Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy da
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy da
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is a transcript of the accord dated 17 April 1423, between Sir
John [of Lancaster], Duke of Bedford (younger son of King Henry IV of
England) and Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, the brother of his intended
wife, Anne of Burgundy.
I note that John of Lancaster referred to both his intended wife, Anne
of Burgundy, and her sister, Marguerite of Burgundy, as his "cosyn."
Anyone care to chart their kinship?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + +
Source: Gregory's Chronicle: 1420-1426' in The Historical Collections
of a Citizen of London in the fifteenth century (1876): 128-161
(available online at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=45556).
"John Regaunt of Fraunce, Duke of Bedford, &c., Phylyppe Duke of
Burgayne, &c., the Duke of Bretayne, &c. To alle thot [th]at thys
presentt letters shall see we sende gretyng. [We] (fn. 139) do you to
wetyn that for the consyderacyon of the grette frendeschyppys and
nygheyng of lynagys that nowe ar by twyne us, and also mevynge the
maryagys concludyd, acordyd, and conservyde by-twyxte us, John Regaunt
of Fraunce and Duke of Bedford and othyr (fn. 140) dyre welle belovyde
suster a (fn. 140) cosyn Anne of Burgayne, on that one party, and of
dyre and welle belovyd brothyr Arture Duke (fn. 141) of Turreyne, Erle
of Monforte and of Ivery, and of oure dyre and welbelovyd sustyr and
cosyn Margarete of Burgayne, on that othyr party, ande for the goode
governaylle of oure lorde the kynge and of realmys of Fraunce and
Inglond, of us and of oure lordeschyppys, landys, contreys, and
subjectys, we and every one of us sweryn, behotynne, and promysyn to
benne and dwellyng, as longe as we shalle lyve, in goode and verry
love, fraternyte and unyon, that one whythe that othyr, that welle
shalle love and cherysche and holdyn to gedyr as bretherynne ar kynnys
men, or parentes and goode frendys, we shalle kepe and defende the
honowre [th]at one of that othyr as welle prevely as a-pertely,
with-owte any fraude and dyssymylacyon in any wyse; we shalle do wetyn
one of that othyr of alle that we shalle knowyn and undyr-stonde that
may turne and be to profyte or damage, honour or dyshonoure, or one of
that othyr, and of oure lordeschippys, landys, and contreys, and
subjectys; and yf any persone telle or make any wronge reporte to us or
to any of us one of that othyr, we shalle geve there to noo credens nor
faythe, but we shalle whytheholdyn smartely agayne us, and eche of us
in ryght any suche that have made that wrongfully reporte, and by goode
love and verry charyte a-none we shalle do to knowe of hym of whom
suche reporte was made, and thereyn for to done that shalle long to be
done be resone.
Also, yf we or any of us have to done or nede for oure worschyppe or
oure contrayes, londys, [and] (fn. 142) lordschyppys to kepe or to
defende a-gayne any that wolde grevyn or damagynne us or any of us, we
and eche of us shalle be holdynne to helpyn and servynne hym amonge us
that so shalle have nede, whenne we be there to requyryd, with summys
of v c men of armys or of folke of schotte, (fn. 143) whettyr that may
a-vayle or plese or lykyng to hem that so shalle have nede. And he that
shalle be requyryd shalle be holdyn to sende at hys owne dysposyssyon
hys men or forke (fn. 144) for the fyrst monythe; and for the surplus
of the tyme that the saudyers shalle serve, the requyrant shalle ben
holdyn to sendyn hem at hys propyr dysposycyon. And yf any of us wylle
have grete (fn. 145) power, he that shalle be requyryd shalle be holdyn
to helpe at the costys and dyspens of the requyrant as farforthe as he
goodely shalle, as he may, hys contrayes [and] (fn. 142) lordeschippis
resonabely a-fore warnyde.
Also whythe alle oure (fn. 146) myghte, and by (fn. 147) alle the beste
maner that we canne or may devyse for (fn. 148) relevynge of the pore
pepylle of the realme that hathe sufferd and sufferythe hyt (fn. 149)
so moche myschief; and for that we shalle spedyn us to doo away the
warre of the realme, and so sette hyt in pes and reste and
tranquyllyte, to that ende that God there-yn be servyde and
worschippyd, and that marchaundyse there may have the cours: Alle thys
thyngys we and eche of us promyse and hotyn to fullefylle and trewly
kepe as longe as we shalle lyve, by the maner above sayde, whythe any
wyse for any contrarynys shalle not offende, (fn. 150) undyr the
oblygacyon of alle oure goodys mevabylle and unmevabylle nowe beynge
presente and tho that bene to come.
In wytnes here of we have done sette oure selys to thys present
lettyrs, and we have sygnyd hem whythe oure owne honde, and undyr wryte
oure propyr namys. Gevyn at Amyens the xvij day of Aprylle, and the
yere of oure Lorde Ml cccc xxiij. Also sygnyd by my foresayde Lorde the
Regaunte of Fraunce, Syr John Duke of Bedforde, and by my Lorde Duke of
Burgayne, by my Lorde Duke of Bretayne. And uppon the foldyng of the
same letters ys wryttyn: "Par (fn. 151) mone Senowre le Regaunt de le
realme de Fraunce, Deuke de Bedeford, John Rynylle. [Par Monsieur le
Duc de Burgoigne, Q. de Menart.] (fn. 152) Par (fn. 151) mone Senowrys
Duke de Bretayne, J. le Breune. In wytnysse whereof to thys present
letters we have sette to oure sealys of the baylyage of Amyes. Gevyn at
Amyes, the xviij day of the monythe of Aprylle, and the yere of oure
Lorde Ml cccc xxiij." END OF QUOTE.
Below is a transcript of the accord dated 17 April 1423, between Sir
John [of Lancaster], Duke of Bedford (younger son of King Henry IV of
England) and Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, the brother of his intended
wife, Anne of Burgundy.
I note that John of Lancaster referred to both his intended wife, Anne
of Burgundy, and her sister, Marguerite of Burgundy, as his "cosyn."
Anyone care to chart their kinship?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + +
Source: Gregory's Chronicle: 1420-1426' in The Historical Collections
of a Citizen of London in the fifteenth century (1876): 128-161
(available online at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=45556).
"John Regaunt of Fraunce, Duke of Bedford, &c., Phylyppe Duke of
Burgayne, &c., the Duke of Bretayne, &c. To alle thot [th]at thys
presentt letters shall see we sende gretyng. [We] (fn. 139) do you to
wetyn that for the consyderacyon of the grette frendeschyppys and
nygheyng of lynagys that nowe ar by twyne us, and also mevynge the
maryagys concludyd, acordyd, and conservyde by-twyxte us, John Regaunt
of Fraunce and Duke of Bedford and othyr (fn. 140) dyre welle belovyde
suster a (fn. 140) cosyn Anne of Burgayne, on that one party, and of
dyre and welle belovyd brothyr Arture Duke (fn. 141) of Turreyne, Erle
of Monforte and of Ivery, and of oure dyre and welbelovyd sustyr and
cosyn Margarete of Burgayne, on that othyr party, ande for the goode
governaylle of oure lorde the kynge and of realmys of Fraunce and
Inglond, of us and of oure lordeschyppys, landys, contreys, and
subjectys, we and every one of us sweryn, behotynne, and promysyn to
benne and dwellyng, as longe as we shalle lyve, in goode and verry
love, fraternyte and unyon, that one whythe that othyr, that welle
shalle love and cherysche and holdyn to gedyr as bretherynne ar kynnys
men, or parentes and goode frendys, we shalle kepe and defende the
honowre [th]at one of that othyr as welle prevely as a-pertely,
with-owte any fraude and dyssymylacyon in any wyse; we shalle do wetyn
one of that othyr of alle that we shalle knowyn and undyr-stonde that
may turne and be to profyte or damage, honour or dyshonoure, or one of
that othyr, and of oure lordeschippys, landys, and contreys, and
subjectys; and yf any persone telle or make any wronge reporte to us or
to any of us one of that othyr, we shalle geve there to noo credens nor
faythe, but we shalle whytheholdyn smartely agayne us, and eche of us
in ryght any suche that have made that wrongfully reporte, and by goode
love and verry charyte a-none we shalle do to knowe of hym of whom
suche reporte was made, and thereyn for to done that shalle long to be
done be resone.
Also, yf we or any of us have to done or nede for oure worschyppe or
oure contrayes, londys, [and] (fn. 142) lordschyppys to kepe or to
defende a-gayne any that wolde grevyn or damagynne us or any of us, we
and eche of us shalle be holdynne to helpyn and servynne hym amonge us
that so shalle have nede, whenne we be there to requyryd, with summys
of v c men of armys or of folke of schotte, (fn. 143) whettyr that may
a-vayle or plese or lykyng to hem that so shalle have nede. And he that
shalle be requyryd shalle be holdyn to sende at hys owne dysposyssyon
hys men or forke (fn. 144) for the fyrst monythe; and for the surplus
of the tyme that the saudyers shalle serve, the requyrant shalle ben
holdyn to sendyn hem at hys propyr dysposycyon. And yf any of us wylle
have grete (fn. 145) power, he that shalle be requyryd shalle be holdyn
to helpe at the costys and dyspens of the requyrant as farforthe as he
goodely shalle, as he may, hys contrayes [and] (fn. 142) lordeschippis
resonabely a-fore warnyde.
Also whythe alle oure (fn. 146) myghte, and by (fn. 147) alle the beste
maner that we canne or may devyse for (fn. 148) relevynge of the pore
pepylle of the realme that hathe sufferd and sufferythe hyt (fn. 149)
so moche myschief; and for that we shalle spedyn us to doo away the
warre of the realme, and so sette hyt in pes and reste and
tranquyllyte, to that ende that God there-yn be servyde and
worschippyd, and that marchaundyse there may have the cours: Alle thys
thyngys we and eche of us promyse and hotyn to fullefylle and trewly
kepe as longe as we shalle lyve, by the maner above sayde, whythe any
wyse for any contrarynys shalle not offende, (fn. 150) undyr the
oblygacyon of alle oure goodys mevabylle and unmevabylle nowe beynge
presente and tho that bene to come.
In wytnes here of we have done sette oure selys to thys present
lettyrs, and we have sygnyd hem whythe oure owne honde, and undyr wryte
oure propyr namys. Gevyn at Amyens the xvij day of Aprylle, and the
yere of oure Lorde Ml cccc xxiij. Also sygnyd by my foresayde Lorde the
Regaunte of Fraunce, Syr John Duke of Bedforde, and by my Lorde Duke of
Burgayne, by my Lorde Duke of Bretayne. And uppon the foldyng of the
same letters ys wryttyn: "Par (fn. 151) mone Senowre le Regaunt de le
realme de Fraunce, Deuke de Bedeford, John Rynylle. [Par Monsieur le
Duc de Burgoigne, Q. de Menart.] (fn. 152) Par (fn. 151) mone Senowrys
Duke de Bretayne, J. le Breune. In wytnysse whereof to thys present
letters we have sette to oure sealys of the baylyage of Amyes. Gevyn at
Amyes, the xviij day of the monythe of Aprylle, and the yere of oure
Lorde Ml cccc xxiij." END OF QUOTE.
-
Gjest
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Douglas Richardson wrote:
He calls both of them "sister" as well. I would be interested to see
that one mapped out too. Anyone?
MA-R
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is a transcript of the accord dated 17 April 1423, between Sir
John [of Lancaster], Duke of Bedford (younger son of King Henry IV of
England) and Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, the brother of his intended
wife, Anne of Burgundy.
I note that John of Lancaster referred to both his intended wife, Anne
of Burgundy, and her sister, Marguerite of Burgundy, as his "cosyn."
Anyone care to chart their kinship?
He calls both of them "sister" as well. I would be interested to see
that one mapped out too. Anyone?
MA-R
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
This was a joint accord issued by Sir John of Lancaster, Duke of
Bedford, and Philippe, Duke of Burgundy. As such, the document needs
to be interpreted as if they were both speaking. The reference to Anne
and Marguerite of Burgundy being "our sister" was evidently made by
Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, their brother; the simultaneous reference
to Anne and Marguerite being "our cousin" was evidently made by Sir
John of Lancaster.
The frame of reference in the document is awkward to our modern ears
(i.e., both men "speaking" at the same time), but is quite normal for
medieval documents.
DR
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Bedford, and Philippe, Duke of Burgundy. As such, the document needs
to be interpreted as if they were both speaking. The reference to Anne
and Marguerite of Burgundy being "our sister" was evidently made by
Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, their brother; the simultaneous reference
to Anne and Marguerite being "our cousin" was evidently made by Sir
John of Lancaster.
The frame of reference in the document is awkward to our modern ears
(i.e., both men "speaking" at the same time), but is quite normal for
medieval documents.
DR
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is a transcript of the accord dated 17 April 1423, between Sir
John [of Lancaster], Duke of Bedford (younger son of King Henry IV of
England) and Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, the brother of his intended
wife, Anne of Burgundy.
I note that John of Lancaster referred to both his intended wife, Anne
of Burgundy, and her sister, Marguerite of Burgundy, as his "cosyn."
Anyone care to chart their kinship?
He calls both of them "sister" as well. I would be interested to see
that one mapped out too. Anyone?
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Thanks for that Douglas; I note however that Arthur, Duke of Tourraine
etc, is referred to as "dear and well-beloved brother" only - what, if
any, is the inference to be drawn from this? Is it an ellipsis in the
transcribed text?
Regards, Michael
This was a joint accord issued by Sir John of Lancaster, Duke of
Bedford, and Philippe, Duke of Burgundy. As such, the document needs
to be interpreted as if they were both speaking. The reference to Anne
and Marguerite of Burgundy being "our sister" was evidently made by
Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, their brother; the simultaneous reference
to Anne and Marguerite being "our cousin" was evidently made by Sir
John of Lancaster.
The frame of reference in the document is awkward to our modern ears
(i.e., both men "speaking" at the same time), but is quite normal for
medieval documents.
Thanks for that Douglas; I note however that Arthur, Duke of Tourraine
etc, is referred to as "dear and well-beloved brother" only - what, if
any, is the inference to be drawn from this? Is it an ellipsis in the
transcribed text?
Regards, Michael
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Dear Michael ~
As you noted, Arthur, Duke of Tourraine (afterwards Duke of Brittany),
was styled "brother" in the accord between John of Lancaster and Duke
Philippe. First, I might note that Duke Arthur was John of Lancaster's
step-brother, as John of Lancaster's father, King Henry IV, was
previously married to Duke Arthur's mother, Joan of Navarre. Having
said that, I've never seen a step-brother called "brother" in a
medieval English document. So, if this is the relationship intended,
then it would be a first for me.
Secondly, I note that Duke Arthur married in October later that year to
Duke Philippe's sister, Marguerite of Burgundy. If the date I have for
this marriage is correct, then Duke Arthur was not yet the
brother-in-law of Duke Philippe. However, they may have been
contracted to marry in April when this accord was signed. I haven't
checked the records, but my guess is the marriages of Duke Philippe's
two sisters, Anne and Marguerite, were arranged at the same time and
this was a triple alliance of England, Tourraine, and Burgundy against
France. This would explain why Anne, Marguerite, and Arthur were all
named in the accord.
Having said that, starting in the mid-1300's, it was common practice
among royalty to address fellow heads of state as their "brother." For
instance, King Edward III often addressed King Jean II of France as his
"brother," although cousin would have been a more appropriate term.
It's possible that Duke Arthur was addressed as "brother" by both Duke
John and Duke Philippe, he being then the Duke of Tourraine.
On the whole, I think the second explanation above is the most likely,
that Duke Arthur had already contracted to marry Marguerite of
Burgundy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
As you noted, Arthur, Duke of Tourraine (afterwards Duke of Brittany),
was styled "brother" in the accord between John of Lancaster and Duke
Philippe. First, I might note that Duke Arthur was John of Lancaster's
step-brother, as John of Lancaster's father, King Henry IV, was
previously married to Duke Arthur's mother, Joan of Navarre. Having
said that, I've never seen a step-brother called "brother" in a
medieval English document. So, if this is the relationship intended,
then it would be a first for me.
Secondly, I note that Duke Arthur married in October later that year to
Duke Philippe's sister, Marguerite of Burgundy. If the date I have for
this marriage is correct, then Duke Arthur was not yet the
brother-in-law of Duke Philippe. However, they may have been
contracted to marry in April when this accord was signed. I haven't
checked the records, but my guess is the marriages of Duke Philippe's
two sisters, Anne and Marguerite, were arranged at the same time and
this was a triple alliance of England, Tourraine, and Burgundy against
France. This would explain why Anne, Marguerite, and Arthur were all
named in the accord.
Having said that, starting in the mid-1300's, it was common practice
among royalty to address fellow heads of state as their "brother." For
instance, King Edward III often addressed King Jean II of France as his
"brother," although cousin would have been a more appropriate term.
It's possible that Duke Arthur was addressed as "brother" by both Duke
John and Duke Philippe, he being then the Duke of Tourraine.
On the whole, I think the second explanation above is the most likely,
that Duke Arthur had already contracted to marry Marguerite of
Burgundy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
This was a joint accord issued by Sir John of Lancaster, Duke of
Bedford, and Philippe, Duke of Burgundy. As such, the document needs
to be interpreted as if they were both speaking. The reference to Anne
and Marguerite of Burgundy being "our sister" was evidently made by
Philippe, Duke of Burgundy, their brother; the simultaneous reference
to Anne and Marguerite being "our cousin" was evidently made by Sir
John of Lancaster.
The frame of reference in the document is awkward to our modern ears
(i.e., both men "speaking" at the same time), but is quite normal for
medieval documents.
Thanks for that Douglas; I note however that Arthur, Duke of Tourraine
etc, is referred to as "dear and well-beloved brother" only - what, if
any, is the inference to be drawn from this? Is it an ellipsis in the
transcribed text?
Regards, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
The problem with the first explanation (that Arthur being contracted to
Philip's sister, as was John, meant that both the latter called him
brother) is that John stood in the same position to Margaret and to
Anne, yet they are styled sister *and* cousin.
The problem with the second explanation is that the the Duke of
Tourraine then not then a Head of State - i.e. not a Brother Sovereign
(and technically neither was John, although he was acting for one).
It is indeed an interesting study, but another alternative is that we
may be forced to conclude that it is not always possible to determine
relationships based on mediaeval descriptions, particularly involving
royalty, or to explain why certain relationships were referred to,
which may not have existed as such by our reckoning.
I came across a good example of the former from as late as 1676
(Dugdale's Baronage, although to be fair he could have been quoting an
earlier original text) in which he refers to a man's granddaughters as
"his cosyns". I would be happy to track down the reference if any one
would like it.
Regards, Michael
Dear Michael ~
As you noted, Arthur, Duke of Tourraine (afterwards Duke of Brittany),
was styled "brother" in the accord between John of Lancaster and Duke
Philippe. First, I might note that Duke Arthur was John of Lancaster's
step-brother, as John of Lancaster's father, King Henry IV, was
previously married to Duke Arthur's mother, Joan of Navarre. Having
said that, I've never seen a step-brother called "brother" in a
medieval English document. So, if this is the relationship intended,
then it would be a first for me.
Secondly, I note that Duke Arthur married in October later that year to
Duke Philippe's sister, Marguerite of Burgundy. If the date I have for
this marriage is correct, then Duke Arthur was not yet the
brother-in-law of Duke Philippe. However, they may have been
contracted to marry in April when this accord was signed. I haven't
checked the records, but my guess is the marriages of Duke Philippe's
two sisters, Anne and Marguerite, were arranged at the same time and
this was a triple alliance of England, Tourraine, and Burgundy against
France. This would explain why Anne, Marguerite, and Arthur were all
named in the accord.
Having said that, starting in the mid-1300's, it was common practice
among royalty to address fellow heads of state as their "brother." For
instance, King Edward III often addressed King Jean II of France as his
"brother," although cousin would have been a more appropriate term.
It's possible that Duke Arthur was addressed as "brother" by both Duke
John and Duke Philippe, he being then the Duke of Tourraine.
On the whole, I think the second explanation above is the most likely,
that Duke Arthur had already contracted to marry Marguerite of
Burgundy.
The problem with the first explanation (that Arthur being contracted to
Philip's sister, as was John, meant that both the latter called him
brother) is that John stood in the same position to Margaret and to
Anne, yet they are styled sister *and* cousin.
The problem with the second explanation is that the the Duke of
Tourraine then not then a Head of State - i.e. not a Brother Sovereign
(and technically neither was John, although he was acting for one).
It is indeed an interesting study, but another alternative is that we
may be forced to conclude that it is not always possible to determine
relationships based on mediaeval descriptions, particularly involving
royalty, or to explain why certain relationships were referred to,
which may not have existed as such by our reckoning.
I came across a good example of the former from as late as 1676
(Dugdale's Baronage, although to be fair he could have been quoting an
earlier original text) in which he refers to a man's granddaughters as
"his cosyns". I would be happy to track down the reference if any one
would like it.
Regards, Michael
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
<
< The problem with the first explanation (that Arthur being contracted
to
< Philip's sister, as was John, meant that both the latter called him
< brother) is that John stood in the same position to Margaret and to
< Anne, yet they are styled sister *and* cousin.
Dear Michael ~
As I stated already, the 1423 accord was issued jointly by John of
Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy. When an individual is called "our"
sister or "our" brother, it can be either person claiming the kinship,
or both of them. This is a bit confusing to the modern way of doing
things, but medieval society is different in many respects from modern
society, sometimes strikingly so.
If Duke Arthur was already contracted to marry Marguerite of Burgundy
(as seems to be the case), then it would be Duke Philippe (not Duke
John) who addressed Arthur as "our brother." It would be correct to
address the contracted spouse of one's sister as "our brother."
In the same vein, it was not Duke John who addressed Anne of Burgundy
or her sister, Marguerite, as "our sister." That would have been Duke
Philippe speaking. Likewise, Duke Philippe would never have addressed
either of his sisters as "our cousin." That was Duke John.
Incidentally, the use of the possessive pronoun "our" does not indicate
that two people were speaking in any given document. The English king
often addressed his subjects and kinsfolk as "our beloved servant" or
"our beloved cousin.". Employing the the plural form of the pronoun,
"our," was done as a matter of fact, even though the king alone was
addressing the other person.
DR
<
< The problem with the first explanation (that Arthur being contracted
to
< Philip's sister, as was John, meant that both the latter called him
< brother) is that John stood in the same position to Margaret and to
< Anne, yet they are styled sister *and* cousin.
Dear Michael ~
As I stated already, the 1423 accord was issued jointly by John of
Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy. When an individual is called "our"
sister or "our" brother, it can be either person claiming the kinship,
or both of them. This is a bit confusing to the modern way of doing
things, but medieval society is different in many respects from modern
society, sometimes strikingly so.
If Duke Arthur was already contracted to marry Marguerite of Burgundy
(as seems to be the case), then it would be Duke Philippe (not Duke
John) who addressed Arthur as "our brother." It would be correct to
address the contracted spouse of one's sister as "our brother."
In the same vein, it was not Duke John who addressed Anne of Burgundy
or her sister, Marguerite, as "our sister." That would have been Duke
Philippe speaking. Likewise, Duke Philippe would never have addressed
either of his sisters as "our cousin." That was Duke John.
Incidentally, the use of the possessive pronoun "our" does not indicate
that two people were speaking in any given document. The English king
often addressed his subjects and kinsfolk as "our beloved servant" or
"our beloved cousin.". Employing the the plural form of the pronoun,
"our," was done as a matter of fact, even though the king alone was
addressing the other person.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
Yes, thanks; I do have an glimmering of this.
Do we then assume that "Duke John" ignores Arthur in this document?
Why does he not at least call him "cousin"?
But if "Duke John" was contracted to Philip's sister - as you posit
Arthur was - why does he refer to Margaret, for example as "cousin"?
You hypothesise that it is "correct to address the contracted spouse of
one's sister as ...'brother'"; would that not mean that "Duke John"
should logically have called Margaret his "sister" rather than
"cousin", given that she was the sister of his contracted spouse in
your analysis?
I am also aware of the royal plural - as in "We are not amused", but I
note that neither person here is a King - are you aware of Dukes
adopting this form of speech? There seems nothing in this document in
any case to suggest that any form of "we" or "our" means anything other
than the ordinary plural usage.
I am sympathetic to your arguments, and interested in your exploration
of kinship terms, but any acceptable explanation must at least be
internally consistent.
Regards, Michael
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
The problem with the first explanation (that Arthur being contracted
to
Philip's sister, as was John, meant that both the latter called him
brother) is that John stood in the same position to Margaret and to
Anne, yet they are styled sister *and* cousin.
Dear Michael ~
As I stated already, the 1423 accord was issued jointly by John of
Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy. When an individual is called "our"
sister or "our" brother, it can be either person claiming the kinship,
or both of them. This is a bit confusing to the modern way of doing
things, but medieval society is different in many respects from modern
society, sometimes strikingly so.
Yes, thanks; I do have an glimmering of this.
If Duke Arthur was already contracted to marry Marguerite of Burgundy
(as seems to be the case), then it would be Duke Philippe (not Duke
John) who addressed Arthur as "our brother." It would be correct to
address the contracted spouse of one's sister as "our brother."
Do we then assume that "Duke John" ignores Arthur in this document?
Why does he not at least call him "cousin"?
In the same vein, it was not Duke John who addressed Anne of Burgundy
or her sister, Marguerite, as "our sister." That would have been Duke
Philippe speaking. Likewise, Duke Philippe would never have addressed
either of his sisters as "our cousin." That was Duke John.
But if "Duke John" was contracted to Philip's sister - as you posit
Arthur was - why does he refer to Margaret, for example as "cousin"?
You hypothesise that it is "correct to address the contracted spouse of
one's sister as ...'brother'"; would that not mean that "Duke John"
should logically have called Margaret his "sister" rather than
"cousin", given that she was the sister of his contracted spouse in
your analysis?
Incidentally, the use of the possessive pronoun "our" does not indicate
that two people were speaking in any given document. The English king
often addressed his subjects and kinsfolk as "our beloved servant" or
"our beloved cousin.". Employing the the plural form of the pronoun,
"our," was done as a matter of fact, even though the king alone was
addressing the other person.
I am also aware of the royal plural - as in "We are not amused", but I
note that neither person here is a King - are you aware of Dukes
adopting this form of speech? There seems nothing in this document in
any case to suggest that any form of "we" or "our" means anything other
than the ordinary plural usage.
I am sympathetic to your arguments, and interested in your exploration
of kinship terms, but any acceptable explanation must at least be
internally consistent.
Regards, Michael
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
<cross-posting to soc.history.medieval deleted>
In message of 3 Oct, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I have asked this question before but never got an answer.
There is every indication that deeds were prepared, as now, by people
whose job it was to write them. People running a country are most
unlikely to sit down and compose or even write out the many legal
documents.
The next problem is that the clerks (lawyers, administrators, call them
what you will) are very likely to have invented a style and grammar for
drawing up these documents, doubtless going back hundreds of years to
the dawn of putting agreements in writing. Half the time the result is
to make the documents quite unintelligible to every one else, a
predicament we experience to this day. This would not have been helped
by the reputed illiteracy of many of the landowners (aka tenants in
chief and sub-tenants) in those days.
So is there any likelihood that the principals to these documents would
have worried their heads much over the precise wording of any of these
documents?
There is a slight danger, a large one even, of making a mountain out of
molehill here.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
In message of 3 Oct, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
The problem with the first explanation (that Arthur being contracted
to
Philip's sister, as was John, meant that both the latter called him
brother) is that John stood in the same position to Margaret and to
Anne, yet they are styled sister *and* cousin.
Dear Michael ~
As I stated already, the 1423 accord was issued jointly by John of
Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy. When an individual is called "our"
sister or "our" brother, it can be either person claiming the kinship,
or both of them. This is a bit confusing to the modern way of doing
things, but medieval society is different in many respects from modern
society, sometimes strikingly so.
Yes, thanks; I do have an glimmering of this.
If Duke Arthur was already contracted to marry Marguerite of Burgundy
(as seems to be the case), then it would be Duke Philippe (not Duke
John) who addressed Arthur as "our brother." It would be correct to
address the contracted spouse of one's sister as "our brother."
Do we then assume that "Duke John" ignores Arthur in this document?
Why does he not at least call him "cousin"?
In the same vein, it was not Duke John who addressed Anne of Burgundy
or her sister, Marguerite, as "our sister." That would have been Duke
Philippe speaking. Likewise, Duke Philippe would never have addressed
either of his sisters as "our cousin." That was Duke John.
But if "Duke John" was contracted to Philip's sister - as you posit
Arthur was - why does he refer to Margaret, for example as "cousin"?
You hypothesise that it is "correct to address the contracted spouse of
one's sister as ...'brother'"; would that not mean that "Duke John"
should logically have called Margaret his "sister" rather than
"cousin", given that she was the sister of his contracted spouse in
your analysis?
Incidentally, the use of the possessive pronoun "our" does not indicate
that two people were speaking in any given document. The English king
often addressed his subjects and kinsfolk as "our beloved servant" or
"our beloved cousin.". Employing the the plural form of the pronoun,
"our," was done as a matter of fact, even though the king alone was
addressing the other person.
I am also aware of the royal plural - as in "We are not amused", but I
note that neither person here is a King - are you aware of Dukes
adopting this form of speech? There seems nothing in this document in
any case to suggest that any form of "we" or "our" means anything other
than the ordinary plural usage.
I am sympathetic to your arguments, and interested in your exploration
of kinship terms, but any acceptable explanation must at least be
internally consistent.
Regards, Michael
I have asked this question before but never got an answer.
There is every indication that deeds were prepared, as now, by people
whose job it was to write them. People running a country are most
unlikely to sit down and compose or even write out the many legal
documents.
The next problem is that the clerks (lawyers, administrators, call them
what you will) are very likely to have invented a style and grammar for
drawing up these documents, doubtless going back hundreds of years to
the dawn of putting agreements in writing. Half the time the result is
to make the documents quite unintelligible to every one else, a
predicament we experience to this day. This would not have been helped
by the reputed illiteracy of many of the landowners (aka tenants in
chief and sub-tenants) in those days.
So is there any likelihood that the principals to these documents would
have worried their heads much over the precise wording of any of these
documents?
There is a slight danger, a large one even, of making a mountain out of
molehill here.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Douglas,
Perhaps this is not what you meant, but I'm fairly certain that Henry
IV referred to John Beaufort as his 'brother', Katherine Swynford as
his 'mother' etc. and Henry Beaufort,the great English cardinal, to
either Thomas or William Swynford as his 'nephew'.
Not what you meant?
Kindest regards,
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Perhaps this is not what you meant, but I'm fairly certain that Henry
IV referred to John Beaufort as his 'brother', Katherine Swynford as
his 'mother' etc. and Henry Beaufort,the great English cardinal, to
either Thomas or William Swynford as his 'nephew'.
Not what you meant?
Kindest regards,
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Michael ~
... Having
said that, I've never seen a step-brother called "brother" in a
medieval English document. So, if this is the relationship intended,
then it would be a first for me.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Step and half are two different kinds of relationships. John Beaufort was a
half-brother of Henry IV and they share a blood line. With step there is no
close blood link.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy dated
1423
half-brother of Henry IV and they share a blood line. With step there is no
close blood link.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy dated
1423
Douglas,
Perhaps this is not what you meant, but I'm fairly certain that Henry
IV referred to John Beaufort as his 'brother', Katherine Swynford as
his 'mother' etc. and Henry Beaufort,the great English cardinal, to
either Thomas or William Swynford as his 'nephew'.
Not what you meant?
Kindest regards,
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Michael ~
... Having
said that, I've never seen a step-brother called "brother" in a
medieval English document. So, if this is the relationship intended,
then it would be a first for me.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Dear Judy ~
Thank you for your post. Always good to hear from you
Regarding the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
yes, half-siblings could be and were address as "brother" and "sister,"
but not step-siblings.
Here are some references I've located in which John of Gaunt's Beaufort
children were acknowledged as blood kin by Kings Henry IV, Henry V, and
Henry VI, and also by Isabel of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy. I've
also included a reference in which John Beaufort addressed Henry
Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, as his "cousin," they being related by
common descent from King Edward I of England. These references come
from various sources.
1. Sir John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset. He was styled "brother" by
King Henry IV of England [Reference: Rymer, Fœdera 8 (1727):
163-164, 267, 279, 281]. Also, I find that he referred to Henry
Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, as "cousin" [Reference: Legge,
Anglo-Norman Letters & Petitions (Anglo-Norman Text Soc. 3) (1941):
101-102].
2. Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter. He was styled "uncle" by
King Henry V of England [Reference: Rymer, Fœdera 7 (1728): 849-850;
47; 10 (1727): 85-87].
3. Henry Beaufort, Cardinal of England. He was styled "king's
brother" by King Henry IV of England [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1401-1405 (1905): 123, 254, 462]. He was also styled
"uncle" [avunculo] by King Henry VI of England [Reference: Rymer,
Fœdera 11 (1727): 22-24, 42, 55, 76]. He was likewise styled "mon
treschier et tresame oncle" by Isabel of Portugal, Duchess of
Burgundy [Reference: Camden Soc. 4th ser. 9 (1972): 89-93].
4. Joan Beaufort, wife successively of Robert Ferrers, Knt., 2nd Lord
Ferrers of Wem, and Ralph Neville, K.G., 1st Earl of Westmorland. She
was styled "king's sister" by King Henry IV of England
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405 (1905): 251]. She
was styled "cousin" by King Henry VI of England [Reference:
Bentley, Excerpta Historica (1833): 1-3] She was also styled
"king's kinswoman" by King Henry VI of England [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1429-1436 (1907): 601].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thank you for your post. Always good to hear from you
Regarding the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
yes, half-siblings could be and were address as "brother" and "sister,"
but not step-siblings.
Here are some references I've located in which John of Gaunt's Beaufort
children were acknowledged as blood kin by Kings Henry IV, Henry V, and
Henry VI, and also by Isabel of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy. I've
also included a reference in which John Beaufort addressed Henry
Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, as his "cousin," they being related by
common descent from King Edward I of England. These references come
from various sources.
1. Sir John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset. He was styled "brother" by
King Henry IV of England [Reference: Rymer, Fœdera 8 (1727):
163-164, 267, 279, 281]. Also, I find that he referred to Henry
Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, as "cousin" [Reference: Legge,
Anglo-Norman Letters & Petitions (Anglo-Norman Text Soc. 3) (1941):
101-102].
2. Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter. He was styled "uncle" by
King Henry V of England [Reference: Rymer, Fœdera 7 (1728): 849-850;
47; 10 (1727): 85-87].
3. Henry Beaufort, Cardinal of England. He was styled "king's
brother" by King Henry IV of England [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1401-1405 (1905): 123, 254, 462]. He was also styled
"uncle" [avunculo] by King Henry VI of England [Reference: Rymer,
Fœdera 11 (1727): 22-24, 42, 55, 76]. He was likewise styled "mon
treschier et tresame oncle" by Isabel of Portugal, Duchess of
Burgundy [Reference: Camden Soc. 4th ser. 9 (1972): 89-93].
4. Joan Beaufort, wife successively of Robert Ferrers, Knt., 2nd Lord
Ferrers of Wem, and Ralph Neville, K.G., 1st Earl of Westmorland. She
was styled "king's sister" by King Henry IV of England
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405 (1905): 251]. She
was styled "cousin" by King Henry VI of England [Reference:
Bentley, Excerpta Historica (1833): 1-3] She was also styled
"king's kinswoman" by King Henry VI of England [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1429-1436 (1907): 601].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Dear Leo,
Mmmmm... indeed.
My bad @;-)
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Mmmmm... indeed.
My bad @;-)
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Step and half are two different kinds of relationships. John Beaufort was a
half-brother of Henry IV and they share a blood line. With step there is no
close blood link.
Leo
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
Dear Douglas,
Thank you for compiling these references. I'll pass them along to 'the
group' for them to gobble up delightedly!
Kindest thanks,
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Thank you for compiling these references. I'll pass them along to 'the
group' for them to gobble up delightedly!
Kindest thanks,
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Judy ~
Thank you for your post. Always good to hear from you
Regarding the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
yes, half-siblings could be and were address as "brother" and "sister,"
but not step-siblings.
Here are some references I've located in which John of Gaunt's Beaufort
children were acknowledged as blood kin by Kings Henry IV, Henry V, and
Henry VI, and also by Isabel of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy. I've
also included a reference in which John Beaufort addressed Henry
Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, as his "cousin," they being related by
common descent from King Edward I of England. These references come
from various sources.
1. Sir John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset. He was styled "brother" by
King Henry IV of England [Reference: Rymer, Fœdera 8 (1727):
163-164, 267, 279, 281]. Also, I find that he referred to Henry
Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, as "cousin" [Reference: Legge,
Anglo-Norman Letters & Petitions (Anglo-Norman Text Soc. 3) (1941):
101-102].
2. Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter. He was styled "uncle" by
King Henry V of England [Reference: Rymer, Fœdera 7 (1728): 849-850;
47; 10 (1727): 85-87].
3. Henry Beaufort, Cardinal of England. He was styled "king's
brother" by King Henry IV of England [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1401-1405 (1905): 123, 254, 462]. He was also styled
"uncle" [avunculo] by King Henry VI of England [Reference: Rymer,
Fœdera 11 (1727): 22-24, 42, 55, 76]. He was likewise styled "mon
treschier et tresame oncle" by Isabel of Portugal, Duchess of
Burgundy [Reference: Camden Soc. 4th ser. 9 (1972): 89-93].
4. Joan Beaufort, wife successively of Robert Ferrers, Knt., 2nd Lord
Ferrers of Wem, and Ralph Neville, K.G., 1st Earl of Westmorland. She
was styled "king's sister" by King Henry IV of England
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1401-1405 (1905): 251]. She
was styled "cousin" by King Henry VI of England [Reference:
Bentley, Excerpta Historica (1833): 1-3] She was also styled
"king's kinswoman" by King Henry VI of England [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1429-1436 (1907): 601].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
"Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160262746.376678.33810@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I hope your group will not gobble up, delightedly or otherwise, the solecism
of giving people such odd titles as "Sir John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset"
and "Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter".
The convention is that people are known by their highest ranking title
alone. In these instances the two men are irrationally given their highest
and lowest titles together, omitting whatever comital and baronial titles
they also held. Why on earth not "Earl Baron Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of
Exeter"? Knighthood did not loom so large in these people's self-regard that
they couldn't bear to let go of it in their identifying style.
All sorts of oddities can be found in medieval documents, but this is not a
licence to invent arbitrary rules today. For all I know, someone in the
transition from French to English speaking may have invoked "Domine Deus" as
"Sir God" in a prayer, but if so the clumsy wording didn't catch on.
Peter Stewart
news:1160262746.376678.33810@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dear Douglas,
Thank you for compiling these references. I'll pass them along to 'the
group' for them to gobble up delightedly!
Kindest thanks,
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Judy ~
Thank you for your post. Always good to hear from you
Regarding the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster,
yes, half-siblings could be and were address as "brother" and "sister,"
but not step-siblings.
Here are some references I've located in which John of Gaunt's Beaufort
children were acknowledged as blood kin by Kings Henry IV, Henry V, and
Henry VI, and also by Isabel of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy. I've
also included a reference in which John Beaufort addressed Henry
Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, as his "cousin," they being related by
common descent from King Edward I of England. These references come
from various sources.
1. Sir John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset. He was styled "brother" by
King Henry IV of England [Reference: Rymer, Fodera 8 (1727):
163-164, 267, 279, 281]. Also, I find that he referred to Henry
Despenser, Bishop of Norwich, as "cousin" [Reference: Legge,
Anglo-Norman Letters & Petitions (Anglo-Norman Text Soc. 3) (1941):
101-102].
2. Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter. He was styled "uncle" by
King Henry V of England [Reference: Rymer, Fodera 7 (1728): 849-850;
47; 10 (1727): 85-87].
I hope your group will not gobble up, delightedly or otherwise, the solecism
of giving people such odd titles as "Sir John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset"
and "Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter".
The convention is that people are known by their highest ranking title
alone. In these instances the two men are irrationally given their highest
and lowest titles together, omitting whatever comital and baronial titles
they also held. Why on earth not "Earl Baron Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of
Exeter"? Knighthood did not loom so large in these people's self-regard that
they couldn't bear to let go of it in their identifying style.
All sorts of oddities can be found in medieval documents, but this is not a
licence to invent arbitrary rules today. For all I know, someone in the
transition from French to English speaking may have invoked "Domine Deus" as
"Sir God" in a prayer, but if so the clumsy wording didn't catch on.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand.
I merely meant that they would find interesting how the various family
members did actually refer to one another.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
I merely meant that they would find interesting how the various family
members did actually refer to one another.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
I hope your group will not gobble up, delightedly or otherwise, the solecism
of giving people such odd titles as "Sir John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset"
and "Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter".
The convention is that people are known by their highest ranking title
alone. In these instances the two men are irrationally given their highest
and lowest titles together, omitting whatever comital and baronial titles
they also held. Why on earth not "Earl Baron Sir Thomas Beaufort, Duke of
Exeter"? Knighthood did not loom so large in these people's self-regard that
they couldn't bear to let go of it in their identifying style.
All sorts of oddities can be found in medieval documents, but this is not a
licence to invent arbitrary rules today. For all I know, someone in the
transition from French to English speaking may have invoked "Domine Deus" as
"Sir God" in a prayer, but if so the clumsy wording didn't catch on.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund
<katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160289188.396305.260480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
My remarks were prompted by the discussion in another thread, that
apparently you have not been reading, under the subject line "Use of Sir as
a title of honor".
Anyway, you can be sure that family members would not have referred to each
other by combining their peerage titles with lesser honours in
unconventional forms like "Sir John Beafort, Earl of Somerset".
Peter Stewart
news:1160289188.396305.260480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand.
I merely meant that they would find interesting how the various family
members did actually refer to one another.
My remarks were prompted by the discussion in another thread, that
apparently you have not been reading, under the subject line "Use of Sir as
a title of honor".
Anyway, you can be sure that family members would not have referred to each
other by combining their peerage titles with lesser honours in
unconventional forms like "Sir John Beafort, Earl of Somerset".
Peter Stewart