Talk:John of Gaunt

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

John of Gaunt was actually the second Duke of Lancaster. The first Duke of Lancaster was John's father-in-law, Henry of Grosmont. Henry was awarded first the title Earl of Lancaster and in 1351 was bestowed the title Duke of Lancaster by his nephew, Edward III of England. John of Gaunt was the fourth son of Edward III.

When Grosmont died, the title became extinct. John of Gaunt was created the 1st Duke of Lancaster (second creation) because of his marriage to Blanche, but he did not inherit the title. -- 128.197.249.86 13:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John of Gaunt married Blanche, Grosmont's daughter. When Grosmont died died in 1362, the title went to John of Gaunt by right of his wife.

John did inherit the title Earl of Lancaster in the right of his wife after Grosmont's death. The title 'Duke' could be bestowed but not inherited. When John died in 1399, the title Duke of Lancaster reverted back to the crown. Can we say that Richard III was the first Duke of Lancaster (third creation)? Can we say that Henry IV who took the crown from Richard III, is also first Duke of Lancaster (fourth creation)? What first Duke of Lancaster creation is Elizabeth II?

This is arrant nonsense. Dukedoms were normally granted with remainder to heirs-male, so the first creation went extinct because Henry of Grosmont had no sons, hence no heirs-male. John of Gaunt was, jure uxoris, his heir-general, and the dukedom was created for him a second time. Since he had an heir-male (his son Henry Bolingbroke), it passed to him on Gaunt's death. Upon his coronation, the Dukedom of Lancaster ceased to exist, being merged with the crown. He re-created it for his son (Henry of Monmouth) shortly thereafter, the third creation, but on his accession as Henry V, it again merged with the crown and has not since been re-created. Elizabeth II is not "Duke of Lancaster," a title which does not presently exist; the existence of the administrative Duchy of Lancaster is a matter separate from the title. Choess 04:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would beg to differ with the last point - the Duchy of Lancaster quotes "The title Duke of Lancaster continues to be used, even for a female monarch" and I can confirm that within the Manor of John O'Gaunt (Hungerford) the toast is to "The Queen, Duke of Lancaster".

A charming tradition, but hardly dispositive. The Sovereign is similarly toasted as "Duke of Normandy" in the Channel Islands, but the title of Duke of Normandy was disclaimed by treaty in 1259. There is a Duchy of Lancaster, with administration etc. headed by the Crown, but no Duke of Lancaster, toasts notwithstanding. Choess 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 61.246.55.221, about removing the reference to family heirlooms from the Harry Potter discussion: I'm the one who edited the House of Gaunt article from which you presumably took this information. Marvolo Gaunt claims to have a Peverell heirloom (along with, of course, the locket from Salazar Slytherin), but the connection to John of Gaunt, if any, must come only from the name. Ryan McDaniel 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

Can anyone give a reference for the birth date in this article? Britannia gives March 1340 - Britannia Biographies. So does my DVD edition of Encyclopædia Britannica. Rbraunwa 16:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 1340 as well gives the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. [1]. Ourania 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)OuraniaOurania 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castile and Leon

Where can I find a graphic of John's coat of arms, surmounted by this pretension? I'm not talking about a painting of him in armour. IP Address 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The Armorial Gelre, which falls in the right time period, shows him bearing the undifferenced arms of England & France. Fox-Davis, from what source I know not (a seal?), gives his coat as England & France, a label ermine. The arms in that painting may well be a back-formation, if that's what you're implying. Choess 08:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a graphic of these arms, as shown here: http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/plantagenet/gifs/johngaunt1340.jpg IP Address 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. According to [2], that's a "Renaissance" painting, so John may never have used those arms; by "back-formation," I meant it might be the result of someone applying contemporary rules of heraldry to the period. Choess 08:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no way of knowing? IP Address 09:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not absolutely, I don't think. Fox-Davies unfortunately doesn't say where his information comes from, but it's probably a seal. I imagine a fair number of his seals survive and have perhaps been described somewhere, but I wouldn't know where. Apparently one of his seals is reproduced on "Sandford, Genealogical History of the Kings of England, p. 238," whatever that may be. His Garter plate is unfortunately of no evidentiary value, as it predates his second marriage. Somewhat later, his arms appear as England & France, a label ermine on his nephew Thomas Chaucer's tomb. As to the question of heraldic practice, Warwick the Kingmaker comes to mind as quartering the arms of his wife rather than using an escutcheon of pretence, so I feel safe saying the rule wasn't hard-and-fast at the time. Given all this, I think the evidence weighs against his having incorporated the arms of Castile into his own heraldry, but I can't say that it's proven. Choess 09:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would Lancaster's daughter most certainly quarter as such? IP Address 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not very clear-cut, because in this period the rules for marshalling arms were still fairly fluid. Bear in mind that Catherine was a heiress of Pedro the Cruel (passing over his bigamy) and of her mother, but not of her father. Under modern rules of marshalling, Catherine would bear Castile & Leon with a canton of England & France, indicating a family through which an inheritance passed but which was not itself inherited. During that era, however, there would be little opportunity, if any, for Catherine to bear arms even in the heraldic sense. Furthermore, such "bypassed" coats were sometimes dropped entirely. Fox-Davies offers a coat of arms of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, after his second marriage. This marriage was to Margaret Beauchamp, daughter and coheir of Elizabeth Berkeley, only daughter and heiress of Margaret de Lisle and Thomas de Berkeley. Talbot impaled his own coat (quarterly Talbot and Strange) with that of his first wife (quarterly Furnivall and Verdon), and placed on an escutcheon of pretence Tyes and de Lisle, both the inheritance of Margaret de Lisle, for his second wife. Berkeley, to which Elizabeth Berkeley was heir-general, is not represented, probably because the lands were seized and held by the heir-male; nor Beauchamp, where Margaret's brother, the heir-male, was succeeded in the lands by his full sister, wife of the Kingmaker. Anyway, the point of this long digression is that in that era, the marshalling of arms was fluid and somewhat of a territorial character, and I'd consider it unlikely that Catherine, her husband, or their descendants would incorporate John of Gaunt's arms into theirs. Choess 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]