murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the tag “Dukes of Richmond”

To be Bl(o)unt …

Most people are aware that James Blunt’s real surname is Blount. This is an influential name in late mediaeval, “Tudor” and Stuart times. Bessie Blount was another mistress of Henry VIII and bore him Henry Duke of Richmond, who married Lady Mary Howard but died without issue, to be buried at Framlingham. Walter Blount, who lived through the mid-fifteenth century, was made Baron Mountjoy, although his male line became extinct in 1679. There were also two families of Baronets, although both of them are extinct, the second as recently as 2004. James Blunt, a former Captain himself, comes from a military family, with an 1855-born great-great-grandfather who died of dysentery during the Boer War, a great-grandfather and a great-great-uncle who fell during the Great War and a cousin who died in an air accident in 1940.

The latest common ancestor of the two major mediaeval branches was Sir John Blount of Sodington, who died in c.1358 and whose principal male line (marked by his grandsons Sir John and Sir Thomas) and  leads to one of the baronetcies (Blount of Sodington). By tracing his agnatic descent, but ignoring the three titles which must be culs de sac, is it possible to connect him with the modern line?

It isn’t actually possible to do so with a single reliable cyber-source such as Genealogics as Sir John’s untitled descendants appear to expire in 1821, or 1825 for an American-based branch. However, there are other options to explore as Leo van der Pas would err towards omitting people. We have James’ ancestors back to c.1580 but they don’t connect just yet, although this Telegraph article, in two parts, helps. It describes a lineage back to Viking settlers from the tenth century – fighters, of course.

Bah! Henry “Tudor” was not Earl of Richmond, and certainly not DUKE….!

private lives of the tudorsI have just made the mistake of watching The Private Lives of the Tudors, which is based on the book of the same name by Tracy Borman. It’s bad enough that Henry Tudor is first referred to as the Earl of Richmond, but then Dr Susan Doran INSISTS upon referring to him as the DUKE of Richmond! The what? He was denied that earldom when Edward IV took it into Royal hands*, and at that time there was no such thing as a Duke of Richmond. Yet the odious and presumptuous Tudor fellow is elevated twice in about one minute! One day they’ll get it right…erm, and the Titanic will make it safely to New York, of course.

* by an attainder passed in 1471 (Complete Peerage)

 

 

PS Thanks to EM:

It was tomorrow, August 22nd, in 1485, that Richard III was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth, but Henry Tudor, in his first parliament as King Henry VII, in an early example of “fake news,” made the claim that he was really already king on August 21st. This meant that he could declare anyone who fought with King Richard to be a traitor, execute them, and seize their lands. English documents, however, are often dated by regnal year (i.e, “the sixth day of May in the tenth year of the reign of Edward the Fourth”), where each regnal year begins on what everyone agrees is the anniversary of the first day of the king’s reign. For 500 years, record keepers and historians have maintained that the regnal years of Henry VII all started on August 22nd, the day of the battle. But here Sir Laurence Reynforth dates his last will and testament on August 21st, giving the year as both Anno Domini 1490, and as the sixth year of the reign of Henry VII, in what I think may be the only example showing that Henry Tudor’s fake news of 1485 was imposed year after year on that most pedestrian of matters, the date.

Another DNA case

The father of James Duke of Monmouth is usually assumed to be the future Charles II, who freely acknowledged his resonsibility. There exists a scientific proof, as published on p.36 of Beauclerk-Powell and Dewar’s Royal Bastards, through Y-chromosome tests comparing Monmouth’s male line descendants the Dukes of Buccleuch with the Dukes of Grafton, St. Albans and Richmond, from Charles’ other illegitimate sons.

Charles II was, of course, not unique in his Y-chromosome. In June-August 1648, when Monmouth was probably conceived in France, he was one of three brothers with a father still alive. Charles I was a prisoner in Carisbrooke Castle and Henry Duke of Gloucester was in England so they can be eliminated as Henry was also too young. Charles I was his father’s only surviving son and James VI/I had been his father’s only child.

From the attached document, you will observe that Henry Lord Darnley had one brother, who died without issue, and that his father (Matthew, Earl of Lennox) had two other sons but one was a childless Catholic Bishop. The other son was Jean Stuart, Seigneur d’Aubigny, whose French son Esme Duke of Lennox was known as James VI/I’s “favourite”. Esme’s male line grandsons all fought for the Royalist cause and three were killed between 1642-5.

There were two others, James and Ludovic, although they were more likely to have been in England than France in summer 1648. Together with the future Kings Charles II and James II, they share a common Y-chromosome with nobody except fourth or more distant cousins. Despite James II’s reputation for promiscuity, similar to that of Charles II in many ways, this more rigorous analysis tends to support the traditional view, for once.

The document also now shows the origin of the Stewarts and how Matthew of Lennox’s Y-chromosome should have matched that of James V, before his son married that King’s daughter:
Monmouth

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: