GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-05 > 1147013912


From: "Douglas Richardson" <>
Subject: Re: SP Addition: Ancestry of Elizabeth de Caldcote (and Livingston of Kilsyth)
Date: 7 May 2006 07:58:32 -0700
References: <2d9.705b370.318d01ef@aol.com> <1146870981.489392.36240@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1146920793.840656.242650@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1146925855.707170.273820@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1146925855.707170.273820@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>


Dear Newsgroup ~

I spoke with Andrew MacEwen yesterday, the resident expert on all
things Scottish. We discussed various issues relating to John
Ravilious' proposed 2nd & 3rd kinship between Elizabeth de Caldicote
and William Livingston. He said he wasn't familiar with the Tweedie
family per se, but he did offer these comments.

First, he said the original 1434 charter issued by James Douglas, 2nd
lord of Dalkeith, would need to be examined before anything conclusive
could be made of it.

Second, Andrew confirmed that dispensations for 2nd & 3rd degree
kinships in Scotland were exceedingly rare. He said he only knew of
two Scottish women in the medieval period who received such
dispensations, both of whom were major heiresses. The first was
Eupheme Sterwart, Countess of Strathearn, who obtained successive
dispensations to marry Albany half-brothers to whom she was related by
kindred in the 2nd and 3rd degrees and by affinity in the 3rd and 4th
degrees. Neither marriage took place. The 2nd woman was Margaret
Douglas (living 1473), "the Fair Maid of Galloway," who was wife
successively of William Douglas, 8th Earl of Douglas (died 1451), James
Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas, and John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl.

Next, Andrew stated that he believed the "neptem" meant niece or
grand-daughter after 1400 in Scotland, but he wouldn't guarantee that
it didn't still mean kinswoman. I would say the same thing for
England.

Lastly, Andrew said there are two testaments for James Douglas, of
Dalkeith (died 1420) which are found in the book, Registrum Honoris de
Morton. He recommended that John Ravilious examine them for any
references to the Tweedie family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear John ~
>
> When the marriage of Edward Prince of Wales and Joan of Kent was
> originally proposed to the Pope, a petition to the Pope indicated that
> Edward and Joan were related in the 3rd degree of consanguinity, just
> as you have stated. Later, the real relationship of 3rd and 2nd
> degrees of kindred was revealed. We can only speculate as to why
> Edward and Joan were initially said to be related in the 3rd degree,
> rather than 3rd and 2nd. Surely all parties knew full well the exact
> nature of kinship, as did the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. In
> the end, I doubt neither set of kinships mattered much, as kings were
> used to having their way with Popes about matters of consanguinity in
> marriage. Maybe other 2nd and 3rd degrees dispensations can be found,
> but I believe this is the only 2nd and 3rd kinship which was dispensed
> in the medieval period in England.
>
> With regard to your proposed 2nd and 3rd degree kinship for Elizabeth
> de Caldicote and William Livingston, I find this proposal highly
> doubtful. Due to the rarity of 2nd-3rd degree dispensations and the
> fact that this couple were not of royal birth, I believe you should
> examine any likely 3rd-3rd degree kinships before looking for something
> which is 2nd and 3rd.
>
> Until the 1434 document is examined, we evidently will not know if
> Elizabeth Tweedie was called the "neptem" of James Douglas, living in
> 1389, or "neptem" of James Douglas, living in 1464. Having stared at
> enough of these kinds of documents, it is entirely possible that when
> quoting the earlier 1389 document, that the 1434 document stated that
> Elizabeth Tweedie was the "neptem" of James Douglas living in 1389, and
> that the person making the abstract of the 1434 document failed to make
> it clear which James Douglas was intended in the document. Also, I
> believe by 1434, the terms "neptem" in England meant niece or
> grand-daughter, rather than a non-specific near female kinswoman. The
> same may or may not be true for Scotland.
>
> Lastly, if I understand the 1434 document correctly, the implication is
> that Elizabeth Tweedie and Richard Brown were married in 1389, whereas
> you have indicated that James Douglas and his first wife, Agnes Dunbar,
> were married in 1372. If this is true, it is impossible
> chronologically for James Douglas to have been Elizabeth Tweedie's
> grandfather. Uncle perhaps, but not grandfather.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www. royalancestry. net
>
>
> John P. Ravilious wrote:
> < Saturday, 6 May, 2006
> <
> <
> < Dear Doug,
> <
> < I am not immediately aware as to whether there are similar
> < dispensations for other English 'couples' of the period, but given
> < the view as shown in the 1362 dispensation that Prince Edward and
> < Joan of Kent were "related in the third degree of kindred" I don't
> < know how rare we can say this was. On the Scots end of things, I
> < will look and see what other relationships I can identify that
> < involve a 2nd degree relationship.
> <
> < As to the 1434 charter, I have not seen this document to date:
> < what I have seen, extracted, is what I have presented. I would
> < comment that it would be unusual for James Douglas (d. 1441) to
> < issue a charter to a kinswoman (Elizabeth Tweedie) and refer to
> < her relationship to his father, and not to himself. To my
> < recollection, such references to kinship (outside the witnesses)
> < in charters of this period involve relationships between the
> < granter and grantee(s). Of course, if the term <nepta> (as
> < expressed in "neptem" in the charter) is held to mean "kinswoman"
> < as opposed to "niece" [we can exclude the "granddaughter" version
> < in this case], then one could argue that Elizabeth Tweedie's
> < mother was aunt, not sister, to James Douglas (d. 1441).
> <
> < Cheers,
> <
> < John *

This thread: