GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1060398504
Subject: Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of Rothesay
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 23:08:24 EDT
Friday, 8 August, 2003
Dear Douglas, Phil, et al.,
An avenue for resolving the relationship between Robert II,
King of Scots and Edward III of England (found by Douglas
Richardson in Foedera - 1st post in this thread) has been
One near relation of Robert II has been identified as being
related to Edward I of England, with the relationship not yet
resolved. In Douglas Richardson's as-yet unpublished manuscript
for "Plantagenet Ancestry (3rd ed)", there is evidence found in
the Chancery Warrants. One document in that collection records
that Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster (d. 1326) was styled by
Edward I as "king's cousin" . The existence of this
relationship is further supported in the published Letters of
Edward [II], Prince of Wales, which Douglas also cites as
identifying this same Richard de Burgh (called "Earl of Ulster"
in the specific letter) as "cousin" .
The ancestry of Richard de Burgh is relatively well known,
with the significant exception of his great-grandmother, the wife
of William de Burgh, lord of Connaught (d. 1205). She was
previously identified as a daughter of Donnell/Domnall O'Brian,
king of Thomond: this has been corrected, as shown by Stewart
Baldwin (and possibly others) to show that this individual was
possibly a wife of William de Burgh, but not the mother of his
heir and successor in Connaught, Richard de Burgh (d. before 17
Feb 1242/3) . The identity of the mother of Richard de Burgh,
ancestor of the Earls of Ulster, then reverted to "unknown".
It now appears likely that this unidentified wife of William
de Burgh was well connected with the royal house of England. This
would not be the sole example of such high association for the de
Burgh family in that generation - witness the marriages of Hubert
de Burgh, to the Countess of Gloucester as well as a daughter of
King William _the Lion_ .
Given the chronology both for William de Burgh and his
immediate descendants, I would suggest his wife was likely an
otherwise unidentified illegitimate daughter of Henry II of
England. Such a connection would yield the following
~~~ NOTE: The following chart is conjectural ~~~
Eleanor = Henry II ~ _________
of Aquitaine I of England I
_______________I _ _ _ _ _
John of England William de Burgh = NN
I d. 1205 I
Henry III of England Richard de Burgh = bef 21 Apr 1225
I d. bef Feb 1242/3 I
* EDWARD I of Walter de Burgh = Aveline FitzJohn
England d. 28 July 1271 I
I I I
* EDWARD II of RICHARD DE BURGH Giles (Egidia)
England d bef 29 Jul 1326 = James the Stewart
I * "Cousin" [E I, E II] I
I = Margaret [de Guines ?] I
I ____I_______ I
I I I I
** EDWARD III of V Elizabeth Walter the Stewart
England = Robert _the_ = Marjory Bruce
I Bruce (2nd wife) I
V I I
V ROBERT II
KING OF SCOTS
** "Our Cousin" [E III]
If such was the relationship of the de Burghs of Ulster to the
royal family of England, Richard de Burgh (d. 1326) was 2nd cousin
1x removed to Edward I and 3rd cousin to Edward II, both of whom
addressed him as "cousin". Robert II of Scotland, addressed by
Edward III of England as "our cousin", would then have been 4th
cousin 1x removed to that English king. Interestingly, it would
also make Elizabeth de Burgh, 2nd wife of Robert I (the Bruce) of
Scotland, a 2nd cousin 2x removed to her captor (in 1306) Edward
I of England.
Good luck, and good hunting.
 Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry: Medieval and
Colonial Families of Plantagenet Descent (publication pending),
p. 13. Citation: Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927):261.
 Ibid., p. 15. Citation: H. Johnstone, Letters of Edward
Prince of Wales, 1304-1305 (1931): 17.
