Talk:John of Gaunt

Origin of House of York ??

You state that York was descended from Joan Beaufort. That is an outrageous claim, since going to the heart of the royal legitimacy issue, and should be corrected immediately - see Wikipedia entry for "House of York." York's primary claim to royalty is through Gaunt's elder brother, Lionel of Antwerp. If there were a secondary claim, it would be through Edmund of Langley, Gaunt's younger brother. Only thirdly would there be a claim through Joan Beaufort, fourth of the illegitimate children of Gaunt, and only daughter, whose own daughter, Cecily, would become Duchess of York. Ignoring the prior claims, which are well-established, in favor of a junior (ie. three elder siblings), illegitimate and double-female claim seems willfully biased. Sargam01 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

1st or 2nd Duke of Lancaster

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)

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)

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)

The First creation of the Dukedom of Lancaster, was not inheritable in the female line, and thus became extinct when Henry of Grosmont died without a son. However, the Earldom could be inherited throuigh the female line, so Gaunt become Earl on his father-in-law's death. Edward III then decided, for political reasons, to create the Dukedom of Lancaster a second time for Gaunt. This Second Creation vanished when it become merged into the crown when Gaunt's son ascended the throne. There was a brief Third Creation in the 15th Century, which also merged into the crown when it's holder ascended the throne. The modern day use of the title Duke / Duchess of Lancaster by the monarch is actually a courtesy title only. Indisciplined 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

It would be a good idea to edit yr. article to reflect Gaunt's Lancastrian inheritance as jure uxoris, as you concede here. Sargam01 (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

place of death

Cunnigham, Fr. Kit, with Rosemary Nibbs. St. Etheldreda's, Ely Place: A Pitkin Guide. Norwich: Jarrold Publishing, 2003. This source has John of Gaunt moving to Ely Palace on Ely Place after his Savoy palace was destroyed in 1381 and dying there in 1399. The current wikipedia article claims he died at Leicester Castle. Does anyone have a good source on this?

--Armitage-Smith, who is the first authority on Gaunt, has his death at Leicester castle. His information comes from the book of Thomas Gascoigne. L

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)

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)

As far as I am aware, all biographies of Gaunt (see the further reading in the article -- notably Armitage-Smith, Gaunt's most exhaustive biography) cite March, 1340 for his date of birth. Tmp09 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Corrections

I just got this in my inbox from a friend of mine:

"First a correction. John was the younger brother of Edward III, not his son. Richard II was Edward's grandson as his father, Edward the Black Prince, predeceased Edward III. So John of Gaunt was his great-uncle.

His claim to the Spanish throne rested upon his marriage to the daughter of Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile (and later also of León). At best it was a shaky claim and no-one took it very seriously. His attempt to gain the Spanish throne was effectively doomed from the start.

When he accepted that Richard II was not a competent ruler, he encouraged his own son, Henry Earl of Bolingbroke, to claim the throne as Henry IV. This was partly dynastic, partly because England needed a stronger ruler than Richard was proving to be. This incidentally provided the background, though not the occasion for the later Wars of the Roses, between the houses of York and Lancaster. In those the opposing sides were led (at least initially) by Henry VI, grandson of Bolingbroke, and Richard, Duke of York, grandson of Richard II.

He died almost simultaneously with his son's accession to the throne. It is very doubtful if he would have agreed with Henry's actions in first imprisoning Richard and later having him murdered.

It is a bit harsh to speak of the "misrule" of Richard II. He came to the throne aged 10. At age 14 he faced down in person the Peasants' Revolt of 1481, even winning over the insurgents when their leader was murdered in front of him and them. On reaching his majority, he was more unfortunate or incompetent than malicious. Rather like Louis XVI of France or Nicholas II of Russia, he would possibly have made a good constitutional monarch, but absolute rule was something he just could not manage, least of all in a time of upset and war (100 Years War against France)."

I am sure this could be verified with sources, but, my knowledge is limited on this subject. What do yall think about this? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your friend's first assertion is nonsense. Gaunt was indeed the son of Edward III and the younger brother of the Black Prince. Any history of the fifteenth century in England will have a dynastic tree showing the members of the royal family. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Nor does the claim that John of Gaunt encouraged his son to claim the throne make much sense. The event that triggered Bolingbroke's return was the seizure of the Duchy of Lancaster after John's death, and it was ostensibly to retrieve this inheritance alone that he returned to England. Choess 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your friend's claims are so wild, he must have studied a fictional history of England, or he's just joking and you took it seriously.Emerson 07 (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that your friend is confusing John of Gaunt, who was indeed the son of King Edward III, with John of Eltham, who was Edward III's younger brother. John of Eltham was Earl of Cornwall, and died at the age of twenty in 1336, four years before John of Gaunt was born. AlianoreD 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a parenthetical to the claim that all the English monarchs from Henry IV are descended from John of Gaunt. The Yorkist monarchs -- Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III -- descended from Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence, through his daughter Phillipa. Lionel was John of Gaunt's older brother. Jim Simmons (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

House of York --> Cecily Neville --> Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland --> John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Emerson 07 (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the same claim, I'm not certain that William III is in fact descended from John of Gaunt. Certainly, his wife Mary is, as are all the Stuart monarchs. Can anyone verify?

Okay, I have answered my own question. William III's mother was Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, eldest daughter of Charles I. That makes William, through his Stuart ancestry, a descendant of John of Gaunt. Jim Simmons (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Slayed the last wolf in Yorkshire?"

This seems strange, but is mentioned in the 1911 Britannica. "in the central parts about (Leeds stretched a forest region where the last wolf seen in Yorkshire is said to have been slain by John of Gaunt"[3] - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the source of the Beaumont name

On March 2,2009 Tmp09 deleted the sentence explaining why John of Gaunt's children by Katherine Swynford were surnamed "Beaufort." Why? I am considering reinserting this. Jim Simmons (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Katherine Swynford and Gaunt's children being named after Beaufort Castle because Gaunt's title of Beaufort related to lands in Auvergne captured by Henry Grosmont that Gaunt held the title for, but which had been retaken by the French before the children's births -- and there isn't any evidence I know of outside of Anya Seton's Katherine for the Beauforts being named after the French territory. In evidence of Gaunt's Beaufort being in France, see Armitage-Smith. :) Tmp09 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The source of the Beaufort name is stated quite clearly in an authoritative source, 'The Later Plantagenets: A Survey of English History 1307-1485', by V.H.H. Green, M.A., D.D., Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, England. On page 301 he states categorically:

    '(The Beauforts).........were the children of John of Gaunt by his mistress 
     Catherine Swynford whom he had married in 1396; her children had been born 
     long before the marriage - incidentally they took their name from the chateaux 
     de Beaufort in Anjou where they were born..........' 

Please also note that the current Duke of Beaufort, who is a direct male descendent of this family, is currently the only Duke in any of the five Peerages in the British Isles to carry a title which specifically applies to a location outside the British Isles. This naming of the creation was done deliberately, to emphasie the ancestry of the Beauforts and their unique position with the Crown.

I am therefore re-introducing the main fact of the origins of the Beaufort name to the text of the article. Ds1994 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is 6'7" Armor in Tower really John of Gaunt's?

According to Alison Weir in her book Katheryn Swynford, the armor was not John of Gaunt's. It's German-made and crafted centuries later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.86.31 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't take Alison Weir to be an authority. Her books are popular history and I know, for a fact, that there are some inaccuracies in her books. 129.67.174.158 (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, Weir is correct. The Royal Armouries (who maintain the Tower's collections) lists the armour as German from c. 1540 and the assertion that the armor is Gaunt's was not made before 1660: http://www.royalarmouries.org/tower-of-london/line-of-kings/line-of-kings-objects/single-object/354 I have corrected the statement in the article. Angengea (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nature of John of Gaunt's Death

It is noted in the article that John of Gaunt died of 'natural causes'. Should there be further reference to contemporary sources that suggest that venereal disease was the cause of death? In particular, one reference refers to 'putrification of the genitals', a sure sign that John of Gaunt had contracted gonorrhoea, a prevalent sexually transmitted disease of the period? Ds1994 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that such a reference would be little more than speculation, thus inappropriate for this article, for a number of reasons. First, there is little corroboration of Gascoigne's account of John's symptoms. Second, gonorrhea does not cause "putrification," nor do most form of chlamydia, two of the more common types of STD in this era. (Syphillis was unknown in Europe at this point.) Admittedly, a physician consulted by historian Alison Weir does suggest that a rare form of chlamydia could cause such symptoms. However, and this leads to my third point, the doctor states that John's symptoms were more likely to have been caused by malaria, prostate cancer, diabetes, or environmental toxin, perhaps from the ingestion of substances that in the 14th century were not known to be harmful -- lead or mercury, for example. An essay by Ms. Weir discussing possible causes of death for John (and for Katherine Swynford) is on the Random House webpage for her Swynford biography, Mistress of the Monarchy, here. In addition, there existed any number of infectious diseases that could cause gangrenous symptoms in the extremities, include the genitals. Therefore, I belief we are left with the same conclusion as is Ms. Weir: that John died of natural causes, the precise nature of which are lost to history. Jim Simmons (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason for Bolinbroke's exile

In the passage on Bolinbroke's exile in the introductory paragraphs of this article, is has been stated that "When John died in 1399, his estates were declared forfeit as King Richard II had exiled John's son and heir, Henry Bolingbroke, in 1398, for 10 years for killing another nobleman." I have deleted the last four words. Which nobleman is this supposed to be? In fact, Bolinbroke was declared guilty of no offence, but the King banished him for ten years 'for the peace and tranquillity of himself, his kingdom and his subjects' (see Sumption Vol. 3, pp. 852-3). Cenedi (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Title

Shouldn't this article be titled simply, "John of Gaunt"? That seems to be how he's usually referred to in history books. There don't seem to be any other historical figures known as "John of Gaunt", so there's no need for disambiguation; it's clearly the primary topic, since there aren't any others, unless you count the John of Gaunt Stakes, which is hardly likely to be confused with John of Gaunt. And, while I don't think it needs to have his title in the article name, shouldn't it be "first Duke of Lancaster", rather than "1st Duke of Lancaster"? I don't see anything in the Manual of Style about numerals in article titles, but it would certainly be wrong to use "1st" instead of "first" in the body of the article, and the name of the article shouldn't use a different style than the text. P Aculeius (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Move to "John of Gaunt". Srnec (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought this had been forgotten! Any objections? And will it be difficult to fix all the double redirects? P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Blanche of Lancaster's death date ?

It's different here than in her own article. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

She died in 1368, though 1369 still appears in some older and unreliable sources: see n8 of her article. Have corrected that and some other inaccuracies, and deleted "bubonic plague" as her cause of death, as this is just speculation. GrindtXX (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Arms...

GrindtXX, my concern is that the Commons file lists [this] as the source of the image - the website gives what is claimed to be a copy of his coat of arms from Gaunt's own original privy seal. If you compare that to the modern one being used here, they are quite different in style - the .svg graphic is much more fanciful and doesn't, for example, place the shield at 45 degrees, as the original medieval version does; the helmet is completely different etc.. I'm going to label the modern reinterpretation accordingly, as it doesn't look much like the medieval original it's claimed to use as a source. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with "modern interpretation", though I'm going to simplify the caption slightly. In fact, the Norfolk artist has also taken some liberties with his source – see very grainy image and description of the seal here – including omitting the two falcon supporters. I suspect his rendition of the helm and crest are actually based on those of the Black Prince at Canterbury. In heraldic terms, however, the .svg is an accurate representation of its immediate and its ultimate sources – apart from the fact that the creator has added the Garter around the shield. However, as Gaunt was a KG, and as the stained glass at his tomb showed his shield surrounded by the Garter in precisely this way, I think this is justifiable. GrindtXX (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in modern heraldic terms it is an accurate representation - but it is pretty misleading as an image depicting John of Gaunt's actual coat of arms; a shame, as a lot of work clearly went into making it. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to wade into this so late, but there are a couple of points worth making, I think. Nothing that requires a change in this case, just a couple of things raised by the discussion above. Technically the "coat of arms" refers to the arms depicted on the shield, not to the crest or supporters. Including an individual's crest or supporters in an illustration was a matter of the illustrator's choice; together these and any additional elements make up the heraldic "achievement" rather than the "coat of arms." So simply omitting the supporters wouldn't make the arms a modern interpretation. Nor does depicting the shield upright versus tilted at an angle; again, that's a matter totally up to the discretion of the artist, and was so even when John of Gaunt was alive. It has absolutely no heraldic significance; it's simply a convention of style to make the illustration more interesting. The use of the garter ribbon is clearly appropriate given its use in the portrait at top, even though that depicts a different coat of arms on the shield; John would have been entitled to use the ribbon on whichever arms were depicted.

That said, the phrase "modern interpretation" can still be justified in this case, because the crest (specifically in the helmet and style of the cap of maintenance and lambrequin; the lion itself is close enough to period) is depicted in a distinctly modern style. And the technical distinction between the coat of arms and the coat of arms plus a crest and garter ribbon isn't worth adding to the caption. But as far as the shield itself goes, or the decision to include the crest and garter ribbon but not supporters, or whether the shield is upright or diagonal, none of those would justify labeling an illustration as a "modern interpretation." It's the modernized crest that makes the difference. Now, if the arms of France were changed to France Modern, or the label were couped and dovetailed, those would be distinctly modern traits that would justify "modern interpretation" as applied to the arms themselves. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Was Gaunt the biological father of the Earl of Somerset?

Although John of Gaunt was held to be John, Earl of Somerset's father, the Complete Peerage and ODNB give Somerset's birth as the same year as Sir Hugh Swynford's death, implying that Somerset could have been a legitimate posthumous Swynford. Neither of his brothers, one of whom was a Cardinal, had any surviving children, so all male line Beauforts were descended from the Earl of Somerset. Richard III's Y-chromosome (4 generations from Edward III) was shown, in http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631, to be different from today's Dukes of Beaufort (15+ generations). A priori, any one of those links is equally likely to be a false paternity event, of which there is at least one, but Gaunt-Somerset is quite probable. Smlark (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the previous contribution, although I think that it should have been placed under a new subheading, rather than under the 'coat of arms' subheading. It seems to me that the research summarised in http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631 casts doubt on the presumption that Gaunt was the biological father of the Earl of Somerset, and I would suggest that this merits a mention in the body of the article. AlanD1956 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Although the nature.com paper does mention the possibility of a false paternity event regarding Gaunt and Somerset, it does also point out that there are 19 generations separating the tested individuals. The false paternity event could have arisen in any one of these 19 generations. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Celia just above. In particular, I find the current wording problematic, as "DNA research has questioned whether Gaunt was in fact the biological father of the 1st Earl of Somerset.[37])" in my opinion misleadingly points to the DNA evidence being the only or even the key part of the evidence, when all the DNA confirms is that there was a false paternity event or events at some point, which might as well be in any of the many subsequent generations over several centuries. Regarding where any mention about the doubt regarding John Beaufort's parentage should be placed, I would prefer a fuller discussion on it on John Beaufort's own page, which could include both the peerage information and the DNA evidence, and a short "it has been questioned..." would be better here than mentioning the DNA evidence directly. 88.115.236.145 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John of Gaunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603065240/http://www.katherineswynfordsociety.org.uk/ to http://katherineswynfordsociety.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

John Wycliffe's Protector

There should be a section in the article about John of Gaunt's role in patronizing and protecting John Wycliffe. Apart from a brief sentence in the opening section, this is unmentioned, and yet, for me, this is arguably his most important legacy. Whatever his motives in supporting Wycliffe, the latter represented the earliest florescence of the English Reformation, and this relationship was, therefore, more important to the future than his campaigns in France or his relationship with Chaucer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makercomms (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)