Just a hypothesis, but …

  1. We know that John of Gaunt and Henry IV claimed their ancestor, Edmund Crouchback Earl of Lancaster, to have been born before Edward I, however we have sources showing this propaganda to be specious.
  2. We know Henry III and Eleanor of Provence, to have had five children: Edward, Margaret, Beatrice, Edmund and Katherine. Sources such as the Flores Historiarum have previously attributed four others who apparently died in infancy between 1250 and 1260 but historical analysis (a) has suggested that these were “ghost children” created centuries before Weir begat so many.
  3. Henry and Eleanor married on 14 January 1236, when she was probably at least twelve, thus of age to consummate the marriage. Edward I was born in mid-June 1239 (b).

Now just suppose that an unrecorded, short-lived child was born earlier, or was even a twin, and that Lancastrian propagandists exploited the situation by trying to pin Crouchback to the earlier birth date? The names of dead children were often “recycled”. Suppose that the doomed infant was also called Edmund? Propaganda is easier to spread when there is an atom of truth behind it.

So we have a very unlikely hypothesis, but the idea of a prominent twin dying soon after birth happened with James II (born 1430 and the younger brother of Alexander). Scientists have discovered planets without travelling to them, purely by studying the magnetic fields of the known ones. We can only postulate, as Pierce did for a “second daughter” to Sir Richard Pole and his wife, Margaret Countess of Salisbury.

(a) The Children of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence (Margaret Howell) in Thirteenth Century England IV, as cited by Kathryn Warner in Blood Roses (ch.1, note 3).
(b) Henry III: Son of Magna Carta (Matthew Lewis) describes Edward I’s birth (ch.9, p.146).

Advertisement

By super blue

Grandson of a Town player.

7 comments

  1. Hmmm…a mooted twin? No, not as far as this confirmed supporter of Richards II and !!! is concerned. The Lancastrians were just lying toe-rags.The Crouchback story was invented to justify Bolingbroke’s usurpation and murder of Richard II. No twin, just a device to help keep thieving Lancastrian claws on the crown. Crouchback wasn’t born first and Henry IV was a murderous usurper. Full stop. (Oh dear, I got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. 🙄)

    Like

  2. I’m not sure that John of Gaunt and Henry IV actually made such a claim. I have read that a propogandist for Henry actually drew up such a statement, but that it wasn’t pfoclaimed by Henry.

    Like

  3. “We know that John of Gaunt and Henry IV claimed their ancestor, Edmund Crouchback Earl of Lancaster, to have been born before Edward I”

    Shouldn’t this read “John of Gaunt claimed his wife’s ancestor, Edmund Crouchback Earl of Lancaster, to have been born before Edward I?” Edward II and Edward III wives were not descended from the Lord Edmund that I can tell which would be the only way that Gaunt could be a descendent of his.

    Like

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: