Talk:Antigone of Gloucester, Countess of Tankerville

Untitled

Antigone was not Eleanor Cobham's daughter and was not legitimised, as far as I am aware.

Otherwise, unless she (like the Beauforts) was legitimised without prejudice to the succession, she would have been a potential claimant to the throne during the Wars of the Roses, which is ridiculous.

The article itself contains a quote

"Antigone, fille naturelle de Humphroy, duc de Glocester"

indicating that she was not legitimate / legitimised, and making no reference to Eleanor Cobham as her mother.

Besides, Eleanor admitted to getting potions from a witch in an attempt to help her conceive, making it obvious that she was childless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welys (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting statement. Do you have any evidence to support it, other than what you have stated here?

I would have thought (supported by Antigone's birth year and the year of Humphrey's marriage to Eleanor) that Antigone was illegitimate at birth, but subsequently legitimised by the marriage of her parents, by Catholic Canon.

Furthermore, Eleanor did admit to getting potions from Margery Jourdemaine in order to conceive, but this could have just been her chosen defence against the prosecution claims that she was engaged in treasonable witchcraft against the King. The use of "practical magic" at this time for such things as becoming pregnant was not seen by either church or state as particularly problematic, wheras the charges against her were rather more serious.

Having had a child earlier in her life does not preclude her having trouble in conceiving at a later stage. I would suggest that your point here does not make it anything like "obvious" that she was childless.

Alison Weir, (Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy - London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999)states that Eleanor bore Humphrey two bastard children before marrying her; is there any reason to believe these were not Antigone and Arthur?

It is not clear why Eleanor and her descendants were never considered for the succession, but we shall probably never know, but I can't see why you claim that such consideration would have been "ridiculous"! It is possible that Eleanor's conviction and the anullment of her marriage to Humphrey was seen as sufficient reason to extinguish any possible claim, but other more dubious characters have secured succession.Boatgypsy (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Plantagenet Ancestry by Douglas Richardson states unknown mistress. See for yourself. Plantagenet Ancestry; Google ebook -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

But - I refer you to the above - Alison Weir, (Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy - London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999) states that Eleanor bore Humphrey two bastard children before marrying him. If these two children were not Antigone and Arthur, who were they? In relation to Plantagenet Ancestry - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! I contend that the two bastard children which Eleanor bore Humphrey before their marriage, are most likely to be Antigone and Arthur. Boatgypsy (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So where did Alison Weir get her information from then because she has made a few mistakes in the past which other authors have corrected. Plantagenet Ancestry is a thoroughly researched book which is relied on heavily here on Wiki. This is always going to be a problem with Wikipedia. There are no set facts. One person wants to believe one thing despite evidence and the other; the same. Also, Alison's book was written in 1999. Richardson's book has been published twice now. Once in 2005 and again in 2011 with updates.

• The Peerage, Antigone Plantagenet

Also see

• Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, p. 434.
• Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, 2nd Edition, Vol. I, p. 525.
• The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p. 27. Lady Meg (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lady Meg. I see that the above link to The Peerage.com also cites Alison Weir though. I'm afraid I can't tell you where she got her information from. What I do wonder is whether or not Weir's research is being disputed on the basis of evidence to the contrary, or whether Richardson just does not address the same sources. Clearly if Richardson was disputing Weirs position on the basis of the former, it would be significant and might merit a rethink. Is it that Richardson does not know who Humphrey's mistress was, or does he have evidence that it was never known?Boatgypsy (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In "the peerage" -- the citations for Alison (if you looked at the entry) are marked with a [1] -- there is a [1] after her name and after who she married. That is all. Her parentage is marked with a [2] for Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 2, page 1661. I put a post next to Richardson's book. Alison Weir is not always correct and there have been recent disputes about her facts and where they are coming from. Also if you looked at the Plantagenet Ancestry book you would see all of the sources which Richardson used which include Burke.

This link mentions no mother:

• Ancestral roots of certain American colonists

And here are the page numbers for Richardson:

• Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, 2nd Edition, Vol. I, p. 525.
  
• Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, 2nd Edition, Vol. II, p. 550-551.
  
• Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, p. 434.
  

The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, by Gerald Paget, Vol. I, p. 27 also lists NO ISSUE and that would have been approved and researched by someone that had the go ahead of the Prince of Wales or even the queen otherwise the author could have been sued. But hey, we can keep playing this game on Wikipedia where we are constantly questioning facts that have already been proved by researchers. Wikipedia is really becoming obnoxious and they made a big mistake in allowing the editing to be done by just about anyone. The facts have to be checked constantly and people are adding information that is false daily -- which mostly deals with royal genealogy. It's quite sad. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi LadyMeg, I think the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone is its strength rather than weakness, for a start, it promotes discussions like the one we are having! If you have to defend what you believe to be true it either strengthens or diminishes the argument for your "belief" being fact. This discussion has caused me to look again at Alison Weir's reputation as a historian and I agree with you that there are mixed views about her use of sources and there are criticisms that she sometimes appears to relay rumour as fact. However, that does not detract from what she states in her book and it is for Weir herself to defend what she has written.

Wikipedia is not itself a primary source and it would not be right or sensible to dispute what she says, without being able to point to a primary source which does dispute that. My reading of the sources that you cite suggests to me that there is not a dispute over Antigone's parentage so much as a lack of hard evidence. Could we agree on an edit that makes it clear that there is disagreement amongst the sources over this issue. Regards, Boatgypsy (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read Weir's book on royal genealogy? Since no one seems to have a hard copy it's rather tough to quote what she actually said. Richardson is seen as one of the top genealogists on Wikipedia. Sadly, Wikipedia is a primary source for many people who want a short cut in life. It is the first thing that pops up when you do a search. I would also like to add that the chronology doesn't really fit. As far as I know Antigone was already (more or less) a grown woman when Humphrey got married to Eleanor. So unless Eleanor had had a long-term relationship with Humphrey, Antigone is probably not a child of Eleanor. The date of Antigone's first marriage to Grey of Ruthin, Earl of Tankerville is, I think, known, at least to within a couple of years. She had her (recorded) first child in 1436, so working back from that she would have had to have been born by 1423 at the latest, but more likely 1419 - to give a marriage at 12 or 16 respectively. Humphrey married Eleanor in 1428. So to be Antigone's mum she would have needed to be Humphrey's lover by 1422 at the latest (assuming Antigone was her brother's elder sister.) According to Eleanor's wiki article, it suggests she became his mistress in 1425 after his return to England. If this is so Antigone cannot be her child as it would mean she had her first baby at 10 years old, something so unlikely we can discount it. Inserting something about a dispute may work, but it doesn't give the full truth that it is not so. Also, since Humphrey had no legitimate heir, why were his children not legitimized after his marriage to Cobham if they were hers? They had already done that with the Beaufort's. And again, a link to Magna Carta ancestry by Douglas Richardson and Kimball G. Everingham that has evidence to support all of this about the two having no children. The sources which for some reason you doubt are listed. I find it odd that just because one source on a web page says that Alison Weir said such and such when we don't even have the book in front of us.. that you would rather believe her over Richardson who has thoroughly researched his work along with a co-author. The citations for Weir's book don't even match up with her parentage. That is marked by a citation from Charles Mosley's Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, volume 2, page 1661. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't read Weir's book, but I have today ordered a copy. If, on reading, it becomes clear that her assertion is unsupported, I will be happy to make that clear. I would love to have a copy of "Magna Carta Ancestry" too, but currently the only copy on Amazon is going for £827 - a little out of my price range! I wonder if a Wiki research grant might stretch...

Unfortunately the partial copy of "Magna Carta" available on googlebooks, does not have the crucial pages (832-835, I think). Do you have access to a copy?

Give me a week or so and I will read Weir's book and respond in full to the points you make above. Regards, Ian. Boatgypsy (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK LM, I have obtained Weirs book and also dredged up some other relevant references and have consequently rewritten a section of the article, highlighting the debate over Antigone's parentage. As you can see there is a fair balance of references either way, but my feeling on reading the literature is that the contemporaneous view was that Eleanor probably was the mother of Antigone, it just wasn't expedient for old Humph to come out and say so, what with him having just abandoned his wife and run away from a challenge to single combat!!! If they were the children of one or more French mistresses, as some have suggested, why did they not remain in France with their mother(s)? Instead Humphrey brings them back to England and widely acknowledges them to be his natural children - at the same time as he brought Eleanor back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatgypsy (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Humphrey couldn't marry Eleanor straight away as he had to sort out the small issue of his being still married to Jacqueline of Hainault and he was in the process of trying to get his marriage anulled.Boatgypsy (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

LadyMeg, I have reverted some of your edits and revised others for the following reasons. You have reworded some of the previous text in a way which does not change it's meaning, and was therefore unnecessary. Your comments about Richardson's sources and his dealing with those sources being somehow more valid than any other texts, smacks of personal opinion, which cannot be substantiated and is, in any event, not within the ethos of Wikipedia.

If you wish to make those sorts of statements, they belong in the talk pages, not in the article itself. Regards, Boatgypsy (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I just thought I would point out that Alison Weir is not a historian. She is simply an author. She has also been caught doing fraudulent publications by several people now [who have not made it public knowledge yet, although it is posted on a webpage.] She has no training or education in history. And after looking through the sources listed on another page -- Sir Bernard Burke also states "natural daughter of" Humphrey of Gloucester; there is no mother listed. In my book now, Weir is not a legit source after what she has done. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry LM, I have reverted part of your edit. Weir might not be a historian in your view, but that is not an indisputable fact. Since when does someone have to have a qualification to be considered a historian - I don't think Herodotus was qualified either, would he not meet your criteria? I think the fact that she makes a living from researching and writing genealogical and historical books means she is a professional. If I were you, I would be careful about making or repeating potentially libelous statements such as the one above, in a public forum. Again, you seem intent on sharing your personal views about the legitemacy or otherwise of Weir's work. Wiki is not the place for your personal views. Regards Boatgypsy (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Daughter of James Tuchet, 5th Lord Audley

The claim that Humphrey Grey married an Eleanor Tuchet comes from where? By Magna Carta Ancestry there is no mention of an Eleanor.

He and Margaret Ros obtained a marriage license on 24 February 1415; Date of Papal Dispensation for being related in the 3rd and 4th degrees. They had 1 son (John) and 2 daughter (Margaret & Elizabeth). Sir James Touchet, 5th Lord Audley and Eleanor de Holand obtained a marriage license on 14 September 1430; Date of Papal Dispensation, they being related in the 3rd and 3rd degrees. They had 3 sons (Humphrey, Edmund, & Thomas) and 3 daughters (Margaret, Anne, & Constance). Sir James Touchet, 5th Lord Audley died on 23 September 1458 at Battle of Blore Heath, Shropshire, England; Age 61. -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)