Fw: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Rosie Bevan

Fw: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 21 okt 2004 01:32:14

The last line to my previous message should have read,

I would be interested to know how far the line itself has been documented.

Rosie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosie Bevan" <rbevan@paradise.net.nz>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester


Peter is away from home and unable to respond to the newsgroup at present,
but I'm sure he will when able.

In a previous post I gave an example from 1163 how 'avunculus' was used
in
the sense of uncle-in-law (William de Soliers to Richard, Earl of Devon).
The following is a example where it is used as paternal uncle. In a
confirmation charter to Castleacre priory, Nicola de la Haie, after the
death of her second husband in 1214, referred to "Robert de Haia avus
meus,
et Richard de Haia pater meus, et Radulf de Haia avunculus meus."
[Mon.Ang.
5:53]. So it would be a mistake to insist that 'avunculus' was used
exclusively to mean maternal uncle until 1400.

While Pope Eugenius confirmed a foundation charter for Rocester, it was
not
necessarily this particular charter in question, and there are certainly
enough anomolies about it to suspect a monastic forgery.

The main problem in this thread is documenting a link between Richard
Bacon
to the AT, in the light that there are no verifiable descendants. I would
be
interested to know far the line itself been documented.

Cheers

Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester


Douglas Richardson wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<RnBcd.29830$5O5.10144@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...


Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice
removed.


The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a
family
link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
scribing, copying or even forging their documents.


My files indicate that the Latin word "avunculus" in this time period
in England was used for maternal uncle. By 1400, it was used for
either maternal or paternal uncle.

FWIW, in one of the Kendall muniments a son of Nicholas Kendall refers
to Lawrence Kendall as "avunculus", but this is much later than the
period in question.

If Richard Bacon referred to
Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
Ranulph as his maternal uncle.

Is this date (1150) the first example you have of it being otherwise
used, or was its use arbitrary? What is the earliest date you have for
a contrary use?

If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might
be
unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.


I disagree.

I am not sure I follow you here - if the charter is spurious, then it is
wise to set too much store by its text?

"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law
was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.


I've never seen the word "cognatus" used for brother-in-law in English
records. My files indicate "cognatus/cognata" in this period was
strictly used for a blood kinsman/kinswoman, even as close as niece or
nephew. I've already provided Mr. Stewart with an example of the
latter.

As has been pointed out, AN example does not prove, or even indicate, a
particular strict usage of a word (sort of like saying - "see, I'm not
dead right now, so therefor I must be immortal.") Only a detailed
analysis, giving the number of times it is used for each type of
relationship, (known relationship, as if you conclude "it is always used
this way" to interpret a relationship, then you cannot count that
instance as a known case, as it would be circular), preferentially
broken down by time period.

taf




Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»