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.