Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)

Legg inn av John Parsons » 05 jan 2006 15:05:02

In 1982 I published "Eleanor of Castile and the Countess Margaret of Ulster"
(*Genealogists' Magazine* vol. 20 no. 10 [June 1982], pp. 335-40 [cols.
669-80]). This article presents evidence from royal wardrobe documents and
other original records of the reign of Edward I indicating very strongly
that Countess Margaret was a kinswoman of Eleanor of Castile. The exact
blood links are not as clear as one might wish but a strong case can be made
out that Margaret can be identified as that daughter of Queen Eleanor's
second cousin, Count Arnoul III of Guines, which daughter is stated in a
somewhat later French narrative source to have married "un seigneur du pais
d'Irland," whom that source unfortunately leaves unnamed.

In other words Countess Margaret would have been (in modern terms) a second
cousin, once removed, to Queen Eleanor, and therefore a third cousin to
Eleanor's children including Edward II.
This would readily explain the use of terms of kinship by Edward I and
Edward II in addressing the de Burgh earls of Ulster in the late 13th and
early 14th centuries.

Margaret and Earl Richard of Ulster were most probably married around the
date of Edward I's birthday on 17/18 June 1282, when the king knighted
Richard at Rhuddlan. Later in June 1282, the earl and countess were granted
Irish lands formerly held in dower by the widow of the last de Lacy earl of
Ulster; the grant significantly was made only for the lifetime of the new
Countess Margaret. Earl Richard appears for the first time with the
designation kinsman of Queen Eleanor on 2 July 1283, when the queen granted
Richard and Margaret one of her manors in Ireland.

As a daughter of the count of Guines, Margaret would also have been a first
cousin of Alexander III of Scotland; their mothers (respectively Alice and
Marie de Coucy) were sisters. Margaret was thus a very well-placed
individual to marry a prominent Irish earl in the 1280s.

Regards

John P.



From: Therav3@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 05:40:43 EST

Dear Leo,

Thanks for that.

A cursory review failed to identify the common ancestor
for Richard de Burgh and Edward I of England that would
produce the 6th cousin 1x removed relationship you
mentioned. If you could advise as to which individual, or
couple, was involved, that would be most appreciated.

Of course, if the closer relationship in fact existed,
I wager that's the one Edward I had in mind: I think of my
2nd cousin (1x removed) Read Dunn in that context (not the
fact that he was also my 4th cousin, 1x removed * ).

Cheers,

John



* P.S. - And no, don't call me 'Longshanks'......;)




_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/

Douglas Richardson

Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 jan 2006 19:46:38

Dear Mr. Parsons ~

I've read your post below as well as your interesting article in the
Genealogists' Magazine published n 1982 regarding the possible identity
of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster. I have the
following comments to make:

(1) In my own research, I've found no direct evidence which suggests
the identity of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh. The vague
reference in a "somewhat later French narrative source" (your words)
that Margaret, daughter of Count Arnoul III de Guines, married a "lord
of the country of Ireland" is insufficient evidence to make your
proposed identification stick.

(2) While you have claimed that Margaret, wife of Earl Richard de
Burgh, was a kinswoman of Queen Eleanor of Castile, I find no
references to her being called such by either Queen Eleanor or her son,
King Edward II. Rather, what we find is that Earl Richard de Burgh is
addressed as kinsman by both King Edward I and Queen Eleanor of
Castile, and by their son, King Edward II (when Prince of Wales).
Below are the references to this kinship:

1. Cal. of Docs. Rel. Ireland 2 (1877): 200 (Godfrey de Lezignan,
"the king's uncle, deceased"), 487 (Richard de Burgh, Earl of
Ulster, styled "cousin" by Queen Eleanor of Castile).

2. Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927): 261 (Richard de Burgh, Earl of
Ulster, styled "king's cousin" by King Edward I).

3. Johnstone, Letters of Edward Prince of Wales (1931): 17 (Richard de
Burgh, Earl of Ulster, styled "nostre cher cosin le Counte de
Vluester [Ulster]" by Edward, Prince of Wales [afterwards King Edward
II]).

I've collected hundreds of references to king's kinsfolk. I find that
when creating a public record such as a chancery warrant or a charter,
the king or queen addressed only blood relatives as their kinsfolk, not
relatives by marriage. Since two of the above references are in public
records (namely Items 1 and 3), this can only mean that Richard de
Burgh was himself a blood kinsman to both King Edward I and his wife,
Eleanor of Castile.

In private correspondence, I find that members of the royal family and
high born individuals did in fact address relatives by marriage as
their kinsfolk. I believe the first such instance of this I have in my
files is about 1320. As such, the case could be made that King Edward
II's letter reference to Richard de Burgh as his kinsman was due to
Burgh's marriage to Edward II's kinswoman. However, I must point out
that NONE of the OTHER numerous references to kinsfolk in King Edward
II's letter book are to relations by marriage. As such, I think we
must presume that Richard de Burgh was almost certainly a blood
relative to Edward II. For interest's sake, I've listed below some of
the other people addressed as kinsfolk in King Edward II's letter book
when he was Prince of Wales, all of which individuals were his blood
relatives:

l. Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, styled "cousin").

2. Louis of France, Count of Évreux, styled "cousin".

3. Amadeus, Count of Savoy, styled "cousin".

4. John of Brittany styled "cousin"

5. Peter of Savoy, Dean of St. Martin-le-Grand, also Dean of Salisbury,
styled "cousin".

6. Luca de Fieschi styled "kinsman".

7. Maud, wife of Hugh de Mortimer, of Richard's Castle styled
"cousin"

8. John de Fiennes styled "kinsman"

9. Jak' [Jacques] de la Plaunche styled "cousin").

10. Master James de Ispania styled "mother's kinsman"
[consanguineum matris]).

Third, you have made the following statement in your post:

"Countess Margaret would have been (in modern terms) a second cousin,
once removed, to Queen Eleanor, and therefore a third cousin to
Eleanor's children including Edward II. This would readily explain the
use of terms of kinship by Edward I and Edward II in addressing the de
Burgh earls of Ulster in the late 13th and early 14th centuries." END
OF QUOTE.

To this I will say the following:

Even assuming Countess Margaret de Burgh was a near kinswoman to Queen
Eleanor of Castile, the references to her husband, Richard de Burgh, by
King Edward I and Queen Eleanor, and their son, Edward II, as their
kinsman does not support any possible kinship that Margaret may herself
have had to the royal family. In fact, the failure of the queen or her
son to refer to Countess Margaret as their kinswoman is almost fatal to
your identification of Countess Margaret as Margaret of Guines.
Sidestepping the issue by saying that Countess Margaret's husband was
addressed as their kinsman is purpatrating a double fraud. First, you
re trying to make it appear that the references to Earl Richard de
Burgh as royal kinsman proves that his wife, Margaret, was a blood
relative to the English royal family, when it does not; second, you're
trying to imply that Richard de Burgh was only related to the English
royal family through marriage, when the evidence indicates that he
himself was blood related.

In short, at the present time, the only piece of evidence which you
have that suggests that Countess Margaret de Burgh was a Guines is a
"somewhat later French narrative source" (again your words). And that
source doesn't even name Margaret de Guines' husband. As such, I
believe you still have a ways to go before you can assert that Margaret
de Guines married anyone in Ireland, let alone Earl Richard de Burgh.
For now, you have a perfectly good working theory, but that is all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"John Parsons" wrote:
In 1982 I published "Eleanor of Castile and the Countess Margaret of Ulster"
(*Genealogists' Magazine* vol. 20 no. 10 [June 1982], pp. 335-40 [cols.
669-80]). This article presents evidence from royal wardrobe documents and
other original records of the reign of Edward I indicating very strongly
that Countess Margaret was a kinswoman of Eleanor of Castile. The exact
blood links are not as clear as one might wish but a strong case can be made
out that Margaret can be identified as that daughter of Queen Eleanor's
second cousin, Count Arnoul III of Guines, which daughter is stated in a
somewhat later French narrative source to have married "un seigneur du pais
d'Irland," whom that source unfortunately leaves unnamed.

In other words Countess Margaret would have been (in modern terms) a second
cousin, once removed, to Queen Eleanor, and therefore a third cousin to
Eleanor's children including Edward II.
This would readily explain the use of terms of kinship by Edward I and
Edward II in addressing the de Burgh earls of Ulster in the late 13th and
early 14th centuries.

Margaret and Earl Richard of Ulster were most probably married around the
date of Edward I's birthday on 17/18 June 1282, when the king knighted
Richard at Rhuddlan. Later in June 1282, the earl and countess were granted
Irish lands formerly held in dower by the widow of the last de Lacy earl of
Ulster; the grant significantly was made only for the lifetime of the new
Countess Margaret. Earl Richard appears for the first time with the
designation kinsman of Queen Eleanor on 2 July 1283, when the queen granted
Richard and Margaret one of her manors in Ireland.

As a daughter of the count of Guines, Margaret would also have been a first
cousin of Alexander III of Scotland; their mothers (respectively Alice and
Marie de Coucy) were sisters. Margaret was thus a very well-placed
individual to marry a prominent Irish earl in the 1280s.

Regards

John P.


Gjest

Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 jan 2006 22:31:08

On 5 Jan 2006 10:46:38 -0800, "Douglas Richardson"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Parsons ~

(1) In my own research, I've found no direct evidence which suggests
the identity of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh. The vague
reference in a "somewhat later French narrative source" (your words)
that Margaret, daughter of Count Arnoul III de Guines, married a "lord
of the country of Ireland" is insufficient evidence to make your
proposed identification stick.

Douglas,

In your own book MCA page 150 you say MARGARET " possible daughter of
Count Arnoul III de Guines, by Alice de Coucy. (YOUR WORDS)

Why do you say this and Mr Parson can't?

You have recorder all the sources some same as Mr Parsons

Brendan Wilson

To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 jan 2006 23:32:28

Dear Brendan ~

In my post today I said that Mr. Parsons was incorrect to base his
identification of Margaret de Burgh's parentage on the references to
her husband, Earl Richard de Burgh, as kinsman made by the royal
family. The reference to Earl Richard as royal kinsman only indicates
that Earl Richard had his own blood tie to the royal family, not one by
marriage. Moreover, in the Queen's land grant to Earl Richard and his
wife, Margaret, which is mentioned by Mr. Parsons, it is Earl Richard
who is called kin by the Queen, not Margaret. This is a bit odd I
think if Mr. Parsons' theory is correct. If both Earl Richard and his
wife were related to the queen, the queen could have acknowleged both
individuals as her kinsfolk. I know of at least two other instances in
which the king acknowledged kinship to both a husband and wife. So the
queen could have acknowledged a kinship to both parties had she so
desired. As I said, the queen's failure to acknowledge kinship to
Margaret in this record is almost fatal to Mr. Parsons' theory.
However, I would not rule Mr. Parsons' theory out completely due to
other factors which Mr. Parsons has covered in his article.

In my current edition of Magna Carta Ancestry, I say only that Margaret
is possibly the daughter of Arnoul III, Count of Guines. Unless
further evidence is forthcoming, in future editions of MCA, I probably
will remove Mr. Parsons' theory about Countess Margaret de Burgh's
parentage from the text and mention it only in my citation notes.

As an aside, I might note that Mr. Parsons' theory does have some
indirect support from later references to kinship between the Scottish
and French kings. The Scottish kings descend from Countess Margaret de
Burgh. If Margaret de Burgh was really a daughter of Arnoul III, Count
of Guines, it would provide the Scottish kings a kinship, albeit very
distant, to the French royal family. To be certain that the alluded
kinship comes through Countess Margaret de Burgh, though, one would
have to determine when the Scottish and French royal families first
acknowledged kinship to one another. I have not had time yet to study
that aspect of the research question. Perhaps the learned Mr.
Ravilious can answer that question for us.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

wilso...@paradise.net[.]nz wrote:
On 5 Jan 2006 10:46:38 -0800, "Douglas Richardson"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Parsons ~

(1) In my own research, I've found no direct evidence which suggests
the identity of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh. The vague
reference in a "somewhat later French narrative source" (your words)
that Margaret, daughter of Count Arnoul III de Guines, married a "lord
of the country of Ireland" is insufficient evidence to make your
proposed identification stick.

Douglas,

In your own book MCA page 150 you say MARGARET " possible daughter of
Count Arnoul III de Guines, by Alice de Coucy. (YOUR WORDS)

Why do you say this and Mr Parson can't?

You have recorder all the sources some same as Mr Parsons

Brendan Wilson


To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.

CED

Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)

Legg inn av CED » 05 jan 2006 23:43:23

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Mr. Parsons ~

I've read your post below as well as your interesting article in the
Genealogists' Magazine published n 1982 regarding the possible identity
of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster. I have the
following comments to make:

(1) In my own research, I've found no direct evidence which suggests
the identity of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh. The vague
reference in a "somewhat later French narrative source" (your words)
that Margaret, daughter of Count Arnoul III de Guines, married a "lord
of the country of Ireland" is insufficient evidence to make your
proposed identification stick.

