On 25/08/17 09:28, Peter Stewart wrote: > However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a > privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort > was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the > court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it. > > I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the > 14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be > suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone > with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway. I'm sure birthdays of bastards weren't celebrated, at least not in a way to leave record. But it doesn't preclude the date of his birth occurring somewhere in a court record. Not being an heir, there wouldn't be a proof of age or mention of his age in an IPM, I don't recall seeing dates of birth in patent or close rolls, and he was no where near important enough to attract the attention of a monastic chronicler. But he may have been mentioned in someone else's proof of age. More than once I've read entries in CIPM saying something like "Joe Bloggs knows X was born on [date] because he was at the baptism of Y that day and a servant came to tell X his wife had just given birth". I imagine there must be lots of manorial court rolls that have not survived containing similar things. I don't for a moment believe Richard would have been trawling through court records looking for such an entry, but if someone else happened to come across something of that nature, they may well have brought it to Richard's attention in the hope of currying favour with the king. Of course the same detail could have come to light in earlier years, but it was only after the death of Henry VI that the question of the Beauforts' legitimacy became a hot political topic. Richard

On 25-Aug-17 7:29 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 25/08/17 09:28, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a >> privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort >> was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the >> court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it. >> >> I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the >> 14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be >> suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone >> with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway. > > I'm sure birthdays of bastards weren't celebrated, at least not in a > way to leave record.  But it doesn't preclude the date of his birth > occurring somewhere in a court record.  Not being an heir, there > wouldn't be a proof of age or mention of his age in an IPM, I don't > recall seeing dates of birth in patent or close rolls, and he was no > where near important enough to attract the attention of a monastic > chronicler.  But he may have been mentioned in someone else's proof of > age.  More than once I've read entries in CIPM saying something like > "Joe Bloggs knows X was born on [date] because he was at the baptism > of Y that day and a servant came to tell X his wife had just given > birth". I imagine there must be lots of manorial court rolls that have > not survived containing similar things. > > I don't for a moment believe Richard would have been trawling through > court records looking for such an entry, but if someone else happened > to come across something of that nature, they may well have brought it > to Richard's attention in the hope of currying favour with the king.  > Of course the same detail could have come to light in earlier years, > but it was only after the death of Henry VI that the question of the > Beauforts' legitimacy became a hot political topic. It was a hot topic in the autumn of 1396, when John's marriage to Katherine was acknowledged by the pope and their children were legitimated, and in February 1397 when Richard II confirmed their legitimacy and made John Beaufort earl of Somerset. John's conception, if there had been any real question over it, would have been a hot topic at court again later in that year when he was made marquis of Somerset and then of Dorset. This dead horse has been flogged way past its death without any substantial point being made in favour of Richard III's revisionist nonsense. Peter Stewart