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

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

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

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 nov 2007 09:18:40

I wonder (not really) why Richardson sends the same message a second time.
Is this his way of "setting the record straight"?

I also wonder how many decades Richardson has studied primary sources from
England? Surely he has learned that there is a "terminology" that was used.
Is Richardson telling us that the king was present, twiddling his thumbs,
while Thomas Cowley was getting on with _his_ business?
Don't you think the king had better things to do? Why use a proxy when you
are there yourself? In Australia the Governor General (the Queen's proxy)
makes himself scarce when the Queen is here----why should it have been any
different then?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent and
thecause of all bad weather


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



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Douglas Richardson

Re: Fw: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Gh

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 09:49:31

On Nov 12, 1:18 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I wonder (not really) why Richardson sends the same message a second time.
Is this his way of "setting the record straight"?

For the second time (for emphasis, of course), the wording of the
document does not mean that the king himself heard the testimony
himself. 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." The text speaks for itself.

DR

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»