(2) While you have claimed that Margaret, wife of Earl Richard de
Burgh, was a kinswoman of Queen Eleanor of Castile, I find no
references to her being called such by either Queen Eleanor or her son,
King Edward II. Rather, what we find is that Earl Richard de Burgh is
addressed as kinsman by both King Edward I and Queen Eleanor of
Castile, and by their son, King Edward II (when Prince of Wales).
Below are the references to this kinship:

1. Cal. of Docs. Rel. Ireland 2 (1877): 200 (Godfrey de Lezignan,
"the king's uncle, deceased"), 487 (Richard de Burgh, Earl of
Ulster, styled "cousin" by Queen Eleanor of Castile).

2. Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927): 261 (Richard de Burgh, Earl of
Ulster, styled "king's cousin" by King Edward I).

3. Johnstone, Letters of Edward Prince of Wales (1931): 17 (Richard de
Burgh, Earl of Ulster, styled "nostre cher cosin le Counte de
Vluester [Ulster]" by Edward, Prince of Wales [afterwards King Edward
II]).

I've collected hundreds of references to king's kinsfolk. I find that
when creating a public record such as a chancery warrant or a charter,
the king or queen addressed only blood relatives as their kinsfolk, not
relatives by marriage. Since two of the above references are in public
records (namely Items 1 and 3), this can only mean that Richard de
Burgh was himself a blood kinsman to both King Edward I and his wife,
Eleanor of Castile.

To the Newsgroup:

Here we have this thing that Richardson does: He uses examples from
his own unpublished and unexamined files as evidence, rather than as
anecdotal chitter-chatter, as it is without data collection, study,
evaluation, publication and peer-group review. One would think that a
"trained historian" would know how to establish his bona fides with an
opinion worth considering in this thread and those related to it.

It would be worth while to have a study of the use of the term "kin" in
various situations. I would hope that Richardson would do such a
study. With his files he would almost certainly have a good start on
collecting data. Since he is among the very few among us who makes an
issue the use of "kin," he should be the most appropriate of us do to
the study. There are also a few among us who are qualified to review
and evaluate the study, though some might quibble with being in a
'peer' group with him.

CED

CED


In private correspondence, I find that members of the royal family and
high born individuals did in fact address relatives by marriage as
their kinsfolk. I believe the first such instance of this I have in my
files is about 1320. As such, the case could be made that King Edward
II's letter reference to Richard de Burgh as his kinsman was due to
Burgh's marriage to Edward II's kinswoman. However, I must point out
that NONE of the OTHER numerous references to kinsfolk in King Edward
II's letter book are to relations by marriage. As such, I think we
must presume that Richard de Burgh was almost certainly a blood
relative to Edward II. For interest's sake, I've listed below some of
the other people addressed as kinsfolk in King Edward II's letter book
when he was Prince of Wales, all of which individuals were his blood
relatives:

l. Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, styled "cousin").

2. Louis of France, Count of Évreux, styled "cousin".

3. Amadeus, Count of Savoy, styled "cousin".

4. John of Brittany styled "cousin"

5. Peter of Savoy, Dean of St. Martin-le-Grand, also Dean of Salisbury,
styled "cousin".

6. Luca de Fieschi styled "kinsman".

7. Maud, wife of Hugh de Mortimer, of Richard's Castle styled
"cousin"

8. John de Fiennes styled "kinsman"

9. Jak' [Jacques] de la Plaunche styled "cousin").

10. Master James de Ispania styled "mother's kinsman"
[consanguineum matris]).

Third, you have made the following statement in your post:

"Countess Margaret would have been (in modern terms) a second cousin,
once removed, to Queen Eleanor, and therefore a third cousin to
Eleanor's children including Edward II. This would readily explain the
use of terms of kinship by Edward I and Edward II in addressing the de
Burgh earls of Ulster in the late 13th and early 14th centuries." END
OF QUOTE.

To this I will say the following:

Even assuming Countess Margaret de Burgh was a near kinswoman to Queen
Eleanor of Castile, the references to her husband, Richard de Burgh, by
King Edward I and Queen Eleanor, and their son, Edward II, as their
kinsman does not support any possible kinship that Margaret may herself
have had to the royal family. In fact, the failure of the queen or her
son to refer to Countess Margaret as their kinswoman is almost fatal to
your identification of Countess Margaret as Margaret of Guines.
Sidestepping the issue by saying that Countess Margaret's husband was
addressed as their kinsman is purpatrating a double fraud. First, you
re trying to make it appear that the references to Earl Richard de
Burgh as royal kinsman proves that his wife, Margaret, was a blood
relative to the English royal family, when it does not; second, you're
trying to imply that Richard de Burgh was only related to the English
royal family through marriage, when the evidence indicates that he
himself was blood related.

In short, at the present time, the only piece of evidence which you
have that suggests that Countess Margaret de Burgh was a Guines is a
"somewhat later French narrative source" (again your words). And that
source doesn't even name Margaret de Guines' husband. As such, I
believe you still have a ways to go before you can assert that Margaret
de Guines married anyone in Ireland, let alone Earl Richard de Burgh.
For now, you have a perfectly good working theory, but that is all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"John Parsons" wrote:
In 1982 I published "Eleanor of Castile and the Countess Margaret of Ulster"
(*Genealogists' Magazine* vol. 20 no. 10 [June 1982], pp. 335-40 [cols.
669-80]). This article presents evidence from royal wardrobe documents and
other original records of the reign of Edward I indicating very strongly
that Countess Margaret was a kinswoman of Eleanor of Castile. The exact
blood links are not as clear as one might wish but a strong case can be made
out that Margaret can be identified as that daughter of Queen Eleanor's
second cousin, Count Arnoul III of Guines, which daughter is stated in a
somewhat later French narrative source to have married "un seigneur du pais
d'Irland," whom that source unfortunately leaves unnamed.

In other words Countess Margaret would have been (in modern terms) a second
cousin, once removed, to Queen Eleanor, and therefore a third cousin to
Eleanor's children including Edward II.
This would readily explain the use of terms of kinship by Edward I and
Edward II in addressing the de Burgh earls of Ulster in the late 13th and
early 14th centuries.

Margaret and Earl Richard of Ulster were most probably married around the
date of Edward I's birthday on 17/18 June 1282, when the king knighted
Richard at Rhuddlan. Later in June 1282, the earl and countess were granted
Irish lands formerly held in dower by the widow of the last de Lacy earl of
Ulster; the grant significantly was made only for the lifetime of the new
Countess Margaret. Earl Richard appears for the first time with the
designation kinsman of Queen Eleanor on 2 July 1283, when the queen granted
Richard and Margaret one of her manors in Ireland.

As a daughter of the count of Guines, Margaret would also have been a first
cousin of Alexander III of Scotland; their mothers (respectively Alice and
Marie de Coucy) were sisters. Margaret was thus a very well-placed
individual to marry a prominent Irish earl in the 1280s.

Regards

John P.


Leo van de Pas

Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 05 jan 2006 23:57:01

In a private e-mail the learned John Ravilious has agreed with me that
Richard de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster is a sixth cousin once removed of King
Edward I.

I have the same Richard as a sixth cousin of Edward's Queen Eleanor of
Castile.

If Richard's wife Margaret is really Margaret de Guines, then she would be a
second cousin once removed of Queen Eleanor and a fourth cousin of King
Edward I.

I prefer to use the modern counting system, not the evil medieval way :-)

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)


Dear Brendan ~

In my post today I said that Mr. Parsons was incorrect to base his
identification of Margaret de Burgh's parentage on the references to
her husband, Earl Richard de Burgh, as kinsman made by the royal
family. The reference to Earl Richard as royal kinsman only indicates
that Earl Richard had his own blood tie to the royal family, not one by
marriage. Moreover, in the Queen's land grant to Earl Richard and his
wife, Margaret, which is mentioned by Mr. Parsons, it is Earl Richard
who is called kin by the Queen, not Margaret. This is a bit odd I
think if Mr. Parsons' theory is correct. If both Earl Richard and his
wife were related to the queen, the queen could have acknowleged both
individuals as her kinsfolk. I know of at least two other instances in
which the king acknowledged kinship to both a husband and wife. So the
queen could have acknowledged a kinship to both parties had she so
desired. As I said, the queen's failure to acknowledge kinship to
Margaret in this record is almost fatal to Mr. Parsons' theory.
However, I would not rule Mr. Parsons' theory out completely due to
other factors which Mr. Parsons has covered in his article.

In my current edition of Magna Carta Ancestry, I say only that Margaret
is possibly the daughter of Arnoul III, Count of Guines. Unless
further evidence is forthcoming, in future editions of MCA, I probably
will remove Mr. Parsons' theory about Countess Margaret de Burgh's
parentage from the text and mention it only in my citation notes.

As an aside, I might note that Mr. Parsons' theory does have some
indirect support from later references to kinship between the Scottish
and French kings. The Scottish kings descend from Countess Margaret de
Burgh. If Margaret de Burgh was really a daughter of Arnoul III, Count
of Guines, it would provide the Scottish kings a kinship, albeit very
distant, to the French royal family. To be certain that the alluded
kinship comes through Countess Margaret de Burgh, though, one would
have to determine when the Scottish and French royal families first
acknowledged kinship to one another. I have not had time yet to study
that aspect of the research question. Perhaps the learned Mr.
Ravilious can answer that question for us.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

wilso...@paradise.net[.]nz wrote:
On 5 Jan 2006 10:46:38 -0800, "Douglas Richardson"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Parsons ~

(1) In my own research, I've found no direct evidence which suggests
the identity of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh. The vague
reference in a "somewhat later French narrative source" (your words)
that Margaret, daughter of Count Arnoul III de Guines, married a "lord
of the country of Ireland" is insufficient evidence to make your
proposed identification stick.

Douglas,

In your own book MCA page 150 you say MARGARET " possible daughter of
Count Arnoul III de Guines, by Alice de Coucy. (YOUR WORDS)

Why do you say this and Mr Parson can't?

You have recorder all the sources some same as Mr Parsons

Brendan Wilson


To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire.
Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park
Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford.
Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther &
McCormack,Dublin.

John Higgins

Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)

Legg inn av John Higgins » 06 jan 2006 00:25:01

What an interesting example of "collegial" behavior (to use a favorite
Richardson term): accusing a respected genealogist such as John Carmi
Parsons of "purpatrating [sic] a double fraud". Since when does scholarly
disagreement constitute fraud?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Countess Margaret of Ulster (d. 1304)


Dear Mr. Parsons ~

I've read your post below as well as your interesting article in the
Genealogists' Magazine published n 1982 regarding the possible identity
of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster. I have the
following comments to make:

(1) In my own research, I've found no direct evidence which suggests
the identity of Margaret, wife of Richard de Burgh. The vague
reference in a "somewhat later French narrative source" (your words)
that Margaret, daughter of Count Arnoul III de Guines, married a "lord
of the country of Ireland" is insufficient evidence to make your
proposed identification stick.

(2) While you have claimed that Margaret, wife of Earl Richard de
Burgh, was a kinswoman of Queen Eleanor of Castile, I find no
references to her being called such by either Queen Eleanor or her son,
King Edward II. Rather, what we find is that Earl Richard de Burgh is
addressed as kinsman by both King Edward I and Queen Eleanor of
Castile, and by their son, King Edward II (when Prince of Wales).
Below are the references to this kinship:

1. Cal. of Docs. Rel. Ireland 2 (1877): 200 (Godfrey de Lezignan,
"the king's uncle, deceased"), 487 (Richard de Burgh, Earl of
Ulster, styled "cousin" by Queen Eleanor of Castile).

2. Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927): 261 (Richard de Burgh, Earl of
Ulster, styled "king's cousin" by King Edward I).

3. Johnstone, Letters of Edward Prince of Wales (1931): 17 (Richard de
Burgh, Earl of Ulster, styled "nostre cher cosin le Counte de
Vluester [Ulster]" by Edward, Prince of Wales [afterwards King Edward
II]).

I've collected hundreds of references to king's kinsfolk. I find that
when creating a public record such as a chancery warrant or a charter,
the king or queen addressed only blood relatives as their kinsfolk, not
relatives by marriage. Since two of the above references are in public
records (namely Items 1 and 3), this can only mean that Richard de
Burgh was himself a blood kinsman to both King Edward I and his wife,
Eleanor of Castile.

In private correspondence, I find that members of the royal family and
high born individuals did in fact address relatives by marriage as
their kinsfolk. I believe the first such instance of this I have in my
files is about 1320. As such, the case could be made that King Edward
II's letter reference to Richard de Burgh as his kinsman was due to
Burgh's marriage to Edward II's kinswoman. However, I must point out
that NONE of the OTHER numerous references to kinsfolk in King Edward
II's letter book are to relations by marriage. As such, I think we
must presume that Richard de Burgh was almost certainly a blood
relative to Edward II. For interest's sake, I've listed below some of
the other people addressed as kinsfolk in King Edward II's letter book
when he was Prince of Wales, all of which individuals were his blood
relatives:

l. Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, styled "cousin").

2. Louis of France, Count of Évreux, styled "cousin".

3. Amadeus, Count of Savoy, styled "cousin".

4. John of Brittany styled "cousin"

5. Peter of Savoy, Dean of St. Martin-le-Grand, also Dean of Salisbury,
styled "cousin".

6. Luca de Fieschi styled "kinsman".

7. Maud, wife of Hugh de Mortimer, of Richard's Castle styled
"cousin"

8. John de Fiennes styled "kinsman"

9. Jak' [Jacques] de la Plaunche styled "cousin").

10. Master James de Ispania styled "mother's kinsman"
[consanguineum matris]).

Third, you have made the following statement in your post:

"Countess Margaret would have been (in modern terms) a second cousin,
once removed, to Queen Eleanor, and therefore a third cousin to
Eleanor's children including Edward II. This would readily explain the
use of terms of kinship by Edward I and Edward II in addressing the de
Burgh earls of Ulster in the late 13th and early 14th centuries." END
OF QUOTE.

To this I will say the following:

Even assuming Countess Margaret de Burgh was a near kinswoman to Queen
Eleanor of Castile, the references to her husband, Richard de Burgh, by
King Edward I and Queen Eleanor, and their son, Edward II, as their
kinsman does not support any possible kinship that Margaret may herself
have had to the royal family. In fact, the failure of the queen or her
son to refer to Countess Margaret as their kinswoman is almost fatal to
your identification of Countess Margaret as Margaret of Guines.
Sidestepping the issue by saying that Countess Margaret's husband was
addressed as their kinsman is purpatrating a double fraud. First, you
re trying to make it appear that the references to Earl Richard de
Burgh as royal kinsman proves that his wife, Margaret, was a blood
relative to the English royal family, when it does not; second, you're
trying to imply that Richard de Burgh was only related to the English
royal family through marriage, when the evidence indicates that he
himself was blood related.

In short, at the present time, the only piece of evidence which you
have that suggests that Countess Margaret de Burgh was a Guines is a
"somewhat later French narrative source" (again your words). And that
source doesn't even name Margaret de Guines' husband. As such, I
believe you still have a ways to go before you can assert that Margaret
de Guines married anyone in Ireland, let alone Earl Richard de Burgh.
For now, you have a perfectly good working theory, but that is all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"John Parsons" wrote:
In 1982 I published "Eleanor of Castile and the Countess Margaret of
Ulster"
(*Genealogists' Magazine* vol. 20 no. 10 [June 1982], pp. 335-40 [cols.
669-80]). This article presents evidence from royal wardrobe documents
and
other original records of the reign of Edward I indicating very strongly
that Countess Margaret was a kinswoman of Eleanor of Castile. The exact
blood links are not as clear as one might wish but a strong case can be
made
out that Margaret can be identified as that daughter of Queen Eleanor's
second cousin, Count Arnoul III of Guines, which daughter is stated in a
somewhat later French narrative source to have married "un seigneur du
pais
d'Irland," whom that source unfortunately leaves unnamed.

In other words Countess Margaret would have been (in modern terms) a
second
cousin, once removed, to Queen Eleanor, and therefore a third cousin to
Eleanor's children including Edward II.
This would readily explain the use of terms of kinship by Edward I and
Edward II in addressing the de Burgh earls of Ulster in the late 13th
and
early 14th centuries.

Margaret and Earl Richard of Ulster were most probably married around
the
date of Edward I's birthday on 17/18 June 1282, when the king knighted
Richard at Rhuddlan. Later in June 1282, the earl and countess were
granted
Irish lands formerly held in dower by the widow of the last de Lacy earl
of
Ulster; the grant significantly was made only for the lifetime of the
new
Countess Margaret. Earl Richard appears for the first time with the
designation kinsman of Queen Eleanor on 2 July 1283, when the queen
granted
Richard and Margaret one of her manors in Ireland.

As a daughter of the count of Guines, Margaret would also have been a
first
cousin of Alexander III of Scotland; their mothers (respectively Alice
and
Marie de Coucy) were sisters. Margaret was thus a very well-placed
individual to marry a prominent Irish earl in the 1280s.

Regards

John P.




Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»