GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-03 > 1080077632


From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine, Lord and Lady
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:33:52 GMT
References: <7b33cc41.0403200742.50b3d6ac@posting.google.com> <hF37c.117696$Wa.71744@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <7b33cc41.0403210008.d89f820@posting.google.com> <88abeaa.0403211502.69c87c2a@posting.google.com> <c3n1je025r1@enews3.newsguy.com> <XJI7c.120236$Wa.90957@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <7b33cc41.0403231248.31e39ac@posting.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <7b33cc41.0403231248.31e39ac@posting.google.com>


Nicholas Whyte wrote:

<chomp>

> It's a long
> shot, but provided we state clearly that it is a long shot, surely
> better to speculate than keep quiet?

I agree - as I said at the first, you have raised an interesting
possibility. My concern was that we should not settle too readily on 14
December 1123 as Eleanor's birthdate, from your initial post. I think
it's clear enough now that any acceptance of this must be very tentative
at best.

A few minor observations haven't been made yet: first, Nicholas
suggested that the king referred to in the horoscope might be Philip II
of France, who was the son of Eleanor's former husband but not, of
course, her own. The subject of the document _may_ be a mother, but not
necessarily the mother of a king.

Secondly, is it plausible that any such personal document of the queen
would have been copied by Roger of Hereford into his text on horoscopes,
not exactly a reputable line of enquiry, leaving in the king but taking
out any identifier of the queen herself? I should have thought a
completely anonymous worked example would suit his purposes better than
stirring up curiosity on that score.

Peter Stewart

This thread: