GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1060764727
From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of Rothesay
Date: 13 Aug 2003 01:52:07 -0700
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Newsgroup ~
I've learned that Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, was styled
"queen's kinsman" by Queen Eleanor of Castile [Reference: Calendar of
Documents Rel. to Ireland, vol. 1, No. 2102]. As noted earlier in
this thread, Earl Richard was elsewhere styled "king's cousin" by
Eleanor's husband, King Edward I [Reference: Cal. Chancery Warrants
(1927): 261 (Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, styled "king's
cousin")]. For Earl Richard to be kinsman to both the king and queen,
this suggests that Richard de Burgh likely shared the same ancestry
which Queen Eleanor and King Edward had in common. In this case,
Queen Eleanor and King Edward I are known have had a common descent
from King Henry II of England.
It should be noted that on other occasions, King Edward I carefully
distinguished when he was addressing people related only to his wife.
For examples of his wife's relatives being so stipulated, see Calendar
of Close Rolls, 12791288 (1902): 79, 159 (Jacob [James] de Ispannia
styled "queen's kinsman"; James de Ispannia styled "nephew of the
queen the king's consort"), 342 (Alfonsus de Ispannia styled "kinsman
of Queen Eleanor, the King's consort"); Calendar of Chancery Warrants
(1927): 27 (Sir Reynald, Count of Guelders, Duke of Limburg styled
"kinsman of the king's consort, [Eleanor]"), 100 (Sir Ingeram de
Fynles [Fiennes] styled "cousin to Eleanor formerly the king's
This information fits John Ravilious' hypothesis that Richard de
Burgh's paternal grandmother was an illegitimate daughter of King
Henry II of England. As I've noted in an earlier post, the chronology
would also permit Richard de Burgh's grandmother to be an illegitimate
daughter of King John of England. Either descent would make Richard
de Burgh kinsman to both King Edward I and Queen Eleanor of Castile.
As noted elsewhere, Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, was likewise
styled "cousin" by Edward I and Eleanor's son, Edward, Prince of Wales
(future King Edward II) [Reference: H. Johnstone, Letters of Edward
Prince of Wales 13041305 (1931): 17].
The royal Burgh connection is almost certainly the explanation for why
King Robert II of Scotland, great nephew of Richard de Burgh, was
called "kinsman" by King Edward III. A shared descent from either
King Henry II or King John would create a kinship between these
parties of at least the 5th degree on one side.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
(Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<>...
> Dear John ~
> I believe it's possible that William de Burgh's unknown wife was the
> daughter not of King Henry II, but rather of his son, King John.
> King John had many illegitimate children born over the course of his
> adult life. His eldest known illegitimate child, Geoffrey, first
> surfaces in 1200 and was clearly acting as an adult by 1204.
> If John had an illegitimate daughter of the same age as Geoffrey, she
> would have just enough time to marry William de Burgh, produce a
> child, and then have William de Burgh die in 1205.
> Also, given that we have so many illegitimate sons for King John and
> know so few daughters, it stands to reason that we are missing the
> names of a few of his daughters.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> (John Ravilious) wrote in message news:<>...
> > Dear Phil,
> > Comments are interspersed below.
> > ("Phil Moody") wrote in message news:<001001c35ea0$5f922f20$>...
> > > Dear Doug:
> > >
> > > Edward (II)'s daughter Joan married David (II), King of Scots. His parents
> > > were Robert (I) and Elizabeth de Burgh. Would not a dispensation be necessary
> > > if they were already related?
> > ~ If my theory is correct as to the de Burgh descent is correct,
> > David II of Scots and Joan of England would have been related
> > in
> > the 6th and 5th degrees (4th cousins 1x removed). I believe
> > this
> > was one degree beyond their being required to receive
> > dispensation
> > for marriage at that time.
> > See below:
> > Eleanor = Henry II ~ _________
> > of Aquitaine I of England I
> > _______________I _ _ _ _ _
> > I I
> > John of England William de Burgh = NN
> > I d. 1205 I
> > I ____________I
> > I I
> > Henry III of England Richard de Burgh = bef 21 Apr 1225
> > I d. bef Feb 1242/3 I
> > I _____________I
> > I I
> > * EDWARD I of Walter de Burgh = Aveline FitzJohn
> > England d. 28 July 1271 I
> > _____I___________ ______I______________________
> > I I I I
> > *EDWARD II of Joan = Gilbert RICHARD DE BURGH Giles
> > (Egidia)
> > England I de Clare d bef 29 Jul 1326 = James
> > the
> > __I_____ I * "Cousin" [E I, E II]
> > Stewart
> > I I I = Margaret [de Guines ?] I
> > I Joan = David I ____I_______ I
> > I (+) II I I I I
> > I I I I I
> > **EDWARD III of Elizabeth = John de Elizabeth Walter
> > the
> > England de Clare I Burgh = Robert_the_ Stewart
> > =
> > I I Bruce (2nd wife) Marjory
> > Bruce
> > I I I I
> > I William de Burgh David II ROBERT
> > II
> > I Earl of Ulster KING OF SCOTS KNG OF
> > SCOTS
> > I ____________I = Joan of ** "Our
> > Cousin"
> > I I England [E III]
> > Lionel = Elizabeth
> > of I de Clare
> > Antwerp I
> > I
> > V
> > Hope the foregoing is helpful.
> > John
|Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland and David, Duke of Rothesay by (Douglas Richardson)|