Jean de Clarence Langlée son of Thomas son of Henry IV?

[Matthew Langley]

Was wondering if anyone has good sources of information on the son of Thomas son of Henry IV "Jean de Clarence Langlée"... All the talk about the Plantagent lines left me interested in this interesting possible branch, but can't find any information about it besides a mention of it on Wikipedia and a few generations on geanlogics.

[Matthew Langley]

Posting references to my own inquiry, there seems to be an interesting reference here... He is also called Sir John Clarence or "Bastard of Clarence:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9149317#imageViewerLink

Petitioners: John, Bastard of Clarence, knight.
Name(s): Clarence, John
Addressees: Commons in parliament.
Nature of request: John, Bastard of Clarence, complains of his poverty, and asks the commons to ask the King, on the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal, to send him to serve the King in France or anywhere else that pleases him, or to make other provision for his sustenance.
Nature of endorsement: [On face] Let it be delivered to the King.[None on dorse]
Places mentioned: France; Ireland.
People mentioned: [Henry V], King of England.


I'm curious on what ties him to the Langle french house

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Matthew ~

Below please find my current file account regarding Sir John of Clarence (died c.1434), the bastard son of Sir Thomas of Lancaster, Duke of Clarence (died 1421). There is nothing whatsoever which ties Sir John of Clarence to the "Langle french house."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +

JOHN OF CLARENCE, Knt., styled "Bastard of Clarence," King's knight. He was present with his father at the Battle of Beaugé in 1421, where he was taken prisoner by the Dauphin of France. He afterwards took part in the French wars of King Henry VI. In 1428 he was granted the manors of Esker, Newcastle-Lyons, Crumlin, and Tassagard, co. Dublin, Ireland, for his bravery in recovering the body of his father, Duke Thomas; the following year he was granted £100 a year from the said manors of Newcastle-Lyons, Esker, and Tassagard. He obtained letters of protection in 1430, he then serving in France. He was granted the office of Constable of Dublin Castle 3 July 1431, and sworn into office 14 Feb. 1432. SIR JOHN OF CLARENCE presumably died before 26 October 1434, when Giles Thorndon, Esq., was granted the office of Constable of Dublin Castle.

References:

Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 303. Blore, Hist. & Antiqs. of Rutland 1(2) (1811): 98 (Lancaster ped.). Tresham, Rotulorum Patentium et Clausorum Cancellariae Hiberniae Calendarium (1828): 235/49; 235/50. Burke, Gen'l & Heraldic Dict. of the Peerages of England, Ireland & Scotland (1831): 430 (sub Plantagenet - Earl of Albemarle, Duke of Clarence). Nicolas, Procs. & Ordinances of the Privy Council of England 4 (1835): 8. Montagu, Guide to the Study of Heraldry (1840): 44-45 (arms of John of Clarence: Per chevron gules and azure, in chief two lions counter rampant guardant, and in base a fleur-de-lis or). Johnes, Chrons. of Enguerrand de Monstrelet 1 (1845): 459. Planché, Pursuivant of Arms (1852): 155. Vallet de Viriville, Hist. de Charles VII 1 (1862): 248, 253, 261; 2 (1863): 141. Gilbert, Hist. of the Viceroys of Ireland (1865): 581. Hardy, Syllabus (in English) of the Docs. Rel. England & Other Kingdoms 2 (1873): 645, 647. Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 48 (1887): 265. Woodward & Burnett, Treatise on Heraldry, British & Foreign 2 (1892): 556. C.P.R. 1422-1429 (1901): 489-490, 543. C.P.R. 1429-1436 (1907): 38, 41-42, 122, 443. Kingsford, English Hist. Lit. in the 15th Cent. (Burt Franklin Bibliog. & Ref. 37) (1913): 295. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 121 (arms of [John] Bastard of Clarence: per chevron gules and azure in chief two lions rampant facing, gold, in base a fleur-de-lis gold). C.C.R. 1429-1435 (1933): 118. Ross, Patronage, Pedigree & Power in Later Medieval England (1979): 17-18, 32. Beauclerk-Dewar & Powell, Right Royal Bastards (2006): 182. National Archives, SC 8/96/4753 (petition dated c.1431 from John, Bastard of Clarence, Knt. to Commons in Parliament, who complains of his poverty, and asks the commons to ask the King, on the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal, to send him to serve the King in France or anywhere else that pleases him, or to make other provision for his sustenance) (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). RCH 235/49; RCH 235/50 (available at https://chancery.tcd.ie/). Online resource: http://yorkshirehistory.com/Gallery/C/clarencebastard.

