King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent and

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent and

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 03:35:49

[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty].

Every time I see a sloppy genealogist refer to King Henry III's
younger son, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, as "Edmund Crouchback," I'm
reminded of an equally fictitious allegation regarding the parentage
of King Henry IV of England which is found in a legal proceeding dated
1402.

The legal proceeding quoted below comes from the Coram Rege Roll, no.
564 dated Easter 1402. It contains the statement of one John
Sparrowhawk of Cardiff in Wales who came before the king at
Westminster and gave the following testimony:

"The said John Sparrowhawk says that on Sunday, the Feast of Palm
Sunday in the third year of the reign of our most reverend lord the
king after breakfast, in a village which lately belonged to the Earl
Marshal about one or two miles from Baldock, he came to the house
there of a tailor unknown to him. And there the said tailor's wife
said to the said John: 'See how wet it is and what dreadful weather
there is these days and has been all the time of the present king, for
there has not been seven days' good and seasonable weather all his
time.' And she further said that the present king [Henry IV] was not
the rightful king but that the earl of March is king by right, and
that the present king was not son to the very noble prince John, duke
of Lancaster, whom God assoil, but that he was born son to a butcher
of Ghent, and that Owain Glyn Dwr is the legal prince of Wales and of
Cornwall, and that the pope sent a bull to Wales, Cornwall and England
to the effect that all who are willing to help the said earl and Owain
to obtain their aforesaid rights are to have full indulgence and
remission of all their sins. And she also said that the 'colour' of
the king's livery would not be in use by the end of half a year. And
she further said that the king had no kept his covenant with his
commons, for at his entry into England he promised them that they
would be discharged and quit of all kinds of payments and customs save
for his wars overseas, but in the meanwhile he has collected much
wealth from his commons and did nothing with it to the profit of the
realm but only of all his lords and many other gentlemen. And
inasmuch as the king did not wish to obey the commands of the pope of
Rome, for that reason all the bad weather has happened for many days
past." [Reference: G.O. Sayles, ed., Select Cases in the Court of the
King's Bench under Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V, 7 (Selden Soc.)
(1971): 123-124].

So now we know the real father of King Henrry IV and the cause of all
bad weather, not to mention global warming.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Briggs

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av John Briggs » 12 nov 2007 03:57:01

Douglas Richardson wrote:
[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty].

Every time I see a sloppy genealogist refer to King Henry III's
younger son, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, as "Edmund Crouchback," I'm
reminded of an equally fictitious allegation regarding the parentage
of King Henry IV of England which is found in a legal proceeding dated
1402.

The legal proceeding quoted below comes from the Coram Rege Roll, no.
564 dated Easter 1402. It contains the statement of one John
Sparrowhawk of Cardiff in Wales who came before the king at
Westminster and gave the following testimony:

"The said John Sparrowhawk says that on Sunday, the Feast of Palm
Sunday in the third year of the reign of our most reverend lord the
king after breakfast, in a village which lately belonged to the Earl
Marshal about one or two miles from Baldock, he came to the house
there of a tailor unknown to him. And there the said tailor's wife
said to the said John: 'See how wet it is and what dreadful weather
there is these days and has been all the time of the present king, for
there has not been seven days' good and seasonable weather all his
time.' And she further said that the present king [Henry IV] was not
the rightful king but that the earl of March is king by right, and
that the present king was not son to the very noble prince John, duke
of Lancaster, whom God assoil, but that he was born son to a butcher
of Ghent, and that Owain Glyn Dwr is the legal prince of Wales and of
Cornwall, and that the pope sent a bull to Wales, Cornwall and England
to the effect that all who are willing to help the said earl and Owain
to obtain their aforesaid rights are to have full indulgence and
remission of all their sins. And she also said that the 'colour' of
the king's livery would not be in use by the end of half a year. And
she further said that the king had no kept his covenant with his
commons, for at his entry into England he promised them that they
would be discharged and quit of all kinds of payments and customs save
for his wars overseas, but in the meanwhile he has collected much
wealth from his commons and did nothing with it to the profit of the
realm but only of all his lords and many other gentlemen. And
inasmuch as the king did not wish to obey the commands of the pope of
Rome, for that reason all the bad weather has happened for many days
past." [Reference: G.O. Sayles, ed., Select Cases in the Court of the
King's Bench under Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V, 7 (Selden Soc.)
(1971): 123-124].

So now we know the real father of King Henrry IV and the cause of all
bad weather, not to mention global warming.

As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the
king himself was sitting on it?
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 05:30:25

On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the
king himself was sitting on it?
--
John Briggs

John ~

Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John
Sparrowhawk was brought "before the king."

"Memorandum that on Thursday after the Quinzaine of Easter [13 April
1402] in the third year of the reign of king Henry, fourth after
Conquest, one John Sparrowhawk of Cardiff in Wales came before the
king at Westminster, brought by order of the king before the said king
by Sir Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland and constable of England,
and Thomas Pickworth, knight, the marshal, and there by authority and
command of the king the said John Sparrowhawk confessed as matter of
record before Thomas Cowley, the coroner of the king's bench, the
things given below in the following form." END OF QUOTE.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
..

Douglas Richardson

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 08:49:14

On Nov 11, 9:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
< On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<
< > As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure
that the
< > king himself was sitting on it?
< > --
< > John Briggs

John ~

The lawsuit states that John Sparrowhawk "came before the king at
Westminster" "by order of the king." While the wording is rather
specific (in fact, it is twice stated that John Sparrowhark was
brought before the king), this does not necessarily mean that the king
himself heard the testimony directly. Rather, the lawsuit stipulates
that the testimony was heard before the king's coroner, who was acting
under the "authority and command of the king." This is rather
standard legal parlance of the period. The exact wording is provided
below.

"Memorandum that on Thursday after the Quinzaine of Easter [13 April
1402] in the third year of the reign of king Henry, fourth after
Conquest, one John Sparrowhawk of Cardiff in Wales came before the
king at Westminster, brought by order of the king before the said king
by Sir Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland and constable of England,
and Thomas Pickworth, knight, the marshal, and there by authority and
command of the king the said John Sparrowhawk confessed as matter of
record before Thomas Cowley, the coroner of the king's bench, the
things given below in the following form." END OF QUOTE.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Leticia Cluff

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 12 nov 2007 11:56:27

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:49:14 -0800, Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 11, 9:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure
that the
king himself was sitting on it?
--
John Briggs

John ~

The lawsuit states that John Sparrowhawk "came before the king at
Westminster" "by order of the king." While the wording is rather
specific (in fact, it is twice stated that John Sparrowhark was
brought before the king), this does not necessarily mean that the king
himself heard the testimony directly. Rather, the lawsuit stipulates
that the testimony was heard before the king's coroner, who was acting
under the "authority and command of the king." This is rather
standard legal parlance of the period. The exact wording is provided
below.


When asked if he was absolutely sure that the king himself was sitting
on the Court of the King's Bench, Mr. Richardson first replied: "Yes,
I'm quite sure."

Three hours later, Mr. Richardson wrote: "this does not necessarily
mean that the king himself heard the testimony directly ... This is
rather standard legal parlance of the period."

The latter statement includes no acknowledgment of the criticism from
Leo van de Pas, but it has been revised to include the new knowledge
gained from Leo, and it even clearly echoes some of the wording ("the
basic parlance of English legal proceedings in the Middle Ages") in
Leo's post, which Mr. Richardson carefully excised.

Mr. Richardson subtly managed to change his interpretation of the
original document without writing the magic words "Sorry, I was wrong"
and "Thanks to Leo for correcting me."

To save face, the incorrect interpretation first propounded by Mr.
Richardson had to be expunged from the record, in a way that will be
familiar to Kremlinologists everywhere. The earlier message, in which
Mr. Richardson was "quite sure" that the king was present, has
mysteriously disappeared from Google Groups. However, I quote it in
its entirety below, for the record.

I am increasingly convinced of the correctness of this assessment of
Mr. Richardson by DSH, as expressed in a hissy fit on March 11, 2004:

"In my carefully considered opinion, anyone who has been following
Richardson's posts to this newsgroup over the years and who has NOT
come to the conclusion that Richardson is a sly, manipulative
charlatan and an utter fraud is clearly naive, none-too-swift and a
damned fool to boot."

Well said, Spencer!

By the way, why have you now revised your opinion? Why the change from
Calcitravi to Linxi with respect to the Richardsonian Asinus?

I am reminded of the memorable words of Sybil Fawlty:

"You never get it right, do you? You're either crawling all over them,
licking their boots, or spitting poison at them like some Benzedrine
puff-adder."


Tish




THE MESSAGE THAT REFUSES TO DISAPPEAR:
___________________________________
From: Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
Subject: Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent
and the cause of all bad weather
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:30:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <1194841825.574680.192310@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
References: <1194834949.077938.102470@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
<1iPZi.39512$T8.30336@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.165.255.184
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1194841826 28694 127.0.0.1 (12 Nov 2007
04:30:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:30:26 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1iPZi.39512$T8.30336@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=75.165.255.184;
posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: news.motzarella.org soc.genealogy.medieval:30157768
soc.history.medieval:30488282 alt.history.british:5381315
alt.talk.royalty:30275062

On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the
king himself was sitting on it?
--
John Briggs

John ~

Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John
Sparrowhawk was brought "before the king."

