GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-10 > 1004191952


From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
Subject: Re: Who srarted to use the name Stuart : WasRoyal Family of Europe
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 22:12:32 +0800
References: <3bb83ec6.977002@ca.news.verio.net> <3bd4bcea.372345@ca.news.verio.net> <3.0.6.32.20011027093859.007c54e0@ishipress.com>


I understood, apparently wronly, that we were talking about Mary, Queen of
Scots, the same one about whom was argued whether she was or was not the one
who started the name of Stuart.

That sentence of James King of Scots' second wife being a commoner, "and
therefor illegitimately born" is still rubbish. If every commoner was a
bastard, why did the commoners bother to keep on marrying? Being a commoner
and beinhg a bastard have nothing to do with each other.
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Sloan" <>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <>; <>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Who srarted to use the name Stuart : WasRoyal Family of Europe


> At 08:23 PM 10/27/2001 +0800, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> >Sorry Sam, have a look at the bottom.
> >
> [snip]
>
> >There is a lot more to it and you seem to have missed a fair amount.
> >1.Matthew Stewart, 13th Earl of Lennox was in France from 1532 till 1543
and
> >I believe he was the first one to spell his surname as Stuart.
> >His son Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, marrried Mary Stewart, Queen of
Scots.
> >The Stewarts before (and including Mary) were Stewarts, the Scottish
Royals
> >afterwards were Stuart.
> >
> >2.Shock horror, Marie de Guise a bastard? Who told you that? The silly
> >discription that mentioned her as a commoner can be regarded as correct.
> >James V married first a Royal French Princess and after her death he
married
> >Marie de Guise, daughter of a Lorraine Duc de Guise, not hing common
about
> >that one.
> >Best wishes
> >Leo van de Pas
> >PS. I have been away for a week.
>
> I am sure that this is only a small fraction of what I have missed. All I
> have really done is complied information from a wide variety of sources
and
> merged them all together. In cases of conflicts, of which there are many,
I
> have simply made my best guess as to which one is right.
>
> However, in the above instance you have misread what I wrote. I have a
> possible ancestor named Mary Stuart. I say possible because my
> great-great-great-grandfather Andrew Graham had two or three wives and I
am
> not sure from which wife I am descended.
>
> His mother-in-law was named Mary Stuart. She was said to be descended
"from
> King James of Scotland by his second wife, a commoner."
>
> The family histories do not say which King James of Scotland. Now that I
> have been studying the family histories of the various King James of
> Scotland, I have learned what you already knew, which is that most of them
> had a string of mistresses and a bunch of bastard children. Most of these
> bastard children are nevertheless considered royalty. There are so many
> that I suspect that many people claimed to be the bastard son of the king
> when they were not.
>
> When I wrote "by his second wife, a commoner", I was not writing about
> Marie de Guise or about King James V. I was writing about the ancestor of
> my ancestor, Mary Stuart. I realize that Mary Queen of Scots was also
named
> Mary Stuart, but she was not my grandmother, as far as I know.
>
> Another member of this group has sent me privately a list of Mary Stuarts
> who were in America at that time. The name was much more common than I had
> imagined.
>
> Sam Sloan
> http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafx2.htm
> http://www.anusha.com/pafx2.htm
>
>

This thread: