GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-12 > 1291585796


From: "Peter Stewart" <>
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Edward of Angoulême, son of Edward the Black Prince and ...
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:49:56 +1100
References: <mailman.13.1291574372.2234.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.13.1291574372.2234.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>


<> wrote in message
news:...
> In a message dated 12/5/2010 10:35:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> writes:
>
>
>> Because the statement is from the editors in a footnote, not in the
>> chronicle itself.
>>
>
> Oh so it's false authority then.
> Because editors are not sources for claims 600 years old.
> No matter who they are, or claim they are :)
>
> We've seen that six thousand times in this newsgroup already, claims that
> can't be supported by any *reasonable* authority.

The "claim" is not 600 years old and has already been explained at length in
this thread - in 1883 Francisique Michel published a translation of the
Chandos herald's verse life of the Black Prince in which "enseigne" (a sign,
token or standard) was interpreted as "news", implying that he had learned
of his son Edward's death on returning from the siege of Limoges (that ended
on 20 September 1370).

This has been accepted by many historians since, but in the context it is
more probable that "autre enseign" meant "another portent" of the Black
Prince's own approaching death, so that hsi son's death is not necessarily
placed before his return.

The later chronicle of Wigmore provides shaky support for the younger
Edward's death ca 29 September. However, if this is to be credited then an
explanation is needed for the very strange circumstance that the child was
still unburied when his parents left for England around three months later.

Richardson has preferred to remain blithely "satisfied" with his
ill-researched conclusion, based on these two tendentious pieces of
evidence, rather than trying to address this question.

Peter Stewart

This thread: