GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-12 > 0913378214


From: John Carmi Parsons< >
Subject: Re: Queen Philippa's birth date
Date: 11 Dec 1998 04:10:14 -0800


On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Leo van de Pas wrote:

> William III (Willem/Guillaume) Count of Holland and Hainault, married
> Jeanne de Valois on 23 May 1305 at Longpont. The marriage contract was
> finalised on 19 May at Chauny sur Oise according to the Reg. Hann. (What
> the latter means I don't know).

Probably "Registrum Hannonense" or "Hannoniensis," that is "The register
of Hainaut" (or even "A register of Hainaut"). No way to tell from such a
short cite whether this is a specific MS known as the Hainaut Register
(which I would assume is a collection of acts by the counts of Hainaut),
or if an antiquarian collector was speaking imprecisely--as they so often
did--of "a register I saw someplace in Hainaut."

> Sibylla is recorded (Dr. Dek, Graven van Holland) as born in 1310, mentioned
> in 1319, died young. Source : B.C. Hardy, "Philippa of Hainault and her
> times" 1910, pages 30-33. The mother, Jeanne de Valois, was then about 16
> years old.

A book published in 1910 may well be questioned. I've read Hardy and would
not consider it major ammunition.

> Margaretha, born 1311, footnote maintains she was younger than Sibylla and
> (having married 26 Febr.1324) became a mother in 1325.

> Margaretha, as subsequent heiress of their father, must have been older
> than Philippa to be heiress after their brother's death, thank goodness as
> otherwise we might have had a "Hundred Years War" in the low countries as
> well.

> I am starting to wonder whether those descriptions, including the date of
> birth, apply to Sibylla---remember, born in 1310 and "mentioned in 1319"
> when those descriptions, referred to by John Parsons, were made? I read only
> in the preamble the name Philippa, not in the description.

It is true that the rubric to this entry in Stapeldon's register (a short
marginal description of the paragraphs' contents), the part that gives
Philippa's name, was added to the original rubric, which read only
"Inspection and Description of the daughter of the Count of Hainaut." The
latter part, "who is called Philippa, and was the queen of England, married to
Edward III," was added in the second hand. However the hand is virtually
contemporary with the original entry--that is, it was not made so late
that we could entertain any doubts as to its reliability on chronological
grounds. (That is to say, we might well suspect the latter part of the
rubric if it were added in a late 15th-century hand; but it's an early-
to mid-14th century hand, from right around the same time the original
document was written.)

The editor of the original register, the estimable F. C. Hingeston-Randolph,
thought the second hand was, in fact, that of Bishop Stapeldon's immediate
successor Bishop Grandison. Since Grandison became bishop of Exeter following
Stapeldon's murder in 1326, and was bishop until 1369, the rubric was
consequently expanded precisely during Philippa's years as queen of England.
And as a ranking bishop, Stapeldon would have been in an excellent position to
verify the identity of the girl inspected in 1319. He might even have got the
information from a clerk or someone else in the Exeter entourage who was
present in Hainaut in 1319 and witnessed the "inspection."

John Parsons

This thread: