Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-03 > 1204967153

From: "Peter Stewart" <>
Subject: Re: King Henry IV of England's grandson, Richard of Bedford,Bastard of Bedford (living 1441)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:05:53 GMT
References: <>

"Leo van de Pas" <> wrote in message
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Douglas Richardson" <>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
> alt.history.british,
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 4:14 PM
> Subject: King Henry IV of England's grandson, Richard of Bedford, Bastard
> of Bedford (living 1441)
> Dear Newsgroup ~
> King Henry IV of England had but one legitimate grandchild, King Henry
> VI of England, but five known illegitimate grandchildren, one of whom
> was Richard of Bedford, otherwise known as "the Bastard of Bedford."
> Scant attention has been paid to Richard of Bedford in the history
> books.
> ========== For completeness sake, I do appreciate this attempt by
> Richardson.
> He says that Richard of Bedford is ignored by history. In 1978 Cahiers de
> Saint Louis mentions him but as Richard batard de Lancastre. He (and his
> illegitimate sister/half-sister) has a footnote : Voir : "My Lord of
> Bedford", par E. Williams, (Londres, 1963.)
> I have no access to this publiscation, but it would be interesting to see
> how Richard is being ignored by history, ignoring which takes a
> publication 45 years ago.
> Richardson has already been shown up having wrong the number of legitimate
> grandchildren of Henry IV. I wonder whether he can tell who is the fifth
> illegitimate grandchild.
> 1.Thomas of Clarence has one bastard Jean de Clarence Langlee, he married
> and had children
> 2.John of Bedford had two bastards Richard batard de Lancastre and Marie
> who married and had children
> 3.Humphrey of Gloucester was father of Antigone bastard of Gloucester who
> marrie and had children
> This makes four. Who was the fifth?

Humphrey of Gloucester also had a son, named Arthur, who evidenctly died

Apart from the biography of John, duke of Bedford, by Ethel Williams,
mentioned by Leo, and other studies of the same subject, it's not clear to
me why history books should pay more than "scant attention" to his bastard
son Richard.

It rather appears, as usual, that Scant attention has been paid to the
history books by Richardson.

Peter Stewart

This thread: