengar IV of Provence who
all married kings, refer to them as queens in the perfect tense even when
all 4 were still incontrovertibly alive and kicking.
> Grandison had been a bishop for 43 years, how old was he when he became
> bishop? How reliable was he in 1369?
These would be pertinent questions only if it were established beyond any
question that he extended the rubric IN the year 1369--and we really cannot
insist that this was the case. As he was bishop for well over 40 years we
would have to expect that he was still a fairly young man in 1326, perhaps
in his early 30s. If the rubric was extended around that time, he would
have been in full command of his abilities.
> How can he verify if he was not there in 1319? Talking to clerks is still
> only second hand. Adding something fifty years after the event, when he was
> not there himself, does not spell certainty.
Again: the rubric could have been extended as early as 1328, and if we cannot
insist absolutely that it was done then, neither do we dare insist that it
must have been added to as late as 1369 (as above, the perfect tense is far
from conclusive evidence for dating the expanded rubric).
> I still find it telling that Sibylla was 'mentioned in 1319'.
This question Dek maddeningly leaves unanswered: in what record and under what
circumstances is she "mentioned"? Without that precise information we are
entirely at sea. We cannot claim that the 1319 "Inspection and Description"
is what Dek (or his authority) meant regarding Sybilla.
John P.
Andrew S. Kalinkin
can be entirely wrong, but do we have any evidence
that Bishop Grandison (let's assume that it was his
remark) really made any investigation before adding
it? Again, I may be totally wrong, but it seems
quite plausible to me that:
1) The good bishop readed in his predecessor's
registers about investigation of unnamed daughter of
Count of Hainaut, who was considered as possible
future queen of England.
2) He of course knew that Philippa, daughter of
Count of Hainaut finally become queen of England.
3) He could never hear about Sybilla, since she died
young and unmarried.
So the bishop could just think: "Oh! This must be our
queen", add these few words to the original rubrik and
then forget about it.
Leo's guess that this description really apply to
Sybilla, not Philippa, seems quite plausible. After
all, nobody still explained why english emissaries
were specially interested of Count's third daughter,
while her two elder sisters were also free.
Andrew S. Kalinkin
Moscow, Russia
John Carmi Parsons
On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Andrew S. Kalinkin wrote:
> 1) The good bishop readed in his predecessor's
> registers about investigation of unnamed daughter of
> Count of Hainaut, who was considered as possible
> future queen of England.
>
> 2) He of course knew that Philippa, daughter of
> Count of Hainaut finally become queen of England.
>
> 3) He could never hear about Sybilla, since she died
> young and unmarried.
>
> So the bishop could just think: "Oh! This must be our
> queen", add these few words to the original rubrik and
> then forget about it.
Educated people in the Middle Ages, Bishop Grandison certainly among them,
were far more aware than we often realize of the use and value of historical
information, its accuracy, and its preservation. A bishop, keenly aware
of the traditions of the Church that rested upon such accurate historical
information, almost certainly would have reflected upon his actions. The
expanded rubric Grandison added to this entry in Stapeldon's register shows
clearly that he (Grandison) expected it would be read in the remote future.
Given episcopal respect for record-keeping and Christian regard for truth, as
well as the general medieval respect for historical evidence, it is more
likely that he would have made inquiries, among the Exeter entourage and
elsewhere, to ascertain that the information he added was correct.
> Leo's guess that this description really apply to
> Sybilla, not Philippa, seems quite plausible. After
> all, nobody still explained why english emissaries
> were specially interested of Count's third daughter,
> while her two elder sisters were also free.
Medieval rulers were very conscious of inheritance and were usually very
careful about how they married their eldest daughters, since that daughter
or her issue would in many cases be the one to inherit their domains if
the ruler failed to leave a son or if a son later died s.p. For a lord like
the count of Hainaut, himself married to a lady of the French royal house and
with his county very much in the French orbit, to have betrothed his eldest
daughter to the heir to the throne of England would very likely have raised
more than a few eyebrows in Paris. Only a couple of decades earlier, the
count of Flanders had spent some time in a French prison after daring to
discuss betrothing his daughter to the future Edward II of England, and I
know of another case (1225) in which a count of Ponthieu was forced on
pain of forfeiting his lands not to marry his 2 eldest daughters without the
French king's agreement and express permission.
In the event, of course, Philippa's brother did die without issue and her
eldest surviving sister Margaret, married to the Bavarian duke who later
became emperor, did inherit the counties of Hainaut and Holland. Had
Edward III married Margaret, or Sybilla...
John Parsons