Dear Newsgroup ~
Going through the prodigious works of the Breton historian, Morice,
I've noticed a few references to king's kinsfolk. One of them is King
Charles V of France's reference to his councillor, Jean de Craon,
Archbishop of Reims, as his "cousin" in a document dated 1364
[Reference: Morice, Memoires pour Servir de Preuves a l'Hist. de
Bretagne 1 (1742): 1584-1585].
King Charles V of France and Archbishop Craon were related in the 5th
and 5th degrees of kinship (or by modern parlance, 4th cousins), by
virtue of their common descent from Robert III, Count of Dreux (died
1234):
l. Robert III, Count of Dreux, died 1234.
2. Yolande de Dreux, married Hugues IV, Duke of Burgundy.
3. Robert II, Duke of Burgundy.
4. Jeanne of Burgundy, married Philippe VI, King of France.
5. Jean II, King of France.
6. Charles V, King of France.
l. Robert III, Count of Dreux, died 1234.
2. Jean I, Count of Dreux & Braine.
3. Robert IV, Count of Dreux & Braine.
4. Jeanne de Dreux, married Jean IV, Count of Roucy.
5. Beatrix de Roucy, married Aimery III de Craon.
6. Jean de Craon, Archbishop of Reims.
So far, it seems that the French pattern of acknowledging kinship is
quite similar to the English pattern, albeit a bit less frequently.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Craon, A
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
CED
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Again, Richardson has given us a statement of kinship among the French
nobiliy.
Is the fact of this kinship a new discovery? No. Anybody with an
internet connection could have "discovered" it.
Is it the fact that King Charles V 's acknowledgement of kinship is
noteworthy? We are not informed as to whether any French king's
acknowledgement of kinship with his councillors is noteworthy; or
whether it is noteworthy that Charles V did so. We are not told who
Charles V's councillors were, or how many were known by Charles V to be
kinsmen, or how many of them were so acknowledged.
We do get a hint, for Richardson says "it seems that the French
pattern of acknowledging kinship is quite similar to the English
pattern, albeit a bit less frequently."
Here we get the stuff of a serious, systematic study. We have a
"French pattern."
We all know that a pattern cannot be determined by connecting two dots.
A pattern is defined (using the most appropriate definition for this
usage) as "a representative sample of the whole."
Is Richardson compiling a representative sample of the whole of the
councillors of Charles V in order to determine a pattern?
More interesting: has he compiled a representative sample of
councillors of English kings (and their kinship with the king) and
found a pattern for comparison with the French pattern?
He says he has a French pattern, and an English pattern, and somehow
something is less frequent (it doesn't quite parse). We should hope and
expect a revelation: an exposition of both of these patterns and some
means of comparing them, especially a means of measuring frequency of
something.
By the way, Richardson seems to have learned a new word: "prodigious."
He has been going through the "prodigious works of the Breton
historian, Morice."
Unfortunately the context of his use of "prodigious" is such that we
do not know what he means.
Are the works of Morice so great in size or force or extent as to
elicit awe?
Or, are they of momentous or ominous significance?
Or, considering the the historical context of Richarson's use of the
word, he means strange, wonderful, or marvelous.
At any rate, we should congratulate Richardson for trying, albeit with
a fumbling effort.
CED
Dear Newsgroup ~
Going through the prodigious works of the Breton historian, Morice,
I've noticed a few references to king's kinsfolk. One of them is King
Charles V of France's reference to his councillor, Jean de Craon,
Archbishop of Reims, as his "cousin" in a document dated 1364
[Reference: Morice, Memoires pour Servir de Preuves a l'Hist. de
Bretagne 1 (1742): 1584-1585].
King Charles V of France and Archbishop Craon were related in the 5th
and 5th degrees of kinship (or by modern parlance, 4th cousins), by
virtue of their common descent from Robert III, Count of Dreux (died
1234):
l. Robert III, Count of Dreux, died 1234.
2. Yolande de Dreux, married Hugues IV, Duke of Burgundy.
3. Robert II, Duke of Burgundy.
4. Jeanne of Burgundy, married Philippe VI, King of France.
5. Jean II, King of France.
6. Charles V, King of France.
l. Robert III, Count of Dreux, died 1234.
2. Jean I, Count of Dreux & Braine.
3. Robert IV, Count of Dreux & Braine.
4. Jeanne de Dreux, married Jean IV, Count of Roucy.
5. Beatrix de Roucy, married Aimery III de Craon.
6. Jean de Craon, Archbishop of Reims.
So far, it seems that the French pattern of acknowledging kinship is
quite similar to the English pattern, albeit a bit less frequently.
To the Newsgroup:
Again, Richardson has given us a statement of kinship among the French
nobiliy.
Is the fact of this kinship a new discovery? No. Anybody with an
internet connection could have "discovered" it.
Is it the fact that King Charles V 's acknowledgement of kinship is
noteworthy? We are not informed as to whether any French king's
acknowledgement of kinship with his councillors is noteworthy; or
whether it is noteworthy that Charles V did so. We are not told who
Charles V's councillors were, or how many were known by Charles V to be
kinsmen, or how many of them were so acknowledged.
We do get a hint, for Richardson says "it seems that the French
pattern of acknowledging kinship is quite similar to the English
pattern, albeit a bit less frequently."
Here we get the stuff of a serious, systematic study. We have a
"French pattern."
We all know that a pattern cannot be determined by connecting two dots.
A pattern is defined (using the most appropriate definition for this
usage) as "a representative sample of the whole."
Is Richardson compiling a representative sample of the whole of the
councillors of Charles V in order to determine a pattern?
More interesting: has he compiled a representative sample of
councillors of English kings (and their kinship with the king) and
found a pattern for comparison with the French pattern?
He says he has a French pattern, and an English pattern, and somehow
something is less frequent (it doesn't quite parse). We should hope and
expect a revelation: an exposition of both of these patterns and some
means of comparing them, especially a means of measuring frequency of
something.
By the way, Richardson seems to have learned a new word: "prodigious."
He has been going through the "prodigious works of the Breton
historian, Morice."
Unfortunately the context of his use of "prodigious" is such that we
do not know what he means.
Are the works of Morice so great in size or force or extent as to
elicit awe?
Or, are they of momentous or ominous significance?
Or, considering the the historical context of Richarson's use of the
word, he means strange, wonderful, or marvelous.
At any rate, we should congratulate Richardson for trying, albeit with
a fumbling effort.
CED
-
Gjest
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
An archbischop of Reims is a peer of France. Each peer is call "cousin"
by the king whatever they have a common ancestor.
by the king whatever they have a common ancestor.
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
In message of 11 Feb, olivier.guionneau@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Can we rephrase this to represent the more likely fact:
"Each peer is called 'cousin' by the writer of documents that the king
authorised to be sealed."
The king would certainly not have written these documents himself.
Further he might not have signed or initialled them. Finally it is
even possible that his seal was put on them without his even knowing.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
An archbischop of Reims is a peer of France. Each peer is call
"cousin" by the king whatever they have a common ancestor.
Can we rephrase this to represent the more likely fact:
"Each peer is called 'cousin' by the writer of documents that the king
authorised to be sealed."
The king would certainly not have written these documents himself.
Further he might not have signed or initialled them. Finally it is
even possible that his seal was put on them without his even knowing.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
Cher Olivier ~
It has been claimed more than once here on the newsgroup that it is
customary for the king/queen of England to address all peers as his (or
her) cousin. This custom may well be true today. However, I know for
certain it was not true as late as 1600. My research indicates that
until at least 1600, those individuals addressed in public records as
king's or queen's kinsfolk in England were related to the monach within
the 5th degree on at least one side (that is, 4th cousins). I only
have a handful of exceptions which run greater than 5th degree. Those
individuals not related to the monarch were not addressed as kinsfolk.
It's that simple.
Since you've raised the question of French customs, I should ask you
what evidence do you have that the practice of addressing "each peer of
France" as cousin was the rule in the 1300's? Or, is this a later
custom as seems to be the case in England?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
olivier.guionneau@wanadoo.fr wrote:
It has been claimed more than once here on the newsgroup that it is
customary for the king/queen of England to address all peers as his (or
her) cousin. This custom may well be true today. However, I know for
certain it was not true as late as 1600. My research indicates that
until at least 1600, those individuals addressed in public records as
king's or queen's kinsfolk in England were related to the monach within
the 5th degree on at least one side (that is, 4th cousins). I only
have a handful of exceptions which run greater than 5th degree. Those
individuals not related to the monarch were not addressed as kinsfolk.
It's that simple.
Since you've raised the question of French customs, I should ask you
what evidence do you have that the practice of addressing "each peer of
France" as cousin was the rule in the 1300's? Or, is this a later
custom as seems to be the case in England?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
olivier.guionneau@wanadoo.fr wrote:
An archbischop of Reims is a peer of France. Each peer is call "cousin"
by the king whatever they have a common ancestor.
-
CED
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson claims to "know for certain" that the monarchs of England
did not address peers of England as cousin, as a matter of custom, as
late as 1600. What is the basis of this claim of certainty? What
authority can he cite to make such a claim?
Richardson cannot make such a claim based on his files, for there is no
acceptable truth in them. Those files have no status unless they are
subjected to systematic study, using standard reseach methods,
publication of findings in a scholarly publication, and peer review of
the findings so published. Richardson, having been reminded of this,
(and ignoring those reminders) seems to have no better knowledge of
scholarly research methods than before his being their beneficiary.
Richardson's personal publications have no status; for, being simple
anecdotes, they are not scholarly. At best those publications are
random examples of Richardson's own choosing (many of doubtful
validity). We know from instances in the past few days that
Richardson's citations cannot be trusted.
In his post at the beginning of this thread, he claimed to know
something of English and French "patterns" and the frequency of
something. Is Richardson basing this claim on such "patterns"? If so,
let him show that he has represenative samples of relationships
established .
This is typical Richardson. If he wants to state what is the custom in
France, let him set out the evidence about France. As is so often the
case, Richardson is attempting to shift the burden of proof.
CED
Cher Olivier ~
It has been claimed more than once here on the newsgroup that it is
customary for the king/queen of England to address all peers as his (or
her) cousin. This custom may well be true today. However, I know for
certain it was not true as late as 1600.
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson claims to "know for certain" that the monarchs of England
did not address peers of England as cousin, as a matter of custom, as
late as 1600. What is the basis of this claim of certainty? What
authority can he cite to make such a claim?
Richardson cannot make such a claim based on his files, for there is no
acceptable truth in them. Those files have no status unless they are
subjected to systematic study, using standard reseach methods,
publication of findings in a scholarly publication, and peer review of
the findings so published. Richardson, having been reminded of this,
(and ignoring those reminders) seems to have no better knowledge of
scholarly research methods than before his being their beneficiary.
Richardson's personal publications have no status; for, being simple
anecdotes, they are not scholarly. At best those publications are
random examples of Richardson's own choosing (many of doubtful
validity). We know from instances in the past few days that
Richardson's citations cannot be trusted.
In his post at the beginning of this thread, he claimed to know
something of English and French "patterns" and the frequency of
something. Is Richardson basing this claim on such "patterns"? If so,
let him show that he has represenative samples of relationships
established .
My research indicates that
until at least 1600, those individuals addressed in public records as
king's or queen's kinsfolk in England were related to the monach within
the 5th degree on at least one side (that is, 4th cousins). I only
have a handful of exceptions which run greater than 5th degree. Those
individuals not related to the monarch were not addressed as kinsfolk.
It's that simple.
Since you've raised the question of French customs, I should ask you
what evidence do you have that the practice of addressing "each peer of
France" as cousin was the rule in the 1300's? Or, is this a later
custom as seems to be the case in England?
This is typical Richardson. If he wants to state what is the custom in
France, let him set out the evidence about France. As is so often the
case, Richardson is attempting to shift the burden of proof.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
olivier.guionneau@wanadoo.fr wrote:
An archbischop of Reims is a peer of France. Each peer is call "cousin"
by the king whatever they have a common ancestor.
-
Gjest
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
Douglas Richardson schrieb:
Not quite: the custom only extends to those above the rank of baron.
Therefore, finding an instance of a baron to whose style of address by
the Sovereign this conceit has not been extended will not negate the
current rule. For instance, the 1455 example quoted from CP in which
Henry VI refers to Lord St Amand (a baron) as his cousin may be taken
as proof of factual cousinship, as an baron would not otherwise be
called "cousin" by the King; however, a reference to an earl or
viscount as "cousin" could either be factual or customary.
The real test would be to find instances of references by the monarch
to peers ranking above baron in which they are *not* called "cousin",
as this could assist in answering the question "how long has this
stylistic convention been in existence?" As Adrian has kindly pointed
out, Blackstone apparently dates it - or at least its genesis - to
Henry IV (1399-1413). This well predates the recent instances cited
involving Queen Henrietta Maria, each of which related to peers above
the rank of baron.
As for sources to show that this is not merely a "claim" but a fact, I
suggest HM Stationery Office's "Honours & Titles", 2nd edition (London
1996), page 61, which has Crown copyright and is an official
publication of HM Government.
Regards
MAR
Cher Olivier ~
It has been claimed more than once here on the newsgroup that it is
customary for the king/queen of England to address all peers as his (or
her) cousin.
Not quite: the custom only extends to those above the rank of baron.
Therefore, finding an instance of a baron to whose style of address by
the Sovereign this conceit has not been extended will not negate the
current rule. For instance, the 1455 example quoted from CP in which
Henry VI refers to Lord St Amand (a baron) as his cousin may be taken
as proof of factual cousinship, as an baron would not otherwise be
called "cousin" by the King; however, a reference to an earl or
viscount as "cousin" could either be factual or customary.
The real test would be to find instances of references by the monarch
to peers ranking above baron in which they are *not* called "cousin",
as this could assist in answering the question "how long has this
stylistic convention been in existence?" As Adrian has kindly pointed
out, Blackstone apparently dates it - or at least its genesis - to
Henry IV (1399-1413). This well predates the recent instances cited
involving Queen Henrietta Maria, each of which related to peers above
the rank of baron.
As for sources to show that this is not merely a "claim" but a fact, I
suggest HM Stationery Office's "Honours & Titles", 2nd edition (London
1996), page 61, which has Crown copyright and is an official
publication of HM Government.
Regards
MAR
-
siabair
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
Douglas Richardson wrote:
It's this simple. Either your argument is circular or is redundant due
to your perfect knowledge of medieval English/French genealogy. I opt
for circular.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
My research
indicates that until at least 1600, those individuals addressed in
public records as king's or queen's kinsfolk in England were related
to the monach within the 5th degree on at least one side (that is,
4th cousins). I only have a handful of exceptions which run greater
than 5th degree. Those individuals not related to the monarch were
not addressed as kinsfolk. It's that simple.
It's this simple. Either your argument is circular or is redundant due
to your perfect knowledge of medieval English/French genealogy. I opt
for circular.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'