"Memorandum that on Thursday after the Quinzaine of Easter [13 April
1402] in the third year of the reign of king Henry, fourth after
Conquest, one John Sparrowhawk of Cardiff in Wales came before the
king at Westminster, brought by order of the king before the said king
by Sir Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland and constable of England,
and Thomas Pickworth, knight, the marshal, and there by authority and
command of the king the said John Sparrowhawk confessed as matter of
record before Thomas Cowley, the coroner of the king's bench, the
things given below in the following form." END OF QUOTE.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Turenne

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Turenne » 12 nov 2007 21:21:20

Tish wrote:

Well said, Spencer!

There's three words you don't often see together!

Richard

Leticia Cluff

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 12 nov 2007 22:05:18

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:48:39 -0800, Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 12, 3:56 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
When asked if he was absolutely sure that the king himself was
sitting
on the Court of the King's Bench, Mr. Richardson first replied:
"Yes,
I'm quite sure."

Three hours later, Mr. Richardson wrote: "this does not necessarily
mean that the king himself heard the testimony directly ... This is
rather standard legal parlance of the period."

Tish

Tish is in a snit, too, it seems. But at least she agrees with me.
Or does she?

It is impossible to agree with you on this issue because it is hard to
know exactly what your opinion is. It seems to have changed rather
quickly, and then you tried to conceal the fact that you ever had the
opinion that you suddenly discarded when you were informed that it was
untenable.

I agree with Leo and John, the men who questioned your cocksure
assertion that the king was actually present. And if you agree with
those gentlemen now, then I agree with you too.

But I don't agree with the Douglas Richardson who declared that the
king was present and that the source was quite explicit on that point.
Nor do I agree with the Douglas Richardson who refused to be a man and
admit that he was in error.

Tish

Douglas Richardson

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 22:08:22

Um ... what is being sadly overlooked by Tish is the chief point I
was trying to make in my original post.

Can Tish tell us what that is? If you need help figuring it out,
Tish, I understand. I promise to be patient with you .... well as
patient as you deserve.

So go ahead ... tell us what you think I was trying to say. And,
please tell us the application of that point.

Understand that if you misrepresent me, I'll have to correct you. But
if you get it right, you'll get five Google stars from me, and you'll
move to the head of the Google class. Go Tish!

We might all learn something from this yet.

DR


On Nov 12, 1:48 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:56 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
When asked if he was absolutely sure that the king himself was
sitting
on the Court of the King's Bench, Mr. Richardson first replied:
"Yes,
I'm quite sure."

Three hours later, Mr. Richardson wrote: "this does not necessarily
mean that the king himself heard the testimony directly ... This is
rather standard legal parlance of the period."

Tish

Tish is in a snit, too, it seems. But at least she agrees with me.
Or does she?

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 22:37:33

On Nov 12, 2:05 pm, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:

< But I don't agree with the Douglas Richardson who declared that the
< king was present and that the source was quite explicit on that
point.

< Tish

Maybe Tish will agree with the actual document. This is what it
says:

"... one John Sparrowhawk .... came before the said king at
Westminster ..."

If Tish is talking about John Sparrowhawk's actual testimony, it
states that it was given:

".... before Thomas Cowley, the coroner of the king's bench."

By the way, Tish, so far as I know, there is only one Douglas
Richardson on the newsgroup, unless, of course, you're talking about
the person who posed as me and spammed my e-mail address some weeks
ago. Now that's another Douglas Richardson. And, I don't agree with
him either.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Leticia Cluff

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 12 nov 2007 22:43:14

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:08:22 -0800, Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Um ... what is being sadly overlooked by Tish is the chief point I
was trying to make in my original post.

Can Tish tell us what that is? If you need help figuring it out,
Tish, I understand. I promise to be patient with you .... well as
patient as you deserve.

So go ahead ... tell us what you think I was trying to say. And,
please tell us the application of that point.

It's difficult to know WHAT you were trying to say. You change your
opinions in stealth and insidiously try to obliterate any evidence of
your mistakes.

Understand that if you misrepresent me, I'll have to correct you. But
if you get it right, you'll get five Google stars from me, and you'll
move to the head of the Google class. Go Tish!

Is it a misrepresentation to say that you silently deleted a post from
Google and posted a revised version saying the exact opposite of
something you wrote in the deleted post? Is it a misrepresentation to
say that you realized your error after reading a post from Leo?

We might all learn something from this yet.

You have already learned something, thanks to Leo
(although you tried to pretend you knew it all along).

Tish

Renia

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Renia » 12 nov 2007 22:59:04

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:05 pm, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:

But I don't agree with the Douglas Richardson who declared that the
king was present and that the source was quite explicit on that
point.

Tish

Maybe Tish will agree with the actual document. This is what it
says:

"... one John Sparrowhawk .... came before the said king at
Westminster ..."

It's phraseology. The King's (Queen's) Bench represents the king
(queen). The king (queen) doesn't have to be there at all.

Douglas Richardson

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 23:08:50

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 12, 2:43 pm, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
< On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:08:22 -0800, Douglas Richardson
<
< <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
< >Um ... what is being sadly overlooked by Tish is the chief point I
< >was trying to make in my original post.
<
< >Can Tish tell us what that is? If you need help figuring it out,
< >Tish, I understand. I promise to be patient with you .... well as
< >patient as you deserve.
<
< >So go ahead ... tell us what you think I was trying to say. And,
< >please tell us the application of that point.
<
< It's difficult to know WHAT you were trying to say. You change your
< opinions in stealth and insidiously try to obliterate any evidence
of
< your mistakes.

Wrong answer. One big Google star for you.

< Is it a misrepresentation to say that you silently deleted a post
from
< Google and posted a revised version saying the exact opposite of
< something you wrote in the deleted post? Is it a misrepresentation
to
< say that you realized your error after reading a post from Leo?

You clearly missed the point of the original post. You're definitely
focused on being negative. You're more interested in arguing than
learning. And you repeat yourself again and again. On the whole you
come across as rather narcissistic. That's a fancy word for you have
a big ego. Also, your analytical ability is rather limited. You
focus on emotional issues, not factual ones. That prevents you from
seeing the bigger picture. And you have little sense of humor.

We might all learn something from this yet.

Clearly you have learned nothing so far. So if you'll kindly step
out of the way, Tish, we'll get back to the central issue of the
testimony of John Sparrowhawk. And, to save everyone a lot of grief,
I'm putting you on ignore for the time being. So sorry. You had
your chance and blew it.

Tish

Watch her scream now.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2007 23:58:38

On Nov 12, 12:48 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:56 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
When asked if he was absolutely sure that the king himself was
sitting
on the Court of the King's Bench, Mr. Richardson first replied:
"Yes,
I'm quite sure."

Three hours later, Mr. Richardson wrote: "this does not necessarily
mean that the king himself heard the testimony directly ... This is
rather standard legal parlance of the period."

Tish

Tish is in a snit, too, it seems.

Thereby seemingly diminishing her comments because they supposedly
derive from emotionalism. Not a substantive criticism, mind you.
Nothing to do with the points she raised, but maybe no one will
notice.

But at least she agrees with me.
Or does she?

It is no wonder you are having problems telling, as you placed
yourself firmly on one side, then jumped to the other without any
indication that you had changed position so radically.

taf

John Briggs

Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent

Legg inn av John Briggs » 13 nov 2007 00:55:38

Leticia Cluff wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:48:39 -0800, Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

On Nov 12, 3:56 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com
wrote:
When asked if he was absolutely sure that the king himself was
sitting
on the Court of the King's Bench, Mr. Richardson first replied:
"Yes,
I'm quite sure."

Three hours later, Mr. Richardson wrote: "this does not necessarily
mean that the king himself heard the testimony directly ... This is
rather standard legal parlance of the period."

Tish

Tish is in a snit, too, it seems. But at least she agrees with me.
Or does she?

It is impossible to agree with you on this issue because it is hard to
know exactly what your opinion is. It seems to have changed rather
quickly, and then you tried to conceal the fact that you ever had the
opinion that you suddenly discarded when you were informed that it was
untenable.

I agree with Leo and John, the men who questioned your cocksure
assertion that the king was actually present. And if you agree with
those gentlemen now, then I agree with you too.

But I don't agree with the Douglas Richardson who declared that the
king was present and that the source was quite explicit on that point.
Nor do I agree with the Douglas Richardson who refused to be a man and
admit that he was in error.

Perhaps we should remain on-topic by clarifying the circumstances. The dais
of Westminster Hall was at its southern end (where there are now steps down
into the Hall from St Stephen's Porch). There was a permanent table there,
with stone 'legs' or trestles (actually curved hollow squares) supporting a
Purbeck marble table top. (Recent excavation below the steps has recovered
several of these stone trestles.) Behind this was a stone (?) 'bench',
presumably broken by a gap for the throne. (The section of table-top in
front of the throne may also have been removable.) When Westminster Hall
was not used for Coronation Banquets, it housed the law courts, with the
Court of the King's Bench and the Court of Chancery occupying the southern
end. Presumably, the justices sat on the "King's Bench" on the dais, behind
the table, with each court taking half of the dais, and with wooden
partitions around them, and temporary wooden seating erected for the rest of
the court.
--
John Briggs

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»