The Beauforts' birth and Geoffrey Richardson

These 2 points are entirely unconnected, for which I apologise.

Firstly though I have searched I can't find the recent post
referring to the original Beaufort children births being before (in
some cases) Hugh Swynford's death. Obviously it can be hard to
pinpoint dates like these where it may be in someone's interest to
disguise the true date, but according to Anthony Goodman Hugh died
in 1371 (November) and he says that Sydney Armitage Smith has
(tentatively) put the bastards' births in 1373-9. They suggest that
corroborating evidence is available not least because Gaunt was in
France until November 1371 with his bride, Constance, and both swore
that this is indeed when it began. Incidentally it suggests the
children were named after the pope's brother Roger Beaufort, Gaunt's
prisoner at this time (they seem to have been on friendly terms
despite this) who had fallen ionto English hands in 1370. Anyhow, it
suggests they were not born before Sir Hugh's death, though if
Beaufort had been captured in, say, 1372 it would have been more
compelling.

The second thing is an arror I stumbled upon which caused me some
surprise. Having been to Nottingham for a few days, visited Bosworth
again and so on, my friend lent me some books she had by Geoffrey
Richardson. I was flicking through when I soied a map of the battle
which said LORD Stanley launched the attack on Richard. It placed
Sir William Stanley way off on the opposite side of the field. This,
of course, is incorrect as it was Sir Wiliam, not Lord Thomas, who
launched the fatal attack. I was somewhat disillusioned on finding
such a basic error.
B

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> These 2 points are entirely unconnected, for which I apologise.
>
> Firstly though I have searched I can't find the recent post
> referring to the original Beaufort children births being before
(in
> some cases) Hugh Swynford's death. Obviously it can be hard to
> pinpoint dates like these where it may be in someone's interest to
> disguise the true date, but according to Anthony Goodman Hugh died
> in 1371 (November) and he says that Sydney Armitage Smith has
> (tentatively) put the bastards' births in 1373-9. They suggest that
> corroborating evidence is available not least because Gaunt was in
> France until November 1371 with his bride, Constance, and both
swore
> that this is indeed when it began. Incidentally it suggests the
> children were named after the pope's brother Roger Beaufort,
Gaunt's
> prisoner at this time (they seem to have been on friendly terms
> despite this) who had fallen ionto English hands in 1370. Anyhow,
it
> suggests they were not born before Sir Hugh's death, though if
> Beaufort had been captured in, say, 1372 it would have been more
> compelling.

The post was mine, I think, but I was only talking about John, the
eldest of the Beauforts. I got my info from "The King's Mother" by
Michael K Jones and Malcolm G Underwood. Their evidence of his
PROBABLE conception before Hugh Swynford's death is:
1) the grant of an annuity to him as a king's knight in 1392, which
they cite as proof of his birth in 1372.
1) Froissart says the liaison began during Gaunt's second marriage,
but while Hugh Swynford was still alive. That would mean between
September and 11 November 1371.
From what you say, this seems unlikely, unless the Swynfords were
also in France with Gaunt. The belief that John was conceived in
double adultery did persist, however, as the authors quote Richard
III's own proclamation against Henry Tudor, that his "moder was
doughter unto John duc of Somerset, son unto John Erle of Somerset,
son unto dame Kateryne Swynford, and of her in double advoutrow
goten".
Do we know whether John was accorded the surname 'Beaufort' from his
birth?

Marie