Talk:Katherine Swynford

Untitled
Katherine and Hugh almost certainly did NOT have a daughter named Dorothy as the name didn't come into use in England for more than 100 years later. Their daughter Margaret was named a nun by royal privilege at the accession of Richard II, where she eventually became Abbess.=--jeanne (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I always heard that their daughter was named Blanchette, in honour of Blanche of Lancaster.Also,I have seen 25 November 1350 as a possible birthdate for Katherine.Can anyone out there corroborate this ?--jeanne (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)--jeanne (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Katherine and Hugh Swynford's daughter was named Blanche. "Blanchette" is from Anya Seton's novel "Katherine".  In the novel, Katherine's oldest child is indeed named Blanche, after John of Gaunt's first wife Blanche of Lancaster, but then Katherine decides to call her Blanchette as a pet form.  It is a novel, not a history, so obviously there are many things in it which are not historically proven, and Blanche Swynford being called the pet form of her name Blanchette is one of them. 2600:6C5D:5A00:3694:C8C1:A515:CBBB:829 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Henry VII
This whole bit is wrong:

'Henry VII, who became King of England in 1485, derived his claim to the throne from his mother Margaret Beaufort, who was a great-granddaughter of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. His legal claim to the throne, however, was by his marriage to Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter of Edward IV, and heir to the throne in the absence of her brothers, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, known throughout history as the Princes in the Tower.'

Whilst Henry Tudor was a descendent of Gaunt (though barred from claiming the throne by his Lancastrian rellie, Henry IV), and did marry Elizabeth of York (but after his coronation; he would not marry and crown her before he was crowned, because he didn't want it said he was claiming the throne through marrying a Yorkist heir), he derived his claim to the throne through neither of these. He claimed it the same way William the Conqueror had....via right of conquest. There was nothing really *legal* about it. Veni, vidi, vici.

I question the validity of even having Henry Tudor in the lead. This article isn't about him, it's about his great-great-great grandmother. At the most he rates a mention in the Children and descendents bit. Certainly not right at the beginning. The Princes in the Tower don't belong here at all, either. Anyone care to discuss? If not, I'll tinker with it in a while. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

House of Lancaster
As far as I know, this woman is universally called Katherine Swynford, i.e. the only family with which her name is associated is Swynford. She is never called Katherine of Lancaster. Her husband is thus a "Swynford" as much as she is an "of Lancaster". This is what I mean by anachronistic - unless we can find a source that explicitly calls her a member of the House of Lancaster. Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Her children were Beauforts, so I don't think it's correct to say she was a "Swynford", since House Beaufort was legitimised as a cadet branch of Lancaster, and thus also Plantagenet. House Beaufort may be more correct since her children were Beauforts, and powerful nobles in their own right. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Katherine Swynford and Richard III DNA
Mitochondrial DNA testing was the first of two DNA tests used to confirm the identity of Richard III's skeleton. The match was made between Richard's DNA from his skeleton and the DNA of of a living descendant of his sister, Anne of York, solely through maternal descend. That was the match they found to identify Richard III initially (paternal DNA testing verified this).

Tracing the maternal (mother to mother to mother) back from Cecily Neville (Richard III's and Anne of York's mother) back...this mitochondrial DNA is Katherine's!

Richard III and Anne of York

mother: Cecily Neville mother: Joan Beaufort mother: Katherine Swynford

I think this is worth putting in the article, but I don't have any published source except the known maternal line lineage. New to Wikipedia, can I just add this to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clio85718 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Descendants' inheritance rights
"the Beauforts were barred from inheriting the throne of England by a clause in the legitimation act inserted by their half-brother, Henry IV, although modern scholarship disputes the authority of a monarch to alter an existing parliamentary statute on his own authority, without the further approval of Parliament. This provision was later revoked by Edward VI" ... or Edward IV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.0.25 (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine it would have been revoked by Edward IV; he would have no reason to sanction claims to the throne based on the Beaufort line. While through his mother he descended from a Beaufort, Edward IV's claim to the throne came from the paternal Yorkist line.

I cannot find any reference however for the claim here about Edward VI. Evidently Edward did attempt to bar his two sisters from the throne in favor of Lady Jane Grey, but I find nothing about legitimizing the Beaufort line. Maybe take this out until a reference is found? I'll keep on looking. Henry VII's very weak claim to the throne by blood came through the Beaufort line (his mother was Margaret Beaufort), but he claimed the throne by right of conquest not blood. I could see why a Tudor might want to change this but can't find the evidence as yet. clio85718Clio85718 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong coat of arms of Roeulx family
The coat of arms that you present is certified modern (1838 ). The really is found here : https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b525106591/f165.item.r=armorial%20Flandres

https://www.geni.com/people/Eustache-de-Roeulx-III-Canivet-seigneur-du-Roeulx/6000000003051193758

Pass a good day 87.231.197.72 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)