Comital kinsfolk: Guy de Châtillon, Count of Blois's cousin,

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Comital kinsfolk: Guy de Châtillon, Count of Blois's cousin,

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 feb 2006 00:31:15

Dear Newsgroup ~

In 1338 Guy I de Châtillon, Count of Blois (died c. 1342), referred to
Eleanor of Brittany, Abbess of Fontevrault (granddaughter of King Henry
III of England), as his "cousine" [Reference: Léopold Delisle,
Catalogue des manuscrits ancient & des chartes (1888): 30]. By their
closest kinship, Count Guy and Abbess Eleanor were related to each
other in the 5th and 4th degrees of kinship (or by modern parlance
third cousins, once removed), by virtue
of common descent from Robert II, Count of Dreux (died 1218).

1. Robert II, Count of Dreux, died 1218.
2. Philippe de Dreux, married Henri, Count of Bar.
3. Margarethe of Bar, married Henri, Count of Luxembourg & Namur.
4. Isabelle of Luxembourg, married Guy de Dampierre, Count of Flanders
& Namur.
5. Beatrix of Flanders, married Hugues II de Châtillon, Count of Blois
& Dunois.
6. Guy I de Châtiillon, Count of Blois.

1. Robert II, Count of Dreux, died 1218.
2. Pierre de Dreux, Duke of Brittany, married Alix de Thouars.
3. Jean I, Duke of Brittany, married Blanche of Champagne.
4. Jean II, Duke of Brittany, married Beatrice of England.
5. Eleanor of Brittany, Abbess of Fontevrault, died 1342.

Count Guy and Abbess Eleanor likewise have a second kinship in the 5th
and 5th degrees of kindred (or by modern parlance, 4th cousins), by
virtue of common descent from Henri I, Count of Champagne (died 1181).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

P.S. How's the weather in Harvey, Richard?

CED

Re: Comital kinsfolk: Guy de Châtillon, Count of Blois's cou

Legg inn av CED » 04 feb 2006 05:28:24

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

In 1338 Guy I de Châtillon, Count of Blois (died c. 1342), referred to
Eleanor of Brittany, Abbess of Fontevrault (granddaughter of King Henry
III of England), as his "cousine" [Reference: Léopold Delisle,
Catalogue des manuscrits ancient & des chartes (1888): 30]. By their
closest kinship, Count Guy and Abbess Eleanor were related to each
other in the 5th and 4th degrees of kinship (or by modern parlance
third cousins, once removed), by virtue
of common descent from Robert II, Count of Dreux (died 1218).

1. Robert II, Count of Dreux, died 1218.
2. Philippe de Dreux, married Henri, Count of Bar.
3. Margarethe of Bar, married Henri, Count of Luxembourg & Namur.
4. Isabelle of Luxembourg, married Guy de Dampierre, Count of Flanders
& Namur.
5. Beatrix of Flanders, married Hugues II de Châtillon, Count of Blois
& Dunois.
6. Guy I de Châtiillon, Count of Blois.

1. Robert II, Count of Dreux, died 1218.
2. Pierre de Dreux, Duke of Brittany, married Alix de Thouars.
3. Jean I, Duke of Brittany, married Blanche of Champagne.
4. Jean II, Duke of Brittany, married Beatrice of England.
5. Eleanor of Brittany, Abbess of Fontevrault, died 1342.

Count Guy and Abbess Eleanor likewise have a second kinship in the 5th
and 5th degrees of kindred (or by modern parlance, 4th cousins), by
virtue of common descent from Henri I, Count of Champagne (died 1181)

To the Newsgroup:
Twenty-some hours of speculation having kept the ether warm, the time
has come to recapitulate "Comital kinsfolk" in its re-revised form.

First: Richardson posted his original message which purported to be
informative: that Guy de Châtillon was a cousin of Eleanor of
Brittany. (Incidentally, why is it "de" Châtillon and "of"
Brittiany?) I replied wondering why such a message should have been
posted. After all, almost any two French counts in the 14th Century
(and their wives and sibs) could be found to be related within the 6th
degree of kinship. I speculated that maybe Richardson was going to turn
over a new leaf and conduct some serious research and encouraged him to
do so.

Second: Richardson removed his message (as this forum permits him to
do; we all make mistakes: removal is a means of acknowledging them);
and then he reposted the same message (as a revised posting) with a
parenthetical that Eleanor was a granddaughter of Henry III of England.
Now anybody who could read, has any experience with genealogy, and
knows a bit of English history would have know that fact (or figured it
out quickly); so the parenthtical insertion was an excuse for the
reposting without my reply.

Now, I take as much pride as anybody in my profession (writing) and try
to avoid being ignored when I've done a good job; so I reposted my
first reply to his revised posting, as a second reply. It is possible,
I thought, that Richardson had not read my original reply and the
reposting was inadvertent.

Third: Again, Richardson removed his message and reposted it as a
"re-revised post." Well, any thought that I had that he had not read
my first message vanished! In my original reply I had suggested that a
query as to the cousinhood in question might elicit responses, some of
which would differ (and also be accurate) from Richardson's post. Lo
and behold! Richardson had, in his re-revised posting, added material
at the end in which he too acknowledged that a different relationship
was possible, proving too points: (1) that he had read the previous
posting, and (2) he amends his statements on occasion (for one who
hates to admit error, that is someting).

Well, I said, messages have warmed the ether; they do not yet appear
for all to see; so, I shall summarize: (1) Richardson is working on a
thing and is posting in order to get useful responses to use in that
new thing (he does that). (2) He's letting us know that he has survived
another barroom brawl (we all have heard about that sort of thing). (3)
He doesn't know what else to do (or as one did write "who can devine a
Richardson motive?").

CED


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah



Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

P.S. How's the weather in Harvey, Richard?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»