 Stewart Baldwin, <Re: Donnell O'Brien, king of Thomond>,
SGM, 29 August 2001. In part this reads,
" The primary source making the claim that William de Burgh married
a daughter of Domnall Mór is the Book of Lecan (an early fifteenth
century manuscript), folio 82r. It is in a genealogical tract on
the sept known as Uí Maine (later Hy-Many), and was given with an
English translation in John O'Donovan's "The Tribes and Customs
of Hy-Many" (Dublin, 1843), p. 44 (Irish) and p. 45 (English
translation). The full text of the relevant paragraph is as
Sé meic Domnaill Moir, mic Taidg Taillten, .i. Concobar, ocus
Tadg Find Maigi Ruscach, ocus Eogan, ocus Tomas Espoc, ocus
Lochlaind, ocus Diarmaid. Ingen Domnall Moir h-I Bhriain, mathair
an t-seisir sin, ocus derbsiur di mathair Fheidlimid, mic
CathailCroib-deirg, ocus derbsiur eli doib mathair Ricaird, mic
Uilliam Find, o fuil Clann Ricaird.
[Note: The manuscript contains numerous abbreviated forms, which
are silently expanded by O'Donovan. For example, the word "ocus"
is always an ampersand in the manuscript. There are a few cases
where lenition (given by a following "h" in modern Irish) is given
as a dot over the letter by O'Donovan, and I have given it by a
following "h", due to the lack of the relevant symbols on computer
O'Donovan's English translation:
Domhnall Mor, the son of Tadhg Taillten, had six sons,
viz., Conchobhar, Tadhg Finn of Magh Ruscach, Eoghan, Thomas the
Bishop, Lochlainn, and Diarmaid. The daughter of Domnall Mor
O'Brien was the mother of these six sons, and her sister was the
mother of Feidlimidh, the son of Cathal Croibhdherg [Charles the
Redhanded] O'Conor, and another sister was the mother of Rickard,
son of William Finn, from whom are the Clann-Rickard.
[Notes: In a note at the bottom, O'Donovan gives 1263 as the date
of death for Thomas the Bishop. O'Donovan has apparently
modernized the spellings of the names to nineteenth century forms.
The anglicization of "Charles" for "Cathal" would have been later,
and it is not likely that Cathal would have been known as "Charles"
in his own lifetime. The bracket after "Redhanded was misplaced by
O'Donovan, and should have been put after "O'Conor", which is also
not in the manuscript.]
The tract, as it exists now, could not have been written before
the year 1378, for it refers (p.49 of O'Donovan's translation) to
a "Muichertach the Bishop" who is known to have become bishop in
that year. On the other hand, the writer was giving an account of
the sept Uí Maine, and there would have been no obvious motive for
him to invent a mother for Richard de Burgh. Thus, it seems likely
that he was either updating an earlier account, or had some other
written source for the statement.
However, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the
above account from the Book of Lecan is correct as it is given,
there is another problem, and that is that the descents from this
family which are relevant to most people follow through William's
son Richard (d. 1243), so the marriage, even if true, does not do
much good (for the purposes of tracing ancestry from Domnall)
unless this Richard can be shown to be a son of that marriage.
In the genealogical table in volume 9 of "A New History of
Ireland", p. 170, the Clanricard line of the Burkes is traced
back to a certain Richard "the younger", who is then given
(with a dotted line) as a possible younger son of William de
Burgh (d. 1205), and thus as a same-named brother of Richard
(d. 1243), ancestor of the de Burgh earls of Ulster. A note
at the bottom the page of that genealogical table states:
"The origins of the Clanricard line are not absolutely proven,
but the descent given is that of the best Irish genealogical
sources, and is not contradicted by contemporary sources."
Thus, if this is correct, the statement of the Book of Lecan
would apply to the younger Richard, and not to the Richard who
died in 1243, who would then likely be a son of William by another
marriage. Thus, if we accept the account of the Book of Lecan as
being accurate, it would apply to the Richard who died in 1243
only if it could be shown that he (and not a younger brother of
the same name) were the ancestor of the Burghs of Clanricard. "
 CP VII:133-142, sub Kent.
|Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of Rothesay by|