Dear Newsgroup ~
King Edward III of England referred to Guy de Blois, seigneur of
Beaumont in Hainault & of Argies [afterwards Count of Soissons], as his
"kinsman" [References: Rymer, Fœdera, 6 (1727): 568; Morice, Memoires
pour Servir de Preuves a l'Hist. de Bretagne 1 (1742): 1629]. The
two men were related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kinship (or by
modern parlance, 2nd cousins once removed) by virtue of their common
descent from Philippe III, King of France (died 1285):
1. Philippe III, King of France (died 1285).
2. Philippe IV, King of France.
3. Isabel of France, married Edward II, King of France.
4. Edward III, King of England.
1. Philippe III, King of France (died 1285).
2. Charles, Count of Valois.
3. Marguerite de Valois, married Guy I de Chatillon, Count of Blois.
4. Louis de Chatillon, Count of Blois.
5. Guy de Blois, Count of Soissons (died 1397).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
King's Kinsfolk: King Edward III's cousin, Guy de Blois
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Edward III's cousin, Guy de Blois
Dear Newsgroup ~
King Edward III of England referred to Guy de Blois, seigneur of
Beaumont in Hainault & of Argies [afterwards Count of Soissons], as his
"kinsman" [References: Rymer, Fœdera, 6 (1727): 568; Morice, Memoires
pour Servir de Preuves a l'Hist. de Bretagne 1 (1742): 1629]. The
two men were related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kinship (or by
modern parlance, 2nd cousins once removed) by virtue of their common
descent from Philippe III, King of France (died 1285):
1. Philippe III, King of France (died 1285).
2. Philippe IV, King of France.
3. Isabel of France, married Edward II, King of England.
4. Edward III, King of England.
1. Philippe III, King of France (died 1285).
2. Charles, Count of Valois.
3. Marguerite de Valois, married Guy I de Chatillon, Count of Blois.
4. Louis de Chatillon, Count of Blois.
5. Guy de Blois, Count of Soissons (died 1397).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
King Edward III of England referred to Guy de Blois, seigneur of
Beaumont in Hainault & of Argies [afterwards Count of Soissons], as his
"kinsman" [References: Rymer, Fœdera, 6 (1727): 568; Morice, Memoires
pour Servir de Preuves a l'Hist. de Bretagne 1 (1742): 1629]. The
two men were related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kinship (or by
modern parlance, 2nd cousins once removed) by virtue of their common
descent from Philippe III, King of France (died 1285):
1. Philippe III, King of France (died 1285).
2. Philippe IV, King of France.
3. Isabel of France, married Edward II, King of England.
4. Edward III, King of England.
1. Philippe III, King of France (died 1285).
2. Charles, Count of Valois.
3. Marguerite de Valois, married Guy I de Chatillon, Count of Blois.
4. Louis de Chatillon, Count of Blois.
5. Guy de Blois, Count of Soissons (died 1397).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Chris Phillips
Multiple posts [was: King's Kinsfolk: King Edward III's cous
Perhaps they work better in Google Groups or somewhere, but these multiple
versions of the same post are very confusing for those of us who follow via
a newsgroup server. Even more so now that they're not indicated as
revisions.
Couldn't a specific correction of the error be posted instead? It would save
people the labour of reading through things twice and trying to spot the
difference.
Chris Phillips
versions of the same post are very confusing for those of us who follow via
a newsgroup server. Even more so now that they're not indicated as
revisions.
Couldn't a specific correction of the error be posted instead? It would save
people the labour of reading through things twice and trying to spot the
difference.
Chris Phillips
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Multiple posts [was: King's Kinsfolk: King Edward III's
In message of 13 Feb, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
wrote:
Can you imagine Moses issuing "The Ten Commandments, version 2"?
Pronouncements from on high cannot be altered, though they can be
replaced.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
wrote:
Perhaps they work better in Google Groups or somewhere, but these
multiple versions of the same post are very confusing for those of us
who follow via a newsgroup server. Even more so now that they're not
indicated as revisions.
Couldn't a specific correction of the error be posted instead? It
would save people the labour of reading through things twice and
trying to spot the difference.
Can you imagine Moses issuing "The Ten Commandments, version 2"?
Pronouncements from on high cannot be altered, though they can be
replaced.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Multiple posts [was: King's Kinsfolk: King Edward III's
Dear Tim,
you wrote:
Well, the standard version is that God issued said commandments.
Further, we have a written account (perhaps not too
contemporaneous) to the effect that XCom 2.0 was exactly the same as
XCom (the original). I'm not sure if any hardware engineers * checked
the broken tablets of XCom to ensure this alleged exactitude.
But that's okay, 'tis everyone's right to believe as they
will.................
Cheers,
John
* I say hardware; stone tablets are not software now, I assume they
didn't qualify then.
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
you wrote:
Can you imagine Moses issuing "The Ten Commandments, version 2"?
Well, the standard version is that God issued said commandments.
Further, we have a written account (perhaps not too
contemporaneous) to the effect that XCom 2.0 was exactly the same as
XCom (the original). I'm not sure if any hardware engineers * checked
the broken tablets of XCom to ensure this alleged exactitude.
But that's okay, 'tis everyone's right to believe as they
will.................
Cheers,
John
* I say hardware; stone tablets are not software now, I assume they
didn't qualify then.
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 13 Feb, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
wrote:
Perhaps they work better in Google Groups or somewhere, but these
multiple versions of the same post are very confusing for those of us
who follow via a newsgroup server. Even more so now that they're not
indicated as revisions.
Couldn't a specific correction of the error be posted instead? It
would save people the labour of reading through things twice and
trying to spot the difference.
Can you imagine Moses issuing "The Ten Commandments, version 2"?
Pronouncements from on high cannot be altered, though they can be
replaced.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org