GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-03 > 1016989155


From: Cristopher Nash <c@windsong.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Phillip and Richard
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:05:22 +0000
References: <d3.104d29f4.27b5e0b3@aol.com>,<016a01c095d0$e5ce1b80$84e8dcc2@alex>,<a7ivjn$fj5$1@aristotelis.cytanet.com.cy> <3C9D7962.4080907@interfold.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C9D7962.4080907@interfold.com>


Lacking particular interest in the question of Richard I's sexuality,
I'm afraid I bypassed this last season's debate on the topic, and so
may have missed some discussion of the genealogical issue (which does
interest me) as to whether he had descendants. If so, forgive me for
asking this when it may already have been considered here -- please
just shout and I'll follow it up!

In the most of his many booklength studies of Richard, John
Gillingham (his leading modern biographer) says unproblematically
that "Richard acknowledged a child. Indeed his illegitimate son is a
central figure in one of Shakespeare's plays. Philip Faulconbridge,
the personification of sturdy English virtues, is doubtless a far cry
from the Philip to whom Richard gave the lordship of Cognac as part
of his campaign to hold the counts of Angoulême in check." [Richard
I, 1999, 264] Gillingham cites e.g. Richard's contemporary Roger of
Howden (Hoveden) as having evidently taken it as a matter of course
that Philip was R's son.

I'd appreciate any details of further work done on Philip
Faulconbridge, whether in support or repudiation of this proposition.

Thanks,

Cris
--


This thread: