King's Kinship: An Overview

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

King's Kinship: An Overview

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 feb 2006 02:23:41

Dear Newsgroup ~

In the earlier time periods, I find that such kinships that were
acknowledged by kings were very simple, such as first and second
cousins. Beginning in the reign of King Henry III of England, however,
distant kinships began to be acknowledged on a regular basis. Without
playing psychoanalyst, I believe that the early death of King Henry
III's father and his mother's subsequent abandonment of him played a
crucial role in Henry III's need to seek out relatives, even distant
ones, and promote them at his court. Because Henry III had such a long
reign (57 years) and because Henry was very dutiful to acknowledge his
near and remote kinships as well as those of his wife (his devotion to
relatives, by the way, was one of the most serious problems in his
reign), it became accepted as the norm for an English monarch to
address those subjects and those foreigners who were blood related as
king's kinsfolk. This pattern of acknowledging near and distant kin
was continued by King Henry III's son, Edward I, and by all subsequent
monarchs. This practice was not started by King Henry IV, as implied
by Mr. Blackstone. King Henry IV was no different in this respect than
any of his predecessors or any of his successors. Without exception, I
find that the English monarchs who followed King Henry III possessed a
good working knowledge of their family tree out to the 5th degree (by
modern parlance, 4th cousins). Those individuals they addressed as
kinsfolk could come from any branch of their family. And, as best I
can determine, they did not address spouses of their kin as kinsfolk in
public documents (see variation noted below).

There are four variations which I have noted in the records. First,
when the king was at war with someone, he usually dropped all reference
to kinship to the person who was leading the forces allied against the
king. However, the references to kinship to this person were resumed
once a peace treaty was signed. Second, when illegitimacy was
involved, the king was selective about who he acknowledged as kinsfolk
in the bastard's family. At least four of William Longespee's children
were acknowledged as king's kinsfolk, as well as one grandson (Robert
Fitz Walter) and one great-grandson (Hugh de Audley), but other members
of the Longespee family such as Alan la Zouche seemed to have been
ignored. Third, I find that in private correspondence, by the reign of
King Henry VI, those individuals who were related by marriage could be
and were addressed as kinsfolk in private letters by queens. Fourth, I
find that on rare occasions in public records, a person related by
marriage was addressed as kinsfolk, but the word used to describe the
person was "affinis," which is the Latin word for someone related by
marriage, not "consanguineus"/"consanguinea" which is the Latin word
for a blood related individual.

Finally, I might add that at any given time, there were any number of
individuals who were regulars at court who were NOT addressed as
kinsfolk. When I've studied their ancestries, I find they have no
blood connection whatsoever to the king, or the kinship involved was
beyond the 5th degree. However, if such a person contracted a marriage
to someone who was blood related to the English royal family, then
their spouse and their descendants were styled king's kinsfolk in
subsequent records. Thus, it is quite clear that the king knew those
who had royal blood flowing in their veins, and those who did not.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: King's Kinship: An Overview

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 feb 2006 07:58:15

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

Dear Newsgroup ~

In the earlier time periods, I find that such kinships that were
acknowledged by kings were very simple, such as first and second
cousins. Beginning in the reign of King Henry III of England, however,
distant kinships began to be acknowledged on a regular basis. Without
playing psychoanalyst, I believe that the early death of King Henry
III's father and his mother's subsequent abandonment of him played a
crucial role in Henry III's need to seek out relatives, even distant
ones, and promote them at his court. Because Henry III had such a long
reign (57 years) and because Henry was very dutiful to acknowledge his
near and remote kinships as well as those of his wife (his devotion to
relatives, by the way, was one of the most serious problems in his
reign), it became accepted as the norm for an English monarch to
address those subjects and those foreigners who were blood related as
king's kinsfolk. This pattern of acknowledging near and distant kin
was continued by King Henry III's son, Edward I, and by all subsequent
monarchs. This practice was not started by King Henry IV, as implied
by Mr. Blackstone.

*Sir William* Blackstone. I don't think Sir William implied that Henry
IV started the custom of acknowledging his relatives, merely that he
used it to flatter the peerage; it is this usage which presumably has
formed the long-standing custom whereby the term "cousin" is used
irrespective of actual blood relationship.

Douglas Richardson

Re: King's Kinship: An Overview

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 feb 2006 09:01:53

Dear Michael ~

Starting with King Henry III of England, I find no difference
whatsoever in the way that King Henry IV acknowledged kinsfolk than any
of his predecessors or successors. If Mr. Blackstone thought that King
Henry IV acknowledged kinship simply to flatter his subjects, he was
greatly mistaken. The kings in succession appear to have been
surprisingly well informed about all of their relatives, including
those distantly related to them, even in foreign lands.

If the Queen today customarily addresses all barons of the realm as her
cousins, this is not the way by which kings acknowledged kinship before
1600. Before 1600, when a person was addressed as king's kinsman or
kinswoman, he (or she) was blood related to the king.

Be that as it may, I find that the idea of "blood royal" was an
undercurrent theme of medieval noble society. Those descended from
Charlemagne were evidently considered to be members of a special club.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
*Sir William* Blackstone. I don't think Sir William implied that Henry
IV started the custom of acknowledging his relatives, merely that he
used it to flatter the peerage; it is this usage which presumably has
formed the long-standing custom whereby the term "cousin" is used
irrespective of actual blood relationship.

Gjest

Re: King's Kinship: An Overview

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 feb 2006 12:15:57

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Michael ~

Starting with King Henry III of England, I find no difference
whatsoever in the way that King Henry IV acknowledged kinsfolk than any
of his predecessors or successors. If Mr. Blackstone thought

Dear Douglas

It's "Sir William Blackstone, or just plain Blackstone, rather than "Mr
Blackstone". Having gained his knighthood, neither his contemporaries
nor those of us today familiar with his work would refer to him as Mr,
and citing him as such would not gain recognition.

King Henry IV acknowledged kinship simply to flatter his subjects, he
was greatly mistaken. The kings in succession appear to have been
surprisingly well informed about all of their relatives, including
those distantly related to them, even in foreign lands.

If the Queen today customarily addresses all barons of the realm as her
cousins,

As noted elsewhere, the Queen does not address all barons as her
cousins. This applies to the higher ranks of the peerage (ie the
non-barons) only. I know that various online sources states otherwise,
but these do not appear to carry the weight of authority that an
official publication on the topic by HM Government should be given.
See also Lord Selsdon's speech in the House of Lords (Hansard, 30 March
1999, Column 370) in which he jocularly remarks that a viscount is
styled "cousin" by the Queen while he - a mere Baron - is not. Whether
this has changed over the years, I do not know.

this is not the way by which kings acknowledged kinship before
1600. Before 1600, when a person was addressed as king's kinsman or
kinswoman, he (or she) was blood related to the king.

Perhaps I'm being dim - and I do find this topic of interest - but I am
beginning to wonder what the utility of this alleged rule is. How is
this "rule" useful?

I accept that early references to "the king's kinsman" mean just that.
It is hardly surprising that, in a society based on rank and
relationship, and in which consanguinity was an important issue, the
king should know who his cousins were. However, the fact that in some
instances (e.g. the Longspee references you cited earlier) this
relationship is not acknowledged, weakens the "rule" somewhat. Showing
that the king was related to those he calls "kinsman" does seem a bit
circular to me, too: it is like showing that he was married to those he
calls "wife". Even attempting to limit the "rule" to within certain
degrees of consanguinity seems pointless, given the instances you cite
in which this "rule" was apparently broken. I am particularly uneasy
about the assertion that this "rule" extended to 1600, which seems far
too late for me. What is needed to prove or disprove is to find an
instance of the monarch addressing a peer [not a baron] who is known
not to be a close kinsman, before 1600, to see whether the style
"cousin" is extended. The onus, of course, is on him who asserts the
rule. Do we know of such an instance?

Regards

Michael

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»