[Peter Howarth]

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 22:26:20 UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> References:
>
>... Montagu, Guide to the Study of Heraldry (1840): 44-45 (arms of John of Clarence: Per chevron gules and azure, in chief two lions counter rampant guardant, and in base a fleur-de-lis or) ... Vis. of the North 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 121 (arms of [John] Bastard of Clarence: per chevron gules and azure in chief two lions rampant facing, gold, in base a fleur-de-lis gold).

There is always a danger in following late sources for heraldry. Too many authors simply copied from others without checking on original sources. In the reference given as Vis. of the North 4 the information is not from a visitation but taken from Sandford, who was writing more than two centuries after John of Clarence's death.
A much better method, although not infallible, is to look at the Dictionary of British Arms, in this case at i. p 268. Here you will find four different versions of his arms taken from nine different sources. But because all the sources are given, it is easy to establish that only one of them is contemporary with the man himself. This is a seal from a document dated 17 July 1430 described in J Roman, 'Inventaire des Sceaux de la Collection des Pièces Originales du Cabinet des Titres à la Bibliothèque Nationale', Paris, 1909, no 3167. Seals are good evidence for what individuals actually used themselves, much better than what somebody says they saw and then recorded on a roll of arms.
The arms on the seal are 'two lions passant guardant [horizontal and looking out of the shield] and in base a fleur de lis'. As happens on many seals, the line of division on the field (per chevron) has not come out on the impression in the wax. At this time the royal arms were quarterly France modern (azure, three fleurs de lis or) and England (gules, three lions passant guardant or). One would expect a royal bastard to have an obvious allusion to these arms but without suggesting any claim to the throne. The two lions passant guardant clearly refer to England and the fleur de lis to France, but by not having either arms complete there can be no suggestion of lèse-majesté.
The rest of the sources have the two lions rampant [vertical], sometimes guardant, sometimes not. The earliest example I can find for this version is Atkinson's Roll (temp. Hen VI) AK 12 (transcribed James Greenstreet, The Genealogist, i. (1876) pp 226-32), which for some reason is not included in the DBA. The entry reads 'B. o'clare'ce. He be'rith Asure, a floure de lyse golde, and he be'rith a scliefi' gusett gowlys wt ij lip'dys encawntrawnts golde armyd yn Asure.' This may be the ultimate source for all the other mistaken sources, especially since this roll is unusual in using sylu' and golde instead of argent and or, and Sandford also uses gold instead of or for these arms.
As far as John of Clarence's sobriquet Langlée is concerned, would it not be the equivalent of the modern French l'anglais, making clear that although his mother may have been French he was English?

Peter Howarth

[j***@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 23 January 2016 01:45:53 UTC+7, Peter Howarth wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 January 2016 22:26:20 UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> >
> > References:
> >
> >... Montagu, Guide to the Study of Heraldry (1840): 44-45 (arms of John of Clarence: Per chevron gules and azure, in chief two lions counter rampant guardant, and in base a fleur-de-lis or) ... Vis. of the North 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 121 (arms of [John] Bastard of Clarence: per chevron gules and azure in chief two lions rampant facing, gold, in base a fleur-de-lis gold).
>
> There is always a danger in following late sources for heraldry. Too many authors simply copied from others without checking on original sources. In the reference given as Vis. of the North 4 the information is not from a visitation but taken from Sandford, who was writing more than two centuries after John of Clarence's death.
> A much better method, although not infallible, is to look at the Dictionary of British Arms, in this case at i. p 268. Here you will find four different versions of his arms taken from nine different sources. But because all the sources are given, it is easy to establish that only one of them is contemporary with the man himself. This is a seal from a document dated 17 July 1430 described in J Roman, 'Inventaire des Sceaux de la Collection des Pièces Originales du Cabinet des Titres à la Bibliothèque Nationale', Paris, 1909, no 3167. Seals are good evidence for what individuals actually used themselves, much better than what somebody says they saw and then recorded on a roll of arms.
> The arms on the seal are 'two lions passant guardant [horizontal and looking out of the shield] and in base a fleur de lis'. As happens on many seals, the line of division on the field (per chevron) has not come out on the impression in the wax. At this time the royal arms were quarterly France modern (azure, three fleurs de lis or) and England (gules, three lions passant guardant or). One would expect a royal bastard to have an obvious allusion to these arms but without suggesting any claim to the throne. The two lions passant guardant clearly refer to England and the fleur de lis to France, but by not having either arms complete there can be no suggestion of lèse-majesté.
> The rest of the sources have the two lions rampant [vertical], sometimes guardant, sometimes not. The earliest example I can find for this version is Atkinson's Roll (temp. Hen VI) AK 12 (transcribed James Greenstreet, The Genealogist, i. (1876) pp 226-32), which for some reason is not included in the DBA. The entry reads 'B. o'clare'ce. He be'rith Asure, a floure de lyse golde, and he be'rith a scliefi' gusett gowlys wt ij lip'dys encawntrawnts golde armyd yn Asure.' This may be the ultimate source for all the other mistaken sources, especially since this roll is unusual in using sylu' and golde instead of argent and or, and Sandford also uses gold instead of or for these arms.
> As far as John of Clarence's sobriquet Langlée is concerned, would it not be the equivalent of the modern French l'anglais, making clear that although his mother may have been French he was English?
>
> Peter Howarth

Hi Peter,

There is a place in Upper Normandy called Langlée and there was a family called de Langlée who were lords of the place, however there is no sign of the persons mentioned in the post in this account of the family:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SlMsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA133

Regards,

John

[Peter Howarth]

On Saturday, 23 January 2016 00:21:37 UTC, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 January 2016 01:45:53 UTC+7, Peter Howarth wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 January 2016 22:26:20 UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > >
> > > References:
> > >
> > >... Montagu, Guide to the Study of Heraldry (1840): 44-45 (arms of John of Clarence: Per chevron gules and azure, in chief two lions counter rampant guardant, and in base a fleur-de-lis or) ... Vis. of the North 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 121 (arms of [John] Bastard of Clarence: per chevron gules and azure in chief two lions rampant facing, gold, in base a fleur-de-lis gold).
> >
> > There is always a danger in following late sources for heraldry. Too many authors simply copied from others without checking on original sources. In the reference given as Vis. of the North 4 the information is not from a visitation but taken from Sandford, who was writing more than two centuries after John of Clarence's death.
> > A much better method, although not infallible, is to look at the Dictionary of British Arms, in this case at i. p 268. Here you will find four different versions of his arms taken from nine different sources. But because all the sources are given, it is easy to establish that only one of them is contemporary with the man himself. This is a seal from a document dated 17 July 1430 described in J Roman, 'Inventaire des Sceaux de la Collection des Pièces Originales du Cabinet des Titres à la Bibliothèque Nationale', Paris, 1909, no 3167. Seals are good evidence for what individuals actually used themselves, much better than what somebody says they saw and then recorded on a roll of arms.
> > The arms on the seal are 'two lions passant guardant [horizontal and looking out of the shield] and in base a fleur de lis'. As happens on many seals, the line of division on the field (per chevron) has not come out on the impression in the wax. At this time the royal arms were quarterly France modern (azure, three fleurs de lis or) and England (gules, three lions passant guardant or). One would expect a royal bastard to have an obvious allusion to these arms but without suggesting any claim to the throne. The two lions passant guardant clearly refer to England and the fleur de lis to France, but by not having either arms complete there can be no suggestion of lèse-majesté.
> > The rest of the sources have the two lions rampant [vertical], sometimes guardant, sometimes not. The earliest example I can find for this version is Atkinson's Roll (temp. Hen VI) AK 12 (transcribed James Greenstreet, The Genealogist, i. (1876) pp 226-32), which for some reason is not included in the DBA. The entry reads 'B. o'clare'ce. He be'rith Asure, a floure de lyse golde, and he be'rith a scliefi' gusett gowlys wt ij lip'dys encawntrawnts golde armyd yn Asure.' This may be the ultimate source for all the other mistaken sources, especially since this roll is unusual in using sylu' and golde instead of argent and or, and Sandford also uses gold instead of or for these arms.
> > As far as John of Clarence's sobriquet Langlée is concerned, would it not be the equivalent of the modern French l'anglais, making clear that although his mother may have been French he was English?
> >
> > Peter Howarth
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> There is a place in Upper Normandy called Langlée and there was a family called de Langlée who were lords of the place, however there is no sign of the persons mentioned in the post in this account of the family:
> https://books.google.com/books?id=SlMsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA133
>
> Regards,
>
> John

Hi John

Firstly, thank you very much for all your contributions, especially on Yorkshire families. They've always proved extremely useful.
Then, in relation to John of Clarence, the lack of any connection to the Norman village or family of Langlée suggests to me that perhaps we ought to look for some other explanation for his nickname. My suggestion is a possibility, but might there be others? On the other hand, this is definitely not in my area of expertise and I quite expect to be blown out of the water.
Cheers

Peter

[j***@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 23 January 2016 15:50:03 UTC+7, Peter Howarth wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 January 2016 00:21:37 UTC, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 January 2016 01:45:53 UTC+7, Peter Howarth wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 21 January 2016 22:26:20 UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > References:
> > > >
> > > >... Montagu, Guide to the Study of Heraldry (1840): 44-45 (arms of John of Clarence: Per chevron gules and azure, in chief two lions counter rampant guardant, and in base a fleur-de-lis or) ... Vis. of the North 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 121 (arms of [John] Bastard of Clarence: per chevron gules and azure in chief two lions rampant facing, gold, in base a fleur-de-lis gold).
> > >
> > > There is always a danger in following late sources for heraldry. Too many authors simply copied from others without checking on original sources. In the reference given as Vis. of the North 4 the information is not from a visitation but taken from Sandford, who was writing more than two centuries after John of Clarence's death.
> > > A much better method, although not infallible, is to look at the Dictionary of British Arms, in this case at i. p 268. Here you will find four different versions of his arms taken from nine different sources. But because all the sources are given, it is easy to establish that only one of them is contemporary with the man himself. This is a seal from a document dated 17 July 1430 described in J Roman, 'Inventaire des Sceaux de la Collection des Pièces Originales du Cabinet des Titres à la Bibliothèque Nationale', Paris, 1909, no 3167. Seals are good evidence for what individuals actually used themselves, much better than what somebody says they saw and then recorded on a roll of arms.
> > > The arms on the seal are 'two lions passant guardant [horizontal and looking out of the shield] and in base a fleur de lis'. As happens on many seals, the line of division on the field (per chevron) has not come out on the impression in the wax. At this time the royal arms were quarterly France modern (azure, three fleurs de lis or) and England (gules, three lions passant guardant or). One would expect a royal bastard to have an obvious allusion to these arms but without suggesting any claim to the throne. The two lions passant guardant clearly refer to England and the fleur de lis to France, but by not having either arms complete there can be no suggestion of lèse-majesté.
> > > The rest of the sources have the two lions rampant [vertical], sometimes guardant, sometimes not. The earliest example I can find for this version is Atkinson's Roll (temp. Hen VI) AK 12 (transcribed James Greenstreet, The Genealogist, i. (1876) pp 226-32), which for some reason is not included in the DBA. The entry reads 'B. o'clare'ce. He be'rith Asure, a floure de lyse golde, and he be'rith a scliefi' gusett gowlys wt ij lip'dys encawntrawnts golde armyd yn Asure.' This may be the ultimate source for all the other mistaken sources, especially since this roll is unusual in using sylu' and golde instead of argent and or, and Sandford also uses gold instead of or for these arms.
> > > As far as John of Clarence's sobriquet Langlée is concerned, would it not be the equivalent of the modern French l'anglais, making clear that although his mother may have been French he was English?
> > >
> > > Peter Howarth
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > There is a place in Upper Normandy called Langlée and there was a family called de Langlée who were lords of the place, however there is no sign of the persons mentioned in the post in this account of the family:
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=SlMsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA133
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John
>
> Hi John
>
> Firstly, thank you very much for all your contributions, especially on Yorkshire families. They've always proved extremely useful.
> Then, in relation to John of Clarence, the lack of any connection to the Norman village or family of Langlée suggests to me that perhaps we ought to look for some other explanation for his nickname. My suggestion is a possibility, but might there be others? On the other hand, this is definitely not in my area of expertise and I quite expect to be blown out of the water.
> Cheers
>
> Peter

My suggestion is that this is all nonsense and invented by someone to give themselves a royal descent. Unless someone can point us to a contemporary document where John the bastard of Clarence is also called de Langlée. I really doubt that such a document exists.

Regards,
John

[Ian Goddard]

On 23/01/16 08:49, Peter Howarth wrote:
> Firstly, thank you very much for all your contributions, especially on Yorkshire families. They've always proved extremely useful.
> Then, in relation to John of Clarence, the lack of any connection to the Norman village or family of Langlée suggests to me that perhaps we ought to look for some other explanation for his nickname. My suggestion is a possibility, but might there be others? On the other hand, this is definitely not in my area of expertise and I quite expect to be blown out of the water.

Could it simply be a French rendition of the English place name of
Langley. There are a lot of Langleys in England and even more if you
take into account the alternative of Longley.

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk

[Richard Smith]

On 23/01/16 10:04, Ian Goddard wrote:

> Could it simply be a French rendition of the English place name of
> Langley. There are a lot of Langleys in England and even more if you
> take into account the alternative of Longley.

You're not the first to suggest this. E.g. in /Notes & Queries/, 4th
series, vol 3 (6 Feb 1869), pp 125-6.

https://archive.org/stream/s4notesqueries03londuoft#page/125/mode/2up

"En consultant la généalogie des Lancastre, on voit que Thomas duc de
Clarence eut deux fils: l'un nommé le duc de Beaufort, l'autre nommé
simplement Thomas; comme l'histoire d'Angleterre mentionne une abbaye
nommée Langley, près de Londres, qui était, je crois, un apange de la
couronne, il est présumable qu'on a fait prendre dans la suite le nom de
Langley à ce Thomas."

Obviously one has to treat with considerable scepticism a person who
thinks a Duke of Beaufort was a son of Thomas, Duke of Clarence. (John
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset was his step-son, which is presumably the
origin of the confusion.)

Langley Abbey is in Norfolk, on the river Yare midway between Norwich
and Great Yarmouth, in Norfolk. But I can find no reference to it
having been a appanage of the Crown; for example, nothing is mentioned
in the Abbey's entry in the VCH for Norfolk [vol 2, pp 418-21].

There was a reply the next month [6 Mar, p 228]:

https://archive.org/stream/s4notesqueries03londuoft#page/228/mode/2up

"He [Thomas, Duke of Clarence] had one illegitimate son, called in our
histories the Bastard of Clarence, whose Christian name is given by
Anderson as John: Baker calls him Sir Thomas Beaufort on one page, and
Sir John Beaufort on the next. It therefore appears he bore the name
Beaufort, though he was not of the old Beaufort stock, descended from
the eldest natural son of John of Gaunt; and I think there is room for
considerable doubt whether he was ever created Duke of Beaufort."

The author mentions King's Langley, Abbot's Langley and Chilterne
Langley, all in Hertfordshire. "I greatly doubt any of these places
having ever been the appanage of the Bastard of Clarence or his
descendants. Is it not possible that the name of these descendants is
not derived from Langley, but from L'Anglais?"

Do any contemporary sources refer to the Bastard of Clarence using the
surname Beaufort? It would not be wholly surprising as the Beauforts
were his step-siblings, but I've never seen it.

Richard

[Douglas Richardson]

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 10:17:28 AM UTC-7, Richard Smith wrote:

< Do any contemporary sources refer to the Bastard of Clarence using the
< surname Beaufort? It would not be wholly surprising as the Beauforts
< were his step-siblings, but I've never seen it.
<
< Richard

No, there are no contemporary sources which refer to John, Bastard of Clarence using the surname Beaufort.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, Peter Howarth wrote:

<As far as John of Clarence's sobriquet Langlée is concerned, would it not be <the equivalent of the modern French l'anglais, making clear that although his <mother may have been French he was English?

Dear Peter ~

I've reviewed all of the contemporary records pertaining to Sir John of Clarence, also styled John, Bastard of Clarence. He is not associated with any place or family named Langlée as you suggest. Nor was Langlée ever used as a nickname or sobriquet for him. He is always John of Clarence, John, Bastard of Clarence, or John bastard son of the Duke of Clarence. No Langlée.

For example, I just pulled up another reference to John of Clarence in the following source. He is styled "Bastard of Clarence" in this chronicle, which record indicates that he was sent in 1429 by John, Duke of Bedford to besiege the castle of Torsy in Normandy.

Waurin, Recueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la Grant Bretaigne 3 (1879) (Rolls Ser.): 347-348.

You can view the above record at the following weblinks:

https://books.google.com/books?id=olUfAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA347

A discussion in English of this chronicle can be found at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5zofAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212

Elsewhere, there is a good pedigree of the Lancaster family published in Thomas Blore, History and Antiquities of Rutland 1(2) (1811): 98 at the following weblink:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE47090

Blore, who is a competent historian, gives the name of John of Clarence's mother as Amasia. I haven't seen the actual record which Blore used for this statement. But Blore is probably correct as to her given name.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Peter Stewart via]

On 26/01/2016 9:21 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote:
> Blore, who is a competent historian, gives the name of John of Clarence's mother as Amasia. I haven't seen the actual record which Blore used for this statement. But Blore is probably correct as to her given name.
>
>

What? Surely this Latin form just proves that Blore was ignorant, like
so many of us, and in Richardson English her name must be given as Maisie.

Peter Stewart

[j***@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 05:22:00 UTC+7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-7, Peter Howarth wrote:
>
> <As far as John of Clarence's sobriquet Langlée is concerned, would it not be <the equivalent of the modern French l'anglais, making clear that although his <mother may have been French he was English?
>
> Dear Peter ~
>
> I've reviewed all of the contemporary records pertaining to Sir John of Clarence, also styled John, Bastard of Clarence. He is not associated with any place or family named Langlée as you suggest. Nor was Langlée ever used as a nickname or sobriquet for him. He is always John of Clarence, John, Bastard of Clarence, or John bastard son of the Duke of Clarence. No Langlée.
>
> For example, I just pulled up another reference to John of Clarence in the following source. He is styled "Bastard of Clarence" in this chronicle, which record indicates that he was sent in 1429 by John, Duke of Bedford to besiege the castle of Torsy in Normandy.
>
> Waurin, Recueil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la Grant Bretaigne 3 (1879) (Rolls Ser.): 347-348.
>
> You can view the above record at the following weblinks:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=olUfAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA347
>
> A discussion in English of this chronicle can be found at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=5zofAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212
>
> Elsewhere, there is a good pedigree of the Lancaster family published in Thomas Blore, History and Antiquities of Rutland 1(2) (1811): 98 at the following weblink:
>
> https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE47090
>
> Blore, who is a competent historian, gives the name of John of Clarence's mother as Amasia. I haven't seen the actual record which Blore used for this statement. But Blore is probably correct as to her given name.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Douglas,

Amasia was not her name. Amasia was her job description; it means mistress.

See: https://books.google.com/books?id=xgHsBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT63

Regards,
John

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

I checked several Latin-English dictionaries. The word "amasia" either wasn't listed in them or it was identified as a town in Pontus, on the river Iris. Only one dictionary defined it as meaning "female lover."

That being said, the Latin word "amasia" is clearly defined as "mistress" in the recent book you cited, namely Massacre at Montségur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade (2015) by Zoé Oldenbourg, which states the following:

"Cases are frequently cited of credentes attending some heretical ceremony accompanied by their concubines (amasia=mistress): 'Willelmus Raimundi de Roqua et Arnauda, amasia ejus; Petrus aura et Boneta, amasia uxor ejus; Raimunda, amasia Othonis de Massabrac,' etc. As far as the Catholic hierarchy were concerned, any woman not married in church was automatically classed as a 'concubine' and Cathar believers might well object to being married within a Church whose rites they abhorred and despised." END OF QUOTE.

Oldenbourg's comments aside, I see one of the women Boneta is referred to as "amasia uxor ejus." Does that mean she was both the man's mistress AND his wife?

On the point of what Mr. Blore put in his pedigree chart, I see that Mr. Blore capitalized the word "Amasia" as if to treat it as a given name. However, since I haven't encountered Amasia as a woman's given name in medieval England, it would seem that you're correct that he used the word "Amasia" to refer to an unidentified "mistress."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:53:36 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:

< Dear Douglas,
<
< Amasia was not her name. Amasia was her job description; it means mistress.
<
< See: https://books.google.com/books?id=xgHsBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT63
<
< Regards,
< John

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) via]

From: Douglas Richardson via [gen-***@rootsweb.com]
Sent: 26 January 2016 18:56
<snip>
> On the point of what Mr. Blore put in his pedigree chart, I see that Mr. Blore capitalized the word "Amasia" as if to treat it as a given name. However, since I haven't encountered Amasia as a woman's given name in medieval England, it would seem that you're correct that he used the word "Amasia" to refer to an unidentified "mistress."
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
-------------------------------

It seems to be an obscure usage, but it is possible to find occasional occurrences of 'amasia' used to mean 'mistress'. Here's good one, from Sir George Buck's History and Life and Reigne of Richard the Third, written ca. 1620, at p. 115:

"I shall not need to intimate how amorous and wanton this King was, his many Mistrisses or Amasia's he kept, in several private places; whereof the most famous was Katharine de Clarington, Elizabeth Wiatt alias Lucy, Iane Shore, the Lady Elianor Talbot."

[Jan Wolfe]

Here is an example of the word amasia in a medieval Latin text (1400s):

Quidam homo de Haydok in comitatu Lancastrie tenuit vnam concubinam de qua generauit pueros. Obijt ilia mulier & vir duxit aliam mulierem in 'vxorem. Contigit postea quod id vir iuit quadam die ad quendam fabrum pro ferris aratri, scilicet cultro & vomere, corrigendis siue acuendis. Qui quidem faber manebat in alia villa vocata Hulme que distat a Haydok predicta per duo miliaria. Qui cum reuerteretur in nocte veniebat per quandam crucem stantem in via que dicitur Newton cros, & ibi inuasit eum horror terribulis. Et sic perterritus respiciens circa se vidit quasi vmbram obscuram quam coniurauit ne sibi noceret sed ut diceret quid esset; & respondit vox ex illa vmbra & dixit illi, Ne timeas. Ego sum illa mulier que quondam fui amasia tua, & permissa sum venire ad te pro auxilio a te habendo.

This is the beginning of a story as printed in H. E. D. Blakiston, "Two More Medieval Ghost Stories," The English Historical Review, Vol. 38, No. 149 (Jan., 1923), pp. 85-87.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/551895
Blakiston states, "The Trinity College Oxford manuscript in which these items occur (no. vii in H. O. Coxe's Catalogue) is evidently an Ely book ... It is apparently a preacher's commonplace book, and contains over 30 items, including hymns, prayers, the litany of the B.V.M., sententiae, versus proverbiales, narrationes, legendae, four sermons, a manuale and a directorium sacerdotum, notabilia, &c." He also states, "It seems to me not improbable that there were collections of such stories in common form for the use of preachers ..."

[j***@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:56:19 AM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear John ~
>
> Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
>
> I checked several Latin-English dictionaries. The word "amasia" either wasn't listed in them or it was identified as a town in Pontus, on the river Iris. Only one dictionary defined it as meaning "female lover."
>
> That being said, the Latin word "amasia" is clearly defined as "mistress" in the recent book you cited, namely Massacre at Montségur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade (2015) by Zoé Oldenbourg, which states the following:
>
> "Cases are frequently cited of credentes attending some heretical ceremony accompanied by their concubines (amasia=mistress): 'Willelmus Raimundi de Roqua et Arnauda, amasia ejus; Petrus aura et Boneta, amasia uxor ejus; Raimunda, amasia Othonis de Massabrac,' etc. As far as the Catholic hierarchy were concerned, any woman not married in church was automatically classed as a 'concubine' and Cathar believers might well object to being married within a Church whose rites they abhorred and despised." END OF QUOTE.
>
> Oldenbourg's comments aside, I see one of the women Boneta is referred to as "amasia uxor ejus." Does that mean she was both the man's mistress AND his wife?
>
> On the point of what Mr. Blore put in his pedigree chart, I see that Mr. Blore capitalized the word "Amasia" as if to treat it as a given name. However, since I haven't encountered Amasia as a woman's given name in medieval England, it would seem that you're correct that he used the word "Amasia" to refer to an unidentified "mistress."
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:53:36 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> < Dear Douglas,
> <
> < Amasia was not her name. Amasia was her job description; it means mistress.
> <
> < See: https://books.google.com/books?id=xgHsBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT63
> <
> < Regards,
> < John

Although the edition cited here was published only in 2015, Zoé Oldenbourg's "Massacre at Montségur" is certainly not a "recent book". It was originally published (in French as "Le Bûcher de Montségur") in 1959, and an English translation appeared in 1961 and was subsequently reprinted as recently as 1998. Ms. Oldenbourg herself died in 2002.

As to "Boneta, amasia uxor ejus", the explanation seems pretty clear from the text quoted above. Although "Petrus aura et Boneta, amasia uxor ejus" no doubt considered themselves to be married (although probably not by Catholic rites), the Catholic Church (whose records are being cited) considered their "marriage" to be invalid and was disparagingly referring to Boneta as a "concubine".

[Peter Stewart via]

On 27/01/2016 8:10 AM, ***@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote:
> From: Douglas Richardson via [gen-***@rootsweb.com]
> Sent: 26 January 2016 18:56
> <snip>
>> On the point of what Mr. Blore put in his pedigree chart, I see that Mr. Blore capitalized the word "Amasia" as if to treat it as a given name. However, since I haven't encountered Amasia as a woman's given name in medieval England, it would seem that you're correct that he used the word "Amasia" to refer to an unidentified "mistress."
>>
>> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>>
> -------------------------------
>
> It seems to be an obscure usage, but it is possible to find occasional occurrences of 'amasia' used to mean 'mistress'.

"Amasia" meaning mistress was sometimes used instead of (or as well as)
"concubina" - this meaning, that Blore most probably intended, was
evidently derived from amatrix (female lover).

Just to complicate things, Amaziah, king of Judah, was named Amasias in
Latin, so that his name in the accusative is Amasiam - consequently a
few passages in the Bible could be read as low comedy by sniggering monks.

In the early 18th century the poet John Hopkins published *Amasia, or
the Works of the Muses*, dedicated to the duchess of Grafton as "the
Amasia of the world" - I don't think this was meant as an insult.

Peter Stewart
//

[Matthew Langley]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 2:00:21 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart via wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 8:10 AM, ***@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote:
> > From: Douglas Richardson via [gen-***@rootsweb.com]
> > Sent: 26 January 2016 18:56
> > <snip>
> >> On the point of what Mr. Blore put in his pedigree chart, I see that Mr. Blore capitalized the word "Amasia" as if to treat it as a given name. However, since I haven't encountered Amasia as a woman's given name in medieval England, it would seem that you're correct that he used the word "Amasia" to refer to an unidentified "mistress."
> >>
> >> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> >>
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > It seems to be an obscure usage, but it is possible to find occasional occurrences of 'amasia' used to mean 'mistress'.
>
> "Amasia" meaning mistress was sometimes used instead of (or as well as)
> "concubina" - this meaning, that Blore most probably intended, was
> evidently derived from amatrix (female lover).
>
> Just to complicate things, Amaziah, king of Judah, was named Amasias in
> Latin, so that his name in the accusative is Amasiam - consequently a
> few passages in the Bible could be read as low comedy by sniggering monks.
>
> In the early 18th century the poet John Hopkins published *Amasia, or
> the Works of the Muses*, dedicated to the duchess of Grafton as "the
> Amasia of the world" - I don't think this was meant as an insult.
>
> Peter Stewart
> //


Just wanted to thanks everyone for sharing, found it all very fascinating. Certainly sounds like there's no documentation to prove a "Langle" French connection to the Bastard of Clarence, at least that's been presented.