# Talk:John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont

Per [1], Henry VI was seven not eight at the time of the coronation, and Griffiths is using "barely" to mean "not quite" (one of the meanings given in the OED).  Henry was born on 6 December 1421 and crowned in Westminster Abbey on 6 November 1429, one month before his eighth birthday. BencherliteTalk 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A beautiful mix of OR and SYNTH with a dash of boneidleness thrown in. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Was that rudeness ("boneidleness"???) directed at me? Simple mathematics is not original research, and sources abound that he was crowned aged 7 e.g "So it was that, on November 6th, 1429, a month before his eighth birthday and less than four months after the coronation of his rival, the Dauphin, in Reims, the young Henry VI was crowned King of England at Westminster Abbey" [2] (an article by Christopher Allmand). The alternative would be that Ralph A. Griffiths can't do simple mathematics, which I find unlikely. BencherliteTalk 12:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If it had been aimed at you Bencherlite that would be a personal attack. Anyway, since we have sources that say what we want without assuming or forcing our readers to 'do the maths', the simplest approach is to present what the sources have to tell us. Which I have now done. And would have done earlier had I not been on nights and been ambushed by this ten minutes after waking up. Cheers. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
|}

"In 1429 Beaumont was knighted by the seven-year old king on the eve of his coronation. [Grummitt, D., Henry VI (Oxford, 2013), 75]" But looking at page 75 of Grummitt [3], it just says "On 5 November with the king just a month shy of his eighth birthday, the English coronation ceremony began. That evening 32 Knights of the Bath, including the young earl of Devon aand the earl of Warwick's son, Henry, were dubbed and the king lodged in the Tower of London." I don't see any mention of John Beaumont. If he was among the 32, then the link for knighted should be to Order of the Bath? Is he mentioned on a different page? The ODNB entry for Beaumont makes no mention at all of him being knighted in 1429. Maybe User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has some ideas? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this entry will be of some assistance: The Official Baronage of England: Showing the Succession ..., Volume 1 by James William Edmund Doyle Page 145. Shearonink (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Beatson's "A Political Index to the Histories of Great Britain and Ireland ...(Page 256) does name him as a Knight of the Garter.
Perhaps I am mistaken but I think the issue seems to be the phrasing of: "In 1429 Beaumont was knighted by the seven-year old king on the eve of his coronation..." along with the DYK of "... that in 1429, John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont, was knighted by a seven-year-old king?"
The Cracrofts Peerage website states that Beaumont was made a "Knight of the Bath 1426".
Pages 130-131 of William Shaw's The Knights of England: A Complete Record from the Earliest Time ... (Volume 1) state that John Beaumont was made a Knight of the Bath on May 19, 1426 along with 43 other men:
After the battle of Verneuil (Aug., 1424) the duke of Bedford came over into England and on Whitsuntide in 1426 at Leicester [at a Parliament there] he dubbed King Henry VI. knight and forthwith the king dubbed the following 44 knights.
So what is verifiable from multiple sources is that the DYK should have been rendered as something like "...that in 1426, John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont, was knighted by a five-year-old king?" and the sentence in the article should have been something along the lines of "In 1426 Beaumont was knighted by the five-year old Henry prior to the King's official coronation three years later." Shearonink (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You're not mistaken, that is the issue, as both the article and DYK hook seem to say something that isn't just unsupported by any source, but is simply wrong. So I've removed that sentence for now. It looks like you will be able to restore a corrected version, using those two sources. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. only page 130 of the William Shaw source is visible to me, so I just have to assume he's listed on page 131. I see that Cracroft's Peerage says that Beaumont was made a Privy Councillor 1434, so that might also be added to the article also?
I have more than just ideas, you'll be glad to hear. The sentence is sourced in two parts: The king's age is to Grummitt, the knighting, to Griffiths. Cheers. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 10:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. With only the Griffiths book citation at the end of the sentence I had assumed it was supporting only him being in France with Henry in 1430. Does Griffiths also give a date for him being knighted? Is this the Griffiths book? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Mmmm. Unfortunately the DYK fucked things up slightly, and things got changed without the sources following them. That's because it's up against the clock I guess. Griffiths refers to the king as being 'barely eight' years old at the time. Evening of 5 November 1429.
Ah yes, I see that "Lord Beaumont" appears on page 190. So we now have a conflict of sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
This is what the broohah at DYK was about. The consensus was that 'barely' in this context meant almost, or near too. Or do you mean a conflict with Shaw? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Both Shaw and Cracroft's? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)  p.s you mean Brouhaha!
Well. I'm not sure as to the efficacy of those two. One's a Victorian antiquary, the other's unsourced. Compared with modern research, &c. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)  Yes. The DYK wonks got into a French state of social agitation. 
Oh, I see, well I stand corrected. Just one more quibble - why "Lord Beaumont"? Knights of the Order of the Bath don't usually get the title Lord? Was he a Lord already? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, his da was Henry Beaumont, 5th Baron Beaumont (curious that that's a red link- I think it's the only Beaumont that is!), so he inherited the barony. But, fair point- the article doesn't really state that, just implies it. Should be emphasised that he was already a pet when he was later promoted...? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I've now restored the sentence with a changed link for "knighted". I wonder would it be useful to add the GoogleBooks link as a url in the Griffiths citation? The full title seems to be: "The Reign of King Henry VI: The Exercise of Royal Authority, 1422-1461". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)