GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-11 > 1164456028


From: "Peter Stewart" <>
Subject: Re: Ducal kinsfolk: Arthur, Duke of Brittany's kinsman, Robert de Vitré
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:05:40 GMT
References: <1164418122.023029.170800@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>


"Douglas Richardson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> During the course of research for the book, Plantagenet Ancestry
> (2004), I encountered an interesting charter issued by Arthur, Duke
> of Brittany, the ill fated nephew of King John, in which Duke Arthur
> referred to Robert de Vitr as his kinsman [Reference: J.H. Round,
> Calendar of Documents Preserved in France 1 (1899): 473]. At the time,
> I was unable to explain the kinship between the two men. I assumed
> that the matter would be resolved at some future point.
>
> Since that time, I've done additional research both on the Vitr
> family, as well as on kinship relationships stated in charters before
> 1250. As I've indicated in recent posts, my analysis of pre-1250
> charters indicates that acknowledged kinships in that time period
> invariably fell within the 4th degree of kindred. As such, it would
> appear that Duke Arthur and Robert de Vitr were almost certainly
> blood related within the 4th degree. But how?

Hello in there....last heard, the great watershed for recognition of kinship
fell in 1225, but now this has shifted back to 1250. Why exactly?

And given that we know of a relationship between Arthur of Brittany and
Robert of Vitr through their common ancestress Arleva, mother of William
the Conqueror - obviously more distant than the degree you are now hopng for
someone else to provide - why disregard this established fact in favour of a
speculation that must involve at least one consanguineous union later on?

And further, if it is necessary to indulge in this pursuit, why can't you
simply look up Moriarty for yourself? Is there no copy available in SLC
nowadays?

Peter Stewart


This thread: