membership

I hope this article helps:

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/a-genealogical-mystery-deepens-originally-published-in-the-december-2013-bulletin/

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 December 2016 18:07
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] membership

Thank you for your E mail. I would love to join the Richard III Society but I don't remember asking for membership. However, as I've said I would very much like to join. I'm currently writing about Richard III and am extremely interested in finding out more about the paternity of the oldest Beaufort son, John, was it Sir Hugh Swynford or John of Gaunt? I'm searching for information to support my theory.

I am confused by this E Mail but thank you. May I join?

Yours faithfully.

Philippa Bowen.

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016, 12:10, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Pippa,
That is an interesting question, but it is most likely that John Beaufort was the son of John of Gaunt and not Hugh Swynford. Surely, if he was born within a reasonable timeline to be Hugh Swynford's son, then the presumption of paternity would have dictated that he be regarded as such. Regardless of the biological truth, he would have officially been John Swynford, Thomas Swynford's younger brother, who may have been given some special favours if John of Gaunt had reason to suspect he was JB's actual father. I can't see any reason why JofG would have recognized any child who could possibly have been the legitimate son of his mistress' husband. To do this would also have been an insult to a knight who had served him well. There was no obligation to formally recognize illegitimate children, even if their existence was well known; it seems to have depended on the person - Richard III , but Edward IV didn't and Henry VII never confirmed the rumours about Roland de Velville's paternity. So if JofG recognized John Beaufort, then he must have had every reason to be confident that he was in fact the father and that he would have been born too late to be Hugh Swynford's son - ie after the Spring of 1471 (Hugh Swynford went to Aquitaine in June 1470 and died there in November 1471.)
There is no certainly as to the date of John Beaufort's birth. The dates - and birth order - generally given for all the Beaufort children are estimates. While I am generally cautious about endorsing Alison Weir, after the hatchet job she did on Richard, there is an excellent chapter in in her book, Katherine Swynford: The Story of John of Gaunt and his Scandalous Mistress, where she makes a very good analysis and approximation of when each child was born, using the records of grants and gifts that roughly with the children's ages. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Beaufort children were shortly before the following dates:
- February 1473 (John)- June 1475 (Henry)- February 1477 (Joan)- January 1481 (Thomas)
Finally, JofG confessed in 1396, in a petition to the Pope that he had been unfaithful to his wife Constance with Katherine Swynford and many other women, but states specifically that Katherine was not married at the time.
The mismatch between Richard III's y dna and that of the Beaufort descendants is intriguing. One possible explanation could be that the suspicions that Richard Earl of Cambridge's biological father was John Holland, Duke of Exeter were true or perhaps some other later 'non paternity event' in the Beaufort line some generations later.
Hope this helps.
Nico








On Sunday, 11 December 2016, 19:14, "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" <> wrote:


I hope this article helps: https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/a-genealogical-mystery-deepens-originally-published-in-the-december-2013-bulletin/ From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 December 2016 18:07
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] membership Thank you for your E mail. I would love to join the Richard III Society but I don't remember asking for membership. However, as I've said I would very much like to join. I'm currently writing about Richard III and am extremely interested in finding out more about the paternity of the oldest Beaufort son, John, was it Sir Hugh Swynford or John of Gaunt? I'm searching for information to support my theory. I am confused by this E Mail but thank you. May I join? Yours faithfully. Philippa Bowen.

Hi David,

What is your source for Roland's true age? Unless it is recorded somewhere, all we can surely say with any confidence is that he is highly unlikely to have been born later than the first months of 1473 since he accompanied the army to Brittany (under Sir John Cheyne) in 1489 (i.e. the normal call-up age was 16).

This is the appendix on Roland's arms from http://www.happywarrior.org/genealogy/roland.htm#part3

"This information has been extracted from 'The Development of Welsh Heraldry' (1993) by Dr. M. P. Siddons, Welsh Herald Extraordinary. Please refer to that book for an explanation of the sources.

As far I can see from this information, Velville has been attributed with basically two different coats of arms, the first is item 1 below and the second is item 2. I think it is likely that item 3 is another interpretation of item 2.1, that is Velville's senior quartering. I would make a tentative guess that item 1 is the coat of arms granted to Velville upon his being knighted after the battle of Blackheath in 1497 (though I cannot think why he should be granted arms when it appears that he already had a coat of arms) and that item 2 represents his 'proper' coat of arms, that is the arms he inherited by birth. The unquartered coat of arms of his father would therefore appear to be item 2.1 but item 3 may be a more correct interpretation. The arms of Velville's father would appear to be 'argent/or, a boar passant/statant sable', either 'armed or, langued gules' or not as the case may be*.

*This means, in plain English, either a gold (or) or white (argent) background surmounted by a black boar (a boar sable), either walking past with its head sideways on (looking to its front i.e. left) and with its right paw raised (passant) or standing (head on the left, tail on the right) on its four paws with its head looking towards you (statant), either with gold teeth (armed or) and a red tongue (langued gules), or not as the case maybe.

It is, of course, intruiging that Velville should have been attributed with a coat of arms such as 2 below. This would seem to imply that the identity of both his father and mother was known. According to Dr. Siddons, John Writhe, Garter King of Arms (see below), would have actually known Velville. On the other hand, SF1 refers to a manuscript prepared for Katherine of Berain (Velville's grand-daughter) by Simwnt Fychan. It is possible that this coat of arms actually refers back to the ancestors of the Tudors amongst the Welsh princely families but I have not yet investigated this matter. Dr. Siddons has confirmed that it is 'unusual' that such apparent confusion should arise.

Writhe's Knights.

Argent, a lion rampant gules, charged with a bezant* on the shoulder.

*A bezant is a small gold circle or disk. They were often used to symbolize travel and the use of this charge may refer to Velville's alleged Breton origins.

SF1, WC4, WC5 and Geo.O.4.

These all seem to broadly agree on the six main elements, namely:-

Or, a boar passant sable.

Argent, three bars sable (WC5 - Barry of six, argent and sable).

Argent, three bars gules (WC5 - Barry of six, argent and gules).

Gules, a label or, three points seen.

'On his mother's side':-

Argent, a lion rampant gules, crowned or (I believe that these are the arms of the Counts of Poitou).

Argent, three chevrons sable.

The last two either being quarterings (Geo.O.4.) or shown quartered on an inescutcheon (SF1, WC4 and WC5). In addition, SF1, WC4 and WC5 (but not Geo.O.4.) show an inescutcheon - argent, a lion rampant gules, crowned, langued and armed or.

Harleian.

Argent, a boar statant sable, armed or, langued gules. Same as 2.1?

Supporters (SF1 and WC4 only):-

Two lions rampant gardant or, each holding a square banner argent, and spearmen or with heads azure supporting them, a crowned lion gules in each banner.

Crest (SF1 and WC4 only):-

A lion's head argent, langued gules, issuant from a crown or."

In fact, the few sources I found online suggest that the maternal arms, 'argent, a lion rampant gules, crowned or,' were in a Breton context the arms of the house of Goyon. There is a village named La Vieille-ville between the Goyon castles of Quintin and Le Blois Gle.

I'd be very interested if anybody has any ideas regarding the paternal arms.

The following (from the same website) are translations of late-Tudor bardic elegies of Roland's descendants:

"Great-grandson of gilded Sir Roland
And the heir and the possessor of the land from the line of his ancestor [literally his grandfather'],
That is the lineage of kings,
He was purely descended from the ancient blood of Brittany"

"From your grandmother you issued from a tribe who excelled,
Sir Roland of Brittany was your ancestor . . .
Your line issued from the blood of kings,
And was of the race of the earls of all England."

"Lineages came to you adroitly in a fine manner
From the blood of Velville in profusion;
The stag (i.e. Velville) is perceived to be a generous kinsman,
A gentle peacock who was the kinsman of the stags of Penmynydd."

(Penmynydd being the Tudor ancestral home in Anglesey.)

Tudor - i.e. Anglesey - ancestry could explain why Henry VIII's chose to make him constable of Beaumaris.

Marie

Just a small additional observation on Roland's age:

Since there are no records of his having fought at either Bosworth or Stoke, Is it perhaps likely that he turned 16 between April/May 1487 (when the royal forces mustered) and March 1489 (the English forces landed in Brittany on 9 April 1489) - i.e. that he was born sometime between the summer of 1471 and February 1473?

It is, of course, possible that he was older but did not come to England until after Stoke, yet I'm not aware that any records have been found of an earlier career in Brittany.

If the dates I suggest above would make him roughly 63 at his death.

Marie

Sorry to hog the forum, but this is the last bit of the message. From same website, translations of late-Tudor bardic poetry in praise of Roland's line:

Great-grandson of gilded Sir Roland
And the heir and the possessor of the land from the line of his ancestor [literally his grandfather'],
That is the lineage of kings,
He was purely descended from the ancient blood of Brittany.

From your grandmother you issued from a tribe who excelled,
Sir Roland of Brittany was your ancestor . . .
Your line issued from the blood of kings,
And was of the race of the earls of all England.

Lineages came to you adroitly in a fine manner
From the blood of Velville in profusion;
The stag (i.e. Velville) is perceived to be a generous kinsman,
A gentle peacock who was the kinsman of the stags of Penmynydd.
[Penmynydd = the ancestral home of the Tudors in Anglesey.]

Of a line near to the crown and of its blood.

Hi Carol,

Well, my thoughts are that the evidence is ambiguous. The dates we have are such that John could have been conceived when Hugh Swynford was still alive, and this is what Froissart believed. But Nico is right, and Gaunt claimed to the Pope that only he had been committing adultery in conceiving John Beaufort. I suspect this is probably true, and that what may have happened is that his comforting of Katherine after her husband's death got a little out of hand. But that's just my surmise.

Marie

"Well, my thoughts are that the evidence is ambiguous. The dates we have are such that John could have been conceived when Hugh Swynford was still alive, and this is what Froissart believed. But Nico is right, and Gaunt claimed to the Pope that only he had been committing adultery in conceiving John Beaufort. I suspect this is probably true, and that what may have happened is that his comforting of Katherine after her husband's death got a little out of hand. But that's just my surmise."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I was hoping that John Beaufort was the answer to the Y chromosome discrepancy. Now I'm afraid it's Richard, Duke of York's father, Richard of Conisburgh, who was not a true descendant of Edward III. Still, that wouldn't affect either Richard III's claim to the throne or Edward IV's, since those claims were through Lionel of Antwerp, not Edmund of Langley.

Carol

On the contrary, examine the evidence:

There are 4 generations from Edward III to Richard III through the Dukes of York.

There are about 18 generations from Edward III to the current “Beauforts”. One of the six donors has a different Y-chromosome to the others.

Therefore, any break is at least four times as likely to be in the “Beaufort” line as in the York line.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: 15 December 2016 19:15
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] membership

Marie wrote:

"Well, my thoughts are that the evidence is ambiguous. The dates we have are such that John could have been conceived when Hugh Swynford was still alive, and this is what Froissart believed. But Nico is right, and Gaunt claimed to the Pope that only he had been committing adultery in conceiving John Beaufort. I suspect this is probably true, and that what may have happened is that his comforting of Katherine after her husband's death got a little out of hand. But that's just my surmise."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I was hoping that John Beaufort was the answer to the Y chromosome discrepancy. Now I'm afraid it's Richard, Duke of York's father, Richard of Conisburgh, who was not a true descendant of Edward III. Still, that wouldn't affect either Richard III's claim to the throne or Edward IV's, since those claims were through Lionel of Antwerp, not Edmund of Langley.

Carol

Yes, Stephen is absolutely right. Simply looked at from a statistical viewpoint, the "false paternity event" (assuming only one) is more likely to be on the Beaufort line. We can't go assuming that Richard's Y-chromosome DNA would have been different from that of his Beaufort contemporaries simply because it differs from modern Beauforts who share a much later common ancestor.

On the subject of disputed parents, I was hoping to find a copy of a book called Secrets of the House of York, by Marylynn Salmon. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be available anywhere but the author's website, costing around £45 - not a price I would like to pay for a book that sounds entertaining but far fetched. I was wondering if the Barton library has a copy. The author seemed a bit upset in the latest Ricardian about Joanna Laynesmith rather dismissive review. Does anyone know if there is any basis for her theory that: - Jacquetta of Luxembourg had affairs with both Richard, Duke of York and Edmund Beaufort, resulting in two illegitimate children (before she married Richard Woodville) - Elizabeth Woodville (with Richard) and Edward IV (with Edmund). She says Tudor roses were used in Edward IV's reign as a clandestine symbol of the union of the houses of York and Lancaster.
- Margaret Beaufort was Edward IV's mistress and had a number of children with him, including Cardinal Wolsey, William Warham and John Fisher. - Richard III and Elizabeth of York had an illegitimate child. - Edmund Beaufort was the biological father of Edward of Westminster (old news and possibly/probably true).
This really does sound like a casserole of nonsense, but does anyone know if there are any connections between these people which have been overlooked? Also, what is 'spiritual alchemy?'

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016, 15:31, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Hi David,

What is your source for Roland's true age? Unless it is recorded somewhere, all we can surely say with any confidence is that he is highly unlikely to have been born later than the first months of 1473 since he accompanied the army to Brittany (under Sir John Cheyne) in 1489 (i.e. the normal call-up age was 16).

This is the appendix on Roland's arms from http://www.happywarrior.org/genealogy/roland.htm#part3

"This information has been extracted from 'The Development of Welsh Heraldry' (1993) by Dr. M. P. Siddons, Welsh Herald Extraordinary. Please refer to that book for an explanation of the sources.

As far I can see from this information, Velville has been attributed with basically two different coats of arms, the first is item 1 below and the second is item 2. I think it is likely that item 3 is another interpretation of item 2.1, that is Velville's senior quartering. I would make a tentative guess that item 1 is the coat of arms granted to Velville upon his being knighted after the battle of Blackheath in 1497 (though I cannot think why he should be granted arms when it appears that he already had a coat of arms) and that item 2 represents his 'proper' coat of arms, that is the arms he inherited by birth. The unquartered coat of arms of his father would therefore appear to be item 2.1 but item 3 may be a more correct interpretation. The arms of Velville's father would appear to be 'argent/or, a boar passant/statant sable', either 'armed or, langued gules' or not as the case may be*.

*This means, in plain English, either a gold (or) or white (argent) background surmounted by a black boar (a boar sable), either walking past with its head sideways on (looking to its front i.e. left) and with its right paw raised (passant) or standing (head on the left, tail on the right) on its four paws with its head looking towards you (statant), either with gold teeth (armed or) and a red tongue (langued gules), or not as the case maybe.

It is, of course, intruiging that Velville should have been attributed with a coat of arms such as 2 below. This would seem to imply that the identity of both his father and mother was known. According to Dr. Siddons, John Writhe, Garter King of Arms (see below), would have actually known Velville. On the other hand, SF1 refers to a manuscript prepared for Katherine of Berain (Velville's grand-daughter) by Simwnt Fychan. It is possible that this coat of arms actually refers back to the ancestors of the Tudors amongst the Welsh princely families but I have not yet investigated this matter. Dr. Siddons has confirmed that it is 'unusual' that such apparent confusion should arise.

Writhe's Knights.

Argent, a lion rampant gules, charged with a bezant* on the shoulder.

*A bezant is a small gold circle or disk. They were often used to symbolize travel and the use of this charge may refer to Velville's alleged Breton origins.

SF1, WC4, WC5 and Geo.O.4.

These all seem to broadly agree on the six main elements, namely:-

Or, a boar passant sable.

Argent, three bars sable (WC5 - Barry of six, argent and sable).

Argent, three bars gules (WC5 - Barry of six, argent and gules).

Gules, a label or, three points seen.

'On his mother's side':-

Argent, a lion rampant gules, crowned or (I believe that these are the arms of the Counts of Poitou).

Argent, three chevrons sable.

The last two either being quarterings (Geo.O.4.) or shown quartered on an inescutcheon (SF1, WC4 and WC5). In addition, SF1, WC4 and WC5 (but not Geo.O.4.) show an inescutcheon - argent, a lion rampant gules, crowned, langued and armed or.

Harleian.

Argent, a boar statant sable, armed or, langued gules. Same as 2.1?

Supporters (SF1 and WC4 only):-

Two lions rampant gardant or, each holding a square banner argent, and spearmen or with heads azure supporting them, a crowned lion gules in each banner.

Crest (SF1 and WC4 only):-

A lion's head argent, langued gules, issuant from a crown or."

In fact, the few sources I found online suggest that the maternal arms, 'argent, a lion rampant gules, crowned or,' were in a Breton context the arms of the house of Goyon. There is a village named La Vieille-ville between the Goyon castles of Quintin and Le Blois Gle.

I'd be very interested if anybody has any ideas regarding the paternal arms.

The following (from the same website) are translations of late-Tudor bardic elegies of Roland's descendants:

"Great-grandson of gilded Sir Roland
And the heir and the possessor of the land from the line of his ancestor [literally his grandfather'],
That is the lineage of kings,
He was purely descended from the ancient blood of Brittany"

"From your grandmother you issued from a tribe who excelled,
Sir Roland of Brittany was your ancestor . . .
Your line issued from the blood of kings,
And was of the race of the earls of all England."

"Lineages came to you adroitly in a fine manner
From the blood of Velville in profusion;
The stag (i.e. Velville) is perceived to be a generous kinsman,
A gentle peacock who was the kinsman of the stags of Penmynydd."

(Penmynydd being the Tudor ancestral home in Anglesey.)

Tudor - i.e. Anglesey - ancestry could explain why Henry VIII's chose to make him constable of Beaumaris.

Marie

Hi Nico,

I heard Marylynn speak at the last Study Day, and I'm afraid that her theories, as she explained them there, were very misconceived. She normally deals with 17th or 18th century women's history, I understand, and she is certainly way out of her depth with the 15th century and had misinterpreted just about every piece of documentary evidence she presented. I believe she's a very nice person, so it's a pity she has been upset, but what can I say - reviews have to be honest and I felt that Joanna's was as diplomatic as it could be.

The below is from memory:-

For her theory about Edward and Edmund:-

1) More's statement about Edward IV's age reveals that he was older than we think;

2) York could not have been negotiating with Charles VII for the marriages of Edward and Edmund to Charles' daughters if Edward and Edmund were only tots (I know, this is to misunderstand 15th century norms);

3) In their letter to their father,h Edward and Edmund described themselves as his "natural" sons. She claims this definitely meant illegitimate. The fact is this was *not* the meaning of the word natural with regard to children in the 15th century - it simply meant they were one's own biological sons. People not infrequently refer to their 'natural son and heir' in wills. Another effect of the author having flown in from the 18th century without realising that the past is not another country but a lot of different other countries.

4) She is making the mistake of assuming that the House of Lancaster used the Red Rose before Bosworth. There is no evidence whatsoever that they did so (there were roses used but the colour is unclear and more likely gold). Edward did indeed occasionally use the Red Rose in conjunction with the White Rose, but then so did Richard. She would seem to have got the info about Edward and the Red Rose from Jonathan Hughes' book Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV (which is itself highly misleading). The idea is that alchemy was not just physical chemistry but had underlying semi-religious principles which could be harnessed for spiritual development. So the Red King and the White Queen of alchemy are associated on one level with Christ and Our Lady, whose symbols were, amongst other things, the Red Rose and the White.

5) How she hit on Jacquetta as Edward IV's mother, I really couldn't explain at this point.

Can't remember what evidence M.S. gave for Edward's affair with MB either, except that it wasn't very covincing.

I don't remember anything about Richard and Elizabeth's little basket, but M.S. might be interested to know that one of Henry's dispensations for his marriage to Elizabeth did include a 'possible' impediment of affinity (i.e. a possible prior sexual union between one of them and a blood relative of the other), but it was *not* in the correct number of degrees for a relationship between Elizabeth and Richard.

I do recall that we ended up with Erasmus being Edward V, and Richard Duke of York, after confessing to being Perkin Warbeck, being sent to be a monk at Glastonbury whilst an imposter was hanged in his place. Not sure how that was all arrived at, though.

It would indeed be worth asking the Non-Fiction books librarian if he has a copy because review copies are often passed on to him if the reviewer isn't interested in keeping.

Marie

David wrote:

Regarding Roland's age, your own logic shows that the birth date for him of 1474 is dubious. The fact that he was named in Robert Willoughby's mission to Brittany indicates he may have had a minor leadership role and be older than 16.

Marie:

I agree 1474 is dubious - that was surely my point in drawing attention to the 1489 evidence.

My understanding is that Roland didn't have a leadership role in that campaign, but is merely listed as serving under Cheyne.

But that does not count as evidence that he was 10 years older than that, as per your last post. My observation that we have no evidence for his participation at either Bosworth or Stoke casts some doubt on that.

"Yes, Stephen is absolutely right. Simply looked at from a statistical viewpoint, the "false paternity event" (assuming only one) is more likely to be on the Beaufort line. We can't go assuming that Richard's Y-chromosome DNA would have been different from that of his Beaufort contemporaries simply because it differs from modern Beauforts who share a much later common ancestor."

Carol responds:

That's reassuring. Thank you both. Nevertheless, I'd like to have a definitive answer, which would require examining the Y chromosome of Edward III. And, of course, there's also the question of Edward IV's paternity. Scientists would need *his* Y chromosome to determine whether the Bones in the Urn were those of his children--assuming that they were both boys.

Carol

“Scientists would need *his* Y chromosome to determine whether the Bones in the Urn were those of his children--assuming that they were both boys.”

Not necessarily!

Glen Moran’s appendix (pp. 234-43) in the latest JA-H, as reviewed in Murrey and Blue on Boxing Day, goes a very long way to providing a solution to the bones’ DNA, although there is a complicating factor from the following century. Many of you will have read The Private Life of Edward IV by now J

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 17 December 2016 17:09
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] membership

Marie wrote:

"Yes, Stephen is absolutely right. Simply looked at from a statistical viewpoint, the "false paternity event" (assuming only one) is more likely to be on the Beaufort line. We can't go assuming that Richard's Y-chromosome DNA would have been different from that of his Beaufort contemporaries simply because it differs from modern Beauforts who share a much later common ancestor."

Carol responds:

That's reassuring. Thank you both. Nevertheless, I'd like to have a definitive answer, which would require examining the Y chromosome of Edward III. And, of course, there's also the question of Edward IV's paternity. Scientists would need *his* Y chromosome to determine whether the Bones in the Urn were those of his children--assuming that they were both boys.

Carol

We'd all like definitive answers, but as you say the only way those can be had is by a lot of DNA testing. Statistical evidence is one thing, and points towards the Beauforts, but against that we have to set the suspicions over the paternity of Richard Earl of Cambridge.

And there's even an outside possibility that John Beaufort was Swynford's child but Katherine cannily managed to persuade Gaunt otherwise.

And Edward IV, as you say, is another question again.

Probably not much chance of permission being granted to DNA test any more remains.

There are a lot of unknowns with the history of this period, and these questions are amongst them.

Maybe one day. . . .

David wrote:

Regarding Roland's age, your own logic shows that the birth date for him of 1474 is dubious. The fact that he was named in Robert Willoughby's mission to Brittany indicates he may have had a minor leadership role and be older than 16.

Marie:

I agree 1474 is dubious - that was surely my point in drawing attention to the 1489 evidence.

My understanding is that Roland didn't have a leadership role in that campaign, but is merely listed as serving under Cheyne.

But that does not count as evidence that he was 10 years older than that, as per your last post. My observation that we have no evidence for his participation at either Bosworth or Stoke casts some doubt on that.

David wrote:

Regarding Roland's age, your own logic shows that the birth date for him of 1474 is dubious. The fact that he was named in Robert Willoughby's mission to Brittany indicates he may have had a minor leadership role and be older than 16.

Marie:

I agree 1474 is dubious - that was surely my point in drawing attention to the 1489 evidence.

My understanding is that Roland didn't have a leadership role in that campaign, but is merely listed as serving under Cheyne.

But that does not count as evidence that he was 10 years older than that, as per your last post. My observation that we have no evidence for his participation at either Bosworth or Stoke casts some doubt on that.

David wrote:

There is much more. But first, there is no reason to interpret Roland's non-appearance in documentation at Bosworth or Stoke in terms of his age.

Hi David,

That information looks much more promising, I must say - thanks very much indeed for passing it on. Can you give me time to look at it properly, though, before I respond properly? Just overloaded with Christmas stuff at present.

Just two very quick observations:-

(1) The Cozkaer and Cozquer names may really have had different meanings originally. In modern Breton at any rate, ker (quer) is the normal form of the word that means fortress/ house, but kaer means handsome or beautiful. So the Cozkaers may originally have been named for some good-looking elderly gent, but it suited them for some reason to present themselves as Vieuvilles in France. I don't know if you have any contacts who specialise in medieval Breton and could comment on that.

(2) I presume the Roland Cozquer of the muster, if identical to Roland de Velville, would not have been the heir to the house or else he would not have felt the need to make a new life for himself in England. Does the muster give any clue as to whether he could have been a younger son?

David wrote:

There is much more. But first, there is no reason to interpret Roland's non-appearance in documentation at Bosworth or Stoke in terms of his age.

Hi David,

Happy New Year to you and everyone else!

I promised I'd come back on this when I'd had a chance to look at it properly, didn't I? Now, to begin with I was very excited, but when I looked at your first claim - i.e. that Roland's paternal quartering was the same as the blazon of the Coskaers of Rosanbo, I'm afraid that's not what I found.

According to the Happy Warrior site, Roland de Velville's arms were silver for the field (not gold, as in the Coskaer arms), with a black boar langued or and armed gules (i.e. with red tongue and gold claws).

Checking the details of the arms of the Coskaers of Rosanbo in a heraldry book, I confirmed that the Coskaer boar does not sport the red tongue and golden claws, plus there was a further discrepancy - viz. Roland de Velville's boar is stantant whereas the Coskaer one is passant. In other words, the two blasons have nothing in common except for a black boar of some description.

I'll post again on the 16th-century bardic allusions to Roland's ancestry.

I'm gutted, actually, because I am also uncomfortable about Roland as Henry's son, simply because he would have to have conceived when Henry was very young, and one would think that there would then have been further illegitimate offspring during all those years in exile - also taking arms with 4 quarters like that is rather odd and the information from the various quarters really should help us solve the mystery.

Regarding your other questions,
The origin / meaning of the name does not need an expert in Breton, because Pol Potier de Courcy (seen as the most complete and accurate work) uses the phrase "lord of the said place" - indicating they took the name from the manor, and Vieilleville is one of their listed manors.
The motto of the family appears to be pun on the dual meaning of Kaer.
Devise de vieilles familles nobles bretonnes Devise de vieilles familles nobles bretonnes

TUDJENTIL BREIZH , Association de la Noblesse Bretonne

On Saturday, January 7, 2017, 13:43, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

David wrote:

There is much more. But first, there is no reason to interpret Roland's non-appearance in documentation at Bosworth or Stoke in terms of his age.

Hi David,

Happy New Year to you and everyone else!

I promised I'd come back on this when I'd had a chance to look at it properly, didn't I? Now, to begin with I was very excited, but when I looked at your first claim - i.e. that Roland's paternal quartering was the same as the blazon of the Coskaers of Rosanbo, I'm afraid that's not what I found.

According to the Happy Warrior site, Roland de Velville's arms were silver for the field (not gold, as in the Coskaer arms), with a black boar langued or and armed gules (i.e. with red tongue and gold claws).

Checking the details of the arms of the Coskaers of Rosanbo in a heraldry book, I confirmed that the Coskaer boar does not sport the red tongue and golden claws, plus there was a further discrepancy - viz. Roland de Velville's boar is stantant whereas the Coskaer one is passant. In other words, the two blasons have nothing in common except for a black boar of some description.

I'll post again on the 16th-century bardic allusions to Roland's ancestry.

I'm gutted, actually, because I am also uncomfortable about Roland as Henry's son, simply because he would have to have conceived when Henry was very young, and one would think that there would then have been further illegitimate offspring during all those years in exile - also taking arms with 4 quarters like that is rather odd and the information from the various quarters really should help us solve the mystery.

David wrote: