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. Anyone ever heard of the story of David and Bathsheba? Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:05:28 PM UTC-6, Richard Smith wrote: > On 24/08/17 15:22, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 14:17:37 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson escreveu: > > >>John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. [...] > > > > Also where was his age said? > > Assuming you mean where was John Beauford's age stated, CP 2nd ed, vol > 12A, p 40 cites CPR Ric II, vol 5, p 63. The patent roll entry, which > is dated 7 June 1392, says: > > "Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de > Beaufort, retained to stay with the king for life, of 100 marks a year > at the Exchequer. By p.s. > > "Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because the king granted that sum > to him from the issues and profits of the castle and lordship of > Wallyngford, со. Berks, 10 September in his twenty-first year." > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008966072;view=1up;seq=77 > > While I'm hesitant to disagree with the editor of Complete Peerage, I'm > certain this patent roll entry has been misunderstood. I think this > means the grant of Wallingford was in 10 Sept 21 Ric II (1397), and says > nothing about John Beaufort's age. > > We can readily confirm this as there is another patent roll entry on 10 > Sept 1397 saying exactly this [CPR Ric II, vol 6, p 205]: > > "Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de > Beaufort of 100 marks a year from the issues of the castle and lordship > of Walyngford, co. Berks, instead of at the Exchequer, as granted to him > by letters patent dated 7 June in the fifteenth year, now surrendered." > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337604;view=1up;seq=221 > > If, as seems to be the case, this is the only source putting John's > birth in c1371, I think we can discount it. Other modern secondary > sources put the birth in c1373, after Sir Hugh Swynford's death. This > seems far more likely to me, and there's a good description of this in > Nathen Amin's new book on the House of Beaufort. Amin argues that, as > Gaunt was open in his admission of adultery on his part and incest (as > the Catholic church then regarded a liaison between a man and the mother > of his goddaughter, presumably here being Blanche Swynford), he would > hardly have omitted to mention adultery on the part of Katherine, had > there been any, especially if John Beaufort were living proof of the > adultery. Being caught in such an omission would have risked nullifying > the Pope's dispensation for the marriage, something no-one concerned > would have wanted. > > If all we have left is Richard III's statement, made more than a century > after the event, that John Beaufort was born of double adultery, I think > we can dismiss this as politically motivated. For the reasons just > outlined, if John Beaufort were born of double adultery, the > dispensation for his parents subsequent marriage was arguably invalid, > which brought into question the Beauforts' legitimacy and with it the > validity of Henry Tudor's (already weak) claim to be heir to the > Lancastrian claim. That was clearly in Richard's interest, and it is > easy to believe he would have made up this claim in an attempt to weaker > Henry's position. > > Richard

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. The last such event might provide a false 'positive' match: there is no rule of nature to prevent a Swynford or Somerset wife from committing adultery at any point, including with a Swynford or Somerset other than her husband. Peter Stewart