King's Kinsfolk: Philip, King of the Romans' kinsman, Otto,

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

King's Kinsfolk: Philip, King of the Romans' kinsman, Otto,

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 nov 2006 18:46:42

Dear Newsgroup ~

Otto, Count of Poitou (afterwards Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor) was
styled "kinsman" ["nepotem nostra"] by Philip, King of the Romans,
in 1198 [Reference: Veterum Scriptorum et Monumentorum, 1 (1724):
1017-1018]. The two men were related in the 3rd and 3rd degrees of
kindred (or if you prefer 2nd cousins), by virtue of their common
descent from Henry the Black, Duke of Bavara, died 1126, as set forth
below.

1. Henry the Black, Duke of Bavaria, died 1126.
2. Henry, Duke of Bavaria & Saxony, died 1139.
3. Henry the Lion, Duke of Bavaria & Saxony, died 1195.
4. Otto, Count of Poitou, afterwards Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor, died
1218.

1. Henry the Black, Duke of Bavaria, died 1126.
2. Judith of Bavaria, married Frederick II, Duke of Swabia.
3. Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor, diedc 1190
4. Philip, King of the Romans, died 1208.

The above kinship is typical of those found in the pre-1225 period,
being very simple and straightforward, and within the 4th degree.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Philip, King of the Romans' kinsman, O

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 nov 2006 22:57:02

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162748802.844049.312150@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Otto, Count of Poitou (afterwards Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor) was
styled "kinsman" ["nepotem nostra"] by Philip, King of the Romans,
in 1198 [Reference: Veterum Scriptorum et Monumentorum, 1 (1724):
1017-1018].

Needless to say, King Philipp did NOT commit such a howler as this: rather
he called Count Otto (who is not recorded to have changed gender - or case
or number for that matter - in the process of negotiating a concord)
"nepotem nostrum".

Peter Stewart

taf

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Philip, King of the Romans' kinsman, Ot

Legg inn av taf » 06 nov 2006 02:43:29

Douglas Richardson wrote:

The above kinship is typical of those found in the pre-1225 period,
being very simple and straightforward, and within the 4th degree.

The above kinship is typical of those found in the pre-1225 period, in
which the individuals were related to each other. To be more precise
than this, one would have to find a relationship between Blanche and
Henry within the 4th degree. Any success at that? I didn't think so.

Thusfar the argument appears to be that the 4th degree rule is a rule
because nothing has been found to violate it, except for the cases
which have been found, but in those cases the pedigree must be wrong
because they violate the rule, for which nothing has been found in
violation.

It is begging the question to ignore or dismiss out of hand all cases
that do not match your preconceptions. It is ridiculous to go on
citing closer examples in hopes that no one remembers that the rule has
already been disproved. Obviously all cases that match your theory are
consistent with your theory - however, just one that fails is disproof.
We would appear to have one in hand. You tried to rearrange the
pedigree to 'make it work' and you failed. It doesn't work, and a
thousand documents in which first-cousins call themselves kinsmen will
not make 3rd cousins out of Blanche and Henry.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»