GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-02 > 1204328251


From: "Peter Stewart" <>
Subject: Re: Sir John Cornwall - ?Lord Saint Amand?
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:37:31 GMT
References: <72562bb7-fd39-402b-9c0c-20c11e50ad97@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com><9e9e5432-0e01-4c2a-854a-6222f358f741@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com><c533d1d6-4ca3-4dce-bfcb-1606ee60ad5a@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>


<> wrote in message
news:...
> [self-indulgent cross-posting removed]
>
> On Feb 29, 12:12 pm, Douglas Richardson <> wrote:
>> Dear Newsgroup ~
>>
>> Just a note of correction.
>>
>> Sir John Cornwall was actually Elizabeth Lancaster's third husband.
>> She was first betrothed to marry John de Hastings, Knt., 3rd Earl of
>> Pembroke, about 24 June 1380. This marriage annulled sometime after
>> 24 Sept. 1383. She subsequently married (2nd) at or near Plymouth,
>> Devon 24 June 1386 Sir John Holand, who was eventually made Earl of
>> Huntingdon and Duke of Exeter. John Holand was beheaded at Pleshey
>> Castle, Essex 9 (or 10) Jan. 1399/1400, for treason against his
>> brother-in-law, King Henry IV of England.
>>
>> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Elizabeth LANCASTER? What's the historical basis for assigning this
> surname to her? Is there any contemporary evidence that she was
> actually referred to by this surname? Perhaps "Elizabeth OF
> Lancaster", but "Elizabeth Lancaster" seems inaccurate historically.

Since Richardson has taken to calling her father "John of Gaunt, Duke of
Aquitaine and Lancaster" the designation surely ought to be "Elizabeth of
Aquitaine ".

Richardson is nothing if not consistent, after all....so, what does that
make him if he is inconsistent on this?

Peter Stewart


This thread: