Talk:John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset

Untitled
The Joan Beaufort on this page needs a link to her bio, which I put on the bottom of the one of her aunt Joan Beaufort. I haven't yet learned how to handle this situation, so rather than screw it up, I'm leaving this note and not trying to make the link.

Reveal Names
I would suggest that you form a civilised discussion on whether to include first names here. This should help you to reach a peaceful consensus. Please contact me if you would like help! Abcdefghijklm 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth
This article contradicts itself, was he born in 1371 or 1373? PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that his date of birth is uncertain. john k (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it at least known if he was older than Catherine of Lancaster? СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I was confused. Could someone at least change it so that ir shows a questionable birth year?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.124.1.82 (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Which Beaufort are we talking about ?
Reading the introduction, it is said that John got his surname from a fiefdom located in Champagne but in the infobox it is written that he was born in a Beaufort located in Auvergne. So my question is where was he born and from which location did he receive his surname ? Beaufort in Champagne seems impossible as the castle was taken four years before his birth by Charles V of France and it seems quite amazing that he would have been born in the middle of Auvergne in a castle bearing the exact same name. 90.52.117.164 (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out! The Beaufort name and its origins has caused considerable confusion over the years.  Many places bear the name Beaufort, but the one in Champagne is the one involving John of Gaunt.  One of the references quoted in this article is Sydney Armitage-Smith's biography of John of Gaunt, written in 1904, but still a go-to source for the Duke.  Since I recently obtained a copy, I looked up the Beaufort connection.  Here's what Armitage-Smith had to say (I have inserted links into the quote for reference):


 * "Beaufort and its connexion with John of Gaunt have for generations proved a stumbling block and rock of offence to the genealogist. Unfortunately, there is a Beaufort in Anjou, in Artois, in Picardy, in Champagne, in Dauphiné and in Savoy. With this “embarras de choix” compilers of Peerages and others have usually fixed upon Beaufort in Anjou, which has never had the remotest connexion with John of Gaunt....


 * "At the present time in the Canton of Chavanges (Aube), between Chalons and Troyes, there is a village called Montmorency. Before the family of Montmorency held it and gave it their name the village was called Beaufort. In 1270 Blanche of Artois, niece of Saint Louis and wife of Henry III, Count of Champagne and King of Navarre, bought the lordship of Beaufort and of Nogent. Blanche married en secondes noces Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, and on Edmund’s death Blanche’s lands were divided between her second and third sons, Henry, third Earl, and John “of Lancaster.” When John died in 1336 without issue, Beaufort and Nogent became the sole property of Henry, third Earl of Lancaster, and passed from him through Duke Henry to Blanche of Lancaster and John of Gaunt....


 * "Beaufort only once draws upon itself the attention of history during the Hundred Years War. That is upon the outbreak of the hostilities in 1369. The duke was unfortunate in his choice of a tenant, for John Wyn, to whom in 1365 he had leased the castles and lordships of Beaufort and Nogent for ten years, at an early rental of £100 sterling, turned French and sold his trust. [By this] treason... Beaufort and Nogent pass into the hands of the Kings of France, become part of the royal domain, and disappear from the Lancastrian story. If it had not been gravely stated [previously, by other authors] that the “Beauforts” must have been born before 1369, when the castle was lost, it would scarcely be necessary to add that no argument as to the date of the liaison with Katherine Swynford can be based on the Duke’s tenure. Katherine never saw Beaufort, and her children were certainly not born there. The explanation of the choice of this name for the Duke’s illegitimate family must be found in the fact that among the many territorial titles which came by descent to John of Gaunt it was found convenient to choose one which would not prejudice the rights of his legitimate heir. The names of the English Honors being impossible, it was found convenient to assume for them the name of a French seigniory long since lost, and after the legitimation to retain a name long familiar to England, and not unknown to the chivalry of Europe."


 * Sorry for the lengthy quote, but it does supply thorough explanation of when John of Gaunt did possess lordship of Beaufort (the village, not a castle), when it was no longer his, and why these children were given a non-English name. Using the name of an honour or territory which one no longer possesses is not that uncommon in nobility; the Kings of England carried the title King of France into the early 1800s though they had no actual posession of French territory in hundreds of years.  Similarly, Queen Elizabeth II still holds the official title Duke of Normandy despite the fact that the only Norman territory she holds are the Channel Islands.


 * The upshot is, the Beaufort possession which the name derives from is a village now known as Montmorency-Beaufort, which then lay within the county of Champagne. But since John of Gaunt no longer held the village of Beaufort by the time these children were born, it is impossible for them to have been born there.  The Chateau Beaufort in Anjou is not connected to this family at all.


 * Until further research turns up a definitive birthplace, I have simply left the birthplace blank in the article.


 * If anyone can cite a reference for another birthplace, please discuss it here before editing the article. History Lunatic (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic


 * Thank you for the very informative answer. Concerning John Beaufort and his then illegitimate siblings, we know that their father was regularly pillaging France but would he travel with his mistress during his chevauchées, it sounds barely conveivable. The idea that as the English Honors were blocked for them, John of Gaunt chose a little French fiefdom he once owned seems believable but in any way it does include that they were born in France.
 * On another point, I don't want to appear picky but Elizabeth II doesn't hold the title of Duke of Normandy, the title along with the province were relinquished at the Treaty of Paris of 1259. A little detail of this treaty is pretty delicious islands (if any) which the King of England should hold as peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine. I would add that as George III gave up the claim to the throne of France in 1801, this is safe to say that all claims to others tiles linked to France were gave up as well. 90.52.117.164 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope one day we will trace down more on the Beauforts and their places of birth. I haven't read up enough on the records we have on John of Gaunt to see how well we can track Katherine Swynford's whereabouts at the times in question, not that we can even precisely nail down the birthdates!  But this did remind me to remove the Anjou birthplace from the other 3 Beaufort children as well.


 * Yes, my wording was incorrect regarding the Normandy title. Elizabeth II is informally styled in the Channel Islands as the Duke of Normandy, although on official documents she is referred to as "the Queen in right of Jersey" or Guernsey, etc.  This is better explained under the heading "Duke of Normandy (British Monarch)" here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy#Duke_of_Normandy_.28British_monarch.29


 * The actual duchy was of course absorbed into the French monarchy and is now obsolete.


 * This is much different than, say, the duchy of Lancaster, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.


 * And yes, the King of France claim was dropped with the Act(s) of Union, passed in 1800 and taking effect in 1801. George IV was the first monarch in centuries not to claim to be titular King of France.


 * I'm not offended by anyone being "picky." Obviously from my long posts, I enjoy the details.  My husband, who gracefully indulges my passion for history and has become quite involved in it over the years, once asked me to explain how the Civil List was created.  I think I finally lost my voice about 2 a.m...  :)  History Lunatic (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

Marquess
I have categorised him under "Marquesses in the Peerage of England" as he was not only Marquess of Dorset (which has a subcat of its own) but also Marquess of Somerset (which does not). Alekksandr (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)