GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1060917176


From:
Subject: Re: King's kinsfolk: Robert II, King of Scotland...
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:12:59 EDT


Thursday, 14 August, 2003


Dear Nat (et al.),

As I understand it, this would not be necessary (in the present instance)
for two reasons:

1. If the relationship had been to (or via) a spouse,
that would evidently have been indicated. To quote
Douglas R. (from 13 August in this thread),

" 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, 1279–1288
(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 consort")."

2. In addition to the relationship indicated between
Richard de Burgh (d. 1326) and Kings Edward I and II,
we also have Edward III addressing King Robert II
of Scots (d. 1390), great-nephew of Richard de
Burgh, as "our cousin" in 1373 (see Douglas
Richardson, first post in this thread).

It appears quite certain that, unless we are dealing with multiple
unknown relationships to the Angevin kings of England, there is a common (and not
overly remote) ancestor between Richard de Burgh and Robert II of Scots on one
side, and the English kings on the other.

All the best,

John






This thread: