Date 24 Aug 1998 055447 -0700
From leovdpas@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
To GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID <1.5.4.32.19980824122842.00a350d4@mail.iinet.net.au>
Subject That Beaufort Surname
Content-Type text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version 1.0

Some people have asked this interesting question "Where did the name
come from?" and were these children of John of Gaunt and Katherine
Swynford-Roet named after that chateau in Anjou? 

My first look was in The Plantagenet Encyclopedia, general editor
Elizabeth Hallam, page 26. There is an entry for John Beaufort 
1373?-1410 "He was the first to bear the name Beaufort, which John
chose for his children by Katherine". And so it seems to be John of
Gaunt himself who chose the name.

Of course, I should have looked first in the Complete Peerage under
Somerset, and there it is. Volume XII/1 page 39 hidden in a footnote.
"The name Beaufort came (Walsingham, 'Ypodigma' Rolls Ser., p.374)
from their father's castle in CHAMPAGNE (not Anjou), which devolved on him
(John of Gaunt) through his 1st wife, Blanche of Lancaster, who descended
from Blanche of Artois.

I suppose, never mind where the castle is, it may have given its name
to the four children but that doesn't mean to say that they were born
there. 
Leo van de Pas   

Date 24 Aug 1998 063510 -0700
From jparsons@chass.utoronto.ca (John Carmi Parsons)
To GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID 
Subject Re That Beaufort Surname
Content-Type TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version 1.0

On 24 Aug 1998, Leo van de Pas wrote

> My first look was in The Plantagenet Encyclopedia, general editor
> Elizabeth Hallam, page 26. There is an entry for John Beaufort 
> 1373?-1410 "He was the first to bear the name Beaufort, which John
> chose for his children by Katherine". And so it seems to be John of
> Gaunt himself who chose the name.

This is a pleasant enough work, but it would hardly stand up under careful
scrutiny.  It would require much more extensive and convincing evidence
than Hallam offers to *prove* that Gaunt himself chose it (undoubtedly he
APPROVED it, of course, but that's not the same thing as actually finding
it or choosing it).
 
> I suppose, never mind where the castle is, it may have given its name
> to the four children but that doesn't mean to say that they were born
> there. 

Exactly.  In fact, there's considerable room for doubt whether Gaunt
himself ever actually possessed, or established his right to, either of
the Beaufort castles, whether in Anjou or Champagne.  The name had at best
a vague connection with the Lancastrian house, and I'd suspect it might
well have been for precisely that reason that it was chosen for the duke's
illegitimate brood. 

John C. Parsons

John of Gaunt, the fourth son [third surviving] of King Edward III,
reportedly held a number of quite impressive titles

Duke of Lancaster, Earl of Richmond, Earl of Derby, Earl of Lincoln, Duke of
Aquitaine, Lord of Beaufort and Nogent, Rey de Castilla y Leon, Seigneur de
Bergerac et Roche-sur-Yon.

He virtually ran England during his Father's declining years.  He was one of
the wealthiest men in the realm. --- He had wealth and power over the lives
of others of a type we find it hard to even imagine today.  His progeny
became rich and powerful in his train.

Perhaps he mused that he would go down in History as Duke of Lancaster,
honored, feared, magnificent and respected.

And yet, because William Shakespeare [1564-1616], 200 years after the Duke
of Lancaster's death --- writes a play called Richard II [1595-1596] and
calls him John of Gaunt, an infant nickname that John enjoyed until the age
of three, and not thereafter --- this sobriquet --- corrupted from his
birthplace in Gent, Flanders, Netherlands --- sticks to him forever.

Gent is now in Belgium, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, Rey de Castilla y
Leon has been dead for almost 600 years --- but Shakespeare's christening
wins the historical palm and is the name he sleeps with for the eons.
Scribblers are often powerful beyond belief.

"Of comfort no man speak
Let's talk of graves, of worms and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth;
Let's choose executors and talk of wills."

King Richard II, Act III, Scene ii, Line 144

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas
Illegitimis Non Carborundum
--

___________________________X-Message #12
Date 28 Aug 1998 132947 -0700
From UTZ@aol.com
To GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID <35e7378a.35e71306@aol.com>
Subject Re That Beaufort Surname
Content-Type text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit

In a message dated 8/24/98 62808 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@iinet.net.au writes

> There is an entry for John Beaufort 
>  1373?-1410 "He was the first to bear the name Beaufort, which John
>  chose for his children by Katherine". And so it seems to be John of
>  Gaunt himself who chose the name.

Some comment on John Beaufort

Knight of the Garter, created 1st Earl of Somerset on 10 February 1396/7 and
Marquess of Dorset on 29 September 1397.  Died testate in the hospital of St
Catherine-by-the-Tower and buried in St. Michael's chapel in Canterbury
Cathedral.

Was the eldest of 4 children of John of Gaunt, by his mistress, Catherine
[Roet] Swynford, whom Gaunt later married as his 3rd wife, at which time the 4
children were legitimized, taking the surname Beufort.  After John of Gaunt's
death, however, the four Beauforts were barred from succession by their half-
brother King Henry IV.  Nevertheless, John Beaufort's great-grandson Henry VII
Tudor was able to win the throne in 1485 partly by virtue of his descent,
through Beaufort from the Lancastrian Plantagenets.

Always optimistic--Dave

Date 29 Aug 1998 160033 -0700
From sssbo@earthlink.net (Henry Sutliff)
To GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID <35E826D5.C04F4B6A@earthlink.net>
Subject Re John of Gaunt [1340-1399]
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit

D. Spencer Hines wrote

> 1.  Why is John of Gaunt [1340-1399], Duke of Lancaster, of any particular
> importance to us?

You raise a valuable question as it relates to a question I have along this same
line. Roderick W. Stuart's Royalty for Commoners (which has been excoriated on
this list for errors) is entirely based of the descent to John of Gaunt. What
bothers me is that most of those who descend from John of Gaunt are through the
Beauforts who were legitimized bastards. Stuart makes no mention of Lionel of
Antwerp, Edmund of Langley or Thomas of Woodstock from whom there are descents
which are not through bastard lines. In this context I have to echo your query
as to why the emphasis on John of Gaunt at the expense of the others?

Henry Sutliff
sssbo@earthlink.net

************************************************************8

When tracing my family history, it's not as important to me whether or not I
descend from a "legitimate" or "illegitimate" royal line as it is learning
about my ancestors and how they took part in history.  There is a heightened
interest in history when one discovers that their ancestors founded a town
or ruled a nation.
Memorizing names, dates, and places in history class was boring to me in
high school (many years ago).  But looking at history through the eyes of my
ancestors (great and small) have opened doors that I may never have
investigated otherwise.  Being one of the "commoners" who descends from John
of Gaunt, I am grateful that there are those who have taken the time to
document his ancestry and descendants. Thanks to those who have done so, I
am looking at medieval history in a new way.  It's downright fascinating to
me now.

"Mr. of Gaunt" is indeed one of my most interesting ancestors, and thanks to
him I'm learning an awful lot about world history as I place each generation
on my family tree.  Whether my ancestors are Kings or vagabonds, Queens or
witches, Princes or paupers, they're still my ancestors, and are part of the
reason I'm here as well.  8-)

Denise Tyler

Date 2 Sep 1998 113043 -0700
From doug@dholmes.com (Doug Holmes)
To GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID <199809021128.EAA00634@web1.sl.net>
Subject Re John of Gaunt [1340-1399] - Lord of Beaufort
Content-Type text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version 1.0

Dear Mr. Hines,

Could you please tell me where the referred to Beaufort is located. I was
told it's a location in France, but perhaps not.

My reasons are thus

John de Sudeley was a secretary of the future queen Philippa of Lancaster
when she married King Joao I of Portugal.  Sudeley, amongst others, sailed
with Philippa to Portugal and was "of the House of Beaufort." Since you
mention the Lord of Beaufort, I am wondering where this house is/was, and
if there is any book or article reference about the House of Beaufort, I
would be very interested in knowing the title, etc.

This Sudeley married and his descendants became SODRE in Portugal. I am
attempting to document the SUDELEY to SODRE evolution of names and tie them
beyond doubt to the Sudeley family of Sudeley Castle, England.

Thanks,

Doug Holmes

Date 2 Sep 1998 190401 GMT
From "D. Spencer Hines" 
To GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID <6sk4r1$4kh@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
Subject Re John of Gaunt [1340-1399] - Lord of Beaufort
MIME-Version 1.0

Well, as my later post indicated, the Beaufort we are talking about is in
Champagne.  The Beauforts were the children of John of Gaunt and Katherine
Roet, also as I've previously noted.

Henry [Tudor] VII's Mother was a Beaufort, Margaret Beaufort, [1443-1509]
Countess of Richmond.

So, there are hundreds of books about the Beauforts.  I'd just dive in and
rummage.

Have you seen my other posts on these matters?

Sincerely,

DSH
--
>Doug Holmes wrote in message <199809021128.EAA00634@web1.sl.net>...
>
>>Dear Mr. Hines,
>>
>>Could you please tell me where the referred to Beaufort is located. I was
>>told it's a location in France, but perhaps not.
>>
>>My reasons are thus
>>
>>John de Sudeley was a secretary of the future queen Philippa of Lancaster
>>when she married King Joao I of Portugal.  Sudeley, amongst others, sailed
>>with Philippa to Portugal and was "of the House of Beaufort." Since you
>>mention the Lord of Beaufort, I am wondering where this house is/was, and
>>if there is any book or article reference about the House of Beaufort, I
>>would be very interested in knowing the title, etc.

I don't remember a John de Sudeley being part of the Beaufort family ...
my guess is that the reference means he was a retainer. Philippa, as I
remember (no books at work, unfortunately) was John of Gaunt's legitimate
daughter and the half-sister of his Beaufort children by Katharine (Roet)
Swynford.

Mr. Hines is right ... you shouldn't have any trouble finding a book about
John of Gaunt (or, at worst, Lancastrian England) which should tell you
where Beaufort Castle is. 

Or, why even do that. "Beaufort Castle" , queried to Yahoo, returns

Chateau De Beaufort, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Anjou, France 

(Whatever did we do without the Web?)

Date 2 Sep 1998 182438 -0700
From leovdpas@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
To GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID <1.5.4.32.19980903005921.00ec693c@mail.iinet.net.au>
Subject Re John of Gaunt [1340-1399] - Lord of Beaufort
Content-Type text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version 1.0

A curse on Yahoo -) 
Have you considered Yahoo may only refer to still existing buildings?
Within the last week or so it has been quoted from the Complete Peerage,
Volume XII/1 Page 39 in a footnote 

The name Beaufort (for John of Gaunts children by Katherine Roet)
came (Walsingham, 'Ypodigma' Rolls Ser.,p.374) from their father's
castle in Champagne, which devolved on him through his 1st wife,
Blanche of Lancaster, who descended etc.

Are there two Chateaus de Beaufort? Has the border between Anjou and
Champagne been changed (doubt it)?
Leo van de Pas

Date 2 Sep 1998 231404 -0700
From doug@dholmes.com (Doug Holmes)
To GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Message-ID <199809022311.QAA03107@web1.sl.net>
Subject Re John of Gaunt [1340-1399] - Lord of Beaufort
Content-Type text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi John,

Thanks. I'll check out that site on the castle (yea, I now know it's the
wrong one, but will still be interesting).

I am new to nobility and don't really know what it meant to be "of the
house" of someone. I figured it meant they worked for them, but maybe this
John de Sudeley had a mother related to the Beaufort or Lancaster family
somehow... but that doesn't seem likely either since if so, why hasn't
anyone ever heard of this John de Sudeley or the other man PAINE (who
became PAIM in Portugal), both secretaries of Philippa of Lancaster in 1384
or so?

Doug