GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1060399556
Subject: Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of Rothesay
Date: 09 Aug 2003 03:25:56 GMT
>Yes, it's true that the English kings were descended from Malcolm
>Canmore, King of Scotland. However, this is far too distant a
>relationship for them to have acknowledged in the late 1300's. As a
>general rule, kings acknowledged kinship when it fell within the 5th
>degree of kinship (4th cousin).
>degree of kinship (4th cousin). Once a kinship was more distant than
>this, no acknowledgement was made of the relationship.
I think that's a rather tenuous, if not dangerous assumption, at least where
king's are concerned. When one is referring to a "blood relation" and such
connection is well known to all (St. Margaret and her ancestry), why should
such a reference not be made, especially if the king might not have immediately
been aware of a more obscure maternal trail, instead of making reference to an
important historical relationship.
"As a general rule...." A general rule is exactly that, general. It's
dangerous to get stuck in one's mind that something HAS to be a certain way
(such as the assumption that 'friend' also meant kinsman) and then discard the
|Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of Rothesay by (Reedpcgen)|