GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1060401003


From: "Jeffery A. Duvall" <>
Subject: Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of Rothesay
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 23:50:03 -0400
References: <5cf47a19.0308081724.1e5d65ee@posting.google.com> <20030808232556.20151.00001371@mb-m29.aol.com> <001401c35e2b$79cba620$1a690044@tu.ok.cox.net>


I may be going out on a limb here, but if you're referring to Edward III's
claim to the French throne, at the outset of the Hundred Years War, wasn't
it through his mother Isabelle of France? As the grandson of Philip IV and
nephew of the last three (adult) Capetian kings (Louis X, Philip V, and
Charles IV), Edward III maintained that his claim to the French throne was
superior to that of his rival Philip VI (founder of the Valois dynasty) who
was also the grandson of a French king (Philip III), but only the first
cousin of those same last three Capetian monarchs.

So unless I've missed something, by the time you get to the generation of
Henry V, you're dealing with ggg-grandchildren of Philip IV. Of course
Henry V married another French princess and arranged to have himself (and
thus his son and heir, Henry VI) recognized as the heir to the French throne
in 1420 with the Treaty of Troyes. By the mid-15th century, however, the
English were more or less confined to Calais and were never in a position to
push their claims to the French crown.

Still, according to one of my books (*Lines of Sucession: Heraldry of the
Royal Families of Europe*), the English monarchs continued to style
themselves Kings of France until 1801...

Jeff Duvall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Moody" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of
Rothesay


> Dear Paul:
>
> I think you have a fair point. The thought occurred to me, perhaps we
could
> use England's claim to the French throne as a litmus test of how far
Monarch's
> viewed familial relationships. I know to little about the English claim to
the
> French throne, but perhaps someone is aware of whence it began, and when
> England finally gave up any pretense to the French throne. How distantly
> related were the Kings of England and France removed from one another when
> this issue was resolved?
>
> Best Wishes,
> Phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Reedpcgen" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:25 PM
> Subject: Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke
of
> Rothesay
>
>
> > >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
> > obvious (IMHO).
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
>
>
>


This thread: