On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-4, 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 Thank you. Given this correction and the fact the double adultery statement was by Richard III, not Richard II, I feel confident in the Beaufort line again.
Katherine through James V you have a descent from John's sister Joan so you didn't really have to worry much.