GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-10 > 1099271726


From: Nathaniel Taylor <>
Subject: Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:15:26 GMT
References: <12e.4fd743f9.2eb57823@aol.com> <2619efc9.0410311148.2fbd6fe9@posting.google.com>


> wrote in message
> news:<>...

> > {see Social Ties and
> > Social Strata, The Family, In: Wales In the Early Middle Ages, by Wendy
> > Davies,
> > Leicester University Press, 1982, pp. 71- 81. The Welsh term for kindred
> > is
> > "cenedl" and the principle of kinship "parentelae".

It is interesting that your source specifies an abstract definition for
the Latin word 'parentela' in this context. Is this from this article
in _Wales in the Early Middle Ages_, or does that reference only apply
to the earlier observations in your post?

> > Welsh laws made clear
> > statements about the structure of the Welsh kindred (cenedl) and defined
> > certain
> > responsibilities between tribes and the kindred group. Most Welsh law
> > involved
> > the kindred to six-generations, with a six-generation patilineal kindred.
> > For
> > some purposes, such as homicide payments, the kindred extended to the fifth
> > cousins, for others such as inheritance, the sharing did not go beyond the
> > second cousin.

This observation--that the expected obligations of one's agnate
parenetela extended to six degrees for one purpose (criminal penalties)
while it would be considered smaller for other purposes--reflects an
important general observation: how comprehensive one's 'family' or 'kin'
may be considered depends on the context. The same observation has been
made in many other contexts: who is considered family (whatever term may
be used for the grouping) may vary depending on the context: pious
commmoration in monastic necrologies; co-donors and quitclaimants in
land-grants; related persons with varying obligations under Germanic or
Celtic law (as above); possible inheritors; etc. In short, whatever the
term used for 'family' (or extended family), how it would have been
measured, and what its limits were, may varied even at the same time and
place. It makes it rather more difficult to answer the question 'how
much did medieval people know of their kin', or even 'how much were they
expected to know', since it varied depending on the context.

This is one of the important caveats about Doug's apparent pattern of
the usage of a term of kinship applied by a Plantagenet king to cousins:
if the usage appears to have been customarily limited to people within
the fifth degree (at least among this set of 14th-c. letters patent), it
was simply another abritrary convention, and does not necessarily
reflect the limits of the kings' knowledge of their kin.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

This thread: