Discussion:
Correct death year of Mary Bohun, first wife of Henry IV?
(too old to reply)
r***@yahoo.com
2019-07-18 16:08:19 UTC
Permalink
The Complete Peerage account of Lancaster seems to indicate Mary died as "Countess of Derby" in 1394. In other words, some record of her death called her "Countess of Derby." I suppose that was her courtesy title during the lifetime of her father-in-law, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who d. 1399.

_Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London_, edited by Nichols, includes her death under the 20th regnal year of Richard II (which I think should be ca. 1397).

"Thys yere dyde Mare the countes of Derby."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p00763836y&view=1up&seq=52

Does anyone know which year is correct?
Peter Howarth
2019-07-18 16:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.com
The Complete Peerage account of Lancaster seems to indicate Mary died as "Countess of Derby" in 1394. In other words, some record of her death called her "Countess of Derby." I suppose that was her courtesy title during the lifetime of her father-in-law, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who d. 1399.
_Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London_, edited by Nichols, includes her death under the 20th regnal year of Richard II (which I think should be ca. 1397).
"Thys yere dyde Mare the countes of Derby."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p00763836y&view=1up&seq=52
Does anyone know which year is correct?
ODNB under Henry IV [known as Henry Bolingbroke]:
'Mary died giving birth to Philippa in 1394, perhaps on 4 July, the date her anniversary was celebrated in 1406, and she was buried in Our Lady's chapel in St Mary of the Newarke, Leicester, a Lancastrian collegiate foundation.'

Peter Howarth
Brad Verity
2019-07-18 16:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.com
The Complete Peerage account of Lancaster seems to indicate Mary died as "Countess of Derby" in 1394. In other words, some record of her death called her "Countess of Derby." I suppose that was her courtesy title during the lifetime of her father-in-law, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who d. 1399.
_Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London_, edited by Nichols, includes her death under the 20th regnal year of Richard II (which I think should be ca. 1397).
"Thys yere dyde Mare the countes of Derby."
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p00763836y&view=1up&seq=52
Does anyone know which year is correct?
Dear John,

"There is considerable doubt about the date of Mary’s death, and all we can say for certain is that she died in June or very early July 1394. ‘ODNB’ states (under ‘Henry IV’) that Mary died ‘perhaps on 4 July, the date her anniversary was celebrated in 1406’. This is supported by ‘Westminster Chronicle 1381-1394’, p. 521, which states that ‘about the beginning of July the countess of Derby died in childbed and was buried at Leicester’. ‘Handbook of British Chronology’ states that Mary died on ‘? 4 June’, but does not explain why this date has been chosen. It may be that the editors guessed that the 4 July date was an error for 4 June, which would allow enough time for the funeral preparations. If so, this would explain why Walsingham mentions Mary’s death after Constanza [of Castile]’s and before Anne [of Bohemia]’s. ... However, Knighton (’Knighton's Chronicle’, p. 551) records that she was buried on Monday 6 July, the Monday being supported by Walsingham (’St Albans Chronicle’, p. 961).” [Ian Mortimer, 'The Fears of Henry IV' (2008), pp. - sorry I don't have the exact pages handy].

Hope this helps.

Cheers, -----Brad
Brad Verity
2019-07-18 17:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Hope this helps.
Also from Ian Mortimer, 'The Fears of Henry IV':
“The funerals of the duchess Constanza and the countess Mary took place in a much more sober atmosphere, at Leicester, on consecutive days at the beginning of July. Black cloth in huge quantities adorned the church of St. Mary. Henry and his father attended, joining in the procession with other members of the family and the Lancastrian retainers. First, on Sunday 5 July, Constanza was buried.”

If Mary unexpectedly died in childbirth on July 4th the day before Constanza's funeral, there would be no need for weeks to make elaborate funeral preparations - all was already in place, so Mary could be easily buried two days after her death on July 6th.

Since the anniversary of Mary's death was celebrated on July 4th, that is most likely the correct date of death.

Cheers, ----Brad
r***@yahoo.com
2019-07-18 19:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Brad Verity
Hope this helps.
“The funerals of the duchess Constanza and the countess Mary took place in a much more sober atmosphere, at Leicester, on consecutive days at the beginning of July. Black cloth in huge quantities adorned the church of St. Mary. Henry and his father attended, joining in the procession with other members of the family and the Lancastrian retainers. First, on Sunday 5 July, Constanza was buried.”
If Mary unexpectedly died in childbirth on July 4th the day before Constanza's funeral, there would be no need for weeks to make elaborate funeral preparations - all was already in place, so Mary could be easily buried two days after her death on July 6th.
Since the anniversary of Mary's death was celebrated on July 4th, that is most likely the correct date of death.
Cheers, ----Brad
Thanks, Brad. So certainly 1394, then, and probably early July.

I should have realized something was wrong with the Grey Friars' chronicle, since further down in Richard II's 20th year, it states that John of Gaunt himself died, which would clearly be wrong. Also the footnote drawing attention to the dating errors in this part of the narrative!
c***@gmail.com
2019-07-18 19:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Dear John ~

Thank you for your post. Much appreciated.

Regarding the death date of Mary de Bohun, 1st wife of King Henry IV, my current file account indicates that she died in childbirth at Peterborough Castle, Northamptonshire 4 July 1394, and was buried in the church of the Newark, Leicester, Leicestershire.

My notes indicate that there is a discussion regarding Mary's place of burial in Notes & Queries 11th Ser. 6 (1912): 211, 313, 378, 431.

I assume this source also discusses her date of death.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Brad Verity
2019-07-18 21:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Regarding the death date of Mary de Bohun, 1st wife of King Henry IV, my current file account indicates that she died in childbirth at Peterborough Castle, Northamptonshire 4 July 1394, and was buried in the church of the Newark, Leicester, Leicestershire.
My notes indicate that there is a discussion regarding Mary's place of burial in Notes & Queries 11th Ser. 6 (1912): 211, 313, 378, 431.
I assume this source also discusses her date of death.
Dear Douglas,

What is the source for Mary dying at Peterborough Castle? I just looked up the distance between Peterborough and Leicester - 37 miles.

Could her body have been transported to Leicester in two days in 1394?

Obviously there would have been the full resources of the house of Lancaster to get her there.

Just wondering.

Cheers, -----Brad
c***@gmail.com
2019-07-18 21:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Dear Brad ~

I suspect I obtained Mary de Bohun's place of death from the discussion in Notes & Queries, 11th Ser. 6 (1912): 211, 313, 378, 431. My notes indicate that this discussion concerns her place of burial, but it's likely her date of death is also treated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Brad Verity
Post by c***@gmail.com
Regarding the death date of Mary de Bohun, 1st wife of King Henry IV, my current file account indicates that she died in childbirth at Peterborough Castle, Northamptonshire 4 July 1394, and was buried in the church of the Newark, Leicester, Leicestershire.
My notes indicate that there is a discussion regarding Mary's place of burial in Notes & Queries 11th Ser. 6 (1912): 211, 313, 378, 431.
I assume this source also discusses her date of death.
Dear Douglas,
What is the source for Mary dying at Peterborough Castle? I just looked up the distance between Peterborough and Leicester - 37 miles.
Could her body have been transported to Leicester in two days in 1394?
Obviously there would have been the full resources of the house of Lancaster to get her there.
Just wondering.
Cheers, -----Brad
Peter Stewart
2019-07-18 23:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Brad ~
I suspect I obtained Mary de Bohun's place of death from the discussion in Notes & Queries, 11th Ser. 6 (1912): 211, 313, 378, 431. My notes indicate that this discussion concerns her place of burial, but it's likely her date of death is also treated.
Peterborough castle is not mentioned there - see
https://archive.org/details/s11notesqueries06londuoft

How odd that your notes appear to be no more specific for identifying
sources than your published works, so that you are left guessing just
like your readers.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2019-07-19 01:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Brad ~
I suspect I obtained Mary de Bohun's place of death from the discussion in Notes & Queries, 11th Ser. 6 (1912): 211, 313, 378, 431. My notes indicate that this discussion concerns her place of burial, but it's likely her date of death is also treated.
Peterborough castle is not mentioned there - see
https://archive.org/details/s11notesqueries06londuoft
How odd that your notes appear to be no more specific for identifying
sources than your published works, so that you are left guessing just
like your readers.
Peter Stewart
DR: "...but it's likely her date of death is also treated" [in N&Q 11th series, vol. 6 cited by DR above].

Ummm, not exactly - or at least not in agreement with what DR has determined to be her death date. The only mention of Mary Bohun's date of death in this source is on page 313, where it said: "The mother of Henry V died, and was buried with great pomp, at the end of June 1394". DR says above that Mary Bohun died 4 July 1394. Apparently he must have some other source, not only for the Peterborough reference, but also for her death date.

Peter Stewart's comment is quite pertinent - the reader is left guessing as to what sources may (or may not) support DR's statements, even when he himself gives us the supposed source specifically.
Loading...