On 26-Aug-17 8:56 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 26-Aug-17 8:20 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote: >> Impressive work, Richard.  Nicely done. >> >> As far as any other indications of John Beaufort's approximate age >> are concerned, I know that in 1390, as Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort >> [Sir John de Beaufort], bastart de Lancastre, he bore himself with >> credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert.  The same year he joined the >> Crusade of Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, to Barbary, and was present at >> the futile Siege of El Mahadia southeast of Tunis. >> >> While men are known to have commenced military service as young as 16 >> in medieval times, my guess is that he was at least 17 or 18 in 1390, >> when these events took place.  That would place his birth as circa >> 1372 or 1373, which former date still allows for the possibility that >> his mother was married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived. >> >> In which case, I think a review of Swynford DNA would be desirable to >> rule out any possibility that he was Sir Hugh de Swynford's son.  >> This shouldn't be too difficult to do. > > If you apply your caution of "Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe" to John > Beaufort with regard to John of Gaunt, you must apply it also with > regard to Hugh Swynford on the supposition that he was living at the > time of conception, and then to every generation in descent from both > men. Just because a modern person's DNA matches that of some medieval > remains does not prove either that those remains belong to whomever > you think was the modern person's ancestor, or that non-paternity of > the legal father did occur any number of times in the intervening > generations. Apologies, I meant "or that non-paternity of the legal father did not occur ..." Peter Stewart