GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-03 > 1017084539


From: Cristopher Nash <c@windsong.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Phillip and Richard
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:34:35 +0000
References: <3C9D7962.4080907@interfold.com>,<a05100301b8c3b2727109@[10.0.1.2]> <3C9E213E.9050503@interfold.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C9E213E.9050503@interfold.com>


"Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote --

>Cristopher Nash wrote:
>
>>
>> In the most recent 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 AngoulÍme 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.
>
>
>While I would have to dig out the details, Philip was also
>accepted without question as an illegitimate son of Richard in
>Sheppard's critical analysis of English royal bastards. I have
>not seen any doubt of this relationship by any historians, and
>have only seen it questioned based on the "Richard was homosexual
> so Philip couldn't have been his son" argument, which is
>logically flawed in addition to putting the cart before the horse
>- changing the facts to fit the hypothesis, rather than
>developing the hypothesis from the facts.
>
>taf

Thanks, Todd. (I note that Given-Wilson's equally vague about this
bastard, and I agree about the misplaced cart).

Cris
--

This thread: