More on King's Kinsfolk
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
More on King's Kinsfolk
Dear Newsgroup ~
I've just finished surveying all references to king's kinswomen found
on Professor G.R. Boynton's helpful website which contains over 100
years of published calendars of patent rolls. This website can be
found at:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls
The search turned up 164 references to the term, "king's kinswoman,"
and two references to women who were identified as "parentela"
(relative) to the king. Of these entries, all 166 references are to
women related to the king within the 5th degree of kindred, with
exceptions noted as below.
The three exceptions to this are women whose kinship to the king is
presently unknown:
1. Margaret, lady de Moleyns, styled "king's kinswoman" by King
Richard II on one occasion.
1. Blanche (_____), wife successively of Edmund de Bradeston and
Andrew Hake, styled "king's kinswoman" by King Richard II on two
occasions.
2. Isabel Russell, wife successively of William le Scrope, Earl of
Wiltshire, Thomas de la Riviere, John Drayton, and Stephen Hatfield,
styled "king's kinswoman" by King Henry IV of England on one occasion.
Hopefully, further research will eventually reveal the kinship of each
of these women to the king in question.
I believe the latter woman, Isabel Russell, was the maternal aunt of
Maurice Denys, Esq., who married Joan (or Katherine) Stradling,
daughter of Sir Edward Stradling, of St. Donat's, Glamorgan. As such,
this new finding should be of keen interest to all the Aubrey,
Deighton, and Ligon descendants who post here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I've just finished surveying all references to king's kinswomen found
on Professor G.R. Boynton's helpful website which contains over 100
years of published calendars of patent rolls. This website can be
found at:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls
The search turned up 164 references to the term, "king's kinswoman,"
and two references to women who were identified as "parentela"
(relative) to the king. Of these entries, all 166 references are to
women related to the king within the 5th degree of kindred, with
exceptions noted as below.
The three exceptions to this are women whose kinship to the king is
presently unknown:
1. Margaret, lady de Moleyns, styled "king's kinswoman" by King
Richard II on one occasion.
1. Blanche (_____), wife successively of Edmund de Bradeston and
Andrew Hake, styled "king's kinswoman" by King Richard II on two
occasions.
2. Isabel Russell, wife successively of William le Scrope, Earl of
Wiltshire, Thomas de la Riviere, John Drayton, and Stephen Hatfield,
styled "king's kinswoman" by King Henry IV of England on one occasion.
Hopefully, further research will eventually reveal the kinship of each
of these women to the king in question.
I believe the latter woman, Isabel Russell, was the maternal aunt of
Maurice Denys, Esq., who married Joan (or Katherine) Stradling,
daughter of Sir Edward Stradling, of St. Donat's, Glamorgan. As such,
this new finding should be of keen interest to all the Aubrey,
Deighton, and Ligon descendants who post here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
In article <2619efc9.0410271227.62fc9708@posting.google.com>,
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
For someone who doesn't know Latin, this is an honest mistake, derived
from the misleading syntactical context of the abstracts, where the word
'relative' or 'relatives' is used as equivalent to the more complex
Latin phrases quoted in the abstracts and below.
But 'parentela' means 'kin-group' or 'kindred', not 'relative'; it
refers to a group of people, not to an individual as a relative. This
is obvious from the Latin phrases quoted in the abstracts on two of the
three pages in this searchable collection where this word appears:
Richard II vol. 4 p. 228:
'que de parentela nostra existit' ['who is of our kindred']
Edward III vol. 10, p. 636:
'plures de parentela sua' ['many from among his kindred']
(In the third hit--Edward III vol. 9 p. 235--the Latin word is used
alone, offering less of a clue as to its true role in the syntax of the
English-language abstract. Curiously, searching the word 'parentela'
only yields these three hits in the entire collection, of which only
one, not two, refers to a woman [the first one above]; perhaps the
keyword indexing is flawed and Doug noted its appearance on another page
which the word-index missed.)
Nevertheless, I think Doug's search here is interesting, and *suggests*
that the pattern of identification of king's kin in the patent rolls is
consistent enough (within five degrees) to use as evidence to place
those so designated for whom the term is used but the relation is
unknown. A while ago we asked Doug to do some systematic checking on
this, and he has: bravo.
As for the method, it will be important to supplement the search to
other incidences in the CPRs which don't appear exactly as "king's
kinswoman" in the abstract. For example, what about the men?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
The search turned up 164 references to the term, "king's kinswoman,"
and two references to women who were identified as "parentela"
(relative) to the king.
For someone who doesn't know Latin, this is an honest mistake, derived
from the misleading syntactical context of the abstracts, where the word
'relative' or 'relatives' is used as equivalent to the more complex
Latin phrases quoted in the abstracts and below.
But 'parentela' means 'kin-group' or 'kindred', not 'relative'; it
refers to a group of people, not to an individual as a relative. This
is obvious from the Latin phrases quoted in the abstracts on two of the
three pages in this searchable collection where this word appears:
Richard II vol. 4 p. 228:
'que de parentela nostra existit' ['who is of our kindred']
Edward III vol. 10, p. 636:
'plures de parentela sua' ['many from among his kindred']
(In the third hit--Edward III vol. 9 p. 235--the Latin word is used
alone, offering less of a clue as to its true role in the syntax of the
English-language abstract. Curiously, searching the word 'parentela'
only yields these three hits in the entire collection, of which only
one, not two, refers to a woman [the first one above]; perhaps the
keyword indexing is flawed and Doug noted its appearance on another page
which the word-index missed.)
Nevertheless, I think Doug's search here is interesting, and *suggests*
that the pattern of identification of king's kin in the patent rolls is
consistent enough (within five degrees) to use as evidence to place
those so designated for whom the term is used but the relation is
unknown. A while ago we asked Doug to do some systematic checking on
this, and he has: bravo.
As for the method, it will be important to supplement the search to
other incidences in the CPRs which don't appear exactly as "king's
kinswoman" in the abstract. For example, what about the men?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
But 'parentela' means 'kin-group' or 'kindred', not 'relative'; it
refers to a group of people, not to an individual as a relative.
Could anyone explain this more clearly? My problem is that I cannot find a
meaning in OED for "kin-group" or "kindred" which would allow "kin-group of
A" or "kindred of A" to mean anything different from "relatives of A". In
fact, OED says the word "kindred" would be used incorrectly if it were
applied to people connected by marriage rather than by blood. There
obviously is a point here that I have missed.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
In article <000801c4bca0$456ee020$020010ac@peirce>,
smyth@nc.rr.com ("Richard Smyth at Road Runner") wrote:
The inequality is in syntax rather than in basic idea. 'Parentela' is a
singular word refering to a group of people; 'relative', in the
singular, refers to an individual.
Parentela has the more specific meaning of a group of persons descended
from a specific common ancestor, depending on the context (marriage
litigation, inheritance of serf status, formation of a compurgative or
feuding group, etc.).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
smyth@nc.rr.com ("Richard Smyth at Road Runner") wrote:
But 'parentela' means 'kin-group' or 'kindred', not 'relative'; it
refers to a group of people, not to an individual as a relative.
Could anyone explain this more clearly? My problem is that I cannot find a
meaning in OED for "kin-group" or "kindred" which would allow "kin-group of
A" or "kindred of A" to mean anything different from "relatives of A". In
fact, OED says the word "kindred" would be used incorrectly if it were
applied to people connected by marriage rather than by blood. There
obviously is a point here that I have missed.
The inequality is in syntax rather than in basic idea. 'Parentela' is a
singular word refering to a group of people; 'relative', in the
singular, refers to an individual.
Parentela has the more specific meaning of a group of persons descended
from a specific common ancestor, depending on the context (marriage
litigation, inheritance of serf status, formation of a compurgative or
feuding group, etc.).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
But 'parentela' means 'kin-group' or 'kindred', not 'relative'; it
refers to a group of people, not to an individual as a relative.
The inequality is in syntax rather than in basic idea. 'Parentela' is a
singular word refering to a group of people; 'relative', in the
singular, refers to an individual.
I really don't want to pursue a purely grammatical point; it is almost
never worth taking the trouble to write or speak with logical exactness.
There are, however, one or two superficial points that bear on your
grammatical observation. First, it is not true that "relative" is being
predicated of some unique and singular object in "Let us agree to discuss a
relative of A." Secondly, not every noun or adjective that is predicated
of a singular object is being predicated of an individual object; it may be
being predicated of a further divisible class of objects. But none of this
goes to any question of genealogical fact or interpretation.
What I was puzzled about was the genealogical significance of identifying
someone as kindred of A, rather than as relative of A. As I understand the
terms, everyone kindred of A is a relative of A. However, if you told me
that, for example, in Scotland in the medieval period "parentela" was
sometimes used to indicate a clan relationship then I would infer that the
relationship is not necessarily genetic. I understand that in the
classical era adoption was common. Was the term ever used then, or later,
to include adopted children?
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: More On King's Kinsfolk
Not really all that helpful.
----------------------
Yes, KINDRED can be used as either an ADJECTIVE or a NOUN -- but to the
modern ear it resonates better as an ADJECTIVE.
So KINDRED and KIN-GROUP are best NOT treated as "precise synonyms."
KIN is a perfectly good word, [not slang]. It's mediaeval, short and
succinct and a NOUN.
It is the better choice if one is looking for a synonym to KIN-GROUP.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-56B389.18132728102004@news1.east.earthlink.net...
| Well, my original suggestion of 'kindred' as a secondary equivalent to
| 'parentela' was only in the sense that it was precisely synonymous
| with 'kin-group'--my first choice for clarity, though an inelegant
| word.
----------------------
Yes, KINDRED can be used as either an ADJECTIVE or a NOUN -- but to the
modern ear it resonates better as an ADJECTIVE.
So KINDRED and KIN-GROUP are best NOT treated as "precise synonyms."
KIN is a perfectly good word, [not slang]. It's mediaeval, short and
succinct and a NOUN.
It is the better choice if one is looking for a synonym to KIN-GROUP.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-56B389.18132728102004@news1.east.earthlink.net...
| Well, my original suggestion of 'kindred' as a secondary equivalent to
| 'parentela' was only in the sense that it was precisely synonymous
| with 'kin-group'--my first choice for clarity, though an inelegant
| word.
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Are you intentionally clouding the issue? My original point was JUST
grammar: the Latin cited by Richardson does NOT state someone is
'kindred of A' (which makes no sense) or 'relative of A': instead the
passages state that someone is 'of my kindred' ('de parentala
nostra').
If I have clouded some issue for someone, I do apologize. I tried to make
it clear in my post that I was soliciting aid and that I did not understand
what the issue was.
'kindred of A' (which makes no sense)
"Disclaiming here the kindred of the king; And lay aside my high blood's
royalty, " [Shakespeare, King Richard, I,1]
"And thereupon he sends you this good news, That this same very day your
enemies, The kindred of the queen, must die at Pomfret. " [Ibid. III, 2]
"390 Faith. I told him, That although all these that he had named might
claim kindred of me, and that rightly, (for indeed they were my Relations .
.. ." Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
[I posted this to gen-medieval earlier, from a different e-mail account,
so it may not have been taken up on this list; at any rate I don't see
it on sgm; apologies if this duplicates itself on the list or ng.]
In article <001801c4bcec$3d1d9870$020010ac@peirce>,
smyth@nc.rr.com ("Richard Smyth at Road Runner") wrote:
I am speaking of the precise use of 'relative' as Richardson, following
the author of the CPR abstracts, has used it. In the two cases I cited,
'relative' is used *specifically* to link one individual to another,
which is an adequate genealogical representation but not an accurate
grammatical translation of the Latin phrase which happens to be quoted
in the abstract.
Are you intentionally clouding the issue? My original point was JUST
grammar: the Latin cited by Richardson does NOT state someone is
'kindred of A' (which makes no sense) or 'relative of A': instead the
passages state that someone is 'of my kindred' ('de parentala nostra').
Grossly, these are genealogically equivalent; but grammatically, only
someone who didn't understand the Latin phrase would blithely gloss, as
Mr. Richardson did, that 'parentela' means 'relative'. (As I said, it
means 'kin-group', or 'kindred' only as a noun for a group--not as in
'kindred spirits'.) That Richardson would make such a grammatical
mistake I thought amusing, given that at the same time, in a separate
post, he was trying to argue a point of Latinity against the poster who
may have the best command of Latin of anyone on this group.
Now, the conceptual difference between referring to someone as 'de
parentela nostra' rather than, say, 'parens noster' (or perhaps with a
dative pronoun, consanguineus nobis--kin to us)), is that the
construction of 'parentela' implies not just the relationship of two
people to each other, but the interposition of a third entity, to which
the two individuals belong: a kin-group--a parentela--defined by descent
from a common ancestor (but which ancestor that is depends on the
context). This is a more complex construction, and reflects a subtly
different conception of kinship not as the abstract shared attribute of
individuals, but as a group with a tangible social identity, to which
persons belong.
For people mining these documents purely to work out who was related to
whom, this last point (conceptual, not grammatical) may be totally
irrelevant--as I expect it is to Richardson. But I happen to be
interested in the history and evolution of the conceptualization of
kinship, and its significance within social order generally, in the
Middle Ages.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
so it may not have been taken up on this list; at any rate I don't see
it on sgm; apologies if this duplicates itself on the list or ng.]
In article <001801c4bcec$3d1d9870$020010ac@peirce>,
smyth@nc.rr.com ("Richard Smyth at Road Runner") wrote:
But 'parentela' means 'kin-group' or 'kindred', not 'relative'; it
refers to a group of people, not to an individual as a relative.
The inequality is in syntax rather than in basic idea. 'Parentela' is a
singular word refering to a group of people; 'relative', in the
singular, refers to an individual.
I really don't want to pursue a purely grammatical point; it is almost
never worth taking the trouble to write or speak with logical exactness.
There are, however, one or two superficial points that bear on your
grammatical observation. First, it is not true that "relative" is being
predicated of some unique and singular object in "Let us agree to discuss a
relative of A." Secondly, not every noun or adjective that is predicated
of a singular object is being predicated of an individual object; it may be
being predicated of a further divisible class of objects. But none of this
goes to any question of genealogical fact or interpretation.
I am speaking of the precise use of 'relative' as Richardson, following
the author of the CPR abstracts, has used it. In the two cases I cited,
'relative' is used *specifically* to link one individual to another,
which is an adequate genealogical representation but not an accurate
grammatical translation of the Latin phrase which happens to be quoted
in the abstract.
What I was puzzled about was the genealogical significance of identifying
someone as kindred of A, rather than as relative of A.
Are you intentionally clouding the issue? My original point was JUST
grammar: the Latin cited by Richardson does NOT state someone is
'kindred of A' (which makes no sense) or 'relative of A': instead the
passages state that someone is 'of my kindred' ('de parentala nostra').
Grossly, these are genealogically equivalent; but grammatically, only
someone who didn't understand the Latin phrase would blithely gloss, as
Mr. Richardson did, that 'parentela' means 'relative'. (As I said, it
means 'kin-group', or 'kindred' only as a noun for a group--not as in
'kindred spirits'.) That Richardson would make such a grammatical
mistake I thought amusing, given that at the same time, in a separate
post, he was trying to argue a point of Latinity against the poster who
may have the best command of Latin of anyone on this group.
Now, the conceptual difference between referring to someone as 'de
parentela nostra' rather than, say, 'parens noster' (or perhaps with a
dative pronoun, consanguineus nobis--kin to us)), is that the
construction of 'parentela' implies not just the relationship of two
people to each other, but the interposition of a third entity, to which
the two individuals belong: a kin-group--a parentela--defined by descent
from a common ancestor (but which ancestor that is depends on the
context). This is a more complex construction, and reflects a subtly
different conception of kinship not as the abstract shared attribute of
individuals, but as a group with a tangible social identity, to which
persons belong.
For people mining these documents purely to work out who was related to
whom, this last point (conceptual, not grammatical) may be totally
irrelevant--as I expect it is to Richardson. But I happen to be
interested in the history and evolution of the conceptualization of
kinship, and its significance within social order generally, in the
Middle Ages.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
In article <001001c4bd1c$09b75400$020010ac@peirce>,
smyth@nc.rr.com ("Richard Smyth at Road Runner") wrote:
Well, my original suggestion of 'kindred' as a secondary equivalent to
'parentela' was only in the sense that it was precisely synonymous with
'kin-group'--my first choice for clarity, though an inelegant word.
That is, as a noun for a specific group of people, as in your second
quotation, rather than in the more abstract idiom ('to [dis-]claim
kindred of X') of Bunyan and the first Shakespeare quotation. The point
is that the Latin (and also the English) word 'parentela' cannot be used
in the expression 'X is a parentela of Y', as one might conclude from
Mr. Richardson's passing, but mistaken, claim that parentela = relative.
I have now spent too many posts on this, as have you.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
smyth@nc.rr.com ("Richard Smyth at Road Runner") wrote:
Are you intentionally clouding the issue? My original point was JUST
grammar: the Latin cited by Richardson does NOT state someone is
'kindred of A' (which makes no sense) or 'relative of A': instead the
passages state that someone is 'of my kindred' ('de parentala
nostra').
If I have clouded some issue for someone, I do apologize. I tried to make
it clear in my post that I was soliciting aid and that I did not understand
what the issue was.
'kindred of A' (which makes no sense)
"Disclaiming here the kindred of the king; And lay aside my high blood's
royalty, " [Shakespeare, King Richard, I,1]
"And thereupon he sends you this good news, That this same very day your
enemies, The kindred of the queen, must die at Pomfret. " [Ibid. III, 2]
"390 Faith. I told him, That although all these that he had named might
claim kindred of me, and that rightly, (for indeed they were my Relations .
. ." Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Well, my original suggestion of 'kindred' as a secondary equivalent to
'parentela' was only in the sense that it was precisely synonymous with
'kin-group'--my first choice for clarity, though an inelegant word.
That is, as a noun for a specific group of people, as in your second
quotation, rather than in the more abstract idiom ('to [dis-]claim
kindred of X') of Bunyan and the first Shakespeare quotation. The point
is that the Latin (and also the English) word 'parentela' cannot be used
in the expression 'X is a parentela of Y', as one might conclude from
Mr. Richardson's passing, but mistaken, claim that parentela = relative.
I have now spent too many posts on this, as have you.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Francisco Antonio Doria
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Not to start another silly discussion, but this word -
parentela - exists with the above described meaning in
Portuguese today. I even used it in a meeting I
attended this morning, btw.
I think it also exists in Spanish, and in a closely
related form, in Italian.
fa
--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
escreveu:
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
parentela - exists with the above described meaning in
Portuguese today. I even used it in a meeting I
attended this morning, btw.
I think it also exists in Spanish, and in a closely
related form, in Italian.
fa
--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
escreveu:
In article
2619efc9.0410271227.62fc9708@posting.google.com>,
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
The search turned up 164 references to the term,
"king's kinswoman,"
and two references to women who were identified as
"parentela"
(relative) to the king.
For someone who doesn't know Latin, this is an
honest mistake, derived
from the misleading syntactical context of the
abstracts, where the word
'relative' or 'relatives' is used as equivalent to
the more complex
Latin phrases quoted in the abstracts and below.
But 'parentela' means 'kin-group' or 'kindred', not
'relative'; it
refers to a group of people, not to an individual as
a relative. This
is obvious from the Latin phrases quoted in the
abstracts on two of the
three pages in this searchable collection where this
word appears:
Richard II vol. 4 p. 228:
'que de parentela nostra existit' ['who is of our
kindred']
Edward III vol. 10, p. 636:
'plures de parentela sua' ['many from among his
kindred']
(In the third hit--Edward III vol. 9 p. 235--the
Latin word is used
alone, offering less of a clue as to its true role
in the syntax of the
English-language abstract. Curiously, searching the
word 'parentela'
only yields these three hits in the entire
collection, of which only
one, not two, refers to a woman [the first one
above]; perhaps the
keyword indexing is flawed and Doug noted its
appearance on another page
which the word-index missed.)
Nevertheless, I think Doug's search here is
interesting, and *suggests*
that the pattern of identification of king's kin in
the patent rolls is
consistent enough (within five degrees) to use as
evidence to place
those so designated for whom the term is used but
the relation is
unknown. A while ago we asked Doug to do some
systematic checking on
this, and he has: bravo.
As for the method, it will be important to
supplement the search to
other incidences in the CPRs which don't appear
exactly as "king's
kinswoman" in the abstract. For example, what about
the men?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
-
Bronwen Edwards
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<nathanieltaylor-C7EAEB.18013328102004@news1.east.earthlink.net>...
I don't know if this will help or not, but in discussions of "kinship
groups" in anthropology, "kin groups" are as much a matter of
residence, allegiance and responsibility as biology. The technical
definition of a clan is a group of people who regard themselves as
related because of their descent from a common ancestor. As the common
ancestor may be mythological or spiritual, this does not necessarily
require blood ties within the memory of the members. Such a group is
most often exogamous, considering clan membership to be the same as
blood relationship in a social or spiritual sense. Relationship
through membership in the same clan can be so overwhelmingly important
that if two groups have similarly named clans but otherwise have no
known connection through intermarriage, individuals of the same-named
clans may consider themselves to be too closely related to marry. Is
it possible that these terms are applied to, for example, those who
are under the protection of a particular lord or sovereign? Or,
perhaps, a reference to peers even if they have no known biological
relationship? Best, Bronwen
What I was puzzled about was the genealogical significance of
identifying
someone as kindred of A, rather than as relative of A.
I don't know if this will help or not, but in discussions of "kinship
groups" in anthropology, "kin groups" are as much a matter of
residence, allegiance and responsibility as biology. The technical
definition of a clan is a group of people who regard themselves as
related because of their descent from a common ancestor. As the common
ancestor may be mythological or spiritual, this does not necessarily
require blood ties within the memory of the members. Such a group is
most often exogamous, considering clan membership to be the same as
blood relationship in a social or spiritual sense. Relationship
through membership in the same clan can be so overwhelmingly important
that if two groups have similarly named clans but otherwise have no
known connection through intermarriage, individuals of the same-named
clans may consider themselves to be too closely related to marry. Is
it possible that these terms are applied to, for example, those who
are under the protection of a particular lord or sovereign? Or,
perhaps, a reference to peers even if they have no known biological
relationship? Best, Bronwen
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Richard Smyth at Road Runner wrote:
Shakespeare and Bunyan can't always be relied upon for correctness, but
they weren't wrong in the first & third quotations here - though Nat is
also right about the meaning of "parentela", and the second quotation is
about a group with possibly various relationships rather than an individual.
The word "kindred" is believed to come from "kin" + "red(e)", that is
"kin condition", with a "d" intercalated for ease of sound as in
"thunder" from "thunar" (ultimately from Latin "tonare").
Of course, Douglas Richardson may tell us that none of this is valid in
his egomaniacal universe, because he hasn't come across such words in
his exhaustive reading of Anglo-Saxon sources....
Peter Stewart
Are you intentionally clouding the issue? My original point was JUST
grammar: the Latin cited by Richardson does NOT state someone is
'kindred of A' (which makes no sense) or 'relative of A': instead the
passages state that someone is 'of my kindred' ('de parentala
nostra').
If I have clouded some issue for someone, I do apologize. I tried to make
it clear in my post that I was soliciting aid and that I did not understand
what the issue was.
'kindred of A' (which makes no sense)
"Disclaiming here the kindred of the king; And lay aside my high blood's
royalty, " [Shakespeare, King Richard, I,1]
"And thereupon he sends you this good news, That this same very day your
enemies, The kindred of the queen, must die at Pomfret. " [Ibid. III, 2]
"390 Faith. I told him, That although all these that he had named might
claim kindred of me, and that rightly, (for indeed they were my Relations .
. ." Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Shakespeare and Bunyan can't always be relied upon for correctness, but
they weren't wrong in the first & third quotations here - though Nat is
also right about the meaning of "parentela", and the second quotation is
about a group with possibly various relationships rather than an individual.
The word "kindred" is believed to come from "kin" + "red(e)", that is
"kin condition", with a "d" intercalated for ease of sound as in
"thunder" from "thunar" (ultimately from Latin "tonare").
Of course, Douglas Richardson may tell us that none of this is valid in
his egomaniacal universe, because he hasn't come across such words in
his exhaustive reading of Anglo-Saxon sources....
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: More On King's Kinsfolk
Right!
THAT is why we should translate KINDRED as an ADJECTIVE -- in order to
ensure CLARITY -- and use KIN as a synonym for Kin-Group, which is
clumsy.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Pxngd.2714$K7.304@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| The word "kindred" is believed to come from "kin" + "red(e)", that is
| "kin condition", with a "d" intercalated for ease of sound as in
| "thunder" from "thunar" (ultimately from Latin "tonare").
<baldersnip>
| Peter Stewart
THAT is why we should translate KINDRED as an ADJECTIVE -- in order to
ensure CLARITY -- and use KIN as a synonym for Kin-Group, which is
clumsy.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Pxngd.2714$K7.304@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| The word "kindred" is believed to come from "kin" + "red(e)", that is
| "kin condition", with a "d" intercalated for ease of sound as in
| "thunder" from "thunar" (ultimately from Latin "tonare").
<baldersnip>
| Peter Stewart
-
Esteban Trento
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br (Francisco Antonio Doria) wrote in message news:<20041029010250.11223.qmail@web41711.mail.yahoo.com>...
Yes. At least in Argentine Spanish -mostly influenced by Italian-,
parentela means something like "all the relatives" or "big family".
Sometimes it's used in a derogative form meaning something like a
maffia, especially when referring to a family with many members in the
government (like a Nepotism).
Regards,
Esteban
Not to start another silly discussion, but this word -
parentela - exists with the above described meaning in
Portuguese today. I even used it in a meeting I
attended this morning, btw.
I think it also exists in Spanish, and in a closely
related form, in Italian.
fa
Yes. At least in Argentine Spanish -mostly influenced by Italian-,
parentela means something like "all the relatives" or "big family".
Sometimes it's used in a derogative form meaning something like a
maffia, especially when referring to a family with many members in the
government (like a Nepotism).
Regards,
Esteban
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Dear Newsgroup ~
When I posted on 'king's kinsfolk" this past week, I inadvertedly
overlooked a reference in my notes to Philippe de Mortimer, Countess
of March, which woman was styled "king's kinswoman" by King Richard II
of England in 1381 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1377-1381,
pg. 608). Initially, I identified Countess Philippe as the wife of
Edmund de Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (died 1381). This woman would
be related to King Richard II within the 5th degree of kindred.
However, I've since realized that the woman in question was actually
an earlier Countess Philippe, wife of Roger de Mortimer, 2nd Earl of
March. In 1381 the senior Countess Philippe was still living, whereas
the younger Countess Philippe was already deceased [see, for example,
Testamenta Vetusta, 1 (1826) 101, 110-113].
Outlining the kinship between the senior Countess Philippe and King
Richard II poses some problems, as there doesn't seem to be any
immediate connection between the two individuals, certainly nothing
within the 5th degree. Countess Philippe is known to have been the
daughter of William de Montagu, 1st Earl of Salisbury, by Katherine,
daughter of William de Grandison, Knt., 1st Lord Grandison. While
there are indications that the English royal family was distantly
related to earlier members of the Montagu family, it appears that the
kinship in question between Countess Philippe and King Richard II
comes through her mother's Grandison family.
In an earlier post here on the newsgroup, I noted that Katherine de
Grandison's brother, Bishop John de Grandison, referred to Thomas
Wake, Lord Wake, as his "cousin" [trescher cosyn] in 1329 [Reference:
Rev. F.C. Hingeston-Randolph, The Register of John Grandison, Bishop
of Exeter (1894): 237]. Thomas Wake is readily identified as the
great-uncle of King Richard II of England.
Reviewing their respective ancestries, I've charted the following
kinship between Bishop Grandison and Thomas Wake:
Aubri II, Count of Dammartin (died 1200)
_______________/__________
/ /
Agnes de Dammartin Juliane de Dammartin
=Guillaume de Fiennes = Hugh de Gournay
/ /
Enguerrand de Fiennes Millicent de Gournay
/ =William de Cauntelowe (died 1251)
/ /
William de Fiennes Juliane de Cauntelowe
=Blanche de Brienne = Robert de Tregoz
/ /
Joan de Fiennes John de Tregoz
=John Wake = Mabel Fitz Warin
/ /
Thomas Wake, Sibyl de Tregoz
Lord Wake = William de Grandison
/
John de Grandison, Bishop of Exeter
If Thomas Wake and Bishop John de Grandison were related in the 5th
and 6th degrees of kindred (as they appear to have been), it means
that King Richard II and Philippe de Montagu were more distantly
related in the 7th and 7th degrees of kindred. This situation is
somewhat similar to an example I cited in one of my earlier posts in
which someone mentioned that King Henry VIII referred to Anne Boleyn
as his kinswoman. In that situation, I found evidence which proved
that King Henry VIII had acknowledged kinship to Anne Boleyn's
grandfather, Thomas Howard, who was related within the 5th degree.
Anne Boleyn herself was outside the 5th degree of kindred.
If King Richard II had knowledge of his Dammartin-Grandison kinsfolk,
then this would possibly also explain his reference to Margery, lady
Moleyns, as his "kinswoman." At present, I have Margery de Moleyns
listed as one of the three women called "king's kinswoman" whose
connection to the English royal family is unknown. As with Philippe
de Montagu, there doesn't seem to be any near connection between Lady
Moleyns and King Richard II. However, relying on John Ravilious'
tentative identification of Margery, wife of Michael de Poynings, as
being the daughter of Lady Isabel Bardolf, I hereby propose the
following kinship between King Richard II and Lady Margery de Moleyns
as follows:
Aubri II, Count of Dammartin (died 1200)
________________/______________
/ /
Agnes de Dammartin Juliane de Dammartin
=Guillaume de Fiennes = Hugh de Gournay
/ ________/_____________
/ / /
Enguerrand de Fiennes Millicent de Gournay Juliane de Gournay
/ =William de Cauntelowe =Hugh Bardolf
/ / /
William de Fiennes Juliane de Cauntelowe Hugh Bardolf
=Blanche de Brienne = Robert de Tregoz =Isabel Aguillon
/ / /
Joan de Fiennes John de Tregoz Margery Bardolf
=John Wake = Mabel Fitz Warin =Michael de Poynings
/ / /
Margaret Wake Sibyl de Tregoz Margery de Poynings
=Edmund of Woodstock, = William de Grandison =Edmund Bacon, Knt.
Earl of Kent / /
/ / /
Joan of Kent Katherine de Grandison Margery Bacon
=Edward of Woodstock = William de Montagu =William de Moleyns
/ /
King Richard II Phiippe de Montagu
of England =Edmund de Mortimer
The above chart is predicated on the assumption that King Richard II
of England was knowledgeable about his Dammartin-Grandison-Bardolf
kinsfolk. It also makes the assumption that Margery de Poynings, wife
of Edmund Bacon, was the daughter of Michael de Poynings. Given that
King Richard's great-uncle, Thomas Wake, clearly knew of his kinship
to the Grandison family, it seems reasonable to think that King
Richard II and his mother, Joan of Kent, also knew about their
connection to the Dammartin-Grandison related families.
In closing, I wish to extend special thanks to John Ravilious for his
excellent work on the Bardolf-Poynings connection cited above.
Collegiality is often the key to unlocking the genealogical puzzles of
the past.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.0410271227.62fc9708@posting.google.com>...
When I posted on 'king's kinsfolk" this past week, I inadvertedly
overlooked a reference in my notes to Philippe de Mortimer, Countess
of March, which woman was styled "king's kinswoman" by King Richard II
of England in 1381 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1377-1381,
pg. 608). Initially, I identified Countess Philippe as the wife of
Edmund de Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (died 1381). This woman would
be related to King Richard II within the 5th degree of kindred.
However, I've since realized that the woman in question was actually
an earlier Countess Philippe, wife of Roger de Mortimer, 2nd Earl of
March. In 1381 the senior Countess Philippe was still living, whereas
the younger Countess Philippe was already deceased [see, for example,
Testamenta Vetusta, 1 (1826) 101, 110-113].
Outlining the kinship between the senior Countess Philippe and King
Richard II poses some problems, as there doesn't seem to be any
immediate connection between the two individuals, certainly nothing
within the 5th degree. Countess Philippe is known to have been the
daughter of William de Montagu, 1st Earl of Salisbury, by Katherine,
daughter of William de Grandison, Knt., 1st Lord Grandison. While
there are indications that the English royal family was distantly
related to earlier members of the Montagu family, it appears that the
kinship in question between Countess Philippe and King Richard II
comes through her mother's Grandison family.
In an earlier post here on the newsgroup, I noted that Katherine de
Grandison's brother, Bishop John de Grandison, referred to Thomas
Wake, Lord Wake, as his "cousin" [trescher cosyn] in 1329 [Reference:
Rev. F.C. Hingeston-Randolph, The Register of John Grandison, Bishop
of Exeter (1894): 237]. Thomas Wake is readily identified as the
great-uncle of King Richard II of England.
Reviewing their respective ancestries, I've charted the following
kinship between Bishop Grandison and Thomas Wake:
Aubri II, Count of Dammartin (died 1200)
_______________/__________
/ /
Agnes de Dammartin Juliane de Dammartin
=Guillaume de Fiennes = Hugh de Gournay
/ /
Enguerrand de Fiennes Millicent de Gournay
/ =William de Cauntelowe (died 1251)
/ /
William de Fiennes Juliane de Cauntelowe
=Blanche de Brienne = Robert de Tregoz
/ /
Joan de Fiennes John de Tregoz
=John Wake = Mabel Fitz Warin
/ /
Thomas Wake, Sibyl de Tregoz
Lord Wake = William de Grandison
/
John de Grandison, Bishop of Exeter
If Thomas Wake and Bishop John de Grandison were related in the 5th
and 6th degrees of kindred (as they appear to have been), it means
that King Richard II and Philippe de Montagu were more distantly
related in the 7th and 7th degrees of kindred. This situation is
somewhat similar to an example I cited in one of my earlier posts in
which someone mentioned that King Henry VIII referred to Anne Boleyn
as his kinswoman. In that situation, I found evidence which proved
that King Henry VIII had acknowledged kinship to Anne Boleyn's
grandfather, Thomas Howard, who was related within the 5th degree.
Anne Boleyn herself was outside the 5th degree of kindred.
If King Richard II had knowledge of his Dammartin-Grandison kinsfolk,
then this would possibly also explain his reference to Margery, lady
Moleyns, as his "kinswoman." At present, I have Margery de Moleyns
listed as one of the three women called "king's kinswoman" whose
connection to the English royal family is unknown. As with Philippe
de Montagu, there doesn't seem to be any near connection between Lady
Moleyns and King Richard II. However, relying on John Ravilious'
tentative identification of Margery, wife of Michael de Poynings, as
being the daughter of Lady Isabel Bardolf, I hereby propose the
following kinship between King Richard II and Lady Margery de Moleyns
as follows:
Aubri II, Count of Dammartin (died 1200)
________________/______________
/ /
Agnes de Dammartin Juliane de Dammartin
=Guillaume de Fiennes = Hugh de Gournay
/ ________/_____________
/ / /
Enguerrand de Fiennes Millicent de Gournay Juliane de Gournay
/ =William de Cauntelowe =Hugh Bardolf
/ / /
William de Fiennes Juliane de Cauntelowe Hugh Bardolf
=Blanche de Brienne = Robert de Tregoz =Isabel Aguillon
/ / /
Joan de Fiennes John de Tregoz Margery Bardolf
=John Wake = Mabel Fitz Warin =Michael de Poynings
/ / /
Margaret Wake Sibyl de Tregoz Margery de Poynings
=Edmund of Woodstock, = William de Grandison =Edmund Bacon, Knt.
Earl of Kent / /
/ / /
Joan of Kent Katherine de Grandison Margery Bacon
=Edward of Woodstock = William de Montagu =William de Moleyns
/ /
King Richard II Phiippe de Montagu
of England =Edmund de Mortimer
The above chart is predicated on the assumption that King Richard II
of England was knowledgeable about his Dammartin-Grandison-Bardolf
kinsfolk. It also makes the assumption that Margery de Poynings, wife
of Edmund Bacon, was the daughter of Michael de Poynings. Given that
King Richard's great-uncle, Thomas Wake, clearly knew of his kinship
to the Grandison family, it seems reasonable to think that King
Richard II and his mother, Joan of Kent, also knew about their
connection to the Dammartin-Grandison related families.
In closing, I wish to extend special thanks to John Ravilious for his
excellent work on the Bardolf-Poynings connection cited above.
Collegiality is often the key to unlocking the genealogical puzzles of
the past.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.0410271227.62fc9708@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
I've just finished surveying all references to king's kinswomen found
on Professor G.R. Boynton's helpful website which contains over 100
years of published calendars of patent rolls. This website can be
found at:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls
The search turned up 164 references to the term, "king's kinswoman,"
and two references to women who were identified as "parentela"
(relative) to the king. Of these entries, all 166 references are to
women related to the king within the 5th degree of kindred, with
exceptions noted as below.
The three exceptions to this are women whose kinship to the king is
presently unknown:
1. Margaret, lady de Moleyns, styled "king's kinswoman" by King
Richard II on one occasion.
1. Blanche (_____), wife successively of Edmund de Bradeston and
Andrew Hake, styled "king's kinswoman" by King Richard II on two
occasions.
2. Isabel Russell, wife successively of William le Scrope, Earl of
Wiltshire, Thomas de la Riviere, John Drayton, and Stephen Hatfield,
styled "king's kinswoman" by King Henry IV of England on one occasion.
Hopefully, further research will eventually reveal the kinship of each
of these women to the king in question.
I believe the latter woman, Isabel Russell, was the maternal aunt of
Maurice Denys, Esq., who married Joan (or Katherine) Stradling,
daughter of Sir Edward Stradling, of St. Donat's, Glamorgan. As such,
this new finding should be of keen interest to all the Aubrey,
Deighton, and Ligon descendants who post here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
In article <2619efc9.0410291227.eb82d07@posting.google.com>,
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
This is interesting. Could you be more specific about what this may or
may not imply for your hypothesized rule of thumb regarding the
functional degree-limits of a king (or anyone, in this period) calling
someone kin?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
When I posted on 'king's kinsfolk" this past week, I inadvertedly
overlooked a reference in my notes to Philippe de Mortimer, Countess
of March, which woman was styled "king's kinswoman" by King Richard II
of England in 1381 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1377-1381,
pg. 608). Initially, I identified Countess Philippe as the wife of
Edmund de Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (died 1381). This woman would
be related to King Richard II within the 5th degree of kindred.
However, I've since realized that the woman in question was actually
an earlier Countess Philippe, wife of Roger de Mortimer, 2nd Earl of
March. In 1381 the senior Countess Philippe was still living, whereas
the younger Countess Philippe was already deceased [see, for example,
Testamenta Vetusta, 1 (1826) 101, 110-113].
Outlining the kinship between the senior Countess Philippe and King
Richard II poses some problems, as there doesn't seem to be any
immediate connection between the two individuals, certainly nothing
within the 5th degree.
This is interesting. Could you be more specific about what this may or
may not imply for your hypothesized rule of thumb regarding the
functional degree-limits of a king (or anyone, in this period) calling
someone kin?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I don't recall exactly, but hasn't there been some claims/speculation
that derives the Grandisons from Thomas, Count of Savoy, ancestor of
Richard II through Henry III's wife?
taf
Outlining the kinship between the senior Countess Philippe and King
Richard II poses some problems, as there doesn't seem to be any
immediate connection between the two individuals, certainly nothing
within the 5th degree. Countess Philippe is known to have been the
daughter of William de Montagu, 1st Earl of Salisbury, by Katherine,
daughter of William de Grandison, Knt., 1st Lord Grandison. While
there are indications that the English royal family was distantly
related to earlier members of the Montagu family, it appears that the
kinship in question between Countess Philippe and King Richard II
comes through her mother's Grandison family.
I don't recall exactly, but hasn't there been some claims/speculation
that derives the Grandisons from Thomas, Count of Savoy, ancestor of
Richard II through Henry III's wife?
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Dear Nat ~
What are the implications for my theory? I've now systematically
studied 164 references to "king's kinswoman," 2 references to
"parentela," and 49 references to "king's cousin," all of which
references are found in the Patent Rolls from 1348 to 1452 (roughly a
hundred years). Of the total 215 references, I can identify the
relationship between the king and the person involved except for 7
references (i.e., 2 to Blanche (_____) (Bradeston) Hake, 1 to Isabel
Russell, and 4 to Lucy Visconti, Countess of Kent). Of the remaining
208 references, all fall within the 5th degree of kindred or closer,
with the exception of 2 references (i.e., 1 to Margery Bacon, lady
Moleyns, and 1 to Philippe de Montagu, Countess of March, which two
women are related in the 6th and 7th degrees of kindred respectively).
This means that 206 of the 208 known relationships are within the 5th
degree, which is approaching the 100% mark. This assumes, of course,
that the two women I've identified as being outside the 5th degree of
kindred, namely Margery Bacon and Philippe de Montagu, have no closer
kinship than the one I have isolated. This assumption may or may not
be correct.
With respect to Lucy Visconti, her ancestry is reputedly all Italian,
whereas the ancestry of her counterpart, King Henry IV of England, is
much different. I suspect but can not prove that the king
occasionally referred to wives/widows of his highborn kinsman as
"king's kinswoman" as a term of respect for their place in the English
royal family or society. This is certainly true in private
correspondence, and I have no reason to think that such a practice
didn't occasionally creep into the public records. If so, this might
explain the four references to Lucy Visconti and the one reference to
Isabel Russell, both of whose husbands were related to the king.
However, given that highborn couples were often both related to the
king, it remains a strong probability that Lucy Visconti and Isabel
Russell were themselves blood related to the king.
In summary, when the ancestries are known, the overwhelming majority
of people referred to as "king's kinsfolk" are blood related within
the 5th degree (206 out of 208 references). We are left with a small
handful of references (9 out of the total 215) which may fall in a
different category. Further research may well move all 9 of the
remaining references into the first category, that is, blood related
within the 5th degree. My previous research suggests this same
pattern will hold with the "king's kinsman" phraseology, which area I
plan to study next.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<nathanieltaylor-DD3AD0.20144329102004@news1.east.earthlink.net>...
What are the implications for my theory? I've now systematically
studied 164 references to "king's kinswoman," 2 references to
"parentela," and 49 references to "king's cousin," all of which
references are found in the Patent Rolls from 1348 to 1452 (roughly a
hundred years). Of the total 215 references, I can identify the
relationship between the king and the person involved except for 7
references (i.e., 2 to Blanche (_____) (Bradeston) Hake, 1 to Isabel
Russell, and 4 to Lucy Visconti, Countess of Kent). Of the remaining
208 references, all fall within the 5th degree of kindred or closer,
with the exception of 2 references (i.e., 1 to Margery Bacon, lady
Moleyns, and 1 to Philippe de Montagu, Countess of March, which two
women are related in the 6th and 7th degrees of kindred respectively).
This means that 206 of the 208 known relationships are within the 5th
degree, which is approaching the 100% mark. This assumes, of course,
that the two women I've identified as being outside the 5th degree of
kindred, namely Margery Bacon and Philippe de Montagu, have no closer
kinship than the one I have isolated. This assumption may or may not
be correct.
With respect to Lucy Visconti, her ancestry is reputedly all Italian,
whereas the ancestry of her counterpart, King Henry IV of England, is
much different. I suspect but can not prove that the king
occasionally referred to wives/widows of his highborn kinsman as
"king's kinswoman" as a term of respect for their place in the English
royal family or society. This is certainly true in private
correspondence, and I have no reason to think that such a practice
didn't occasionally creep into the public records. If so, this might
explain the four references to Lucy Visconti and the one reference to
Isabel Russell, both of whose husbands were related to the king.
However, given that highborn couples were often both related to the
king, it remains a strong probability that Lucy Visconti and Isabel
Russell were themselves blood related to the king.
In summary, when the ancestries are known, the overwhelming majority
of people referred to as "king's kinsfolk" are blood related within
the 5th degree (206 out of 208 references). We are left with a small
handful of references (9 out of the total 215) which may fall in a
different category. Further research may well move all 9 of the
remaining references into the first category, that is, blood related
within the 5th degree. My previous research suggests this same
pattern will hold with the "king's kinsman" phraseology, which area I
plan to study next.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<nathanieltaylor-DD3AD0.20144329102004@news1.east.earthlink.net>...
In article <2619efc9.0410291227.eb82d07@posting.google.com>,
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
When I posted on 'king's kinsfolk" this past week, I inadvertedly
overlooked a reference in my notes to Philippe de Mortimer, Countess
of March, which woman was styled "king's kinswoman" by King Richard II
of England in 1381 [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1377-1381,
pg. 608). Initially, I identified Countess Philippe as the wife of
Edmund de Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (died 1381). This woman would
be related to King Richard II within the 5th degree of kindred.
However, I've since realized that the woman in question was actually
an earlier Countess Philippe, wife of Roger de Mortimer, 2nd Earl of
March. In 1381 the senior Countess Philippe was still living, whereas
the younger Countess Philippe was already deceased [see, for example,
Testamenta Vetusta, 1 (1826) 101, 110-113].
Outlining the kinship between the senior Countess Philippe and King
Richard II poses some problems, as there doesn't seem to be any
immediate connection between the two individuals, certainly nothing
within the 5th degree.
This is interesting. Could you be more specific about what this may or
may not imply for your hypothesized rule of thumb regarding the
functional degree-limits of a king (or anyone, in this period) calling
someone kin?
Nat Taylor
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Dear Newsgroup ~
Surfing the internet last night, I encountered an interesting
biography of Margery Poynings, mother of Margery Bacon, Lady Moleyns
(the latter woman being one of the "king's kinswomen" under discussion
in the current thread). Margery Poynings was, of course, involved in
a sensational abduction by Sir John Dalton in the year, 1347. For
interest's sake, I've copied part of Margery Poynings' biography
below. The item is poorly written, even for the internet, but well
worth reading. The biography refers to Margery as "a great heiress,"
which she was not. The term "a rich widow" is much more applicable.
Complete Peerage obliquely refers to Margery Poynings as a daughter of
Sir Michael Poynings in volume 10, page 659, footnote i. The writer
states: "The matrimonial history of this lady is very fully covered in
the rolls of the King's Chancery." The writer provides us no further
particulars about Margery, so I suppose we are left to search the
rolls of the King's Chancery for the record of this woman's life.
Hopefully, the biography below provides some helpful information
regarding Margery's marriages.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: http://www.britannia.com/bios/ladies/mpoynings.html
Margery Poynings
(c.1310-1349)
'Lady De La Beche of Aldworth'
Born: circa 1310
Died: 1349
Margery was the daughter of Michael, Lord De Poynings. She was first
married to Edmund Bacon, of Essex, who was descended from Sir John
Bacon of Ewelme (Oxfordshire). She held the Manor of Hatfield
Peverall, which Edward II had granted to Edmund Bacon in fee in 1310,
for the term of her life, 'partly of the King and partly of the Earl
of Hereford by homage, and the third part of a knight's fee and two
pairs of gilt spurs of twelve pence price.' And she also held Cressing
Hall or Cressinges, Essex.
By her first husband, Margery had one daughter, Margery Bacon, born
1337, who married, in 1352, William de Molynes, son of Sir John de
Molynes, and she had also a step-daughter Margaret Bacon - daughter of
Edmund Bacon, by his first wife Joan De Braose - who married William,
2nd Baron Kerdeston, of Norfolk.
As her second husband, Margery married Nicholas, Lord De La Beche of
Aldworth (Berkshire) in 1339. They had no children and Nicholas died
in 1345. To Margery, he left his castle of Beaumys, in Swallowfield,
amongst other lands. Margery must have been still quite young and she
was still a great heiress. Consequently, she was exposed to the
designs of many suitors and, the following year, we find her mentioned
as the wife of both Thomas D'Arderne and Gerard De L'Isle. And again,
that same year, Lady Margery De La Beche was carried off and forcibly
married to Sir John De Dalton. Very possibly the black death, which
was raging this year, may have cut off Thomas D'Arderne and Gerard de
L'Isle within a few months of each other.
John De Dalton was son of Robert De Dalton, a large landowner in
Lancashire. Accompanied by many lawless friends, amongst whom were
Henry De Tildersley, Hugh Fazakerley, Sir Thomas Dutton, Sir Edmund De
Mauncestre and William Trussell (the latter had the Manor of
Wokefield, Berkshire, so that he was a near neighbour of Beaumys), on
Good Friday, 7th April 1347, before dawn, John De Dalton and his
companions broke into the Castle of Beaumys and carried off Margery,
Lady De La Beche, and many other prisoners. They killed Michael
Poynings, uncle to Lady Margery, as also Thomas the Clerk of Shipton,
and frightened Roger Hunt, the domestic chaplain, to death. Goods and
chattels were also stolen to the value of £1,000. In consequence of
this assault, a writ was directed to the Sheriff of Lancashire to
arrest John De Dalton and all his accomplices and commit them to the
Tower of London. On the same day, John D'Arcy, Keeper of the Tower,
was commanded to receive Sir John De Dalton, his companions and
Robert, his father. A precept was also issued to the Sheriffs of
Berkshire and other counties to seize, into the King's hands, all the
lands, goods and chattels of the said Margery. Thomas De Litherland,
the Prior of Buscogh, Tildersleigh and Dutton, were tried and
convicted at the summer assizes for Wiltshire, holden before William
De Thorpe, Chief Justice of England, and others, but were pardoned on
28th November following.
In a roll of 1348, we find an order for the sale of woods "pertaining
to Margery who was wife of Nicholas De La Beche, ore la femme Johan,
son of Robert De Dalton, by reason of the forfeiture of the said John
for treasons and felonies." The said Lady Margery died this same year,
'seised of Swallowfield.'
Surfing the internet last night, I encountered an interesting
biography of Margery Poynings, mother of Margery Bacon, Lady Moleyns
(the latter woman being one of the "king's kinswomen" under discussion
in the current thread). Margery Poynings was, of course, involved in
a sensational abduction by Sir John Dalton in the year, 1347. For
interest's sake, I've copied part of Margery Poynings' biography
below. The item is poorly written, even for the internet, but well
worth reading. The biography refers to Margery as "a great heiress,"
which she was not. The term "a rich widow" is much more applicable.
Complete Peerage obliquely refers to Margery Poynings as a daughter of
Sir Michael Poynings in volume 10, page 659, footnote i. The writer
states: "The matrimonial history of this lady is very fully covered in
the rolls of the King's Chancery." The writer provides us no further
particulars about Margery, so I suppose we are left to search the
rolls of the King's Chancery for the record of this woman's life.
Hopefully, the biography below provides some helpful information
regarding Margery's marriages.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: http://www.britannia.com/bios/ladies/mpoynings.html
Margery Poynings
(c.1310-1349)
'Lady De La Beche of Aldworth'
Born: circa 1310
Died: 1349
Margery was the daughter of Michael, Lord De Poynings. She was first
married to Edmund Bacon, of Essex, who was descended from Sir John
Bacon of Ewelme (Oxfordshire). She held the Manor of Hatfield
Peverall, which Edward II had granted to Edmund Bacon in fee in 1310,
for the term of her life, 'partly of the King and partly of the Earl
of Hereford by homage, and the third part of a knight's fee and two
pairs of gilt spurs of twelve pence price.' And she also held Cressing
Hall or Cressinges, Essex.
By her first husband, Margery had one daughter, Margery Bacon, born
1337, who married, in 1352, William de Molynes, son of Sir John de
Molynes, and she had also a step-daughter Margaret Bacon - daughter of
Edmund Bacon, by his first wife Joan De Braose - who married William,
2nd Baron Kerdeston, of Norfolk.
As her second husband, Margery married Nicholas, Lord De La Beche of
Aldworth (Berkshire) in 1339. They had no children and Nicholas died
in 1345. To Margery, he left his castle of Beaumys, in Swallowfield,
amongst other lands. Margery must have been still quite young and she
was still a great heiress. Consequently, she was exposed to the
designs of many suitors and, the following year, we find her mentioned
as the wife of both Thomas D'Arderne and Gerard De L'Isle. And again,
that same year, Lady Margery De La Beche was carried off and forcibly
married to Sir John De Dalton. Very possibly the black death, which
was raging this year, may have cut off Thomas D'Arderne and Gerard de
L'Isle within a few months of each other.
John De Dalton was son of Robert De Dalton, a large landowner in
Lancashire. Accompanied by many lawless friends, amongst whom were
Henry De Tildersley, Hugh Fazakerley, Sir Thomas Dutton, Sir Edmund De
Mauncestre and William Trussell (the latter had the Manor of
Wokefield, Berkshire, so that he was a near neighbour of Beaumys), on
Good Friday, 7th April 1347, before dawn, John De Dalton and his
companions broke into the Castle of Beaumys and carried off Margery,
Lady De La Beche, and many other prisoners. They killed Michael
Poynings, uncle to Lady Margery, as also Thomas the Clerk of Shipton,
and frightened Roger Hunt, the domestic chaplain, to death. Goods and
chattels were also stolen to the value of £1,000. In consequence of
this assault, a writ was directed to the Sheriff of Lancashire to
arrest John De Dalton and all his accomplices and commit them to the
Tower of London. On the same day, John D'Arcy, Keeper of the Tower,
was commanded to receive Sir John De Dalton, his companions and
Robert, his father. A precept was also issued to the Sheriffs of
Berkshire and other counties to seize, into the King's hands, all the
lands, goods and chattels of the said Margery. Thomas De Litherland,
the Prior of Buscogh, Tildersleigh and Dutton, were tried and
convicted at the summer assizes for Wiltshire, holden before William
De Thorpe, Chief Justice of England, and others, but were pardoned on
28th November following.
In a roll of 1348, we find an order for the sale of woods "pertaining
to Margery who was wife of Nicholas De La Beche, ore la femme Johan,
son of Robert De Dalton, by reason of the forfeiture of the said John
for treasons and felonies." The said Lady Margery died this same year,
'seised of Swallowfield.'
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<4182E8C0.3030308@interfold.com>...
Dear Todd ~
I believe the Savoy connection in Philippe de Montagu's Grandison
ancestry makes her more remotely related to King Richard II than the
Dammartin tie I've highlighted in my post. All the same, I appreciate
you mentioning this second link between the two parties.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Outlining the kinship between the senior Countess Philippe and King
Richard II poses some problems, as there doesn't seem to be any
immediate connection between the two individuals, certainly nothing
within the 5th degree. Countess Philippe is known to have been the
daughter of William de Montagu, 1st Earl of Salisbury, by Katherine,
daughter of William de Grandison, Knt., 1st Lord Grandison. While
there are indications that the English royal family was distantly
related to earlier members of the Montagu family, it appears that the
kinship in question between Countess Philippe and King Richard II
comes through her mother's Grandison family.
I don't recall exactly, but hasn't there been some claims/speculation
that derives the Grandisons from Thomas, Count of Savoy, ancestor of
Richard II through Henry III's wife?
taf
Dear Todd ~
I believe the Savoy connection in Philippe de Montagu's Grandison
ancestry makes her more remotely related to King Richard II than the
Dammartin tie I've highlighted in my post. All the same, I appreciate
you mentioning this second link between the two parties.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a further update to the current discussion regarding the ancestry
of King Richard II's kinswoman, Margery Bacon, Lady Moleyns (died
1399), I've examined the passage in Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 40 (sub
Moleyns) which identifies Margery Bacon's parentage. It states that
Margery Bacon was the "daughter of Edmund Bacoun, of Norfolk, by his
2nd wife, Margery Poynings, whose heir she was." As we can see, the
parentage of Margery Bacon's mother, Margery de Poynings, is not
stated in the Moleyns account.
Elsewhere, the Poynings account in Complete Peerage mentions Margery
de Poynings' sensational abduction in 1347 by Sir John Dalton and the
murder of her brother, Michael de Poynings, but makes no mention of
her husbands, including Edmund Bacon [Reference: Complete Peerage, 10
(1945): 659, footnote i]. From the information provided, however, it
is clear that Margery de Poynings was the daughter of Sir Michael de
Poynings (died 1314), by his wife, Margery.
Some years ago, I recall seeing information on Margery de Poynings in
the book, Honors and Knights' Fees, by Farrer. Among various effects
found in Margery's belongings either at the time or her abduction or
death, there were personal items which displayed the Poynings arms.
As such, I don't think there is any question that Margery was a
Poynings.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.0410300908.20752d7b@posting.google.com>...
As a further update to the current discussion regarding the ancestry
of King Richard II's kinswoman, Margery Bacon, Lady Moleyns (died
1399), I've examined the passage in Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 40 (sub
Moleyns) which identifies Margery Bacon's parentage. It states that
Margery Bacon was the "daughter of Edmund Bacoun, of Norfolk, by his
2nd wife, Margery Poynings, whose heir she was." As we can see, the
parentage of Margery Bacon's mother, Margery de Poynings, is not
stated in the Moleyns account.
Elsewhere, the Poynings account in Complete Peerage mentions Margery
de Poynings' sensational abduction in 1347 by Sir John Dalton and the
murder of her brother, Michael de Poynings, but makes no mention of
her husbands, including Edmund Bacon [Reference: Complete Peerage, 10
(1945): 659, footnote i]. From the information provided, however, it
is clear that Margery de Poynings was the daughter of Sir Michael de
Poynings (died 1314), by his wife, Margery.
Some years ago, I recall seeing information on Margery de Poynings in
the book, Honors and Knights' Fees, by Farrer. Among various effects
found in Margery's belongings either at the time or her abduction or
death, there were personal items which displayed the Poynings arms.
As such, I don't think there is any question that Margery was a
Poynings.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.0410300908.20752d7b@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Surfing the internet last night, I encountered an interesting
biography of Margery Poynings, mother of Margery Bacon, Lady Moleyns
(the latter woman being one of the "king's kinswomen" under discussion
in the current thread). Margery Poynings was, of course, involved in
a sensational abduction by Sir John Dalton in the year, 1347. For
interest's sake, I've copied part of Margery Poynings' biography
below. The item is poorly written, even for the internet, but well
worth reading. The biography refers to Margery as "a great heiress,"
which she was not. The term "a rich widow" is much more applicable.
Complete Peerage obliquely refers to Margery Poynings as a daughter of
Sir Michael Poynings in volume 10, page 659, footnote i. The writer
states: "The matrimonial history of this lady is very fully covered in
the rolls of the King's Chancery." The writer provides us no further
particulars about Margery, so I suppose we are left to search the
rolls of the King's Chancery for the record of this woman's life.
Hopefully, the biography below provides some helpful information
regarding Margery's marriages.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: http://www.britannia.com/bios/ladies/mpoynings.html
Margery Poynings
(c.1310-1349)
'Lady De La Beche of Aldworth'
Born: circa 1310
Died: 1349
Margery was the daughter of Michael, Lord De Poynings. She was first
married to Edmund Bacon, of Essex, who was descended from Sir John
Bacon of Ewelme (Oxfordshire). She held the Manor of Hatfield
Peverall, which Edward II had granted to Edmund Bacon in fee in 1310,
for the term of her life, 'partly of the King and partly of the Earl
of Hereford by homage, and the third part of a knight's fee and two
pairs of gilt spurs of twelve pence price.' And she also held Cressing
Hall or Cressinges, Essex.
By her first husband, Margery had one daughter, Margery Bacon, born
1337, who married, in 1352, William de Molynes, son of Sir John de
Molynes, and she had also a step-daughter Margaret Bacon - daughter of
Edmund Bacon, by his first wife Joan De Braose - who married William,
2nd Baron Kerdeston, of Norfolk.
As her second husband, Margery married Nicholas, Lord De La Beche of
Aldworth (Berkshire) in 1339. They had no children and Nicholas died
in 1345. To Margery, he left his castle of Beaumys, in Swallowfield,
amongst other lands. Margery must have been still quite young and she
was still a great heiress. Consequently, she was exposed to the
designs of many suitors and, the following year, we find her mentioned
as the wife of both Thomas D'Arderne and Gerard De L'Isle. And again,
that same year, Lady Margery De La Beche was carried off and forcibly
married to Sir John De Dalton. Very possibly the black death, which
was raging this year, may have cut off Thomas D'Arderne and Gerard de
L'Isle within a few months of each other.
John De Dalton was son of Robert De Dalton, a large landowner in
Lancashire. Accompanied by many lawless friends, amongst whom were
Henry De Tildersley, Hugh Fazakerley, Sir Thomas Dutton, Sir Edmund De
Mauncestre and William Trussell (the latter had the Manor of
Wokefield, Berkshire, so that he was a near neighbour of Beaumys), on
Good Friday, 7th April 1347, before dawn, John De Dalton and his
companions broke into the Castle of Beaumys and carried off Margery,
Lady De La Beche, and many other prisoners. They killed Michael
Poynings, uncle to Lady Margery, as also Thomas the Clerk of Shipton,
and frightened Roger Hunt, the domestic chaplain, to death. Goods and
chattels were also stolen to the value of £1,000. In consequence of
this assault, a writ was directed to the Sheriff of Lancashire to
arrest John De Dalton and all his accomplices and commit them to the
Tower of London. On the same day, John D'Arcy, Keeper of the Tower,
was commanded to receive Sir John De Dalton, his companions and
Robert, his father. A precept was also issued to the Sheriffs of
Berkshire and other counties to seize, into the King's hands, all the
lands, goods and chattels of the said Margery. Thomas De Litherland,
the Prior of Buscogh, Tildersleigh and Dutton, were tried and
convicted at the summer assizes for Wiltshire, holden before William
De Thorpe, Chief Justice of England, and others, but were pardoned on
28th November following.
In a roll of 1348, we find an order for the sale of woods "pertaining
to Margery who was wife of Nicholas De La Beche, ore la femme Johan,
son of Robert De Dalton, by reason of the forfeiture of the said John
for treasons and felonies." The said Lady Margery died this same year,
'seised of Swallowfield.'