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