GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-12 > 1072842057


From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: Joan of the Tower - not Joanna of Woodstock
Date: 30 Dec 2003 19:40:57 -0800
References: <5cf47a19.0312282247.46bf647@posting.google.com>


Dear Newsgroup ~

Below please find another record which mentions King Edward III's
daughter, Joan of the Tower:

Date: 20 Feb. 1348.

"Protection with clause nolumus, for one year, for Master Andrew de
Offard, king's clerk, prebendary of South Neubald, in the church of
St. Peter, York, and of the prebend called St. Laurence's Portion, in
the collegiate church of Romeseye, and of the chapel of Immere,
annexed to the samer and parson of the church of Ovre, going to Spain
in the company of the king's daughter, Joan de la Tour." [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1348–1350 (1905): 26].

As we can see, Joan is here again called "Joan of the Tower," not
"Joan of Woodstock," indicating that Joan was born in the Tower of
London, not Woodstock, Oxfordshire as commonly thought.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail:


(Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<>...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Some months ago, Henry "Hap" Sutliff posted a message (see copy below)
> in which he listed the children of King Edward III and his wife,
> Philippe of Hainault. At that time, Hap asserted that it was
> "ludicrous" and "disrespectful" to suggest that "other authors and
> historians who have published the correct information" may have made
> mistakes. Actually historians and genealogists make mistakes all the
> time, myself included.
>
> A case in point is Hap's own list. The third child he lists for King
> Edward III is a daughter named Joanna of Woodstock. My research
> indicates that King Edward III's daughter was actually known as Joan
> of the Tower, not Joanna of Woodstock. Joan's correct name is
> recorded in Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1345?1348 (1903), pg. 430:
>
> "? his [i.e., the king's] daughter, Joan de la Tour"
>
> Princess Joan was doubtless styled "of the Tower" from her place of
> birth, the Tower of London. Joan subsequently died of the plague at
> Bordeaux, France 2 Sept. 1348, en route to be married to Pedro, son
> and heir of Alfonso XI, King of Castile and León.
>
> Additional records of Joan of the Tower can be found in the following
> sources:
>
> Cal. Close Rolls, 1341?1343 (1902): 554.
>
> Cal. Close Rolls, 1346?1349 (1905): 55?56, 426, 570, 590.
>
> Cal. Patent Rolls, 1348?1350 (1905): 24, 26, 40, 343.
>
> List of Diplomatic Docs., Scottish Docs. and Papal Bulls (PRO Lists
> and Indexes 49) (1923): 13.
>
> Cal. of Ancient Deeds?Series AS & WS (List & Index Soc. 158) (1979):
> 149 (W.S. 462).
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail:
>
>
> From: "Sutliff" <>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> Subject: Re: Correction on a Correction Re: Another CP Correction:
> Margaret of Windsor, wife of John de Hastings, Ear
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:55:31 -0700
>
> What Douglas Richardson has done is point out an error in CP. I hope
> he is
> not claiming this as a "discovery."
>
> The identity of the children of Edward III by their birthplaces has
> been a
> fundamental part of the naming of these children and how historians
> refer to
> them. We know of the fourth son John less by his titles (Earl of
> Richmond or
> Duke of Lancaster) than by his birthplace (Gaunt). The 12 children
> were
> known as:
>
> Edward of Woodstock
> Isabella of Woodstock
> Joanna of Woodstock
> William of Hatfield
> Lionel of Antwerp
> John of Gaunt
> Edmund of Langley
> Blanche of the Tower
> Mary of Waltham
> Margaret of Windsor
> William of Windsor
> Thomas of Woodstock
>
> Edward III's brother is frequently called John of Eltham, also his
> birthplace.
>
> These names are used in histories and biographies as far back as I
> have
> looked (at this point as far back as Agnes Strickland's Lives of the
> Queens
> of England in 1844). So any claim to anything beyond a correction to
> CP
> would not only be ludicrous, but disrespectful of other authors and
> historians who have published the correct information.
>
> Henry Sutliff
>
>


This thread: