On 25/08/17 00:58, Peter Stewart wrote: > It should be noted in this context that John of Gaunt was a widower, not > a married man, between the death of his first wife on 12 September 1269 > and his second marriage on 21 September 1371. If John Beaufort had been > conceived in the lifetime of Sir Hugh Swynford, it would have to have > been in the brief interval between the latter date and Swynford's death > on 13 November in the same year in order to have been double adultery. > The notion that a century later Richard III could arrive at such > precision, narrowing an unwitnessed act to within a two-month period, is > absurd enough even if we ignore his very obvious motive for fabrication. To an extent I'm playing Devil's Advocate by replying, as I don't believe double adultery was at all likely. But I'd question your assertion that the notion that Richard III could have reached that decision is absurd. He and his courtiers would have had access to sources that don't survive today, and it's not implausible he could have found out John Beaufort's date of birth. Suppose that Richard discovered that Beaufort had been born in late June 1372. In this scenario, Beaufort would have to have been born several weeks beyond term to pre-date Gaunt's second marriage, and we have Gaunt's own word that this was not the case; but equally Beaufort would have to have been nearly two months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived before the advent of modern medicine. Double adultery would be the natural conclusion. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think is likely. For the reasons I gave before, I think it far more likely that Beaufort was conceived after Swynford's death, and the notion of double adultery was a fabrication for political gain. But were it not for the obvious motive for fabrication, I think Richard's assertion could be credible. Richard

Are the remains of Edward I and Edward III in Westminster Abbey identified and intact? What about those of Edward of Woodstock and Henry IV in Canterbury Cathedral? Or those of Geoffrey Plantagenet in Le Mans Cathedral? If there is interest in confirming the identity of the remains of Richard III, rather than in determining the "true" Plantagenet y-DNA, one could consider the remains of Edward IV in St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle. I suppose there may be objections to disinterring any of the above remains, but researchers have overcome objections to disinterring more ancient remains and extracting DNA.

On 25-Aug-17 10:38 AM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 25/08/17 00:58, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> It should be noted in this context that John of Gaunt was a widower, not >> a married man, between the death of his first wife on 12 September 1269 >> and his second marriage on 21 September 1371. If John Beaufort had been >> conceived in the lifetime of Sir Hugh Swynford, it would have to have >> been in the brief interval between the latter date and Swynford's death >> on 13 November in the same year in order to have been double adultery. >> The notion that a century later Richard III could arrive at such >> precision, narrowing an unwitnessed act to within a two-month period, is >> absurd enough even if we ignore his very obvious motive for fabrication. > > To an extent I'm playing Devil's Advocate by replying, as I don't > believe double adultery was at all likely.  But I'd question your > assertion that the notion that Richard III could have reached that > decision is absurd. > > He and his courtiers would have had access to sources that don't > survive today, and it's not implausible he could have found out John > Beaufort's date of birth.  Suppose that Richard discovered that > Beaufort had been born in late June 1372.  In this scenario, Beaufort > would have to have been born several weeks beyond term to pre-date > Gaunt's second marriage, and we have Gaunt's own word that this was > not the case; but equally Beaufort would have to have been nearly two > months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's > death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived > before the advent of modern medicine. Double adultery would be the > natural conclusion. Doubt on what basis? I don't know whether or not a baby could naturally survive premature birth after seven months gestation, then or now. But if that was the evidence Richard III relied on he would have had the same obvious motive to publicise this fact rather than to lose it in a broad-brush allegation. Who was convinced? And what was Richard III's ulterior motive in unnecessarily failing to convince anyone? Peter Stewart