Discussion:
help please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(too old to reply)
Adalbertus Magnus
2003-11-25 16:31:45 UTC
Permalink
I encountered a problem with the children of the 2d Duke of Suffolk
and Elizabeth Plantagenet. So far I counted eleven with differing
birth and death dates:
1)John
2)Edmund
3)Humphrey
4)William
5)an unnamed son
6)Richard
7)Catherine
8)Anne
9)Dorothy
10) Elizabeth
11)Edward

If anyone has any information on their birth order, their spouses,
titles or the dates of their birth and/or death, I would greatly, greatly
appreciate it.
Adalbertus Magnus
Douglas Richardson
2003-11-26 00:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Dear Adalbertus Magna (nice nick by the way) ~

Thank you for your good post.

Below is a copy of the information on Elizabeth Plantagenet, wife of
John de la Pole, K.G., 2nd Duke of Suffolk, found in the manuscript of
my forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry. For your interest, I've
provided all my sources.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: ***@msn.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ELIZABETH PLANTAGENET, born at Rouen, Normandy 22 April 1444, baptized
there 22 Sept. 1444. She married before 1 Feb. 1458 (as his 2nd wife)
JOHN DE LA POLE, K.G., 2nd Duke of Suffolk, 2nd Marquess of Suffolk,
Lord De La Pole, Constable of Wallingford Castle, High Steward of
Oxford University, Lieutenant of Ireland, son and heir of William de
la Pole, K.G., 1st Duke of Suffolk, 1st Marquess of Suffolk, Earl of
Pembroke, by his 2nd wife, Alice, daughter and heir of Thomas Chaucer,
of Ewelme, co. Oxford [see STONOR 12]. They had six sons, John, K.B.
[Earl of Lincoln], Edward (clerk) [Canon of Salisbury], Edmund, K.B.,
K.G. [3rd Duke of Suffolk, 3rd Marquess of Suffolk], Humphrey (clerk),
William, Knt., and Richard, and four daughters, Elizabeth (wife of
Henry Lovel, Knt., 8th Lord Morley), Anne (nun), Katherine (wife of
William Stourton, K.B., 5th Lord Stourton), and Dorothy. He fought as
a Yorkist at the Battles of St. Albans, Ferrybridge, and presumably
Towton, all in 1461. He was Lord High Steward for the Coronation of
his brother-in-law, King Edward IV, in 1461. He took part in the
King's expedition to France in 1475. He was present at the Coronation
of King Richard III in 1483. SIR JOHN DE LA POLE, 2nd Duke of
Suffolk, 2nd Marquess of Suffolk, died between 29 Oct. 1491 and 27
Oct. 1492. His widow, Elizabeth, died between 7 Jan. 1502/3 and 3 May
1504. They were buried at Wingfield, Suffolk. No living descendants.

References: T. Rymer, Fœdera 11(1727): 401 (John [de la Pole], Duke
of Suffolk, styled "kinsman" by King Henry VI of England). J.
Dallaway, Hist. of the Western Div. of Sussex 2 Pt. 1 (1832): 150–151.
Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 297. G.F. Beltz, Memorials of the Most
Noble Order of the Garter (1841): clviii, clxiv, clxix. H.A. Napier,
Hist. Notices of the Parishes of Swyncombe & Ewelme (1858): 108–197.
C. de R. de Beaurepaire, Fondations pieuses du duc de Bedford à Rouen
(Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 34) (1873): 6. J.B. Burke,
Genealogical Hist. of Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct
Peerages (1883): 440–442 (sub Pole). C.P.R. 1467–1477 (1900): 261,
312 (instances of Elizabeth, wife of John, Duke of Suffolk, styled
"king's sister"); 417 (John, Duke of Suffolk, and his mother, Alice,
Duchess of Suffolk, styled "king's kinsfolk"). Papal Regs.: Letters
10 (1915): 472–473; 13 Pt. 1 (1955): 272 (son Edward called "nephew"
by Richard III, King of England); 13 Pt. 2 (1955): 714 (son Edward
called "nephew of Edward IV, King of England"). Complete Peerage, 4
(1916): 19, footnote f; 7 (1929): 688–690 (sub Lincoln); 9 (1936): 220
(sub Morley); 10 (1945): 567 (sub Pole); 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 304 (sub
Stourton), 448–454 (sub Suffolk), Appendix I: 21–25. VCH Berkshire 4
(1924): 91–92, 461. W. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 3 (Surtees
Soc. 144) (1930): 2–5 ("Elizabeth nupta Iohanni duci Suffolcij").
E.A.G. Lamborn, Armorial Glass of the Oxford Diocese 1250–1850 (1949):
134–135. Camden 4th ser. 9 (1972): 209, 224–225. Speculum 54 (1979):
528–529. R.A. Griffiths, Reign of Henry VI (1981): 679, 707, 841.
The Ricardian 7 (1985): 18–25.
Post by Adalbertus Magnus
I encountered a problem with the children of the 2d Duke of Suffolk
and Elizabeth Plantagenet. So far I counted eleven with differing
1)John
2)Edmund
3)Humphrey
4)William
5)an unnamed son
6)Richard
7)Catherine
8)Anne
9)Dorothy
10) Elizabeth
11)Edward
If anyone has any information on their birth order, their spouses,
titles or the dates of their birth and/or death, I would greatly, greatly
appreciate it.
Adalbertus Magnus
Peter Stewart
2003-11-26 06:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Adalbertus Magna (nice nick by the way) ~
It might be so, for a hermaphrodite anyway, but it definitely isn't
the name or pseudonym used by the SGM participant Richardson is
addressing. The noun (or forename) and adjective (or surname) are both
naturally masculine, Adalbertus Magnus.

The principle of genders would normally be taught in the first or
second lesson of a beginner's course in Latin. Richardson should take
one in a hurry, before his book (no doubt citing 1000s of Latin
sources that he can't possibly have read for himself & understood)
goes to press - assuming this is expected any time soon.

Peter Stewart
Sutliff
2003-11-27 06:17:04 UTC
Permalink
As he demonstrated recently in the thread on the bastard children of King
Henry I, Douglas Richardson has cherry picked the names of the children of
the Duke of Suffolk. I find it very troubling for him to continually bury
sources in his laundry list which contradict what he cites. CP XII-1:
Appendix I: 24 includes a possible seventh son Geoffrey between William and
Richard, who was Pensioner and D. C. L. at Cambridge in 1499 and who was
buried at Babraham, Cambridgeshire. Geoffrey may have been the same son as
Humphrey, but Richardson does not mention Geoffrey (nor does he mention the
uncertainty in CP that Edward and Humphrey were the Duke's sons), but then
why would we expect otherwise from someone
who fails to omit conflicts cited in sources in his lists or respond to
Stewart Baldwin, F. A. S. G.'s queries about the bastard children of Henry I
or admit the too numerous and frequent, premature errors of identities (Amie
de Gaveston, Clemence Dauntsey, Aude de Chaumont, Joan/Gladys Dhu, Alice
Camoys, Lucy St. John, Heton, Driby, Elizabeth de Holand, the embarrassing
gaffes on continental origins, his shifting definitions of kinsman, his
continual misunderstanding of Latin and French, his mistaking abstracts for
charter translations, etc.). Anyone else would be too shamed to post so many
errors or at the very least acknowledge them which he refuses. That he is
more worried about trying to find what he perceives is an omission or
incompletion in CP than he is in contributing an accurate count and list of
bastard children of King Henry I indicates that his priorities are far
removed from what most perceive as scholarship.

Even more disturbing is the identity of the paternity and maternity of a
female ancestor to gateway immigrants posted in the past three years. A long
list of many sources is cited for this woman and her husband. Unfortunately,
if you examine all the sources given by Richardson (which I and two
Richardson non-critics have done), you will find that in only two of them is
this woman listed with a surname and each is in conflict with the other.
None of them identify her where Richardson has placed her as daughter. Yet,
when and if this book is published this information will pollute databases
and the internet. It is incredibly sad to see how much apathy there is in
demanding better scholarship from one who self promotes himself so
shamelessly. If this is all we ought to expect from trained historians and
professional genealogists, both disciplines are in big trouble.

Henry Sutliff
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Adalbertus Magna (nice nick by the way) ~
Thank you for your good post.
Below is a copy of the information on Elizabeth Plantagenet, wife of
John de la Pole, K.G., 2nd Duke of Suffolk, found in the manuscript of
my forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry. For your interest, I've
provided all my sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ELIZABETH PLANTAGENET, born at Rouen, Normandy 22 April 1444, baptized
there 22 Sept. 1444. She married before 1 Feb. 1458 (as his 2nd wife)
JOHN DE LA POLE, K.G., 2nd Duke of Suffolk, 2nd Marquess of Suffolk,
Lord De La Pole, Constable of Wallingford Castle, High Steward of
Oxford University, Lieutenant of Ireland, son and heir of William de
la Pole, K.G., 1st Duke of Suffolk, 1st Marquess of Suffolk, Earl of
Pembroke, by his 2nd wife, Alice, daughter and heir of Thomas Chaucer,
of Ewelme, co. Oxford [see STONOR 12]. They had six sons, John, K.B.
[Earl of Lincoln], Edward (clerk) [Canon of Salisbury], Edmund, K.B.,
K.G. [3rd Duke of Suffolk, 3rd Marquess of Suffolk], Humphrey (clerk),
William, Knt., and Richard, and four daughters, Elizabeth (wife of
Henry Lovel, Knt., 8th Lord Morley), Anne (nun), Katherine (wife of
William Stourton, K.B., 5th Lord Stourton), and Dorothy. He fought as
a Yorkist at the Battles of St. Albans, Ferrybridge, and presumably
Towton, all in 1461. He was Lord High Steward for the Coronation of
his brother-in-law, King Edward IV, in 1461. He took part in the
King's expedition to France in 1475. He was present at the Coronation
of King Richard III in 1483. SIR JOHN DE LA POLE, 2nd Duke of
Suffolk, 2nd Marquess of Suffolk, died between 29 Oct. 1491 and 27
Oct. 1492. His widow, Elizabeth, died between 7 Jan. 1502/3 and 3 May
1504. They were buried at Wingfield, Suffolk. No living descendants.
References: T. Rymer, Fodera 11(1727): 401 (John [de la Pole], Duke
of Suffolk, styled "kinsman" by King Henry VI of England). J.
Dallaway, Hist. of the Western Div. of Sussex 2 Pt. 1 (1832): 150-151.
Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 297. G.F. Beltz, Memorials of the Most
Noble Order of the Garter (1841): clviii, clxiv, clxix. H.A. Napier,
Hist. Notices of the Parishes of Swyncombe & Ewelme (1858): 108-197.
C. de R. de Beaurepaire, Fondations pieuses du duc de Bedford à Rouen
(Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 34) (1873): 6. J.B. Burke,
Genealogical Hist. of Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct
Peerages (1883): 440-442 (sub Pole). C.P.R. 1467-1477 (1900): 261,
312 (instances of Elizabeth, wife of John, Duke of Suffolk, styled
"king's sister"); 417 (John, Duke of Suffolk, and his mother, Alice,
Duchess of Suffolk, styled "king's kinsfolk"). Papal Regs.: Letters
10 (1915): 472-473; 13 Pt. 1 (1955): 272 (son Edward called "nephew"
by Richard III, King of England); 13 Pt. 2 (1955): 714 (son Edward
called "nephew of Edward IV, King of England"). Complete Peerage, 4
(1916): 19, footnote f; 7 (1929): 688-690 (sub Lincoln); 9 (1936): 220
(sub Morley); 10 (1945): 567 (sub Pole); 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 304 (sub
Stourton), 448-454 (sub Suffolk), Appendix I: 21-25. VCH Berkshire 4
(1924): 91-92, 461. W. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 3 (Surtees
Soc. 144) (1930): 2-5 ("Elizabeth nupta Iohanni duci Suffolcij").
528-529. R.A. Griffiths, Reign of Henry VI (1981): 679, 707, 841.
The Ricardian 7 (1985): 18-25.
Post by Adalbertus Magnus
I encountered a problem with the children of the 2d Duke of Suffolk
and Elizabeth Plantagenet. So far I counted eleven with differing
1)John
2)Edmund
3)Humphrey
4)William
5)an unnamed son
6)Richard
7)Catherine
8)Anne
9)Dorothy
10) Elizabeth
11)Edward
If anyone has any information on their birth order, their spouses,
titles or the dates of their birth and/or death, I would greatly, greatly
appreciate it.
Adalbertus Magnus
Sutliff
2003-11-27 06:19:14 UTC
Permalink
As he demonstrated recently in the thread on the bastard children of King
Henry I, Douglas Richardson has cherry picked the names of the children of
the Duke of Suffolk. I find it very troubling for him to continually bury
sources in his laundry list which contradict what he cites. CP XII-1:
Appendix I: 24 includes a possible seventh son Geoffrey between William and
Richard, who was Pensioner and D. C. L. at Cambridge in 1499 and who was
buried at Babraham, Cambridgeshire. Geoffrey may have been the same son as
Humphrey, but Richardson does not mention Geoffrey (nor does he mention the
uncertainty in CP that Edward and Humphrey were the Duke's sons), but then
why would we expect otherwise from someone
who fails to admit conflicts cited in sources in his lists or respond to
Stewart Baldwin, F. A. S. G.'s queries about the bastard children of Henry I
or admit the too numerous and frequent, premature errors of identities (Amie
de Gaveston, Clemence Dauntsey, Aude de Chaumont, Joan/Gladys Dhu, Alice
Camoys, Lucy St. John, Heton, Driby, Elizabeth de Holand, the embarrassing
gaffes on continental origins, his shifting definitions of kinsman, his
continual misunderstanding of Latin and French, his mistaking abstracts for
charter translations, etc.). Anyone else would be too shamed to post so many
errors or at the very least acknowledge them which he refuses. That he is
more worried about trying to find what he perceives is an omission or
incompletion in CP than he is in contributing an accurate count and list of
bastard children of King Henry I indicates that his priorities are far
removed from what most perceive as scholarship.

Even more disturbing is the identity of the paternity and maternity of a
female ancestor to gateway immigrants posted in the past three years. A long
list of many sources is cited for this woman and her husband. Unfortunately,
if you examine all the sources given by Richardson (which I and two
Richardson non-critics have done), you will find that in only two of them is
this woman listed with a surname and each is in conflict with the other.
None of them identify her where Richardson has placed her as daughter. Yet,
when and if this book is published this information will pollute databases
and the internet. It is incredibly sad to see how much apathy there is in
demanding better scholarship from one who self promotes himself so
shamelessly. If this is all we ought to expect from trained historians and
professional genealogists, both disciplines are in big trouble.

Henry Sutliff
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Adalbertus Magna (nice nick by the way) ~
Thank you for your good post.
Below is a copy of the information on Elizabeth Plantagenet, wife of
John de la Pole, K.G., 2nd Duke of Suffolk, found in the manuscript of
my forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry. For your interest, I've
provided all my sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ELIZABETH PLANTAGENET, born at Rouen, Normandy 22 April 1444, baptized
there 22 Sept. 1444. She married before 1 Feb. 1458 (as his 2nd wife)
JOHN DE LA POLE, K.G., 2nd Duke of Suffolk, 2nd Marquess of Suffolk,
Lord De La Pole, Constable of Wallingford Castle, High Steward of
Oxford University, Lieutenant of Ireland, son and heir of William de
la Pole, K.G., 1st Duke of Suffolk, 1st Marquess of Suffolk, Earl of
Pembroke, by his 2nd wife, Alice, daughter and heir of Thomas Chaucer,
of Ewelme, co. Oxford [see STONOR 12]. They had six sons, John, K.B.
[Earl of Lincoln], Edward (clerk) [Canon of Salisbury], Edmund, K.B.,
K.G. [3rd Duke of Suffolk, 3rd Marquess of Suffolk], Humphrey (clerk),
William, Knt., and Richard, and four daughters, Elizabeth (wife of
Henry Lovel, Knt., 8th Lord Morley), Anne (nun), Katherine (wife of
William Stourton, K.B., 5th Lord Stourton), and Dorothy. He fought as
a Yorkist at the Battles of St. Albans, Ferrybridge, and presumably
Towton, all in 1461. He was Lord High Steward for the Coronation of
his brother-in-law, King Edward IV, in 1461. He took part in the
King's expedition to France in 1475. He was present at the Coronation
of King Richard III in 1483. SIR JOHN DE LA POLE, 2nd Duke of
Suffolk, 2nd Marquess of Suffolk, died between 29 Oct. 1491 and 27
Oct. 1492. His widow, Elizabeth, died between 7 Jan. 1502/3 and 3 May
1504. They were buried at Wingfield, Suffolk. No living descendants.
References: T. Rymer, Fodera 11(1727): 401 (John [de la Pole], Duke
of Suffolk, styled "kinsman" by King Henry VI of England). J.
Dallaway, Hist. of the Western Div. of Sussex 2 Pt. 1 (1832): 150-151.
Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 297. G.F. Beltz, Memorials of the Most
Noble Order of the Garter (1841): clviii, clxiv, clxix. H.A. Napier,
Hist. Notices of the Parishes of Swyncombe & Ewelme (1858): 108-197.
C. de R. de Beaurepaire, Fondations pieuses du duc de Bedford à Rouen
(Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 34) (1873): 6. J.B. Burke,
Genealogical Hist. of Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct
Peerages (1883): 440-442 (sub Pole). C.P.R. 1467-1477 (1900): 261,
312 (instances of Elizabeth, wife of John, Duke of Suffolk, styled
"king's sister"); 417 (John, Duke of Suffolk, and his mother, Alice,
Duchess of Suffolk, styled "king's kinsfolk"). Papal Regs.: Letters
10 (1915): 472-473; 13 Pt. 1 (1955): 272 (son Edward called "nephew"
by Richard III, King of England); 13 Pt. 2 (1955): 714 (son Edward
called "nephew of Edward IV, King of England"). Complete Peerage, 4
(1916): 19, footnote f; 7 (1929): 688-690 (sub Lincoln); 9 (1936): 220
(sub Morley); 10 (1945): 567 (sub Pole); 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 304 (sub
Stourton), 448-454 (sub Suffolk), Appendix I: 21-25. VCH Berkshire 4
(1924): 91-92, 461. W. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 3 (Surtees
Soc. 144) (1930): 2-5 ("Elizabeth nupta Iohanni duci Suffolcij").
528-529. R.A. Griffiths, Reign of Henry VI (1981): 679, 707, 841.
The Ricardian 7 (1985): 18-25.
Post by Adalbertus Magnus
I encountered a problem with the children of the 2d Duke of Suffolk
and Elizabeth Plantagenet. So far I counted eleven with differing
1)John
2)Edmund
3)Humphrey
4)William
5)an unnamed son
6)Richard
7)Catherine
8)Anne
9)Dorothy
10) Elizabeth
11)Edward
If anyone has any information on their birth order, their spouses,
titles or the dates of their birth and/or death, I would greatly, greatly
appreciate it.
Adalbertus Magnus
Brad Verity
2003-12-03 19:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
ELIZABETH PLANTAGENET, born at Rouen, Normandy 22 April 1444, baptized
there 22 Sept. 1444.
Was there really a six-month gap between birth and baptism for this
poor York girl? In the 15th-century? Every proof of age I've read so
far has the baptism the day of, or within a week (at the most) of, the
birth. How does whatever the source was for Elizabeth's baptism date
explain this?
Post by Douglas Richardson
and four daughters, Elizabeth (wife of
Henry Lovel, Knt., 8th Lord Morley), Anne (nun), Katherine (wife of
William Stourton, K.B., 5th Lord Stourton), and Dorothy.
Dorothy? Dorothy de la Pole? Was the name Dorothy used in 15th
century England? What is the source for this daughter?

Thanks and Cheers, -----Brad
Douglas Richardson
2003-12-04 17:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Dear Brad ~

Thank you for your good post.

C.P. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) states that Elizabeth
Plantagenet was born at Rouen 22 April 1444. I believe this date and
place is in agreement with a published transcript of her birth record
which I have seen elsewhere in print.

The baptismal date for Elizabeth Plantagenet is derived from a French
source entitled Fondations pieuses du duc de Bedford à Rouen, written
by C. de R. de Beaurepaire (Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 34)
(1873), pg. 6, footnote 4.

This work is available on the gallica website at the following
address:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/

Monsieur Beaurepaire clearly states that Elizabeth Plantagenet was
baptized at Rouen Cathedral 22 September 1444.

Elizabeth's godparents included the well known Jacquette de
Luxembourg, widow of John of Lancaster, Earl of Bedford, who is
incorrectly called Isabelle in the registres capitulaires which record
the baptism. At the time of the baptism in 1444, Jacquette was then
the wife of Sir Richard Wydeville.

I note that Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) makes
no mention of this baptismal record. So, I believe this record would
be a new addition for C.P. and also for Chris Phillips' website.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at
my private e-mail address below.

As ever, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by Brad Verity
Post by Douglas Richardson
ELIZABETH PLANTAGENET, born at Rouen, Normandy 22 April 1444, baptized
there 22 Sept. 1444.
Was there really a six-month gap between birth and baptism for this
poor York girl? In the 15th-century? Every proof of age I've read so
far has the baptism the day of, or within a week (at the most) of, the
birth. How does whatever the source was for Elizabeth's baptism date
explain this?
Thanks and Cheers, -----Brad
Peter Stewart
2003-12-05 07:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Brad ~
Thank you for your good post.
C.P. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) states that Elizabeth
Plantagenet was born at Rouen 22 April 1444. I believe this date and
place is in agreement with a published transcript of her birth record
which I have seen elsewhere in print.
The baptismal date for Elizabeth Plantagenet is derived from a French
source entitled Fondations pieuses du duc de Bedford à Rouen, written
by C. de R. de Beaurepaire (Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 34)
(1873), pg. 6, footnote 4.
This work is available on the gallica website at the following
http://gallica.bnf.fr/
Monsieur Beaurepaire clearly states that Elizabeth Plantagenet was
baptized at Rouen Cathedral 22 September 1444.
Elizabeth's godparents included the well known Jacquette de
Luxembourg, widow of John of Lancaster, Earl of Bedford, who is
incorrectly called Isabelle in the registres capitulaires which record
the baptism. At the time of the baptism in 1444, Jacquette was then
the wife of Sir Richard Wydeville.
I note that Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) makes
no mention of this baptismal record. So, I believe this record would
be a new addition for C.P. and also for Chris Phillips' website.
Something more than this is surely required before anyone should
correct CP.

For a start, the original records need to be checked - unless the
months are named instead of numbered (both commonly found in
15th-century documents), it is quite possible that someone has misread
either "iv" (April) for "ix" (September) or vice versa, and that
Elizabeth was acutally baptised on the day of her birth in one month
or the other.

Merely citing a 19th-century historian's note in this way is just
uncritically copying from secondary literature (remember what was
unjustly said to Spencer Hines about this a few weeks ago?), and the
information given is of course not properly characterised as "derived
from a source".

