GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-07 > 1122712141


From: "Douglas Richardson " <>
Subject: Re: Faramus of Boulonge and Richard de Lucy
Date: 30 Jul 2005 01:29:01 -0700
References: <55.78350a9e.301beb76@aol.com> <1122673274.505413.141110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <WHyGe.66319$oJ.21668@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <WHyGe.66319$oJ.21668@news-server.bigpond.net.au>


Dear Peter ~

Nice post. Keep up the good work.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
> <snip>
>
> > The short end of it is that "nepos" should not be translated as nephew
> > prior to 1300, unless you have other evidence to confirm the
> > relationship.
>
> The classical meaning of "nepos" was "grandson" or simply "descendant", but
> the word was used for "nephew" in countless medieval sources over the
> centuries before 1300.
>
> Ideally other evidence should be adduced to confirm ANY relationship term -
> no matter where it appears or who used it, as even in personal charters
> scribes and copyists could have made an error - but of course this is not
> always possible.
>
> P{eter Stewart

This thread: