[SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: An interesting

Quite. Either:
1) John "Beaufort" was "conceived in double adultery" (Richard's proclamation against the Tydder) in that Sir Hugh was alive at the conception and was John's legal father. The Tydder was not, therefore, a Gaunt descendant OR
2) Sir Hugh was dead by the time of John's conception and thus John of Somerset was not "conceived in double adultery". He is a real Beaufort, just like the other three.

Richard's proclamation was possibly counter-productive.

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: An interesting idea





--- 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