Dear Newsgroup ~ The allegation that Katherine de Roet, was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when she commenced her affair with John of Gaunt was made by King Richard III, not King Richard II as I posted earlier. In a letter of King Richard III dated 1483, the king alleged that John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, was “son unto Dame Katherine Swynford, and of their indouble avoutry gotten.” [i.e., implying that John Beaufort’s mother was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived]). A full transcript of the letter in question was published many years ago in Fenn, Paston Letters (1849): 152–153, and may be viewed at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=nCwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA152 Considering its source, the charge is probably baseless. Even so, the fact that the DNA of the alleged remains of King Richard II doesn't match the DNA of modern Beaufort descendants does raise the possibility that King Richard III had his facts right and that Sir Hugh de Swynford could be the father of John Beaufort. We must remember the saying: Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe. This matter deserves further study. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On 25-Aug-17 2:58 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > The allegation that Katherine de Roet, was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford > when she commenced her affair with John of Gaunt was made by King Richard III, not King Richard II as I posted earlier. In a letter of King Richard III dated 1483, the king alleged that John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, was “son unto Dame Katherine Swynford, and of their indouble avoutry gotten.” [i.e., implying that John Beaufort’s mother was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived]). > > A full transcript of the letter in question was published many years ago in Fenn, Paston Letters (1849): 152–153, and may be viewed at the following weblink: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=nCwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA152 > > Considering its source, the charge is probably baseless. Even so, the fact that the DNA of the alleged remains of King Richard II doesn't match the DNA of modern Beaufort descendants does raise the possibility that King Richard III had his facts right and that Sir Hugh de Swynford could be the father of John Beaufort. Presumably you mean the alleged remains of King Richard III, not II. 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. Peter Stewart