An interesting idea

Our main speaker at the Norwich Study Day yesterday (Lisa Hilton?) pointed out that the eldest Beaufort child (John, Earl of Somerset) was born only slightly after his mother's husband (Hugh Swynford) died.

Does not English law automatically make him Hugh Swynford's legitimate son unless proven otherwise? In that case, John's granddaughter Margaret and her son are not legally descended from John of Gaunt, even if the latter legitimised the four Beauforts later. In a sense, Gaunt adopted Somerset (another man's son) and titles or claims to the throne cannot be transmitted in this way.

The other three children were conceived after Hugh Swynford died and could not have been his offspring - they were obviously Gaunt's bastards and could be legitimised later.

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Our main speaker at the Norwich Study Day yesterday (Lisa Hilton?) pointed out that the eldest Beaufort child (John, Earl of Somerset) was born only slightly after his mother's husband (Hugh Swynford) died.
>
> Does not English law automatically make him Hugh Swynford's legitimate son unless proven otherwise? In that case, John's granddaughter Margaret and her son are not legally descended from John of Gaunt, even if the latter legitimised the four Beauforts later. In a sense, Gaunt adopted Somerset (another man's son) and titles or claims to the throne cannot be transmitted in this way.


Could it be a case of location -- that Hugh Swynford was nowhere near his wife Katherine at the time John was conceived? Something akin to the question of the paternity of Edward IV.

Katy

Or is it simply a case of Gaunt having acknowledged him as his son.
Gaunt would have no compelling reason to acknowledge him if he were not
indeed Gaunt's son.

On 14/11/2010 11:03 AM, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "stephenmlark"
> <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > Our main speaker at the Norwich Study Day yesterday (Lisa Hilton?)
> pointed out that the eldest Beaufort child (John, Earl of Somerset)
> was born only slightly after his mother's husband (Hugh Swynford) died.
> >
> > Does not English law automatically make him Hugh Swynford's
> legitimate son unless proven otherwise? In that case, John's
> granddaughter Margaret and her son are not legally descended from John
> of Gaunt, even if the latter legitimised the four Beauforts later. In
> a sense, Gaunt adopted Somerset (another man's son) and titles or
> claims to the throne cannot be transmitted in this way.
>
> Could it be a case of location -- that Hugh Swynford was nowhere near
> his wife Katherine at the time John was conceived? Something akin to
> the question of the paternity of Edward IV.
>
> Katy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3256 - Release Date: 11/14/10
>

Claiming a child as his would not normally suffice - legally, John of Somerset would be Sir Hugh Swynford's son if Sir Hugh were alive, competent and in the country during the conception - a matter of dates. Swynford had fathered other children.

Of course, by 1397, Sir Hugh was a mere knight and long dead. Gaunt was the King's uncle, Duke of Lancaster through his first marriage and heir presumptive by some calculations, giving him the authority for such assertions. Fifty years earlier, Robert the Steward, heir presumptive of Scotland, had married his mistress and legitimised their children after a dispensation.

So what was the exact date of Swynford's death? What was the exact date of Somerset's birth? Gaunt had only one adult son otherwise, although Bolingbroke gave him four grandsons.

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barber
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re: An interesting idea



Or is it simply a case of Gaunt having acknowledged him as his son.
Gaunt would have no compelling reason to acknowledge him if he were not
indeed Gaunt's son.

On 14/11/2010 11:03 AM, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "stephenmlark"
> <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > Our main speaker at the Norwich Study Day yesterday (Lisa Hilton?)
> pointed out that the eldest Beaufort child (John, Earl of Somerset)
> was born only slightly after his mother's husband (Hugh Swynford) died.
> >
> > Does not English law automatically make him Hugh Swynford's
> legitimate son unless proven otherwise? In that case, John's
> granddaughter Margaret and her son are not legally descended from John
> of Gaunt, even if the latter legitimised the four Beauforts later. In
> a sense, Gaunt adopted Somerset (another man's son) and titles or
> claims to the throne cannot be transmitted in this way.
>
> Could it be a case of location -- that Hugh Swynford was nowhere near
> his wife Katherine at the time John was conceived? Something akin to
> the question of the paternity of Edward IV.
>
> Katy
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3256 - Release Date: 11/14/10
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Claiming a child as his would not normally suffice - legally, John of Somerset would be Sir Hugh Swynford's son if Sir Hugh were alive, competent and in the country during the conception - a matter of dates. Swynford had fathered other children.
>
> Of course, by 1397, Sir Hugh was a mere knight and long dead. Gaunt was the King's uncle, Duke of Lancaster through his first marriage and heir presumptive by some calculations, giving him the authority for such assertions. Fifty years earlier, Robert the Steward, heir presumptive of Scotland, had married his mistress and legitimised their children after a dispensation.
>
> So what was the exact date of Swynford's death? What was the exact date of Somerset's birth? Gaunt had only one adult son otherwise, although Bolingbroke gave him four grandsons.


I found some information here:

http://parsonsfamily.blogware.com/indiI2108.html

but exact dates are elusive or lacking.

Katy

I recall that thirty-odd years ago the first wife of the Marquess of Londonderry had a son while she was still married who was acknowledged as the child of the singer Georgie Fame and legally disbarred from inheriting the Londonderry titles. I don't know how different the law in C20th was from the law in C14th but I suspect that if all parties involved agree on the paternity then the real father can be acknowledged.

Something similar is covered by Shakespeare in King John regarding the paternity of Philip, who in the play is recognised as the son of Richard I rather than his mother's husband. The law in C16th when the play was written is likely to have been similar to that in C14th. However in the play Philip was not legitimised and therefore had no claim to the throne.

Richard G

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Our main speaker at the Norwich Study Day yesterday (Lisa Hilton?) pointed out that the eldest Beaufort child (John, Earl of Somerset) was born only slightly after his mother's husband (Hugh Swynford) died.
>
> Does not English law automatically make him Hugh Swynford's legitimate son unless proven otherwise? In that case, John's granddaughter Margaret and her son are not legally descended from John of Gaunt, even if the latter legitimised the four Beauforts later. In a sense, Gaunt adopted Somerset (another man's son) and titles or claims to the throne cannot be transmitted in this way.
>
> The other three children were conceived after Hugh Swynford died and could not have been his offspring - they were obviously Gaunt's bastards and could be legitimised later.
>