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2003-12-05 18:01:30 UTC
Permalink
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Brad ~
Thank you for your good post.
C.P. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) states that Elizabeth
Plantagenet was born at Rouen 22 April 1444. I believe this date and
place is in agreement with a published transcript of her birth record
which I have seen elsewhere in print.
The baptismal date for Elizabeth Plantagenet is derived from a French
source entitled Fondations pieuses du duc de Bedford à Rouen, written
by C. de R. de Beaurepaire (Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 34)
(1873), pg. 6, footnote 4.
This work is available on the gallica website at the following
http://gallica.bnf.fr/
Monsieur Beaurepaire clearly states that Elizabeth Plantagenet was
baptized at Rouen Cathedral 22 September 1444.
Elizabeth's godparents included the well known Jacquette de
Luxembourg, widow of John of Lancaster, Earl of Bedford, who is
incorrectly called Isabelle in the registres capitulaires which record
the baptism. At the time of the baptism in 1444, Jacquette was then
the wife of Sir Richard Wydeville.
I note that Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) makes
no mention of this baptismal record. So, I believe this record would
be a new addition for C.P. and also for Chris Phillips' website.
Something more than this is surely required before anyone should
correct CP.
As given by Monsieur Beaurepaire, the baptismal record makes it
perfectly clear the identity of the child in question as well as the
identities of the two godparents. C.P. does not have to vouch for the
accuracy of all published transcripts before it cites them as sources.
In some cases, the originals no longer exist.
Post by Peter Stewart
Merely citing a 19th-century historian's note in this way is just
uncritically copying from secondary literature (remember what was
unjustly said to Spencer Hines about this a few weeks ago?), and the
information given is of course not properly characterised as "derived
from a source".
Complete Peerage employs a very high standard in its use of sources.
C.P. often cites modern transcripts of original documents for its
sources, including in this case the source it used for the birth
record of Elizabeth Plantagenet. According to C.P. 12 Pt. 1 (1953):
450, footnote f, Elizabeth's birthdate and place are taken from
Wyrcestre's Annals, ii, 763. I believe this is a reference to
Wyrcester's Annals, which source can be found at the end of volume 2
of the book, Letters & Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English
in France, 2 Pt. 2 (Rolls Ser. 22) (1864): 743–793.

Interested parties, by the way, can find a modern record of the birth
of Elizabeth Plantagenet, also taken from Wyrcester, in Jennifer
Ward's enjoyable book, Women of the English Nobility and Gentry
1066–1500 (1995), pg. 58. Ms. Ward has also published a second book
on medieval life entitled English Noblewomen in the Later Middles
Ages. Both of Ms. Ward's books are very illuminating about the life
of English women in medieval times. I recommend both books to
newsgroup members.

If you have any further questions, Peter, please feel free to contact
me at my private e-mail address below.
Post by Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: ***@msn.com
Peter Stewart
2003-12-06 06:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
If you have any further questions, Peter, please feel free to contact
me at my private e-mail address below.
There is nothing for us to discuss privately, but here's a public
question for you: what is the point of asking questions of someone who
simply ignores any consideration whatsoever that can't be turned or
twisted to his own credit without any actual effort on his part?

You haven't, of course, addressed the issue, which is that either CP's
or Beaurepaire's information about Elizabeth's birth/baptism date may
well be in error, from an obvious cause or perhaps for some other
reason altogether.

You are now deliberately choosing to overlook a possible reiteration &
spreading of such an error, apparently on the grounds that CP did the
same thing. This is NOT true. It doesn't make a scrap of difference
that CP cited transcripts for such details - this was ONLY done, as by
any competent historian, when there wasn't the slightest reason to
doubt the correctness of the transcript in question, when there was NO
suggestion of inconsistency between two or more versions or
independent records of the fact/s.

You have now been made aware by Brad of a slight problem, which may be
a spark or just a puff of smoke. Either way, you ought to hear an
alarm bell ringing. Next, you should slide down the pole of your
professionalism, and trundle your genealogist's fire engine along to
the library to do some front-line work for a change. You won't get any
respect here for lying on your bunk (clearly a habit in every sense of
the words) in the fire station of your self-esteem & irrelevantly
pleading "Leave me alone, CP did the same thing".

Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
2003-12-06 07:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Peter Stewart is quite correct.

This important genealogical and historical exchange should be continued
in the public forum of SGM ---- not hidden away in some back-channel
private conversation ---- where we can't see who knows what he is
talking about and who does not.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

| ***@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
| >
| > If you have any further questions, Peter, please feel free to
contact
| > me at my private e-mail address below.
|
| There is nothing for us to discuss privately, but here's a public
| question for you: what is the point of asking questions of someone who
| simply ignores any consideration whatsoever that can't be turned or
| twisted to his own credit without any actual effort on his part?
|
| You haven't, of course, addressed the issue, which is that either CP's
| or Beaurepaire's information about Elizabeth's birth/baptism date may
| well be in error, from an obvious cause or perhaps for some other
| reason altogether.
|
| You are now deliberately choosing to overlook a possible reiteration &
| spreading of such an error, apparently on the grounds that CP did the
| same thing. This is NOT true. It doesn't make a scrap of difference
| that CP cited transcripts for such details - this was ONLY done, as by
| any competent historian, when there wasn't the slightest reason to
| doubt the correctness of the transcript in question, when there was NO
| suggestion of inconsistency between two or more versions or
| independent records of the fact/s.
|
| You have now been made aware by Brad of a slight problem, which may be
| a spark or just a puff of smoke. Either way, you ought to hear an
| alarm bell ringing. Next, you should slide down the pole of your
| professionalism, and trundle your genealogist's fire engine along to
| the library to do some front-line work for a change. You won't get any
| respect here for lying on your bunk (clearly a habit in every sense of
| the words) in the fire station of your self-esteem & irrelevantly
| pleading "Leave me alone, CP did the same thing".
|
| Peter Stewart

Richard Smith
2003-12-06 08:01:25 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Plantagenet, wife of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk
Post by Douglas Richardson
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Brad ~
Thank you for your good post.
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
I note that Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) makes
no mention of this baptismal record. So, I believe this record would
be a new addition for C.P. and also for Chris Phillips' website.
Something more than this is surely required before anyone should
correct CP.
As given by Monsieur Beaurepaire, the baptismal record makes it
perfectly clear the identity of the child in question as well as the
identities of the two godparents. C.P. does not have to vouch for the
accuracy of all published transcripts before it cites them as sources.
In some cases, the originals no longer exist.
My Dear Douglas,

You are not quite honest in this statement. Beaurepaire does not give us
the baptismal record of this child. He simply makes an unsupported
statement to that effect.

The footnote you cited (footnote 4 on page 6) has two sentences. The first
states that the 'registres capitulaires' give the widow of Bedford the name
of Isabelle (no specific citation), while the second states that she and
Talbot were godparents of Elizabeth, daughter of the duke of York, baptised
at the cathedral of Rouen, 22 September 1444 (again no citation).


Even an undergraduate would not use such a footnote as an authority without
going behind it to the original. The nineteenth century writer could have
got his information from tea leaves, from formations of clouds, or from
original documents. We are not told.

You might explain 'registres capitulaires' to us. There might be a
difference in our understanding of what they are and how they came into
being. I am not sure that we all understand.


Richard Smith
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Peter Stewart
Merely citing a 19th-century historian's note in this way is just
uncritically copying from secondary literature (remember what was
unjustly said to Spencer Hines about this a few weeks ago?), and the
information given is of course not properly characterised as "derived
from a source".
<snip>
Post by Douglas Richardson
If you have any further questions, Peter, please feel free to contact
me at my private e-mail address below.
Post by Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Chris Phillips
2003-12-06 11:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage employs a very high standard in its use of sources.
C.P. often cites modern transcripts of original documents for its
sources, including in this case the source it used for the birth
450, footnote f, Elizabeth's birthdate and place are taken from
Wyrcestre's Annals, ii, 763. I believe this is a reference to
Wyrcester's Annals, which source can be found at the end of volume 2
of the book, Letters & Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English
in France, 2 Pt. 2 (Rolls Ser. 22) (1864): 743-793.
As luck would have it, this is also available on gallica
(http://gallica.bnf.fr/) (reference number N050185 for the "Recherche libre"
field). The reproduction is rather poor, so it will have to be checked in
print, but I read the entry as:

"1444. Nata est Elizabeth, secunda filia Ricardi ducis Eboraci, xxii. die
Aprilis, hora ii in mane diei Martis, apud Rothomagum."

("1444. Elizabeth, 2nd daughter of Richard duke of York, was born 22 April,
at the second hour on Tuesday morning, at Rouen.")

The odd thing was that 22 April 1444 was a Wednesday, not a Tuesday (but 22
September 1444 was a Tuesday).

Unless there's some subtlety of dating here that's unfamiliar to me, at
least we have an indication of an inconsistency in CP's source for the date
of Elizabeth's birth.

On top of this, CP xi 701 has, for John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury,
"godfather to Elizabeth of York, Rouen, 22 Sep. 1444" (no source cited).
Under Rivers, xi 20 has Richard Wydevill and Jacquetta in 1444 "in the
escort of Margaret of Anjou coming to England for her marriage" [possibly
citing G. Smith, Coronation of Elizabeth Wydeville, pp. 45, 46]. It would be
nice to know exactly when in 1444, but the exact date isn't stated.

Finally, on the odd misnaming of Jacquetta as Isabelle, it would be
interesting to know the exact words used by Beaurepaire's source to describe
her. John's predecessor as earl of Bedford, Ingelram de Coucy (d. 1396/7)
did have a wife named Isabel, although she seems a much less likely
candidate as Elizabeth's godmother, even if she survived as late as 1444 (CP
has her coming to England in 1397 as an attendant of the Queen Consort, and
gives a couple more references to her in 1404 and 1408).

Chris Phillips
Brad Verity
2003-12-05 23:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Brad ~
Thank you for your good post.
C.P. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) states that Elizabeth
Plantagenet was born at Rouen 22 April 1444. I believe this date and
place is in agreement with a published transcript of her birth record
which I have seen elsewhere in print.
What birth record, a chronicle? Or the book (cartulary?) kept be
Rouen cathedral? In many proof of ages, witnesses testify that they
saw the date of an individual's birth written in the book of the
church. But this was England - France may have been different.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
The baptismal date for Elizabeth Plantagenet is derived from a French
source entitled Fondations pieuses du duc de Bedford à Rouen, written
by C. de R. de Beaurepaire (Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 34)
(1873), pg. 6, footnote 4.
This work is available on the gallica website at the following
http://gallica.bnf.fr/
Thank you for providing the source and link.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
Monsieur Beaurepaire clearly states that Elizabeth Plantagenet was
baptized at Rouen Cathedral 22 September 1444.
Here is a transcription of the relevant passage and footnote:

Beaurepaire: "Par cet acte il laissant a sa femme Jacqueline de
Luxembourg [footnote: Les registres capitulaires donnent a la veuve de
Bedford le nom d'Isabelle. Elle fut marraine, avec Talbot pour
parrain, d'Elisabeth, fille du duc d'York, baptisee a la cathedrale de
Rouen, le 22 septembre 1444.] tous les biens qui lui appartenaient en
France ..."

This roughly (though my comprehension of modern French is better than
my medieval Latin) translates in English to: "By this act [in the will
of John, Duke of Bedford], he left his wife Jacqueline de Luxembourg
all the lands he held in France. The footnote translates: "The
capitulary(?) registers give Bedford's widow the name Isabelle. She
was godmother, with Talbot [probably John Talbot, 1st Earl of
Shrewsbury] as godfather, to Elisabeth, daughter of the duke of York,
who was baptised at Rouen cathedral 22 September 1444."
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
Elizabeth's godparents included the well known Jacquette de
Luxembourg, widow of John of Lancaster, Earl of Bedford, who is
incorrectly called Isabelle in the registres capitulaires which record
the baptism. At the time of the baptism in 1444, Jacquette was then
the wife of Sir Richard Wydeville.
The Rouen 'registres capitulaires' [whatever those were] scribes may
have thought the Duchess of Bedford's first name was Isabelle because
the girl she was standing godmother to was baptized Elisabeth, and
infants were often given the same first name as their godparent. It's
odd that they got her first name wrong.

And though it is implied, it does not seem crystal clear whether
Beaurepaire meant the Duchess was misnamed in the register recording
Elisabeth's baptism, or that she was misnamed in the register, and an
additional fact was that she stood as godmother to Elisabeth of York.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
I note that Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 450 (sub Suffolk) makes
no mention of this baptismal record. So, I believe this record would
be a new addition for C.P. and also for Chris Phillips' website.
Something more than this is surely required before anyone should
correct CP.
For a start, the original records need to be checked -
Absolutely. Beaurepaire does not transcribe whatever Rouen register
entry he saw - he may have misread it.
Post by Peter Stewart
unless the
months are named instead of numbered (both commonly found in
15th-century documents), it is quite possible that someone has misread
either "iv" (April) for "ix" (September) or vice versa, and that
Elizabeth was acutally baptised on the day of her birth in one month
or the other.
This is an intriguing theory, Peter, and certainly makes sense. More
so, IMHO, than a 5-month gap between birth and baptism in 1444. There
is a fairly recent biography of Richard, Duke of York. I haven't read
it - but it may shed some light on the matter.
Post by Peter Stewart
Merely citing a 19th-century historian's note in this way is just
uncritically copying from secondary literature (remember what was
unjustly said to Spencer Hines about this a few weeks ago?), and the
information given is of course not properly characterised as "derived
from a source".
I just want to add that it's great that Douglas found the Beaurepaire
reference - it's certainly worthwhile from a genealogical and
historical standpoint to know the godparents of Elizabeth of York
[perhaps he should add this info to his PA3 manuscript entry for her].
But presenting a baptism date that is at odds with another birthdate
- without reconciling it or even bothering to point to the discrepancy
between sources - in a book whose audience will be many eager amateur
genealogists, is not worthwhile in the long run.

Cheers, ----Brad
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...