The Plantagenet
Connection
Volumes I-V; 1993-1997
Kenneth Harper Finton, Editor
ISBN 1-892977-04-4
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 99-90154
© 1999 HT Communications
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HT Communcations
PO Box 1401
Arvada, Colorado 80001
The Plantagenet
Connection
Published semi-annually
in April and October by:
HT Communications
P.O. Box 1401
Arvada, Colorado 80001
Printed and manufactured in the USA.
International standard serials number:
ISSN 1081-1621.
The Plantagenet Connection
Kenneth Harper Finton, Editor
Chaya Finton, Editorial Assistant
Marlyn Lewis, Contributing Researcher
John Stuart, Contributing Researcher
Mike Talbot, Contributing Researcher
Carol Collins, Genealogical Tips Column
Dr. Andrew Breeze, Contributing Writer
Gene Stratton, FSAG, Commentator
Dr. Robert Helmerichs (University of
Minnesota), Commentator
Dr. Paul Hyams (Cornell University),
Contributor and Commentator
Dr. Ulrich Kessler (Vienna, Austria),
Commentator and Contributor
John Peltier, Commentator
John Carmi Parsons (University
of Toronto), Contributor and Commentator
Jeremy Gilbert, Commentator
Dr. Louis Rodrigues, Contributing Translator
David Howlett (University of Oxford,
England), Contributor and Commentator
Thomas Green, Archaeologist
(Exeter College) Oxford, England
CONTRIIBUTORS 1993-1997
The gateway to the past is
the causeway to the future.
A UNIQUE JOURNAL FOR
HISTORIANS AND
GENEALOGISTS
Subscriptions are $24.00 per year
or $12 per issue for single copies
Foreign Rates: $8 extra per year,
for delivery by air mail.
Voice phone (303) 420-4888
Fax: (303) 420-4845 (HT Communications)
Internet address: [email protected]
Reprints without permission
are strictly prohibited.
All Rights Reserved
© 1993-1999 Heliotrope Communications
The Planta Genista
(Sprig of the Broom Plant)
History
through
Genealogy
Contributions are welcome. Writers please query
for details. Submissions for written materials
should be on 3 1/2” disk or by e-mail. Query first
before sending files. Complete MS considered,
with two month reporting time. Bylines given.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page: Title:
(Author)
1.
The Premiere Issue (Kenneth Harper Finton)
1.
Where Did the Name Plantagenet Come From? (Kenneth Harper Finton)
2.
The Legendary Ancestors of Alfred the Great (Kenneth Harper Finton)
3.
The Ancestors of Alfred the Great (Kenneth Harper Finton
11.
England’s Plantagenet Lines (Carol Collins)
16.
English Norman Lines (Carol Collins)
18.
The English House of the Plantagenets (Carol Collins)
23.
Letters to the Editor
23.
Seeking Peter and Thomas Browne Connections
24.
The Danvers of Dauntsey (Stuart J. Wright)
26.
King Alfred’s Country (Stuart J. Wright)
27.
Boadicea the Warrior Queen (Kenneth Harper Finton)
33.
French Merovingian Ancestries –– Including the House of Hainault and the
House of Navarre (Carol Collins)
37.
The Early Ancestral Line of Charlemagne (Kenneth Harper Finton)
44.
The Origin of Mother Goose (Kenneth Harper Finton)B
45.
A Medieval Scribe at Work (Illustration)
46.
Tiberius Claudius Caesar (Illustration)
47.
The Caesar Dynasty (Pedigree Chart)
48.
Descendant Chart of the Caesar Dynasty (Kenneth Harper Finton)
51.
Claudius and the Roman Connection (Kenneth Harper Finton)
63.
Of Claudia and Pudens (Kenneth Harper Finton)
80.
The Legendary Roman Descent of Geoffrey Plantagenet (Victoria Hughes)
82.
Pudens and Claudia (Edwin Guest)
97.
Old King Cole’s Legendary Pedigree (Kenneth Harper Finton)
98.
The Search for Old King Cole (Kenneth Harper Finton)
106.
An American Becomes the Earl of Aquitaine (Oscar Kraehenbuehl)
107.
108.
Letters to the Editor: The Peter Browne Ancestry
Connections: Of John of Gaunt and Katherine Roet
TABLE OF CONTENTS
109. Geoffrey Chaucer; To His Empty Purse (poem)
110. O Of Kings and Heroes and the Natural Order (Kenneth Harper Finton)
112. The Shepherd’s Wife’s Song (Robert Greene) (poem)
113. Plantagenet Historical Background (Ron Collins)
128. The Latter Plantagenets (Pedigree Chart)
129. The Tragedy of Richard II (Kenneth Harper Finton)
138. Songs from “The Beggars’ Opera” (John Gay) (poems)
139. Henry IV (Kenneth Harper Finton)
141. On Genius and a Man’s Work (John Ruskin)
142. Henry the Fifth at the Battle of Agincourt (Kenneth Harper Finton)
144. To the Cambro-Britons and Their Harp: His Ballad of Agincourt (Michael
Drayton) (poem)
145. Song of the Mouse (Charles D’Orleans) (poem)
146. Illustration (Man and Woman Seated at a Table)
147. Research Help (Carol Collins)
148. Letters to the Editor: The Parents of Elizabeth FitzAlan
149. Connections: Margaret Stafford; Hugh de Audley
150. Reviews: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower by Dr. A. J. Pollard.
Reviewed by Mary Grimaldi
151. The Blood Royal of Britain by the Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval
Reviewed by Kenneth Harper Finton
152. Arnulf and the Worms
152. My Books (Robert Southey) (poem)
153. Can Leadership Qualities Be Genetically Inherited? (Kenneth Harper Finton)
156. Three Field Farming
156. Camping Alert (humor)
157. The Royal Genealogy of American Presidents (Kenneth Harper Finton)
175. How They Lived in the Middle Ages (Ron Collins)
191. The Tobacco-Smoker’s Dream (Siuer de Saint Amant) (poem)
192. Charles, Duk D’Orleans (Mike Talbot)
205. To the Virgins (Robert Herrick) (poem)
206. Illustration: Corneille Reading in the Hotel de Rambouillet
207. Questions and Answers About The Ancestry of Elizabeth of York
210. Illustration: April 1995 Cover; The Brinton House
211. Medieval Queenship, John Carmi Parsons, editor. Reviewed by Miriam Shadis
213. The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian Empire by Paul Edward Dutton.
Reviewed by Patrick J. Geary
216. Women's Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook. Edited by Emile Amt.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
220.
222.
222.
223.
224.
230.
231.
242.
243.
247.
248.
250.
252.
255.
257.
260.
261.
281.
286.
288.
289.
295.
296.
298.
299.
300.
302.
Reviewed by Michael Calabrese.
Letters to the Editor: Ada de Warren; Lineage of President Benjamin
Harrison to Hugh Capet; Joan Beaufort/Edward Stradling;
Fiennes/Clinton; New book by Mike Talbot; New book by James Trigg
Search the "Book of Sufferings" for Quaker Ancestors (Carol Collins)
London Library Holds 300 Years of Quaker Records (Carol Collins)
The Veils of Time (Kenneth Harper Finton) (poem)
The Dudley/Bagley Mystery: Richard Nixon’s Unproven Royal Lineage
(Leslie Tucker, Col. Charles Hansen, Neil Thompson)
The Lincoln Ancestry (Pedigree Chart}
The Lincoln / Hanks Ancestry (Kenneth Harper Finton)
Ossian’s Lament in Old Age (Ossian) (poem)
Magna Carta Barons (Ron Collins)
October 1995 Cover Illustration
Letters to the Editor: Regarding the Birth Date of Edward IV;
The Bagley/Dudley Descent; Charlemagne to John Taylor; Henry II’s
Marriage; The Bruce/Stewart Families
Columns and Queries: It's All In How You Look at It (Carol Collins)
Regarding the Quest for Ada de Warren; Re: Jane Beaufort
Eleanor of Castile: Queen and Society in Thirteenth-Century England,
by John Carmi Parsons. Reviewed by Constance H. Berman.
Braveheart (Movie Review) (Kenneth Harper Finton)
Rob Roy (Movie Review) (Kenneth Harper Finton)
Incantation by Amerigan, a druid bard (poem)
The Plantagenet Family History (Ron Collins)
Anglo-Saxon Royal Saints: Leaders in Two Worlds (John Damon)
Tidbits: Anglo-Saxon Myths
The Taliaferro Family History: A new book by John Kenneth Ellis
Beowulf in the 11th Century: For the Ladies on the Audience (Karen Foster)
The Anglo-Saxon Ancestry to Adam (Tony Jebson)
The History of the English Language (Humor) (Owen Alun and Brendan
O'Corraidhe)
Ancient Anglo-Saxon Charm #6: For a Delayed Birth (Translated by Dr. Louis
Rodrigues)
April 1996 Cover Illustration
Florent et Lyon. Wilhelm Salzmann: Kaiser Octavianus. Reviewed by
Albrecht Classen
The Singer Resumes the Tale by Albert Bates Lord. Reviewed by
Barry B. Powell
TABLE OF CONTENTS
308.
213.
313.
314.
315.
318.
319.
326.
328.
377.
388.
392.
393.
398.
405.
406.
425.
462.
464.
465.
466.
467.
469.
470.
472.
498.
505.
506.
Ancestor Chart for Joseph Harrington; The Isle of Dogs; Questions on The
Ancestry of Elizabeth of York; Raleigh Croshaw
Richard III (Movie Review) (Kenneth Harper Finton)
The Madness of King George (Movie Review) (Kenneth Harper Finton)
Why Genealogy? (Kenneth Harper Finton)
The Bradford Connection (The Sharpe Relation to the Mayflower
Families) (D. A. Sharpe)
Gloucester Cathedral (Illustration)
The Lincoln/Taylor Connection
The Dudley/Bagley Mystery Continued
The Ancestors of Riccord Hussey (Compiled by Roy Leggitt)
A Brief History of the Plantagenets (Ron Collins)
Emma: Queen of England
October 1996 Cover Illustration
Letters to the Editor: Terrell Descents; Merovingian Ancestries; King John’s
Daughter Joan; Old King Cole; Comments on the Lincoln /Taylor
Connection; The Vindication of Anglo-Saxon Women; The Birthdates of
the Children of Clementia, Mistress of King John; Knights of the Bath
Anglo-Saxon Maternal Ties (Robin D. Smith)
Grimes: Both a Surname and a Word
The Dudley/Bagley Mystery Concluded (Kenneth Harper Finton)
Woden’s Wolf (excerpt from a new novel by Geoff Boxell) “The Eastings”
Lutefish and Yams by Lord Ulf Gunnarsson (Humor)
Chanson de Marie (poem from the Old French)
Book Review: Alfred by Professor Alfred Smyth. Reviewed by Professor
David Howlett
April 1997 Cover Illustration
Literature Vs. History = Myth Vs. Reality (Kenneth Harper Finton)
The Death Song of Arthur Pendragon (11th-century poem)
Truth and the Genealogy of Jesus (Professor David Howlett)
The Genealogy of Jesus (Kenneth Harper Finton)
Emma of Normandy (Deanna Dawn Forsman)
Headless Bodies Unearthed from 1066 Battle of Hastings
The Genealogy of a Fourteenth Century English Romance: Horn Childe and
Maiden Rimnild (Dr. Rochelle Altman)
526.
Book Review: Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century Colonists: The
Descent from the Later Plantagenet Kings of England, Henry III, Edward I,
Edward II, and Edward III, of Emigrants from England and Wales to the North
TABLE OF CONTENTS
527.
528.
533.
533.
534.
541.
547.
553.
559.
American Colonies Before 1701, by David Faris. Reviewed by Henry B. Hoff.
October 1997 Cover Illustration
Letters to the Editor: Joan of England; Urraca of Castile; Emma;
Goddard/Giffard; Margaret Plantagenet and Lord John Segrave;
Sybil de Braose; Thomas of Woodstock
Evidence: Write it Down (Carol Collins)
Wulf and Eadwacer (poem) (author unknown) (Translated by Dr. Louis
Rodrigues)
Gwenllian, Princess of Wales: Did a Welsh Princess Write the Four Branches
of the Mabinogi? (Dr. Andrew Breeze, University of Pamplona)
Medieval Heraldry (Mike Talbot)
Was Hugh Capet a Descendant of Charlemagne?
The Empress Matilda
Succession and the Sons of Henry II
TITLE
1993
Volume One
THE PREMIER ISSUE
Welcome to the premier issue of the
Plantagenet Connection. The Plantagenet
line was chosen as the title of this journal
to represent that incredible string of ruling
families that ruled Europe for over a thousand years and formed the foundations of
our modern world. To stay rigidly within
the confines of the Plantagenet name
would eliminate Henry’s II’s illustrious
ancestors. Other famous names whose
blood was passed through the Plantagenets in succeeding generations were
Alfred the Great, Edmund Ironside, Charlemagne, and Rollo the Dane. The list
goes on.
Given the range and wide scope of the
subject, and given that many volumes
have been written on even the least known
of these people, it is most difficult and
humbling to begin this project. For lack of
a better alternative, I decided to start at the
beginning ... not with the Plantagenets,
but with the ancestors of Alfred the Great.
The purpose of this journal is four-fold:
to relate some of unequaled stories of these
past lives in articles, to help people understand the genealogical connections of this
line as it relates to world history, to illuminate the bare bones information that fill
the often dry lists of genealogical information, and to help others achieve a greater
understanding of the significance of genealogical data to historical interpretation.
Volume One
WHERE DID THE NAME
PLANTAGENET COME FROM?
Geoffrey the Handsome, Count of Anjou, took to the habit of wearing a broom
corn, or planta genista in his cap. At age
15, Geoffrey was chosen by Henry I,
son of William the Conqueror, to wed his
widowed daughter Matilda, the fiery tempered ex-empress of Germany. Their son,
Henry II, was called Plantagenet, as it
was assumed that Geoffrey was his father.
After five years without issue with
young Geoffrey, Matilda raged back to
England and declared the marriage was
over. Henry finally told her she must return to Anjou. Shortly after her return to
Anjou, Henry received the news that his
daughter was now expecting a child.
Everyone thought it to be Geoffrey’s.
To his delight, Henry’s grandson was
named after him. When Henry died from
his famous dish of spoiled lampreys, Stephen, said to be the most handsome man
in Europe, became King of England. Stephen was the son of Adele, fourth daughter of William the Conqueror.
Rumors started by discontented guild
workers told that Matilda had an affair
with Stephen during her return to the English court. It was rumored that Henry II
called Stephen his father during negotiations to settle the dispute over the throne.
This legend has no basis in fact, as Matilda was never near Stephen before the birth
of her child.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 1
THE LEGENDARY ANCESTORS OF ALFRED THE GREAT
Godwulf, born around 75 AD?
|
Flocwald, born about 100?
|
Finn, born about 130 in Asia
or eastern Europe?
|
Freothalaf, born about 160 in eastern
Europe?
|
Frithuwauld, born about 180 of Asgard, Asia? whose spouse was Beltsa.
|
Odin, born about 235 in Asgard, Asia?
|
Beldig, born about 243 in Scandinavia
whose wife was Nanna, born about 247,
daughter of Gewar, King of Norway?
|
Brand, born about 217 in Scandinavia?
|
Frigthogar, born about 299 an ancient
Saxony, Germany?
|
Freawine, born about 327, Saxony,
North Germany?
|
Cuthwine, Prince of Wessex, born
about 564, Wessex, England?
|
Wig, born about 355, Saxony?
|
Gewis, born about 383, Saxony?
|
Elsa, born about 411, Saxony?
|
Elesa, born about 439, Saxony?
|
Cerdic, King of Wessex, born about
467, Saxony.
|
Crioda, born about 493, Wessex, England.
|
Cynric, King of Wessex, born about
525, d 560, Wessex. England.
Volume One
|
Ceawlin, born about 564, Wessex, England.
|
Cuthwulf, born about 600, Wessex,
England.
|
Cenred, born about 644, Wessex, England.
|
Ingild, born about 680, Wessex, England.
|
Eoppa, born about 706, Wessex, England.
|
Eaba, born about 732, Wessex, England.
|
Ealhmund, born about 758, Kent, England.
Egbert, the first King of England, son
of Ealmund, married Redburge, the first
Queen of England. Ebgert was born about
775 in Wessex, England, and died 4 Feb
836. He reigned from 801-836. Egbert of
Wessex stood alone among the English
rulers of his time in claiming direct
descent from earlier monarchs. As the last
ruler of the archaic English dynasties, Egbert had no trouble in obtaining recognition as overlord from Kent, Sussex, and
Essex. Though nobles existed in these
realms, nobles did not have the inherent
respect afforded one of royal birth.
Egbert forcefully overthrew Beornwulf, King of the Mercians. The East Angles recognized his authority. He imposed his lordship over the Northumbrians. By the end of his reign he held a
position of authority and power not seen
since the time of Offa. Egbert was literally King over most of England. The generations beyond Cerdic are considered
legendary.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 2
ALFRED THE GREAT
ALFRED THE GREAT
by Kenneth Harper Finton
Egbert, the first King of England, son
of Ealmund, married Redburge, the
first Queen of England. Egbert was born
about 775 in Wessex, England, and died
4 Feb 836. He reigned from 802-836.
Egbert of Wessex stood alone among the
English rulers of his time in claiming direct descent from earlier monarchs. As the
last ruler of the archaic English dynasties,
Egbert had no trouble in obtaining recognition as overlord from Kent, Sussex,
and Essex. Though nobles existed in
these realms, nobles did not have the inherent respect afforded one of royal birth.
“From the time that the Britons
called upon the Saxons to help
them fight the Picts and the Scots,
about A.D. 410, the domination of
the hardy Teutonic people in England was a certainty. The Britons
had become exhausted through
their long exposure to Roman influence. In their state of enfeeblement, they were unable to resist the
attacks of the rude highland tribes.
The Saxons rescued the Britons
from their plight, but they became
masters of the country that they had
delivered. Joined by the Jutes and
the Angles, the Saxons divided the
territory into kingdoms known as the
Saxon Heptarchy.
This organization had an existence of about two hundred and fifty
years. The various members were
involved in endless controversies
with one another, disputes that often broke into savage wars. As the
native Britons were the common
enemy, the Saxon power was greatly impaired by the civil strife that
distracted them.
1
1 The seven kingdoms were Kent, Sussex, Wessex,
Essex, Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia.
Volume 1
“This condition continued until it
be came essential that under a
strong hand a more solid union of
Saxons should be formed. And it
was to Egbert, King of the West
Saxons, the son of Eahlmund, King
of Kent, that this great constructive
task was committed. He took the
throne of Wessex in 802, for twelve
years enjoyed a peaceful reign,
then became involved in wars, first
with the Cornish and afterward with
the Mercians. His victories in these
wars resulted in the final establishment of his authority over the entire
heptarchy, and this made him in
fact, though not in name, the first
real king of England.”
- David Hume, historian
When Brithic became King of Wessex,
he became quite jealous of the youthful
Egbert. Egbert, by birth, was entitled to
the crown and extremely popular with the
people of Wessex. Egbert wisely retreated
to France and the court of Charlemagne.
There, he served in that monarch’s armies
and had ample opportunity to temper his
rude Saxon character with French manners and customs.
Eadburga, a natural daughter of Offa,
King of Mercia, was Brithric’s cruel and
jealous wife. She habitually influenced her
unwise husband to destroy whatever
member of the nobility she deemed personally obnoxious. After she mixed a cup
of poison for a nobleman friend of her
husband, the king himself drank from the
cup, along with the intended victim. Eadburga suddenly found herself an unemployed queen. She was obliged to quickly
flee to France, while Egbert was recalled
to take her husband’s place. Egbert succeeded to the throne of his ancestors in the
last year of the eighth century.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 3
ALFRED THE GREAT
Exact rules for succession in the ancient
kingdoms ruled by these various Saxons
were either unknown or not strictly observed. The result was that the ruling king
came to fear that all other princes were
threats against him. Only their deaths
could guarantee his security. The policy
turned out to be a most fatal flaw, as the
ancient royal families were all extinguished by their own rivalries by the time
Egbert ascended to the throne. Egbert was
the soul living descendant of the ancient
conquerors who subdued Britain and enhanced their authority by tracing their lineage to Woden, the supreme divinity. 2
The worship of ancestors was the logical first step in the evolution of religion.
Tribal law and survival required respect
for the parents and the elders in nearly all
parts of the world. Strong individuals
were singled out as heroes and served as
role models for the ever evolving social
structures. As generations passed, these
family heroes were deified by their descendants in song and epic poem. Gradually, the worship of ancestors took on
such mythical forms that the ancients
were given the attributes of gods. Real
men, men made of flesh and deeds, could
have stood behind these ancient legends.
It is quite possible that the earlier Odin, or
one of his ancestors by the same name,
formed the basis for the god, Woden,
called Odin in some tribes. Woden became the principal deity of the Northmen,
since his descendants migrated to Scandinavia. Even today Woden is remembered.
Every Wednesday is Woden’s Day.
Since the tribal hero took on mythical
proportions, the lineal descendants were
elevated to the ruling classes. Their claim
to divinity was recognized by the people.
The divine right of kings was the logical
next step in social strata. When mono2 Note that legend has Odin was born around 215 in
Asia, page 5. There is no proof of this location or
date, nor is there proof he was an historical person.
Volume 1
theistic religion displaced these mythical
gods, an all powerful, single God replaced the ancient legends. The rulers that
descended from these heroes changed
their beliefs to Christian dogma, but the
necessity for the king to claim a divine
descent to keep the social order still existed. Thus, the royal families were imbued
by their subjects with the solemn blessings of the monotheistic God, the earthly
representatives of a great cosmic order.
“Of all the tribes of the Germanic
race none was more cruel than the
Saxons. Their very name, which
spread to the whole confederacy of
Northern tribes, was supposed to be
derived from the use of a weapon,
the seax, a short one-handed sword.
Although tradition and the Venerable Bede assign the conquest of
Britain to the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons together, and although the various settlements have tribal peculiarities, it is probable that before their
general exodus from Schleswig-Holstein, the Saxons had virtually incorporated the other two strains.”
Winston Churchill,
from The Birth of Britain
The Mercian kingdom had nearly attained absolute sovereignty in the heptarchy. They had subdued the east Angles
and established tributary princes in Kent
and Essex. No kingdom of consequence
remained but Wessex. When they finally
invaded Essex, Egbert drove them back to
Mercia. He forcefully overthrew Beornwulf, King of the Mercians. Egbert allowed Wiglef, a Mercian, to retain the title
of king, but Wiglef payed homage to Egbert, who retained the real powers. The
East Angles recognized his authority, and
he imposed his lordship over the Northumbrians. By the end of his reign, he held
a position of authority and power not seen
since the time of Offa. Egbert was literally
King over most of England.
In the later years of Egbert’s reign, the
The Plantagenet Connection
page 4
ALFRED THE GREAT
Vikings began their regular summer visitations, plundering and burning the towns
along the river banks.
It has been seen throughout history.
The central powers that control the social
fabric falls and anarchy replaces order.
With the break up of the Roman empire,
the northern isle that was to become England fell into ruin. It was overrun with
hordes of warring factions and divided
into small dominions. At first, the kings
of these small realms were merely war
leaders. In Germany, they had no kings,
but in Britain, the war leaders claimed
descent from the ancient gods, and the
position of the king gradually increased in
importance.
Now entering the mist of tradition is the
legendary hero called King Arthur. For
centuries, Arthur was thought to be fiction, yet legends often have their root in
real occurrence. Most modern historians
passionately doubt his existence. Though
the Arthur of history, if there was one,
was undoubtedly a much less imposing
figure than the Arthur of legend, he
should not be removed from the annals of
history because of the magical deeds and
imaginary stories related by the later day
poets and minstrels.
“Once Arthur is recognized as the
commander of a mobile field army,
moving from one part of the country
to another and uniting with local
forces in each district, the disputes
about the scenes of his actions explain themselves. Moreover, the
fourth century witnessed the rise of
cavalry to the dominant position on
the battlefield. The day of infantry
has passed for a time, and the day of
the legion had passed forever. The
Saxon invaders were infantry, fighting with the sword and spear, and
having little armor. Against such an
enemy a small force of ordinary Roman cavalry might well prove invincible. If a chief like Arthur had
gathered a small band of mail-clad
Volume 1
cavalry he could have moved freely
about Britain, everywhere heading
the local resistance to the invader
and gaining repeated victories. The
memory of Arthur carried with it the
hope that a deliverer would return
one day.”
-Winston Churchill 3
As the legends promised, a deliverer
would return. In the form of Egbert and
his son Æthelwulf, deliverance would begin. Deliverance from the uncultured
would truly come to pass through the extraordinary person called Alfred, son of
Æthelwulf.
Æthelwulf, son of Egbert, was second King of Wessex, succeeding his father in 839. He was born circa 800, and
married Osburga, the daughter of Earl
Oslac, his cupbearer. Osburga was a descendant of Cedric and the royal house
of the Jutes. The couple had a daughter
and five sons. The first son, having died
young, left Æthelbald, followed by
Æthelbert, Æthelred, and Alfred.
His reign was spent in fighting the
Danes, who by this point in time occupied
most of Britain. Despite many victorious
campaigns, in 851 the Vikings wintered in
England for the first time.
In 853, Æthelwulf answered an appeal
from Bungred of Mercia. He subdued the
North Welsh and sealed the rapport with
the Mercians by giving away his daughter
Æe-thelswith in marriage to the king.
After Osburga died, Æthelwulf took his
youngest son, Alfred, with him to Rome.
In 853, Alfred was introduced to Pope
Leo IV. Alfred was a child of unusual talent and bearing. He was a handsome lad,
prematurely an adult from his earliest
days.
Alfred made a particularly good impression on the pope and was confirmed with
some kind of an investiture or title. He
played at the courts of Charles the Bald,
Holy Roman Emperor and grandson of
3 The Birth of Britain. Page 61.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 5
ALFRED THE GREAT
Charlemagne. With Charle’s children as
playmates and tutors, Alfred learned
much of the Roman ways and customs,
as well as the French manners. Two years
later, in 855, Æthewulf and Alfred made
another trip to Rome. Æthewulf took
Charles the Bald’s lovely fourteen-yearold daughter Judith home to England as
his bride. When Æthelwulf died two
years later, Judith shocked the civilized
world by marrying her stepson, Alfred’s
oldest brother, Æthelbald.
According to Æthelwulf’s will, his eldest son, Æthelbald, was to become King
of Wessex. His brother, Æthebert, became King of Kent, while Æthelred and
Alfred remained in line for succession to
Æthelbald. Upon his father’s death,
Alfred’s older brother, Æthelbald, took
the throne. He was followed shortly by
Æthelbert, who ruled until 866. At this
time, Æthelred became the king, and the
public life of Alfred began. The two
brothers at last began the deliverance of
England from the Danes. In 868, Alfred
married Ælswitha, the daughter of of
Æthelred of Mercia.
By this time, the Danes had occupied
London. Their army had fortified themselves at Reading. London was not the
capital and bustling city of later years, but
a town in the Kingdom of Mercia. From
these points, the Danes moved forward
and met the West Saxons on the
Berkshire downs in January of 871.
Here, they fought the important Battle of
Ashdown.
During the battle, brother Æthelred, the
King, tarried for hours in his prayers,
though warned that the battle must be
joined. According to Bishop Asser, who
left an account of Alfred’s life: “seeing
the heathen had come quickly on the field
and were ready for battle ... [Alfred]
could bear the attacks of the enemy no
longer, and he had to choose between
withdrawing altogether or beginning the
battle without waiting for his brother. At
last, like a wild boar, he led the Christian
Volume 1
forces boldly against the army of the enemy ... in spite of the fact that the King had
not yet arrived.”
The battle lasted through the day.
Æthelred finally joined Alfred in the field.
At last, the Danes gave way and retreated.
They were pursued by the Saxon forces
until the whole length and breadth of the
Berkshire downs [Ashdown] was filled
with their corpses. One of the Viking
kings and five of his jarls were found
among the slain.
Though this battle did not break the
back of the Danes, it’s place in history is
assured. Had the West Saxons lost, all
England would have fallen before the
Danes. The victory restored the confidence of the West Saxons, while giving
Alfred the fame and support necessary to
continue his resistance. When brother
Æthelred died later that year, there was no
debate about whom his successor would
be. At twenty-four, Alfred was King.
The Danes were strongly reinforced
from overseas. Though six or seven battles were fought, the Danes held their
ground. These “summer armies” proved
difficult to beat, and Alfred’s forces were
whittled down through desertion and
death. Alfred decided to come to terms
while he still had an army left.
They signed a treaty, under which the
Danes would make peace if the Saxons
retreated and paid tribute. Alfred did so,
and enjoyed five more years to consolidate
his defenses and power. What led the
Danes to make such a treaty is unknown,
but a change had come over the Northmen. Those who had for centuries invaded and plundered had begun to take up the
land. It was not that they wanted peace.
They still wanted all of England, but
Alfred’s stubborn group had taken its toll.
For now, they were content to settle the
lands they already held.
Five years later Alfred’s truce ended.
The Danes, under Guthrum, had developed a plan to take Wessex. Alfred sought
peace and offered to pay a tribute for it.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 6
ALFRED THE GREAT
The Danes took the gold and swore they
would keep the peace, but suddenly, they
seized Exeter. Alfred mounted after them,
but found them in a fortress where they
could not be touched awaiting reinforcements. They lay siege for a month as the
fortress ran low on supplies. The Danes
finally decided to break away from the
fortress by sea and sent more than a
hundred longships to their rescue.
In those days, people believed that the
weather was ruled by God. Alfred was
fortunate to have God on his side. A
dense fog, followed by a frightening
storm, came over the sea. A hundred and
twenty Viking ships were sunk. More
than five thousand of the perjured Danes
died before the storm’s onslaught. Alfred,
watching safely from the shore, found
the Danes in the mood for another treaty.
This they kept for five months.
In January of 878, Alfred’s fortunes
reversed. While his army celebrated the
Twelfth Night, the Danes swooped down
on them in the dark, killing many. Most
of his army fled to their individual homes.
Alfred, left with a handful of officers and
personal attendants, was forced to take
refuge in the swamps and forests of
Somerset. For some months he lived as
did Robin Hood many centuries later.
Here, Alfred found security in his wilderness retreat.
One day it was so cold that the waters
were frozen underfoot. Alfred’s attendants had gone out to find food, at least
enough to feed them for the day. Alfred
stayed alone in the royal hut with his
mother-in-law, Eadburga. The King was
reading from the Psalms of David that he
always carried in his bosom, along with
his writing tablet. A poor man appeared
suddenly at the door, begging for bread.
Alfred, in his usual manner, received the
stranger as a brother. He called upon
Eadburga to give him food. She replied
that there was only one loaf of bread and
a little wine left in the pitcher, but Alfred
Volume 1
insisted he be given what was left.
Alfred then fell asleep while reading.
He dreamed that St. Cuthbert stood before
him and said he had taken the form of the
beggar. He told Alfred that God had noted
his afflictions and assured him that his
fortune was about to change. When Alfred
awoke, the beggar was not to be seen.
The loaf of bread remained whole and the
pitcher of wine was filled to the brim.
Alfred recounted his dream to his motherin-law. She said that she too had fallen asleep and had the same dream. While they
still talked of the amazing event, the attendants returned with enough fish and
fowl to feed an army.
Toward the end of Lent, the Danes attacked one of Alfred’s strongholds on Exmoor. According to Hodgson:
“... in besetting it they thought the
King’s thanes would soon give way to
hunger and thirst ... since the fortress
had no supply of water. The Christians,
before they endured any such distress,
by the inspiration of heaven judged it
to be better either to suffer death or to
gain the victory. Accordingly at daybreak they suddenly rushed forth
against the heathen, and in the first attack they laid low most of the enemy,
including their king. A few only by flight
escaped to their ships.”
Eight hundred Danes were killed that
day. Among the spoils of victory, the
Saxons captured the sacred flag of the
Vikings called “The Raven.” This enchanted banner, whose lifelike bird fluttered in the wind, was said to have been
woven in one day by three daughters of
Ragnar Lodbrok. According to Hodgkin:
“... in every battle in which that
banner went before them the raven in
the middle of the de-sign seemed to
flutter as though it were alive if they
were to have the victory.”
The Plantagenet Connection
page 7
ALFRED THE GREAT
On this day, the wind did not blow and
the raven hung lifelessly in its silken
folds.
News of this defeat was quick to
spread. When Alfred heard of it, he left
his hideout and again raised a call for
arms. News that he was alive and well
excited the masses, and the warriors returned in great number. Soon, Alfred was
again marching in front a grand army.
They met the Danes on the downs at
Æthandun, now called Eddington, and
fought the culminating battle of all
Alfred’s wars. Everything was at stake.
Both sides dismounted their horses. The
shield walls formed and the two armies
clashed for hours with sword and axe.
The Danes were routed and Guthrum
found himself entrapped in his own
camp. Desperate, he begged for peace,
offering to give Alfred as many hostages
as he desired if he would let him leave
these lands forever.
Alfred, however, had other designs
with a more farsighted point of view. He
meant to make a lasting peace with the
Danish king. They were in his power. He
could have starved or slaughtered them to
a man. Instead, he received Guthrum into
his camp and entertained him for twelve
days. During this time, Alfred convinced
the Viking that he should be baptized in
the Christian faith. After the baptism, he
began to call Guthrum his son. Realizing
that East Anglia (a small territory north of
London) was a Danish province, Alfred
offered to divide the land with him, so
that both could share in the glory of the
new nation.
“The sublime power to rise above
the whole force of circumstances,
to remain unbiased by the extremes of victory or defeat, to persevere in the teeth of disaster, to
greet returning fortune with a cool
eye, to have faith in men after repeated betrayals, raises Alfred far
Volume 1
above the turmoil of barbaric wars
to his pinnacle of deathless glory.”
-Winston Churchill
Fourteen years of peace were to follow.
Alfred began the gargantuan task of reorganizing his lands. He brought culture
back to his island nation, restored London, rebuilt the walls, and started the
town on the road toward becoming the
capital city.
He reorganized the “fyrd,” dividing the
peasantry into two classes, which rotated
service in forty day increments. Now the
soldier would not desert on long campaigns, knowing that someone was there
to care for his lands.
Alfred’s attention turned toward the sea.
He made great departures from the norms
in ship design, building much larger vessels that rode higher and steadier than the
others. His work was premature only because the big ships were beyond the skill
of the inexperienced seamen to handle.
He founded schools and universities
and caused translations of great works to
be made in the English language. Until
this time, the English had only written
songs and epic poems. Alfred began the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to compile the
history of the land, and English prose was
born.
The Laws of Alfred were continually
added to by his successors. Eventually,
they grew into the English Common Law.
Alfred’s Book of Laws, or Dooms, attempted to blend the Mosaic code with
Christian ethics and Old Germanic principles:
“Do unto others as you would that
they should do unto you,” became
in Alfred’s words: “What ye will that
other men should not do to you, that
do ye not to other men. By bearing
this precept in mind a judge can do
justice to all men. He needs no other law books. Let him think of himself as the plaintiff and consider
The Plantagenet Connection
page 8
ALFRED THE GREAT
what judgment would satisfy him.”
He gathered scholars about him,
snatching every hour he could to read. He
listened to books being read by others.
He carried with him a little handbook,
constantly pausing to write down
thoughts as they occurred to him. The
singers at the court found, in Alfred, a
fellow troubadour who loved to gather the
old songs of his people and teach them to
his children. The children that he raised
proved to be the most able leaders of their
time.
Alfred drew up plans for buildings,
took care of the affairs of his court, and
instructed craftsmen in their workings
with gold. Often, he would pause in his
travels to converse with strangers. He
taught even the falconers and dog breeders new things about their business. It
seemed there was little in the world of
ideas with which he was not more than
adequately familiar.
Alfred spent many an hour soothing his
depressions with the music of the Psalms.
He wrote:
“Desirest thou power? Thou shalt
never obtain it without sorrows sorrows from strange folk, and yet
keener sorrows from thine own
kindred ... hardship and sorrow,
not a king but would wish to be
without these if he could. But I
know that he cannot.”
Alfred took the time to translate books
into English himself. Yet, he was more
than just a translator. He was an editor for
his people, omitting this, expanding upon
that, changing the whole design of English literature.
One final war was Alfred’s lot. The
Vikings had invaded France, sailing up
and down the rivers with every device of
war known to man. They laid siege on
Volume 1
Paris. They invaded Germany. The Danes
seemed to fan out in all directions, but the
resistance on too many fronts was more
than they could handle. Again, Viking
ships looked toward England.
Guthrum died in 891, keeping peace
with Alfred to his last breath, but with his
death, Guthrum’s Peace ended. The next
year a hostile armada of two hundred and
fifty Viking ships landed at the edge of the
forests near Appledore. A second force of
eighty ships sailed up the Thames. Kent
was to be attacked from two sides.
Alfred had prepared the country well.
Not only had food and wealth been
gathered again, but Alfred’s twenty-two
year old son, Edward, had become an able
commander. The people had confidence
that Edward could lead his father’s forces
in the field. Alfred had bought off war
with Haesten, the Viking king, for several
years. He preferred to pay some Danegeld
for promises of peace. Alfred also convinced Haesten to have both his sons
baptized as Christians.
In 893, a third force arrived and attacked Exeter, but young Prince Edward
routed the raiders and sent them swimming up the Thames for their lives. The
Danes had fortified themselves below
London. Edward and his brother-in-law,
Æthelred, raised a strong army in London, fell upon the Danes at Benfleet.
According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, they: “put the army to flight, stormed
the fort, and took all that was there was
within, goods as wells as women and
children, and brought them all to
London.”
Among the hostages were the Danish
leader’s wife and two sons. Alfred sent
Haesten’s wife back to him on humanitarian principles, an act unheard of, and
highly criticized for many years.
“As for the two sons, they had been
baptized; he [Alfred] was Godfather
to one of them, and Æthelred of
The Plantagenet Connection
page 9
ALFRED THE GREAT
Mercia to the other. They were
therefore Christian brethren, and the
King protected them from the consequences of their fathers’ wrongful
war. The ninth century found it very
hard to understand this behavior
when the kingdom was fighting desperately against brutal marauders,
but this is one of the reasons why in
the after-time the King is called
’Alfred the Great’. The war went on,
but so far as the records show Haesten never fought again. It may be
that mercy and chivalry were not in
vain.”
-Winston Churchill
“So long as I have lived,” Alfred said,
as death closed in upon him, “I have striven to live worthily.”
KING ALFRED EXORTING
THE SAXONS TO BATTLE
Volume 1
The Plantagenet Connection
page 10
ENGLAND’S PLANTAGENET LINES
ENGLAND’S
PLANTAGENET LINES
by Carolyn Huebner Collins
Joan Beaufort m. 1) 1424 James I (Stewart), King of Scotland, 2) Sir James Stewart, Black Knight
of Lorn Siblings:
Henry Beaufort, 1401-1418, n.m.
John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, m. Margaret Beauchamp
Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Morton, slain in first battle at St. Alban's, 1455
Thomas Beaufort,
Margaret Beaufort, m. Thomas Courtney, Earl of Devon.
Joan, Henry, John, Edmund, Thomas and Margaret were children of:
Sir John Beaufort, K.G., Earl of Somerset, Marquess of Dorset, Lord High Admiral of England,
Captain of Calais, Constable of England, Constable of Wallingford Castle, Dovey
Castle and Corfe Castle, d. 16 March 1409/10, buried Canterbury Cathedral, St.
Michael's chapel in south transcept; will in Latin; ca. 1397 m. as her first husband,
Margaret Holand, d. 30 Dec. 1440, (son of Katherine). Siblings:
Henry Beaufort, Cardinal of St. Eusebius, bishop of Lincoln 1398, and of Winchester
1404-1447, chancellor of Oxford, 4 times Chancellor of England, crusader; d. 11
April 1447.
Joan Beaufort, d. 13 Nov. 1440, m. 1) Robert Ferrers, 2) Ralph de Neville, Earl of
Westmoreland, who d. 21 Oct. 1425 (dau. of Katherine).
Thomas Beaufort, Earl of Exeter, admiral of England, Earl of Dorset, d. 29 Dec.,
1426, m. Margaret (Mary?) Nevil (son of Katherine)
Henry IV, K.G., duke of Hereford and Lancaster, Earl of Derby, King of England,
1362-1412, m. 1) Mary de Bohun,who d. 1394, 2) Joan de Navarre (son of Blanche)
Philippa , d. 1415, m. 1386 John I, king of Portugal (dau of Blanche)
Elizabeth, d. 1421, m. 1) John Holland of Exeter, 2) Sir John Cornwall, lord Fanhop
(dau of Blanche)
Catherine, m. Henry, prince of Asturias (Henry III, King of Spain) (dau. of Constance)
John, Joan, Thomas, Henry, Philippa, Elizabeth and Catherine were
children of:
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster 1362, Earl of Leicester, Earl of Lincoln, Earl of Richmond, Steward of England, King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Aquitaine or Guinnes, Captian
General in France, Captain General at Sea, Constable of Chester, b. Ghent 24 June
1340 and d. Leicester Castle 3 Feb. 1398/99 (will in French), m. 1) Reading 19 May
1359 Blanche of Lancaster, d. 1369 at palace of bishop of Ely in Holborn, buried in
St. Paul's Cathedral, m. 2) Sept. 1371 Constance of Castile, dau of Peter the Cruel,
King of Castile and Leon, da. 1394, buried collegiate church at Leicester, 3) Lincoln
13 Jan. 1396 Katherine Roet, dau. of Sir Payne Roet, widow of Sir Hugh Swynford,
b. 1350, d. 10 Feb. 1403. buried at Lincoln Minster, monument remains on the west
side of altar.
(Note: Katherine's sister, Philippa, m. Geoffrey Chaucer, the poet).
Siblings:
Edward, The Black Prince, b. Woodstock 15 June 1330, d. Westminster on Trinity
Sunday, 8 June 1376, buried Canterbury Cathedral (will written in French), m.
Windsor 10 Oct. 1361 Joan Plantagenet, the Fair Maid of Kent ( see below).
Isabella, b. Woodstock 16 June 1332, d. London bef. 7 Oct. 1382, buried at Friars
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 11
ENGLAND’S PLANTAGENET LINES
minors without Aldgate m. Windsor 27 July 1365 Ingelram de Coucy, Earl of Soissons, Earl of Bedford, d. Barre in Apulia 1397
Joan, b. Woodstock ca. Feb. 1335, d. Bayonne 2 Sept. 1348
William of Hatfield, b. bef. 16 Feb. 1337, d,y,
Lionell of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, b. Antwerp 29 Nov. 1338, d Alba, Piedmont
17 Oct. 1368, died, possibly poisoned, at Violetta's father's house, Alba Pompeia
(Longueville); will in Latin, buried in city of Pavia, later brought to England and interred at Clare in Suffolk; m. 1) 9 Sept. 1342 Elizabeth de Burgh, 2) 28 May 1368
Violetta of Milan
Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, b. Langley, Hertfordshire 5 June 1341, d. Langley 1 Aug. 1402 , buried Friars Preachers parish church, Langley; m. 1) ca. 1 March
1372 Isabel of Castile (sister of Constance), 2) bef. 4 Nov. 1393 Joan de Holand of
Kent
Margaret, m. John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke (div)
Blanche, b and d. Tower of London March 1342
Mary, b. Waltham, 9/10 Oct. 1344, d. 1361, m. Woodstock summer of 1361 as 1st
wife John V, Duke of Brittany
Margaret, b. Windsor 20 July 1346, d. aft 1 Oct. 1361, m. Reading 19 May 1359 as
first wife, John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke
William of Windsor, b. Windsor Castle bef. 24 June 1348, d. Sept. 1348
Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, b. Woodstock 7 Jan. 1355, d. Calais 8
Sept. 1397, m. 1374 Lady Eleanor de Bohun who d. Essex 3 Oct. 1399
John, Edward, Isabella, Joan, William, Lionel, Edmund, Blanche,
Mary, Margaret, William and Thomas were children of:
Edward III, King of England, b. Windsor Castle, Berkshire, 13 Nov. 1312, d. Richmond, Surrey, 21
June 1377, buried Westminster Abbey, m. 24 Jan. 1328 Philippa of Hainault who
was b. 1312, d. 15 Aug. 1369; opening of Hundred Years War; Black Death - bubonic plague (see Hainault). Siblings:
John of Eltham, Ewarl of Cornwall, b Kent 15 Aug. 1316, d. Perth 13/14 Sept.
1336
Eleanor of England, b. Woodstock 18 June 1318, d. Devanter 22 Apri. 1355, m.
May 1332 Reynald II, 1st Duke of Guelders
Joan, b. Tower of London 5 July 1321, d. Hertford 7 Sept. 1362, m. Berwick 17
July 1328 David II, King of Scots
Edward, John, Eleanor and Joan were children of:
Edward II, King of England, b. Caernarvon, Wales 25 April 1284, murdered 25 Jan. 1326 Berkeley
Castle, Gloucester, buried in monastery (now cathedral) of St. Peter at Cloucester; m.
Boulogne 28 Jan. 1308, m Isabella of France, b. Paris 1295, d. Castle Rising, Norfolk 22 Aug. 1358. Very weak king, defeated at Bannockburn 1314, abdicated in
favor of his son. Siblings:
Children of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile:
Eleanor, Windsor Castle 17 June 1264-Ghent 12 Oct. 1297, m. Bristol 20 Sept.
1293 Henry III, Count of Bar
Joan, 1265-d.y.
John, b. Wincester 10 June/July 1266-Westminster 1 or 3 Aug 1271
Henry, b. Windsor 13 July 1267-Merton, Surrey 14 Oct. 1274
Julian (Katherine), 1271-d.y. Holy Land
Joan of Acre, b. Palestine 1272-d. Suffolk 23 April 1307, m. 1) 30 April 1290
Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who d. 1295, m. 2)Jan. 1297
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 12
ENGLAND’S PLANTAGENET LINES
Ralph de Morthemer, Earl of Gloucester, Earl of Atholl
Alphonso, Earl of Chester, b. Bordeaux 24 Nov. 1273, d. Windsor Castle 19 Aug.
1284
Margaret, b. Windsor Castle 11 Sept. 1275-d. Brussell 1318, m. 8 July 1290, m
John II, Duke of Brabant
Berengaria, b. Kennington 1276, d. ca. 1279
Mary, b. Windsor Castle 11 March 1278-Amesbury bef. 8 July 1332, nun at Amesbury
Alice, b. Woodstock 12 March 1272-1291
Elizabeth b. Rhuddian Castle Aug. 1282, d. 5 May 1316, m. 1) Ipswich 18 Jan.
1297 John I, Count of Holland, 2) 14 Nov. 1302 Humphrey de Bohun VIII, b. 1276,
d. 16 March 1321/22
Beatrice, b. Aquitaine ca. 1286-d.y.
Blanche, 1290-d.y.
Children by Margaret of France and Edward I:
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, b. 1 June 1300-Aug. 1338 , m. Alice Halys,
2) Mary de Ros
Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, b. Woodstock 5 Aug. 1301, beheaded on 19
March 1329, m. Dec. 1325 Margaret Wake, who d. 29 Sept. 1349 (see Wake below)
Eleanor, 4 May 1306-1311
Edward II, Eleanor, Joan, John, Henry, Julian, Joan, Alphonso, Berengaria, Mary, Alice, Elizabeth, Beatrice, Blanche, Thomas, Edmund, and Eleanor were children of:
Edward I, King of England, called Longshanks, b. Westminster 17 June 1239, d. Carlisle 7 July
1307, buried at head of father in Westminster Abbey(will in Latin) statesman, lawyer
and soldier, taken prisoner at battle of Lewes, 14 May 1264 by the rebellious Barons
under Simon de Montfort, crusader May 1271, m. 1) at Burgos, Spain, 18 Oct.
1254, Eleanor of Castile who d. 20 Nov. 1290, m. 2) Canterbury 8 Sept. 1299 m
2) Margaret of France, who d. Marlborough Castle 14 Feb. 1317, buried Grey Friars
Church, London (see Castile). Siblings:
Margaret, b. 29 Sept. 1240, d. Cupar Castle 25 Feb. 1275, m. 26 Dec. 1251, Alexander III, King of Scots.
Beatrice, 25 June 1242-London 24 March 1275, m. St. Denis 22 Jan. 1260 John of
Dreux, Earl of Richmond, Duke of Brittany
Edmund Crouchback, King of Sicily, Earl of Leicester, Earl of Lancaster, Count of
Champagne and Brie, b. 16 Jan. 1244/45, d. Bayonne 5 June 1296, m. 1) Aveline de
Forz (d. 10 Nov. 1274) 2) bef. 3 Feb. 1276 Blanche of Champagne, Dowager Queen
of Navarre, who d. 2 May 1302 (see Artois and below).
Richard, ca. 1247-bef. 1256
John, ca. 1250-bef. 1256
Katherine, 25 Nov. 1253-Windsor Castle, 3 May 1257
William, 1256-d.y.
Henry, d.y.
Henry III, King of England, b. Winchester 1 Oct. 1207, d. Westminster 16 Nov. 1372, heart buried
Font Evraud in Anjou, body at Westminster Abbey, m. 14 Jan. 1236/37 Eleanor
Berenger of Province, b. Aix-en-Provence 1217, d. Amesbury 24 Jan. 1291; greatest
of all patrons of medieval ecclesiastical architecture. Siblings:
Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, b. 5 Jan. 1209, d. 2 Apr 1272, m.
1) 13 March 1231 Lady Isabella Marshal, 2) 23 Nov. 1243, Sanchia of Provence, 3)
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 13
ENGLAND’S PLANTAGENET LINES
15 June 1269, Beatrix of Falkenburg
Joan, 22 July 1210-4 March 1238, m. 19 June 1221 Alexander II, King of Scots
Isabella, 1214-1 Dec. 1241, m. 20 July 1235 as 3rd wife, Frederick II Hohenstaufen,
Holy Roman Emperor
Eleanor, 1215-13 April 1275, m. 1) 23 Apr. 1224 as 2nd wife, William Marshal,
2nd Earl of Pembroke, 2) 7 June 1239, Simon de Montfort, 2nd Earl of Leicester by
unknown mistress:
Joan, m. 1205 as second wife, Llewellyn the Great, Prince of North Wales, b. 1173,
d. 1240. (natural dau.)
Henry, Richard, Joan, Isabella, Eleanor and Joan were children of:
John Lackland, King of England, b. Beaumont Palace, Oxford 24 Dec. 1166, d. Newark , Nottinghamshire, 19 Oct. 1215, buried Worcester Cathedral; (will in Latin) Lord of Ireland, Count of Mortain, Earl of Gloucester; m.1) Isabelle, Countess of Gloucester,
(m. annulled), 2) 24 Aug. 1200 Isabella Taillefer of Angouléme, b. 1188, d.
21 May 1246; central figure of the Magna Charta (see Angouléme). Siblings:
William, b. Normandy 17 Aug. 1152, d. Wallingford Castle, Berkshire ca. April
1156 )
Henry the Young King, b. Bermondsey 28 Feb. 1155, d. Martel 11 June 1183, m. 2
Nov. 1160 Margaret of France
Matilda, b London 1156, d. Brunswick 28 June 1189, m. 1 Feb. 1168 Henry V, the
Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria
Richard I, the Lion-Hearted, King of England,; b. Beaumont Palace, Oxford 8 Sept.
1157-Châlus, Limousin 6 April 1199, buried at Font Evrault, (will bequeathed to his
brother, John, his kingdom of England and all his other territories; all his jewels to
his nephew Otho, emperor of Germany; his brains, blood and entrails should be
buried at Charrou, his heart at Rouen, his body at Font Evraud at the feet of his
father); m. Berengaria of Navarre; member of third Crusade
Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany, b. 23 Sept. 1158, killed in tournament in Paris 19 Aug.
1186, m. July 1181 Constance, Duchess of Brittany
Eleanor, b. Domfront, Normandy 13 Oct. 1162, d. Burgos 31 Oct. 1214, m. Sept.
1177 Alfonso VIII the Good, King of Castile, b. 1155, d. 1214 (see Castile). Siblings:
Joan, b. Angers Oct. 1165, d. 4 Sept. 1199, m. 1) Palermo 13 Feb. 1177
by Fair Rosamond Clifford:
William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, b. 1176, d. 7 March 1225/6, m. Ela Fitz Patrick, Countess of Salisbury, b. ca. 1190, d. 1261 (son of Henry and Fair Rosamond)
(see Longespee, Salisbury)
John,William, Henry, Matilda, Richard, Geoffrey, Eleanor, Joan
and William were children of:
Henry II Curt Mantel, King of England, b. LeMans 25 March 1133, d. before the altar in the church
at Chinon, 6 July 1189, buried at Font Evrauld in Anjou (will in Latin); m. 1) at
Bordeaux 18 May 1153 Eleanor of Aquitaine, b. 1123 and died 26 March 1202 or 3
March 1204; 2)"Fair Rosamund" Clifford. Friend, and later enemy of Thomas a'Becket, indirect cause of Becket's death (see Aquitaine)
Hameline Plantagenet, d. 7 May 1202, m. 1163 as second wife Isabel de Warren (see
Warrenne)
Henry and Hameline were sons of:
Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, b. 24 Aug. 1113, d. Chateau Eure-etLoire, France. 7 Sept. 1151, m. 3 April 1127 Matilda of England (cont. in Anjou; see England and
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 14
ENGLAND’S PLANTAGENET LINES
Normandy)
* * *
Joan Plantagenet, the Fair Maid of Kent, Baroness of Woodstock and Wake, b. 29 Sept. 1328, d.
8 Aug. 1385, m. 1) Thomas Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, div.), 2) Sir Thomas de Holand
K.G., Lord Holand, Earl of Kent, who d. 26 Dec. 1360, m. 1361 3) Edward the Black Prince
(see Holand). Sibling:
John Plantagenet, Earl of Kent, m. Elizabeth de Juliers
Joan and John were children of:
Edmund of Woodstock, Lord Woodstock, Earl of Kent, Sheriff of Rutland, b. 5 Aug. 1301, beheaded 19 March 1329, m. Margaret Wake, Baroness Wake, who was b. ca. 1299, d.
29 Sept. 1349 (see above)
* * *
Eleanor Plantagenet m. 1) John Beaumont, 2) in 1346 as second wife, Richard Fitz Alan
(Copped Hat), Earl of Arundel, who was b. ca. 1313, d. 24 Jan. 1355/6
(see FitzAlan)
Joan Plantagenet, m. as first wife of John de Mowbray
Blanche of Lancaster, m. John of Gaunt (see above)
Mary, m. Henry Percy, 3rd Lord Percy
Eleanor and Joan were the daus of:
Henry Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster, b. 1281, d. 22 Sept. 1345, m. Maud Chaworth
Henry was the son of:
Edmund Crouchback, King of Sicily, Earl of Leicester, Earl of Lancaster, Count of Champagne
and Brie, b. 16 Jan. 1244/45, d. 5 June 1296, m. Blanche of Champagne
and Artois, Dowager Queen of Navarre, who d. 2 May 1302 (see Artois, Navarre)
Ref: Cokayne: Complete Peerage, vol. III, p. 170; Delderfield and Cook: Kings and Queens of England; David Williamson: Debrett's Kings and Queens of Britain, Salem House Publishers, Topsfield, Mass; Nichols: A Collection of all the Wills now known to be
extant of the Kings and Queens of England, Princes and Princesses of Wales and every branch of the blood royal from the reign of William the Conqueror to that of Henry the Seventh exclusive. (Note: He quotes a lot from Sandford: Genealogical History ; Stuart: Royalty for Commoners, p. 1; Rev. W.G.D. Fletcher: Royal
Descents: Scottish Records, p. 13.
Submitted by Carolyn Huebner Collins, South Bend, Indiana.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 15
ENGLISH AND NORMAN LINES
ENGLISH AND NORMAN LINES
by Carol Huebner Collins
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Richard II, Duke of Normandy, d. 1026/27, m. Judith of Brittany, b. 982, d. 1017/18; son:
Mauger the Younger, Lord of St. Clair in Manche, m. 1012 Germaine, Countess of
Corbeil; son:
Hubert de St. Clair and de Rye, Chatelain of Norwich Castle; son:
Sveide the Viking, a Norse King, d. 760; son:
Halfdan, the Old, d. 800; son:
Ivar, Earl of Uplands, m. dau. of Eystein Glumra; son:
Eystein, Earl of More, m. Aseda of Jutland; son:
Rognvald, Earl of More, d. 890, m. Hilda; children:
i.
Rollo the Dane, 1st Duke of Normandy, m. Lady Poppa de Valois
ii.
Hrollager, m. Emina
9. Rollo the Dane, 1st Duke of Normandy, b. 846, d. Rouen 931/32, m. Lady Poppa de Valois;
children:
10.
i.
William Longsword, 2nd Duke of Normandy, Espriota of Senlis
ii.
Gerlot of Normandy, m. William II, Duke of Aquitaine, who d. 970
10. William Longsword, 2nd Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, slain by Arnulf in Flanders
943, m. Espriota of Senlis, dau. of Hubert, Count of Senlis; son:
11. Richard the Fearless, 3rd Duke of Normandy, b. 933, d. 996, m. Lady Gunnora of Denmark
who d. 1031; children:
12.
i.
Richard II the Good, m. 1000 Judith of Brittany
ii.
Robert, Count of Evreux, Archbishop of Rouen
iii.
Emma, "the Flower of Normandy", m. as second wife, Ethelred II the
Unready, King of England, b. 968, d. 23 April 1016
iv.
Hawise of Normandy, d. 21 Feb. 1034, m. 996 Godfrey, Duke of Brittany who
was b. ca. 970, d. 1008
v.
Godfrey, Count of Eu and Brionne (natural son)
12. Richard II the Good, 4th Duke of Normandy, d. 1026/27, m. 1000 Judith of Brittany, b. 982, d.
1017/18
13.
i.
Robert the Devil and Herleve
ii.
Richard III, Duke of Normandy, d. 1028, m. Adela of France
iii.
Judith (Alice) of Normandy, m. 1023 Renaud I, Count of Burgundy who d. 1057
iv.
Eleanor, m. Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders
v.
Mauger the Younger, Lord of St. Clair in Manche, m. 1012 Germaine,
Countess of Corbeil
13. Robert the Devil or the Magnificent, 6th Duke of Normandy, d. 1035, and mistress Herleve
(called Arletta) Robert had children:
14.
i.
William the Conqueror, m. Matilda (Maud) of Flanders
ii.
Felicia of Normandy, m. as second wife, Rognvald, General in the
Army of King Olaf of Norway, put to death ca. 1046
iii.
Adelaide de Gand, Comtesse de Albamarla, m. 2) in 1053 Lambert of
Boulogne, Count of Lens, and Louvaine, who d. 1054 (natural dau.)
14. William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, King of England, b. 1027, d. 9 Sept. 1087,
buried St. Stephens, Caen, Normandy, m. Matilda (Maud) of Flanders who d. 2 Nov. 1083 (natural son
of Robert and Herelene (Arletta)
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 16
ENGLISH AND NORMAN LINES
15.
i.
William II Rufus, King of England, b. ca. 1056, killed by an arrow while hunt
ing in New Forest in 1100, buried in Winchester cathedral
ii.
Robert , defeated by Henry at Tinchebrai and held captive at Cardiff
iii.
Henry I Beauclerc, King of England, m. 1) 1101 Maud of Scotland , 2) Adela of
Louvain
iv.
Adela, d. 1137, m. Stephen (Estienne), Count of Blois 1 son, 4 daus.
15. Henry I Beauclerc, King of England, b. 1068, d. at St. Denys, in a castle and forest of Lions,
Normandy 4 Dec. 1135 1, buried at Reading Abbey, m. 1) 1101 Maud of Scotland , 2) Adela of Louvain
16.
i.
Matilda of England, b. 1104, d. 10 Sept. 1167, m. 2) 3 April 1127 Geoffrey Plan
tagenet, Count of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, b. 24 Aug. 1113, d. 7 Sept. 1151.
Henry had 14 illigitemate children: by Sibyl Corbet of Caen:
ii.
Robert de Caen, "the Consul", Earl of Gloucester, b. ca. 1090, d. of fever 31 Oct.
1157, buried at Priory of St. James, fought at battle of Brémulé 1119, founded Ab
bey of Neath and benefactor of Gloucester; founded St. James Priory at Bristol as a
cell to Tewkesbury, backed sister, Maud, in Civil Wars, m. Maud Fitz Hamon
iii.
Reynold de Dunstanville, Earl of Cornwall, d/ 1 July 1175, bur. Abbey of
Reading, m. Beatrice dau. William FitzRichard
iv.
Elizabeth, m. Fergus of Galloway by Nesta of Wales:
v.
Henry
vi.
Maud, m. Conan III, Duke of Brittany, who d. 1149
vii.
Constance m. Roscelin de Beumont, Vicomte de Beaumont.
(Continued in England/Plantagenet)
Ref: Cokayne: Complete Peerage, Vol I, p. 354, Vol. XII, Append K; Royal Genealogies, p. 741;
Your Family Tree, p. 89; J. Nichols: A collection of all the Wills, now known to be extant, of the
Kings and Queens of England, etc., 1880;
Submitted by:
Carol Huebner Collins,
2201 Riverside Dr.,
South Bend, Ind. 46616-2151
1 Henry ordered his natural son, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, to take £60,000 out of his treasure in his
custody at Falaise, and to distribut gratuities and pay among his servants and soldiers, and directed his
body to be carried to Reading, where he had founded an abbey.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 17
THE ENGLISH HOUSE OF THE PLANTAGENETS
THE ENGLISH HOUSE
OF THE PLANTAGENETS
by Carol Huebner Collins
Geoffrey
Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, b. 24 Aug. 1113, d. at Chateau
Eure-et-Loire 7 Sept. 1151, m. 3 April 1127 Matilda of England, daughter of Henry I Beauclerc,
King of England and Maud of Scotland. Children were:
1.
i. Henry II, Curt Mantel, King of England, m. 1) Eleanor of Aquitaine, 2) as mistress,
Rosamund Clifford
ii. Hameline Plantagenet, d. 7 May 1202, second husband of Isabel de Warren
(Warrenne)
1. Henry II, Curt Mantel, King of England, b. LeMans, France 25 March 1133, d. before the altar in the church at Chinon 6 Juily 1189, buried at Font Evrauld in Anjou, m. 1) at Bordeaux 18
May 1153 Eleanor of Aquitaine, dau. of William V, Duke of Aquitaine and Eleanor of Chastellerault. Children:
2.
i.
John Lackland, King of England, m. 1) Isabelle, Countess of Gloucester, 2)
Isabella Taillefer of Angouleme
ii.
William, b. Normandy 17 Aug. 1152, d. Wallingford Castle, Berkshire, ca.
April 1156
iii.
Henry the Young King, b. Bermondsey 28 Feb. 1155, d. Martel 11
June 1183, m. 2 Nov. 1160 Margaret of France
iv.
Matilda, b. London 1156, d. Brunswick 28 June 1189, m. Henry V,
called the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria
v.
Richard I, the Lion Hearted, King of England, b. Beaumont Palace
Oxford 8 Sept. 1157, d. Chatus, Limousin 6 April 1199, buried at Fontevrault,
m. Berengaria of Navarre; member of third Crusade.
vi.
Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany, b. 23 Sept. 1158, killed in tournament in
Paris 19 Aug. 1186, m. Constance, Duchess of Brittany.
vii.
Eleanor, b. Domfront, Normandy, 13 Oct. 1162, d. Burgos 31 Oct. 1214, m.
Alfonso VIII, the Good, King of Castile
viii.
Joan, b. Angers Oct. 1165, d. Sept. 1199.
Henry II mistress and true love was 2) "Fair Rosamund" Clifford; son:
ix.
William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, b. 1176, d. 7 March 1125/6, m.
Ella FitzPatrick, Countess of Salisbury,
2. John, called Lackland, King of England, b. Beaumont Palace, Oxford 24 Dec. 1166, d. Newark, Nottinghamshire 19 Oct. 1215, buried Worcester Cathedral; Lord of Ireland, Count of Mortain,
Earl of Gloucester; m. 1) Isabelle, Countess of Gloucester (marriage annulled); 2) 24 Aug. 1200
Isabella Taillefer of Angouleme, dau. of Aymer de Valence, Count of Angouleme, and Alice
(Adelaide) de Courtenay, b. 1188, d. 21 May 1246. John Lackland was the central figure in the
Magna Charta. Children by second wife:
3.
i.
ii.
Volume One
Henry III, King of England, m. Eleanor Berenger of Provence
Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans, b. 5 Jan. 1209, d. 2
April 1272, m. 1) Lady Isabella Marshall, 2) 23 Nov. 1243 Sancha of Provence,
The Plantagenet Connection
page 18
THE ENGLISH HOUSE OF THE PLANTAGENETS
iii.
iv.
v.
3) 15 June 1269 Beatrix of Falkenburg
Joan, b. 23 July 1210, d. 4 March 1238, m. 19 June 1221 Alexander II, King
of Scots
Isabella, b. 1214, d. 1 Dec. 1241, third wife of Frederick II Hohenstaufen,
Holy Roman Emperor.
Eleanor, b. 1215, d. 13 Apri 1275, m. 1) 23 April 1224 (2nd wife) William
Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke ; 2) 7 June 1239 Simon de Montfort, 2nd Earl of
Leicester
King John had by unknown mistress:
vi.
Joan, b. 1173, d. 1240, second wife of Llewellyn the Great, Prince of North
Wales.
3. Henry III, King of England, b. Winchester 1 Oct. 1207, d. Westminster 16 Nov. 1372, heart
buried Font Evraud in Anjou, body buried at Westminster Abbey; m. 14 Jan. 1236/7 Eleanor Berenger of Provence. Eleanor was born in Aix-en-Provence 1217, d. Amesbury 24 Jan. 1291. Henry III was the greatest of all patrons of medieval ecclesiastical architecture. Children:
4.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
Edward I, King of England, Longshanks, m. Eleanor of Castile, Margaret of
France
Margaret, b. 29 Sept. 1240, d. Cupar Castle 25 Feb. 1275, m. 26 Dec. 1251
Alexander III, King of Scots
Beatrice, b 25 June 1242, d. London 24 March 1275, m. St. Denis, France 22
Jan. 1260 John of Dreux, Earl of Richmond, Duke of Brittany.
Edmund Crouchback, King of Sicily, Earl of Leicester, Earl of Lancaster,
Count of Champagne and Brie, 1244/5-1296, m. 1) Aveline de Forz, 2) Blanche
of Champagne, Dowager Queen of Navarre
Richard, ca. 1247-bef. 1256
John, ca. 1250-bef. 1256
Katherine, 25 Nov. 1253-Windsor Castle 3 May 1257
William, 1256, d.y.
Henry, d.y.
4. Edward I, King of England, Longshanks, b. Westminster 17 June 1239, d. Carlisle 7 July
1307, buried at head of father in Westminster Abbey; statesman, lawyer and soldier, taken prisoner
at battle of Lewes 14 May 1264 by the rebellious Barons under Simon de Montfort; Crusader May
1271, m. 1) at Burgos, Spain, 18 Oct 1254 Eleanor of Castile, dau. of Fernando III, the Saint,
King of Castile and Leon, and Joan de Dammartin, who d. 20 Nov. 1290. Children:
5.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Volume One
Edward II, King of England, m. Isabella of France
Eleanor, b. Windsor Castle 17 June 1264, d. Ghent 12 Oct. 1297, m. Bristol
20 Sept. 1293 Henry III, Count of Bar
Joan, 1265-d.y.
John, b. Winchester 10 June/July 1266, d. Westminster 1 or 3 Aug. 1271
Henry, b. Windsor 12 July 1267, d. Merton, Surrey, 14 Oct. 1274
Julianne (Katherine), 1271-d.y. in Holy Land
Joan of Acre, b. Palestine 1272-d. Suffolk 23 April 1307, m. 1) 30 April
1290 Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, who d. 1295, m. 2)Jan.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 19
THE ENGLISH HOUSE OF THE PLANTAGENETS
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
1297 Ralph de Morthemer, Earl of Gloucester, Earl of Atholl
Alphonso, Earl of Chester, b. Bordeaux 24 Nov. 1273, d. Windsor
Castle 19 Aug. 1284
Margaret, b. Windsor Castle 11 Sept. 1275-d. Brussell 1318, m. 8 July 1290,
John II, Duke of Brabant
Berengaria, b. Kennington 1276, d. ca. 1279
Mary, b. Windsor Castle 11 March 1278-Amesbury bef. 8 July 1332, nun at
Amesbury
Alice, b. Woodstock 12 March 1272-1291
Elizabeth b. Rhuddian Castle Aug. 1282, d. 5 May 1316, m. 1) Ipswich 18
Jan. 1297 John I, Count of Holland, 2) 14 Nov. 1302 Humphrey de Bohun VIII,
b. 1276, d. 16 March 1321/22
Beatrice, b. Aquitaine ca. 1286-d.y.
Blanche, 1290-d.y.
Edward I m. 2) at Canterbury, 8 Sept. 1299, Margaret of France, dau. of Philip III le Hardi and
Isabella of Aragon, who d. at Marlborough Castle 14 Feb. 1317, buried Grey Friars Church, London. Children:
xvi.
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, b. 1 June 1300-Aug. 1338 , m.
Alice Halys, 2) Mary de Ros
xvii.
Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, b. Woodstock 5 Aug. 1301- beheaded
on 19 March 1329, m. Dec. 1325 Margaret Wake, who d. 29 Sept.
1349
xviii. Eleanor, 4 May 1306-1311
5. Edward II, King of England, b. Caernarvon, Wales 25 April 1284, murdered 25 Jan. 1326
Berkeley Castle, Gloucester, buried in monastery (now cathedral) of St. Peter at Gloucester; m.at
Boulogne 28 Jan. 1308 Isabella of France,dau. of Philip IV, the Fair, and Jeanne de Navarre, b.
Paris 1295, d. Castle Rising, Norfolk 22 Aug. 1358. Very weak king, defeated at Bannockburn
1314, abdicated in favor of his son. Children:
6.
i.
Edward III, King of England, m. Phillapa of Hainault
ii.
John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall, b Kent 15 Aug. 1316, d. Perth 13/14
Sept. 1336
iii.
Eleanor of England, b. Woodstock 18 June 1318, d. Devanter 22 April,
1355, m. May 1332 Reynald II, 1st Duke of Guelders
iv.
Joan, b. Tower of London 5 July 1321, d. Hertford 7 Sept. 1362, m.
Berwick 17 July 1328 David II, King of Scots
6. Edward III, King of England, b. Windsor Castle, Berkshire, 13 Nov. 1312, d. Richmond, Surrey, 21 June 1377, buried Westminster Abbey, m. 24 Jan. 1328 Philippa of Hainault, dau of William III the Good, Count of Hainaut and Holland, and Jeanne of Valois, who was b. 1312, d. 15
Aug. 1369; his reign saw the opening of Hundred Years War; Black Death - bubonic plague.
Children:
7.
i.
John of Gaunt, m. 1) Blanche of Lancaster, 2) Constance of Castile,
Katherine Roet,
ii.
Edward,The Black Prince, b. Woodstock 15 June 1330, d. Westminster on
Trinity Sunday, 8 June 1376, buried Canterbury Cathedral, m. Windsor 10 Oct.
1361 Joan Plantagenet, the Fair Maid of Kent
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 20
THE ENGLISH HOUSE OF THE PLANTAGENETS
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
Isabella, b. Woodstock 16 June 1332, d. London bef. 7 Oct. 1382,
buried at Friars minors without Aldgate m. Windsor 27 July 1365
Ingelram de Coucy, Earl of Soissons, Earl of Bedford, d. Barre in Apulia 1397
Joan, b. Woodstock ca. Feb. 1335, d. Bayonne 2 Sept. 1348
William of Hatfield, b. bef. 16 Feb. 1337, d,y,
Lionell of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, b. Antwerp 29 Nov. 1338, d Alba,
Piedmont 17 Oct. 1368, died, possibly poisoned, at Violetta's father's house,
Alba Pompeia (Longueville); buried in city of Pavia, later brought to England
and interred at Clare in Suffolk; m. 1) 9 Sept. 1342 Elizabeth de Burgh, 2) 28
May 1368 Violetta of Milan
Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, b. Langley, Hertfordshire 5 June 1341,
d. Langley 1 Aug. 1402 , buried Friars Preachers parish church, Langley; m. 1)
ca. 1 March 1372 Isabel of Castile (sister of Constance), 2) bef. 4 Nov. 1393
Joan de Holand of Kent
Margaret, m. John de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke (divorced)
Blanche, b and d. Tower of London March 1342
Mary, b. Waltham, 9/10 Oct. 1344, d. 1361, m. at Woodstock summer of 1361
as 1st wife John V, Duke of Brittany
Margaret, b. Windsor 20 July 1346, d. aft 1 Oct. 1361, m. Reading 19 May
1359 as first wife, John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke
William of Windsor, b. Windsor Castle bef. 24 June 1348, d. Sept. 1348
Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, b. at Woodstock 7 Jan. 1355,
d. Calais 8 Sept. 1397, m. 1374 Lady Eleanor de Bohun who d. Essex 3 Oct.
1399
7. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster 1362, Earl of Leicester, Earl of Lincoln, Earl of Richmond, Steward of England, King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Aquitaine or Guinnes, Captian
General in France, Captain General at Sea, Constable of Chester, b.Ghent 24 June 1340 and d.
Leicester Castle 3 Feb. 1398/99 m. 1) Reading 19 May 1359 Blanche of Lancaster, d. 1369 at palace of bishop of Ely in Holborn, buried in St. Paul's Cathedral. Children:
i.
Henry IV, K.G., duke of Hereford and Lancaster, Earl of Derby, King
of England, 1362-1412, m. 1) Mary de Bohun,who d. 1394, 2) Joan de Navarre
ii.
Philippa , d. 1415, m. 1386 John I, King of Portugal
iii.
Elizabeth, d. 1421, m. 1) John Holland of Exeter, 2) Sir John Cornwall, lord
Fanhop.
John of Gaunt m. 2) Sept. 1371 Constance of Castile, dau of Peter the Cruel, King of Castile
and Leon, da. 1394, buried collegiate church at Leicester. Daughter:
iv.
Catherine, m. Henry, prince of Asturias (Henry III, King of Spain)
John of Gaunt m. 3) Lincoln 13 Jan. 1396 Katherine Roet, dau. of Sir Payne Roet, widow of
Sir Hugh Swynford, b. 1350, d. 10 Feb. 1403. buried at Lincoln Minster, a monument remains on
the west side of altar. (Note: Katherine's sister, Philippa, m. Geoffrey Chaucer, the poet). Children:
8.
v.
Sir John Beaufort, first husband of Margaret Holand
vi.
Henry Beaufort, Cardinal of St. Eusebius, bishop of Lincoln 1398, and of
Winchester 1404-1447, chancellor of Oxford, 4 times Chancellor of England,
crusader; d. 11 April 1447.
vii.
Joan Beaufort, d. 13 Nov. 1440, m. 1) Robert Ferrers, 2) Ralph de Neville,
Earl of Westmoreland, who d. 21 Oct. 1425
viii.
Thomas Beaufort, Earl of Exeter, admiral of England, Earl of Dorset, d. 29
Dec., 1426, m. Margaret (Mary?) Nevil
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 21
THE ENGLISH HOUSE OF THE PLANTAGENETS
8. Sir John Beaufort, K.G., Earl of Somerset, Marquess of Dorsett, Lord High Admiral of
England, Captain of Calais, Constable of England, Constable of Wallingford Castle, Dovey Castle, and Corfe Castle, d. 16 March 1409/10, buried Canterbury Cathedral, St. Micael's Chapel, in
south transcept; m. ca. 1397 Margaret Holand, dau. of Thomas de Holand of Woodstock and Alice
FitzAlan, who d. 30 Dec. 1440. Children:
i.
Joan Beaufort m. 1) 1424 James I (Stewart), King of Scotland, 2) Sir
James Stewart, Black Knight of Lorn
ii.
Henry Beaufort, 1401-1418, n.m.
iii.
John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, m. Margaret Beauchamp
iv.
Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Morton, slain in first battle at St. Alban's, 1455
v.
Thomas Beaufort
vi.
Margaret Beaufort, m. Thomas Courtney, Earl of Devon
Ref: Cokayne: Complete Peerage, vol. III, p. 170; Delderfield and Cook: Kings and Queens of
England ; David Williamson: Debrett's Kings and Queens of Britain; Nichols: a Collection of all
the Wills now known to be extant of the Kings and Queens of England, Princes and Princesses of
Wales and every branch of the blood royal from the reign of William the Conqueror to that of Henry the Seventh exclusive. (Note: He quotes extensively from Sandford: Genealogical History);
Stuart: Royalty for Commoners, p. 1; Rev. W.G.D. Fletcher: Royal Descents: Scottish Records,
p. 13;
Submitted by:
Volume One
Carol Huebner Collins,
2201 Riverside Dr.,
South Bend, Ind. 46616-2151
The Plantagenet Connection
page 22
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
BARE BONES INFORMATION
Unfortunately, “illumination of bare
bones information” is often subject to
dispute as to its accuracy absent citation of
an appropriate source. As someone with
Plantagenet lines but very little on the
shelf in the way of useful histories, I am
interested in gaining as much accurate information as I can. The article on Alfred
the Great would be greatly improved by
the addition of footnotes or a listing of
sources ... in the interest of discouraging
“rumor,” I would recommend a clear separation between submissions from the Ancestral File, other documented lists, and
documentable editorial material.
Steve Kyner, Holliston, MA.
Editorial reply: I agree with you,
Steve, and will try to put in more footnotes in the future, but I do not want to
overdo it. Some facts are common knowledge and can be looked up in the encyclopedia. Often the trick is in determining
what is common knowledge and what
needs annotation. One does not write history, one steals it from someone else and
calls it “documentation.”
The sources on Alfred were, I thought,
made clear in the existing footnotes. In
writing the article I drew heavily on the
accounts that surrounded the quoted
sources, David Hume, Asser’s translated
works, and Winston Churchill.
The genealogy of his ancestors were
noted as being legends. As such, they
should be taken with a grain of salt, as
there were no real written records that far
back in Teutonic history. However, I feel
that even though these ancient genealogies
are legends, they are worth consideration
in light of the root names that are still
much with us, names such as Finn, Odin
and Godwulf.
Volume One
So far as legends go, I am all for keeping the legend, as I feel they are (1) either
rooted in fact, or (2) illuminate the psychology of the age. We are not likely to
make new discoveries of fact after all
these centuries. The overview, seen in the
light of our times, seems to be the only
creative contribution one can make. Thomas Costain wrote a four volume history
of the Plantagenets with scarcely a footnote nor a clue as to where he found his
fascinating information. Some put him
down as a novelist trying to write history,
but I find his poetic style and wry observations most intriguing.
Most material on this era is derived from
The Plantagenet Chronicles. These are
records written close to the time of the events, recorded by clerics and contemporary historians. The old English is dry for
the modern reader, so many historians
dress it up in new language. I will try to
include more of the source material in the
future.
PETER AND THOMAS BROWNE
CONNECTIONS
Congratulations on the excellent Plantagenet Connection. I recently found that I
am descended from Peter Brown(e) of the
Mayflower. There are references in the
American Genealogist published in 1929,
page 96 which listed the Plantagenets back
to William the Conqueror as the line of
Peter Browne, son of Thomas Browne.
This list is not accurate as to birth dates,
so I would hesitate to accept that very old
information. I am hoping that in the 150
years since then that some more accurate
dates have come to light to confirm or
deny these claims.
The Plantagenet Connection
Joan H. Henely
2161 Kalia Road #1212 Honolulu, Hawaii 96615
Page 23
THE DANVERS OF DAUNTSEY
THE DANVERS OF DAUNTSEY
By Stuart J. Wright
The Estates of the STRADLING family of St.
Donats, S. Wales, in the village of Dauntsey,
Wiltshire, England, came into the DANVER'S
family by way of the marriage of Sir John
DANVERS of Culworth, Northamptonshire, to
Lady Anne STRADLING of Dauntsey, Wiltshire.
Lady Anne inherited the estates at Dauntsey after
her parents and brother were supposedly murdered.
Sir John and Lady Anne are both buried in the
church at Dauntsey, their tombs on either side of
the Altar. On the side of Lady Anne's tomb is a
"brass" of Lady Anne kneeling before the
"Trinity" in 1539.
Of the twelve children born to Sir John and
Lady Anne, the most advantageous marriage was
that of Thomas DANVERS, the tenth child. He
married in about 1515, to Margaret the daughter
of Sir William COURTENAY, and Cicely
CHEYNEY, of Powderham Castle, Devonshire.
Margaret was a direct descendant of Hugh de
COURTENAY, the 2nd son of the 2nd Earl of
Devon, and Margaret De BOHUN, the Granddaughter of King Edward 1st (Plantagenet) and
Eleanor of Castile.
The only son of Thomas DANVERS and Margaret COURTENAY was Sylvester, who married
Elizabeth, the daughter of John, Lord MORDAUNT, the 1st Baron of Turvey, Bedfordshire.
This writer's family line comes down from Henry
DANVERS, the 2nd son, who married Joan
LAMB of Coulston, Wiltshire. This descent continues by way of daughter, Anne DANVERS,
who married Henry BAYLIFFE, Barrister of Lincolns Inn, and Lord of the Manor at Monkton, an
estate near Chippenham, Wiltshire. A daughter of
this union, Eleanor, married a clothier from
Chippenham named Johnathan SCOTT. From
there a granddaughter of this union, Elisabeth
SCOTT, married in 1718, one Edward BRYANT.
From there the line comes down to my mother
Phyllis LeBatt BRYANT.
Mary's mother was descended from family lines
with such
names as SOUTHCOTT, TREMAYNE, GRENVILLE, CHAMPNOWNE, back
again to the COURTENAY family, and from
there to King Edward I––all well known Devonshire families.
The eldest son of Sylvester DANVERS and
Elizabeth MORDAUNT was Sir John DANVERS
who married Elizabeth NEVILL, of Snape in
Yorkshire. Sir John and Elizabeth had three sons
and several daughters. It was these three sons that
contributed in some very distinct ways to the history of England. The two eldest got into serious
trouble very early on when they were involved in
the murder of a local Lord. They fled to France to
avoid prosecution.
During this period, their father, Sir John
DANVERS, died, and his widow, Elizabeth, married Sir Edmund CAREY, a close confidant of
Queen Elizabeth 1st. The rumour of the day stated
that she remarried to obtain a pardon for her two
exiled sons. It didn’t take very long for the eldest
son, Sir Charles DANVERS to get into more
serious trouble. Sir Charles became heavily involved in the Insurrection of Sir Robert DEVEREAUX, the 2nd Earl of Essex, against Queen
Elizabeth 1st. For his part in this Insurrection, Sir
Charles was tried, found guilty, and was beheaded
on Tower Hill in London, 6 Feb 1601. His body
was reportedly buried at Dauntsey. Fortunately for
the DANVERS family, Sir Edmund CAREY was
able to make sure that no part of the estates at
Dauntsey belonged to Sir Charles, so the family
retained everything at Dauntsey, but that situation
would only last for about another 50 to 60 years.
The 2nd son, Sir Henry DANVERS, turned out
exactly the opposite of Sir Charles. Sir Henry
served in the army as a Page to Sir Phillip SIDNEY. He was then knighted for his bravery in
battle in the Low Countries and went on to become a valuable asset to the crown. He was made
baron by King James 1st, and served as Governor
My maternal line has yet another link to King of Guernsey in the Channel Islands, During the
Edward 1st, by way of my grandmother Mary reign of King Charles 1st, he was made Earl of
Ann HARRIS.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 24
THE DANVERS OF DAUNTSEY
Danby and Knight of the Garter. Sir Henry endowed a special garden at Oxford University,
which still retains his name today. Sir Henry died
without issue in 1643. His younger brother, Sir
John DANVERS, inherited his titles, but not all
his money, which was to make him one of the
more notorious members of the DANVERS family.
The youngest son was Sir John DANVERS,
who, because of what is believed to be his greed,
became known to posterity as "The REGICIDE"
(King Killer). After the death of his brother, Sir
Henry, Sir John felt that he should have gotten a
larger share of his brother's estate. To get his
brother's will overturned in his favour, he joined
forces with Oliver CROMWELL during the Civil
War. Sir John, one of the judges at the trial of
King Charles 1st, was also a signatory on the
King's death warrant. It was these actions that
forever made history refer to him as "The Regicide.”
After his death in 1655, Sir John was buried at
Dauntsey, but when King Charles II came to the
throne, his body was disinterred, then reburied in
secret. Some say the reburial took place on the
grounds of the unused Priory at nearby Bradenstoke. The family took this action, to avoid having his body dug up by the King's men, then put
on display in London. Other "Regicides", both
living and dead, were dealt with in that fashion.
The living were tried, executed, then displayed in
public as a warning to others not to try the same
thing. During this period, Sir John DANVERS
was attainted, and the family lost virtually all of
the estates at Dauntsey.
The daughter of Sir John and his second wife
Magdalen HERBERT, namely Anne DANVERS
was married to Sir Henry LEE. A daughter of this
marriage, Eleanor LEE, married James BERTIE,
the Earl of ABINGDON. A daughter of James
BERTIE and Eleanor LEE, Anne BERTIE, was
married to Sir William COURTENAY, the ancestor of the current Earl of Devon, thereby completing the circle of descendants of King Edward
1st.
Although not a descendant from King Edward
1st, a line from Sir John DANVERS and Lady
Anne STRADLING, has a place in England's literary history. The eldest son of Sir John and Lady
Volume One
Anne was John DANVERS, who married Margery BLOUNT. A son of this marriage, Richard
DANVERS, was a resident of Tockenham,
Wiltshire, who in turn had a daughter Rachel, who
was married to John AUBREY of County Hereford, the 3rd son of Wm AUBREY L.L.D. one of
the Masters of Request in Ordinary to Queen Elizabeth 1st. A son, Richard AUBREY of Broad
Chalke, Wiltshire, and his wife, Deborah LYTE,
were the parents of John AUBREY F.R.S., who
was a very well known Antiquary and Historian,
of North Wiltshire, and a Historian of the County
of Surrey
As the above shows, this family named DANVERS, made several contributions, in very different
ways, to the history of England.
If any reader has any extra information to add to
this history, not only the DANVERS family, but
any of the other families mentioned in this article,
the writer would appreciate hearing about it. It is
the writer's belief, that the more data is shared the
more we all benefit.B
- Stuart J. Wright,
498–A Grey Street,
Brantford, Ontario, Canada N3S 7L4
A man who prides himself on his ancestry is like the potato plant, the best
part of which is underground.
Spanish proverb
Noble and common blood is of the
same color.
German proverb
Birth is nothing without virtue, and
we have no claim to share in the glory
of our ancestors unless we strive to resemble them.
The Plantagenet Connection
- Moliere, Don Juan (1665)
Page 25
KING ALFRED’S COUNTRY
As one born in King Alfred's
"Wessex," the article about King Alfred
was of particular interest to me. I was
born in the small village of Bradenstokecum-Clack, lying halfway between the
towns of Swindon, and Chippenham, in
Wiltshire. It's main claim to fame is the
ruins of the Augustinian Priory, founded
about 1150, by Walter D'Evereaux, the
progenitor of the early Earls of Salisbury.
Walter’s sister Maude D'Evereaux, married Humphrey (The Great) De Bohun,
whose father came over with the Conquerer.
The battles described in the article covered an area where a great many of my ancestors lived. Edington, Wiltshire, was
the home of my maternal 9 X great grandmother, Anne Danvers, whose greatgrandmother was Margaret Courtenay, the
daughter of Sir William Courtenay and
Cecily Cheyney. Anne Danvers married
Henry Bayliffe, and lived at Chippenham,
Wiltshire, the site of one of the major battles between Alfred and the Danes, which
culminated in the defeat of the Danes at
Edington. So I have not only a link with
"Alfred’s England,” but have a little of the
Plantagenet blood flowing through my
veins.
The birthplace of my father at Uffington, also figures in the story of King
Alfred. On the chalk hills above the village
of Uffington, carved out of the side of the
hills, is a "stick like" figure in the shape of
a horse. The local legends give two versions of how it came about, one is that it
was made to celebrate the victory of King
Alfred over the Danes. The other is that it
was in honour of "Epona" a goddess of
horses, the one most favoured is that of
Alfreds victory. To add credence to this
theory, it is known that King Alfred had a
Palace at nearby Farringdon, in Oxfordshire.
Uffington also has other links with antiquity, one being "Dragon’s Mount.”
This is a small hill just outside the village,
and legend states that it was here that Saint
Violume One
George killed the Dragon. On the top of
the mount is a patch of bare ground,
where "nothing" has ever grown, in living
memory. Legends says that this bare patch
of ground, where the blood of the Dragon
was shed, has poisoned the ground so that
nothing would ever grow.
The other
legend is "Waylands
Smithy," which is some stoneage era burial chambers. Here again legend states
that if a horse is left tied up by the entrance to these chambers, the next morning it will be beautifully shod. As a point
of interest, my father was born in the
"White Horse Inn," in Uffington.
The Plantagenet Connection
Stuart J. Wright
498–A Grey Street
Brantford, Ontario
Canada, N3S 7L4
The Alfred Jewel
Late 9th Century
Page 26
BOADICEA, THE WARRIOR QUEEN
BOADICEA
THE WARRIOR QUEEN
by Kenneth Harper Finton
The lands of England, later to be ruled by the predecessors of the Plantagenet dynasty, were originally attached to the mainland of Europe with a low plain. Even as recent
as recorded history it was possible to make a land journey to what is now England during periods of low tide. “Britain was still little more than a promontory of Europe, or
divided from it by a narrow tide race which has gradually enlarged into the straits of
Dover when the Pyramids were a-building, and when learned Egyptians were laboriously exploring the ancient ruins of Sakkara.” 1
The early inhabitants of the island were long-headed people from the Alpine race
called the Celts. Their religion and social structure, Druidism, was introduced more
than two thousand years before Christ. At the time of the Roman invasion, the entire
southern part of England was under Druidic influence.
The Druidic priesthood was divided into three orders. The first order was the Druids,
who interpreted the law, instructed the youth and judged the people. The second was,
The Eubates, the working clergy who performed the religious rites. The third was the
Bards, who preserved in verse and song the memories of all remarkable events. The
duty of the bard was also to relate the triumphs of the heroes––to exhort the people to
courage and deeds of daring, especially before the time of battle.
Although the Druids could be both barbaric and cruel––human sacrifice being among
their rituals ––they had established a remarkable culture. Some of their traditions still
exist in the world today. According to old fables, there were no less than forty Druidic
universities that were also the capitals of the forty tribes. The young nobility of Britain,
no less than 60,000 at a time, attended these universities. The curriculum required
twenty years of attendance to master the Druidic knowledge. Subjects included philosophy, astronomy, botany, geometry, law, medicine, poetry, arithmetic, oratory and
theology. This vision of the Druids is probably incorrect, as it lies in marked contrast to
the archaeological record, which seems to indicate that they were bickering chieftains
without much formal learning.
In these tribal times, a pedigree was necessary to maintain social stations and property. The man without pedigree was an outlaw. Genealogies were guarded with extreme
jealousy. It was the duty of the herald-bards to record these genealogies for posterity,
as by common right, every Briton held ten acres of land as their birthright. A ceremony
for acceptance into the clan was held when the inductee turned fifteen years of age. At
this time his family genealogy was proclaimed and all challengers of the truth of these
proclamations were invited to come forward.
These people carried on their mystic rites in the depths of the forest. Groves of oak
trees served as sacred places for ritual and retreat. They held mistletoe in high regard, a
sacred emblem of the relationship between man and God. Since mistletoe is often found
growing on the stately British oaks, it was thought to a symbol of the state of man.
Man, like the mistletoe, is a creature entirely dependent upon God, like the oak. Yet,
man has his own separate existence. Like the mistletoe, he has a will of his own.
It was to this western island that Julius Caesar turned his gaze, seeking to expand his
empire and exploit the deposits of tin ores that were plentiful upon the land. The Celts
were a handsome and athletic people with long flowing hair. The males had long
1 Winston Churchill, The Birth of Britain, p 8-9.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 27
BOADICEA, THE WARRIOR QUEEN
moustaches on their upper lip. They were a race of warriors who painted themselves a
fearsome blue for battle.
Caesar’s first invasion occurred in August of 55 B.C. Eighty vessels and eighteen
galleys of cavalry landed at Deal, but the cavalry ran into the fierce, blue-skinned Celts
and could get no more than seven miles from the shore. That evening, a storm destroyed many transport ships. For fifty-five days the Romans struggled for ground. At
last, the Britons attacked their camp and forced the Romans to flee in the dead of night.
Three years later, another invasion force of more than a thousand ships, five legions
and two thousand horsemen, landed at Ryde. The Britons retreated into the woods
where the Romans could not follow. Again, a storm destroyed the Roman ships. The
farthest they could penetrate with this great force was seventy miles. No permanent Roman settlement was made and the dual repulsion of the Roman forces by the native
populations remains unparalleled. The Romans made a small attempt to invade the island for a third time, but no Roman outposts were established for another hundred
years.
In 42 A.D., the Romans again prepared to invade England with a well-equipped
fleet. By this time, the Britons had their own chariots. Legend says that the scent of the
elephants that the Romans had imported for the invasion so frightened the British
horses that their king, Caractacus [also spelled “Caradoc”], was defeated. Caractacus’
sister, Gladys, had married a Roman, according to Wurtz. This led to the signing of a
peace treaty. The king made a voluntary trip to Rome, marveling at the public buildings
and culture. Later Caractacus was betrayed. He was sent to Rome as a prisoner and
made to stay for seven years. Wurtz says that he Emperor Claudius later adopted Caractacus’ daughter. She became known as Claudia Britannica in his honor.2 This
scenario is also fanciful.
THE BRITISH REBELLION AGAINST ROME
After a war of forty years, the southern British lands known as Icenia, was subject to
Roman authority. Prasutagus, a British king propped up by Roman appointment, had
been a faithful ally of Rome. Thinking to protect his queen and heirs, he made the Emperor Nero co-heir with them.Upon his death in 61 A.D., the Roman officers took
complete control of the wealth and the palace. They raped his daughters and humiliated
his queen, Boadicea. 3 According to Tacitus, the “... kingdom was plundered by centurions, and his private property by slaves, as if they had been captured in war; his
widow Boadicea was flogged, and his daughters outraged; the chiefs of the Iceni were
robbed of their ancestral properties as if the Romans had received the whole country as
a gift, and the king’s own relatives were reduced to slavery.” 4
Marriage to one woman only was a well-established Druidic custom. The wives were
treated with great respect, showing that the society had elevated the role of woman to
the equal of men. The queens often ruled after the death of their husbands. More than
once she led the warriors in battle. Having once been the most submissive to the Romans, Boadicea’s tribe rose in a howling frenzy. The queen found herself at the head of
a huge army. Nearly all the Britons in the land, perhaps a quarter of a million strong,
rallied to her defense. She stood before her troops, her long golden tresses reaching
nearly to her knee, holding a spear in her hand. Her tone was low and regal as she ad2 Information about the Druids from Wurts, Magna Carta, p 156.
3 Boadicea, according to Wurts, was a cousin of King Caractacus.
4 Tacitus, Annals, G.G.Ramsey translation.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 28
BOADICEA, THE WARRIOR QUEEN
dressed her valiant warriors with these words, likely as not, made up by Wurts: 5
“I rule not over beasts of burden as the effeminate nations of the East, not over tradesmen and
traffickers, nor like the man-woman Nero, over slaves: but I rule over Britons, little versed in
craftiness and diplomacy, it is true, but born and trained to war; men who in the cause of liberty willingly risk their lives, their lands and property. Queen of such a race, I implore your aid
for freedom, for victory! Never let a foreigner bear rule over me or my countrymen! Never let
slavery reign in this island!”
In all of Britain, there were only twenty thousand Roman soldiers. Boadicea’s troops
fell upon Camulodunum [now Colchester]. The Briton hordes were encouraged by the
strange omens that occurred. “The statue of Victory fell face foremost, as if flying from
the enemy. The sea turned red. Strange cries were heard in the counsel chamber and the
theater.”6
The town was burned to ashes. Everyone Roman or Romanized was massacred. The
ninth Roman legion marched to the rescue, but the victorious Britons overcame them by
sheer force and slaughtered them to a man. The Roman commander, Petrilius Cerialis,
escaped with his personal cavalry. According to Tacitus, Cerialis continued to ride and
“... undaunted, made his way through a hostile country to Londinium, a town which,
though not dignified by the title colony, was a busy emporium for traders.” 7
This is the first mention of London in recorded literature.
Seutonius Paulinus, the Roman governor, reached London with a small escort.
Though the citizens pleaded with him for protection, he made the hard decision to leave
them to their fate. He rejoined the 14th and 20th Legions and marched down the old
Roman country road that connected London with Wales. That road is now known as
Watling Street.
Boadicea and her mighty army swept over London in a sea of blood and savagery.
No one was spared––not a man, not a woman, not a child. The city itself was burned to
ashes. In more recent times, the ashes from this frightful day have been turned up in
excavations. A white layer of silt covering the cities’ old center still reminds the world
of the fury of the ancient Britons on this day of revenge and reckoning.
After London, came the attack on Verulamium [now St. Albans]. Between these three
cities alone, more than seventy thousand Romans and their allies were slain. According
to Tacitus “... the barbarians would have no capturing, no selling, nor any kind of traffic usual in war; they would have nothing but killing, by sword, cross, gibbet, or fire.”
Seutonius, having joined with his other legions “... making a force of about ten
thousand fully armed men, resolved ... for battle. Selecting a position in a defile closed
in behind a wood, and having made sure there was an open flat unsuited for ambuscades, he drew up his legions in close order, with the light-armed troops on the flanks,
while the cavalry was massed at the extremities of the wings.”8
The battle was decisive. The Britons under Boadicea, attended by their women and
children in long lines of wagons, eighty thousand strong, were slaughtered by the Roman hordes. Not even the woman and children were spared. Boadicea drank a cup of
poison after the battle.
Not content with the annihilation of the British army, the Roman governor waged
5 Wurts, ibid.
6 Churchill, The Birth of Britain, p 24, from “History of England” Vol 1, p 8.
7 Tacitus, ibid.
8 Tacitus, ibid.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 29
BOADICEA, THE WARRIOR QUEEN
such a campaign of extermination against the Britons that the entire race was threatened
with extinction. Only the intervention of a new Procurator, Julius Classicianus, who
fought valiantly for a policy of pacification, kept the small starving bands alive to mix
their blood with the new inhabitants of the island.
As for Boadicea, the warrior queen, her name has gone down in history as a synonym for the hard-hitting adversary. For a time, she gave the Romans a bodacious
whack.
One of her daughters, whose name is unknown, became the wife of Meric, whom the
Romans called “Marius.” Some legends say that Marius was the son of Arviragus,
King of Britain, and his wife, Venissa Julia, the daughter of Claudius Caesar, emperor
of Rome. Claudius was a descendant of Mark Anthony.
Editor’s note: These genealogies are presented in the spirit of background information only. Many
serious scholars love to reduce legends to ashes. Some of these people’s lifetimes precede the written
record for their time and place. Though the Celtic tribes were known to be great record keepers and
their historical reality is possible, there was no written information other than the Roman writings
that has come down to us. The information about the early Frankish origins was recorded centuries later from oral traditions and should also not be construed as verifiable lines of descent, though these
legends may have had their origin in historical reality. 9
Claudius Caesar
|
V e n i s s a J u l i a (mythical), daughter of Claudius, w/o Arviragus, King of Britain. 10
|
Marius, s/o Arviragus, m ______, d/o Boadicea,
d AD 62. (Likely mysthical as well.)
|
Old King Cole, s/o Marius, grandson of Boadicea. (Convienently relates Cole to Caesar.)
|
A t h i l d i s , d/o Old King Cole , w/o Marcomir IV, King of Franconia, d 149. (Convenient link to the
Franks.)
|
Clodomir IV, a king of the Franks, d 166 and his wife Hasilda. 11
|
Farabert, d 186.
|
Sunno, d 213.
|
Hilderic, d 253.
|
Batherus, d 272.
|
Clodius III, d 298.
9 These genealogies are based on myth. Because of the antiquity, the period precedes the written word, so
these connections are legendary. Sources: Wurts, Magna Carta, p 164-165, which cannot be trusted. However, they are worth mentioning, as the line proceeds to Charlemagne. If not these ancestors, then someone
like them are certain.
10 We are conducting further research on the Roman connection and the Welsh legends that support the Old
King Cole. More on this next issue.
11 The Frankish lines to Pharamund are legendary as well, predating the source materials by 400 years.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 30
BOADICEA, THE WARRIOR QUEEN
|
Walter, d 306.
|
Dagobert, d 317.
|
Genebald I, Duke of the east Franks, d 350.
|
Dagobert II, d 379.
|
Clodius I, d 389.
|
Marcomir, d 404.
|
Pharamund, 1st King of the Franks, m Argotta. [Pharamund is mentioned in historical record.]
|
C l o d i o , d 455, King of the Franks.
|
M e r o v e c h , King of the Franks. d 458, m Verica.
|
C h i l d e r i c I , 436-481, King of the Franks, m
Basina of Thuringia, d/o Medelphus.
|
C l o v i s t h e G r e a t , b 466, d 511, m Clothilde of
Burgundy [St. Clothilde] Historical fact.
|
Lothair I, King of France, m Ingonde
|
Ausbert of Moselle, d 570, m B l i t h i l d e s , d/o Lothaire I
{probably a mythical connection to relate Charlemagne to Clovis]
|
Arnulf of Metz [St. Arnold] , b 581, d 16 Aug 641 near Nancy, m Doda of Saxony.
[Known information stops here.]
|
A n s e g i s a l , d 685, m his cousin Begga [St. Begga] d/o Pippin the Old.
|
P i p p i n o f H e r i s t a l [The Younger], d 16 Dec 714, had mistress named Alpaida.
|
Charles Martel, b 690, d 741, m Rotrude, d 724.
|
P i p p i n t h e S h o r t , 1st King of France, b 714, d 18 Sep 768, m Bertrada of Laon.
|
Charlemagne, b 2 Apr 742, m 771 Hildegarde of Suabia.
|
Louis I [the Pious], b 778, d 20 Jun 840, m Judith of Bavaria, b 800, d 19 Apr 843.
|
Charles I [the Bald], b 13 Jun 823, d 13 Oct 877, m Ermintrude of Orleans, d 6 Oct 869.
|
Baldwin I [Iron Arm], d 879, m Judith, d/o Charles the Bald.
|
Baldwin II, Count of Flanders, b 865, d 2 Jan 918, m Æthelswyth, d/o Alfred the Great.
|
Arnulf the Elder, b 890, d 27 Mar 965, m Adele of Vermandois, d 939.
|
Baldwin III, d 962, m Matilda of Saxony.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 31
BOADICEA, THE WARRIOR QUEEN
|
Arnulf II, b 961, d 30 Mar 987, m 968 Roselle, d/o Beringer II, King of Italy.
|
Baldwin IV, b 980, d 30 May 1039, m Octviga, d 21 Feb 1030,
d/o Friedrich, Count of Luxembourg.
|
Baldwin V, d 1 Sep 1067, m Adela, d/o Robert II, King of France.
|
William the Conqueror, b 1027, d 9 Sep 1087, m 1047 Matilda of Flanders,
d /o Baldwin V, b 1035, d 2 Nov 1083.
|
Henry I, b 1068, d 1 Dec 1135, m Edythe-Matilda, b 1080, d 1 May 1118,
d/o Malcolm III of Scotland.
|
Count Geoffrey of Anjou [Plantagenet], b 1113, d 7 Sep 1150, m M a t i l d a , d/o Henry I.
|
Henry II, b 5 Mar 1133, d 6 Jul 1189, m Eleanor of Aquitaine, b 11122, d 1 Apr 1204.12
EUROPE AROUND 650 A.D.
12 Marcellus Riven, Pedigree of Some of Emperor Charlemagne’s Descendants, vol 1.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 32
FRENCH MEROVINGIAN ANCESTRIES
FRENCH MEROVINGIAN ANCESTRIES
including the House of Hainault and
the House of Navarre
by Carol Collins
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.
Pharamund, Duke of the East Franks, Duke of the West Franks, King of
Westphalia, d. 430, m. Argotta, "Mother of all Kings of France", d/o
Genebald, Duke of the East Franks, d 419. Son:
Clodio, the Long Haired, King of the Salic Franks (Westphalia), b. ca. 380,
d. ca. 448. Son:
Merovech, King of the Salic Franks, b. 411, d. 458, m. Verica. Son:
Childeric I, King of the Salic Franks, b. ca. 436, d. 481, m. after
463, Basina of Thuringia. Son:
Clovis I, the Great, Sole King of the Franks, King of the Salic Franks, b.
465, baptized as a Christian on 25 Dec. 496 and d. 11 Nov. 511 in Paris; m.
St. Clothilda of Burgundy who was b. 475, d. 3 June 548 in Tours. Son:
Lothaire I, King of Soissons, sole King of the Franks, b. 499, d. 561, m. 1)
Radegonda, dau. of the King of the Thuringian Franks. Their children were:
i.
Chilperic I, King of Soissons, b 539, d 584. m. 3) Fredegonda,
(see below) Son:
Lothair II, King of Soissons, Sole King of the Franks, b 584, d
in Paris 628, m Altrude. (see below).
ii.
Sigibert I, d. 575, m. Brunchildis of Spain
iii.
Blithildis of France, m. Ausbertus (Asopert), Lord-on-the-Moselle,
Margrave on the Sheld. Son:
Arnulf of Metz [St. Arnold] , b 581, d16 Aug 641 near
Nancy, m Doda of Saxony. Son:
Ansegisal, d 685, m his cousin Begga [St. Begga] d/o Pippin
the Old.
Pippin of Heristal [The Younger], d 16 Dec 714, had
mistress, Alpaida. Son:
Charles Martel, b 690, d 741, m Rotrude, d 724.
Son:
Pippin the Short, 1st King of France, b 714, d 18 Sep 768,
m Bertrada of Laon.
Charlemagne, b 2 Apr 742, m 771 Hildegarde of Suabia
Chilperic I , King of Soissons, b. 539, d. 584, m. 3) Fredegonda, the
maid of his first wife and one of the most blood thirsty and evil women in
history; she was b. 543, d. 597. Son:
8.
Lothaire II , King of Soissons, Sole King of the Franks, b. 584, d. in
Paris 628, m. Altrude; children:
i.
Dagobert I, greatest of the Merovingian Kings,
ii.
Bayess
iii.
Charibert II, b. 608, d. 631, m. Gisela of Gascony. His son:
Boggis, Duke of Aquitaine, d 688, m St. Oda. Their son:
Eudes, Duke of Aquitaine, d 735, m Valtrude of Verdon.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 33
FRENCH MEROVINGIAN ANCESTRIES
Their son:
Hunold, Duke of Aquitaine, d 774. His son:
Waifar, Duke of Aquitaine, d 768, m Adele of Gascony. Their
son:
Loup II, Duke of Gascony, his son:
Adelrico, Duke of Gascony or Simon Count of Bigorre, d
812. His son:
Ximeno of Gascony, d 816, m Munia. Their son:
Arista, King of Pampelona or Navarre, m Ximinia (Thelma)
d/o Zeno, Count of Biscay. Son:
Ximinius Enieco, d 839, m Munia. Son:
Eneco Ximini, King of Pampelona or Navarre, 839, m
Onera. Their son:
Garcias Inigo, united Aragon and Super Arabia or Navarre. d
887, m Urraca, heiress of Aragon. Their son:
Sancho I Garcias, a generous and worthy prince, King of
Navarre and Aragon, d 920 or 923, m 1) dau of Gelindus,
Count of Aragon 2) Toda of Aragon, dau of Azuarius. Their
son:
Garcias I, Sancho, King of Aragon and Navarre, d 969, m
Theresa. Son:
Sancho II, Abarca, King of Navarre and Aragon. d ca 990. m
Urraca of Navarre, d/o Ferdinand and his 2nd cousin.
Son:
Garcia II, Sancho, King of Navarre and Aragon, m Simena
(Ximena) of Austrias. Son:
Sancho III, King of Navarre, Aragon, 1st King of Castile, d
1035, m Nunnia (Munnia) heiress of Castile. Son:
Garcia III, King of Navarre, 1054, m Stephana of Foix.
Son:
Ramiro, Lord of Laborra and Teresilla. Son:
Ramiro II, Count of Moncon, d 1116, m 1) Christina, d/o
Ro__ of Bavaria. Son:
Garcia VII, of Navarre, King of Navarre, m Marguerite de
l'Aigle, d/o Giselbert, Count of Perche, d 1141. Son:
Sancho V of Navarre, d 1194, m Sancha of Castile.
Daughter:
Blanche of Navarre, heiress of Navarre, m 1195 Thibault I of
Navarre, Count of Champagne. Son:
Thibault II, King of Navarre, Count of Champagne, d 1253,
m 1232 to Marguertite de Bourbon, d/o Archenbald of Foix.
Son:
Henry I, King of Navarre, d 1274, m 1269 to Blanche, heiress
of Navarre, d 1302. Daughter:
Jeanne (Joan), Queen of Navarre, b 1272, d 2 Aug 1304, m
Philip IV, King of France, b 1268, d 29 Nov 1314. Daughter:
Isabella of France, d 22 Aug 1358, m 28 Jan 1308 to
Edward II, King of England, b 25 Apr 1284, d 21 Sep 1327.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 34
FRENCH MEROVINGIAN ANCESTRIES
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Dagobert I, greatest of the Merovingian Kings, King of Austrasia, sole
King of Franks 632-39, b. 602, d. 638; son:
Siegbert III, King of Austrasia, banished in an Irish Monastery by Pepin of
Landen; son:
Dagobert II, King of Austrasia. Daughter:
Adela. Son:
Aubri I, Count of Blois
Aubri I, Count of Blois; son:
Aubri II, Count of Blois, son:
Theidlindis, m. Count of Gainfroi
Giselbert, Count of the Massgau, m. sister of Echard, Count of Hesbaye
Giselbert, Count of Darnau m. 846 Ermengarde of Lorraine. Children:
i.
Reginier I, Count of Hainault , m. 1) Hersent of France, 2) Alberta of
Mons
ii.
Albert, Count in the Southern Ardennes
18. Reginier I, Count of Hainault , Lay Abbot of Echtern (Luxemburg), d. at
Meersen, Palatinate, ca. 19 Jan. 916, m. 1) Hersent of France, 2) Alberta of
Mons; children:
19.
i.
Regnier II, Count of Hainault , d. 932, m. Adelaide of Burgundy
ii.
Giselbert, Duke of Lorraine, m. Gergerga of Saxony
iii.
Ada, living 924, m. Berengar of Namur, Count in the Lommagau and
Maifeld
19. Regnier II, Count of Hainault , d. 932, m. Adelaide of Burgundy; children:
20.
i.
Reginier III, m. Adele of Dagsbourg
ii.
Rudolf, Count of the Haspengau, exiled in 958
iii.
Liethard, dy, bef. 944
iv.
dau., m. Nevelong, Count of the Velau who d. bef. 943
20. Reginier III, Count of Hainault , d. 987, banished in June 958, m. Adele of
Dagsbourg who d. 961; children:
21.
i.
Regnier IV Count of Hainault , Hedwig of France
ii.
Lambert I, the Bearded, Count of Louvain, d. 1015, m. Gerberga of
Lorraine
21. Regnier IV Count of Hainault , d. 1013, m. ca. 998 Hedwig of France
22.
i.
Rainier V., Count of Hainault , m. Mechtilde of Dabo
ii.
Beatrice of Hainault , m. Ebles I, Count of Rheims and Roucy,
who d. 11 May 1033
iii.
Lambert
22. Rainier V. , Count of Hainault , d. 1036, m. Mechtilde of Dabo. Son:
23. Richildi of Hainault, heiress of Hainault , d. 1086, m. 1055 Baldwin VI
de Mons, Count of Flanders and Artois, who became Count of Hainault , d. 17
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 35
FRENCH MEROVINGIAN ANCESTRIES
July 1070. Son:
24. Baldwin I, Count of Hainault , d. 1099 or 1126, m. 1084 Ida of Louvain who
d. 1139. Son:
25. Baldwin II , Count of Hainault , m. Yolande of Guelders; children:
26.
i.
Baldwin IV, Count of Hainault , m. Alix de Namur
ii.
Ida of Hainault , m. Roger de Toeni III de Conches (Toni) who d.
1157
26. Baldwin IV, Count of Hainault , b. 1099, d. 8 Nov. 1171, m. Alix de
Namur, dau. of Godfrey, Count of Namur and Ermesinde of Luxemburg,
heiress of Flanders and Namur, heiress of Namure, who d. 1195. Son:
27. Baldwin V , Count of Hainault , Count of Flanders (as VIII) and Namur, b.
1150, d. Nov/Dec 1194, m. 1169 Margarite of Lorraine (Flanders), who d. 15
Nov. 1194. children:
28.
i.
Baldwin VI, m. Marie of Champagne
ii.
Isabella of Hainault , Countess of Artois, d. 1190, m. 1180
Philip II Augustus, King of France, b. 1166, d. 1223
28. Baldwin VI, Leader of the 4th Crusade, Emperor of Constantinople in 1204,
Count of Hainault , Count of Flanders and Namure, b. 1171, slain at
Adrianople 1206, m. Marie of Champagn. Daughter:
29. Margaret , Countess of Hainault and Flanders, d. ca. 1280, m. 1) Bouchard
d'Avenes, Archdeacon of Laon and Canon of St. Pierre, who was
beheaded 1221. Son:
30. John I d'Avesnes, Count of Flanders, d. 1255, m. 1211 Adelaide of
Holland, heiress of Holland, who d. ca. 1284. Son:
31. John II, Count of Hainault , Holland, Zealand and Friesland, d. 1304, m.
Philippa of Luxembourg. Son:
32. William III the Good, Count of Hainault and Holland, d. 7 June 1337, m.
ca. 1305 Jeanne of Valois, who d. 1352; children:
33.
i.
Philippa of Hainault , b. Valenciennes 24 June 1311, d. Windsor
Castle 14 Aug. 1369, m. York 24 Jan. 1327/28 Edward III, King of
England
ii.
Jeanne (Johanna) of Holland, m. William I, Duke of Juliers
Ref: Cokayne: Complete Peerage vol. IV, pgs. 418, 737, vol. V, pgs. 358, 398, vol. VI, pgs. 128,
135, 144, 151, vol. VII, p. 164; Milton Rubincam: "House of Brabant," The American Genealogist,
vol. 25, p. 224; Cambridge Medieval History, pgs. 154, 462; Ancestral Roots, p. 38 of Supplement.
Cambridge Medieval History, p. 154. Royal Genealogies, pgs. 61, 99, 125. Living Descendants of
Blood Royal in America, World Nobility and Peerage, London, Vol III.
Carol Huebner Collins
2201 Riverside Dr.
South Bend, Ind. 46616-2151
Editorial
comment: We highly recommend that independent evaluation of the ancient lineages be done.
We cannot be responsible for errors and mistakes in submitted materials. A work in progress, soon to be
published, called The Ancestry of Elizabeth of York will contain the most up-to-date information and
discoveries concerning these lineages.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 36
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL
LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
by Kenneth Harper Finton
It is the inexorable fate of empires to rise
up in all their civilized glory, then fall into
ruin. The reason for this is as much economic as any other. Conquest spreads an
empire thin. Far flung outposts must be
defended and administered. All empirical
activity is expensive and the competitors
simply do not have these expenses. Their
energies can be directed toward other
goals.
With the fall of Rome, a period of gloom
and insecurity encompassed the civilized
world. Those who came later often called
it the “Dark Ages.”
These so-called dark ages were not a
monolithic entity. The individual tribes
that would swell like a raging river to
form the new nations of Europe, all had
their own distinct languages, customs,
and cultures.
CLOVIS
“... western Europe was a shattered civilization,
without law, without administration, with roads
destroyed and education disorganized, but still
with great numbers of people with civilized ideas
and habits and traditions. It was a time of confusion, of brigandage, of crimes unpunished and
universal insecurity ... no solitary man was safe.
So men were forced to link themselves with others, preferably stronger than themselves.” 1
The ancient name of Gaul denoted that
western area known today as France.
Sometime around A.D. 412, two Germanic nations, the Visigoths and the Burgundians, founded two new kingdoms in
Gaul. In 451, Attila the Hun arrived in
Gaul with his army. They were already
famous for their fierce valor and wild
habits. Attila had plundered the east and
gained a reputation for destruction that
was unequaled. In the common interest,
the old and the new masters of Gaul, the
Romans, Gauls, Visigoths, Burgundians,
Franks, Alans, Saxons and Britons, united in an army under the Roman general,
Aetius, to drive Attila out of Gaul. Attila’s
ranks were swelled by Franks from
beyond the Rhine, Goths, Burgundians,
and Alans that he had gather-ed along the
way.
Attila had already arrived in Orleans. He
was in the process of looting the city
when Aetius and his Roman legions, carrying the banners of the Gaulic peoples,
fell upon the city. The danger was great,
so Attila wisely ordered a retreat.
The Huns marched back toward Champagne. They had already crossed this region coming into Gaul. There, before
Troyes, the bishop St. Lupus went to Attila’s camp and begged him to spare that
defenseless city. “So be it,” answered
Attila, “but thou shalt come with me and
1 H.G. Wells, The Outline of Civilization, p 717718.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 37
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
see the Rhine. I promise then to send thee
back again.” 2
Attila had hoped his important hostage
would guarantee him safe passage out of
Gaul, but by the time they reached the
plains of Chalons, Aetius and his allies
were hard on their heels. A battle was inevitable.
There is no exact record of the date, but
the 14th of June 451 is celebrated as the
date of the deliverance of Orleans. It was,
says Jordandes, “a battle which for atrocity, multitude, horror, and stubbornness
has not the like in the records of antiquity.”
From 160,000 to 300,000 were left
dead on the field of battle.[Some scholars
dispute these high estimates of the
strength and casulaties of ancient armies.]
Merovech, the titular founder of the Merovingian dynasty of France, led a battalion of Franks this fateful day. The Huns
were driven from Gaul at the Battle of
Chalons. Within twenty-four years, the
very name of the Roman Empire disappeared. Gaul was ruled by new masters.
“Let us set out the beginnings of the
kings of the Franks and their origin and
also the origins of the people and its deeds.
[After the fall of Troy] Priam and Antenor,
two Trojan princes, embarked on ships
with twelve thousand of the men remaining
from the Trojan army. They came to the
banks of the Tanis [Don] River. They
sailed into the Maeotian swamps, penetrated the frontiers of the Pannonias and began
to build a city as their memorial. They
called it Sicambria and lived there many
years, growing into a great people.”
- Liber Historiae Francorum
The unknown writers quoted in the seventh-century work quoted above, followed the medieval practice of creating
history from a few known facts. The actual history had been lost in a maze of
2 Françios P.G. Guizot, Clovis Founds The Kingdom of the Franks.
Volume One
mythology passed down by word of
mouth. The purpose of such writings
were to uplift the antecedents of a race
whose present accomplishments guaranteed them a place in recorded history.
The story of the Franks Trojan origin
connected them by blood to the Roman
civilization. The Romans also claimed to
descend from the Aeneas.
These ancient chronicler’s flights of
imagination were, of course, originally
based on facts. How much fact remains is
the subject of great debate. Once the
Franks were settled in Pannonia they
were used by the Romans to drive the
“perverse and rotten” Alans of the region.
“Because of the hardness and daring of
their heart the Emperor Valentian called
the Trojans Franks. In the Attic tongue
Frank means ‘fierce’.”3
The Franks were harshly taxed by the
Romans. They rose up against their former allies, killing the tax collectors and
arousing the wrath of the Roman emperor. A large force was set against them.
The battle that followed was a draw, but
the Franks withdrew from Pannonia “to
the farthest reaches of the Rhine River
where the Germans’ strongholds are located. [After many years] they chose Faramund [Pharamund] and raised him up as
the long-haired king above them.”4
Pharamund was the first king of a united Frank kingdom. His name does not
appear in historical records before the
seventh century, though the tentative date
of this election was about A.D. 428. The
significance of the long hair was a ritual
connected with the dynasty of Merovingian kings of France. All the rulers of the
dynasty wore their hair long, as was the
3 Liber Historiae Francorum, edited and translated
by Bachrach.
4 Ibid. The reference to “raising up” refers to the
Frankish custom of physically raising on a shield
the elected chieftain by his warriors as part of the
ceremony.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 38
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
tradition in the pre-Roman Germanic regions. When these tribes came into contact with the short-clipped Roman hair
styles, the long hair fell out of favor for a
time, as they imitated the Roman ways,
but in Pharamund’s time the leaders
flaunted their independence with their traditional hair styles. This led to a new tradition among the Merovingian leaders.
They modified the style to long braids that
fell on either side of the face. By the sixth
century, it had become a symbol of the
ruling class. Laws were passed to forbid
anyone but the ruling family to wear their
hair in this manner. Any member of the
family with shorn locks could not succeed
to the throne. The Merovingian dynasty
thus became known to history as the
“Long-Haired Kings of France.”
Chlodio, son of Pharamund, was the
first leader of the Franks to occupy Roman territory. He defeated the defensive
armies from the Cambrai region and
pushed his way down to the Somme. His
son, Merovech, who we already met as
an ally to Aetius at the battle of Chalons,
was awarded a legendary birth by the later
historians: “Chlodio was sitting on the
seashore with his wife during the summertime when his spouse, while going to
the sea to bathe, was attacked by a sea
monster which was like a centaur. Having
become pregnant at once, she gave birth
to a son named Merovech.” 6
Merovech went to Rome before his father’s death. There, he sought aid in his
desire to succeed to the kingdom. His
older brother sought aid to the same end
from Attila the Hun. Priscus wrote: “I
have seen him [Merovech]. He was still
very young, and we all remarked at the
fair hair which fell upon his shoulders.”7
In Rome, Merovech met Aetius and
struck a friendship which would forge his
place in history, Later, they were allies
against both his brother and Attila. The
older brother, having chosen the losing
side, was lost to history, but Merovech,
because of his allegiance to Rome, became the titular founder of the ruling class
of the Franks, ever after called the Merovingian Dynasty of long-haired kings.
After Aetius’ death in 454, Merovech
broke the ties with Rome, but he himself
died a few years later (456-457)––too
soon to emulate his father Chlodio’s ambition for an empire. He was succeeded
by his son Childeric I, who was so prone
to sensual pleasures and uninhibited lovemaking that his life was called “one long
debauch” by the historian and moralist
Gregory of Tours. Childeric so fervently
pursued his most influential subject’s
daughters that they, in turn, demanded his
abdication. Failing in this, they attempted
an assassination, forcing Childeric to flee
across the Rhine to Thuringia, where he
was given sanctuary by another Frankish
tribe.
With Childeric out of the picture, the
Franks elected Aegidius, a Roman land
holder with vast holdings in the Seine and
Burgundy, as ruler. His reign was brief,
as Childeric was restored to power in
464, upon Aegidius’ death. Childeric,
true to form, had seduced the lovely Basina, wife of the Thuringian king that gave
him refuge. Basina followed Childeric
back to Tournai and told him that from
this time forward she was his. “I know
you are a strong man,” she said. “I have
therefore come to live with you. You can
be sure that if I knew anyone else, even
across the sea, who was more capable
than you, I should have sought him out
5 Ibid.
6 Fredegar, The Chronicles of the So-Called Fredegian Scholars, Book III.
7 Priscus, Fragmenta. As quoted by Dill in Roman
Society on Gaul in the Merovingian Age.
“After King Faramund died they raised up
to his father’s kingdom Chlodion, his longhaired son.” 5
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 39
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
and gone to live with him instead.”8
Evidently Childeric was pleased with
her candor, as he married Basina. A popular legend about this marriage was recounted some centuries later. The legend
states that Basina roused her husband
from sleep three times during the course
of their wedding night and asked him to
go outside the palace and tell her what he
saw. The first time he saw lions and leopards; the second, bears and wolves; the
third, lesser beasts. “Even so shall be thy
descendants,” Basina said. 9 Later, in fulfillment of her prophesy, they would give
birth to the first king of all France, Clovis
I, called the Great.
There is no evidence that Childeric,
despite his many successful campaigns to
enlarge his territories, was ever regarded
as a king. When he died in 481, the Salian Franks had become land holders and
settlers, men of agriculture and trade, not
conquerors nor hunter warriors of the
forests, as previous generations had been.
Childeric’s tomb was discovered intact in
1653. The treasures within contained evidence that Childeric was well-respected by
his peers. His hoard of valuables showed
that he had made contacts in the East,
traded at will, and gained the stature and
respect from the Western regions befitting
a headof-state.10
Clovis was fifteen or sixteen when he
became king of the Salian Franks of
Tournai. By age twenty-one, he busied
himself with consolidation and expansion
his kingdom. Clovis had two neighbors,
the Roman Syagrius of Soissons and
another relative who was king of the
Cambrai Franks, a man named Ragnacaire. Clovis entered into an agreement
with his cousin to join him in a campaign
against Syagrius. Syagrius was driven
8
Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks.
9
Fredegar, The Chronicles of Fredegar, Book III.
10 Katharine Scherman, The Birth of France: Warriors, Bishops and Long-Haired Kings, 1987, Random
House, page 102.
Volume One
into exile in southern France, taking refuge with ten-year-old Alaric, King of the
Visigoths.
Clovis demanded that Alaric return Syagrius to him on the threat of war. Alaric
complied. The Roman was secretly executed and Clovis added Soissons to his
growing empire. Soon Clovis’ fame and
wealth extended far beyond his borders.
The bounty from the sacked Christian
churches made up a large part of the riches they had to divide. On one expedition
they took a precious vase of “marvelous
size and beauty” from the church at
Rheims. 11
The bishop of Rheims, St. Remi, had
been wise enough to strike up a relationship with Clovis upon his ascendance to
the throne. He then informed Clovis
about the removal of the vase and
begged its return. Clovis sent back a message that the bishop should follow his
army as far as Soissons, where they were
to partition the booty. Then, he added, he
would return the vase.
Upon arrival in Soissons the king said,
“Valiant warriors, I pray you not to refuse
me, over and above my share, this vase
here.” All were ready to bow to Clovis’
wishes but one Frank soldier who struck
the vase with his battle axe and said,
“Thou shalt have naught of all this save
what the lots shall truly give thee.”
All were astounded at this man’s action
and word. Clovis himself bore the insult
with patience and accepted the damaged
vase, giving it back, in turn, to the
bishop’s liaison. A year later, he ordered
a parade and an inspection of arms. After
passing all the other warriors in review,
he came at last to the one who had struck
the vase. “None,” Clovis said, “hath
brought hither arms so ill-kept as thine;
not lance, nor sword, nor battle-axe are in
condition for service.”
Having said this, Clovis wrested the
battle axe from the soldier and threw it on
11 François Guizot, Clovis Founds the Kingdom of
the Franks. Quotes from Gregory of Tours.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 40
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
the ground. When the soldier stooped to
retrieve it, the King raised his own battle
axe and drove it deep in the man’s skull.
“Thus didst thou to the vase of
Soissons!” he called to the corpse at his
feet.
This act made Clovis greatly feared by
those on the other end of his ill temper.
Clovis was wise enough to avoid the
traps of sensuality that had snared his father, Childeric. He had mistresses, one of
whom was the mother of his first child,
Theodoric. But Clovis had greater foresight than his father. He realized that a
marriage was also a political allegiance. In
493, at age twenty-eight, he made his
choice: Clothilde of Burgundy, niece of
the King of Burgundy, Gundebaud, was
to be his wife. 12
The chief arbitrator behind this romance
was the bishop Remi. He thought that it
would be to the advantage of the church
for Clovis to marry a princess schooled in
the Christian faith. She was also very
strong-minded and quite beautiful. He
filled Clovis’ head with seductive dreams
of the lovely maiden, until Clovis could
take it no longer. He was driven to action
by these descriptions.
Clothilde’s uncle had murdered her father and the rest of her family to secure
the crown for himself. He had spared
only his very young niece, Clothilde,
who had been brought up in Gundebaud’s court and educated by Christians.
Gundebaud’s counselors warned him that
her Christian charity would be of little
value if she was allowed to marry a bellicose leader like Clovis. They cautioned
that Clovis would use the murder of his
wife’s family as a motive for revenge and
take over the kingdom of Burgundy.
Before Gundebaud could make up his
mind, Clovis took matters into his own
hands. He sent an envoy disguised as a
ragged pilgrim to beg alms of the princess. When she received him, she bent to
wash his feet, as was the custom reserved
for those in holy guise. He whispered to
her a secret message from Clovis and
gave her the ring that Clovis had sent to
her as a token of his intent.
The princess was duly flattered. She
sent her own ring back with the messenger, advising him to make haste before
Gundebaud’s counselors prevailed. Upon
the messenger’s return, Clovis immediately sent formal representatives to Burgundy. There, he offered his friendship in
return for the bride. The Burgundian king
was afraid to refuse, so he sent his niece
off in style, carried in a fine litter, and accompanied with a rich dowry.
No sooner had he sent Clothilde on her
way, than her uncle changed his mind.
He sent his troops to retrieve her, but
Clothild was way ahead of him. She had
told her escorts to abandon the litter and
put her on horseback. Though the Burgundian troops struggled to catch up with
them, they were only able to made off
with the rich dowry. The armed Frankish
escorts held on to the real prize. In the
fight that followed, they repulsed the
Burgundians. Clothilde then directed that
the land be devastated for twelve miles
behind to discourage any more attempts to
abduct her.
Clovis had chosen his mate well.
Once married and pregnant, Clothilde
began to wield her influence on Clovis.
She became aggressivley Christian. Often, she delivered sermons on the impotence of the Roman deities. She insisted that her child be baptized a Christian.
Clovis allowed her to have her way, but
the first child had the misfortune to die in
the middle of the baptismal ceremony.
Seeing signs from the heavens, Clovis
said, “If he had been dedicated in the
name of my gods, he would have lived;
but now that he has been baptized in the
name of your God, he has not been able
to live a single day.” 13
12 The story of Clovis marriage is from Fredegar,
The Chronicles of Fredegar, Book III.
13 The story of Clovis’ conversion to Christianity
is from Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 41
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
Clothilde retorted that her God “has not
found me unworthy, for He has designed
to welcome to His kingdom a child conceived in my womb, and in his white
baptismal robes he will be nurtured in the
sight of God.”
With the birth of the second child, Clovis again relented, unable to oppose the
will of his wife, whom he deeply loved
and respected. The baby, though unhealthy at first, survived, but Clothilde
was unable to persuade her husband to
abandon his traditional religion.
War was able to accomplish what
Clothilde could not bring to pass by her
own daily urgings and exhortations. In
496, there was a great danger from the
Germanic Allemanic tribes who had
moved into the Alsace Lorraine and
threatened Cologne, still a separate entity
from Clovis’ kingdom. Clovis went to the
aid of Sigibert, King of Cologne, and
they met the Allemans in battle. Though
the Franks fought hard, they were forced
to retreat, and were followed by the Allemans in an impetuous rush. Clovis, his
army in disarray and suffering grave losses, raised his sight toward the sky and
said, “Jesus Christ, you who deign to
give help to those in travail and victory to
those who trust in you, I beg your help. I
want to believe in you, but I must first be
saved from my enemies. If you will give
me victory I will be baptized in your
name.”
No sooner had he uttered these words
than the Alleman king fell in battle. The
Alleman soldiers turned away from the
battlefield. The Alleman negotiator
begged a truce, so Clovis withdrew his
soldiers, let them recover their dead, and
retreat to their homelands.
The grateful Clovis kept his part of the
bargain. He was baptized along with three
thousand of his soldiers, an act that required much courage on his part. His native land was still predominantly nonChristian. Cologne had a tribal king who
worshipped the Roman deities. Only half
Volume One
Clovis’ army followed his lead, the rest
went over to his rival, Ragnacaire, King
of the Cambrai Franks. He was surrounded by adversaries that have loved to
have the head of this impetuous upstart
that was consolidating too much power.
Yet, Clovis had an understanding of the
direction that history was taking. His advantage was, now the entire Gallic clergy
favored him over the others, so he became immensely popular with the Catholics all over Europe. His baptism was held
on Christmas day of the year 496.
Burgundy was ruled jointly, not only by
Gundebaud, but also by his brother, Godegisle. They were descended from the
Scandinavians who came in the second
century to plunder and settle in northeastern Germany. These people eventually
migrated to Burgundy. By the time these
two brothers came to power, their descendants had ruled the realm for several
hundred years. The two siblings did not
like nor trust one another, so Clovis decided to widen the gap. He made a truce
with Godegisle, promising to help him
against his brother, if he would pay annual tribute and acknowledge himself as
King of the Franks.
Clovis’ army entered Burgundy. The
battle was fought in the banks of the Dijon River. Gundebaud called his brother
to his assistance, but not until the armies
were on the field did he realize his brother
had betrayed him. His forces were quickly cut to pieces by the combined armies of
Clovis and Godegisle. Ruination was
prevented by a clever envoy named Aridius, who mediated between Gondbaud
to Clovis: “Thou ravegest the fields,” he
said, “thou pillagest the corn, thou cuttest
down the vines, thou fellest the olive
trees, thou destroyest all the produce of
the land, and yet thou succeedest not in
destroying thy adversary. Rather send
thou unto him deputies, and lay on him a
tribute to be paid every year. Thus the
land will be preserved, and thou wilt be
lord forever over him who owes thee trib-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 42
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
ute. If he refuse, thou shalt then do what
pleaseth thee.” 14
Both Clovis and Gundebaud accepted
these terms, though the Burgundian tribute was paid only once. Burgundy remained a separate kingdom for more than
thirty more years. Gundebaud dealt with
his betrayal at the hands of his brother by
disregarding the policy of sanctuary and
killing Godegisle in an Arian church in
Vienne.
Clovis then turned his attention to the
realms of Alaric and the Visigoths in
southern France, followed by the kingdom of the Aquitaine. Theodoric the
Great, King of Italy, and father-in-law of
Alaric, arranged for a meeting between
Clovis and Alaric. The conference seemed
to go well, but five years later, Clovis decided to no longer conceal his designs to
rule over a united France. Alaric was in
Poitier when the armies of Clovis
marched against him. Clovis himself met
Alaric on the battlefield, killing him with a
sweep of his broadsword. Without much
opposition, Clovis took Bordeaux and
Toulouse, the capital of the Visigoths.
Then he laid siege to Carcasonne in the
land of Septomania. At the same time, his
eldest son, Theodoric, led an expedition
to Provence, but was stopped by his
namesake, Theodoric of Italy, who finally
grew alarmed at the power of these
Franks.
Upon his arrival in Tours, Clovis found
letters awaiting him from Anastasius I,
the emperor in Constantinople. These
documents conferred titles upon Clovis
that were highly coveted by the ambitious
kings of barbaric Europe. He was now
both a patrician and a consul to the Roman Empire. He was crowned with a diadem in St. Martin’s basilica with great
pomp and ceremony, dressed in a purple
tunic and his military mantle.
Shortly after his coronation, Clovis
moved his capital to Paris, a city near the
center of his newly established kingdom.
14
He still lacked some of his near neighbors’ domains. On all sides of Paris there
were still some independent Frankish
kingdoms governed by chieftains with the
title of king. Clovis’ intention was to subjugate them all.
He began this endeavor with the most
powerful of the tribes, the Rigurian
Franks, ruled by Sigebert. He secretly
sent Sigebert’s son to Cloderic with a
message of friendship for help in obtaining control of his father’s kingdom.
Then, this ungrateful son had his own father assassinated while sleeping. He sent
for Clovis, thinking he would share in the
spoils, but when he opened the treasure
chests and bent over to admire his new
treasure, one of Clovis men cracked his
skull with an axe.
Next to fall were the Ripuarian Franks
of Terouanne. Chararic, their king, had
refused to join Clovis in his battle against
the Roman Syagrius twenty years before.
Clovis attacked, taking the king and his
sons prisoners. He ordered the cutting of
their hair and ordered that Chararic should
be ordained as a priest, while his son be
made a deacon. Because of the high esteem for the long-haired traditions, Chararic said: “Here be branches which were
cut from a green tree, and are not yet
wholly dried up; soon they will sprout
forth again.” Clovis took these words as
a personal threat. He had both the king
and his son beheaded.
Ragnacaire, king of the Cambrian
Franks, his old ally against Syagrius, was
the third to fall. Beaten in the field, Ragnacaire was captured by his own soldiers.
They tied his hands behind his back and
took him to Clovis, along with his brother
Raquier.
“Wherefore hast thou dishonored our
race by letting thyself wear bonds?” Clovis asked.“’Twere better to have died.”
Speaking this, Clovis cleft the chieftains
skull with one stroke of his battle axe,
then turned to the dead king’s brother.
“Hadst thou succored thy brother, he
Ibid.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 43
THE EARLY ANCESTRAL LINE OF CHARLEMAGNE
would have assuredly not been bound,”
Clovis added, striking another blow that
left two corpses at his feet.
Rignomer, king of the Franks at LeMans, met the same fate on direct order of
Clovis, so Clovis remained the sole king
of all of the Franks, as all his rivals had
disappeared.
It is said that after all these murders finally consolidated his kingdom, he told
his servants: “Woe is me! I am left as a
traveler among strangers, and have no
longer relatives to lend me support in the
days of adversity.”
The loneliness of his kingly post cannot
be doubted. History has proven, in other
such regions, that unification is not
achieved without conquest, and conquest
is not achieved without blood. That some
of the blood that flowed was the blood of
relatives was not uncommon in these
fierce times, when one genetic line ruled
the kingdoms. As a newly converted
Christian, Clovis is said to have had
pangs of regret. Upon one occasion, he
presented himself for confession with the
bishop of Tournai, Clovis’ native land.
So Clovis founded both Christian
France and the French monarchy. No one
even similar to Clovis would be found in
the region for the next two hundred years.
His immediate descendants were reduced
to insignificance in history, whatever their
rank might have been in their particular
world.
In the last three years of his life, Clovis
issued the first written version of Salic
Law. These old Germanic codes were the
glue which bound the primitive tribes and
brought order into their lives. The wordof-mouth laws had been handed down
from the time of his semi-legendary greatgreat-grandfather, Pharamund. They were
revised to fit the new order and greater diversity of a Frankish kingdom that included most of modern France.
On the 27th of November 511, Clovis
died in Paris. He was buried in the church
of St. Peter and St. Paul, now called St.
Volume One
Genevieve. The church was built by his
beloved wife and lovely queen, Clothilde.
St. Clothhilde was later canonized by the
Roman Catholic Church.
THE THREE FATES
Michaelangelo
THE ORIGIN OF MOTHER GOOSE
Of interesting note: the earliest reference to
“Mother Goose” stories was in a 1650
French manuscript, La Musa Historique, by
Loret. In it the line, “Comme un conte de la
Mere Oye,” or “like a Mother Goose story,”
appeared, long before any later claimants to
the legend. The story teller referred to in that
work was named Bertha. Subsequent
scholars suggest that she was either of two
Plantagenet women:
(1) Bertrada, or Bertha, wife of Pepin, who
was known as Queen Goosefoot (Reine
Pedauque). Her foot was both large and
webbed. Illustrations from ancient manuscripts have her spinning yarn, surrounded
by children, while she tells her stories.
(2) Queen Bertha, wife of Robert the Pious of France. Robert was a close blood
relative of Bertha, excommunicated from the
church for consanguinity. Legends said that
a child of this union had the head of a goose.
I think we can easily dismiss Robert's
wife, but as to Bertrada of Laon, Pippin's
wife, there may be some substance to this
legend.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 44
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 45
TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS DRUSUS NERO GERMANICUS
CALLED CLAUDIUS, EMPEROR OF ROME
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 46
THE CAESAR DYNASTY
Aurelia, m Iulius Caesar
Julius Caesar, m Cornelia
Atia Caesar, m Atius Balbus
Mark Antony, m
Octavia
Iulia, m
Pompey
Drusus Nero, m Antonia Minor Antonia
Major
Augustus Caesar
m 2) Livia,
1st husband
Tiberius
Livia Julia
Germanicus,
m Agrippina the Elder
Claudius
Tiberius Claudius
Nero
Drusus
Nero
Antonia Major m,
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus
Gaius Domitius Ahenobarbus,
m Agrippa the Younger
Agrippina
the Younger
Nero (Lucius Domitius),
m Octavia
Augustus
m 1) Scribonia
Julia,
m Marcus Agrippa
Agrippina the
Elder
Claudius, m 1 Plautia , m 2 Aelia Paetina, m 3 Messalina,
m 4 ) Agrippina the Younger
Venissa Julia?
(mythical)
m Arviragus
Unknown, Drusus
Octavia Britannicus
died young died young Claudia Antonia
Marius,
m d/o Boadecia
MYTHICAL
CONNECTIONS
Coel
unknown Athildis
m Marcomir IV
Irish and Scottish
kings to Geoffrey
Planagenet
Volume One
Boadecia,
m Prasutagus
Daughter
m Marius
To Old King Coel
St. Helen?
Constantine the Great
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 47
THE CAESAR DYNASTY
DESCENDANT CHART
OF THE CAESAR DYNASTY
1- Aurelea, also called Julia, m Iulus Caesar, s/o Aeneas, sister of Iulia (who married C. Marius).
2- Julius Caesar, b 102 B.C.?, d 44 B.C., m Cornelia in 86 B.C., d/o Cinna.
3- Iulia, d/o Julius, d 54 B.C., wife of Pompey, d 58 B.C.. No issue.
2-Atia Caesar, sister of Julius, m 1) M. Atius Balbus, d 58 B.C., m 2) L. Marcius Phillipus
3- Augustus Octavius Julius Caesar, b in Rome, 23 Sep 63 B.C.., d 14 AD, s/o
Atia and Atius. Nephew and heir of Julius Caesar. Member of triumvirate that ruled Rome
after Julius Caesar’s death, m 1) Scribonia, divorced when Augustus no longer needed favors
from her kin, m 2) Clodia Antony, d/o Mark Antony and Fulvia, divorced when Fulvia and
Lucius raised an army against Augustus, m 3) Livia Claudius in 38 B.C., stepfather to her
sons, Tiberius and Drusus.
4- Julia, d/o Augustus and Scribonia, m 1) Marcus Agrippa, General of
Augustus Caesar’s legions, m 2) Tiberius Caesar.
5- Gaius Caesar, b 30 BC, d 4 AD, s/o Julia and Agrippa, m Livia Julia.
5- Lucius Caesar, b 17 BC, d 2 AD, s/o Julia and Agrippa.
5- Julia the Younger, d 28 AD, d/o Agrippa and Julia, m _____ Lepida.
5- Agrippina the Elder, b 14 B.C., d 33 AD, d/o Agrippa and Julia, m
Germanicus.
5- Agrippa Postumus, d 14 AD, s/o Julia and Agrippa. Adopted by Augustus
after Lucius’ death.
3- Octavia, b 64 B.C., d 11 B.C., sister of Augustus, m 1) Claudius Marcellus m 2)
Mark Antony, d 30 B.C..
4- Marcella (major), m 1) Marcus Agrippa m 2) Julius Antonius. Daughter of
Octavia and Marcellus.
4- Marcella (minor). Daughter of Octavia and Marcellus.
4- Marcus Marcellus, b 43 B.C., d 23 B.C., m Julia. Son of Octavia and Marcellus.
4- Antonia (major), b 39 B.C., m 1) Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, d AD 25, d/o
Octavia and Mark Antony.
5- Gaius Domitius Ahenobarbus, d AD 40, m Agrippa the Younger, d/o
Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder.
6- Lucius Domitius, b 6 37, d 68 AD. called Nero, Emperor of
Rome.
5- Domitia
5- Domitia Lepida
4- Antonia minor, b 36 BC, d 37 AD, d/o Octavia and Mark Antony, famous for her
beauty, m Drusus Nero, s/o Livia and Tiberius
5- Germanicus, s/o Drusus and Antonia, b 15 BC, d 19 AD, m Agrippina the
Elder, d/o Agrippa and Julia.
6- Nero Caesar, b 6 AD, d 30 AD, m Julia, d/o Drusus Caesar.
6- Drusus Caesar, b 7 AD, d 33 AD, m 1) Aemilia Lepida, d/o Julia the
Younger, m 2) _____.
7- 5 children, including Junia Calvina, the only one of
Augustus’ descendants left alive in Vespasian’s reign. At the death
of Nero, no male members of the dynasty survived.
6) Gaius Caesar, called Caligula, b 12 AD, d 41 AD. Emperor of
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 48
THE CAESAR DYNASTY
Rome. 4 marriages. No sons.
6- Agrippina the Younger, b 15 AD, d 59 AD, m 1) Gneaus
Domitius Ahenobarbus m 2) ____ , m 3) Claudius. Murdered by her son
Nero’s orders.
6- Drusilla, b 17 AD, d 38 AD.
6- L i v i l l a , b 18 AD, d 41 AD.
5- Livia Julia (Livilla), d 3 AD, m 1) Gaius Caesar, m 2) Drusus Caesar
5- Claudius, b 10 BC, d 54 AD, s/o Drusus and Antonia, Emperor of Rome.
m 1) Plautia, m 2 ) Aelia Paetina, m 3) Messalina, m 4) Agrippina the Younger.
6- Venissa Julia (mythical) Unknown to Roman records.
6- Drusus, died young, s/o Plautia and Claudius
6- Claudia Antonia d/o and Plautia and Claudius.
6- Octavia, d/o Messalina and Claudius, b circa 40 AD, d 62 AD, m
Nero, Emperor of Rome. Murdered on Nero’s orders.
6- Britannicus, b 41 AD, d 55 AD, s/o Messalina and Claudius.
Descendants of Livia, Wife of Tiberius and Augustus:
1- Livia Claudius, b 57 BC, d 29 AD, m 1) Tiberius Nero, s/o Tiberius, an officer in Julius
Caesar’s legion, m 2) Augustus Octavius Caesar (no issue)
2- Tiberius Claudius Nero, Emperor of Rome, b 42 BC, d 37 AD, s/o Livia and Tiberius,
adopted by Augustus, m 1) Vipsania, forced to divorce her by Augustus to marry his daughter
Julia, former wife of Augustus general, Agrippa, m 2) Julia, d/o Augustus Caesar and Clodia
Antony. (See above).
3- Drusus Caesar, b 13 BC, d 23 AD, s/o Tiberius and Vipsania, m Livia Julia, d/o
Antonia minor and Nero Claudius Drusus.
4- Julia, d 43 AD, m 1) Nero Caesar, m 2) ______.
4- Tiberius Gemellus, b 19 AD, d 37 AD.
3- Drusus Nero, d 9 BC, s/o Tiberius and Livia, m Antonia minor, d/o Mark Antony.
4- Germanicus, s/o Drusus and Antonia, b 15 BC, d 19 AD, m Agrippina the Elder,
d/o Agrippa and Julia.
5- Nero Caesar, b 6 AD, d 30 AD, m Julia, d/o Drusus Caesar.
5- Drusus Caesar, b 7 AD, d 33 AD, m 1) Aemilia Lepida, d/o Julia the
Younger, m 2) _____.
4- Claudius, b 10 BC, d 54 AD, s/o Drusus and Antonia, Emperor of Rome.
m 1) Plautia, m 2 ) Aelia Paetina, m 3) Messalina, m 4) Agrippina the Younger.
5- Venissa Julia (mythical) Unknown to Roman records.
5- Drusus, died young, s/o Claudius and Plautia
5- Claudia Antonia, d/o Claudius and Plautia.
5- Octavia, d/o Messalina and Claudius, b circa 40 AD, d 62 AD, m Nero,
Emperor of Rome. Murdered on Nero’s orders.
5- Britannicus, b 41 AD, d 55 AD,
4- Livia Julia (Livilla)
2- Drusus, s/o Livia and Tiberius, brother to Emperor Tiberius.
Descendants of Mark Antony
1- Marcus Antonius, b 143 BC, d 87 BC., Roman orator and counsel, put to death by Marius
and Cinna in 87 BC.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 49
THE CAESAR DYNASTY
2- Marcus Antonius, oldest son of Marcus (1), nicknamed Creticus, commanded to clear the
sea of pirates, but failed in the task because of complicity with Sulla. He became very unpopular
by plundering the provinces.
3- Mark Antony, b 83 BC, d 30 BC, son of (2), Triumvir of Rome, m1) Fadia,
m 2) Antonia, m 3) Fulvia, issue: two daughters, m 4) Octavia Caesar, sister of
Augustus Octavius Caesar, m 4) Cleopatra.
4- Antonius major, d/o Octavia and Mark Antony, m 1) Domitius Ahenobarbus
m 2) Claudius Caesar, adopted Domitius (below) and called him Nero Germanicus.
5- Lucius Domitius, called Nero, Emperor of Rome, s/o Antonius
major and Ahenobarbus, b AD 37, d AD 68.
4- Antonia minor, d/o Octavia and Mark Antony, famous for her beauty, m Drusus
Nero, s/o Livia and Tiberius.
5- Germanicus, s/o Drusus and Antonia, b 15 BC, d 19 AD, m Agrippina the
Elder, d/o Agrippa and Julia.
6- Nero Caesar, b 6 AD, d 30 AD, m Julia, d/o Drusus Caesar.
6- Drusus Caesar, b 7 AD, d 33 AD, m 1) Aemilia Lepida, d/o Julia the
Younger, m 2) _____.
7- 5 children, including Junia Calvina, the only one of
Augustus’ descendants left alive in Vespasian’s reign. At the death
of Nero, no male members of the dynasty survived.
6- Gaius Caesar, called Caligula, b 12 AD, d 41 AD. Emperor of
Rome. 4 marriages. No sons.
6- Agrippina the Younger, b 15 AD, d 59 AD, m 1) Gneaus
Domitius Ahenobarbus m 2) ____ m 3) Claudius.
5- Claudius, b 10 BC, d 54 AD, s/o Drusus and Antonia, Emperor of Rome.
m 1) Plautia, m 2 ) Aelia Paetina, m 3) Messalina, m 4) Agrippina the Younger.
6- Venissa Julia (mythical) Unknown to Roman records.
6- Drusus, died young, s/o Plautia and Claudius
6- Claudia Antonia d/o Plautia and Claudius.
6- Octavia, d/o Messalina and Claudius, b circa 40 AD, d 62 AD, m
Nero, Emperor of Rome. Murdered on Nero’s orders.
6- Britannicus, b 41 AD, d 55 AD, s/o Messalina and Claudius/
5- Livia Julia (Livilla), d 3 AD, m 1) Gaius Caesar, m 2) Drusus Caesar
4- Clodia Antony, d/o Mark Antony and Fulvia, m Augustus Octavius Caesar (see
above).
2- Gaius Antonius, held consulship with Cicero in 63 BC and appointed to Macedonia. He
made himself so detested in the province that he was recalled to Rome and accused, in 59 BC, of
taking part in the Catilinarian conspiracy and the extortion of Macedonia. He was present in
Rome in 44 BC, and was forgiven for his crimes, as he received the position of Censor in 42
BC. Brother of Marcus Antonius, uncle of Mark Antony.
Kenneth Harper Finton
References: The Encyclopedia Britannica, Great Events by Famous Historians: “Rome Becomes a
Monarchy,” by Henry George Liddell, pg. 356. Caesar and Christ, Will Durant. Lives, Plutarch,
“Antony.”
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 50
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
CLAUDIUS AND
THE ROMAN CONNECTION
by Kenneth Harper Finton
The information on the Roman connection to early Britain came from Lucille Butler, a subscriber from Lake Charles, LA.
She sent me a chart going back to Boadicea. Her reference was Magna Carta, Part
II, by John S, Wurts, Brookfield Publishing Co., 1945, reprinted 1970. I looked
up this source, and I quote:
“Boadicea, in Latin ‘Victoria,’ is described
in the records as a cousin of Caradoc
[Caractacus] and his sister Gladys. One of
her daughters, whose name has not been preserved, Dr. Anderson tells us, became the
wife of Meric, whom the Romans called
Marius. He was the son of Arviragus, King
of Britain, and his wife Venissa Julia, the
daughter of Tiberius Claudius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, who was the grandson of
Mark Antony. Marius died in A.D. 125. His
remarkably long ancestry has been preserved
in the ancient Welsh records.”
-Wurts, Magna Carta, pg. 158.
Not much is known of Claudius’ early
life, as his grandfather, the emperor Tiberius, kept him totally in the background.
He lived in retirement and became dependent on the freedmen who surrounded
him. Claudius had been a sickly child. Infantile paralysis had left him with a
number of physical deformities. Tiberius
obviously did not think that Claudius was
up to the job of emperor.
It is difficult to understand Claudius
without understanding his times and the
complete breakdown of human kindness
during the reign of his nephew, Caligula.
Claudius was the younger brother of the
handsome and heroic Germanicus, a man
of outstanding moral and physical qualities. The wise old Augustus, looking to
Germanicus as a successor to the empire,
forced Tiberius to adopt him. Germanicus
was appointed by the senate as general of
the Gaelic legions. When Augustus died,
the troops were ready to proclaim Germanicus as emperor, but he showed a remarkable filial respect and supported his
grandfather, Tiberius. Germanicus was
called upon to restore order in the east
when he suddenly took ill and died. Like
many potential heirs before him, he was
poisoned. The Roman world as well as
the provinces was shocked, as everyone
truly loved Germanicus.
May I start by saying the information
above, though believed by many, is fictitious.
Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus, called Claudius, was born in 10
B.C., son of Antonia minor, daughter of
Mark Antony, and her husband, Drusus
Nero. Claudius’ father, Drusus, was the
son of Tiberius Nero Caesar, emperor of
Rome, and his wife Livia.
“According to the general verdict, Tiberius
Livia was married to Tiberius’ father
craftily arranged Germanicus’ death with
and was pregnant with Tiberius’ brother,
Gnaeus Piso as his intermediary and
Drusus, in 38 B.C., when Augustus Ocagent.”1
tavius Caesar fell in love with her and forGermanicus and his wife, Agrippina the
cibly took her as his wife. Both Tiberius
Elder,
had nine children. Agrippina the
and Drusus were then adopted by AugusYounger,
their daughter, was the mother
tus.
of the future emperor Nero, and became
the fourth wife of Claudius. Two of Ger1 Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Caligula.2
Volume 1
The Plantagenet Connection
page 51
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
manicus’ surviving sons, Nero and Drusus, were accused by Tiberius and executed. This left only Gaius Caesar, affectionately called Caligula. He derived his name
from the legionnaire’s boots, as he was
constantly dressed in military uniform as a
child. Caligula wormed his way into the
confidence of the Praetorian guards by
sleeping with the wife of the commander
and promising to marry her when he became emperor. When he thought himself
powerful enough, Caligula poisoned Tiberius, finishing him off with a pillow
over the face. (Suetonius, Caligula.12).
Caligula, mentally ill from childhood,
soon became a monster.“It was his habit
to commit incest with each of his three
sisters and at large banquets, when his
wife was reclined above them, placed
them all, in turn, below him.” (Suetonius,
Caligula.24). To be a relative of Caligula
was enough to earn a cruel death. Everyone was at risk from Caligula’s madness.
Claudius, with his guise of stupidity, surfaced again in Caligula’s reign, and was
named fellow-consul to his nephew,
though he was soon the butt of Caligula’s
jokes. Caligula probably never supposed
that his semi-retarded uncle would succeed him, if he ever gave any thought to
the matter at all.
The misrule under Caligula extended to
the legions and civic projects. He always
demanded the impossible. He closed the
granaries and let the population go hungry
more than once. He pitted cripples against
wild animals in the circus. People were
sawed in half for criticizing him. He murdered and executed at will, often devising
hideous deaths and vile defilements. Because he was baldish, any man with a fine
head of hair had to shave the back of his
scalp. No woman was safe from his advances, and few men, for that matter. He
bathed in hot perfume. He served drinks
with powdered pearls dissolved in the water and ate meat injected with gold. In less
than a year he ran through Tiberius’ sizable fortune. After less than four years of
Volume 1
murderous madness, he was finally killed
by one of his own guards. As soon as the
deed was done, Claudius was found hiding behind a curtain and pronounced emperor by the Praetorian guard. The senate
had been decimated by Caligula.
ARVIRAGUS
Who is Arviragus? References to him
are hard to find, but his character appears
in Cymbeline, the play by Shakespeare, as
that of the prince. According to the plot in
Shakespeare’s play, Arviragus was the
son of Cymbeline. Arviragus and his
brother Guiderius were kidnapped at a
very young age. They were raised in a
cave in the wilds by Belarius, a banished
lord. His true identity was not discovered
until the end of Shakespeare’s play, and it
seems that we are still having trouble with
it.
In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s fable-filled
work, “History of the Kings of Britain,”
we find a fable about Arviragus. 2
“Kymbelinus [Cymbeline], when he had
governed Britain ten years, begat two sons,
the elder named Guiderius, the other Arviragus. After his death the government fell to
Guiderius. This prince refused to pay tribute to Rome; for which reason Claudius,
who was now emperor, marched against
him.”
According to Geoffrey’s account,
Guiderius assembled his army and met
Claudius with an eager assault, slaying
more Romans with his sword than the
greater part of his army. Claudius was
driven back toward his ships. Hamo,
Claudius’ field commander, had been educated among the British hostages in
Rome, so he knew their language and
customs. When all was nearly lost for the
Romans, Hamo threw away his own ar2 The story of Arviragus is from The History of
the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey of Monmouth,
12th century, Book !V, Chapter 12.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 52
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
mor and put on the clothes of a dead Briton. He then fought as a Briton against his
own men, exhorting them to a quick victory. When Hamo approached Guiderius,
he stabbed him, then disappeared into the
ranks. Arviragus saw his brother killed,
hurried to him, and put his own brother’s
garments on his back so that the Britons
would not falter. The Romans gave
ground and Claudius retreated to his
ships. Hamo, missing his chance to march
with the main group, escaped to the
woods. Arviragus saw him escaping and
pursued his brother’s assassin for several
hours to the seaport at Southampton. He
caught him unaware, just as he was about
to board a ship, and abruptly ended his
days.
Claudius sailed up the coast with his remaining forces, while Arviragus, now
king, took refuge in Winchester. Claudius
assaulted Portchester, then went after Arviragus. When Arviragus opened the city
gates to march out and give battle, he was
met with a messenger and a proposal of
peace from Claudius. Claudius promised
to give his daughter in marriage, if only
Arviragus would acknowledge that the
kingdom of Britain was subject to Rome.
Arviragus was advised to put aside
thoughts of war. He decided it was prudent to submit to Caesar, so a treaty was
drawn, and Claudius sent to Rome for his
daughter.
“As soon as the winter was over, those
that were sent for Claudius’ daughter returned with her and presented her to her father [Claudius]. The damsel’s name was
Genuissa, and so great was her beauty, that
it raised the admiration of all who saw her.
After her marriage with the king, she
gained so great an ascendant over his affections, that he, in a manner, valued nothing
but her alone.”
According to Geoffrey’s fable, Claudius
Volume 1
was satisfied that all was well, and returned to Rome, leaving to Arviragus the
government of Britain. Arviragus rebuilt
the cities and towns. In time, he began to
exercise such a great authority that he became a threat to the other kings in the
more remote countryside. He became
puffed up with his new found popularity
and rescinded his tie with Rome. He also
refused to pay the Roman tribute. When
Vespasian was sent to Britain by Claudius
to exact the tribute from Arviragus or reduce him, Arviragus met him at the coast
with such a great army that the Romans
were afraid to leave their ships. Instead,
they sailed on to Totness to besiege Exeter. After seven days, Arviragus caught up
with the Romans and did battle. Great
losses were sustained by both sides, and
neither could claim victory. Next morning, Queen Genuissa, a Roman herself,
went out to mediate with the two opponents. The result was a mutual understanding, and the two were made friends. Next
season, after the winter was over, Vespasian returned to Rome with his tribute
from the British king. Arviragus stayed in
Britain, grew older and wiser, ruled with
compassion, and showed much respect
for the Roman senate thereafter.
“He confirmed the old laws of his ancestors,
and enacted some new ones, and made very
ample presents to all persons of merit. So
that his fame spread all over Europe, and he
was both loved and feared by the Romans,
and became the subject of their discourse
more than any king of his time ... in war
none was more fierce than he, in peace none
more mild, none more pleasing, or in his
presents more magnificent. When he had
finished his course of life, he was buried at
Gloucester, in a certain temple which he
had built and dedicated to the honour of
Claudius. His son Marius, a man of admirable prudence and wisdom, succeeded him in
the kingdom ... as soon as he [Marius] had
ended his days, his son Coillus [Coel] took
The Plantagenet Connection
page 53
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
upon himself the government of the
kingdom.” 3
-Geoffrey of Monmouth
This story is a fable spun by our
twelfth-century story teller. Some of the
people themselves were real personages,
as some of the genealogies were preexistent and not made up by Geoffrey. Genuissa, if she were the daughter of Claudius
Caesar, would have been the great-granddaughter of Mark Antony and his wife,
Octavia, sister of Augustus Caesar. She
would also have been the great-granddaughter of Tiberius Caesar.
THE EMPEROR CLAUDIUS
The primary Roman historian of the time
was Tacitus. He was a most thorough and
well-versed historian, though not particularly a fan of the ruling class. His accounts of the lives and morals of these
emperors are generally thought to be on
the dark side. However, the chapters he
wrote on the reign of Caligula, Claudius’
predecessor, and his writings about the
first seven years of Claudius’ reign, have
been lost to history.4 Only a footnote remains to say that these documents no
longer exist. Claudius himself wrote
several histories and an autobiography,
but these have been lost as well.
Caligula continued the systematic practice, begun by his grandmother, Livia, of
murdering competitors to the throne.
Claudius was spared, as he was spared by
his grandmother, because he appeared not
to be fit for the throne. He had suffered
from infantile paralysis, so he had spindly
legs, and a large head that bobbed when
he walked. He often drooled when he
talked, laughed with an irritating sound,
and had the general reputation of being
3 History of the British Kings, 12th century,
Vol. IV, chapters 14-19.
4 The Annals, Tacitus, Book 12.
Volume 1
mentally slow. Only the fact the the family
considered him a fool had saved his life
during the years of struggle for power
through three emperors. The able-bodied
males fell one by one to his grandmother
Livia’s scheme to reduce Augustus’ heirs
to one. She believed strongly that Rome
should not return to the days when civil
war between rivals was common, and she
believed an emperor was best for Rome,
not the former republican form of government. Much later, Claudius did finally exhibit the leadership qualities that made him
successor to the throne. He contented
himself with the reading and the writing of
histories, so it is generally thought that his
early reputation as a fool was simply a
well-thought-out disguise intended to protect his life. As he became older, his stammer diminished and his presence took on a
more regal quality. He said that he was
forced to play the fool in testimony before
the senate.
Regarding Claudius’ marriages and
children, history has left us with an incomplete and contradictory record. According to Durant, in his Story of Civilization, Claudius’ first wife died on her
wedding day, while The Oxford Classical
Dictionary, 2nd edition, says, “his first
wife bore him two children who died in
infancy. Aelia Paetina, his second wife,
bore him daughter, Claudia Antonia,
A.D. 22-66.”
I have found both sources to be in error.
The only real source for Claudius’ wives
and children appear in the work of the Roman biographer, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus. His work, The Twelve Caesars,
first appeared around 119 A.D. It is the
earliest biography still existing, and it is
painfully incomplete about many events in
Claudius’ life. The author was born around 70 A.D., so he was writing of events that took place well before his time.
He had little more to go on in the way of
written records than we have today. He
records that Claudius was twice betrothed
before he was married, first to Augustus’
The Plantagenet Connection
page 54
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
great-great-grandaughter, Aemilia Lepida.
That marriage was called off when her
parents offended Augustus. The second
fiance, Livia Medullina, died on what was
to be their wedding day.
According to Suetonius, Claudius’ first
wife was Plautia Urguanilla, who bore
him a daughter named Claudia Antonia,
born 27 A.D., died 66 A.D., and a son
named Drusus. Plautia, was a relative of
Plautius, the general who later conquered
Britain under Claudius. Young Drusus
choked to death when he threw a pear in
the air and tried to catch it with his mouth.
Claudius later divorced Plautia for adultery and supposedly for murder as well,
but no one knows whom she was supposed to have murdered. 5 According to
Suetonius, Claudia’s real father was Claudius’ freedman, Boter. Claudius disavowed her paternity, though she was born
five months after his divorce. He had the
infant laid naked before the door of Plautia’s home. With the rampant adultery
practiced by each of Claudius’ wives, it is
difficult to prove the paternity of any child
attributed to him.
The second wife was Aelia Paetina. She
was the sister of Sejanus, head of the
Praetorian guard under Tiberius, who almost succeeded in becoming dictator. This
loveless marriage was designed by Sejanus to aid in his move to usurp the throne.
With Paetina, Claudius supposedly had
another daughter named Antonia, but Paetina was divorced as well for “slight offenses.” 6 Paetina must have fallen when
Tiberius discovered the Sejanus conspiracy and had Sejanus and all his followers
executed in a huge purge of the Praetorian
guard. The glossing over of Paetina’s fall
with the term “slight offenses” is an indication of how lightly we should take some
of Suetonius’ observations. Paetina was
Sejanus’ sister and was likely to have
been intimately connected with his conspiracy to become emperor.
Claudius liked women, but his infirmities did not appeal to the status seeking
Roman women of his day. He had one
loyal mistress, a slave named Calpurnia,
who could have produced an illegitimate
and unrecorded child. In those days, it
was dangerous to have a child that could
be a successor to the empire. Claudius, in
his wisdom, may have hidden the paternity of any child he felt must be his own.
His less than perfect marriages did not
produce children who were unquestionably of his paternity. He was most aware
of the great string of murders and poisonings that brought the Claudian family to
virtual extinction. No doubt he wrote of
these murders in his family histories, and
this is the reason the histories did not survive. Their incriminating content was
probably burned by Nero or Agrippina as
soon as Claudius died.
5 Suetonius, Claudius.26.
6 Ibid.
7 Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, Chapter 13,
pp. 272-274. Simon and Schuster.
Volume 1
It was the Roman custom to name
daughters after their father. Julius’ daughter is Iulia; Claudius’ daughter is Claudia.
Aelia could be from the Julii gens, thus a
daughter with the name Julia is not unlikely, if we can actually believe that a Roman
emperor could have a daughter that no one
else seemed to know about. That Geoffrey
wrote of Genuissa, and some Celtic legends speak of Venissa should not be considered anything but a substitution of a
“V” to a “G,” commonly done in translation. Genuissa would be Venissa Julia, if
we could but find a record of her existence, but of course we cannot find such a
record. The legend was contrived to provide a connection to the Roman dynasty.
As to Octavia and Britannicus, they
were the children of Claudius and his third
wife, Valeria Messalina, whom Claudius
married when she was sixteen.7 The marriage was forced as a joke by Caligula,
who had already used Messalina as a mistress and threw the bones to his clownish
old uncle Claudius. To Claudius’ sur-
The Plantagenet Connection
page 55
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
prise, he actually came to love her, but after he became emperor, Messalina fell
from Claudius’ grace by taking her adulteries much too far. She actually went so
far as to marry the handsome Caius Silius,
one of her many lovers, while still married
to the emperor. Claudius, fearful that she
was plotting his replacement on the throne
with Silius, held much counsel and spent
many hours with his advisors before she
was finally slain by the Praetorian guards
without the emperor’s knowledge. Messalina died in the arms of her mother, Lepida, and Claudius would never be quite the
same. He loved her despite her faults. In
fact, Claudius became quite depressed after her death. He began to eat and drink
too much and lost much of his zest for living.
Claudius’ final wife was his niece, Agrippina the Younger, daughter of his
brother Germanicus, sister of Caligula. If
we are to believe the rumors, Agrippina
“... had a niece’s privilege of kissing and
caressing Claudius, and exercised it with
noticeable effect upon his passions.”
(Suetonius, Claudius 26). A more plausible reconstruction of the events of the
times has been proposed in the award
winning BBC production of I, Claudius,
an eighteen episode historic drama adapted
from Robert Graves historical novels
about the Claudian and Julian dynasties.8
Claudius needed an intelligent woman
capable of helping him rule. He was philosophically a republican and never had the
least ambition to become emperor until it
was forced upon him. Though many
members of his family had died for their
republican views, Claudius was never
considered a threat, as no one thought that
he would become the emperor. To hasten
the coming of the republic, he appealed to
a group of senators to propose a compul8 These PBS videos are freely available at most
local libraries and are well worth watching for
those who are fascinated with these times. The
eighteen episodes are perhaps the world’s greatest
soap opera.
Volume 1
sory marriage with Agrippina “in the public interest.” Until then, such a union as
this had been considered incest.
Claudius knew that Agrippina’s son,
Nero, would be his successor. Claudius
had already lived through the travesty of
Caligula’s rule. He was bright enough to
know that empirical Rome could never
survive the reign of Nero. His hope was
that a republican government would be returned after his death, following a reign
of terror under Nero. The old prophecies
of the Sybil, which Claudius had supposedly written about in his histories, had all
come true. Written in the reign of Augustus, these prophecies supposedly foretold
of Tiberius’ reign, Caligula’s reign, and
the reign of Claudius himself, despite the
fact that many other family members were
in line for succession before them. They
also indicated that Nero would succeed
Claudius, so the emperor bowed to the
fates.
Incest was nothing new to Agrippina.
She had endured it with her brother Caligula, who then had her banished. She
married Ahenobarbus and gave birth to
Nero, upon whom she pinned her hopes
for domination. She convinced Claudius
to adopt Nero the year following their
marriage. Claudius realized that she was
trying to bring Nero to succession instead
of his own son, Britannicus. His intention
was to protect Britannicus and send him
off to Britain with the relatives of Caractacus, but Britannicus was a young man
with the ambition to rule an empire. He
would have none of it. Besides, Claudius
had probably concluded from his birth
date that Britannicus was not really his
son, but the incestuous son of Caligula
and his sister.
Claudius began to repent of the marriage. Agrippina, knowing her time was
limited with Claudius, poisoned a dish of
mushrooms. Claudius went into convulsions after voluntarily eating them, despite
the fact that his food was always tested by
his slaves before he would eat. He had
The Plantagenet Connection
page 56
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
seen many of his family succumb to poison in his long, eventful life. After twelve
hours, Claudius had still not died, so Agrippina summoned her doctor to tickle his
throat with a fast acting poison on a feather. Claudius died 13 October, 54 A.D.
His death was not revealed until all the arrangements were made to make Nero his
successor. Upon the orders of Agrippina,
Claudius’ son, Britannicus, was killed the
year after Claudius’ death to prevent his
succession to the throne.
In 62 A.D., Nero divorced Claudius’
daughter, Octavia, to marry Poppae. Octavia was accused of treason and beheaded
that same year, when she was only twenty-two. 9 This makes Octavia’s birthdate
about 40 A.D. Her father, Claudius, was
49, and she was born just before he became emperor.
Claudius was the first Roman emperor
to direct a campaign against Britain since
the days of Julius Caesar. He succeeded
to the empire when he was fifty years old.
Claudius personally invaded Britain with
his legions in 43 A.D. He was back in
Rome no more than six months later. If
Claudius were to give his first born
daughter to Arviragus, he must have done
so at that time. Up until this time, the Roman presence had not been established in
Britain. The island was the domain of the
Druids and many diverse kings of tribal
areas. Caractacus was also a king of the
Silurians in the western section of the island. Arviragus was ruler in Avalon, now
called Glastonbury, on the leading edge of
the Silurian kingdom (Wales).
The connection between Arviragus and
Genuissa is only found in Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s fable. The emperor Claudius
himself was only present in Britain for
sixteen days. The actual conquering and
fighting was done by Aulus Plautius Silvanus, called Plautius by historians. He
became the first Roman governor of Bri-
tain, the man in charge of setting up all the
client kingdoms. Claudius’ first wife,
Plautia, was a daughter of Plautius’ father’s cousin.10 In the actual invasion,
some of the British tribes were conquered,
some submitted, and some were dealt with
by the traditional method of marriage alliances to secure treaties. Claudius was
given a triumph for the submission of
eleven British kings.
Arviragus was a Silurian, his home in
Avalon [Glastonbury]. He is mentioned as
an historical person that gave the Roman’s
much trouble in Juvenal 4.127. The conquest of this western part of the island did
not begin until long after Claudius sailed
back to Rome. However, Plautius, speaking on behalf of the emperor, would have
had full authority to obtain the much needed cooperation in strategic localities such
as Glastonbury, where Arviragus was
known to rule.
The relationship between Claudius and
Plautius was strong long before Claudius
became emperor. Plautius’ cousin was
Claudius’ first wife. However, the dissolution of his marriage with Plautia took
place long before Claudius succeeded to
the throne.
The plan to subjugate Britannia was
worked out long before the invasion.
There was tin and gold in the Silurian hills
with Celtic miners who had known from
ancient times how best to extract this precious metal. Tin and iron were plentiful in
Britain. These resources and the mining
technologies held by these Silurian Druids
were, perhaps, the real reason for the Roman invasion. Caligula had left the empire
in financial shambles.
The conquest of Britannia had to be very
important to Claudius. His place in history
would be assured by bringing the island
under Roman domination. Rome had conquered most of the known world. Few
prizes would have been as great as the
conquest of Britain and the riches the is-
9 Caesar and Christ, Will Durant, Chapter 13,
pp. 279-280, Simon and Schuster.
10 The Roman Invasion of Britain, Graham
Webster, Barnes and Noble, 1980. Pg. 87.
Volume 1
The Plantagenet Connection
page 57
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
land contained. Few victories would be as
triumphant as the conquering of Britannia,
a feat that even Julius Caesar failed to accomplish.
The loss of parts of Tacitus’ work left a
big gap in the Roman historical record.
Other Roman historians––who wrote
many years later––brushed lightly over the
conquest of Britannia.
Can the golden age of the Caesar dynasty be genetically connected with the continuum of rulers whose descendants went
on to form the modern European states?
Of the dynamic Caesar dynasty, not a
male remained alive by the time of Nero.
We fail to find a definite connection between Venissa Julia and Arviragus in the
Roman records.
A winning Roman tactic in the ruling of
subjugated lands was to set up local client
kings, give them a territory to govern, affirm these rulers with the might of the Roman legions, and provide for their welfare. The job of these Romanized kings
was to submit to Rome as the ultimate authority, exact the tribute and the co-operation from their own peoples, and rule
much as they did before the Roman presence. It was a fine arrangement for the
lucky king who qualified. Prasutagus,
Boadicea’s husband, ruler of the Iceni,
was among these propped-up Roman client kings. Another was Cogidubnus, and
we learned much more about him only recently.
COGIDUBNUS, PUDENS,
AND CLAUDIA
house, Pudens, son of Pudentius, giving the
site.” 11
This Cogidubnus was the same person
mentioned by Tacitus. He was a client
king of certain British tribes during the
reign of Claudius. Here, we have a propped-up British client king associated with
Pudens. Pudens could have been one of
the Romans who helped build the apostolic Christian congregation at Rome. According to custom, foreigners were allowed to take the names of their patrons;
hence, Claudius’ name, Tiberius Claudius, was taken by the British king, Cogidubnus. Furthermore, according to the
Roman tradition of naming the daughter
from the father, his daughter’s name
would be Claudia.
The conqueror of Britain, Plautius, had
a seems to be a Christian wife. Her name
was Pomponia Graecina. She was
charged with “some foreign superstition”
when Plautius returned to Rome. The trial
was recorded by Tacitus and took place in
57 A.D. She was handed over to her husband for judicial decision.12 He found
that she was “innocent,” but she remained
in seclusion the rest of her life. What is
meant by “foreign superstition” is argued
by historians, but it reasonably refers to
the belief in the Christian doctrine.
A palatial villa a little to the west of
Chichester, near Fishbourne, England,
was excavated by archaeologists in 1961.
Thought to be the palace of Cogidubnus,
the estate’s scale was an area greater than
Blenheim Palace. It compared in grandeur
and appointments to the great country
houses in eighteenth-century Britain.“If
correctly identified as the residence of
Cogidnubus, it suggests how far the Roman authorities were prepared to go in re-
Our story deepens with an archaeological discovery made at Chichester in 1723.
A mutilated slab was dug up with an inscription about the dedication of a temple
that stood on the site. It read:
11 Origines Celticae, Edwin Guest, MacMillan
“Dedicated under the authority of King Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, the legate of
Augustus in Britain, a temple to Neptune
and Minerva for the safety of the divine
Volume 1
& Co., London, 1885, Vol. 2 pg. 124. [Guest
was a learned archeologist and antiquarian, master
of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge,
England.]
12 The Annals, Tacitus, 13:32.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 58
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
warding loyal co-operation. This in turn
hints to the high value they set upon their
newly acquired province of Britannia.” 13
Arviragus was supposedly a cousin of
Caractacus. Caractacus was the leader of
the resistance against the Roman aggression. The custom of these Silurians was
to unite behind a competent leader, and
many tribes would join under the authority of one king. Caractacus, the chosen
leader, won some early skirmishes, but
lost his battles and was on the run. The
Romans needed to prop up another king
and place him in authority, as the mines of
Siluria and the secrets of the miners was
one of the major objectives for conquering
the island from the time of Julius Caesar.
Caractacus had fled to the north and taken refuge with another propped-up client
queen, who did as her contract with Rome
required. She turned Caractacus over to
the Romans. Captured and paraded
through Rome in 50 A.D., Caractacus so
impressed Claudius with his manner and
speech that he allowed him to stay on with
his family in Rome. Tacitus quotes Caractacus speech in The Annals, 12:37:
“When he was set before the emperor’s
tribunal, he spoke as follows: ‘Had my
moderation in prosperity been equal to my
noble birth and fortune, I should have entered this city as your friend rather than as
your captive; and you would not have disdained to receive, under a treaty of peace, a
king descended from illustrious ancestors
and ruling many nations. My present lot is
as glorious to you as it is degrading to myself. I had men and horses, arms and
wealth. What wonder if I parted with them
reluctantly? If you Romans choose to lord
it over the world, does it follow that the
world is to accept slavery? Were I to have
at once been delivered up as a prisoner,
13 Who’s Who in Roman Britain, Fletcher, pg.
5. Fishbourne: a Roman places and its garden,
1971, B. Cunliffe.
Volume 1
neither my fall nor your triumph would
have become famous. My punishment
would be followed by oblivion, whereas, if
you save my life, I shall be an everlasting
memorial of your clemency.’ Upon this
the emperor granted pardon to Caractacus,
to his wife, and to his brothers. Released
from their bonds, they did homage to Agrippina who sat near ...”
The usual dispensation of such captured
prizes was rich circus entertainment.
However, the emperor liked the family so
much that he allowed them to stay in
Rome. Claudius, according to Wurts
(who cannot be trusted) adopted Gladys,
Caractacus’ daughter, renaming her Claudia Britannica.14
Caractacus’ children may have been
Christian, some of them martyrs to their
faith. Caractacus himself was said to be a
baptized Christian, if we dare trust Wurts
who has been wrong so many times before. 15 However, there appear to be old
Welsh legends back to Bran from––where
Wurts derived his information–– whose
origins I have not yet traced.16
Somewhere, a link to the very early
Christians of apostolic times must be
shown. Could this link be through the
Christian wife of the real conqueror of
Britain, Aulus Plautius?
14
Magna Carta, Wurts.
15
Ibid. Vol. II, pg. 162.
16 "Eurgen and Gladys do not occur in any source
known to me earlier than a chart (with no soures cited) in R.W. Morgan's "St. Paul in Britain: or, the origin of British as opposed to Papal Christianity"
(19th cent.). Wurts often quotes Morgan verbatim.
That is why no one knows who Eurgen's husband was
(the name is feminine, though I doubt either realized
it). Lucius and Coel is drawn from the Iolo Manuscripts (18th cent.), which is probably based upon,
though ostensibly distinguished from, the Lucius
son of Coel in Geoffrey's HRB. The earlier form of
the Lucius legend, which omits his father, was
known to Bede (8th cent.), but from what he tells us
it is all probably based on misidentifying Lucius of
Britium on the continent as a British king." Abe
Fortas, MedGenL, April 1999.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 59
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
Consider that the Roman conquest of
Britain by Plautius took place from 43 to
47 A.D. Christ died around 29 A.D.
Pomponia Graecina, wife of Britain’s
conqueror, was already receiving instruction in Christianity only a few years after
the death of Christ, certainly by someone
very high in the newly organized church.
In the epigrams of Martial, a man named
Aulus Pudens married a British woman
named Claudia. The marriage might be
the first documented marriage of a British
royal with a Roman. The basis for this information is found in the works of the
Roman poet Marcus Valerius Martialis
(called Martial), the father of the epigram,
born in Bibilis, Spain between 38 and 42
A.D. His first book of Spectacles was
published around 80 A.D. His books of
epigrams were published toward the end
of the first century as well.
Martial was an immensely popular poet
in his day. He insulted, ridiculed, and satirized the leading figures in Roman society. Though many of these folk are now
unknown to us, they live on in his bawdy
and irreverent epigrams through the ages.
In reference to the marriage, Martial
says:
“Although Claudia Rufina was born of the
painted Britons, she has a Latin heart. How
beautiful her form! Italian women would
take her for a Roman; those of Attica for
their own. You gods who have blessed her
in the children she has born her sacred [also
could be translated ‘sainted’] husband, grant
also her hopes for sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. May she enjoy but a single
husband and enjoy, always, her three
sons.”
- Martial's Epigrams, 11. 53
Further, he writes to Rufus:
Claudia Perigrina, Rufus, weds my Pudens:
O Hymenaeus, bless the torches! Such a
union precious cinnamon makes with nard;
such, Massic wine with honey from the
Volume 1
land of Theseus. The elms do not join the
vines in closer love, not the lotus its water,
not the myrtle its banks,. O Concord! be
the perpetual guardian of that bed; and may
Venus be generous in equal bounty . May
the wife cherish her husbad, even when he
becomes gray, and she when she is old, appear still young.”
Epigrams 4.13.
Anything other than circumstantial evidence about the identity of Pudens and
Claudia is almost impossible. Claudia, in
order to be so well-versed in Latin and in
order to have the name of the former Emperor, is most likely to have been the
daughter of the British King Cogidubnus,
who took the name of Claudius, and who,
according to Tacitus (Agric. 14), was
made governor of certain states in Britain
during the reign of Claudius. This would
account for his taking the names of that
emperor, Tiberius Claudius, by referring
to the well-known Roman custom of allowing freedmen, clients, and foreigners
to take the names of their respective patrons. He is the same person named on
the inscription found at Chichester in
1723, previously quoted. The find was an
inscribed slab which created great interest
among the antiquaries of the day. It was
mutilated, but the inscription was restored
by Roger Gale (Phil. Trans., No. 379),
and told us that a certain guild of workmen with their priests “dedicated, under
the authority of King Tiberius Claudius
Cogidubnus, the Legate of Augustus in
Britain, a temple to Neptune and Minerva,
for the safety of the divine house (i.e., the
imperial family), Pudens, son of Pudentius, giving the site.”
Pudens is also called Aulus Pudens and
simply Aulus in the epigrams. The name
of Aulus, which is here given to Pudens,
may justify the suspicion that there was
some kind of connection between Martial's Pudens and Aulus Plautius, the conqueror of Britain. It may have been his
connection with this early friend of Cogi-
The Plantagenet Connection
page 60
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
dubnus that made him a suitable person to
be sent to the court of a British prince. “If
Aulus Pudens were married to the daughter of Cogidubnus, there could not have
been a more suitable appointment.” says
Edwin Guest.
Was this the same Pudens of Martial’s
epigrams, the Pudens who donated the
land where the Roman temple was built in
Britain under the authority of King Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, and whose
buried inscriptions were uncovered
eighteen hundred years later? Was this
Pudens married to Claudia, the daughter
of a British king, and was Claudia an early Christian mentioned in the Bible?
Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. He
was not one of the twelve original apostles, as he was younger than they were.
The original apostles ministered only to
the Jews. They were uncomfortable with
Paul, who formulated doctrines based
upon his Roman background, and ministered to the world at large, outside the circle of Judaic tradition. Paul was responsible for the spread of Christianity beyond
the narrow yoke of the Hebrews. Had his
name been recorded as Gaius Paulus, we
would have painted a different mental picture of him, but he adopted the Hebrew
name Saul of Tarsus, called Paul, for his
ministry. It fit the image of an apostle better than his Roman name. However, Paul
was quick to admit his Roman citizenship
when threatened.
“And as they bound him with thongs,
Paul said unto the centurion that stood
by, ‘Is it lawful for you to scourge a man
that is a Roman and uncondemned?’ When
the centurion heard that, he went and told
the chief captain, saying, ‘Take heed what
thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Then
the chief captain came and said unto him,
‘Tell me, art thou a Roman?’ He said,
‘Yea.’ And the chief captain answered,
‘With a great sum obtained I this freedom.
And Paul said, ‘But I was born free.’”
Acts 23:25-28
Volume 1
One of Martial’s epigrams was addressed to Pudens and asked how his
wife, Claudia, who “sprang from the
painted Britons, could have such graces?”
17
But how does this puzzle fit together?
What does the conqueror of Britain’s
Christian wife have to do with Paul and
Pudens and Claudia? Is that where Pudens got his British land? Was Pudens a
family friend to Plautius and his wife?
Was Claudia taken to Rome to live and be
educated with Plautius and his wife,
Pomponia Graecina? Could Paul or Timothy have been Pomponia’s teacher?
Could Claudia, daughter of the British
King Cogidubnus, have been taken to
Rome and taught about Christianity by
Plautius’ Christian wife and her circle of
teachers? This is a distinct possibility,
even a probability. Could Pudens have
also been a Christian, perhaps one of the
very earliest of converts to enter Britain?
We will never know for certain, but the
possibility that these were the same people
is not so remote as to not consider it.
The apostle Paul, was not welcome in
Rome and did not go to Rome until after
Plautius returned in triumph from Britain.
Since Pudens had British land, he probably received it through the conqueror of
that land, Plautius and his Christian wife,
Pomponia Graecina.
“That Pudens sent his greeting to Timothy
by the hands of St. Paul ... and that he even
contributed to the erection of a heathen temple, need not shake our confidence in the
soundness of our conclusions. Such lapses
from Christian rectitude were not infrequent
among the early converts, as the apostolical
epistles often teach us. 18
Edwin Guest
What are these conclusions mentioned
by Guest in the above quotation?
17 Origines Celticae, Guest, Vol. 2, pg. 128.
18 Ibid, pg. 131.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 61
CLAUDIUS AND THE ROMAN CONNECTION
“Aulus Plautius retired from the government
of Britain in the year 47. If he carried away
with him to Italy the infant daughter of
[King Tiberius Caesar] Cogidnubus, she
may have been fifteen or sixteen when she
received instructions in the faith from Timothy during his first visit to Rome in the
years 61 and 62, and not more than twentytwo when she sent him her greeting
[Timothy 4:12]. On this hypothesis she
would, when the epigram on her marriage
was published in the reign of Domitian,
have been about forty, though she may have
been married and the epigram written many
years before. During the troubles which
about this time raised in Britain by Arviragus (see Juvenal 4.127), she and her husband
could have been dispatched to Britain to confirm the fidelity and strengthen the authority
of her father, Cogidubnus.”
- Edwin Guest 19
Christian wife would be quite likely, as
Plautius was not only a victorious general, but relation to the emperor. Claudius’
first wife was his cousin. Claudius, as a
Christian convert, would have sought out
and worked with the other Christians in
Rome, including Plautius’ wife.
The future emperor Vespasian was in
Britain with Claudius and Plautius during
the invasion in 43 A.D. His brother Sabinus had a son named Titus Flavius Clemens, who married the niece of the emperor
Domitian. Reputedly, Clemens was later
“the most illustrious of the Christian martyrs, both by birth and station.” 20
It appears to me that Pudens and Claudia took Paul’s message to the highest
levels of Roman society. The mystery
deepens, but the passionate debate over
the issue still divides scholars after many
centuries.
Guest suggested that the daughter of the
propped up British king was Claudia, “the
painted Briton,” wife of Pudens, who
was mentioned in the Bible.
[To be continued.]
“Do thy diligence to come before winter.
Eubbulus greeteth thee, and Pudens and
Linus, and Claudia and all the brethren.” II
Timothy 4.21
Of the 73 women were named Claudia
in the first century, only one was a foreigner from Britain. One had to have a
right to the name. It was the emperor’s
appellation and there were laws and traditions governing the use of the name. For
the name to crop up as part of the Roman
congregation in the early apostolic church
is quite significant. For Claudia and Pudens to be mentioned by Martial as being
married and Claudia being from Britain is
quite significant. For Aulus Pudens to
have the name of the conqueror of Britain,
Aulus Plautius, is also significant. There
is a likely connection here.
Claudia’s contact with Plautius and his 20
Origines Celticae, Guest, Vol. 2, pp. 13119
Ibid, pg., 131.
Volume 1
132.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 62
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
by Kenneth Harper Finton
I have been checking into what might be
the first documented marriage of a British
royal with a Roman. The basis for this information is found in the works of the
Roman poet Marcus Valerius Martialis
(called Martial), the father of the epigram,
born in Bibilis, Spain between 38 and 42
A.D. His first book of Spectacles was
published around 80 A.D. His books of
epigrams were published toward the end
of the first century as well. We may safely
assume that the epigrams were published
in the order in which they were written, as
the same names crop up over and over
again and the subjects get older as the
books continue. Martial was an immensely popular poet in his day. He insulted,
ridiculed, and satirized the leading figures
in Roman society. Though many of these
folk are now unknown to us, they live on
in his bawdy and irreverent epigrams
through the ages.
The question I am trying to solve is who
is this British Claudia and who is this Pudens? Is the Claudia mentioned in the two
above verses the same person? Anything
other than circumstantial evidence is almost impossible. Claudia, in order to be
so well-versed in Latin and in order to
have the name of the former Emperor, is
likely the daughter of a British king, probably King Cogidubnus, who took the
name of Claudius, and who, according to
Tacitus (Agric. 14), was made governor
of certain states in Britain during the reign
of Claudius. This accounts for his taking
the names of that emperor, viz. Tiberius
Claudius, by referring to the Roman custom of allowing freedmen, clients, and
foreigners to take the names of their respective patrons.
Volume One
He is the same person named on the inscription found at Chichester in 1723, an
inscribed slab which created great interest
when it was found. It was mutilated, but
the inscription was restored by Roger
Gale (Phil. Trans., No. 379), and informed us that a guild of workmen and
their priests “dedicated, under the authority of King Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus,
the Legate of Augustus in Britain, a temple to Neptune and Minerva, for the safety
of the divine house (i. e., the imperial
family), Pudens, son of Pudentius, giving
the site.”
Pudens is also called Aulus Pudens and
simply Aulus in the epigrams. The name
of Aulus, which is here given to Pudens,
may perhaps justify the suspicion that
there was some kind of connection between Martial’s Pudens and Aulus Plautius, the conqueror of Britain, and it may
have been his connection with this early
friend of Cogidubnus that pointed him out
as a suitable person to be sent to the court
of a British prince. If Aulus Pudens were
married to the daughter of Cogidubnus,
there could not have been a more suitable
appointment.
Few women were named Claudia in the
first century. One had to have a right to
the name. It was the emperor’s appellation
and there were laws and traditions governing the use of the name. For the name
to crop up as part of the Roman congregation in the early apostolic church is quite
significant. For Claudia and Pudens to be
mentioned by Martial as being married and
Claudia being from Britain is quite significant. For Aulus Pudens to have the name
of the conqueror of Britain, Aulus Plautius, is also significant. There is a likely
connection here.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 63
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
Claudia’s contact with Plautius and his
Christian wife would be quite likely, as
Plautius was not only a victorious general,
but relation to the emperor. Claudius’ first
wife was his cousin. Claudia the Briton,
as a Christian convert, would have sought
out and worked with the other Christians
in Rome and thus would have known of
Plautius’ wife conversion even if she arrived after Pomponia was tried and secluded. Being the daughter of a British
king, she could have lived in the home of
Plautius and thus known his wife even in
her seclusion
The future emperor Vespasian was in
Britain with Claudius and Plautius during
the invasion in 43 A.D. His brother Sabinus had a son named Titus Flavius Clemens, who married the niece of the emperor
Domitian. Clemens was later the most illustrious of the Christian martyrs, both by
birth and station. It appears that Pudens
and Claudia took Paul’s message to the
highest levels of Roman society.
The only Christian connection present was the
fact that a piece of property owned by Domitilla
became a Christian cemetery approximately two
hundred years after her death.
The study of Roman history, and particularly
the history of Roman Britain, has advanced rather
a lot since Guest’s death in 1880. As I have said
before, the existence of a scholarly literature helps
to avoid reinventing the proverbial wheel (and elevating discredited antiquarian scholarship above its
proper place).
Greg Rose
University of Mississippi
Greg,
I wouldn’t automatically discount the importance or continued significance of 19th century research. I have recently been doing some Ptolemaic
studies, where there has been an enormous
amount of prosographical data and research published this century. Yet an important inscription
in a highly visible place ––the pylons of the Temple of Edfu––published in 1870 and at the centre
of a major controversy ever since, was not re-examined till 1988. I myself have found a key issue
related to my research which has not been adMr. Finton,
dressed since 1899.
There is no need to resurrect a nineteenth-cenChris Bennett
tury chestnut like Guest when there are more recent studies which bring to bear a rigorous ap- Editorial Reply:
proach to Flavian prosopography. Both Brian
Jones’ Domitian and the Senatorial Order
I have examined these references and
(Philadelphia, 1979) and Pat Southern’s Domitian find little detail in their conclusions. They
(Bloomington, 1997) examine in detail the claim have simply dismissed the possibility that
that Titus Flavius Clemens and Domitilla were Clemens could have been a Christian.
executed for Christian beliefs and conclude that
As editor of of The Plantagenet Connecthere is no serious evidence for such a claim. The tion, people send me this kind of material
report of the execution of Tiberius Flavius Clem- quite often. The belief that Clemens was a
ens is more consistent with his association with Christian martyr still prevails in the geneathe circle around the Emperor Titus’ mistress Ber- logical community which takes informanice and those who favored a more moderate poli- tion found in old texts at face value. It is
cy toward Jews in the aftermath of the crushing of pleasant to finally be able to come to an
the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD. Domitian repu- understanding of these issues, one by
diated Titus’ more conciliatory policy and vigor- one, and confidently refute or support the
ously persecuted Jews, especially Roman and Hel- data by later research. Libraries hold far
lenistic converts. The deaths of Titus Flavius more older works than newer works and
Clemens and his wife occur in this context, prob- the public perceptions are often a hundred
ably because of their connection to pro-Jewish years off.
sympathizers in Rome (the likelihood that they
themselves were Jewish converts is rather less).
I am looking for one simple thing here:
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 64
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
Martial, a Roman contemporary poet,
wrote verses to Pudens and referred to his
wife Claudia as a painted Britain. Timothy
4:12 mentions both Pudens and Claudia as
members of the early congregation of the
church of Rome.
The only question for the moment is:
“are these the same people?”
Guest’s suggestion (and my contribution) is that a British woman could not be
named Claudia unless she was a client of
the emperor and this identifies Claudia as
the daughter of the British King Cogidnubus mentioned by Tacitus.
For us to believe that there were two
people named Claudia, both married to a
Pudens, both of British descent, and both
friends of Martial certainly stretches the
imagination. Thus, I believe that the Claudia and Pudens mentioned in Timothy
were indeed the same people that Martial
knew.
Therefore, we seem to have documented
evidence of the daughter of a British king
marrying a Roman in the first century and
becoming a Christian. Further, other epigrams addressed to Pudens place him in a
northern territory (probably Britain) and
identify him with Aulus Plautius (as he
wears the name Aulus as well). Since
Plautius’ wife was a Christian, we can assume that Claudia came to Rome and
learned the Christian beliefs from her
teachers. Further, the inscription of the
temple to Cogidubnus says that Pudens
gave the land, so we can safely assume
that he originially obtained it in some
manner.
Greg Rose wrote: “The deaths of Titus
Flavius Clemens and his wife occur in this
context, probably because of their connection to pro-Jewish sympathizers in Rome
(the likelihood that they themselves were
Jewish converts is rather less). The only
Christian connection present was the fact
that a piece of property owned by Domitilla became a Christian cemetery approximately two hundred years after her
death.”
Volume One
This Christian cemetery was not only
owned by Domitilla, it was named for her.
Flavia Domitilla was the daughter of the
Emperor Domitian’s sister and the wife of
T. Flavius Clemens. That she owned and
donated land for a Christian cemetery is a
clue of their Christian leanings. It still exists and is called the cemetery of Domitilla
to this day! “Already in the end of the first
century we can see in the gallery of the
Flavians in the cemetery of Domitilla,
Daniel in the den of lions.”1
The Christians of this era, though distinct from the Jews, were regarded by the
Romans (and possibly even themselves)
as a Jewish sect. When the Romans spoke
of banishing the Jews or persecuting Jewish converts, they were speaking of this
sect of chrestiani.2
Besides the documentation of the British
marriage to a Roman, we have evidence of
Christian conversions within high levels
of the Roman aristocracy in the first century. Another pagan witness named Thallus confirms the penetration of Christian
ideas into high Roman circles as early as
40 AD.3
When Claudius expelled the Jews, he
was expelling the Christians. They were
not yet differentiated from the Jews. The
exact phrasing of Suetonius was: “He
[Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews
who, led by Christ, were the cause of of
continual agitations.”
Chris,
I was not rejecting all nineteenth-century scholarship (which is the reason I characterized the
Guest work as a “chestnut” and referred explicitly
to discredited nineteenth-century scholarship), but
rather Guest’s work. Clearly there is nineteenthcentury scholarship which can and should be read
1
The History of the Primitive Church, Lebreton
and Zeillor, Macmillan, 1942. Vol 1, p 528.
2
Ibid, Vol. I, p. 296.
3
Transmitted in a fragment of Julius Africanus,
conserved by the Byzantine chronicler George
Syncellus (Framgmenta historicum graecorum,
ed. by Carl Muller, Vol. III, p. 529.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 65
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
with profit by scholars today ––almost anything
written by Kemble or Sievers comes immediately
to mind as examples. However, in the field of
Roman British studies, Guest has long been rendered unimportant by methodological and source
advances––Guest did not have the treasure-trove of
the RIB to mine for prosopographical evidence,
nor could he benefit from modern, scientific archaeology’s contributions.
Greg Rose
Mr. Finton,
There are good reasons for rejecting Guest’s
contentions out of hand, as examination of his
own arguments suggest. There is no evidence
whatsoever that Cogidnubus had a daughter. This
is purely speculation by Guest. Note the use of
“if”, “may”, “would” –– this is indicative of just
how uncertain Guest’s speculations are.
Guest’s contention here is simply a confession
of his ignorance. Prosopographical and epigraphical studies have enormously advanced our understanding of first century onomastic practices. The
name “Claudia” is seen in inscriptions of imperial
freed women as well as woman granted citizenship
during the reign of Claudius. The name is not rare
at all in the first century as epigraphic evidence
made available by archaeology in the twentieth
century demonstrates. The suggestion that the
shared nomen “Aulus” is significant ignores the
fact that the cognomen “Pudens” (meaning literally shaming) is associated with servile origin. Aulus
Pudens
was
almost
certainly
a
freedman––possibly associated with Aulus Plautius, but by no means necessarily so. Martial’s
Claudia is likely of freedman origin as well on the
basis of epigraphic evidence.
There is no evidence that the wife of Aulus
Plautius was a Christian. This is purely a speculation. BTW, have you left something out of the
the quotation from Guest? Is he seriously suggesting that the Emperor Claudius was a Christian convert? That would be absurd.
-Greg Rose
Editorial Reply:
This question has been studied and
argued since 1650 when James Ussher––
Volume One
archbishop in Ireland and a prolific theologian whose rare books are scattered still
across the world––began to argue this
connection. Yet, these epigrams were
written over a lifetime and the poet Martial’s writing days must have begun around age 30 or so––with some of the
bawdy content, perhaps even an earlier
age. He was an immensely popular poet,
the Don Rickles of his day, insulting and
pointing out the foibles in the cream of
Roman society with poems long before
committing them to book form. Perhaps
he started writing these around 50 to 60
A.D. The fact that they were not published
in book form until around 80 to 100 A.D.
is not significant. This observation has not
been argued in this century.
So far as prosopographical evidence is
concerned, I have checked the Prosopographia Imperii Romani, which covers
first-century Rome.4 The work stops at the
letter “O”. Seventy-three women named
Claudia are listed, only one of them a foreigner from Britain.
The two most important epigrams are
these: Epigram 4.13: Martial, in an epigram addressed to Rufus, celebrates the
marriage of his Pudens’ to the “foreigner
Claudia.”
Book IV, XIII:
CLAUDIA, Rufe, meo nubit Peregrina Pudenti:
macte esto taedis, O Hyrnenaee, tuis.
tam bene rara suo miscentur cinnama nardo,
Massica Theseis tam bene vina favis;
nee melius teneris iunguntur vitibus ulmi,
nec plus lotos aquas, litora myrtus amat.
candida perpetuo reside, Concordia, lecto,
tamque pari semper sit Venus acqua iugo:
diligat illa senem quondam, sed et ipsa marito
tum quoque, cum fuerit, non videatur anus.
XIII:
“Claudia Perigrina [foreigner], Rufus,
weds my Pudens: O Hymenaeus, bless
the torches! Such a union precious cinna4
2nd editon, ed. E. Groag, A. Stein & L. Peterson, 3 Vols 1933-1987.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 66
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
mon makes with nard; such, Massic wine
with honey from the land of Theseus. The
elms do not join the vines in closer love,
not the lotus its water, not the myrtle its
banks. O Concord! be the perpetual
guardian of that bed; and may Venus be
generous in equal bounty. May the wife
cherish her husband, even when he
becomes gray, and she when she is old,
appear still young.” Epigrams 4.13.]
Not anyone can wear the emperor’s
name. Claudia was not the common name
that it is today. One must assume she is a
client of the emperor and wonder if she is
a foreigner where she is from. 11:53 answers that question:
why Claudia was in Rome and she WAS
his daughter.
How did Pudens meet Martial? He is
referred to early in the books at a much
younger age as being in line for a promotion:
Book I, XXXI:
Hos tibi, Phoebe, vovet totos a vertice crines
Encolpos, domini centurionis amor,
grata Pudens meriti tulerit cum praemia pili.
quam primum longas, Phoebe, recide comas,
dum nulla teneri sordent lanugine voltus
dumque decent fusae lactea colla iubae;
utque tuis longum dominnsque puerque fruanturmuneribus, tonsum fac cite, sero virum.
XXXI
THESE, all the tresses from his head, Encolpus, the darling of his master the centurion, vows, Phoebus, to thee, when Pudens shall bring home the glad guerdon of
his merit, a chief centurion’s rank. Sever,
Phoebus, with all speed these long locks
while his soft cheeks are darkened not
with any down, and while tumbled curls
grace iris milk-white neck; and, so that;
both master and boy may long enjoy thy
LIII:
gifts, make him soon shorn, but a man
“Although Claudia Rufina was born of the late!
blue-eyed Britons, she has a Latin heart.
How beautiful her form! Italian women
Encolpus vows to shave his locks when
would take her for a Roman; those of Atti- Pudens is promoted. In Book 5.48, this
ca for their own. You gods who have pact is fulfilled:“What does love compel?
blessed her in the children she has born Encolpos has shorn his locks against his
her sainted husband, grant also her hopes master’s will, yet not forbidden. Pudens
for sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. allowed it and wept: [E. had dedicated his
May she enjoy but a single husband and long hair to Phoebus if his master Pudens
enjoy, always, her three sons.”
became first centurion (primi pali) and
now proceeds to fulfill that vow] in such a
In order for Claudia to be born of the wise did his sire yield the reins, sighing at
painted Britons and be in Rome, well- Pantheon’s boldness [helios, the sun, alversed in Latin and Greek and the graces lowed Pantheon to drive his chariot]; so
of culture, she had to come from a very fair was ravished Hylas [a beautiful youth
high station, which explains her name. drawn under the water by the enamored
The British King Cogidubnus took the Nymphus], so fair discovered Achilles
name Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus and, [who had been hidden by Thetis in womaccording to tradition, his daughter would en’s clothes to prevent him from going to
be named Claudia. In my view, this is the Trojan War, an early incident of
Book I, LIII:
Claudia caeruleis cum sit Rufina Britannis
edita, quam Latiae pectora gentis habet !
quale decus formae! Romanam credere matres
Italides possunt, Atthides esse suam.
Di bene quod sancto peperit fecunda marito,
quod sperat generos quodque puella nurus.
Sic placeat superis ut coniuge gaudeat uno
et semper natis gaudeat illa tribus.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 67
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
pacifism],when amid his mother’s tears
and joy he laid aside his locks. Yet haste
not thou, O beard [he is not yet a
man]––trust not those shortened tresses
––and spring slow in return for sacrifice
so great!”
Epigram 4.29 is addressed to Pudens:
“Dear Pudens, their very number hampers
my poems, and volume after volume wearies and sates the reader. Rare things
please one; so greater charm belongs to
early apples, so winter roses win value; so
her pride commends a mistress who pillages you, and a door, always open holds
no fast lover. Oftener Persius wins credit
in a single book than trivial Marsus
[another epigrammatic poet who wrote an
epic on the Amazons] in his whole Amaxonid. Do you think, too, whatever of my
books you read again, think that it is the
only one: so ’twill be to you of fuller
worth.”
In Book 6.58, Pudens wears the first
name of Aulus, the same as Aulus Plautius, conqueror or Britain who had the
Christian wife. Pudens was stationed in a
far northern post that seems to have been
Britain, so the tie can be made to the
Chichester tablet where Pudens’ name
was impressed.
Book 6, LVIII:
CERNERE Parrhasios dum te iuvat, Aule,
triones comminus et Getici sidera pigra poli,
o quam pacne tibi Stygias ego raptus ad undas
Elysiae vidi nubila fusca plagae!
quamvis lassa tuos quaerebant lumina vultus
atque erat in gelido plurimus ore Pudens.
si mihi lanificae ducunt non pulla sorores
stamina nec surdos vox habet ista deos,
sospite me sospes Latias reveheris ad urbes
et referes pili praemia clarus eques.
LVIII:
“WHILE it pleased you, Aulus, to survey
anear the Northern Bears and the slowwheeling stars of Getic heavens, oh, how
nearly was I snatched away from you to
Volume One
the waves of Styx, and viewed the
gloomy clouds of the Elysian plain! Weary as they were, my eyes searched for
your face, and on my chill lips oft was
Pudens’ name. If the wool-working
Sisters draw not my threads of sable hue
[i.e., grant me longer life], and this my
prayer find not the gods deaf, I shall be
safe, and you shall safe return to Latin
cities and bring back a chief centurion’s
honour, an illustrious knight withal.”
Epigram 7.11: “You compell me to correct my poems with my own hands and
pen, Pudens. Oh, how overmuch you approve and love my work who wish to
have my trifles in autograph.”
Epigram 7.97 is addressed to Aulus Pudens:
Book VII, XCVII:
Nosti si bene Caesium, libelle,
montanae decus Umbriae Sabinum,
Auli municipem mei Pudentis,
illi tu dabis haec vel occupato.
instent mille licet premantque curae,
nostris carminibus tamen vacabit.
nzm me diligit ille proximumque
Turni nobilibus legit libellis.
o quantum tibi norrlinis paratur!
o quae gloria! quanl frequens amator;
te convivia, te forum sonabit
aedes compita porticus tabernae.
uni mitteris, omnibus legeris.
XCVII:
“If you know well, little book, Caesius
Sabinus, the pride of hilly Umbria, fellow-townsman of my Aulus Pudens, you
will give him these, though he be engaged. Though a thousand duties press on
and distract him, yet he will be at leisure
for my poems. For he loves me, and, next
to Turnus’ famous satires, reads me. Oh,
what a reputation is being stored up for
you! Oh, what glory! How many an admirer! With you banquets, with you the
forum will echo, houses, by-ways, colon-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 68
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
nades, bookshops! You are being sent to this is indicative of just how uncertain
one, by all will you be read.”
Guest’s speculations are.”
The other epigrams are these:
Epigram. 13.69: The poet never gets
any cattae from Umbria; Pudens prefers
sending them to his Lord.
Besides these epigrams, there are seven
addressed by Martial to one Aulus, who is
likely the same person as Aulus Pudens:
Epigram 5.28: Never Aulus, whatever
your conduct be, can you make Mamercus
speak well of you, even though you surpassed the whole world in piety, peacefulness, courtesy, probity, justice, flow of
language, and facetiousness––no one can
please him.
Epigram 6.78: The physician, Aulus,
told Phryx, the noble toper, he would lose
his eyesight if he drank. Eye, fare well
(farewell), said Phryx; he drank and lost
his sight.
Epigram 7.14: A coarse epigram on a
woman––one of Martial’s acquaintances.
The only mention of Cogidnubus was in
Tacitus, so there is no evidence of any
children, yet kings had children with
regularity. The evidence is in the existence
of Claudia the painted Briton in Martial’s
epigram. For those remote times it is as
good as a birth certificate. If we are open
about this, the answer is evident. Who
else could it possibly be? What other British woman who spoke Latin and Greek
like a native and had the manners of a
queen could Claudia be? How else would
this Briton wear the proud name of Claudia? How many of the women named
Claudia in Rome were born of the “blueeyed Britons” and spoke fluent Latin and
Greek. Remember that Cogidnubus was
made king right after the Roman invasion.
Before that time, his daughter would not
have known Latin and Greek, nor had
Roman manners. Nor would have anyone
else the island. It would take until 60-65
AD for such learning to occur. Reason
tells me there was only one Briton named
Claudia. Who else could she be other than
Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus’ daughter?
Who can name one more candidate?
Epigram 11.38: Aulus! Do you wonder
why a certain slave was sold for so large a
Greg Rose wrote: “Aulus Pudens was
sum? The man was deaf––that is, could almost certainly a freedman––possibly asnot play the eaves-dropper on his master. sociated with Aulus Plautius, but by no
means necessarily so. Martial’s Claudia is
Epigram 12.51: Aulus, why do you likely of freedman origin as well on the
wonder that “our Fabullinus” is so often basis of epigraphic evidence.”
deceived? A good man is always a tiro.
What epigraphic evidence? And I agree
Martial also wrote nine epigrams ad- that Aulus Pudens was associated with
dressed to Fabullus. He seems to have Aulus Plautius, but I would eliminate the
been one of the Martial’s intimate friends, “not necessarily so.”
but was ill-regarded with no great respect
or affection.
Greg Rose wrote: “There is no evidence
that the wife of Aulus Plautius was a
Greg Rose wrote: “There is no evidence Christian. This is purely a speculation. By
whatsoever that Cogidnubus had a daugh- the way, have you left something out of
ter. This is purely speculation by Guest. the quotation from Guest? Is he seriously
Note the use of “if”, “may”, “would” –– suggesting that the Emperor Claudius was
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 69
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
a Christian convert?
absurd.”
That would be been accused of ‘foreign superstition.’”6
No, he was not arguing that Claudius
was a Christian convert, but Aulus Plautius had a cousin who was one of the
wives of Claudius. Plautius and Claudius
had a family relationship. Claudius’ first
wife was Plautia Urguanilla, who bore
him a daughter named Claudia Antonia,
born 27 A.D., died 66 A.D., and a son
named Drusus. Plautia was a cousin of
Plautius. Young Drusus choked to death
when he threw a pear in the air and tried to
catch it with his mouth. Claudius later divorced Plautia for adultery and supposedly for murder as well, but no one knows
whom she was supposed to have murdered. [Suetonius, Claudius.26.]
The conqueror of Britain, Plautius, had
a Christian wife. Her name was Pomponia
Graecina. She was charged with “some
foreign superstition” when Plautius returned to Rome. The trial was recorded by
Tacitus and took place in 57 A.D. She
was handed over to her husband for judicial decision. He found that she was
“innocent,” but she remained in seclusion
the rest of her life. [The Annals, Tacitus
13:32.]
What other “foreign superstition” would
she be charged with if not Christianity?
We must be open about this. Only when
we recognize the truth in the pieces does
the puzzle fit together.
There are Christian inscriptions of a
Pomponius Graecinus at the end of the
second or the beginning of the third century and several of Pomponii Bassi.5
“Already under Nero a great lady, Pomponia Graecina, married a certain Plautius,
a consul whose cousin espoused the Emperor Claudius, had become suspect because she led a life which was too austere
in the eyes of those in her circle and has
5
De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, Vol. II. p
282,362.
Volume One
Mr. Finton,
The problem is one of interpretation of the evidence and distinguishing between evidence and
speculation.
You wrote: “Remember, not anyone can wear
the emperor’s name. Claudia was not the common
name that it is today. One must assume she is a
patron of the emperor and wonder if she is a foreigner where she is from. 11:33 answers that
question.”
This completely misrepresents the onomastic
situation. Every imperial freedman freed during
the reign of Claudius could take the Claudian nomen (and every freed woman the Claudian praenomen), as could their descendants, as well as any
person granted citizenship during the reign of
Claudius (which is the only way Cogidubnus
could hold the Claudian nomen), and their descendants. The same is true for every freedman and
freed woman of any member of the Gens Claudia
and their descendants. For the rules of Roman
name formation, look at Bruno Doer’s Der Romische Namengebung: ein Historischer Versuch
(Hildesheim, 1974). For the onomastic practices
and social and political roles of imperial freedmen
(and their numbers), see Gerard Boulert’s Esclaves
et affranchis imperiaux sous Haut-Empire
(Naples, 1970), P.R.C. Weaver’s Familia Caesaris: a Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen
and Slaves (Cambridge, 1972), and W. Eck’s and
J. Heinrichs’ Sklaven und Freiglassene in der Gesellschaft der Romischer Kaiserzeit (Darmstadt,
1993).
You wrote: “In order for Claudia to be born of
the painted Britons and be in Rome, well-versed
in Latin and Greek and the graces of culture, she
had to come from a high station, which explains
her name. The British King Cogidubnus took the
name Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus and, according to tradition, his daughter would be named
Claudia. In my view, this is why Claudia was in
Rome and she WAS his daughter.”
I defy you to show a single piece of evidence
which suggests that Cogidubnus fathered any
daughters, much less one who was spirited off to
6
The History of the Primitive Church, Vol. 1, p
383.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 70
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
Rome. Why is it not equally possible for Claudia
to have been an imperial slave from Britannia later freed, or the daughter of a Claudian imperial
freedman? High levels of literacy and cultural attainment are certainly not unknown among JulioClaudian and Flavian imperial slaves and freedmen
/women. Why does Claudia have to be the daughter of a British king? Just because you want it to
be?
You wrote: “How did Pudens meet Martial? He
is referred to early in the books at a much younger
age as being in line for a promotion.”
A primus pilus––the first centurion of a legion
––was of no more than Equestrian rank (if that,
since promotion was from the ranks). This is attested by virtually all of the first century AD epigraphic evidence. This makes it unlikely that the
Aulus Pudens of Martial was a close relative of
Aulus Plautius (he would have been, then, Senatorial or Equestrian by birth and would have entered legionary service as a military tribune, not
as a ranker). Pudens and its related forms is not
quite so rare a name as you appear to think––there
are at least six inscriptions with this cognomen
prior to 114 AD and the wife of Lucius Apuleius
was styled Aemilia Pudentilla (the feminine diminutive form of Pudens, __entis). The supposed
link between Aulus Pudens and Aulus Plautius is
weakened by the fact that the senatorial Aulus
family was of Picentine origin (there was an Aulus among the clientes of Pompey Strabo, the father of Pompey the Great), while Martial clearly
indicates that Aulus Pudens was Umbrian
(Epigram 7.97). This increases the probability
that Aulus Pudens was the descendant of an Aulan
client (probably a freedman) rather than a relative
of Aulus Plautius.
You wrote: “In Book 6.58, Pudens wears the
first name of Aulus, the same as Aulus Plautius,
conqueror or Britain who had the Christian wife.
Pudens was stationed in a far northern post that
seems to have been Britain, so the tie can be made
to the Chichester tablet where Pudens’ name was
impressed.”
What is your evidence that the wife of Aulus
Plautius was a Christian? What makes you think
that Chichester (or more precisely the RomanoBritish town of Regni) was a legionary fortress or
headquarters suitable for the presence of an in-
Volume One
scription from a legionary primus pilus in the
Flavian period? The archaeology of the site does
not sustain such an identification. Only four legions were stationed in Britannia (II Augusta, IX
Hispana, XIV Gemina Martia Victrix, and XX
Valeria Victrix) from the Claudian invasion to the
end of the Flavian period (Legio XIV was removed in 67 from Britannia and dispatched to
Syria). Does epigraphic evidence of the fasti of
any of these legions identify an Aulus Pudens as
primus pilus? Your supposition that the
Chichester inscription is related to the Aulus Pudens of Martial is mere idle, unsubstantiated speculation.
Finally, what is your evidence that the Pudens
and Claudia of II Timothy 4:21 are the Aulus Pudens and Claudia Rufina of Martial’s Epigrammata? Don’t tell me who has speculated that the
identification is sound. Don’t tell me “because the
names are rare.” The epigraphic evidence and the
prevalence of the Claudian nomen among imperial
freedmen say that is an unfounded claim. This
identification is more idle, unsubstantiated speculation –– just the same as when Ussher opined it.
You have only indicated what you believe––not
what evidence convinces you. The Epigrammata
of Martial––no matter whether quoted in Latin or
in English––are not evidence. Everyone concedes
that the names Aulus Pudens and Claudia Rufina
appear there. What is at question is whether they
are the same people as in the Chichester epigraph
and II Timothy 4:21, and whether Claudia Rufina
is the daughter of a British king. And on those
points you have cited no evidence whatsoever.
Greg Rose
Editorial Reply:
Greg Rose wrote: “Why, does Claudia
have to be the daughter of a British king?
Just because you want it to be?”
That is a good question that can also be
reversed. If you do not want her to be so,
you can argue from the other direction.
Greg Rose wrote: “I defy you to show a
single piece of evidence which suggests
that Cogidubnus fathered any daughters,
much less one who was spirited off to
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 71
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
Rome.”
The only reference I know of about
Cogidubnus is the passage in Tacitus.
That does not mention his children. If
there are any more references I would like
to know of them. If this is the only one,
then there is no written evidence either
way. That being so, we can assume he
had children. It was a common thing
among kings in those days to have an
heir. If one wife did not bear, another
wife or mistress was taken. Other legends
point toward Claudia and being a daughter
of Caractacus.
Greg Rose wrote: “Why is it not equally
possible for Claudia to have been an imperial slave from Britannia later freed, or
the daughter of a Claudian imperial freedman? High levels of literacy and cultural
attainment are certainly not unknown
among Julio-Claudian and Flavian imperial slaves and freedmen/women.”
Greg Rose wrote: “Pudens and its related forms is not quite so rare a name as
you appear to think––there are at least six
inscriptions with this cognomen prior to
114 AD and the wife of Lucius Apuleius
was styled Aemilia Pudentilla (the feminine diminutive form of Pudens,
___entis).”
I would like to see a reference to all six,
as I have only found three. There were
few named Pudens in Roman history. The
three other known Pudens are: 1) Arrius
Pudens, a consul in 165 AD. 2) Maevius
Pudens, employed by Otho to corrupt the
soldiers of Galba (Tacitus 1.24) 3) Q.
Servilius Pudens, a counsul in 166 AD.7
With Lucius Apuleius as husband of Aemilia Pudentilla, we have the Pudens
name associated with Lucius. That brings
in another can of worms into the picture,
as the legends show that Lucius the Great
is the ancestor of Helen of the Cross. Perhaps the very name of Lucius came from
an association with the descendants of Pudens and Claudia. Would it not be strange
if this all did fit together and that the name
of Lucius the Great did come from Roman
relatives as the legends indicated?
This is a good question, perhaps the
root question. Since she probably married
Pudens in Rome, how did she get to
Rome. Where did she learn her manners?
Is high literacy and cultural attainment in
both Greek and Latin really that likely
among freed women? Probably not. And a
Greg Rose wrote: “What is your evifreed woman would not be born a Briton, dence that the wife of Aulus Plautius was
as is documented.
a Christian?”
Greg Rose wrote: “This makes it unlikely that the Aulus Pudens of Martial
was a close relative of Aulus Plautius (he
would have been, then, Senatorial or
Equestrian by birth and would have entered legionary service as a military tribune, not as a ranker).”
The Tacitus description when she was
on trial for “foreign superstition” with her
husband as judge. There was no name for
Christianity at that time. What else is a
candidate for “foreign superstition” in
such a high social office? Witchcraft? I
think not. Nor is Judaism likely.
You wrote: “Your supposition that the
No, I did not say Pudens was a relative Chichester inscription is related to the Auof Plautius. He rose from the ranks. The lus Pudens of Martial is mere idle, unsubreference was to the family relationship stantiated speculation.”
between Plautius and Claudius through 7
Claudius’ first wife. How Pudens knew Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
Mythology, edited by William Smith, Pub. John
Plautius is the mystery.
Murray, London, 1880.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 72
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
This site was the palace of King Cogidubnus. The name Pudens was on the inscription. More recent excavations have
found that it was a huge palace, truly fit
for a king. It size and layout suggests how
far the Roman authorities were prepared to
go in rewarding loyal cooperation. This in
turn hints to the high value they set upon
their newly acquired province of Britannia.8
This site was the palace of Cogidnubus
––his name is on the slab with Pudens at
the right time–– and the inscription had
been reinterpreted to show that he was
called “the great king.” There is more than
idle speculation involved here, considering the rest of the story.
to by Guest. “The legendaries tell us that
this royal missionary was himself converted by a certain Timotheus who visited
Britain, and who, in one or two accounts,
is described as St. Paul’s disciple. This is
an obvious blunder, but there was another
member of the early church who figures
under the same name, and he, no doubt,
was the Timotheus alluded to. The Timotheus in question is represented by certain legendaries as the brother of the sainted virgins Pudentiana and Praxedes, who,
according to some, were the daughters,
or, according to others, the granddaughters of Pudens. The reader need hardly be
reminded that two of the oldest churches
in Rome are dedicate to the saints Pudentiana and Praxedes.”
Greg Rose wrote: “Finally, what is your
I know nothing else of these legendaevidence that the Pudens and Claudia of II ries.
Timothy 4:21 are the Aulus Pudens and
Claudia Rufina of Martial’s EpigrammaGreg Rose wrote: “What is at question
ta?”
is whether they are the same people as in
the Chichester epigraph and II Timothy
If one accepts that Plautius’ wife learned 4:21, and whether Claudia Rufina is the
the teaching of Christ from someone like daughter of a British king. And on those
Timothy or Paul––the magnificently con- points you have cited no evidence whatsovincing founders of the early church in ever.”
Rome––while Plautius was away on campaign like Tacitus suggests, then the puzYes, that is the question.
zle begins to take form. Pudens was proIs this true? Is there really no evidence?
moted and seems to have been in Britain Is the slab, the names, the words of Tacifrom the epigrammatic evidence. Pudens’ tus and the descriptions by Martial all unname appears on an inscription with the related? I doubt it. I think they are conname of Cogidnubus, so it makes great nected. The problem is that if this is so,
sense to identify these people with the some other ideas about this time will also
Claudia with Pudens of Timothy. Pudens crumble.
would have obviously been converted by
My world will not crumble regardless of
Claudia’s influence, and Claudia by the the outcome of this matter. I view it as an
influence of Plautius’ wife or her children. unsolved mystery that can stand to be
They would have first-hand information brought out of the closet and viewed in the
that could be passed down to their breaking light of the 21st century. The
grandchildren for generations––and thus resolution can go either way. The importthe historical origin of the ancient legends. ant thing is that it be resolved.
Another interesting but unsubstantiated
(as of now) bit of information was alluded Ken,
8
B. Cunliffe Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-69
, (Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries
26, London 1971.
Volume One
Even if it turns out that there is no case for
Claudia daughter of Cogidubnus, this is an interesting discussion. There is a strong, and totally
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 73
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
bogus, medieval tradition of a descent of British
kings through a daughter of the emperor Claudius
in Geoffrey of Monmouth. It would be interesting
to know how this tradition arose. The type of argument being made here may be closely related to
the way medieval genealogists made this deduction.
- Chris Bennett
Editorial Reply:
The bogus connection was through Arviragus’ marriage to Genuissa, daughter
of Claudius. Arviragus was an historical
person (mentioned in Juvenal) who rebelled against the Romans, but Caractacus
stole the fire of history by being captured
and taken off to Rome. Another legendary
source has Caractacus converted to Christianity and having a daughter named Claudia Britannicus. If true, this would be
another British Claudia, but I am not certain about the source of this legend and
feel that the names and identities may have
been confused. The origin of the legend of
Claudia Britannica is not with Geoffrey of
Monmouth. At first, this confused me as I
thought this Claudia might be the Claudia
of Martial.
Greg Rose wrote: “The Epigrammata of
Martial––no matter whether quoted in Latin or in English––are not evidence.”
Brian Jones in The Emperor Domitian
has this to say about Martial’s epigrams.
“... everyone was terrified of the emperor
[Domitian]. The evidence provided by the
court poets Statius and Martial is consistent with this.”
Jones’ very first end note about Domitian converting his family home into a
temple of the gens Flavia was attributed to
Martial 9.20 as the source material.9 It is
clear that Jones believes that Martial’s poetry can be used as evidence and that Mar9
The Emperor Domitian, Brian Jones, Routledge, 1992, pp. 1 and 30.
Volume One
tial was a court poet writing about the upper classes.
This issue of Pudens and Claudia has
not been examined for a hundred years
and the arguments have been forgotten.
That is why it is necessary to reexamine
them.
Similarly, until Brian Jones came out
with his biography of Domitian in 1992,
there had not been a book on this emperor
for a hundred years. Jones says: “By the
time of Domitian’s birth, the Flavians
were less influential at court. Once Messallina had been replaced by Agrippina,
the [Flavian] group centered on Antonia
and became disunited; when Claudius
sought advice about a suitable replacement
for his third wife, some (e.g. Vitellius) favored Agrippina and others (e.g. Narcissus) favored Aelia Paetina. The victor
showed little mercy to the vanquished ––
the Plautia [gens] suffered the most, with
Aulus Plautius’ wife Pomponia Graecina
being charged with practicing a foreign religion (Ann.13.32) and two other Plautii
forced to commit suicide (Nero 35.4) ...
for the Flavians, it meant that Vespasian
was no longer welcome at court.”10 However, their fortunes recovered by 59 AD
when Agrippina was murdered by Nero
[her son].
The relationship between the Flavian
and the Julii gens remained close. Domitian’s niece, Julia, about 11 years older
than he, was born in the early 60’s,
daughter of his brother Titus and his wife
Arrecinna Tertulla who had close relatives
named Julius.
Of Titus Flauvius Clemens, not much is
known, in comparison to his brother Sabinus. Clemens married Flavia Domitilla,
daughter of Domitian’s sister. They had
seven children, two of whom were openly
designated as Domitian’s successor. (Dom
15.1)
In 95 A.D. Clemens was appointed ordinary counsel with Domitian, no doubt to
groom his sons for succession, but not
10
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 74
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
long afterwards he was charged with atheism. According to Dio, he was executed
and his wife banished. The fate of the
children is unknown. Jones says:
“Finally, the precise nature of Clemens’s
’atheism’ is disputed. Some have argued
that they were both Christians or Christian
sympathizers, others that they favored Judaism. In neither case is the evidence convincing.” [Ibid, p 48}
Now, “atheism” is a strange charge for
Romans to make. In those days when the
mad emperors declared themselves gods,
any sane person should have been an an
atheist. It is similar to the strange charge
made against Plautius’ wife of “foreign
superstition.”
grams were collected over a period of years before
publication (from marriage to three sons in the
blink of an eyelid!)––unless the sons were by a
previous marriage of Pudens.
Anyway, keep me posted, this is an interesting
investigation.
-Chris Bennett
Editorial Reply:
To me, it looks as though the age is correct. Pudens could have held the land for
quite a while before donating it for the
temple, but if he were later a Christian,
perhaps he would have done it
earlier––before he was converted. It was a
pagan temple. That aspect has confused
scholars for a while. The fact of the donaKen,
tion presupposes a relationship with CogiI have a few reactions to the Edwin Guest paper dubnus that could have led to a marriage
you sent me.
to his alleged daughter.
1) Victorian sanctimony in full flood is really
repulsive. Parts of this just made me cringe.
2) “Rufina” probably has nothing to do with
gens affiliation––it means “red-head”––a very likely epithet for a Briton (cf William Rufus). At best
its a convenient pun!
3) If the theory is correct, and Pudens was
granting land to Cogidubnus during Aulus Plautius’ governorship then he was considerably older
than Claudia. To be in a position of such power
and trust during the 40s he must have been in at
least his late 20s or early 30s at that time; i.e.,
15-20 years older than her putatitive age. So you
can factor that into reconstructing his career, to
see if it fits with the likely age at which he
becomes a centurion etc.
4) A “Claudia” in late Flavian Rome was, I
think, much more likely to be born with the
name than to have been granted it on receiving
free status. Here a survey of PIR and whatever
other first century prosopographies you can lay
your hands on is essential––how many Claudians
of any stripe can be traced after the death of Nero?
If you can establish this point, then the plausibility of her being the daughter of a British king
goes up considerably.
5) The internal evidence on Claudia alone
might be sufficient to show that Martial’s epi-
Volume One
Ken,
If the reconstruction on Martial is right, most
of the epigrams were written during the period 7095––or can they be shown to have been composed
under Nero? Pudens became a centurion during
that time, lets say c70. But Aulus Plautius was
governor of Britain 41-47. So, suppose Pudens
was c25 in 45 (quite young), in order to make the
grant––birth c20 AD. That means he became a
centurion in his late 40’s to early 50’s. Possible,
for a blighted career, but I think this is beginning
to stretch plausibility a little far––a detailed review
of the lower ranking officer corps in the first century Roman army is required. I don’t know of
any, though I’m sure one exists.
Chris Bennett
Editorial Reply:
Martial died no later than 101 AD. He
was in Rome for 35 years. For another
eight years he took a hiatus from Rome,
so Book One of his Epigrams likely were
written around 60-70 AD at the earliest.
That leaves a problem with the Plautius
connection. The first book of Martial’s
epigrams has Pudens out of Rome await-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 75
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
ing his promotion to master centurion.
Pudens, being the son of Pudentius, could
have also received the land from his father, especially if his father was a Roman
merchant who traded or held goods for
land.
Also, Plautius’ alleged Christian wife,
Pomponia, was tried around 47-50 A.D.
and went into seclusion thereafter. It
seems difficult to prove that she could
have been Claudia’s Christian contact if
she were truly in seclusion. That her family, especially her children, could have
been allowed contact is likely. That would
help to explain the legendary Christian
strain in her descendants. I find it unlikely
that her husband would let her personally
attend meetings with Christians after the
trial. His position was not that secure.
That would leave out any direct contact
with other converts for her, but she may
have proxied through her family, especially her children. Also, if Claudia was a
guest in their home because she was Cogidnubus’ daughter, she could have had
personal contact with Pomponia. Pomponia’s teacher could have been either Timothy or Paul. Around 60-70 A.D., Paul
was back in Rome. Claudia could have
met him at this time.
Claudia, as the daughter of Cogidnubus, would have been welcome in Aulus
Plautius’ home and in the Roman courts.
Martial was not only a court poet, but a
frequenter of the royal baths, whose bathers were the subjects of his verses.
So far as Pudens is concerned, a birth
date of Around 30 A.D. seems likely.
That would make him around fifteen when
Britain was being subjugated. He was
awaiting promotion as a head centurion around 65 A.D. For Claudia to have been
around 25 around 80 A.D., when she was
noted as having three children, her birth
date would have been circa 55 A.D. She
would have been 15 when Pudens was
awaiting his promotion and possibly his
land grant. Cogidnubus, being described
as “long faithful,” would still be around in
Volume One
70 A.D. I would like to think that a
romance bloomed between the personable
and handsome centurion and the British
princess–– that Pudens received his promotion and his land grant, donated the
land and carried the British lass away and
back to Rome, but that is the imaginative
storyteller in me speaking. If he returned
with a Greek and Latin-speaking prize of a
British princess, he would have achieved
court status.
What we could have here are two divergent and separate Christian conversions,
the one of Pomponia (carried on through
her children and their children), and the
one of Claudia the Britain, be she free
woman or princess. However, Pomponia’s family (the children) would have
been the right age to know Claudia and
Pudens at the court. If the Christian strain
in the descendants of Pomponia is assumed, then secretive contacts with other
Christians must be likely.
Ken,
The following contain information on the inscription: J.E. Bogaers “King Cogidubnus in
Chichester: Another Reading of RIB 91” in Britannia 10 (1979) pp.243-254 and plate IX, R.G.
Collingwood and R.P. Wright The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Vol I, Inscriptions on
Stone, (Oxford 1965) pp. 25-6, RIB 91.
The original reading was as follows:
[N]eptuno et Minervae / templum / [pr]o salute do[mos] divinae / [ex] auctoritat[e
Ti(beri)] Claud(i) / [Co]gidubni r(egis) lega[ti]
Aug(usti) in Brit(annia) / [colle]gium
fabor(um) et qui in eo / [sun]t d(e) s(uo)
d(ederunt) donante aream /
... ]ente Pudentini fil(io)
“To Neptune and Minerva, for the welfare of
the Divine House by the authority of Tiberius
Claudius Cogidubnus, king, imperial legate in
Britain, the guild of smiths and those therein gave
this temple from their own resources, [...]ens, son
of Pudentius, presenting the site.”
The new reading is basically the same as the
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 76
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
above except line 5 now is shown to read:
[CO]GIDVBNI RE[G(is) M]AGNI BRIT
(anniae or annorum?) ...
Which makes the inscription read: “... by the
authority of Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus,
great king in Britain, the guild of smiths ...”
More ore relevant to your present project is the
following from Bogaers's article. When referring
to a card from Chichester Museum that reads:
“ST. PAUL AND BRITAIN: Notes on the Dedication Stone of the Temple of Neptune and Minerva, at Chichester, which connects the Roman
Senator Pudens, the British Princess Claudia, and
St. Paul with the city of Chichester,” he says:
“All this has clear reference to the ’hallucinations’
of those who have supposed a close connection of
the [Pu?]dens of the Chichester inscription which
[sic] the Pudens and Claudia mentioned by St.
Paul at the end of his second letter from Rome to
Timothy, bishop of Ephesus (4, 21), and with the
British lady
Claudia Rufina, Claudia peregrina and Pudens
known from Martial, Epigr. xi, 53 and iv, 13.
Against any such ideas Hubner was strongly and
rightly opposed.” (pp. 251-2)
Bogaers gives the following references for the
above: A. Hubner, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vii, no. 11, p.19, with further references:
(Berlin 1873) W. Stukely, Intinerarium Curiosumm (1776), 200; C. Roach Smith “Roman
Chichester” in Journal of the British Archaeological Association, XLIII, 1887, p.17
-Thomas Green, Exeter College, Oxford
Editorial Reply:
I do not understand the passionate displays that critics have about this subject.
Tom referred to a 1873 criticism as
“hallucinations” about this connection.
That the museum note about the plaque
refers to Pudens as a senator shows me
that the writer has him confused with a
later Pudens, perhaps Arrius Pudens, a
consul in 165 AD. Though the data is
sketchy, I believe there is much more to it.
The basic evidence in Martial’s poems
Volume One
remains unaltered. That a Pudens did marry a British Claudia is beyond debate.
Prosopographia Imperii Romani data
showed no other foreign Claudia and only
73 women with that name.
The term “sancto marito” to describe
Pudens translates at the least to “sanctified
husband” if not “sainted husband.” Therefore, Martial was aware of Pudens’ religious life. Pudens and Claudia are found in
the biblical reference with Linus, who also
became one of the very first pontiffs of the
Roman church (from 67-79 AD), immediately after St. Peter. The Roman church
became the leader in the Christian community shortly after 50 AD. Martial began
to write his poems under the reign of
Nero. He was born around 40 AD and
was 24 when he went to Rome in 64 AD.
Christianity had much room to flourish at
this time, even though Peter and Paul
were executed and imprisoned. It would
only be with the backing of aristocratic
and influential Romans that this could
happen.
The stone inscription was broken and it
is hard to make Pudens out of __dens, but
the portion that says “son of Pudentius” is
intact. No other letters but PV make a
match.
A stemma that I picked up from the prosopography data shows clearly the family
connections between the Julians, the Flavians, the Claudians, the Agrippinas, the
Platonis, and the Clemens.
Now the crux of this is Guest’s theory
that T. Flavius Clemens was the Saint
Clemens and the pontiff of the early
Christian church. This seems to be on
some solid ground. The book Dictionary
of Greek and Roman Biography and
Mythology [edited by William Smith,
Pub. John Murray, London, 1880], has
much information on this:
“Clemens, T. Flavius, was cousin to
the emperor Domitian, and his colleague
in the consulship, AD 95, and married
Domitilla, also a relation of Domitian.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 77
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
His father was Flavius Sabinus, the elder brother of the emperor Vespasian,
[remember it was in Vespasian’s reign
that Christians had it much easier. Vespasian built many temples to Jupiter and
Minerva and poured money into the
provinces] and his brother Flavius Sabinus who was put to death by Domitian
(Suet. Domit 10). Domitian had destined
the sons of Clemens to succeed him in
the empire, and, changing their original
names, had called one Vespatian and the
other Domitian, but he subsequently put
Clemens to death during the consulship
of the latter. (Seut Dom. 15). Dio Cassius says (lxvii.14) that Clemens was
put to death on a charge of aetheism, for
which, he adds, many others who went
over to the Jewish opinions were executed. This must imply that he had become a Christian, and for that same reason, his wife was banished to Pandataria
by Domitian. (Comp. Phillostr, Apoll.
viii 15; Euseb, HE iii.14; Hieronym
Ep.27.) To this Clemens in all probability is dedicated the church of St.
Clement at Rome on the Caelian Hill,
which is believed to have been built
originally in the fifth century, although
the site is now occupied by a more recent, though very ancient structure. In
the year 1725 Cardinal Annibal Albani
found under this church an inscription in
honor of Flavius Clemens, martyr,
which is described in a work called T.
Flavii Clementis Viri Consularis et
Martyris Tumulus illustatus, Urbino,
1727. Some connect him with the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians,
Clemens Romanus.”
Ken,
Bogaers cannot be taken as ’the last word’, particularly as it appears to be a very short piece that
cannot surely have considered all the evidence in
detail.
-Thomas Green, Exeter College, Oxford
Ken,
Volume One
You may already know this but I just ran
across the reference while looking at something
else.
In the account of the crucifixion in the Gospel
of Mark (KJV), the person who is “compelled” to
carry the cross is one “Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus.” Now my impression is that Alexander and Rufus are mentioned
because the original audience of the Gospel would
have known who these people were. That makes
it quite possible that they were connected with the
Christian church, and thus the Rufus mentioned
may well be the same as Claudia’s husband mentioned by the Apostle Paul. However, Simon’s
status as one who can be forced to carry the cross
of a condemned man argues against the high status of his sons in the Roman Court.
Sarah Love
Editorial Reply:
Sarah,
This cross-carrying legend leads us directly to the origins of the legends of Helen of the Cross and is thus important. I
doubt seriously that this biblical Rufus is
the same as Pudens and his name was Rufus Pudens. His name was Aulus Pudens.
There is question as to whether the biblical
Rufus was the half brother of the apostle
Paul.
Rufus was an early Christian, mentioned in the Bible several times. “And
when they had mocked him [Christ], they
took off the purple from him, and put his
own clothes on him, and led him out to
crucify him. And they compel one Simon
a Cyrenian, who passed by, the father of
Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.”
(St. Mark 15: 20-21).
Here we have Rufus’ father carrying the
cross of Jesus. The author, Mark, obviously knew Rufus, but did not seem to
know that Rufus was a half-brother of
both Paul and Alexander. Pudens’ father
was the Roman, Pudentius, as confirmed
by the inscription on the British temple, a
man of probable high standing in the governing circles, possibly a land owner and
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 78
OF CLAUDIA AND PUDENS
dealer in diverse Roman provinces. His
mother, probably a Roman as well, remarried the Hebrew, Simon of Cyrene,
when her Roman husband either died or
divorced her.
Some have interpreted that Paul wrote
about his half-brother and their mother in
his Epistle to the Romans 16:13, “Salute
Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother
and mine.” Others see just two women
and not the same mother. Claudia’s husband Pudens knew Rufus, if Rufus is the
same man to whom Martial addressed his
epigram. Pudens would have known him
from the congregation. The biblical Rufus
is likely the same man referred to by Martial when he wrote: “Claudia Perigrina,
Rufus, weds my Pudens.”
Claudia was likely called “Claudia Rufina” from the color of her hair, but she
could also have lived with a member of
the related Rufi Gens. If Rufus and Paul
were half-brothers, having the same
mother, but different fathers, this would
go a long way in explaining the Helen of
the Cross mysteries.
One of the families of the Pomponian
gens was called the Rufi. If we assume
that Pomponia belonged to this family, we
can account for Martial’s addressing the
first of the two epigrams to a Rufus. Also,
it may be the source of the name of Rufina
given to Claudia in the second epigram.
Rufina was certainly a name borne by female members of the Pomponian gens, as
we do find a Pomponia Rufina mentioned
in Roman History (Dio. Cass. 77.16).
The letter which St. Paul sent from
Rome to Timothy shortly before his death,
in the year 68, contained greetings from
“Eubulus, and Pudens, and Linus, and
Claudia.” (2 Tim. 4. 21). In an epigram
addressed to Rufus, Martial mentions the
marriage of ‘the foreigner Claudia’ with
‘his Pudens’ (Epigram 4. 13), and in
another (Epigram 11. 53) extols the graces
of a Claudia Rufina, who though ‘sprung
from the painted Britons’ had all the elegance of Italian or Athenian dames; and
Volume One
thanks the gods that she had borne children to her ‘sainted husband’ (sancto marito).
The Latin sancto translates “sacred” and
later “sainted”. This shows me that Martial
knew of the Christian leanings of these
people. I believe that the Rufus he addressed in the epigram could quite well
have been the biblical Rufus. Rufus is a
Roman name and the biblical had great associations. Rufus, Eubulus, Pudens,
Linus and Claudia were undoubtedly very
important people in the church for them to
be mentioned by Paul. They were the real
leaders of the early Roman church. Linus
went on to become the first Pope, immediately after Peter.
“The name Linus appears as the immediate successor to Peter in all the ancient
lists of the bishops of Rome. Irenaeous11
identifies him with the Linus mentioned
by Paul in 2 Timothy 4.21. According to
the LiberPontificalis, Linus suffered martyrdom and was buried in the Vatican.” 12
When Plautius finally left Britain in AD
47, he set up Cogidubnus to reign. Before
this time all Britons were Celts, isolated in
their island fortress, wearing blue paint to
battle. For a woman born in Britain to
have the time to learn Latin, Greek and
Roman manners––as we have evidence
that Claudia did––she would need to have
been reared in constant contact with Roman teachers. There was not enough time
for anyone else to achieve this learning but
the daughter of the great king Cogidnubus. Whether she was taken as an infant
to Rome, or was whisked away by Pudens is unclear, but I think it is clear that
one way or another, the Pudens of the Bible is the same Pudens whose name is
found on the Chichester inscription near
the newly excavated palace of Cogidnubus.
11
12
Adv. Haer, iii, 3.3.
Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘LINUS’.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 79
THE LEGENDARY ROMAN DESCENT OF GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET
THE LEGENDARY ROMAN
DESCENT OF
GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET
Contributed by Victoria Hughes
Contributed genealogies are not necessarily reseached by this publication. They
may contain errors in typing and research. They should be further verified
before being entered into one’s own data. This particular connection is
likely false between generations 52 and 42, as there are no known
connections to the Romans at this time, but the material is being presented as
part of our effort to show what has been claimed, in case further research can
verify some of these lineages. Roderick Stuart’s early line references are known
to often be in error.
Kenneth Harper Finton
According to Royalty for Commoners by Stuart, the "Roman" descent of Geoffrey Plantagenet is as
follows. Line 236. pg. 173; line 53 pg. 36 - Direct quote follows:
52. Flavius Afranius Syagrious. Gallo/Roman Senator at Lyons; Counsel 381; Proconsul in
Africa, Magister Officiorium; Praetorium Prefect of the West. Issue:
51. NN daughter, md. Ferreolus, s/o 52.
50. Tonantius Ferreolus, Counsel, 453; md. Papinilla
49. Tonantius Ferreolus "Viz Clarisimus." 507-511; a Roman Commander at the battle of
Chalons; at Rome in 469 and 475; md N.N. d/o Clodoreius.
48. Ansbertus, a Gallo-Roman Senator; poss. bro. of Agibulfer, Bishop of Metz; and Firminus,
Bishop of Uzes (d. 11 Oct 553). Ansbertus md Blithilda, Princess of Cologne, d/o Cloderic King of
Cologne.
47. Erchenaud
46. Leutharius md. Gerberge, d/o Duke Ricomer of the old royal Burgundian House.
45. N.N. (fem) md Ansaud
44. Sigrada (Sigree) md Bodilon. (Bodilon said to to descend from St. Liutvin, Bishop of Treves and
founder of the monastery of Mettlach in the Saar, before 600.]
43. Guerin (Warin, Warinus) Count of Poitiers d. 677 m. Kunza (Gunza) d/o of St. Clodoule, Bishop
of Metz, b. 596 d. 690, whose parents were St. Arnulf and Oda (Clothilde, Doda).
42. Lambert of Hesbaye, 706-725.
Sources: 1.) Blass 313 = Rubel, Edward: Ahnentafel Rubel-Blass, Vol 2 (Zurich,
1939). Note: Chart numbers, not page numbers, are cited; 2.) Chaume. O, I 242,
546, 547, 754, 722 = Chaume, Abbe Maurice: “Les Origins du Duche de
Bourgogne,” 2 vols. (Dijon, 1925 1931) (Facsimile addition, Aalen, Germany,
Scientia Verlag, 1977, 2 vols. in 4 bindings). 3.) Kelly. GR (Gen. 48-52) = Kelly,
David H.: "Genealogical Research in England, a new consideration of the
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 80
THE LEGENDARY ROMAN DESCENT OF GEOFFREY PLANTAGENET
Carolingians," NEHGR, 101:108-112 (Apr 1947); Moriarty. CP (chart); Winkhaus =
Moriarty, G. Andrews: "The Origin of the Cabets," NEHGR, 99:130-131 and chart
(Apr 1945).
41. Robert, Count of Hesbaye b. c. 700 liv. 750; m. Williswinda d/o Alleaume. ( Robert was son of
#42, Lambert. Lambert was also the father of Landree of Hesbaye who m. Sigrand. They were the third
great grandparents of Ermengarde of Hesbaye who m. c. 794 Louis I (Emperor of the West). Robert
and Williswinda were the parents of:
40. Guerin, Count in the Thurgoive, 754-772, d. 20 May 772, m. Adelindis. They were the parents
of:
39. Bouchard, "The Constable." Minur Dominicur in Corsica. He had:
38. Aubri, "The Burgundian," Count of Fezensac. He had:
37. Bouchard, Prefect of the Royal Hunt. He had:
36. No name (perhaps Geoffrey). He had:
35. Aubri, "Dux", Vicomte of Orleans; living 886 when he witnessed the charter of Odo, Abbot of
St. Martin. He had:
34. Geoffrey, Vicomte of Orleans, Count in the Gatinais, occ 933-942; witnessed the charter of
Hugh the Great of France 939. He had:
33. Aubri, Count in the Gatinais, Vicomte d'Orleans; occ 957-966. He had:
32. Geoffrey, Count in the Gatinais; occ 990. He had:
31. Aubri, Count in the Gatinais; occ 990. He had:
30. Geoffrey III, "Ferreol"; Count in the Gatinais and Chateau-Landon; living 990; m. Beatrice of
Macon. They had:
29. Geoffrey II, "Ferreol" (de Chateau-Landon), Count in the Gatinais; b. c. 1104 d. 1043/46, m.
1035 Ermengarde of Anjou. They had:
28 Fulk IV, "Rechin," Count of Anjou; chronicler of the counts of Anjou, b. 1043 d. 14 Apr. 1109;
m. 1089 Bertrade de Montfort. They had:
27. Fulk V, "le Jeune" (the younger), Count of Anjou; King of Jerusalem 1113; Crusader; b. 1092
d. 10 Nov 1143 at Acre; bur. Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem m. 1st. Eremburge, heiress of
Maine. They had:
26. Geoffrey V Plantagenet, Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou; b. 24 Nov 1113, Anjou,
France; d. 7 Sep 1151 Chareau Eure-et-Loire, France; m. 17 Jun 1128, Matilda, Princess of England
and Empress of Germany.
Also see: 1) CP, V:736; Vi: appendix D, 214 = Cokayne, George Edward: "Complete Peerage: new
edition,” (revised by Vicary Gibb, et al.), vols. I-XII, pt. 2; did not use vol XIII (1910-1959); 2) ES,
II:82-83 =Schwennicke, Detlev: "Europaische Stammtafeln", new series (Marsburg, Germany, 19781992) 3.) Moriarty = Moriarty, G. Andrews - "Plantagenet Ancestry of King Edward III & Queen
Phillippa"; Moriarty, G. Andrews - NEHGR - 79:3358-378 Oct 1925, "Origins of the Plantagenets,"
3) Stuart, Roderick W. : "Encyclopedia of West Minster Abbey," 1992; 4) Thatcher, Oliver J. : "A
Short History of Mediaeval Europe.” (New York, 1897).
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 81
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
by Edwin Guest, LL.D.D.C.L., F.R.S
LATE MASTER OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
Originally published by MacMillan and Co., London, 1883.
Republished by HT Communications, PO Box 1401, Arvada, CO. USA ©1998
Edited for clarity by Kenneth Harper Finton, 1998
EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: We are not certain how well some of the content of this
old manuscript still holds up to modern scholarship, as no one has really given the
subject much thought in years. I have found diverse opinions about many of the
thoughts discussed below from modern scholars. Some say ‘nay’, some say ‘very interesting’. We are presenting this reprint to help further the discussion.
CHRISTIANITY reached the British isles by way of Cadiz or of Rome. — St. Paul went to Cadiz and may
have gone to Britain. —The evangelization of Britain effected by Roman converts. — History of the
Christian Church at Rome during the first century obscure. —The Claudia and Pudens of St. Paul identified by Bale with the Claudia and Pudens of Martial; objection to this theory answered by Ussher. —
Discovery of the Chichester inscriptions which couples the name of king Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus
to that of Pudens. — Claudia, probably a daughter of Cogidubnus; may have been carried by Plautius
into Italy as a hostage for her father’s infidelity; and in that case would probably be given in charge to
Pomponia, the wife of Plautius. — Pomponia a Christian. — Recent objections founded on the character
of Pudens, and the inconsistency of the dates considered; the various epigrams which allude to Pudens reviewed; the result favourable to the theory rather than otherwise. — Pudens’ conversion to
Christianity apparently a gradual one. — Christian converts at Rome contemporary with Claudia and
Pudens; Titus Flavius Clemens; in all probability the same person as Clemens Romanus.
Cadiz was the commercial centre of Western Europe and was no doubt the place St.
Paul had in mind when, in writing to the Romans, he spoke of his ‘journey into Spain
(Rom. 15.24). Clemens Romanus, who must have been a contemporary of St. Paul,
informs us (Ep.Cor.1.5) that he taught the whole world to the very limits of the West
(και επι το τερµα τηζονοεωζ). This, indeed, has been described as a ‘vague statement’, but in the mouth of Clemens—a man educated in Greek culture—it had a very
definite meaning. As to the limits of η οικονµευη, Plato made it extend from Cadis to
the Phasis.1 Such was the kind of language ordinarily used by Greek writers when
speaking of Baetica—that district of which Cadiz was the capital—in other words, the
Tarshish of Scripture. Later Christian writers express themselves in nearly the same
terms when speaking of St. Paul’s labours. Paul’s journey into Spain is mentioned as
though it were a well-known historical fact by Jerorme (Amos 5. 8), by Chrysostom
1
Phaedo, p. 109; cf. Strabo, 3. I37.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 82
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
(Hom. Math. c. 24), Comment (2 Tim. c. 4), and by Theodoret (2 Tim. c. 4 and Ps.
116).2
There was ample opportunity for St. Paul to visit Cadiz and to found a Church there
during the six years that elapsed between his first and second imprisonment at Rome.
Among his Spanish converts, there could hardly fail to be some who traded with the
British isles. It is consistent with all we know of the early history of the Church to suppose that the disciples of the great apostle would sooner or later carry to those distant
lands the faith he taught them. There are expressions in the early fathers which might
even warrant a conjecture that St. Paul himself was a bearer of ‘glad tidings’. 3 As the
trade of Cadiz was directed rather to Ireland than to Britain,4 Ireland was probably the
first of these countries that was Christianized.
The history of the Roman Church during the first century is obscure and the social
position of the early Christians uncertain. According to Renan, St. Paul “ne connaisait
pas la haute societe Romaine.” Scholars of our own country have held the same opinion. One of our ablest5 discredits the story of Claudia and Pudens as generally recorded
and endeavours to show that St. Paul laboured chiefly among the humbler classes of
the great city. These views are somewhat modifed in a later work (Ep. to the Philippians), but the doubts of so eminent a critic as Dr. Lightfoot deserve to be examined with
great respect. The subject requires careful examination in all its aspects, for it has a direct bearing on the question of the early evangelisation of Britain.
2
Chrysostom, Hom, Matth. c. 24: 'Et videas eum a Hierosolymis ad Hispaniam usque currentem.' Hom. In Matt. Hom. 75. Comment. in 2 Tim. c. 4: 'Trophimum, inquit, reliqui Mileti infirmantem. Miletus Epheso vicina est: aut igitur in Judeam navigans reliquit illum, aut quum fuisset Romae rursus in Hispaniam profectus est: an autem inde iterum ad has partes venerit ignoramus.' In 2 Ep. ad. Timoth. Hom. 10. Comment. in Epist. ad Hebraeos: “Cum igitur biennium
Romae exegisset in vinculis, tandem dimissus est: deinde in Hispaniam profectus invisit illic
Judaeos quoque; ac tum fortasse Romam rerersus est, et supplicium jussu Neronis pertulit. In
Epist. ad Hebr. Praefatio. Theodoret in a Tim. 4: 'Quando appellaturus Romam a Fausto missus est, defensione audita, fuit absolutus, et in Hispaniam et ad alias gentes excurrens, eis
doctrinae lucem attulit. Primam ergo vocavit defensionem qua in illa profectione usus est.' In
Psalm 116. 2: Laudate Dominum. Et beatus Paulus breviter docet quot gentibus salutaria
praeconia attulit, inquiens ita—Ut ab Hierusalem per circuitum usque ad Illyricum repleverim
Evangelium Christi (non enim rectam incedentes viam, sed gentes quae in medio erant circumeuntes salutaria afferebant praecepta),' sic autem praedicavi evangelium hoc, non ubi
nominatus est Christus, ne super, alienum fundamentum aedificarem, sed sicut scriptum est,
quibus non est annunciatuln de eo videbunt, et qui non audierunt de eo intelligent. Postea
igitur in Italiam venit, et in Hispanias pervenit et insulas quae in mari jacent utilitatem attulit.
Romanis quidem scribens ait: Spero enim cum in Hispanias proficisci coepero, quod
praeteriens videam vos, et a vobis deducar illue, si vobis primum ex parte perfruitus fuero. Et
admirabili Tito scribens inquit: Hujus rei gratia dereliqui te Cretae, ut constituas presbyteros
sicut ego disposui tibi. Sic maximus ille Johannes animam a pristino errore liberavit. Sie divinus
Andreas,’ etc.
3
See authorities in Ussher, Britann. Eccles. Ant, cap. I.
4
Vide supra, p. I2I.
5
Professor Lightfoot, Journal of Philology, 4. 60.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 83
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
The letter which St. Paul sent from Rome to Timothy shortly before his death, in the
year 68, contained greetings from ‘Eubulus, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia’ (2
Tim. 4. 21). Now in an epigram addressed to one Rufus, Martial celebrates the marriage of ‘the foreigner Claudia’ with ‘his Pudens’ (Epigram 4. 13), and in another
(Epigram 11. 53) extols the graces of a Claudia Rufina, who though ‘sprung from the
painted Britons’ had all the elegance of Italian or Athenian dames; and thanks the gods
that she had borne children to her ‘sainted husband’ (sancto marito).
Bale was, I believe, the first to identify the Claudia and Pudens of St. Paul with the
Claudia and Pudens of fhe Roman poet. He was followed by Camden, but it was objected to by the Jesuit Parsons that Martial’s fourth book—which contains the first of
the two epigrams—was published at a time when St. Paul’s Claudia must have been a
woman of mature, if not advanced age. Therefore, she is unlikely to be extolled for the
gracefulness of either her person or deportment. There is, however, reason to believe,
as was remarked by Ussher [James Ussher, an Irish archbishop who wrote in the 16th
century], Collier and others, that many of the epigrams were written long before they
were published. Consequently, the date of publication of the book was no test of the
age of the epigram. About seventy years after Ussher’s death, in the year 1723, there
was found at Chichester an inscribed slab which excited great interest among the antiquaries of the day. It was mutilated, but the inscription was restored by Roger Gale
(Phil. Trans., No. 379), and informed the reader that a certain guild of workmen with
their priests “dedicated, under the authority of King Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, the
Legate of Augustus in Britain, a temple to Neptune and Minerva, for the safety of the
divine house (i.e. the imperial family), Pudens, son of Pudentinus, giving the site.”
The restoration of the letters PUD is consistent with Roman usage. Family names
very commonly differed only in their ending. The inscription found at Vieux (Smith’s
Coll., 3. 92) commemorates Solemnus, son of Solemninus; M. P. Cato Salonianus
was son of Salonia (Plut. Cato); Carinus was son of the Emperor Carus; Agrippina,
daughter of Agrippa, and so forth. The reader’s memory will readily supply him with
scores of similar instances in which the same play of names occur. Gale identifed King
Cogidubnus with the Cogidunus who, according to Tacitus (Agric. 14), was made
governor of certain states in Britain during the reign of Claudius. He accounted for his
taking the names of that emperor, viz. Tiberius Claudius, by referring to the wellknown Roman custom of allowing freedmen, clients and foreigners to take the names
of their respective patrons.6 Here, then, we have a Pudens connected with Britain and
joining with a Romanized British prince in forwarding the erection of a public building
in that province—and, at the same time, a British prince whose Roman name of
Claudius would—according to Roman custom—necessitate the adoption of the name
of Claudia by his daughter.
The question was reopened some years back by the late Rev. J. Williams, Archdeacon of Cardigan.7 He quoted the passage in Tacitus (Ann. 13. 32), which states that
Pomponia Graecina, the wife of Aulus Plautius was charged with having embraced a
‘foreign superstition’; that her husband was allowed to try her in a domestic court, according to the old Roman custom, and that she was acquitted by him, but ever afterwards lived in a state of melancholy. The trial took place in the year 57, some ten or
eleven years before St. Paul wrote the Epistle to Timothy. It may have been one of the
results of the disturbances raised by the Jews against the Christian converts which led
6
''Peregrinae conditionis homines vetuit (Claudius) usurpare Romana nomina duntaxat gentilicia.) Suet. Claud. 25.
7
Claudia and Pudens. Llandovery, 1848.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 84
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
Claudius to expel both Jews and Christians from Rome,8 for all are agreed that the term
‘foreign superstition’ was meant to be Christianity. It appears, therefore, that the conqueror of Britain had a Christian wife and if the daughter of the British king was sent to
Rome either for education or as a hostage for her father’s fidelity, she would naturally
be intrusted to the care of this lady, so we can thus account for Claudia’s Christian
sympathies. Moreover, as Pomponia had been charged with the crime of Christianity
and acquitted only by her husband’s verdict, she would naturally live in the strictest
seclusion, if it were merely to save her ‘husband from dishonour. Thus we can explain
the fact that she is never mentioned in St. Paul’s epistles. Again, one of the families of
the Pomponian gens was called the Rufi. If we assume that Pomponia belonged to this
family, we can account not only for Martial’s addressing the first of the two epigrams
to a Rufus, but also it may be the name of Rufina given to Claudia in the second—
Rufina certainly being a name borne by female members of the Pomponian gens, as we
find a Pomponia Rufina mentioned in Roman History (Dio. Cass. 77.16). That a certain Rufus patronized the early Christians is probable from the fact that the son of Simon of Cyrene was called by this Roman name (Mark 15. 21). He may have been the
Rufus whom St. Paul mentions among other Christian residents at Rome (Rom. 16.
13).
It is hard to believe that a hypothesis which brings into connection (and to some extent harmonizes so many different facts) was drawn from such widely different
sources, has not in it at least some mixture of truth. But the character of Martial’s Pudens, and the supposed dates of the events, present difficulties which, in the opinion of
certain recent inquirers,9 invalidate the whole story. Let us then examine these difficulties, and that we may have the means of forming clear notions as to the history and
character of Pudens, we will briefly pass in review all the epigrams which contain allusions to him. We shall assume that the epigrams were written in the order in which
they were published, and as they now appear in Martial’s works.
Epigram. 1.31: The centurion Pudens is anxious for the post of Primi pilus and his
servant vows an offering to Phoebus on the event of his obtaining the coveted honour.
The insinuations contained in this epigram are revolting, but may after all be merely licentious banter. Again and again, Martial excuses his writings on the grounds of their
containing only ‘joke and fun’. While revelling in the filthiest impurity of thought and
language, Martial claims credit for living a decent life.
“Lasciva est nobis pagina, vita proba est.” Epig. I. 4.
[“Wanton is my page, my life is good.”]
I think we may reasonably infer that it was the reflexion of his own mind rather than
the character of his friend which gave this colour to the epigram.
Epigram 4.13: Martial, in an epigram addressed to one Rufus, celebrates the marriage of ‘his Pudens’ to the ‘foreigner Claudia.’ [“Claudia Perigrina, Rufus, weds my
8
"Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulif,' Suet. Claud. 25. It was
on this occasion, no doubt, that Aquila and Priscilla left Rome (Acts 18. 2).
9
Hallam (Arch. 33. 323), and Professor Lightfoot in the Journal of Class. and Sacred Philology, 4.73.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 85
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
Pudens: O Hymenaeus, bless the torches! Such a union precious cinnamon makes with
nard; such, Massic wine with honey from the land of Theseus. The elms do not join the
vines in closer love, not the lotus its water, not the myrtle its banks. O Concord! be the
perpetual guardian of that bed; and may Venus be generous in equal bounty. May the
wife cherish her husband, even when he becomes gray, and she when she is old, appear still young.” Epigrams 4.13.]
Epigram 4.29: The poet offers excuses for his verses to ‘his dear Pudens.’ Their
number may fatigue him—let him read only a few, and he will be the better satisfied.
Epigram 5.48: Pudens has gained his promotion, the vow has been performed, and
the poet gives the rein to a foul imagination. The whole must have been meant and
taken as a piece of coarse banter, for otherwise no one so soon after a friend’s marriage
could have offered, and no friend—whether Christian or heathen—could have tolerated, so gross an insult. Pudens was probably, at the time, in Britain (see the following
epigram). Martial, hearing of his promotion, dressed up an epigram for the occasion in
his usual style and language.
Epigram. 6.58: While ‘Aulus’ was looking on the neighbouring triones (i. e., the
Great and Little Bear) and suffering from the cold of ‘the Scythian (i.e., the Northern)
pole,’ the poet was brought to the edge of the grave, his cold lips pronounced the name
of Pudens.’ If the gods heard the poet’s prayer, Pudens shall return safely to Italy, and
with equestrian rank enjoy his post of Primi pilus. There is, I think, ground for believing that when this epigram was written, Aulus Pudens was serving in Britain, for no
part of the Roman Empire will suit the requirements of this poem so well as that northern province. The name of Aulus, which is here given to Pudens, may perhaps justify
the suspicion that there was some kind of connection between Martial’s Pudens and
Aulus Plautius, and it may have been his connection with this early friend of Cogidubnus that pointed him out as a suitable person to be sent to the court of a British prince.
If Pudens were married to the daughter of Cogidubnus, there could not have been a
more suitable appointment.
Epigram 7.11: Pudens urges (cogis) the poet to correct his (libelli) with his own
hand. Truly, it is a proof of his love to wish for an autograph copy of such trifles! I
think we may infer that Pudens had urged Martial to prepare a castigated edition of the
Epigrams.
Epigram 7.97: Martial sends one of his books to a friend in Umbria, the “fellowcountryman (municeps) of his Aulus Pudens.”
Epigram 11.53: The poet asks how Claudia Rufina, “sprung from the painted Britons,” could have such graces and thanks the gods she has borne children “to her
sainted husband,” and that she is awaiting so many sons and daughters-in-law. May
she long enjoy her one husband, and the privileges belonging to the parent of three
children.10 [“Although Claudia Rufina was born of the painted Britons, she has a Latin
heart. How beautiful her form! Italian women would take her for a Roman; those of
Attica for their own. You gods who have blessed her in the children she has born her
sainted husband, grant also her hopes for sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. May she
enjoy but a single husband and enjoy, always, her three sons.” Martial’s Egirgams,
11. 53.]
10
These coveted privileges were conferred on Martial, though there is reason to believe he
was unmarried and probably childless.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 86
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
Epigram. 13.69: The poet never gets any cattae (whatever these may be) from Umbria; Pudens prefers sending them to his Lord—that is, I suppose, to Aulus Plautius, or
it may be to his son and successor.
Besides these epigrams, there are seven addressed by Martial to one Aulus, who may
not improbably be the same person as Aulus Pudens.
Epigram 5.28: Never Aulus, whatever your conduct be, can you make Mamercus
speak well of you, even though you surpassed the whole world in piety, peacefulness,
courtesy, probity, justice, flow of language, and facetiousness—no one can please
him.
Epigram 6.78: The physician, Aulus, told Phryx, the noble toper, he would lose his
eyesight if he drank. Eye, farewell, said Phryx; he drank and lost his sight.
Epigram 7.14: A coarse epigram on a certain damsel, one of Martial’s acquaintances.
Epigram 11.38: Aulus! Do you wonder why a certain slave was sold for so large a
sum? The man was deaf—that is, could not play the eaves-dropper on his master.
Epigram 12.51: Aulus, why do you wonder that “our Fabullinus” is so often deceived? A good man is always a tyro [novice]. Martial has written nine epigrams addressed to a Fabullus. One of them is grossly indecent. He seems to have been one of
the poet’s intimates, but to have been regarded by him with no great respect or affection.
The reader has now before him all the means which are left to us of forming an
opinion respecting the character of Aulus Pudens. I do not think, when we take into
consideration all the circumstances of the time, that it must necessarily be an unfavourable one. On several occasions he seems to have taken exception to Martial’s writings,
while the profligate poet shuts his eyes to the gulf, which is daily widening between
him and the friend he loved so well. Gradually, however, the truth breaks in upon him
and every one must remark at the tone of respect which distinguishes the later epigrams
from the earlier ones. The latest is nothing less than a complaint of Pudens’ neglect. As
we find in the epigrams some grounds for believing that Martial’s friend was connected with Aulus Plautius and that he also served in Britain, I think the incidents of
Pudens’ life, as they may be gathered from Martial’s epigrams, instead of weakening,
tend rather to strengthen the conclusions to which we are led by other considerations.
Let us see whether the difficulties connected with the dates are such as imperatively
forbid our assent to a story supported by so many concurrent probabilities.
Hallam (Arch. 33, p. 323) thus dresses up the old objection: “The epigrams of Martial appear, with probably few exceptions, to have been written in the reign of
Domitian, extending from A.D. 81 to 96. In one of them he mentions the marriage of
Pudens to Claudia as then taking place. Now, as we can hardly suppose the Claudia of
St. Paul, whose salutation, together with that of Pudens, he sends to Timothy as from
friends known to him during his former residence at Rome, which was some years before, to have been very young, there seems a tolerable presumption against her marriage so many years afterwards to the same Pudens.” Claudia may very possibly have
first made the acquaintance of Timothy when sent by Pomponia in early girlhood. It
may be under the care and guidance of Pudens—to profit by his instructions. There is
no violent improbability in supposing that she was still a girl of eighteen or twenty
years old when she joined in the general greeting. She would, it is true, even on this
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 87
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
hypothesis, have been a matron in middle life when the epigram on her marriage was
published, but the only question which affects the subject now before us is, when was
the epigram written?
From the nature of things we might conclude that Martial’s epigrams were composed
immediately—or soon after—the events they refer to. In fact, we sometimes find him
asking for indulgence on the grounds that his verses were written hurriedly to meet the
occasions:
‘Da veniam subitis, non displicuisse meretur
Festinat, Caesar, qui placuisse tibi.’ Spect. 31.
From time to time he appears to have collected together these brilliant trifles and to
have published them for the world in a book (libellus). Several writers—among the latest Clinton and Williams—have discussed the question as to when the different books
were published and the epigrams they contain were written. From its contents, it is
clear that the sixth book was not published before the year 91, yet the thirty-second
epigram must have been written soon after the death of Otho, who killed himself in the
year 70. It is also clear that the eleventh book was not published before the year 100,
yet the thirty-third epigram must have been written soon after the death of Nero, who
killed himself in 68. The thirty-ninth was written soon after Martial attained manhood—
which must have been some years earlier. In the face of facts like these, it was hardly
honest of Hallam to lay the case before the reader in the way he has done.
Aulus Plautius retired from the government of Britain in the year 47. If he carried
with him to Italy the infant daughter of Cogidubnus, she may have been fifteen or sixteen years old when she received instructions in the faith from Timothy during his first
visit to Rome1 in the years 61 and 62—and not more than twenty-two when she sent
him her greeting. On this hypothesis, she would—when the epigram on her marriage
was published in the reign of Domitian—have been about forty, though she may have
been married and the epigram written many years before. During the troubles which
about this time were raised in Britain by Arviragus (Juv. 4. I27), she and her husband
may have been dispatched to Britain to confirm the fidelity and strengthen the authority
of her father, Cogidubnus. We know from Tacitus11 that Cogidubnus did remain faithful. It must have been after her return to Italy that the epigram was written which extols
her graceful manners. If the reader should think such praise hardly suitable for a matron who was probably between forty and fifty years of age, he may calm his skepticism with the reflection that some writers—and Hallam is of the number—consider that
the poet is referring to the graceful ease and propriety with which the British lady spoke
the languages of Greece and Rome.
That Pudens—after he had sent his greeting to Timothy by the hands of St. Paul—
still continued his intimacy with a man like Martial and that he even contributed to the
erection of a heathen temple, need not, I think, shake our confidence in the soundness
of our conclusions. Such lapses from Christian rectitude were not unfrequent among
the early converts, as the apostolical epistles too plainly teach us. But we have no right
to assume that Pudens was a Christian—that is, a baptized Christian—because his
name was mentioned by St. Paul. The Evangelists had learnt not to quench the smoking
11
‘Is ad nostram usque memoriam fidissimus mansit'; Agric. 14. Tacitus was born about the
year 57, and perhaps we may infer at least that Cogidubnus was living, and the faithful ally of
Rome as late as the reign of Domitian, which began A.D. 8I. The Agricola may have been written at the close of the first century.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 88
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
flax. Though the Church’s door was widely open, many no doubt lingered long before
they entered it. The catechumens, we know, often lengthened out the period of their
probation of set purpose and there were others in friendly relations with the early
Church whose course of life forbids even a charitable hope that they were influenced by
Christian principle. Not much more than a century after St. Paul wrote his Epistle,
Marcia, the mistress of Commodus, was the great patroness of the Roman Christians,
and we find her styled the “god-loving,” 12 notwithstanding her criminal connection
with that emperor. Though we cannot conceive of a man like St. Paul saying a word or
doing a thing which could, for a moment, be supposed to countenance or palliate vice
such as is attributed to Marcia, yet we have some grounds for believing that he did not
shrink from an intimacy with those who were strangers to the faith. It is generally
thought that St. Luke wrote his Gospel under St. Paul’s immediate supervision and it is
the opinion of more than one commentator that Theophilus was not a Christian—at least
not a confirmed Christian—when this Gospel was addressed to him. We may reasonably presume that the cordiality which distinguishes St. Luke’s address to this intruder—if such he were—expressed the feelings the great Apostle entertained towards
him. If St. Paul—in this case—could take so much kindly interest, it would be easy to
suggest reasons why Pudens should have merited and secured his good opinion. We
must remember St. Paul’s position when he wrote the Epistle. He had indeed been
‘delivered from the mouth of the lion’, but a second trial was awaiting him and his life
was still in jeopardy. His own immediate friends had left him. Demas had forsaken
him; Crescens had gone to Galatia and Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke was with him.
But there were four strangers who did not desert him in his extremity. Two of these,
we have reason to believe, were connected with Pomponia. Pudens was evidently a
man of a kindly and amiable disposition. It is an allowable supposition that he was the
channel she employed to convey aid and succour to one whom she dared not befriend
in person. That a man of the world, generally liked and courted, as Pudens seems to
have been, should not at once have yielded to the purer influences that were brought to
bear upon him, is what we might expect; and the sequel, or what appears to be the sequel, of his history—that is, his gradual estrangement from the vicious companions of
his earlier life and his ultimate preference of better things, under the guidance of an accomplished and virtuous woman—has nothing in it so unusual as need excite our skepticism. He must have been a consistent Christian when, in one of his later epigrams,
Martial applied to him the epithet ‘sainted.’
We will now endeavour to ascertain what residents there were at Rome—
contemporaries of Pomponia, Pudens and Claudia, and moving in the same rank of
life—who were likely to sympathize in the opinions we have ascribed to them. I shall, I
fear, have to differ from the conclusions of some for whose critical sagacity I entertain
12
On the strength of this epithet Bunsen styles her as a Christian. I believe Hippolytus to
have called Marcia ‘god-loving’ for the same reasons that induced Josephus (Ant, 20.8.11) to
give the infamous Poppaea the title Οεσσεβηζ. Marcia favoured the Christians as Poppaea
favoured the Jews, but we have less reason to believe in the conversion of the former to
Christianity than of the latter to Judaism. The circumstances connected with Poppaea's funeral certainly gives some color to the latter notion, but Marcia’s Christianity has nothing but a
treacherous epithet to rest upon.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 89
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
much respect, but I believe there are none who would less object to have their opinions
canvassed and, if necessary, controverted, than the eminent scholars I am alluding to.
Sabinus, brother of the Emperor Vespasian, had a son named Titus Flavius Clemens. He married Domitilla—according to some the sister, but more probably the
niece, of Domitian. His two sons were selected by this emperor to succeed him in the
empire. Suetonius, who represents Clemens as a man of “the most contemptible inertness,” tells us he was put to death by Domitian on the merest suspicion (Domit. 15 ).
From Dio Cassius (67.14), we learn that he was slain in the year 95, during his consulship, and that his wife Domitilla was banished to Pandataria—an island lying off the
coast of Italy and used as a receptacle for state prisoners. From the same author, we
learn that the charge against both of them was atheism, “for which many others that had
gone over to the opinions of the Jews were condemned, some of whom perished, and
others were despoiled of their property.” Atheism was the name by which Christianity
was at that time commonly designated. Sloth and inertness were the charges generally
brought against the Christian converts.
Of all the early martyrs, Flavius Clemens was the most illustrious by birth and station. Yet his name does not occur in any of the Roman Martyrologies. We find mention made of Clement the Pope who was banished to the Chersonesus—and there suffered a martyr’s death by drowning—in the reign of Trajan. We also learn of three
other Clements of a later date, but we look in vain for the name of Flavius Clemens. If
he were not the first of these Clemens—in other words, not the same person as Clemens Romanus—then the Christian convert whose martyrdom is recorded in general
history must have been unknown to the Christian martyrologists. Let us briefly review
the authorities that bear upon this question.
Jerome, writing in 392, tells us that the Clement mentioned by St. Paul (Philip. 4. 3)
was the fourth—or in the opinion of some, the second—bishop of Rome and that he
wrote an epistle to the Corinthians, Clemens died in the third year of Trajan and had a
church at Rome named after him (Vir. Illustr. c. 15). Elsewhere, he calls him “a disciple to the apostles, who was bishop of the Roman Church after the apostles and a martyr” (Apol. adv. Ruf c. 4). Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, writing about the year 430,
tells us that “Clemens, sprung from an ancient senatorial family and even of imperial
descent, filled with every kind knowledge and skilled in all the liberal arts, adopted the
life of the righteous, and therein was so eminent as to become successor to the chief of
the apostles’ (Ep. ad Valerianum).
It might be suspected that Jerome’s identification of St. Paul’s Clement with the Roman bishop was suggested merely by identity of name, but they are also identified both
by Origen (in Johan. i. 29) and by Eusebius (H. E. 3. 15). It may be that Flavius Clemens held some official post at Philippi in the year 62 when St. Paul wrote his epistle,
but the date which Jerome assigns to Clement’s martyrdom—which is the same as that
given in the Roman martyrology—is inconsistent with all we know of the history of
Flavius Clemens. How can we explain it on the hypothesis that Flavius Clemens was
the Clemens Romanus, in other words the Pope Clement, of ecclesiastical history?
The work generally quoted as the “Recognitiones,” and which some scholars suppose to have been written as early as the year 200, is a kind of religious novel, in which
Clement gives a slight sketch of his conversion and subsequent adventures. It contrives
to interweave a vast amount of theological speculation. He tells us he was born at Rome
and that his father was a kinsman of the emperor, but he calls his father Faustinianus
instead of Sabinus and the whole story of the adventures is, on the very face of it, a
romance. It would seem, therefore, that Clement’s life had been the subject of fable
long before the time of Jerome. Some legend may have supplied both Jerome and the
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 90
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
martyrologist with the date and other circumstances which they connect with the story
of Clement’s martyrdom.
Jerome says that a church was erected at Rome to Clement’s memory, and in the
Roman Martyrology we are told that Pope Nicolas the First translated Clement’s body
into the church bearing his name. In the year I725,13 there was found under the altar at
St. Clement’s a leaden box containing bones, and over it a marble slab exhibiting the
name of Flavius Clemens. The style of the inscription was not inconsistent with the
notion that it belonged to the ninth century. In the immediate neighbourhood of this
church, there has lately been discovered—by excavation—the remains of an older
church. There can be little doubt that this church was the one referred to by Jerome. In
it was found an urn that is supposed to contain the relies of St. Clement, as it had on its
cover the inscription ‘Flavii Clementis martyris ex (et?) consulis.’14 It would appear
then either that there was some mistake as to the relics said to have been translated into
the present church, or that the urn—lately discovered—contained only some portion of
the martyr’s body. It may have been his heart. The translation must have been from the
old church to the new one; the notion which seems to have been entertained by the
martyrologist that the body was brought there from the Chersonesus is evidently a
mistake.
If we adopt the prevalent notions on this subject we must assume that in the latter
half of the first century the two most distinguished of the Roman converts—the one a
near relative of the Emperor, the other the spiritual head of the infant Church—alike
bore the name of Clement, and alike suffered martyrdom; and secondly, that the early
annalists and martyrologists of the Church were so ignorant, not merely of the
Church’s history, but also of their national annals as recorded by the great classical
historians, as to mix together the two stories, and to confound the Consul with the
Bishop. I do not think a critical mind will readily yield its assent to either of these assumptions. There is one circumstance not yet noticed which tends further to show their
improbability. According to Eusebius (H.E.3.18), Flavia Domitilla—sister’s daughter
to Flavius Clemens—was in the fifteenth year of Domitian banished to Pontia, an island
lying near to Pandataria and used for the same purpose. Jerome (Ep. ad Eustoch. c. 3)
refers to her exile in this island and to the cellulae in which she suffered a lingering
martyrdom. The Roman Martyrology does commemorate this niece of Clemens. Can
we suppose that it would overlook the uncle from whom she derived her social position
and dignity? If Clement ‘the Pope’ were the same person as Flavius Clemens, the uncle
has not been overlooked, though his biography has been disfigured by legendary and
untruthful details.
It may be asked: if Flavius Clemens were the Roman bishop, how could he discharge the ordinary duties of a Roman consul? I think the best answer to this question
may be given by pointing to the change in Christian feelings and practice which gradu13
Clementis viri cons: tumulus illustratus, I727.
Gent. Mag. Aug. 1866. The Excavations at St. Clemente, Rome. By Rev J. E. Vaux, M.A.
‘A marble slab which formed part of the pavement of fhe aisle' is said to have had a clear inscription containing the names of the consuls for the year 339 (Gent. Mag. 1863, i. p. 52). The
old church, therefore was probably built after that date and it may be not long before the time
when Jerorne wrote.
14
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 91
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
ally took place during the two first centuries. In the Apostolic age the outward distinction between a layman and a minister of the Church appears to have been very slight.
Clement, in his epistle to the Corinthians, assumes no title, and the letter merely purports to come from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.15 St. Paul was a
tentmaker and in his Epistle (c.37), Clement alludes to the quiet discipline with which
soldiers obey ‘those who lead us’—an expression which seems to intimate that he had
himself been discharged and was still ready to discharge the military duties of a Roman
citizen. Compliances with heathen customs on the part of the early converts were not
unfrequent and were of various kinds— from the abominations denounced in Rev. 2.
20, to the sitting ‘at meat in the idol’s temple’, on which St. Paul passes only a qualified censure (1 Cor. 8). The heathen, we know, had lost all faith in the rites he practised and in the mythological symbols that surrounded him. They were—in his eyes—
mere forms without significance. The Christian at first seems to have taken the same
view of them. When the Christians buried their dead in the catacombs,the tombs were
covered with the symbols of the religion he had renounced, but were used anyway
without any sense of impropriety. When persecution became systematic and searching
and the Christian was called upon publicly to abjure the religion he professed, then any
act savouring of heathenism became a deadly sin. The Christian was content to lose his
life rather than throw incense on the idol’s altar, or do any other act which could be
construed into a compliance with heathen worship. It may have been his hesitation to
take part in some objectionable rite that first involved Clement in the charge of atheism
and led to his martyrdom.
After this slight notice of the general condition and early history of the Roman
Church, we will now proceed to discuss the very difficult question, how far this
Church originated or promoted the evangelisation of Britain. The question really turns
upon the interpretation that may be given to two passages respectively found in the
works of Bede and of Gildas.
According to Bede (H. E. 1.4), “In the year from our Lord’s incarnation 156, Marcus Antonius Verus, the fourteenth from Augustus, began to reign with his brother
Aurelius Commodus, in whose time, when that sainted man Eleutherus presided over
the bishopric of the Roman Church, Lucius, King of the Britains (Brittanniarum), sent
him an epistle praying that by his mandate he might be made a Christian.” According to
Nennius (c. 18), “ln the year of our Lord’s incarnation 164 (167 or 144 in different
MSS.), Lucius the British king, with all the reguli of the whole of Britain, received
baptism, a mission having been sent by the Emperors of the Romans and by the Roman
Pope Evaristus.”
Eleutherus, it is generally believed, was bishop at Rome from 177 to 191, and
Evaristus from 100 to 109, so that the dates above given must be—all of them—
erroneous, owing to the blundering either of the copyist or of the author. In Bede’s
day, the science of chronology was in its infancy and his calculations are often false.
He was, however, fond of speculating in these matters, and I have little doubt that the
date he really gave was the result of his own computation. The compilers of the Acta
Sanctorum give us, as a preface to the first volume of April, two lists of Popes. The
first of these is copied from a Vatican manuscript and is continued by a single scribe to
the year 230—about which time it may have been written; the second is continued to the
date 530 and was probably written soon afterwards.
15
I am here treading on dangerous ground and have no wish to entangle myself in controversy; but I may briefly state my belief that so far as regards the Epistle of Clement, the fears of
the one party and the triumphs of the other are alike unfounded.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 92
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
The following are the entries in the two MSS. relating to Eleutherus:
“Eleutherius annis . . . fuit temporibus Antonini et Commodi, a consulatu Veri et
Erenniani, usque Paterno et Bradua.”
“Eleuther natione Graecus ex patre Abundantio de oppido Nicopoli, sedit annos
quindecim, menses tres, dies duos. Fuit temporibus Antonini et Commodi usque Paterno et Bradua. Hic accepit epistolam a Lucio Britanniae rege, ut Christianus efficeretur per ejus mandatum.”
The notice of Lucius—which appears in the later manuscript—is the earliest notice of
him to be found in any extant authority. It appears to me to have been introduced from
some work which was probably followed by Bede. Bede, I believe, never uses the plural Britanniae, except when he is evidently copying some classical or some foreign ecclesiastical writer. As the catalogue did not furnish the phrase, he must have found it
elsewhere. In the first half of the sixth century the whole continent was alive with controversy relating to Pelagius and his opponents. The doctors of the Church were writing their tracts on the great questions agitated. Popes were dispatching condemnatory
missives and formal missions were sent to the island where the mischief originated.
There was much temptation if not to forge, at least to strengthen and embellish evidence
tending to show that the church—out of which Pelagius issued—owed a daughter’s
obedience to the mother church of Rome.
There may have been—and there probably was—some tradition that a British king
once asked for and received missionary aid from Rome and some controversialist in
Gaul or Italy may have worked up the story into the shape it takes in Bede’s history.
The well-known deputation sent by the Gaulish bishops to Eleutherus would suggest
him as the Roman bishop likely to be applied to and—as the practice of giving these
provincial kings the name of the reigning emperor must have been notorious—the
writer may have borrowed one of the names of the Emperor Commodus, under whom
Eleutherus flourished and given the royal applicant the name of Lucius. The hypothesis
seems to account satisfactorily for Bede’s use of the phrase Britanniae, for the selection
of Eleutherus as the Roman bishop and for the assignment of the name of Lucius to the
British king.
The author of the paragraph which appears in Nennius must have had Bede before
him when he wrote it. The difference in the dates no doubt originated in blunders of
transcription, but the Welsh compiler must have acted deliberately when in naming the
Roman bishop he departed from Bede and—instead of Eleutherus—gave him the name
of Evaristus. He cannot have been led to adopt this name as the result of any criticism,
for the whole passage shows him to have been profoundly ignorant of the history of the
Roman Church. I can only conjecture that the Welsh tradition that reached him preserved the real name of the Roman bishop, while the vague tradition that reached the
writer Bede was copying had lost it. That the Welsh compiler—though he was content
to defer to Bede in other matters—insisted on giving the bishop the name by which his
own more perfect tradition recognized him.
If we suppose that Evaristus was the Roman bishop who sent missionaries to Britain, most of the difficulties that surround this question vanish. It is certainly hard to
believe that any British chief was allowed to retain the title of King at a period so late as
the episcopate of Eleutherus, or in other words, as the reign of Commodus, but we
may reasonably conjecture that the son of King Cogidubnus—the ever-faithful ally of
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 93
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
the Romana—would be allowed to retain the title and that he and Evaristus were, in all
probability, contemporaries. We have the very Roman bishop selected whom criticism
points out as the one most likely to have played the part assigned to him. Yet he is one
of the most obscure of the early Roman bishops and the Welsh writer who names him
is evidently as uncritical as he is unlearned. I know of no mode of accounting for his
thus bringing forward the name of Evaristus except the hypothesis that it had been
handed down to him in the tradition of the British Church. Let us see how far the result
we seem to have arrived at is countenanced by the legends preserved in the martyrologies and other like sources of early ecclesiastical history.
Lucius, the sainted martyr who lies enshrined at Coire in the Grisons, and whose
memory is still revered in Bavaria, was, according to some,16 the Lucius of Cyrene
mentioned in the Acts (13. 1). According to others, he was Lucius, St. Paul’s kinsman
(Rom. 16. 2I), but—according to a favourite legend—he was the British king Lucius,
whom Bede has commemorated. The legendaries tell us that this royal missionary was
himself converted by a certain Timotheus who visited Britain and who—in one or two
accounts—is described as St. Paul’s disciple. This is an obvious blunder, but there was
another member of the early church who figures under the same name and he, no
doubt, was the Timotheus alluded to. The Timotheus in question is represented by certain legendaries as the brother of the sainted virgins Pudentiana and Praxedes, who,
according to some, were the daughters, or, according to others, the granddaughters of
Pudens. The reader need hardly be reminded that two of the oldest churches in Rome
are dedicated to the saints Pudentiana and Praxedes.
Now the criticism which connects the Pudens of St. Paul with the Pudens of Martial
is of recent date. When, therefore, we find medieval legendaries selecting a kinsman of
Pudens as the Roman missionary who preached Christianity in Britain, we are justified
in quoting them as bearing independent testimony to the truth of such criticism. Its
soundness is also, I think, confirmed by the names of other parties who figure in these
early legends, and it will not be time thrown away to follow this inquiry further.
The campaign which resulted in the Roman conquest of South Britain took place in
the tenth year after Christ’s crucifixion and it brought into intimate relations four men
who were certainly the foremost men of that period—the Emperor Claudius, the future
Emperor Vespasian, his brother Sabinus, and Aulus Plautius. The friendship which
Claudius conceived for the victorious general, no doubt saved his wife, the Christian
Pomponia, from a cruel death in the year 57 (vide p. 125). When we consider the many
ties that must have bound Sabinus to his old commander, we can readily account for
those Christian sympathies which prevailed so widely in one branch of Vespasian’s
family. It would be absurd to suppose that the intimacy—which in all probability existed between the families of Sabinus and of Aulus Plautius—was present to the mind
of the martyrologist when he represented the sister of Flavius Clemens and therefore
daughter of Sabinus, as bearing the name of Plautilla. As from Domitius, a name which
prevailed in the family of Vespasian’s wife, came the name of the Emperor Domitianus,
and also Domitilla, a name borne by at least three ladies of Vespasian’s family, we may
reasonably infer that Sabinus called his [assumed] daughter Plautilla in honour of the
friend under whom he had seen so much military service. The fact also that in a certain
legend (Ussher, Ant. c. 3) Pudens is said to have married a wife named Sabinella,
worthless though it be as testimony of the fact, is not altogether without a bearing upon
16
The learning bearing on this subject has been collected by Ussher (Ant. c. 3). Hallam characterizes the result of Ussher's labours as 'a chaos of chaff' (Arch. 32, p. 312). See below,
footnote 18.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 94
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
the present question. That during the latter half of the first century there was in the first
rank of Roman society a circle of Christian converts cannot, I think, be reasonably
doubted. When we find ancient legends ascribing to its different members such names
as Timotheus, Pudentiana, Plautilla, and Sabinella—names which, so associated, are
unknown to history, but nevertheless are formed according to analogies which history
shows us were most likely to be followed—we may fairly draw the conclusion that
these legends, however unfaithful they may be in their details, contain nevertheless
some mixture of truth. They can hardly be mere gratuitous fictions manufactured by
ignorant monks in the middle ages.
*
*
*
17
Lucius beatus confessor fuit rex Britalnnae, baptizatus a Timotheo discipulo Sancti
Pauli. Qui regno composito et bene ordinate, relictis omnibus secularibus pompis multisque ad Deum conversis, veniens per Augustam in civitatem Curiae, multis ad vitae
perfectionem exemplo et doctrinis inductis, die iii. Decembris, in pace quievit, ut dicit
frater Bartholomaeus (Bartholomaeus Anglicus, ut videtur, in Chronico de Sanctis).’
Petrus Equilinus de Natalibus, lib. 1. c.24.
‘Invenio in legenda sancti Timothei apostoli, quod venerit in Britanniam et Lucium
ejus gentis regem cum tota insula ad fidem Christi converterit, et illud magis concordat
Legendae Sancti Lucii, quae habetur in ecclesia Curiensi, ubi fuit episcopus et martyrio
coronatus.’ Iohannes Nauclerus, Chronograph. vol. 2, generat. 6.
‘Quoniam apostolorum discipuli passim per terrarum orbem Christo ecclesiam colligerent, factum est ut etiam Britannia a S. Pauli auditoribus ab idolorum cultu ad Christum converteretur. Itaque factum est ut S. Lucius Timothei discipulus et ex regio Britannorum sanguine prognatus sibi proposuerit plures homines in errore perseverantes
Christo lucrificare. Propterea Rhenum ascendens ubique Evangelium praedicavit atque
demum in Boioariam pervenit, &c.’ Henricus Pantaleon de Viris illustr. Germ. part I
(ex ecclesiae Curiensis Annalibus).
‘Presbyteri illi qui ab apostolis educati usque ad nos pervenerunt, cum quibus semel
verbum fidei partiti sumus, a Domino vocati in cubilibus aeternis clausi tenentur.
Sanctus Timotheus et Marcus, per honum certamen transierunt.’ Pii Epist. 1, ad Justum
Viennens. Episc. in Orthodoxograph. et tom. I, Cone. edit. Binii an 16I8, p. 70.
Baronius (ex antiquis ecclesiasticis tabulis) says that both were martyred under the
Emperor Antoninus.18 (He will not allow this to be Antoninus Pius, in whose reign
however Pius was pope, but Marcus Aurelius, i. e. Antoninus Philosophus, in order to
support some of his theories.) Mart. Baron. Annal tom. 2, an. 166, § 2.
Others suppose that the apostle of Bavaria was Lucius of Cyrene (Acts I3. I) or Lucius St. Paul’s kinsman (Rom. 16. 21). According to Nennius, c. 18, Lucius was bap17
[The remainder of this fragment is a mere collection of jottings from Ussher, which are here
given as furnishing indications of the line of discussion which was contemplated by the
author.]
18
Lucius Aurelius Antoninus Commodus was joined in the Imperial govern ment with his father Marcus in the year I77 when he was fifteen years of age, and died A.D. I92.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 95
PUDENS AND CLAUDIA
tized a.D. 167 by the missionary sent by Evaristus (100-109). Elutherius was pope
(177—I9I); Eleutherus pope 177, (vide Clinton). Irenaeus was sent to Eleutherus by
the churches of Gaul (Euseb. 5. 4). Hallam calls the legends collected by Ussher ‘a
chaos of chaff’ (Arch. 33, p. 3I2). This is a popular mode of dealing with a difficult
question, but it is not criticism. The chaff contained grains of truth which were well
worth the picking up, if Hallam had only had eyes sharp enough to find them.
The parents of St. Agnes lived in the Vicus Patricius, otherwise Vicus Cornelioruna:
‘The centurion whom St. Paul converted (Acts 10) belonged to this family, and possibly to him the Apostle owed his introduction at Rome to the head of his house,
Cornelius Pudens. This senator married Claudia, a noble British lady, and it is singular
how the unchaste poet Martial vies with the purest writers when he sings the wedding
song of these two virtuous spouses. It was in their house that St. Peter lived. After the
death of Pudens, the house became the property of his children or grandchildren—two
sons and two daughters. The latter are better known because they have found a place in
the general calendar of the Church and because they have given their names to two of
the most illustrious churches of Rome—those of St. Praxedes and St. Pudentiana.’
Wiseman, Fabiola, 2. 10.
The Eucharist was at first only given at one place, viz. St. Pudentiana. Pope Evaristus ‘distributed the titles,’ i.e., he multiplied churches at Rome where the Eucharist
could be offered. He ordered that the altar should be of stone and blessed, but the altar
at St. Pudentiana was of wood, and is the one transferred to the Lateran by Pope
Sylvester, of which it forms the high altar. St. Pudentiana was not one of the ‘titles.’ It
was the original pontifcal church before titles were created. (Vide Wiseman, Fabiola,
2. 10.)
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 96
OLD KING COLE’S LEGENDARY PEDIGREE
Beli the Great
Lud, d 62 BC
Caswallon [Cassivellaunus]
Tenuantius [Tascoivanus]
Llyr (King Lear)
Bran [Christian? King of Siluria]
Cymbeline, King of Siluria
Arviragus is
Guiderius
confused with Caractacus
Caractacus [Christian? King of the Iceni]
Marius [Meric] , m d/o Boadecia
Cynon
Cyllin
Eurgain
Coel
Athildes
m Marcomir IV
Frankish kings to
Charlemagne
unknown
Aiofe
Irish and Scottish
kings to Geoffrey
Plantagenet
Volume One
Eurgen
Gladys, m Lucius the Great
Lucius is historical, but does
not belong in this lineage.
Linus the Martyr?
Claudia Britannicus?,
m Rufus, half-brother of
St. Paul the Apostle?
Likely quite legendary.
Gladys, m Cadvan of Cambria
Strada the Fair, m Old King Cole
[Coel of Colchester] There are many Coels confused in early genealogies.
Helen of the Cross,
(not really the d/o Coel)
m Costantinius, Roman Emperor
Constantine the Great ,
1st Christian Emperor of Rome
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 97
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
THE SEARCH FOR
OLD KING COLE
by Kenneth Harper Finton
Much interest was generated from the
readers with the connection to the legendary Old King Cole, published last issue in
the article on Boadicea, the Warrior
Queen. The questions were: who is Old
King Cole? Is he the subject of the
nursery rhyme? If so, why was he a merry old soul?
As in most legendary figures, we will
probably never have an exact answer to
these valid questions, but as far as the
nursery rhyme is concerned, I submit that
Cole was a merry old soul simply because
it rhymes so well with his name. William
King wrote the original rhyme around
1708, but there is some evidence for its
existence before he set it to satirical verse
in his satirical work, Useful Transactions
in Philosophy.
The original verse was:
“Good King Cole,
And he called for his Bowle,
And he called for his fiddlers three;
And there was a Fiddle, Fiddle,
And twice Fiddle, Fiddle,
Foir ‘twas my Lady’s Birth-day,
Therefore we keep Holy-day,
And come to be merry.”
The traditional version, with which we
are familiar, goes:
“Old King Cole was a merry old soul,
And a merry old soul was he.
He called for his pipe, and he called for his bowl,
And he called for his fiddlers three.”
of Colchester; and the third, a fifth-century Scottish king.
According to William King, the author,
the subject of the nursery rhyme was
about the second Cole. This third-century
king ruled from Colchester, England.1
British legends tell us that this Coel was
the father of St. Helen, mother of the Roman emperor, Constantine the Great. The
legends say that Helen spent much time in
Palestine searching for, and finding, the
very cross upon which Jesus died. She
found the two crosses used to crucify the
two robbers as well. Many scholars have
doubted the veracity of her British origins,
assigning her birth to Turkey, daughter of
an inn keeper instead of a king.
As mentioned in the article on Claudius,
the source material from Wurtz, Magna
Carta, is fallacious. Some ancient Welsh
genealogies and legends still exist, but the
Wurtz material is not reliable. By the end
of the first millennium, when these
records began to be kept, the language of
choice was the Norman French.
Contemporary historians have always
been similar to press agents. Even today
our news coverage, which later becomes
history, is biased and slanted by the reporter. Often as not, the employer assigns
a personal bias in the form of editorial
guidelines. Certainly this was true in the
Middle ages, as the historians and clerics
were commissioned to write a history. To
make the king look good and to make the
ancestry worthy of a great nation was one
of the first political understandings between a would-be historian in search of a
patron and his sovereign.
The first English historians were monks
who let their religious bias rule their inter-
There were at least three British kings
named Cole or Coel. The first was the son
of Marius whose wife was the daughter of
Boadecia: the second, a third-century king 1 Mother Goose: From Nursery to Literature,
Gloria T. Delamar, 1987, McFarland and Co., pg.
157.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 98
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
pretation of the old manuscripts. One of
these sources is Nennius’ Historia Britonnum, or History of Britain. Little is
known of the ninth-century author and
compiler, but many different manuscripts
still exist. From Nennius come the Saxon
genealogies, the descendants of Woden,
the life and deeds of St. Patrick, the beginnings of the legends of King Arthur
and some of the Welsh genealogies.
Earlier works are the works of Gildas,
written in the middle of the sixth century,
and the works of the Venerable Bede,
who lived two centuries later. All the old
histories claimed to be based upon older
records which no longer exist. All are religiously biased. They often attempt to set
dates for events from the beginning of
creation, which they assumed was around
4000 B.C., an arbitrary date to us, but a
religious event for them. The accuracy of
their time estimates suffer greatly from
this lack of understanding about the antiquity of the world.
Another source for ancient English genealogies is The Chronicles of Fabius
Ethelwerd. It traces British history from
the point after the Romans abandoned the
island to about 975 A.D. It was written in
the time of Otto the Great, Emperor of
Germany, and dedicated to Matilda, Otto’s
daughter. Much material repeats what was
already in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
commissioned by King Alfred.
However, these opinionated and imaginative writers built upon facts and events,
names and genealogies that may have been
written in very ancient times. There is
much debate about the historical accuracy
of the events as related by these historians. Medieval mentality required a world
view overseen by a dynamic God and ratified in covenants made between God and
his earthly representatives. Fulfillment of
the prophecies was of central importance.
At times events would be manipulated so
that this fulfillment could come to pass.
Their themes purposely centered on God’s
absolute control of history, and the comVolume One
ing of Christ as the central historic point.
Even our calendars today date roughly
from that event.
Some information that Wurtz used to
create his genealogies to King Cole was
from the twelfth-century book by Geoffrey of Monmouth, History of the Kings
of Britain. This work was reportedly a
translation of a very ancient book of the
British language brought from Wales.
Geoffrey said that he was not the author,
but the translator of an older history written in the ancient Welsh tongue. As the
story goes, Geoffrey then translated this
book into Latin. The truth is that the
Welsh language from a time that early
would have likely been incomprehensible
to Geoffrey. The material for this book
and others was claimed to be from an ancient Welsh chronicle that had been handed down for generations by the Druidic
bards, noted for their verbal skills and
stories told in easy-to-remember rhymed
verses. Though Geoffrey’s book contains
errors and does not attempt to separate
historically documented events from legends, in its time many regarded it as gospel truth. Many classic writers, including
such masters as Shakespeare, Byron,
Keats, and Shelley, used Geoffrey’s history as the source for their information.
Today, Geoffrey is regarded as one of the
first historical novelists. His names are
often correct, but the events surrounding
the names were purely imaginary. Geoffrey’s reputation as an historical fraud
was evident as soon as his work was published.
Wurtz traces Coel and Arviragus back
another thirty-six generations, beginning
with Aedd Mawr [Edward the Great],
who lived in Britain around 1300 B.C.
Obviously, we are not going to find confirmation of these records. Aedd Mawr’s
son, Brydan, was a great legislator and
warrior and, according to this tradition,
gave his name to the entire island. Britain
is supposedly a corruption of the name
Brydan. However, there are other legends
The Plantagenet Connection
page 99
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
for the source of this name, the major
contender being the legend of Brutus,
another Trojan prince who founded
Tours, then moved across the channel to
establish the British race.
These are the generations, according to
Wurtz, which the old Welsh records contain: (1) Aedd Mawr, father of (2) Brydan, father of (3) Annyn Tro, father of
(4) Selys Hen, father of (5) Brwt, father of (6) Cymryw, father of (7)
Gweyrydd, father of (9) Peredur, father of (10) Llfeinydd, father of (11)
Teuged, father of (12) Llarian, father of
(13) Ithel, father of (14) Enir Fardd,
father of (15) Calchwynydd, father of
(16) Llywarch, father of (17) Idwal,
father of 18) Rhun, father of (19) Bleddyn, father of (20) Morgan, father of
(21) Berwyn, father of (22) Ceraint
Feddw, a drunkard deposed by his subjects for setting fire to the crops of Siluria
[now Monmouthshire], father of (23)
Brywlais, father of (24) Alafon, father
of (25) Anynn, father of (26) Dingad,
father of (27) Greidiol, father of (28)
Ceraint, father of (29) Meiron, father
of (30) Arch, father of (31) Caid, father
of (32) Ceri, father of (33) Baran (a
subject of Carswallon, called Cassivellaunus by the Romans, King of the Catuvellauni, and ruler at the time of the first Roman invasion by Julius Caesar), 2 father of
(34) Llyr (Lear), subject of Shakespeare’s play and Milton’s “History”, educated in Rome by Augustus, father of
(35) Bran.
Bran was:
“ ... king of Siluria and commander of
the British fleet. In the year A.D. 36 he
resigned the crown to his son Caradoc
[Caractacus] and became Arch-Druid of
the college of Siluria ...
2 Who’s Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England, Richard Fletcher, St. James Press,
1989, pg. 3.
Volume One
... he became the first royal convert to
Christianity, and was baptized by the
Apostle Paul, as was his son Caradoc and
the latter’s two sons, Cyllius and Cynon.
Henceforth, he is known as Bran the
Blessed Sovereign. ‘He was the first to
bring the faith of Christ to the Cymry.’
His recorded proverb is: ‘There is no
good apart from God.’ He introduced the
use of vellum into Britain.”
- John Wurtz
3
At this point, the legends return briefly
to documentable historical fact, and a
strange error occurs somewhere. Caractacus’ father was not Bran, according to the
Who’s Who in Roman Britain. Richard
Fletcher, the author of Who’s Who in Roman Britain, says that Caractacus’ father
was known by the Romans as Cunobelin. He was the son of Tenuantius
(Tasciovanus), King of the Cantuvellauni,
from 5 to 10 A.D. Cunobelin is also
known as Cymbeline, the subject of
Shakespeare’s play. He was a probable
descendant of Caswallon, called Cassivellaunus by the Romans, the leader of
the people that first struggled against Julius Caesar’s desire to add Britain to his
list of conquests.4
The successor of Cymbeline was called
Caractacus by the Romans, or Caradoc
by his own people. We met him briefly in
the article on Boadicea when he was taken
to Rome as a captive and so impressed the
Emperor Claudius that he was allowed to
live out his life in Rome. One legend says
that Claudius adopted his daughter Gladys, renamed her Claudia Britannica, and
that she later married the half-brother of
St. Paul, the apostle. All of these stories
are garbage if one is looking for historical
accuracy.
3 Magna Carta, Wurtz, pg. 162. Wurtz has been
found to be unreliable but I have not been able to
trace the source of this legend.
4 Who’s Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England, pg. 4.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 100
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
According to Wurtz, Caractacus had
three sons: Cyllin (Cylinnus), Lleyn
(Linus) and Cynon, and two daughters,
Eurgain and Gladys, called Claudia by
the Romans, adopted by Claudius and
given her name.
The plot in Shakespeare’s play, Cymbeline, tells us about Arviragus, son of
Cymbeline. Two brothers, Arviragus and
Guiderius, were kidnapped at a very
young age. Belarius, a banished lord,
found them and raised the boys in a cave
in the wilds.
Wurtz agrees with Shakespeare. He
says that Beli the Great died in 72 B.C.
leaving two sons, Lud and Caswallon
(Cassivellaunus). Casawallon was ruling
when Julius Caesar invaded the island. He
successfully repulsed the army of one of
the most able generals of antiquity. His
brother Lud died in 62 B.C., father to
Tenuantius (Tasciovanus), who was
the father of Cymbeline.
Arviragus, Wurtz maintains, was the
eleventh son of Cymbeline. Arviragus
lived in Avalon, now called Glastonbury,
the same area that later sprang King
Arthur and his knights of the round table.
According to Wurtz, he was a “renowned
enemy of Rome,” and a cousin of Caractacus, not a brother. Arviragus, Wurtz
said, married Venissa Julia, daughter of
Claudius, emperor of Rome, and fathered
Meric (Marius). Meric married a daughter
of Boadicea. Meric had a daughter named
Eurgen, and a son, Coel, who became
king of Britain in 123. Coel, educated in
Rome, rebuilt Colchester from the ruins
left by Boadicea’s attacking army. The actual name of Colchester was not derived
from Cole. The Roman name was Camulodunum. This is mythical information
whose source, almost certainly, is Geoffrey of Monmouth.
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
Caractacus’ son, St. Cyllin, King of Siluria, was sainted by the early British
church. His brother, Linus the Martyr, his
sister, Claudia Britannicus, and Claudia’s
husband Pudens, were all associated with
the apostle Paul in the founding the Christian church at Rome. St. Paul wrote in II
Timothy 4:12,“Do thy diligence to come
before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and
Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all
thy brethern.” According to Wurtz, Claudia’s husband was Rufus Pudens. He
and St. Paul were half brothers, having
the same mother, but different fathers. 5
There is obviously an error here, as Pudens was a different person than Rufus,
and Claudia was probably not Caractacus’
daughter. Linus was the head of the
Christian church in Rome just after Peter’s
death. The associations of the children of
Caractacus do not stand up to historical
reality and the identities of these ancient
Christians were confused in the passing of
time.
According to these confused legends,
Coel’s sister, Eurgen, was the mother of
Gladys, wife of Lucius the Great
(Lleuver Mawr), a great grandson of Caractacus’. Lucius was “baptized at
Winchester by his father’s first cousin, St.
Timothy, who suffered martyrdom at age
ninety on 22 August A.D. 139. When in
A.D. 170, Lucius succeeded to the throne
of Britain, he became the first Christian
king in the world. He founded the first
church at Llandaff and changed the established religion of Britain from Druidism to
Christianity. He died in 181, leaving an
only recorded child, a daughter, Gladys.”
6
Gladys, daughter of Lucius, was the
wife of Cadvan of Cambria, Prince of
Wales. Their daughter, Strada the Fair,
married another Coel, a later King of
Colchester, living about 232 A.D. This
man was the second Coel in British history. The author of the famous nursery
Returning to the search for the Coel of 5 Magna Carta, Wurtz, Vol. II, pg. 161.
the nursery rhyme, we find legends that 6
Ibid., pg. 162.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 101
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
rhyme, “Old King Cole," said that this
was the Coel who inspired the verse. Coel
and Strada were parents to St. Helen of
the Cross, who married Constantius,
then a Roman senator. Constantius was
required to divorce Helen––probably because she was a Christian ––in order to be
elevated to the rank of Roman emperor.
They were the parents of Constantine
the Great, Emperor of Rome, whose
conversion to Christianity put the world
on a new religious course.
I came across a British folklorist’s treatise on Old King Cole in an attempt to
clarify who this man really was.7 The
treatise devotes most of its length attempting to debunk the legends regarding
Helen as the daughter of Coel. The author
believes that she was born in Turkey, and
was not British at all. He points out that
Constantine changed the name of Drepanum, in Turkey, to Helenopolis in her
honor, and that Helen spent much money
restoring the city. This, he believes, is because it was her “hometown.”
The modern legends about Helen were
first recorded in Historia Anglorum by
Henry of Huntington in 1129, derived
from the works of the Venerable Bede.
They are not found in the works of contemporary Roman historians. The debate
about Helen’s true origins have gone on
for centuries and credit is claimed by
several countries. Most authorities consider her the daughter of an inn keeper somewhere in the middle east.
There are reasons why some believe in
the British legends. St. Helen’s husband,
Constantius, was the Roman governor of
Britain and Gaul. The circumstance of
Helen’s search for the cross of Jesus, and
her probable Christian influence upon her
son, Constantine the Great, seem to lie
well with the family tie to the early Christian Church (if her British mother Strada
is assumed). Lucius’ name does occur in
7 Folk Heroes of Britain, Charles Kightly,
1982, Thames & Hudson, printed in Great Britain.
Volume One
both the Venerable Bede’s work (8th century) and the Nennius HB 9th-century
compilation. If Lucius was descended
either from the family of T. Flavius Clemens, or from the son of Cogidnubus or his
alleged daughter, Claudia Pudens, then
that would go far in explaining the legends
surrounding Helen of the Cross. The
great-granddaughter of Lucius the Great
would hear about the founding of the Roman church and how Simon of Cyrene,
father of Rufus, carried the cross of Jesus. Such information would have been
precious traditions to be handed down
through the generations. It makes one
wonder if she might not have truly been
the great-granddaughter of Lucius the
Great. Most historians will say this is not
so, because there is no real evidence that it
is true. In fact, there is evidence to the
contrary.
Helen’s full name was Flavia Iulia Helena. Perhaps she is descended from the
Flavians (like Clemens) and the Julians.
She was mentioned by St. Ambrose who
wrote at the latter part of the 4th century,
some thirty years after Helen. The legends
of her search for the cross were first
recorded at that time in his works. Ambrose was the one who described her lowly origin as an innkeeper. However, the
Pope at the time and Eusebius, never
mentioned her quest or speaks of her
finds. One early writing speaks of her as
being converted to Christianity by her
son, Constantine (Eus.V. Const, iii 47),
but very little is really known of her early
years or where she was from.
Constantine was supposedly born February 27 (circa 272) at Naissus before
his father was sent to Britain in 293 to
quell the revolt of Allectus. Britain was
not united until 296. There is little likelihood, then that his father, Constantius
Flavius Valerius would have met Helen in
Britain. Constantine was made emperor in
306, so a birth date around 272 is probable.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 102
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
CONSTANTINE BEHOLDS THE CROSS IN THE HEAVENS
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 103
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
The legends of Coel being the father of
Helen are untrue. Unfortunately, family
connections of the Flavians cannot be
traced in a continuous line. Both Helen
and her husband Constantius had a Flavian descent. Tracing these lines is impossible, as even the prosopographies (list of
names) of the 1st and 2nd century Rome
are incomplete. The primary version was
being done in Berlin and the work was interrupted and much of it lost during World
War II.
There is much more to learn and much
more to this lineage than we know at this
time.
The dream that Constantine the Great
dreamed in the night that eventually turned
Rome into a Christian empire was a dream
of the cross of Christ hanging in the heavens. Later, Helen was separated from her
son by the divorce. In order to gain his
position, Constantine had to marry Theodora, daughter of the Emperor Maxiam.
What happened to Helen or how Constantine made enough contact with her to convert her to Christianity is most uncertain.
It was not until much later in her life that
she searched for the cross. It was not until
her son was acclaimed as emperor that she
would have been welcome in the Roman
court. The twenty years of her life after
her separation from her son are unrecorded. Could she have stayed in Britain after
her husband left her? Could her associations at that time led to the legends of her
British birth? Since Cogidnubus’ palace
was near Colchester, could there have
been a British king named Coel who cared
for Helen during this time, leading to the
legends that she was his daughter?
Constantine went with his father––who
became one of the Tetrarchs of the Roman
Empire––and followed in his father’s footsteps, becoming a famous general of the
Roman legions.
Immediately following the crucifixion,
the followers felt profound doubt and sorrow. Their savior had been executed, his
body entombed, the cross where he died
Volume One
thrown on the trash heap. None would be
so bold as to retrieve it. It was never
recorded that any of the artifacts used that
day were kept by the faithful. Probably all
feared for their lives. For many years the
movement was kept underground, and later the persecutions grew severe. Nero
blamed the fire that charred much of the
city on the Christians. They were dipped
in thick oil, burned to light the city streets
at night, and fed to the lions for circus entertainment. The Roman public grew weary of the gross punishments and began to
sympathize with these people who sang
hymns as they accepted their horrible
deaths.
FAMILY CONNECTIONS
OF THE TETRARCHS:
Diocletian, Maximian,
Maxentius and Constantius
1 . D i o c l e t i a n m Romula
|
2. Valeria m 1 Galerius m 2 Anon
|
2. Valeria Maximilla m M a x e n t i u s
1 M a x i m i a n m Eutropia m Africanus Hannibalianus
|
2 Valeria Maximilla m M a x e n t i u s
|
Fl. Maxima Fausta m Constantine I (son of Helen)
C o n s t a n t i u s m 1 Helena (of the Cross) m 2 Theodora
It is not beyond the realm of possibility
that the cross of Jesus was found by Helen, but it is odd that the pope did not
know of it. Perhaps she became aware of
ancient legends of where the cross was
taken. It was carried for Jesus by Simon,
who possibly kept an eye on what happened to it.
As far as legends are concerned, rather
than attempt to debunk them, I am inclined
to accept the legends, note them as such,
and include them with the known histori-
The Plantagenet Connection
page 104
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
cal facts. The world is a better place because of our legends. Robin Hood was a
legendary character in King John’s time,
historically based on two or three real persons who lived at other times. A new
voice was being heard in the land, the
common voice, rising loud with the democratic reforms begun by Simon de Montfort in the time of Henry III. This movement needed heroes, and the legend of
Robin Hood, a noble who robbed the rich
and gave to the poor, was born to fill a
social need. As such, it is part of history.
The same argument holds true with King
Arthur and many other legendary figures.
Who knows how far Christianity progressed from the actions of these early
Christians? Again, a legend was needed
for social progress, and we have few
means of sorting these assertions from
historical fact.
THE ANCIENT RULERS OF IRELAND
AND SCOTLAND
name the Boyd family is derived. Son of
Eochaidh Buidhe: Donald, son: Breac,
son: Donghart, d 673, son: Eochaidh
II, d 698, son: Eochaidh III, son:
Eochaidh Rinnamail, son: Alpin, d
834, and his son, Kenneth MacAlpin,
d 863, was the first King of Scotland,
reigned 844-863.
The Picts defeated the English invasions
from Northumbria, but were weakened by
the frequent attacks of the Norsemen at the
end of the eighth century. Dalriada, home
of the Scots, threw off Pictish control and
Kenneth MacAlpine, through his mother's
line, laid claim to both the Scottish and
Pict throne, thus becoming king of a united land. He was the son of Alpin, King
of Scone, and a descendant of Connal
Gabhrain of the old Dalriadic Scottish
kingdom. Kenneth drove the Angles and
the Britons over the river Tweed and established that as a border. He named his
kingdom Scotland.8
Kenneth MacAlpine’s son was Constantin Kenneth, d 877, son: Donald
II, d 900, son: Malcolm I, d 954, son:
Kenneth II, d 995, reigned 971-995.
Kenneth, successor of Cuilean, who was
killed fighting the Britons, began his reign
by ravaging the British kingdom.
He consolidated the central districts of
Scotland securely during his reign. He
made an attempt to bring the north under
control, but there was no permanent success to this endeavor. In 995, Kenneth
was treacherously slain by his own subjects through an intrigue with Fenella,
daughter of Cunchar of Angus. He was
buried at Iona. 9
Kenneth II’s son, Malcolm II, d 25
Nov 1034. Malcolm, in 1018, completely
defeated the English from Northumbria at
the Battle of Carham, allowing the extension of Scottish rule to the river Tweed.
Malcolm had no sons, but two daughters:
1) Doda, wife of Synel, lord of Glammis, who bore Macbeth, subject of
The generations continue in the old
records from the first Coel. Coel had a
daughter, Athildis, who married a Marcomir IV, King of Franconia. (See
descent to the Franks in August 1993
issue). Coel’s great granddaughter Aiofe,
married Fiacha
Strabhteine, 120th
monarch of Ireland, who died in 322. The
time span seems a little long and no other
generation is mentioned. From this point:
Muredach Tireach, the 122nd monarch, son: Niall Mor, known as Niall of
the Nine Hostages, 126th monarch, son:
Eoghan, or Owen, son: Muredach,
son: Fergus Mor Mas Erca, the 131st
monarch, d 498. Fergus, with five brothers, went to Scotland with an army to assist his grandfather, Loarn, King of Daldaida, against the Picts. Upon the king’s
death, Fergus was unanimously elected
king. He became the first king of Scotland
of the Milesian race. Donart, son:
Eochaidh, son: Gabhran, son: Edhan, 8 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Scotland”.
son: Eochaidh Buidhe, from whose 9
Ibid.
Volume One
The Plantagenet Connection
page 105
THE SEARCH FOR OLD KING COLE
Shakespeare’s play, and 2) Betho, or
Beatrice, wife of Crinan of Athol, lord of
the Isles, who bore Duncan, King of
Scotland, slain by Macbeth. Duncan was
the first to inherit the Scottish throne
through a direct line of descent from his
maternal grandfather, Malcolm II. Little is
known about him, his claim to fame resting primarily upon the play by William
Shakespeare that pitted him against his
general and cousin Macbeth. The only
certainty is that Duncan was killed by
Macbeth, who usurped the throne for a
short time. Duncan married Sibylla,
daughter of Siward, Earl of Northumbria.
ing invasions of England. William the
Conqueror marched against him to stop
the intrusions. In the end, the kings made
an uncertain peace. After William's death,
Canmore continued the English invasions.
He and his eldest son, Edward, were
killed at Malcolm's Cross in Northumbria.
Margaret died four days later of natural
causes. Their daughter Matilda, also
called Edythe, married Henry I, King of
England. They became the parents of Matilda, wife of Geoffrey Plantagenet,
completing the linkage of the legendary
line of Coel to the Plantagenet dynasty. 11
10
Duncan’s son was Malcolm III, King
of the Scots, b 1025, d 13 Nov 1093. He
married Saint Margaret, b circa 1045, d
17 Nov 1093. Margaret, daughter of Edward the Exile, and sister of Edgar the
Aetheling, fled with her mother and brothers from Northumberland to seek the protection of the Scottish king. There she
married Malcolm. Following their marriage, several invasions of England were
made by Scottish forces in support of Edgar's claim to the throne. The marriage did
improve relations between the two countries. By the time Margaret's sons were
grown, the Scottish throne had practically
become Anglicized.
Margaret wanted from an early age to be
a nun. The customs and state of the
church in Scotland appalled her, but she
was unable to do much reorganization because important vacancies in the established order did not occur in her lifetime.
She did manage to change some customs
and Anglicize the church to the best of her
ability. The church canonized her a century and a half after her death for her
many benefactions.
Malcolm III, called "Canmore," or the
"large-headed," son of Duncan, became
King of Scotland after the death of the
usurper to the throne, Macbeth, in 1034.
He was known for his frequent and untir10 Ibid.
Volume One
AN AMERICAN IS
THE EARL OF AQUITAINE
I visited a friend this week that is a member of the Plantagenet Society, et al. While
doing research on his French ancestry a few
years ago, he learned that there was no
claim to the title 'Earl of Aquitaine'. His
lineage was appropriate, so he applied and
got it.
Unlike England, France allows noncitizens
to hold these titles. He has made some great
research and personal contacts by noting
this. He showed me his collection of photos
and letters from the heads of government all
over the world. He has an index of countries
and addresses. He writes to people out of
the blue if he is interested in their affairs,
saying that he would appreciate a photo. I
was amazed at who responded: Prime Minister Majors, Kaddafy, King Saad, the Pope
and many other kings and queens, some of
whom I have never before heard.
Oscar Kraehenbuehl
11 Malcolm III and Margaret had a son named
David, b 1080, d 24 May 1153, King of Scotland. They were parents of Henry, m Ada Warren, daughter of William de Warren and Isabel de
Vermandois. Henry and Ada were the parents of
Margaret, wife of Humphrey de Bohun.
Wurtz, Magna Carta, Vol. II, Pg. 192.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 106
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Thank you for sending the bound 1993 issues
of your publication. I found the 1993 issues most
interesting. My only comment at this time is to
encourage the inclusion of as many sources and
references as possible with each and every article.
I am among those who are reluctant to add information to my own data if there are no sources
given.
Harvey MacIntyre, Lacombe, Alberta
Editorial Reply:
Thank you, Harvey, for your support. We always try to put as many references as we can in
our data. You may notice that this issue does not
have as many footnotes for reference materials as
the last issue. The reason for this: the subjects in
this issue are quite well known to historians. Little in the way of new or highly researched materials has been presented.
I assure you that we will present all our sources in the highly researched articles, but when facts
are readily available in most history books or encyclopedias, it is not necessary to document such
basic and well-known information.
Our publishing of genealogical information
can take many pages. As all know, some of the
source materials do not print in many computer
programs. The uploader of the file may have the
source data, but documenting every date and name
would take so much room that we could not publish the materials.
Since the act of discovery and the art of research
is such an important part of the genealogists motivation, we do not intend to take away the pleasure of discovery for our readers. If they wish to
enter these materials into their own data, we recommend that they refer to the sources listed in
this publication, then look up the materials for
themselves. That way, one can be certain that typographical errors did not occur in the article, and
other related materials, not published, may be of
interest to the researcher.
April 1994
APRIL 1994
Re: The Peter Browne Ancestry
The last two issues have dealt briefly with the
Peter Browne line. I believe that I can solve a little of the mystery. I have the following proofs on
this line:
1. The Dictionary of English and Welch Surnames.
2. American Historical Society, American Families 1929, pp. 17-20.
3. Surrey Pedigrees, Vol. I, pp. 149-560, Manning and Bray.
4. Surrey Pedigrees, Berry.
5. History of Commoners, Burke Vol. III, p 382.
6. Peerage, Collins, Vol. II, p 206, Vol. III, p
255.
7. History of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut,
Stiles, Vol. II, p. 404.
8. American Historical Society Publication of
1929, p. 96.
This family, with the Fitz-Alans, goes back to
Arundel Castle in southern England. If you write
to the castle and send the letter to the genealogy
department, I understand they will answer your
query.
I have been to the castle and assure you that it
is most interesting. I have had this pedigree proof
for many years, and while I have not looked up
each proof, I have been through the Surrey pedigrees, and, as far as I am concerned, this is a good
pedigree that way proven many years ago ... by
the way, your magazine is excellent reading.
Gary D Murray
11515 SE Fuller Rd.
Milwaukie, Oregon 97222
Editorial Comment:
Thank you all for your support and good words
over the past year. Little by little we are increasing our circulation. As we grow, mailing costs
and printing costs become cheaper per unit, other
writers become interested in submitting their
work. The result will be an increasingly popular
journal.
Kenneth Harper Finton, Editor
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 107
CONNECTIONS
I would like to hear from anyone who
has information on the surnames Flux or
Bevis. I believe they are associated with
the Isle of Wight, England, around 1870.
Please write:
Can anyone direct me to where I might
find information on Robert OGLE, born
1380, died 1436, who married Matilda
GREY, daughter of Sir Thomas GREY of
Heton and his wife Joan, daughter of
Lord John MOWBRAY? This line, I believe, goes back to the Plantagenets, but
other than knowing it was in England, I
don’t know where to look to find more information on them.
Doreen A. Gott
4527 Hillsborough Drive
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Sharon Minton
PO Box 1951
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71902-1951
I descend from a a Jonathan Hyde
(Hide) of Massachusetts. He is supposed
to have a brother Samuel. I have found
lots of information on them in Massachusetts, but not on his ancestors. I found a
file on him at the LDS church Ancestral
File, but it said that Jonathan was born in
London and the rest of his siblings in
Lancaster, England. It is very confusing.
Where is this information obtained, and is
he really descended from Robert DeHyde,
b 1193? I hope you can help me. I don’t
want to claim something if it is not true.
Editorial Reply: There are several John
de Mowbrays. John, d 4 Oct 1362, was
the 3rd Lord Mowbray. His wife was
Joan Plantagenet, daughter of Henry, 3rd
Earl of Lancaster. Henry was the grandson of England’s Henry III. John and
Joan Plantagenet had another son named
John, 4th Lord Mowbray (1328-1368)
who married Elizabeth Segrave, d/o John
de Segrave and his wife Margaret. Margaret was the daughter of Edward I, so the
line definitely connects with the Plantagenets.
PEOPLE SEEKING
CONNECTIONS
Choice Glover
42 Vico Verde
Sutter Creek, CA 95685
Editorial Reply: The Ancestral File is
uploaded by genealogists. Information
about the submitter may be obtained by
hitting the F9 key when online with the
file open. This will give you the name and
address of the submitter. I suggest that
you get in touch with our assistant editor,
Cheri Ackles, who works with these files
and lives near Salt Lake City. She has always been a godsend in providing us with
information. Cheri can be reached at 89
Benson Way, Sandy, Utah 84070. (801)
561-5560. Further information on medieval records can be directed to the Medieval Center, 50 North Temple, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84150.
April 1994
OF JOHN OF GAUNT AND
KATHERINE ROET
In December 1993, we asked a question about John of Gaunt’s daughter, Joan
Beaufort. Was the child’s mother John’s
first wife, Catherine of Castile, or Katherine Roet, his third wife?
The love of John’s life was always
Katherine Roet. They had children together long before they were married. One of
these children was Joan Beaufort. The
book Katherine, by Anna Seton, is a
wonderful historical romance dealing with
the long relationship of Katherine and
John. Many years after their illegitimate
children were grown, John and Katherine
were married. Katherine became John’s
third wife.
Katherine was the widow of Sir Hugh
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 108
CONNECTIONS
Swinford, daughter of Sir Paon Roet,
Guilienne King-of-Arms, and sister of
Philippa Roet, wife of the famous poet,
Geoffrey Chaucer. Katherine was probably born in Hainaut (sometimes spelled
Hainault), a province of Belgium, around
1350. She died at Lincolnshire, 10 May
1403, and was buried in Lincoln Cathedral.
Katherine and John were married 13 Jan
1395/6 at Lincoln cathedral. Their illegitimate children were made legitimate by
Pope Boniface IX, 1 Sept 1396. They
were made legitimate in England by the
king with the assent of parliament, 9 Feb
1396/7.
John of Gaunt was the fourth son and
sixth child of King Edward III and Queen
Philippa. He was born in the Abbey of St.
Bavon, at Ghent, Flanders, in the spring
of 1340, and was created Earl of Richmond, 20 Sept 1342. He assumed the titles King of Castile and Leon in September of 1371. Later, he was also created
Duke of Aquitaine and Gulenne. He died
at Leicester Castle, London, on the 3/4 of
February 1398/9, and was buried in St.
Paul’s Cathedral.
Information on this subject was provided
by a descendant of John of Gaunt, Diane
Hitchcock-Owens, 6198 S Pike Drive,
Larkspur, CO 80118. John Quincy
Adams, the United States President, was
also a descendant of John of Gaunt.
Source Material: The American Genealogist : “A Royal Descent from King Edward III of England,” John Insley Coddington, F.A.S.G., of Washington, D.C.
GEOFFREY CHAUCER:
TO HIS EMPTY PURSE
Although he was the father of English poetry, and his marriage to Philippa brought close ties to the court
aristocrats, Geoffrey Chaucer was
not favored by John of Gaunt. John
preferred the reformer Wycliffe.
Chaucer’s sharp satires on the
monks and friars showed a definite
leaning toward the Lollard viewpoint. An empty purse is surely an
age-old lament, as familiar today as
it was six hundred years ago.
To you my purse, and to none other weight,
Complain I, for ye be my lady dear;
I am now sorry that you be so light,
For certain now, you make me heavy cheer.
Me were as lief be laid upon a bier,
For which unto your mercy thus I cry,
Be heavy again, or else I must die.
Now vouchsafen this day ere it be night
That I of you the blissful sound may hear,
Or see your color like the sun bright,
That yellowness nay had never peer;
Ye be my life, ye be my heart’s steer,
Queen of comfort and of good company,
Be heavy again, or else must I die.
Now purse, that art to me my life’s light,
And savior, as down in this world here,
Out of this towne help me by your might,
Sithen that you will not be my tresor,
For I am shave as nigh as any friar,
But I prayen unto your courtesy,
Be heavy again, or else must I die.
- Geoffrey Chaucer
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 109
OF KINGS, HEROES AND THE NATURAL ORDER
OF KINGS, HEROES AND THE NATURAL ORDER
monopoly.
by Kenneth Harper
Finton
Most people honestly believe that we
have left the feudal system behind us,
though I cannot imagine why they believe
this. They are correct only in the respect
that the economics have changed and feudalism was not just one system, but many
different systems in many different places.
We no longer have kings; we have presidents and prime ministers. These rulers
are often elected to office, yet the system
is set up so that the same principal families
still rule the vast majority of the wealth in
the world. Democratization has diminished the power of the elite, but only superficially. Lower classes may now join
the elite in principle, but that is not
something new, as rising from the ranks
has been accepted for millennia.
We are still a world of lords and ladies.
We still call our owners of land
“landlords.” Lenders administer over the
estates, both directly and with agents acting in their behalf. The sheriff still handles
the land disputes and tenant problems.
The vast majority of apartment dwellers
and tenants of commercial buildings are
still peasants, though we refuse to call
them such. Their living conditions have
improved dramatically, but their rights and
social status have improved little.
Most of us are at the mercy of our respective lords for employment, a human
condition equal to the right to work the
land. Those of us who are self-employed
enjoy a freeman status, often mixed with
the duties of the lord. The retailers around us are still shopkeepers, but the
trend is toward a mass merchandising
economy that reduces the status of the independent retailer to a managerial occupation, more akin to being man-servant to
the lord. That lord, in turn, owes allegiance to a higher duke. Eventually, the
money flows back to the lenders, who
maintain a form of control through governmental policy, free market control and
April 1994
Those of us who are talented or highly
educated have become the modern versions of scholars and artists. Endowments
from governmental and private sources
still allow the caretakers of the wealth to
control the direction of research and artistic expression.
We have a tendency to create kings and
queens whenever the position is vacant.
We refer to John Wayne as ‘the Duke’,
giving his imaginary roles a place in our
reality that was once taken by a noble warrior or knight.
The fact that he never lived any of his
screen exploit does not diminish our need
to believe in such a hero. The need for
heroes is innately human, as ancient as the
race itself.
Likewise, the need for kings and queens
is a human condition. If the political system does not bring them forth, we crown
heroes, actors, athletes, and entertainers.
For a brief time in the early 1960’s, America had three kings––John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Elvis Presley. All had
varying degrees of popularity and none
were popular to all the population, but
there is little point in denying that they
were treated and referred to as “kings.”
Everyone who lived in the 1960’s remembers Camelot.
The very act of enthronement changes
the person who ascends the throne. Responsibility is a heavy cloak that wears the
one who wears it. People of strong vision
and personality, people capable of setting
a course for the future, have always been
plentiful. Each of us play our own role in
this drama each day of our lives. Yet,
great world shapers are swept by the tides
of the time. Their importance is judged by
future standards, in the light of yet another
time.
Historical novels, romances, and science
fiction combine to tell us that our human
condition is essentially the same in any
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 110
OF KINGS, HEROES AND THE NATURAL ORDER
age. Jean Aul points to the basic humanity
of the tribes soon after the ice age in her
novels about “Earth’s Children.” Robert
Heinlein devises parallel universes with
different time lines where the details of the
historical events can differ in each universe. Other dreamers project their fantasies far into the future, but the basic humanity of the characters differ little from
the projected future, to the present, back
again to the ice-age brother.
Our self-consciousness, in itself, sets us
apart from any other living thing. We all
do little but pass time in many different
ways. This flowering makes us individual, each one of us passing time differently,
creating in our wakes many diverse and
individual legacies. Thus, we create riches
and distinctions, and these creations lead
us to the illusory belief that we are important.
Nature requires us to feel that we are important, despite massive evidence to the
contrary. Each of us must feel in many
ways that we are right. Each of us needs a
positive self image to function in the
world, even those of us who have committed heinous acts. We find ways to rationalize and excuse our behaviors so that
we may accept ourselves. In states of extreme mental anguish about our inherent
fears and self image, we discover new
spiritual levels that enable us to forgive
ourselves.
We stratify like rocks. We cling to one
another and our successive layers. We
combine like chemical reactions to produce another wonder. We build our
neighborhoods like natural elements pooling into deposits. We seek out status like
liquid gold pressed to the vein.
er. We condemn genocide and the political
systems that have used it, but we are often
helpless to prevent its recurrence.
The passing of power and the coming of
age are seldom smooth transitions. We see
small examples of this in the continued
conflict of the generations. Nature devises
adolescent rebellion and discontent so that
the species may propagate in different
locales.
We, like the beavers who builds the
dams, pride ourselves for learning to tame
and harness the forces of nature. We
prosper when we make nature work for
our own ends. Often, we think of ourselves as a species that has risen above nature to a position of empowerment and
control, but more and more, we are learning that these are only the delusions of a
lesser god.
In fact, we are rooted in nature and we
are but a small part of it. Our cities have
become a part of the natural landscape.
Our smog has become a part of the natural
environment. Our polluted waters have
become a part of the natural setting, and
our mastery over other forms of life has
changed the ecosystem. We are possessed
by nature, and have, in turn, changed our
possessor.
“Science my never come up
with a better office communications system than the coffee break.”
Earl Wilson
The judgments of one era may be reprehensible to another. When we socially ban
slavery and then proceed to discriminate
against the new class, we create a large
class of the disenfranchised. We seem to
often trade one form of slavery for anothApril 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 111
THE SHEPHERD’S WIFE’S SONG
by Robert Greene (1558-1592)
Ah,what is love? It is a pretty thing,
As sweet unto a shepherd as a king,
And sweeter, too:
For kings have cares that wait upon a crown,
And cares can make the sweetest love to frown:
Ah then, ah then,
If county loves such sweet desires to gain,
What lady would not love a shepherd swain?
His locks are folded; he comes home at night
As merry as a king in his delight,
And merrier, too:
For kings bethink them what the state require,
Where shepherds care less, carol by the fire:
He kisseth first, then sits as blithe to eat
His cream and curds, as doth a king his meat,
And blither, too:
For kings have often fears when they do sup,
Where shepherds fear no poison in their cup.
To bed he goes, as wanton then, I ween,
As is a king in dalliance with a queen;
More wanton, too:
For kings have many griefs, affects to move,
Where shepherds have no greater grief than love:
Upon his couch of straw he sleeps as sound
As doth a king upon his bed of down.
More sounder, too:
As doth the kings full oft their sleep to spill,
Where weary shepherds lie and snort their fill:
Thus, with his wife, he spends the year as blithe
As doth the king at every tide or sithe,
And blither, too:
For kings have wars and broils to take in hand,
Where shepherds laugh and love upon the land:
Ah then, ah then,
Since country loves such sweet desires to gain,
What lady would not love a shepherd swain?
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 112
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
by Ron Collins
The Early People of Britain and France
The story of the British Isles is that of a creative mixture of peoples. In modern times,
their very insularity has given these islands a certain security. This strength has enabled
the British to influence the world more than any other island in history. The island's insularity did not bar settlement by peoples from the European continent, since movement
by sea was then much easier than by movement by land. After the Norman invasion,
the settlement of England by invading forces was held in check.
Various peoples of different stocks entered Britain in the early stages of its history. It
is convenient to call them Celts and Anglo-Saxons from their speech. The earlier Celts
are now represented by the Irish, the Gaelic, and the Scots, the later by the Celts, the
Welsh, and the Cornish. Besides the main Germanic element of Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes, Scandinavian peoples also settled in Britain. The Danes remained in eastern England, while the Norse (Norwegians) stayed in the northwest around the Irish coast and
in the Hebrides.
The modern French culture and people are derived from two thousand years of contacts with diverse cultures and peoples. Into the area now defined as France, came the
Celts, the Romans, the Franks, and other people, producing a mixture of practices and
races. Since 1500, the French have formed into a unified territorial state in which diversity nevertheless persists.
The Roman Influence on Britain and France
When Julius Caesar invaded Gaul in 58 BC, he found a territory reaching from the
Mediterranean to the North Sea. It ranged from the Pyrenees and the Atlantic, to the
Rhine and the Alps. The population, possibly ten million strong, possessed neither homogeneous roots nor unified rule.
Several centuries earlier, the Celts had surged from their Danubian homeland into the
valleys of the Rhine and Rhone, as far as today's Belgium, England, and Ireland.
These newcomers mingled with the native Ligurians of the Alps, the Iberians of the
Pyrenees, and many other folk, often of Phoenician, Greek, or Roman stock.
The Celtic rule in Gaul was not a centralized power. The Gauls, Latin for Celts, were
grouped as members of clans. They most often functioned separately. At times, they
united with one of over four hundred tribes. These tribes often joined the seventy or so
other nations, but the Gauls had no single leader or authority. Except for Marseilles and
Nice, they had no cities or towns. Most lived in scattered mud huts, surrounded by a
stockade. Hunting, fishing, and pastoral pursuits supplied their basic needs. Some surpluses, such as crafts of wood and leather, found their way to local markets for sale or
exchange. The Gaelic religious life was highly localized. Their beliefs were pantheistic,
as they worshiped rivers, woods, and other elements of nature. Most widespread of
these cults, but not universal, were the Druids, centered in French Brittany.
Roman legions marched into Gaul in 58 BC, not only to protect the Roman republic's
Mediterranean holdings, but also to promote the personal ambitions of Julius Caesar,
beyond his proconsulship of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul. The Gauls contributed to
their own subjugation by their tribal rivalries and their inability to resist the infiltration
of trans-Rhenish tribes, such as the Swiss (Helvetii). Caesar's speedy success in stopApril 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 113
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
ping these forces was followed by the conquest of all Gaul. The Roman victory was
not due to superior numbers of troops, but to their training, discipline, weaponry.
Much of the Roman success was due to Gaelic disunity. Even the heroism of the Gaelic
prince, Vercingetorix, failed to halt or reverse the Roman conquest. Not long after this
Gaul's dramatic stand, Caesar stood victorious on what is now the Normandy coast,
planning his eventual invasion of Britain.
The Roman Occupation
The Roman occupation of Britain dates from 55 BC to circa 400. For much of this
time, the Romans were effectively confined to the lowland zone. Many signs of those
four centuries of occupation are visible today in the road system that converges on London, the remarkable resort city of Bath, Hadrian's Wall, and other rich archaeological
remains.
Five hundred years of Roman rule produced striking consequences for Gaul. Politically, they planted the idea of citizenship in a common state with a single set of laws
and administrators. A somewhat unified tax system helped to unify the areas of their
occupations, but a certain tribal localism remained. Direct and indirect taxes were assessed and collected inequitably. If imperial Rome benefited from financial exactions,
labor, and cheap grain, by the holding of Gaul, then the Gauls also derived an economic advantage from this conquest. They gained a new security from barbaric tribes. The
freedom from roving bands of brigands served to encourage these conquered Gauls to
clear more forests and farm more lands. Better roads, better bridges, and better communications fostered greater trade. Towns and villages began to appear instead of the
mud-hut habitations.
Rudimentary educational institutions cultivated a taste for learning Latin and Greek,
primarily in cities like Marseilles, Bordeaux, and Lyons. Frequently, the interest was
superficial. Outlying regions remained untutored in Latin. These conquered peoples
continued to practice the old Celtic religions, so Druidism flourished despite the spread
of Christianity. As missionaries crisscrossed Gaul to convert the inhabitants and to organize the church, other Christians clustered in monasteries to pray and to establish islands of learning. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the survival of the Roman
church was crucial to learning and culture.
In Britain, the immigration of Germanic peoples from across the English Channel and
North Sea had begun even before the Roman withdrawal. Two main waves, the AngloSaxons (English), from circa 450 to 550, and the Scandinavian Vikings, from circa 800
to 1000, brought new blood to the island. The English gradually pushed the Britons
("Welsh") westward until the Anglo-Saxons reached the Mersey and the Bristol Channel (circa 600). These relocations helped to fragment the Celtic peoples. They became
concentrated in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. From this time on, English was the dominant stock in the new country that had become England. The tribal mixing process
consisted not only of war and conquest, but of colonization. Celtic elements remained,
though they gradually fused with other peoples. Wessex became the dominant kingdom
in the later Anglo-Saxon period.
The Collapse of the Roman Empire
The fifth-century decline of Rome was disastrous for Gaul's political unity, economic
development, and cultural life. An accelerated flow of invading tribes soon splintered
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 114
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Gaul. These invasions were not a unified force, but diversely sized groups of Franks,
Goths, Burgundians, and others. As the Romans and Gauls were assimilated, so did
the Gallo-Romans and other tribal cultures adopt each other's ways. The France that
emerged by the year 1000 was a combination of Celtic Gauls, Romans, Franks, Teutons, Visigoths, Burgundians, Vandals, Vikings, and others.
From the fifth to the eleventh centuries came a welter of political and territorial shifts
in Gaul. The church came to supply the links of continuity under both the Merovingian
and Carolingian dynasties. Clovis, a Merovingian who reigned from 481 to 511, is
credited for being the founder of the Frankish kingdom. He completed the work started
by his grandfather, Merovech, the Salian Frank chieftain. Clovis first overwhelmed the
Gallo-Roman forces at Soissons in 486, then extended the rule of the Franks over Burgundy. He eventually conquered the southern regions of France all the way to the Pyrenees by defeating the Visigoths.
Upon Clovis' death in 511, the Frankish kingdom was parceled out among his four
sons. These heirs subdivided their holdings, waging most bitter wars against one
another. In the last century of their rule, these Merovingians felt the decline of their personal authority in their own kingdoms. Aristocratic land owners whittled away at royal
power in administrative, legal, military, and tax matters. Agriculture and trade were in
disarray. Feuding chiefs ravaged the countryside. Towns and villages dwindled as
commerce ebbed, though they furnished some shelter from marauders. Finally, at the
beginning of the eighth century, after decades of incompetent Merovingian rule, the
Carolingians secured the reins of power. Previously, they had served only as advisors
or palace mayors.
Roman influence returned to Britain in 597 when Augustine of Canterbury began to
convert the English to Christianity. Gradually, Augustine organized the English church.
Celtic influence also returned from the northwest, as missionaries from Iona, a center
of Celtic Christianity, penetrated the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Northumbria and Mercia. Rivalry between the Roman and the Celtic Christian churches followed.
The Synod of Whitby (664), at which King Oswy of Northumbria adopted Roman
usages, soon set the pattern for the development of the English church. In this period,
northern England produced one of the greatest of the European scholars, the Venerable
Bede. Bede wrote a classic account of his people's conquest of Britain.
Across the channel, into Germany, came the influential Boniface, a missionary to
Germans along the Rhine. Boniface organized the German church for Rome.
The brilliance of the early Anglo-Saxon period was ended by the destructive Viking
invasions. To fight them off, the responsibility for organizing the English resistance fell
to the kings of Wessex. Most notable of these rulers was Alfred (r. 871-899). Alfred
held the line against the Danes, restricting their settlement to the places with Danelaw.
Areas with Danelaw were located in the eastern counties. North of London, the Danes
had settled alongside the English. Anglo-Saxon England was much weakened by the
continuing Danish raids. For a time (1016-42), the country was part of the North Sea
empire of King Canute and his sons.
The Franks Unite under Martel and Charlemagne
A Carolingian, Charlemagne, became king of the Franks in 768, and emperor in 800.
His grandfather, Charles Martel, had amassed sufficient power to "save" Europe from
the Moors at Tours in 732. Martel's talents and military forces were passed on to Charlemagne's father, Pippin the Short. Pippin's aid to the missionary, Boniface, was reApril 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 115
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
warded by the pope's endorsement. Pippin and his sons were recognized as the legitimate dynasty of the Frankish kingdom. Upon these foundations, Charlemagne waged
innumerable wars and gained all Europe from the Pyrenees to the Vistula.
Charlemagne's rule encompassed much more than Gaul or the Frankish kingdom. It
left a strong imprint upon France, foreshadowing the feudal system, which was already
in its infancy. Within the Frankish state, the vigorous and attractive Charlemagne extended royal power and financial resources. He assumed the rights of extensive, but
nonhereditary land grants, and the right to levy local taxes. The lords of manors were
to furnish military and judicial services to the king. Lower classes provided the labor on
roads and other public works. As a check on the local notables, Charlemagne sent out
teams of missi dominici (usually a bishop and a count) to inspect the districts and report on any irregularities. Two assemblies were held each year, forerunners of the
States-General (parliament). In the spring session, noblemen had opportunity to discuss their problems. At this time, the king could present his program or paint his impressions of the realm.
In his capital at Aachen and in other towns, Charlemagne rekindled intellectual life by
gathering scholars and literary figures such as Alcuin. Works of Greek and Latin were
copied and analyzed. New schools were founded by favored churchmen. In the end,
Charlemagne's encouragement of learning had much more long-range impact on French
and Western civilization than his sensational military and political ventures.
After Charlemagne, the Carolingian decline followed the same pattern as the Merovingians' after Clovis. The partition of lands, formalized in the Treaty of Verdun in
843, gave an area roughly equivalent to modern France to the Frankish emperor Charles II. He and his descendants held an ever-weakening grip over the kingdom against
the invading Vikings. These Northmen became Normans, and established the duchy of
Normandy, famous for its predatory lords. Normandy became the most highly organized and militarily efficient state in Europe. The Capetian dynasty would achieve kingship by 987 over the shrunken French state. Within that French state, the feudal system, born with the laws of Charlemagne, would finally flower.
For nearly a thousand years, the house of Capet furnished France with kings, first as
direct-line Capetians, and later through the branch families of Valois and Bourbon. The
line was literally cut by the guillotining of Louis XVI in 1792. Louis' brothers, Louis
XVIII, Charles X, and his distant cousin Louis-Philippe served as monarchs after Napoleon I.
The Birth of Feudalism
The feudal system became crystallized between Hugh Capet's coronation (987) and
the inception of the Hundred Years' War in 1338. Along with feudalism, came the idea
of French kingships. Cities and towns revived. They were peopled by bourgeois citizens engaged in a resurgent trade of agricultural and craft products. A cathedral-building boom satisfied both the religious spirit and supplied jobs. The Crusades absorbed
the energies of kings, counts, clergy, and commoners. The Norman conquest of England brought France into a centuries-long connection and rivalry with that island kingdom.
Feudalism was rooted in the land grants of Charlemagne and the subsequent breakdown of his empire. The institution became inevitable when the weak kings failed to
check the Viking incursions in the 9th and 10th centuries. Surely, but haphazardly, feudalism developed as a contractual arrangement between lord and king. Manorialism
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 116
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
came to decide the relationship between lord and peasant. As warriors for the king, the
lords were bound to render military service at their own cost. In return, not only did
they receive hereditary title to tracts as large as provinces, but also the right to tax,
oversee, and judge their inhabitants. Toward their subjects, the lords owed protection
and the preservation of order; from them, they were due loyalty, rents, fees, and obligations of a military and economic nature.
The relative strength of these lords and kings often depended not upon title, but upon
personal traits and capabilities. The extent of land holdings, the resources available, the
alliances possible, and the support of the church, all played a part in the struggle for
power.
Power of the local lords was demonstrated by the election of Hugh Capet as king in
987. His predecessors were mere counts of Anjou and Blois. His supporters included
the Duke of Normandy. As kings, the Capetians were only in possession of the family
held tracts of land in central France. This area, the Ile de France, was situated around
Paris and Orleans. For a long time, the question was, how much authority should be
allowed the kings of France?
An outstanding example of this question was posed by the succession of the dukes of
Normandy. Duke William's conquest of England in 1066, and his ascent to the English
throne as William I, made the subsequent dukes of Normandy potential kings of England. As such, they were awesome competitors to their feudal overlords, the kings of
France. The English kings extended their French holdings even further with Eleanor of
Aquitaine. After the annulment of her marriage to the monkish Capetian Louis VII, she
married the future Henry II of England (1152).
Normandy and England
The Normans decided the future of England. Norman influence was already gaining
ground under the last English king, Edward the Confessor. William, the Norman duke,
regarded himself as the heir to the English throne. On Edward's death (1066), William
invaded England to claim the throne from the half-Danish Harold II. Harold was defeated at the Battle of Hastings, and Norman conquest was assured when Duke William
assumed the English crown as William I.
The Norman conquest brought England close to continental Europe. Norman genius
for military and political organization meant that England was at last under an enforced
unity, secure from an outside invasion. England could now work out her own destiny.
The Norman Conquest virtually destroyed the Anglo-Saxon governing class. Their
lands were seized and all resistance crushed. William the Conqueror practically devastated northern England. But, as they destroyed, so the Normans built. They built more
firmly and efficiently than had been done before. The Tower of London, intended to
protect and awe the capital, remains as visual evidence of their superlative structures. In
the north, a splendid acropolis, both a vast cathedral and a separate castle, were built at
Durham to rule the border country and defend it against the Scots.
Even more remarkable was the Domesday Book, which testifies to the Norman genius for administration. William the Conqueror ordered the document compiled. The
survey took from 1085 to 1086. It was a complete record of the land, the holdings, the
tenures, the services, the wealth, the population, and the number of animals. A clear
view of England's resources and the taxable capacity of her peoples finally emerged.
One Russian historian has called the Domesday Book "the greatest record of medieval
Europe."
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 117
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The English hated the Domesday Book as much as they hated the Norman taxation
and the harsh Norman rule. They lived their own lives; they spoke their own language
– or various dialects, now regarded as Middle English. For some years after, English
monks recorded events and surveys in the continuing documents found in the AngloSaxon Chronicle.
Along with efficient government, the Normans reformed the church. Splendid cathedrals and monasteries were built all over the country. Norman castles held the country
together in a tight spider's web. From these centers came a feudal society where most
of the land was held by Norman lords. They, in turn, owed allegiance and service to
the king.
Meanwhile, the powerful Norman military caste pursued expansionist aims closer to
home. Normans settled in and gradually feudalized Scotland. Eventually a Norman
family, the Stuarts, was to succeed to the Scottish throne (1371).
Norman barons also conquered the Welsh border and much of South Wales. An expedition under Richard de Clare, second earl of Pembroke, better known as Strongbow,
began the Anglo-Norman conquest of Celtic Ireland in 1170. This brought into power
such Norman and Celtic feudal families as the Fitzgeralds, the Butlers, and the Burkes.
These distinguished families were destined to rule much of Ireland under nominal suzerainty from England.
The Norman succession to the English throne was not without its problems. Matilda, 1
daughter of Henry I of England, granddaughter of William the Conqueror, and the
mother of Henry II, was frustrated in her ambition to become queen of England.2
She first married Holy Roman Emperor Henry V (1114). After his death in 1125, she
returned to England where she was recognized as her father's heir (1127). Her only legitimate brother had died in 1120. Matilda's waspish personality and her unpopular
marriage to Geoffrey Plantagenet (1128), count of Anjou, alienated her supporters. On
Henry I's death in 1135, Matilda's cousin Stephen was proclaimed king, so she went
to war to claim her inheritance. For a few months in 1141, she held the upper hand in
the conflict, but she was never crowned. Matilda gave up her struggle for dominance
and left England in 1148, spending her remaining years in Normandy. In 1154, her
eldest son by Geoffrey, Henry, succeeded to the English throne.
Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine
Henry II, the first royal Plantagenet, was the heir not only to England and Normandy, but to the vast Angevin territories in France. By his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, he secured Aquitaine, whose great southern city, Bordeaux, was the center of the
wine trade with England. The northern court, at Poitiers, was the center of a cultural
revolution that was just beginning in France. As a result, England's foreign relations
focused more than ever upon France.
Eleanor of Aquitaine, b. 1122, d. Apr. 1, 1204, was renowned for her cultivated intelligence and great beauty. She was queen to two kings, the mother of two others, and
a patron of courtly literature. As heir to the duchy of Aquitaine, she married Louis VII
of France in 1137. At his court, she displayed a true genius for cunning and the manipulation of royal policy to her own ends. Her royal husband could not match either her
intelligence or energy.
1
b. February 1102, d. Sept. 10, 1167,
2 Bibliography: Cronne, H. A., The Reign of Stephen, 1135-54; Anarchy in England (1970); Davis, R. H.
C., King Stephen (1967).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 118
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Aquitaine [ak'-wi-tayn] (Latin: Aquitania, land of rivers), was the richest province on the continent in the twelfth century. It was an area roughly corresponding to the
southwestern third of France. Formerly, it was one of the three divisions of ancient
Gaul. After five hundred years of Roman rule, it fell to the Visigoths in the fifth century. Later, rule fell to the Franks when they defeated the Visigoths in 507. The Franks
held but a weak control over Aquitaine. About 725, it was raided by the Muslim conquerors of Spain. The Frankish leader, Charles Martel, crushed these invaders in 733,
and Aquitaine became part of the Carolingian empire.
In the ninth century, the leading counts and other nobility of Aquitaine gradually grew
free of royal control. Bernard Plantevelue (r. 868-86), and his son, William I (r. 886918), whose power was based in Auvergne, called themselves dukes of Aquitaine, but
their state disintegrated. William V (r. 995-1030) founded a new duchy of Aquitaine
based in Poitou.
Aquitaine reached its zenith under William VIII (r. 1058-86). When William X died
(1137), his daughter, Eleanor of Aquitaine, married Louis VII of France, whom she divorced in 1152 to marry Henry II of England. She maintained an elegant court at Poitiers. Her sons, Richard I and John, and their successors were all dukes of Aquitaine
(later known as Guienne).
The French conquered Poitou in 1224 and other parts of Aquitaine in the next century.
English victories during the Hundred Years' War enabled Edward III to reconstruct the
old duchy in the 1360's, but France finally conquered the remainder in 1453.
Louis VII, King of France, b. 1121, d. Sept. 18, 1180, the second son of Louis VI
of France, became heir to the throne on the death of his elder brother (1131). He succeeded his father in 1137, a few days after marrying Eleanor of Aquitaine. Louis inherited not only a prosperous and well-pacified royal domain, but also two experienced
counselors, Raoul of Vermandois and Suger. His youth and inexperience led Louis into
overambitious projects during the first 15 years of his reign. One of these was the Second Crusade (1147-49). Though the crusade itself was a military disaster, it enhanced
the visibility, and therefore the prestige, of the French crown.
Eleanor accompanied Louis on the Second Crusade (1147), where her conduct led
Louis to doubt her fidelity. Although consanguinity [too close a relationship by blood]
was the official reason for the annulment of their marriage in 1152, the couple's basic
incompatibility was the real reason.
In 1152, Louis had his marriage to Eleanor annulled, and she promptly married Henry, count of Anjou and duke of Normandy, who was to become Henry II of England in
1154. The addition of Aquitaine to Henry's other possessions made him much more
powerful than the French king, so Louis was frequently a hostile neighbor. Suger and
Raoul were both dead by the end of 1152, so Louis had to reconstruct his government
around new advisors. He established close ties with the counts of Flanders and Champagne. He collaborated with the church, encouraged the growing towns, and carefully
managed the resources of the royal domain. To check Henry II and the Holy Roman
emperor Frederick I, he reestablished strong royal influence in Burgundy and Languedoc. He also supported the intrigues of Henry's rebellious sons. 4
In 1165, Louis' third wife, Adele of Champagne, gave birth to a long-desired male
heir, who was to succeed to the throne as Philip II. Louis barely managed to persevere
4 Bibliography: Dunbabin, Jean, France in the Making, 843 to 1188 (1985); Fawtier, Robert, The Capetian Kings of France, trans. by Lionel Butler and R. J. Adam (1960); Petit-Dutaillis, Charles E., The Feudal Monarchy in France and England from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century, trans. by E. D. Hunt
(1936).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 119
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
against his rival, Henry II, with his vast holdings, but Louis left to his son, Philip, a
stronger and better-respected French monarchy than he had himself inherited.
Henry II
Henry Plantagenet, perhaps the greatest king of medieval England, ruled a vast AngloNorman domain from 1154 to 1189. He founded a government structure that was both
flexible and well- defined. He patronized the arts, the scholars, and the literature of his
day. The son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, count of Anjou, and Matilda, daughter of Henry
I, Henry was born in France on March 5, 1133. Made duke of Normandy in 1150, he
inherited his father's lands in 1151. In 1152, he married Eleanor of Aquitaine, bringing
her large domain under his control. After several unsuccessful attempts to recover his
mother's promised throne, Henry invaded England in 1153. Although the battle was a
draw, Henry negotiated to his favor and was recognized as the legitimate heir of King
Stephen. Henry then succeeded to the throne of England in 1154.
Henry II was a man of high intelligence, practical wisdom, and much physical vigor.
He spent his early years as king recovering his royal rights from the barons who had
wrested them from Stephen. Although he could not effectively rule the entire so-called
Angevin empire, Henry created a stable government within England.
Under Henry, many governmental reforms were begun. A new class of professional
royal officials emerged. New record-keeping practices reflected the increasing complexity of English society. The king ordered inquiries into the operations of local government. In 1166, he ordered a survey of knights in his service. During his reign,
money payments, called scutage, replaced the service of knights. His army became the
largest and most highly organized military system in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire.
Perhaps Henry's greatest accomplishment was the development of the system of royal justice. His Common Law became the basis of the legal systems of most Englishspeaking peoples. Common law created the jury system. It made the king's legal initiative, as a writ, available to all free men for a modest price. It began the principal of Due
Process under law. From this, grew the system of Common Law Assizes. A new body
of laws, based on the decisions of the king's traveling judges, emerged. In contrast to
Roman civil law and the church's canon law, common law reflected the customs and
instincts of the common English people. The lower classes developed the right to be
heard in the royal courts. Norman lawyers, like Ranulf de Glanvill (d. 1190) and Henry de Bracton (d.1268), helped to codify it. Its very flexibility and adaptability, like the
later empirical spirit of British philosophy, ensured its future importance among English-speaking peoples all over the world, especially in the United States.
Henry extended royal law at the expense of feudal jurisdictions. He then reaped the financial benefits that this new system accrued. Although it was probably unintended, the
ultimate effect, of Henry's legal reforms was to protect the weak from abuse by the
strong. 5
The most famous episode of Henry's reign was the king's quarrel with his friend,
Thomas Becket, whom he had made the archbishop of Canterbury. Henry had hoped to
isolate his kingdom's church from papal leadership and subject it to his own. Becket,
for both selfish and political reasons, firmly opposed this policy. Becket was often unsupported in these views by his own bishops and the pope. His murder in Canterbury
5 Bibliography: Warren, W. L., Henry II (1973).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 120
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Cathedral (1170), inadvertently instigated by Henry himself, caused considerable
uproar, but little change in Henry's relations with the church.
Within England, a firm and diverse society flowered, made possible by internal peace
and maintained by the strong monarchy of Henry II. When the monarch was not
strong, as in the reign of Stephen, there were periods of confusion, with many barons'
wars. Henry Plantagenet, for all his absolute power, gave significant impetus to the development of a system of royal justice that superseded feudal courts.
Henry's final years were troubled by quarrels with his wife and four sons. They rebelled against him several times, most notably in 1172-74. Eleanor supported her sons
in revolt against their father (1173), and spent most of the rest of Henry's reign locked
in a tower. 6 She was a dominant figure in English politics during the reign of her son
Richard I (1189-1204). Upon Richard's death, she supported the succession of her
youngest son, John.
She returned to her native Aquitaine at the end of her life.
When Henry II died on July 6, 1189, he was succeeded by his third son, Richard I,
known to history as the Richard the Lion-Hearted.
The Capetian Kings of France
The Capetian kings of France were no match for Henry II or for Richard I. They
made no headway in their quest to gain control of the continental domains of the Plantagenets until after John ascended the English throne. To tip the precarious balance in
their favor, the Capetian kings linked themselves with the new middle class, whose
urban and commercial interests often clashed with the warrior and rural concerns of the
feudal lords. Royal charters granted special privileges and wider markets to the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeois could pay. Churchmen could be wooed to the king's side
with promised patronage for cathedrals, schools, and crusades. French participation in
the Crusades stimulated a spirit of national, rather than local, pride. Despite the tragic
consequences, the crusades tied the church more closely to the monarchy. These "holy
wars" renewed contacts and alliances with with Italy, and found friends in the Christian
Middle East. The crusades greatly expanded business for the French merchants, and
were a boon for French scholars as well.
In later times, such Capetians as Hugh the Great, Philip II, Louis IX, and Philip IV
succeeded in upholding and enlarging the royal prerogative beyond their family lands.
Other Capetians often failed.
Philip Augustus
Philip II (Philip Augustus), b. Aug. 21, 1165, d. July 14, 1223, was the son of
Louis VII and Adele of Champagne. He was king of France from 1180 to 1223. Building on the work of his two predecessors, Louis VI and Louis VII, Philip made France
the strongest monarchy in Europe. He is considered to have been that country's greatest
medieval king. His marriage to Isabella of Hainaut brought him the valuable land of Artois as her dowry. His skillful use of feudal suzerainty enabled him to acquire Vermandois as well. The royal lands were surrounded by three strong feudal states – the vast
possessions of Henry II of England, the Champagne territories, and the independent
6 Bibliography: Kelly, Amy, Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings (1950); Kibler, W., Eleanor of Aquitaine: Patron and Politician (1976); Meade, Marion, Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Biography (1977; repr.
1980); Seward, Desmond, Eleanor of Aquitaine (1986).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 121
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
province of Flanders. Philip was able to penetrate Flanders when Count Baldwin IX
went on the Fourth Crusade in 1202, leaving a small girl as heir to the country. Champagne, which was ruled by Philip's maternal relatives, was usually friendly toward the
French monarch, so of the three adversaries, Philip's principal enemy was the Plantagenet family of England. Philip followed in his father's foreign policy. He supported
Henry's rebellious sons during his reign, then supported the rebellious John during the
reign of his brother, Richard. This policy did much to hurt him politically while Henry
II and Richard I were his adversaries.
On the Third Crusade (1189-91), Philip had opportunity to make a fool of himself by
quarreling with Richard the Lion-Hearted. Luckily for Philip, this dangerous enemy
was killed in 1199. Richard's brother, John, not wanting to fight, agreed to hold onto
the family lands in France by becoming Philip's subordinated vassal. In 1202, John
was summoned before Philip's royal court.
Few kings cared to be summoned. The summons was due to a complaint filed by one
of John's own French vassals. When John ignored the summons, Philip declared
John's French lands forfeit. Philip seized the valuable fiefs of Normandy and Anjou
(1204-06). John allied himself with Emperor Otto IV, in an attempt to regain these
lands, but Philip defeated this coalition at Bouvines in 1214. After this famous battle,
Philip was free to intervene in southern France at his will.
A crusade against the unruly Albigenses continued under Philip's son Louis VIII and
his successors. They gained many important lands for the French crown.
Richard The Lion-Hearted
Richard I, the Lion-Hearted, b. Sept. 8, 1157, d. Apr. 6, 1199, King of England
(1189-99), was the third son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Renowned as a
Crusader and gallant knight, Richard neglected his kingdom, allowing his ministers to
rule in his stead. Immature and petulant, he excelled only in fighting. Before becoming
king, Richard was often bitterly at war with his father and brothers. He spent all but six
months of his reign outside England, either campaigning for victory, or in captivity.
Richard was battle leader of the Third Crusade. On his return, he was shipwrecked in
1192 near Venice. He was caught and imprisoned by Duke Leopold of Austria. Legends say that Blondel de Nesle was a favorite troubadour of Richard's. Blondel was the
composer of about twenty poems. Some of these survive today in the Chansonnier
Cange, where words and music are both preserved from our feudal past. According to
legend, Blondel was responsible for the rescuing of Richard from Leopold in Austria.
He went from castle to castle singing his verse, until he finally appeared before
Richard's prison window. There, the troubadour sang the first strophe of a song.
Richard then made his location known by responding with the second strophe. After
his whereabouts were known, Leopold turned Richard over to his superior, the Holy
Roman Emperor, Henry VI. Leopold released King Richard in February 1194, but
only after a huge ransom had been raised by his mother, Eleanor, from Richard's subjects in England and France.
For the English empire, the most significant event of the crusade was Richard's assent
to the Treaty of Messina with Philip II of France (1191). By that treaty the English king
formally acknowledged his continental holdings as Philip's fief. 7 Philip later used his
7 Bibliography: Appleby, John, England without Richard 1189-1199 (1965); Brundage, James, Richard
Lion Heart (1974); Gillingham, John, Richard the Lionheart (1979); Norgate, Kate, Richard the Lion
Heart (1924; repr. 1969).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 122
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
position as overlord of the English king to justify his attack against Richard's brother
and successor, King John.
Richard spent the last five years of his reign warring with France's King Philip.
Although he was later romanticized by Sir Walter Scott and others, Richard did little
more than contribute to the financial exhaustion of his realm. The expenses of the Crusade and other wars, the king's ransom, and those expensive subsidies to his continental allies, all added greatly to the tax burden. The resulting heavy taxation under Richard
and his absence from England created enough dissatisfaction to begin a movement to
limit the powers of the crown.
Richard was always short on cash and willing to sell just about anything to raise money. The story of William I of Scotland serves to illustrate this point: William I (the
Lion), b. 1143, d. Dec. 4, 1214, was king of the Scots from 1165-1214. He inherited
(1152) the earldom of Northumberland, but five years later, Henry II of England annexed it. William succeeded his elder brother, Malcolm IV, to the Scottish throne.
Hoping to regain Northumberland, William invaded England in 1174, but was captured
at Alnwick. He subsequently signed the Treaty of Falaise (1174) in which he acknowledged Henry as his feudal superior. William later recovered the overlordship of Scotland by the Quitclaim of Canterbury (1189), paying the newly crowned Richard I, ten
thousand marks to buy back his lordship.
King John
John, the youngest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, b. Dec. 24, 1167, succeeded his brother, Richard I, as king on May 27, 1199. John's reign is notable for his
difficulties with the church and the barons. The king's conflict with the great barons
later resulted in the writing and the signing of the Magna Carta.
John's character was not very attractive. He was hedonistic, mercurial, personally unstable, suspicious, and unforgiving. Yet, despite great faults, he had many commendable qualities. He was highly intelligent, well-versed in law and government, efficient,
and sophisticated.8 His greatest shortcoming, in the view of his contemporaries, was
that he was not a great warrior in an age when kings were expected to be such. Moreover, John's difficulties stemmed largely from the policies of his father and brother.
Richard had bequeathed John little but financial bankruptcy and a ruinously expensive
war in France. John also bore the brunt of baronial reaction to the centralization of government, a policy initiated by his predecessors, though it was continued enthusiastically
by John himself.
Early in his reign, John lost most of the English possessions in France. By 1206,
Philip II of France had conquered Anjou, Normandy, and Brittany. In that same year,
John became embroiled in a quarrel with the church by refusing to accept the election of
Stephen Langton as the archbishop of Canterbury. The pope placed England under interdict ,in effect, closing the churches, until John abandoned the fight in 1213. At this
time John accepted terms that made him subservient to the pope. The king took this step
as a alliance designed to strengthen his hand against the barons, with whom trouble had
been building since 1208. The failure of John's expedition to Poitou in 1214, coupled
8 Bibliography: Curren-Aquino, Deborah T., ed., King John (1989); Holt, James C., King John (1963);
Jolliffe, J. E. A., Angevin Kingship, 2d ed. (1963); Painter, Sidney, The Reign of King John 1949; repr.
1979); Poole, A. L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 2d ed. (1955); Warren, W. L., King John,
rev. ed. (1978).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 123
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
with the defeat of his ally, Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV, in the Battle of Bouvines,
gave the English barons an excuse for rebellion. In June 1215, the barons forced the
king to accede to their demands for the restoration of feudal rights in the famous document called the Magna Carta. Civil war was resumed soon after and continued until
John's death on October 18 or 19, 1216. John was then succeeded by his young son,
Henry III.
Stephen Langton [lang'-tuhn], b. c.1155, d. July 9, 1228, was a major statesman in
the English church. He was instrumental in securing King John's concession to the
Magna Carta in 1215. 9 Langton was created cardinal by Pope Innocent III (1206). Afterwards, he was appointed the archbishop of Canterbury (1207). King John refused to
recognize that appointment, so England was again placed under interdict until 1213,
when the king became reconciled with the papacy. Stephen then took his seat at Canterbury. From then on, Stephen was active in English politics. His support of the barons
against the king in securing the Magna Carta led to his suspension as the archbishop,
but he was restored to office in 1218. Stephen was a prolific writer and the probable
composer of the hymn Veni sancte spiritus.
The Magna Carta
The MagnaCarta, that great charter of liberties, was exacted from King John by his
rebellious barons and sealed at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. It is famous throughout
the world as an embodiment of resistance to an absolute monarchy unregulated by law.
The rebellion of the barons and their adherents stemmed from John's demand for
overseas service that they felt was not owed. John's policy of ensuring their personal
loyalties by intimidation increased their burden. The baronial opposition initially intended to restore what it regarded as the good old days of the Norman kings (William I,
William II, and Henry I), but realistic considerations led to an insistence on pragmatic
reforms. The issue became the control over the innovations introduced by the Plantagenet kings, rather than an issue of the nullification of existing laws. The charter, some of
it framed by Stephen Langton, set into law the points that had been raised by the rebels.
It also attempted to reform specified abuses.
The Magna Carta specified liberties for all free men. All might now be defended from
the royal whim. Certain taxes were not to be levied without the common consent of the
kingdom. The representatives' decisions were binding on all, king and commoner
alike. It was a forerunner to the doctrine of "no taxation without representation," a very
important issue during the American rebellion. The barons had acquiesced to the
growth of royal jurisdiction after 1154, but certain clauses sought to control the direction of legal reforms. The evolution of Due Process was reflected in the requirements
that proper trial be held before sentencing.
Many of the Magna Carta's sixty-three clauses dealt with feudal privileges of benefit
9 Bibliography: Lawrence, Clifford, ed., The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages (1965;
repr. 1984); Painter, Sidney, The Reign of King John (1949; repr. 1979); Powicke, F. M., Stephen Langton (1928; repr. 1965); Roberts, Phyllis B., Studies in the Sermons of Stephen Langton (1968).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 124
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
only to the barons. 10 The charter was soon violated by King John, bringing a resumption of civil war. John's successor, Henry III, reinstated his desire to abide by its
terms, and by 1225, when it received its final form, it was accepted by all the parties. It
remains a major symbol of the supremacy of law and the rights of the people.
Constitutionally significant steps were taken with the granting of the Magna Carta in
1215. This document conceded power to the barons and to the church, power extracted
directly from King John. The king's position had been drastically weakened by the loss
of Normandy. The Magna Carta set forth certain "liberties," and opened the way to
even greater liberties in later times. The MagnaCarta became more important as time
passed. It eventually formed the basis for the development of a parliamentary form of
government.
The institution of the Magna Carta was to have major significance in all Englishspeaking countries. Many medieval states had comparable institutions, but none with
such a future. Parliament began as an extension of the royal council (curia regis), in
which the king consulted magnates from all over the realm. In 1265, during the Barons' War between Henry III (r.1216-72), and the nobility, the baronial leader Simon de
Montfort summoned a Parliament that included the knights of the shire, local gentry
from each county, and middle-class people of the leading towns, called "burgesses."
For the first time, the whole country was represented by all the active elements who ran
it. After that, these representatives were generally consulted in times of national emergency, as during foreign wars, or in times of rebellion that required the raising of money.
Gradually, the lower elements of Parliament, the Commons, were strengthened. The
Commons was made up of knights and burgesses, to whom fell the task of raising the
money. Financial power soon gave them some control over the executive branch, and
eventually won them a share in it. In the end, many centuries later, the House of Commons came to provide part of the executive branch in the system called "parliamentary"
government. From this medieval institution flowed the idea of representative government, the chief contribution of English-speaking peoples to political practice and thinking throughout the world.
Universities were another legacy from the Middle Ages. Medieval England had two.
In the 1160's, students began to form a university at Oxford. In the early 13th century,
a group emigrated from Oxford to start another university at Cambridge. Oxford was
already a center of learning in the 12th century, when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his
famous History of the Kings of Britain, a work that spread the Arthurian stories into
the literature and arts of Europe. Medieval Oxford was one of the great universities of
Europe. Its philosophers: Roger Bacon, John Duns Scotus, and William of Occam,
among others, were the leading European thinkers. This succession ended with John
Wycliffe, who challenged the foundations of the church and medieval religious
thought. His followers exerted marked influence with John Huss in central Europe.
The Lollards, with their translation of the Bible and their preaching, heralded the eventual Reformation.
10 Bibliography: Davies, G.R., Magna Carta, rev. ed. (1982); Holt, James C., Magna Carta (1965) and
Magna Carta and Medieval Government (1985); Jolliffe, J.E.A., Angevin Kingship, 2d ed. (1963);
Jones, J.A., King John and Magna Carta (1971); Langdon-Davies, John, Magna Carta: A Collection of
Contemporary Documents (1964); Stenton, Doris M., After Runnymede: Magna Carta in the Middle Ages
(1965); Warren, W.L., rev. ed. (1982).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 125
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Henry III
Henry III, b. Oct. 1, 1207, d. Nov. 16, 1272, King of England (1216-72), was the
son and successor of King John. When he became king at the age of nine, southeast
England was controlled by French invaders. English rule was gradually reestablished
by the regency council under the protection of the pope and represented by papal legates. An increasingly prominent counselor, Hubert de Burgh, was dominant as justiciary from 1227 to 1232, when Henry ousted him in alliance with Peter des Roches,
bishop of Winchester, and Peter des Rivaux. The latter promoted a policy of strengthening central government until he and des Roches were overthrown by a baronial rebellion in 1234.
Henry Plantagenet was an ambitious king and a great patron. Among other projects,
he rebuilt Westminster Abbey, but history reveals him to have been a poor politician.11
His marriage to Eleanor of Provence (1236) brought to the English court a virtual tidal
wave of her poor relatives from Savoy. These foreigners alienated the magnates in
power. The king's friendship with the papacy was unpopular, and the continuing centralization of royal finance and justice aroused opposition.
In 1254, Henry made an agreement with the pope. He would finance a conquest of
the kingdom of Naples, if the pope would grant the crown to his second son, Edmund.
The failure of his Italian expedition and the debt that it had incurred forced Henry to accept (1258) the Provisions of Oxford, a plan for government by nominated counselors
and ministers imposed on him by the magnates. In 1259, Henry accepted another set of
reforms, the Provisions of Westminster, but a split between the radical magnates, was
led by Simon de Montfort. The conservatives allowed the king to renounce the provisions in 1261, and the so-called Barons' War followed. Henry received a favorable arbitration by King Louis IX of France (the Mise of Amiens, 1264), but the civil war
continued. Henry's army was defeated at Lewes in 1264. The following year, Henry's
eldest son, the future Edward I, crushed the rebellious Montfort at Evesham. The war
ended with the restoration of royal authority in 1267, but Edward ruled for his father
after that.
The Latter Plantagenets
Edward I's reign (1272-1307) is important in terms of major legal reforms that further
asserted the judicial supremacy of the crown. It also saw the renewal of expansionism
with Edward's militant aggression against Wales and Scotland. He conquered the
mountain fastness of North Wales, building a girdle of splendid castles, the most notable of which was Caernarvon, seat of a principality that Edward had created especially
for the eldest son of the ruling monarch. Thereafter, the Prince of Wales generally succeeded to the throne. Edward also annexed Scotland, but this conquest did not last for
long. At the Battle of Bannockburn (1314) the Scots under Robert I confirmed their independence as a separate kingdom.
Between 1347 and 1349, the Black Death, or Bubonic Plague, killed a quarter of the
English population. This profoundly disturbed the economics of feudal society, leading
the peasantry and artisans to demand more for their labor. Ultimately, the discontent
produced the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.
The expulsion of the English involved the French in the Hundred Years' War (133811 Bibliography: Hallam, E., ed., The Four Gothic Kings (1987); Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the
Lord Edward (1947; repr. 1966) and The Thirteenth Century, 2nd ed. (1963).
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 126
PLANTAGENET HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
1453), a conflict of intermittent intensity. Mixed into the origins of the war was the
quest for commercial and political prizes in Flanders, as well as the continuing duel between the English and French kings for Normandy, Aquitaine, and other provinces.
Certain French monarchs, notably Louis XI (r. 1461-83), finished the task of consolidating the kingdom. They then began to seek extension of their power beyond the
boundaries of France. Charles VIII invaded Italy in 1494, launching the Italian Wars
and a long dynastic rivalry with the Hapsburgs of Austria and Spain.
It was Edward III (r. 1327-77) who revived the claims of his Plantagenet ancestors to
the French territories, beginning the Hundred Years' War with France. There was an
interlude of peace under the art-loving Richard II. During his reign (1377-99), English
literature reached new heights with the work of Geoffrey Chaucer. Richard himself was
surely an incompetent king. In the end, he was deposed by his cousin Henry IV (r.
1399-1413), who brought the house of Lancaster to the throne. Henry's son, Henry V
(r. 1413-22), renewed the claims on France. A soldier and ruler of great ability, he defeated the French in the Battle of Agincourt (1415). With this battle, he won the right of
succession to the French throne.
Henry V's extraordinary achievement proved a mirage, for he died young and was
succeeded by his infant son, Henry VI. In France, the tide was turned against the English invaders with the appearance of Joan of Arc. By 1450, the English were driven out
of France, except in Calais, which they held until 1558. The combination of loss of territory and the incapacity of Henry VI, produced a dynastic conflict between the royal
houses of Lancaster and York that resulted in the War of the Roses.
These wars (1455-85) distracted the country at intervals without disturbing its economic life. The wool industry continued to flourish. Besides wool production, there
was a gradual turn to the manufacture of clothing in areas like East Anglia and the West
Country. The great churches and civic buildings of such provincial capitals as York,
Norwich, and Bristol testify to the period's prosperity. The perpendicular Gothic style
of these buildings was a special English contribution to the art of architecture. This
same period produced a monument to English prose in Sir Thomas Malory's Arthurian
romances.
The War of the Roses was brought to an end by the victory of the Lancastrian heir,
Henry Tudor, over Richard III, the last Plantagenet, at Bosworth Field in 1485. The
new king, Henry VII, united the two houses by marrying Elizabeth of York, daughter
of Richard's predecessor, Edward IV. The Plantagenet blood then merged into the later
English royal lines, perpetuating the genetic linkage of the ancient rulers to the modern
politicans and rulers of today.
Ron Collins is a scholar who is writing a book on Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. He
loves the smell of musty European libraries and spends as much time in them as he can afford to take from his prestigious career as a market representative for new products from
some of the top fortune 500 companies. His overview of the Plantagenet dynasty gives the
reader a fine synopsis of many centuries of European history and economics. Ron lives in
Ashland, Massachuttses. His business often takes him to Europe, where he uses his spare
time looking for specialty documents and information on these long-ago lives that have become such a great part of our heritage. Ron is a contributing editor and will be a regular contributor to this journal.
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 127
Aeneas
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 128
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
by Kenneth Harper Finton
Richard II was the younger son of Edward, the Black Prince. His mother was Joan,
“Fair Maiden of Kent.” He was born at Bordeaux on the feast of Epiphany, 1 January
6, 1367, and brought to England when he was four years old. At the age of nine, he
was created prince of Wales. When Edward III died June 21, 1377, Richard became
King of England at the age of ten.
The government was run by a council appointed by parliament. The Black Plague was
ravaging Europe. An ill-considered pole tax passed by parliament had added to the
“Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.” It was a long minority that the realm looked forward to,
and impatient nobles schemed to run things differently. England was in crisis. The
plague decimated the market place. Foreign affairs were at an all-time low. Many powerful lords were discontent with the boy-king and those who ran the realm for him.
By the age of fifteen, Richard began to assert himself. He started to take the powers
of his office into his own hands, but not without making powerful enemies of the
would-be advisors who wanted to rule in his place.
Richard was born to a heavy burden. It was the custom in these times that the nobles
had great power over the their serfs, the common working class. This underclass was
bound by law and custom to plow the fields, harvest the crops, thresh and winnow the
grain, mow the fields, cut wood––all manners of such chores, including military service, without pay from their lords. This peasant class was more numerous in England
than anywhere else.
“The wretched peasantry of these counties now began to rebel, saying that the
servitude in which they were kept was excessive, and that at the beginning of
the world, no man was a slave; nor ought anyone to be treated as such, unless
he had committed some treason against his master, as Lucifer did against God .
. . if they were to work for their masters, then they must be paid.
“A mad priest in the county of Kent, John Ball by name, had for some time
been encouraging these notions, and had several times been confined in the
Archbishop of Canterbury’s prison for his absurd speeches. For it was his habit
on Sundays, after mass, to collect a crowd round him in the market-place and
address them more or less as follows: “My friends, the state of England cannot
be right until everything is held communally, and until there is no distinction
between noblemen and serf, and we are all as one. Why are those, whom we call
lords, master over us? Have they deserved it? By what right do they keep us enslaved? We are all descended from our first parents, Adam and Eve. How then
can they say that they are better lords than us, except in making us toil and
earn for them to spend? They are dressed in velvet and furs, while we wear only
cloth. They have wine, and spices and good bread, while we have rye and straw
that has been thrown away, and water to drink. They have fine houses and
manors, and we have to brave the wind and rain as we toil in the fields. It is
by the sweat of our brow that they maintain their high state. Will we have no
sovereign to appeal to, or to listen to us and give us justice? Let us go to the
King. He is young, and we will show him our miserable slavery, we will tell him
1 The Chronicles of Froissart, Book 1, Section 236.
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 129
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
it must be changed, or else we will provide remedy ourselves. When the King
sees us, either he will listen to us, or we will help ourselves.’ ”
John Froissart, The Chronicles of Froissart 2
The year was 1381. King Richard II was only fifteen-years-old. A mass of sixty
thousand peasants under the leadership of John Ball, Jack Straw, and Wat Tyler
marched on London. Wat Tyler had been a tiler of roofs, an ill-tempered, deeply embittered man with bad character. Three-fourths of these peasants had no idea why they
were marching. They followed the men before them like herds of cattle.
At the same time these peasants from Kent took to the highway, Joan, the Fair Maid
of Kent, Princess of Wales and mother to King Richard, was returning from a pilgrimage to Canterbury. They attacked her carriage and scared her half to death. Luckily,
she got away and made the rest of the journey in a single day without stopping.
More counties joined in with the intent to march on until London was surrounded.
At Canterbury, the rebels invaded the Church of St. Thomas, doing great damage.
They wrecked the apartment of the Archbishop, then proceeded to Rochester, accompanied by all the peasants of Canterbury. They seized the castle and the governor, Sir
John Newton, and told him that he would have to march with them as their commander-in-chief, or they would kill him. Sir John, valuing his head, and realizing the
crowd was mad, reluctantly accepted their offer.
So the movement continued to sweep the land, forcing nobles to join them as they
gathered their forces. When they finally reached London, the gates of London Bridge
were closed, but the rebels had over thirty thousand sympathizers in the city itself.
Sir John Newton was sent by the rebels to speak with the king in the Tower. All London was in a state of great suspense. Everyone made way for Sir John as he landed.
They then escorted him to the King, who was in a room with his mother and his two
brothers, Thomas, Earl of Kent, and Sir John Holland.
Sir John Newton was well known to them. Kneeling before Richard, he said: “Most
honored sire, do not be displeased with me for the message I bring, for my dear lord, it
is not of my own free will that I bring it.”
“No, Sir John,’ the King replied. “Tell us your message; we hold you excused.”
“Most honored sire, the commoners of your realm have sent me to entreat you to
come and speak to them at Blackheath. They want to hear no one but yourself. You
need have no fears for your person; they will do you no harm, since they are and will
always continue to be, your loyal subjects. They will only tell you a number of things
which they say you ought to hear, but of which they have not charged me to inform
you. My dear lord, have the goodness to give me an answer that will satisfy them, and
2
Such tales of prophets and rabble rousers such as John Ball were treated gingerly by
Froissart. Notice that he calls John Ball a “mad priest” and his philosophy is called
“absurd speeches.” As Froissart was commissioned by the nobles to write history, he had
the dual ability to write about such revolutionary opinions convincingly, then present it to
the nobility to be read and comprehended. His magnificent history is the masterpiece of this
era.
John Froissart was born in France circa 1337. He was a contemporary chronicler of the
history of his time. When he was twenty, he was commissioned by the Lord of Beaufort to
write of the daring feats of chivalry, but John did not stop there. He wrote about the rulers
as well. Queen Philippa, wife of Edward III, paid him to search through all of Christendom to
find heroic tales of knights and squires. He lived with England’s Richard II in his court, but
later returned to France where he died at the age of sixty-four.
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 130
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
will convince them that I have come before you; for they hold my children hostage and
will kill them if I do not return.”
“You shall have an answer at once,” Richard said.3
The following Thursday, on the feast of Corpus Christi, the king went to mass, then
embarked on his barge downstream to meet with the peasants. At Rotherhithe, they encountered the rebels. When the commoners saw the barge approach, “they raised such a
great hue and cry that it sounded like all the devils in hell had been let loose.”
[Froissart].
The king was advised not to land, so he sailed up and down the river, yelling to the
crowd: “Tell me what you want. I’ve come here to talk with you.”
A spokesman from the crowd yelled, “We want you to land, and then we can tell you
more easily what we require.”
The Earl of Salsbury answered for the king. “Gentlemen, you are in no fit state nor
are you properly dressed to speak to the king.”
Nothing more was said. The king retired to the Tower.
The crowd, angry that they had not been heard, set out for London, burning many
fine houses in their path. They demolished the King’s prison and set all the prisoners
free. Since many in London were on their side, the gates to the city were opened. They
burned the home of the Duke of Lancaster, went from street to street killing all the
Flemings they could find, broke into and burned the homes of Lombard merchants, and
murdered Richard Lyon.
Wat Tyler had been Richard Lyon’s servant in the French wars. He had once been
beaten by Lyon and did not forget his grievance. Tyler had Lyon beheaded, then carried
his head through the street on a pike.
The desperation of the king and his counselors can easily be imagined. At first it was
proposed that they gather their forces and fall upon the sixty-thousand rebels in the
night while they were drunk and sleeping in the streets. Nothing came of this plan, as
only seven thousand armed men could be mustered and they were afraid of the commoners in London itself. Finally, the Earl of Salisbury told the fifteen-year-old king,
“Sir, if you can appease the mob with fine words, it would be better. Grant them all
they ask, for if we begin something that we cannot finish, nothing will ever be recovered, for us, or for our heirs, and England will be a desert.”
On Friday morning, the king gave orders to the crowd to meet him at a meadow at
Mile End, a pleasant spot where people amused themselves on summer days. There, he
would listen to their demands.
Much of the mob wanted only to riot, destroy the nobility, and plunder the city. When
the gates of the Tower were opened, the king came out with his two brothers and a
number of attendant lords. Four hundred men led by Ball, Tyler and Straw took this
opportunity to rush the Tower. Inside, they found the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon of Sudbury, who had just said morning mass, seized him and beheaded him on
the spot. They murdered three others as well, then stuck their heads on pikes and paraded them around the streets, finally taking them to London Bridge and setting them
up for display as though they had been traitors to King and country.
The ruffians entered the room of Joan, Princess of Wales, the king’s mother, and cut
her bed to pieces. The Princess fainted from shock and was carried to a boat in the
Thames. There, she was joined by Richard, who comforted her as best he could.
Leaving his brothers, who were afraid for their lives, Richard made his way to Mile
End. Sixty thousand men were gathered there as Richard advanced to meet with them.
3 Quoted speeches are from The Chronicles of Froissart, Book II, Section 74.
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 131
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
“My friends, I am your king and your lord. What do you want? And what do you wish
to say?”
“We want you to set us free forever: us, our descendants, and our lands. And we
want you to grant that we shall never be called serfs, not held in bondage.”
The king replied: “I grant your wish. Now return quietly to your homes, and leave
behind two or three men from each village. I will have letters written, sealed with my
seal, which your deputies will peacefully bring back to you, with all your requests
granted. And for your greater assurance, I shall have my banner sent to every town and
castle and to all the stewards of the crown.”
With this, half the mob dispersed, but Tyler, Ball, and Straw, along with thirty thousand others, remained to keep London in a state of terror.
The rebellion spread through the countryside. In Norwich, they summoned Sir Robert Salle, a mason’s son who had been knighted by King Edward for ability and courage. They demanded that he become their leader, but he replied: “Get back, villainous
scoundrels and false traitors that you are. Would you have me dishonor myself by deserting my natural lord for such worthless scum as you?”
As he tried to mount his horse, the rebels attacked him. His fine Bordeaux sword
killed twelve of them, cutting off a head here, an arm there, and severing limbs with
each stroke. The mob numbered forty-thousand. They shot and hurled missiles at him
until he fell, then they chopped him to pieces.
On Saturday Richard went to Westminster and prayed in the little chapel at the statue
of Our Lady. The kings of England had faith in the chapel’s reputation for miracles and
bestowing grace upon the worshipers.
Afterward, Richard rode out and found the rebels assembled at the horse-market.
They were making plans to loot the city before other groups came in and beat them to
the spoils. They carried with them the King’s banners.
The king and his lords halted when they saw the crowd.
“Here is the king,” said Wat Tyler. “I will go and speak to him. Do not move until I
make a signal.” He waved his arms and said, “When I make this sign, come forward
and kill them all except the king, for he is young, and we will do what we like with
him. We will take him wherever we like in England, and we will be masters of the
whole country, without a doubt.”
Tyler spurred his horse right up to the king, so close his own horse’s tail lay under
the very nose of the king’s steed. “King,” he asked, “do you see all these men here?”
“Yes, why do you ask?” Richard replied.
“I ask because they are all under my orders and have sworn on their honor to obey
my commands.”
“That is right,” Richard said, “I have no objections.”
Tyler went on: “And do you think that these people, and all the others, as many more
again, who are under my orders in London, do you think they ought to leave without
your letters?” Quickly, he answered his own question. “No, we will take them all with
us.”
“Those are my orders,” Richard replied. “The letters will be delivered one after the
other. Now, my friend, go back to your men and take them away from London quietly;
for it is my intention that every village and town shall have a charter, as it has been
arranged.”
Wat Tyler then noticed the king’s squire, who was carrying the king’s sword and
standing behind him. Tyler knew the squire from the past and hated him: “What!” Tyler
said. “Are you here? Give me your dagger!”
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 132
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
“I will not,” said the squire. “Why should I?”
Richard turned to the squire. “Give it to him,” he said.
Tyler took the dagger and balanced it with his hand. “Now give me that sword,” he
demanded.
“I will not! It is the king’s sword, and you are not fit to hold it. You are only a laborer.”
“On my honor,” Tyler said, “I will not eat before I have your head!”
At this moment the mayor or London rode up with a dozen men. All had arms hidden
under their robes. “How dare you speak such in front of the king?” said the mayor.
The request for the sword had angered Richard. He ordered the mayor to arrest Tyler.
Ignoring the king’s words, Tyler said to the mayor: “What has it got to do with you,
what I say or do?”
“You stinking wretch! Is this how you talk in front of my natural lord and king? I’ll
not live another day if you do not pay for it!”
With these words, the mayor drew his sword and hit Tyler such a blow on the head
that he fell off his horse and was immediately surrounded where he lay. John Standish,
another of the king’s squires, dismounted, drew his sword, and stabbed Tyler in the
belly, killing him.
Tyler’s followers saw what was happening: “They have cut down our captain! Come
on, let us kill them all.” With this, they drew themselves into order and advanced, arrows readied in their bows.
At great personal risk, Richard advanced from his men and rode toward them, ordering that no one follow him. “Gentlemen,” he said, “what do you want? You have no
other captain but me. I am your king. Keep the peace!” Seeing his courage, the meeker
in the crowd dispersed, but the more rebellious among them held firm.
Richard returned to his small band of men. The mayor advised him to stay in the
field, as he had sent for support from London. Rumor had already reached the city that
the mayor and the king were being killed. Seven to eight thousand men gathered their
arms and collected to support their king. Their leaders were Sir Robert Knolles, Sir
Perdiccas d’Albret and the kings’s draper, Nicholas Bramber. They were all knighted
on the spot by Richard, along with John Standish and the mayor, William Walworth.
Sir Robert Knolles wanted to attack and kill the mob, but Richard decided otherwise.
“Go and demand my banners back from them. Then we can see what kind of a mood
they are in. But one way or another, I will regain control of them.”
Three knights were sent out to fetch the banners. The crowd, fearing the armed power
of the army before them, returned the banner and the royal letters which they had seized
earlier. Most threw down their bows and returned to London.
Sir Robert was furious that he was denied his revenge, but Richard assured him that
revenge would come soon enough.
As soon as the crowd dispersed, Richard went back to the Wardrobe where his mother was in retreat. “Ah, my dear son,” Joan said. “What pain and anguish I have been
through for you today!”
“Yes, madam, I know,” replied Richard. “But now rejoice and praise be to God; for
today I have regained my heritage and my kingdom, which I had lost.”
Richard spent the day with his mother and a public proclamation was passed through
the streets by town criers, advising all who were not London residents to leave the city
at once. Those found on the city streets by sunrise Sunday would be considered traitors
and lose their heads at the very spot where they were found.
This proclamation was obeyed by almost everyone but Jack Straw and John Ball.
They were found hiding in a ruin, hoping to escape. Their own followers informed on
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 133
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
them and Richard was greatly delighted that they were captured. Their heads were cut
off, and along with the head of Wat Tyler, were set on London Bridge, in place of the
men who had been murdered the previous Thursday. When news of the rebellion’s collapse reached the neighboring counties, the rebels everywhere dispersed. They dared to
carry their cause no further.
* * *
In 1385, Thomas Mowbray, then Duke of Nottingham, was created marshal of England for life. Two years later, he joined with his father-in-law, Richard Fitz-Alan, Earl
of Arundel, and Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, in an attempt to deprive
King Richard II of his power. They prepared to battle King Richard’s favorite, the
youthful Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Richard Fitz-Alan was such an eloquent
speaker that he caused Robert de Vere’s army of five thousand armed warriors to lay
down their arms by the mere act of speaking to them. Arundel rode out in advance with
demands for a meeting. Robert de Vere’s soldiers lacked order and had lost confidence
in their youthful leader. Arundel spoke to the troops in a deep, commanding voice. He
declared Robert de Vere to be a traitor, the young king’s advisors and friends to be incompetent. Arundel ordered that the king’s forces should disband.
Because De Vere was young and had little military experience, the king’s soldiers lay
down their arms and left to a man, leaving de Vere to flee for his life. He found his escape across a bridge blocked with troops, so he discarded his armor and plunged his
horse into the steam, taking to the fields to make his escape. Later, he arrived in London dressed as a groom and reported to the king that the rebellion had begun. Richard
lost no time whisking his good friend to safety on the continent. Robert de Vere never
returned to England, leaving Richard without defenses and at the mercy of the three
dukes. They presented him with sore alternatives: he could keep his post and let these
Lords Appellant rule in his place, or they would depose him on the spot.
“Richard, white of face, struggled against this iron resolution. He was old
enough and sufficiently experienced enough now to read in the dark and hostile
eyes of his chief opponents a purpose from which they could not be swayed. If
he refused to give in, they would take the crown from him. If he gave in, he was
condemning his close friends to a token trial before Parliament. This could have
one result only – their condemnation and death on the gallows or at the block.
Could he abandon these men who had been so close to him ... but could he sacrifice his exalted post (which he would always believe was conferred upon him by
divine right) in order to prolong a struggle which already seemed lost? Seldom in
history has a young man of twenty faced such a bitter choice.”
The Last Plantagenets, Thomas Costain, page 134
Richard chose the only course that was open to him. He would let them rule in his
stead and bide his time. His closest friends had already fled the country. In his eyes, it
was but a test from God of his patience and power of will.
Parliament was called to deal with the problem of rule and punishment. The nobles
were not sympathetic to those who had run the kingdom during Richard’s minority.
The retributions were so severe that this congress is known as the “Merciless Parliament.” Thomas Mowbray urged this Parliament of 1388 to be lenient with Richard, but
he voted with them to execute the king’s favorites. Heads rolled, titles changed hands,
and for nearly two years, England was under the control of the three dukes, rememApril 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 134
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
bered by historians as the Lords Appellant.
The “Merciless Parliament” was sympathetic toward the young king. Richard remained free. He was allowed the privilege to grow and learn through action and experience. In 1394, Thomas Mowbray and Richard went on campaign together in Ireland.
Richard showed great talent as a diplomat. He was able to handle foreign relations well,
bringing the Irish factions under control. This time together on the Emerald Isle healed
their animosities. The two became fast friends.
Three years later, Richard’s power was restored. Richard reigned well and the land
seemed peaceful. There were no signs or omens that would foreshadow the events in
July of 1397, when suddenly, out of the blue, Richard decided that he should punish
the Lords Appellant for their treasonous acts against him. He called upon Thomas
Mowbray to assist him, then arrested Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick.
Thomas turned on his old companions, supported Richard, and testified against the
rest of the Lords Appellant. After the court found them guilty, Thomas Mowbray, with
his own hands, beheaded his own father-in-law, Richard Fitz-Alan. Evidently, relations with his wife were strained, as it leaves one to wonder what Elizabeth had to say
about her husband slaying her father.
For his “honorable” actions toward the king, Thomas was rewarded with the lands of
Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. In September of 1397, Mowbray reported
to the king that the Earl was dead. As a further reward, Richard gave Thomas right to
administer the lands of his father-in-law, Arundel. Mowbray was created the first Duke
of Norfolk, so Thomas again became one of the most important men in England.
Richard was rewarded for his ten-year patience by parliament. They gave him absolute power. Had he been able to use these powers wisely, perhaps much of his personal
tragedy could have been averted, but Richard was a handsome and rather effeminate
man. His belief in his God-given right to rule put him on the edge of sanity. He soon
declared that the law of England came from his own mouth and supported an extravagant lifestyle of wanton luxury through arbitrary methods of taxation that hit the lords of
the realm in their most sensitive locations––their pocketbooks.
Mowbray himself began to fear for his life. He had been the third member of the
Lords Appellant, the only one not yet punished. In desperation, Thomas made a huge
error of judgment when he took confidence in King Richard’s cousin, Henry Bolingbroke. Henry was the Duke of Hereford, later to become King Henry IV.
Thomas told Henry about his past part in the rebellion, his real feelings about the lavish lifestyle of King Richard and his fears that he would be punished for his actions.
Henry ran directly to Richard and accused Thomas Mowbray of treason.
Mowbray was summoned to the king’s court. The inquiry degenerated into a namecalling match where both Henry and Thomas made severe accusations, and each called
the other a liar. In those days, the prescribed remedy for such disputes was trial by battle. Just before the battle was to take place, as the trumpets were blown to start the
combat, Richard decided that he could not force his two friends to fight to the death.
Instead, Richard banished both Henry and Thomas from the country. Thomas was
banished for life. He fought for a while in the Holy Lands, then went to Venice, where
he died at the age of thirty-three.
Henry’s banishment was supposed to last for ten years.
Henry Bolingbroke was the son of John of Gaunt by Blanche, daughter of Henry,
Duke of Lancaster. He was born April 3, 1367, at Bolingbroke, Lincolnshire. In 1380,
he married Mary de Bohun, co-heiress of the the Earl of Hereford. He originally supported his uncle, Thomas of Woodstock, during the opposition to Richard II, but later
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 135
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
changed sides under the influence of his father, John of Gaunt.
When his father died in February of 1399, Richard broke his promise to hold the
lands of John of Gaunt for his son. He needed capital for his Irish campaigns, so he
ordered that the estates of Lancaster be confiscated. Henry, in exile and betrayed by
Richard, sided with the the exiled Arundels. He did not wait long.
In January of 1383, at age sixteen, Richard had married Anne of Bohemia, the
daughter of Charles IV. Her sudden death on June 7, 1394 was such a shock to
Richard that he took an expedition to Ireland to relieve his suffering. In July of 1399,
while Richard was in Ireland, Henry Bolingbroke landed with an force supplied by
Henry Percy at Ravenspur in Yorkshire. Richard, abandoned by his friends, surrendered to Henry at Flint Castle, August 19, 1399.
Of this surrender, Shakespeare wrote these words for Richard to say:
“What must the king do now? Must he submit? The king shall do it: must
he be deposed? The king shall be contented: must he lose the name of
king? O God’s name, let it go! I’ll give my jewels for a set of beads, my
gorgeous palace for a hermitage, my gay apparel for an almsman’s gown,
my figured goblets for a dish of wood, my scepter for a palmer’s walkingstaff, my subjects for a pair of carved saints, and my large kingdom for a
little grave. A little, little grave, an obscure grave.”
Richard II, William Shakespeare, Act III, Scene III
Richard was led away from Flint Castle on horseback, riding behind Henry with broken spirits. On September 30,1399, he signed a deed of abdication. Parliament ordered
him imprisoned, so he was secretly led to Pontefract Castle. In February of 1400,
Richard II died.
There is still an air of mystery in the death of Richard. Obviously, his continued existence posed a threat to the new King Henry and the rest of the lords of the realm.
Shakespeare suggested that he was slain by Sir Pierce of Exton. Other authorities suggest that he died as a result of mistreatment in the cold of winter, but his imprisonment
lasted only five months. Perhaps Shakespeare was correct after all when he had
Richard say:
“How now! What means death in this rude assault? Villain, thy own hand
yields thy death’s instrument. [Richard snatches a sword from a servant
and strikes him down with it, killing him.] Go thou and fill another room
in hell. [He kills another servant and then Exton strikes him down.] That
hand shall burn in never-quenching fire that staggers this my person. Exton, thy fierce hand hath with the king’s blood stained the king’s own
land. Mount, mount, my soul! Thy seat is up on high, while my gross flesh
sinks downward here to die.” [King Richard dies.]
Richard II, William Shakespeare, Act V, Scene V
The mystery of Richard’s death created rumors that he had escaped his confinement.
An impostor who pretended to be Richard was protected for many years by the Scots.
The real Richard was dishonorably interred at Langley in 1400 without the benefit of
state ceremony. Henry V had him honorably reinterred at Westminster in 1413.
The last chapter of John Froissart’s Chronicles speaks of Richard’s death:
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 136
THE TRAGEDY OF RICHARD II
“. . . a true report circulated in London that Richard of Bordeaux was
dead. I have not been able to discover the true circumstances of his death.
His body was laid on a litter covered in black material, drawn by four
black horses, and escorted by four knights, all in black. The procession
left the Tower, where Richard had died, and went at a walking pace to
Cheapside, which is the most important street in London . . . I was sitting
at a table in Bordeaux when King Richard was born. It was Wednesday, at
ten o’clock . . . when the knight told me the news, little did he know what
Richard’s end would be. I have often thought about these things since . . .
I heard an old knight called Sir Bartholomew Burghersh say as follows:
‘We have a book in this country called “Brut”, 4 and it states that neither
the Prince of Wales, nor the Dukes of Clarence or York or Gloucester will
ever be King of England. The crown will return to the House of
Lancaster.’
“Well, as author of this history, I have seen this knight proved right:
Richard of Bordeaux was King of England for twenty-two years, and yet,
in his lifetime, the crown returned to the House of Lancaster, when King
Henry was crowned King. He laid no schemes to acquire the crown, nor
would he have become king if Richard had behaved as he ought. But the
people of London made him king out of indignation at the wrongs that he
and his children have suffered at the hands of King Richard.
“When the litter that carried King Richard’s body had stopped at
Cheapside for two hours, the little procession moved on and rode out of
London. The four knights, who had been on foot, had their horses waiting
with their grooms. They rode as far as the royal manor of King’s Langley,
which is thirty miles outside of London. There, King Richard of Bordeaux
was buried, and may God have mercy on his soul.”
4 Romande Brut, by Robert Wace.
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 137
THE POET’S CORNER
SONGS FROM THE “BEGGARS’ OPERA”
by John Gay (1688-1732)
MAN’S COMFORTER
If the heart of man is depressed with cares,
The mist is dispelled when a woman appears;
Like the notes of a fiddle, she sweetly, sweetly
Raises the spirits and charms our ears.
Roses and lilies her cheeks disclose,
But her ripe lips are more sweet than those;
Press her, caress her:
with blisses her kisses
Dissolve us in pleasure and soft repose.
POLLY’S SONG
Can love be controlled by advice?
Will Cupid our mothers obey?
Though my heart was as frozen as ice,
At his flame ‘twould have melted away.
When he kissed me, so sweetly he pressed,
‘Twas so sweet that I must have complied,
So I thought it both safest and best
To marry for fear you should chide.
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 138
HENRY IV
HENRY IV
by Kenneth Harper Finton
Henry IV claimed the crown by right of blood from Henry III. He made it clear to
parliament that Richard II had failed to provide the realm with a stable government.
Parliament agreed and formally accepted him as King of England, “not so much by title
of blood as popular election.” (Capgrave).
William Shakespeare found the life of Henry IV to be of such inspiration that he devoted two historical plays to the immortalization of his life, Henry IV, Part One, and
Henry IV, Part II. Sir John Falstaff, one of Shakespeare’s best comic characters,
walks through both plays. The entry of this character to the stage has been anticipated
and cheered by audiences at the theater for generations.
The Shakespearean play begins with Henry IV conscious-stricken over his part in the
murder of Richard II. He plans to ease his troubled soul with a pilgrimage to the Holy
Lands. Powerful barons remain dissatisfied with the new king. Henry Percy, Earl of
Northumberland, was the man whose forces brought Henry to power. Now his son,
Hotspur, had defeated the Scots at Holmedon Hill, but would not release the prisoners
to Henry. Hotspur had gone over to the side of Edmund Mortimer, whom Richard had
proclaimed heir to the throne. Hotspur speaks:
“O, pardon me that I descend so low, to show the line and the predicament wherein
you range under this subtle king. Shall it for shame be spoken in these days, or fill
up chronicles in time to come, that men of your nobility and power did gage them
both in an unjust behalf, as both of you––God pardon it!––have done. To put down
Richard, that sweet lovely rose, and plant this thorn, this canker, Bolingbroke.”
Henry IV, Part One, William Shakespeare, Act I, Scene III
The action seeks its fulfillment at Shrewsbury where young Prince Henry comes to
face Hotspur in battle. Young Henry, though wounded and exhausted, brings Hotspur
to the ground. Falstaff, fallen and feigning death, suddenly comes to life and stabs the
wounded Hotspur, killing him at once.
Part two begins after the Battle of Shrewsbury. False reports of the rebel’s victory
has been circulating among the peasants. Henry Percy vows revenge for the death of
his son, but he is persuaded by his wife and Hotspur’s widow to flee to Scotland until
confederates could muster the forces to prevail.
Falstaff was ordered north to recruit troops for the king, but becomes embroiled in an
affair. Joined by Prince Henry, the two continue to feast and jest until both were summoned to join the army marching against the rebels. King Henry had been ill for several
weeks.
John of Lancaster, a bold hero in shining armor, took lead of the army. Before doing
battle, he asked for a conference with the Archbishop of York, leader of the opposition.
At the conference, he questions the Archbishop for his dual role of warrior and churchman:
“My lord of York, it better showed with you when that your flock, assembled by the
bell, encircled you to hear with reverence your exposition on the holy text. Now to
see you here an iron man, cheering a rout of rebels with your drum, turning the word
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 139
HENRY IV
to sword and life to death . . . how deep were you within the books of God?
“To us: the speaker in His Parliament: to us, the imagined voice of God himself.
The very opener and intelligencer between the grace, the sanctities of heaven, and our
dull workings. O, who shall believe but that you misuse the reverence of your place,
employ the countenance and grace of heaven, as a false favorite doth his prince’s
name, in deeds dishonorable. You have taken up, under the counterfeited zeal of God,
the subjects of his substitute, my father. “
Henry IV, Part II, Act IV, Scene I
The rebels announced that they would fight until their wrongs were righted, so John
promised to address their grievances. He suggested that a truce been drawn and the
troops disbanded after an inspection, but before the inspection could take place, the
troops had scattered and returned home with excitement.
With the troops gone, John ordered the arrest and execution of the leaders, including
the Archbishop of York. He explained that his mission was to improve conditions in
the kingdom and remove rebellious factions from within it.
News of John of Lancaster’s success reached Henry on his deathbed. Prince Henry
was summoned to his dying father’s bedside. He found him in a coma, his crown lying
beside him. The prince expressed his deep regret that the wearing of this crown had
caused so much sorrow to his father. He vowed that in his own turn, he would wear
this crown more graciously. Saying this, he placed the crown upon his own head. With
that, Prince Henry left the room.
Henry awoke and found his crown missing. He assumed his son wished him dead
and could not wait for nature to take its’ course:
“How quickly nature falls into revolt when gold becomes her object. For this, the
foolish over-caring fathers have broke their sleep with thoughts, their brains with
care, their bones with industry. For this they have piled up the cankered heaps of
strange-achieved gold. For this they have been thoughtful to invest their sons with
arts and martial exercises: when like the bee, culling from every flower the virtuous
sweets, our thighs packed with wax, our mouths with honey, we bring it to the hive,
and, like the bees, are murdered for our pains. This bitter taste, yield his engrossments to the ending father.”
Henry II, Part II, Act IV.
When the prince returned, his father chided him severely for his actions. He accused
him of wanting his death, his power, and his kingdom. Young Henry, remorseful, yet
cheerful, brought a measure of peace to his dying father’s mind. He said:
“O pardon me, my liege! But for my tears, these moist impediments to my speech, I
had forestalled this dear and deep rebuke. Ere you with grief had spoken, and I had
heard, the course of it so far. There is your crown, and He who wears the crown immortally long guard it yours! If I affect it more than as your honor and as your renown, let me no more from this obedience rise, which my most inward, true, and duteous spirit teacheth, this prostrate and exterior bending. God witness with me, when
I came in and found no course of breath within your majesty, how cold it struck my
heart! If I do feign, O, let me in my present wildness die, and never live to show the
incredulous world the noble change that I have purposed! Coming to look on you,
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 140
HENRY IV
thinking you dead, and dead almost, my liege, to think you were, I spake unto this
crown as having sense, and thus upbraided it: ‘The care on thee depending hath fed
upon the body of my father. Therefore, thou best of gold art worst of gold. Other, less
fine in carat, is more precious, preserving life in medicinal potable. But thou, most
fine, most honored, most renowned, hast eat thy bearer up.’
“Thus, my most royal liege, accusing it, I put it on my head, to try with it, as
with an enemy, that had before my face murdered my father, the quarrel of a true inheritor. But if it did affect my blood with joy, or swell my thoughts to any strain of
pride, if any rebel or vain spirit of mine did with the least affection of a welcome give
entertainment to the might of it, let God forever keep it from my head, and make me
as the poorest vassal is that doth with awe and terror kneel to it!”
Henry, upon hearing his son’s words, forgave him. He bade that the prince take up
the crown. An element of the universal love and struggle between a man and his possessions, soon to be bequeathed as the torch is passed, rings in Shakespeare’s words,
as old Henry makes his peace with the world.
“O my son, God put it in thy mind to take it hence, that thou might win the more
thy father’s love. Pleadingly, so wisely in excuse of it! Come hither, Harry, sit thou
by my bed. And hear, I think, the very latest counsel that ever I shall breathe. God
knows, my son, by what by-paths and indirect, crooked ways I met this crown. And I
myself know well how troublesome it sat upon my head. To thee it shall descend
with better quiet, better opinion, better confirmation. For all the soil of the achievement goes with me into the earth.”
JOHN RUSKIN ON GENIUS AND A MAN’S WORK
Yet let me not be misunderstood, nor this great truth be supposed anywise
resolvable into the favorite dogma of young men, that they need not work if
they have genius. The fact is that a man of genius is always far more ready to
work than other people, and gets much more good from the work that he does,
and is often so little conscious of the inherent divinity in himself, that he is
very apt to ascribe all his capacity to his work, and to tell those who ask how
he came to be what he is: “If I am anything, which I much doubt, I made myself so merely by labor.”
Genius . . . in whatever field, will always be distinguished by its perpetual,
steady, well-directed, happy, and faithful labor in accumulating and disciplining its powers, as well as by its gigantic, incommunicable facility in exercising them.
Therefore, literally, it is no man’s business whether he has genius or not:
work he must, whatever he is, but quietly and steadily; and the natural and unforced results of such work will always be the things that God meant him to
do, and will be his best. No agonies nor heart-renderings will enable him to
do any better. If he be a great man, they will be great things; if a small man,
small things.
John Ruskin, On the Old Road, “Pre-Raphaelitism,” (1851)
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 141
HENRY THE FIFTH AT THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT
HENRY THE FIFTH AT THE
BATTLE OF AGINCOURT
by Kenneth Harper Finton
Though Henry IV had the support of
some of the oligarchy, his reign was
anything but smooth and noteworthy.
Disputes with both France and Scotland
continued. Domestic troubles were
continual. By 1408, his health was so
severely impaired that control of the
government rested with his half-brother,
Thomas Beaufort. On March 20, 1413, he
fainted while praying at Westminster
Abbey and died the same evening. He was
buried at Canterbury.
By Mary de Bohun, Henry had four
sons: Henry V, his successor, Thomas,
Duke of Clarence, John, Duke of
Bedford, and Humphrey, Duke of
Gloucester. He also had two daughters:
Blanche, who married Louis III, elector
palatine of the Rhine; and Philippa, who
married Eric XIII, King of Sweden.
Henry’s second wife was Joan, daughter
of Charles the Bad, King of Navarre.
With her, he had no children.
Son of England’s Henry IV and Mary
de Bohun, Henry V was born at
Monmouth in August of 1387. He was
eleven when his father argued bitterly with
Thomas Mowbray and was banished for
ten years. King Richard took charge of the
boy and treated him kindly during his
father’s absence.
When his father defeated Richard and
took the crown for himself, it became
clear that Henry would succeed him. His
riotous youthful actions were popularized
by Shakespeare in his play Henry V.
Through the time of his father’s ill
health, Henry’s powers enlarged. He
finally succeeded his father on March 20,
1413. The years of factional fighting had
crippled the economy and taken attention
away from the rest of the world. England
had become a second rate power.
April 1994
Henry quickly moved to solve three
main problems: restoring the domestic
peace, healing the schism in the church,
and the recovery of English prestige in the
eyes of Europe.
Within two years was was able to unite
the various factions, then turn his royal
attentions toward foreign affairs.
Commercial disputes and French support
of the Glendower factions gave Henry the
excuse he needed to invade France in
1415.
Torrential rains hindered the English in
the crossing of the Somme. This delay
had let the French commander bring in an
overwhelming number of soldiers for the
battle. To make matters worse, the
English march through Picardy and Calais
had exhausted their supplies. Had the
French been patient enough to block the
path and not risk a battle, they would have
achieved victory through starvation alone.
The powerful rains continued through
the night of August 24, 1415. Next day
was Saint Crispin’s day. Early that next
morning, at Agincourt, Henry rallied his
little army. He had with him a thousand
men with arms, six thousand archers, and
a few thousand foot soldiers. The French
forces, four times more in numbers,
formed three lines, huge masses of troops
in each line. The deep mud from the heavy
rains prevented the use of artillery. The
crossbows were kept to the rear, behind
the foot soldiers and the armored knights.
Three hours passed after sunrise, and
still there was no fighting.
Henry, growing impatient and seeing
that the French would not advance, moved
his army further into the defile that
separated the two forces. The British
archers planted pointed stakes to impale
the horses of the French cavalry knights,
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 142
HENRY THE FIFTH AT THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT
then opened the engagement with a flight
of arrows that darkened the sky.
French chivalry was stung into action
with the prick of the arrows. They
mounted their horses and charged. The
slow-moving,
weight-clad
horses
wallowed clumsily in the mud, easy prey
for English foot soldiers and archers. The
constable of the French army, Charles
D’Albret, headed the line of dismounted
knights, sinking deeper in the mud with
every step. When they reached the English
lines, the fighting became severe hand-tohand combat.
The thin English front line was
weakened and driven back. Henry was
almost beaten to the ground. Yet, at the
moment their king was attacked, the
English archers took to hatchet, sword,
knife and mace. They rushed into the
disordered French ranks. The French
were unable to cope with the unarmored
English forces who moved with ease
through the slick mud. Their cavalry was
slaughtered or taken prisoner to a man.
The second French line met a similar
fate, their leaders were killed, their forces
decimated. By the third wave of attack,
only the French commanders volunteered
to ride out front to their deaths. The
remainder of the French forces scattered
and fled.The closing scene of the battle
found the French troops reforming in a
half-hearted attack. Henry, unable to both
guard the prisoners and survive another
assault, ordered the French prisoners
slaughtered in full view of the advancing
forces. Seeing these merciless executions
from afar, the French withdrew. With this
retreat, the slaughter ceased.
The total loss to the English was
thirteen men-at-arms, including the Duke
of York, grandson of Edward III, and
about one hundred foot soldiers. The
French lost five thousand nobles,
including the constable, three dukes, five
counts, and ninety barons. One thousand
more were taken prisoner, including the
Duke of Orleans, the Charles d’Orleans of
April 1994
French literature.
The lesson of the battle was clear to all.
Armor is useless when it fetters the
mobility of the army. This lesson should
have been learned earlier by the French,
for that was not the first instance of defeat
from inferior forces, but the fifteenthcentury mentality supposed that heavier
armor meant more protection.
Henry V had opened minds to a new
era in military history.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 143
TO THE CAMBRO-BRITONS AND THEIR HARP:
HIS BALLAD OF AGINCOURT
by Michael Drayton (1563-1631)
Fair stood the wind for France,
When we our sails advance,
Nor now to prove our chance,
Longer will tarry;
But putting to the main
At Kaux, the mouth of Seine,
With all his martial train,
Landed King Harry.
And taking many a fort,
Furnished in warlike sort,
Marcheth toward Agincourt,
In happy hour;
Skirmishing day by day
With those that stopped his
way,
Where the French gen’ral lay
With all his power.
Which in his height of pride,
King Henry to deride,
His ransom to provide
To the King sending;
Which he neglects the while
As from a nation vile,
Yet with an angry smile
Their fall portending.
And turning to his men,
Quoth our brave Henry then:
“Though they to one by ten,
Be no amaz-ed.
Yet have we well begun,
Battles so bravely won
Have ever to the sun
By fame be rais-ed.”
“And for myself,” quoth he,
“This my full rest shall be,
England ne’er mourn for me,
Nor more esteem me;
Victor I will remain,
Or on this earth lie slain,
Never shall she sustain
Loss to redeem me.
When most their pride did swell,
Under out swords they fell;
No less our skill is
Than when our grandsire great,
Claiming the regal seat
By many a warlike feat,
Lopped the French lilies.”
The Duke of York so dread
The eager vaward led;
With the main Henry sped
Amongst his henchmen.
Excester had the rear,
A braver man not there.
O Lord, how hot they were
On the false Frenchmen!
They now to fight are gone,
Armor on armor shone,
Drum now to drum did groan,
To hear was wonder,
That with the cries they make
The very earth did shake,
Trumpet to trumpet spake,
Thunder to thunder.
Well it thine age became,
O noble Erpingham,
Which didst the signal aim
To our hid forces;
When from a meadow by,
Like a storm suddenly,
The English archery
Struck the French horses.
With Spanish yew so strong,
Arrows a cloth-yard long,
That ike to serpents stung,
Piercing the weather;
None from his fellow starts,
But playing manly parts,
And like true English hearts,
Struck close together.
When down their bows they
threw,
“Poitiers and Crecy tell,
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
And forth their bilboes drew, 1
And on the French they flew,
Not one was tardy;
Arms were from shoulders sent,
Scalps to the teeth were rent,
Down the French peasants went;
Our men were hardy,
This while our noble King,
His broad sword brandishing,
Down the French host did ding,
As to o’erwhelm it;
And many a deep wound lent,
His arms with blood besprent,
And many a cruel dent
Bruis-ed his helmet.
Gloster, that Duke so good,
Next of the royal blood,
For famous England stood
With his brave brother;
Clarence, in steel so bright,
Though but a maiden knight,
Yet in that furious fight,
Scarce such another.
Warwick in blood did wade,
Oxford the foe invade,
And cruel slaughter made,
Still as they ran up;
Suffolk his axe did ply,
Beaumont and Wlloughby
Bare them right doughtily,
Ferrers and Fanhope.
Upon Saint Crispin’s day
Fought was this noble fray,
Which fame did not delay
To England carry;
Oh, when shall English men
With such acts fill a pen,
Or England breed again
Such a King Harry?
1 Bilboes: archaic for swords
and rapiers. Later, a term for
long iron bars with shackles that
slide back and forth to fetter a
prisoner’s feet.
Page 144
Song of the Mouse
by Charles d’Orleans
(French poet and Duke of Orleans, captured at
the Battle of Agincourt, 1415, and kept prisoner
for twenty-four years in the Tower of London.)
They tell me that in France ‘tis said
“The captive Charles at length is dead.”
Small grief have they who wish me ill
and tears bedim their eyes who still
Have studied vainly to forget,
And, spite of Fate, are loyal yet.
My friends – my foes – I greet you all –
The mouse still lives, although in thrall.
No sickness and no pain have I;
My time rolls onward cheerfully;
Hope in my heart forever springs,
And to my waking vision brings
Dear, absent peace, whose long repose
Has given triumph to our foes:
She comes to glad the world again,
She comes with blessings in her train:
Disgrace her enemies befall!
The mouse is living, though in thrall.
Youth yet may yield me many a day,
In vain would age assert his sway,
For from his gates my seps are far;
Still brightly shines my beacon star;
My eyes are yet undimmed by tears,
Success and joy may come with years.
Let Heaven above be thanked for all –
The mouse is living, though in thrall.
No mourning songs for me prepare,
No mourning weeds shall any wear;
Come forth in purple and in pall –
The mouse still lives, although in thrall.
April 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 145
The Plantagenet
Connection
Volume II, Number 2
October 1994
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 146
COLUMN
RESEARCH HELP
by Carol Collins
"Now just where did you hear that?"
Remember our mothers standing over
us when we uttered some profound (we
thought) nugget of information? Would
that it were imprinted on the mind of every
researcher, especially those of us who are
interested in the early time periods which
don't sport abundant records for research.
With limited resources, and those readable only to a chosen few, it's just too
tempting to gloat over published pedigrees, latch on to a familiar name and––
voila––we have our pedigree ready made.
But how accurate are the published pedigrees? We find so often that the same
misinformation is copied from book to
booK–– almost mindlessly.
As researchers, we are all familiar with
the principle that primary evidence outweighs secondary evidence.
So the question is––has our newly
found pedigree been built from a primary
source or simply copied from another
published pedigree?
October 1994
This is not to say that there is no hope.
There are many fine pedigree books available. Cokayne's Complete Peerage and
Paul's Scots Peerage, for instance, use
land records and other primary sources to
build their pedigrees.
Weiss / Sheppard's Ancestral Roots of
Certain American Colonists, now in it's
seventh edition, and their Magna Charta
Sureties, now in its fourth edition, are
ever in search of accuracy.
These, as well as Roderick W. Stuart's
Royalty for Commoners , are based on the
Complete Peerage and Scots Peerage and
quote the primary sources used.
And the primary sources––or published
copies of the sources, are not that hard to
find.
A surprising amount of early records
can be found at The Family History Library in Salt Lake City and at University
libraries.
Would, however, that there were more
records available to search, and lucky are
those who can read the flowering penmanship and decipher the Early English
alphabet. In the meantime, we are fortunate to have some strong secondary
sources to use––as long as we choose
them wisely.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 147
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Marlyn Lewis,
I show Richard and Elizabeth as siblings
of John FitzAlan. I do not know the source
as copied from Salt Lake, but if I can find
it, I will send it.
Margaret H. Dougherty
1501 Clark Ave
Yuba City, CA. 9599
Editorial Reply:
Thank you for inquiring about the ancestry of Elizabeth FitzAlan who married
Henry Percy, 9th Lord Percy. There has
been some controversy about her ancestry
with some claiming she was the sister and
others claiming she was the daughter of Sir
Richard FitzAlan de Arundel.
The most recent research completed argues convincingly that she is the daughter,
not the sister, of Richard. For the latest
pedigree of this lineage, please refer to
“Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America before
1700,” 7th edition, p. 142, by Frederick
Lewis Weis. Additions and corrections are
by Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr. They have
done a remarkable job of straightening out
many messes in the royal ancestry. The ancestry of Elizabeth is one of those corrections. I agree that the work has been poorly
done before, but I think the Weis work is
the definitive answer.
Thank you for your interest in this pedigree. I always appreciate other researchers
bringing new or different information to
my attention.
Marlyn Lewis
Portland, OR
Dear Mr. Finton,
I was born 24 years ago in Germany and
grew up in the Air Force. Even though I
did not know it then, I traveled in the land
of my ancestors. Four years ago, I came to
prison. About the time I arrived, they started a family history center. I became very
interested and found that I had Plantagenets in my family line.
Finding that I am related to these families
has been a therapeutic process for me. It
has helped me to understand who I am. I
read about what my ancestors did and the
parts they played in history. History has
come alive for me. It has sparked an interOctober 1994
est in me to travel in Europe and walk the
places where my ancestors trod. Studying
the lives of my ancestors has helped me to
make the necessary changes that I will need
when I leave prison. Also, it has given me a
hobby to occupy my time. Doing the family history helps pass the time, plus it
provides a way to develop socialization
skills because I deal with other inmates and
volunteers. The study of family history has
provided me with many new skills that has
been helpful in not only my own life, but
other as well.
David Hugie
Utah StatePrison
PO Box 250
Draper, UT 84020
Inmate Number 20185
Housing Unit OQI 114B
Editorial reply:
We are happy to receive your letter and
copies of the journal have been sent to you.
Many of us share your interest in tracing
your family roots and you have been luckier than most in being able to find a connection to the only lines that have been
traced to the beginnings of civilization.
Connecting your own descent with a royal
house often gives a feeling of purpose and
destiny. In the final analysis, life is what we
make of it. Small traces of bluebood in the
genes cannot guarantee our success in life
any more than it did for our ancestors.
Speaking for our readership, we are curious about you, and would like to follow
your efforts in the future.
Please feel free to drop us a line and let us
know how you fare. Good luck, and happy
hunting.
Kenneth Harper Finton
“Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we
didn’t.”
Erica Jong
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 148
CONNECTIONS
PEOPLE SEEKING CONNECTIONS
A letter from Don Berkebile, 9399 Blue
Spring Rd, Mercersburg, PA 17236, seeks
answers to questions of lineage:
Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal, by the Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval, Clarence Volume,
(1905, London). Reprinted by Genealogical Publishing Co, 1994.
“Some time back I said I wanted to ask you
about some problems I have in the hope that
your material might be able to clarify several
issues. I have been sitting here today trying
to figure this out, and will try to pose these
questions, if I can do it without losing my
mind. I have material from several sources
and, as might be expected there are conflicts
. . . the main problem I want to discuss is the
line of Margaret Stafford (married to Robert
Dunham). My chart is based mainly of the
work of Isaac W. Dunham, who is known to
have numerous errors in his work. The conflicts arise with regard to wives. The problem
often involves folks who have more than one
spouse. Lacking dates of marriages and
births, we can’t always be sure who the child
belongs to . . . [in the chart I made] I have
Anne Neville as the wife of Humphrey Stafford. One source seems to be saying that
Anne was the first wife and Margaret Plantagenet was the second. Since the daughter in
question is named Margaret, this may suggest that Margaret is her mother. The chart
information is this: (1) Robert Dunham (1430)
= Margaret Stafford (1435) (2) Humphrey
Stafford (1402-1460) = Anne Neville (3)
Ralph Neville (1425) = Joan Beaufort (4)
John of Gaunt = Katherine Roet.”
Don’s letter continues: “My chart shows two
Hugh de Audleys, one the father of Alice,
who married Ralph de Neville, d 1367, and
another the father of Margaret, who married
Ralph Stafford, (1299-1372). I am wondering
if they are the same, in which case, Margaret
and Alice would be sisters.
Editorial reply: According to what I find, your
source is in error. The wife of Humphrey, Earl of
Stafford, was Margaret Beaufort not Anne Neville.
Your chart should read: (1) Robert Dunham (1430)
= Margaret Stafford (1435), daughter of: (2)
Humphrey Stafford (1402-1460) = Margaret
(Plantagenet) Beaufort, daughter of: (3) Eleanor
Beaufort = Edmund, Duke of Somerset (14061455), daughter of (4) John of Beaufort (13781410) = Lady Margaret Holland (d 1429) son of: (5)
John of Gaunt = Katherine Roet. Source: The
October 1994
Editorial Reply: The Ancectry of Elizabeth of
York, compiled by Marlyn R. Lewis. #41 was: (1)
Alice de Audley = Ralph Neville, d 1367, daughter
of (2) Hugh de Audley, d 1325-6, = Isolde Mortimer
(#89), (d/o Edmund Mortimer). Hugh was the son
of (3) John de Audley, d 1276 = Ela Longespee.
Alice (#81) is not the sister of Margaret. Margaret
de Audley married Ralph de Stafford. She was the
daughter of Margaret de Clare and Hugh de Audley
(d 1322). Margaret de Clare was the daughter of
Joan of Acre and Gilbert de Clare. Joan was the
daughter of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile. Incidentally, Ralph and Margaret Stafford’s daughter
Joan married John Chereton, one of whose direct
descendants was George Washington. (See this
issue under “The Royal Ancestry of American
Presidents.”
“By the time a man realizes
that maybe his father was
right, he usually has a son
who thinks he’s wrong.”
The Plantagenet Connection
Charles Wadsworth
page 149
BOOK REVIEWS
Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
by Dr. A. J. Pollard
Reviewed by Mary Grimaldi
Plantagenet historians and genealogists
who love true crime stories must be happy
with this new treatment on two unsolved
mysteries: the murders of Edward V,
King of England, and his brother,
Richard, Duke of York. The book,
Richard III and the Princes in the Tower,
by Dr. A. J. Pollard, St. Martin’s Press,
is a scholarly, but readable entry into this
five-hundred-year-old controversy. Pollard plunges headlong into the alleged
guilt or innocence of England’s last Plantagenet king, Richard III.
The author of this handsome, lavishly illustrated, and expensive book comes wellequipped into the fray. Dr. Pollard is a
Reader in Local History at Teesside Polytechnic. His specialty is fifteenth-century
northern England. Pollard is the author of
several books on the War of the Roses.
No doubt, this is the reason for his interest in Richard, the man who single-handedly ruined the Yorkist cause. Beyond
question, Richard's actions opened the
door to the Tudors.
While respectful to the fact that much of
the history must necessarily remain closed
to us, owing to our inability to interrogate
the players, Dr. Pollard stands squarely
on the side of Richard III’s probable guilt.
Full credit is given to Richard for his talents, wherever due. A balanced and plausible portrait of a complex, talented, and
flawed man are what emerges in this
story.
Dr. Pollard begins with an overview of
the anti-ricardian propaganda, Tudor and
otherwise, that flourished in the wake of
his death in 1485. Shakespeare and others
made use of a cautionary tale: the life of a
man laid low by his own arrogance and
greed. A full discussion of the unlikelihood of his physical deformity is included
October 1994
in this book.
Following the introduction, there is a
reconstruction of the probable events of
Richard’s childhood and youth. Richard
was the younger brother of the king, Edward IV. So promising was young
Richard’s chivalry, loyalty and prudence,
that King Edward relied heavily upon him
while consolidating his power in the
North. Richard’s exploits for his king
were achieved with cunning, courage and
success. Then, unexpectedly, Edward
died.
What happened next is the real mystery.
There is no doubt that within days of
learning of his brother’s death, Richard
seized and imprisoned both the new king
and his brother. By what mental and moral
calculus did Richard swerve from his position as loyal subject and set himself upon
a course of rebellion, treason and, very
likely, murder? Did he formulate a deliberate plan in the wake of his brother’s sudden death, or did he opportunistically respond as events unfolded?
Various theories concerning these murders are discussed. Other candidates, including the Duke of Buckingham and
Henry Tudor himself, are carefully
weighed and found wanting. Pollard
creates a plausible and compelling case
against Richard. His overwhelming ambition led him to commit a crime which was,
even by the standards of that violent day,
outside the pale of humanity.
The achievements and catastrophes of
Richard’s anxiety-filled two-year reign are
discussed. As a usurper of the crown,
Richard was hardly unique. Like many
other usurpers of a throne, before and after, he never could win the hearts and
minds of his subjects. Richard was deeply
troubled by the death of his own son, the
Prince of Wales, and the scandal surrounding the death of his wife, the queen.
Richard’s personal anxiety under the constant threat presented by Henry Tudor
(soon to be Henry VII), seems to have undone him. Although he fought bravely at
The Plantagenet Connection
page 150
BOOK REVIEWS
Boswell Field, it was a rash and desperate
effort, doomed to fail.
Pollard tries, with appropriate warnings
about the speculative nature of psychohistory, to give us a glimpse of the man
himself. The portrait, necessarily sketchy,
is not savage. Richard emerges from this
study as a tragic figure, as wasted talent
and opportunity always are.
Although expensive to purchase, this
beautifully produced and readable book is
well worth a search at the local library.
The Blood Royal of Britain
by the Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval
Originally published in London, 1903
Reprinted: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1994
Reviewed by Kenneth Harper Finton
This studious five volume work attempts
to trace the descendants of Edward IV
(1441-1483), King of England, Henry
VII (1455-1509), King of England, and
James III (1451-1488), King of Scotland.
It is divided into five volumes based upon
descendant charts printed in the front of
each volume, each volume representing a
particular house: i.e., “The Tudor Roll,”
“The Clarence Volume,” “The Exeter
Volume,” “The Essex Volume,” and the
“Mortimer-Percy Volume.” Most of the
many thousands of descendants listed are
British, with only a few American and
Canadian immigrants. Each volume is indexed as to names, but there is no clear
central index for the entire work.
It appears as though the work was unfinished by the author, as detailed information on descendants of many historical
lines, such as John of Gaunt, are missing.
These volumes certainly have a place on
library shelves or on the shelves of serious genealogists who have occasion to attempt to trace lineages to royal families
from British subjects. Since there are no
individual proofs for each entry, as one
might expect from such a work, one can
October 1994
only use the work as a guide to the names
of ancestors. The serious researcher
would then have to validate the information through independent sources.
The work appears to be easy enough to
use, as the charts and tables cross reference adequately, but to actually find a
name, one must look through the index in
each and every volume unless one has
knowledge of from which house the individual subject has descended.
I often wonder, in works of such size,
magnitude and cost, if electronic publication of such data would not be a more realistic venue. To publish such information
on CD-ROM would automatically make
indexing and searching much easier, as the
“find” command could go directly to the
name one is searching for. Most libraries
have the means of viewing CD’s, and the
addition of a program to allow the printing
from the electronic format would be of
great value. I believe that the time for publishing such large amounts of data on paper has passed. It is well and good to have
the smell and feel of a fine book in your
hands and on the shelf, but this is not
reading material. It is research material,
and the scope of the work has obvious
limitations. It is not for everyone, and in
the printed format, I wonder if it was
worth the trouble to print it at all. When
will information gatherers understand the
advantages of computer research? When
will researchers and programmers find a
program that can give researchers the necessary proofs to make all their hard work
worthwhile?
Individual researchers, who work on
computers or forms, have a place for their
references––proofs for each individual
they examine. Yet, few programs, at this
time, will print this information as part of
the text. Since such materials take reams
of paper and the sheer weight of the
proofs make publishing impractical, the
obvious solution is to stay in the electronic
format. Like a scientific experiment that
can be repeated in diverse laboratories by
The Plantagenet Connection
page 151
BOOK REVIEWS
independent researchers, the proofs would
be available to all in an organized and verYou can read this story in Liudprand of
ifiable form.
Cremona, Antapodosis, Bk 1, Ch. 36.
Liudprand gave Arnulf a bad press in
Book 1, in connection with his Italian exARNULF AND THE WORMS
pedition. He finished him off the way
Dante liked to display his enemies ... with
a deserved end.
Leonard Lipschutz
And now for something completely different. While browsing through the History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen by Adam of Bremen, as translated by
Francis J. Tschan, 1959, I came across a
My Books
scholium in which it is remarked that King
Arnulf (850-899) (he who seized power
My days among the dead are past:
from Charles the Fat a few weeks before
Around me I behold,
Charles shuffled off this finite earth) "was
Where’er these casual eyes are cast,
eaten alive by worms." Can someone out
The mighty minds of old:
there tell me what this was all about?
Gordon Fisher
[email protected]
My never-failing friends are they,
With whom I converse day by day.
Is this perhaps just an echo of the death
of Herod Agrippa I, from Acts 12:23,
"Immediately an angel of the Lord smote
him, because he did not give God the
glory, and he was eaten by worms and
died"? The death, though not the worms,
is also in Josephus, Antiquities 19:346350, according to Luke.
Timothy Johnson's Acts commentary
in the Sacra Pagina series (Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 1992). Johnson notes
that Eusebius quotes Josephus, at Ecclesiastical History 2,10,10, and that there
are parallel accounts in Herodotus, Persian Wars 4:205; Pliny the Elder, Natural
History 7:172; Lucian of Samosata, Alexander the False Prophet 59. Josephus
also, Johnson says, uses the worm trope
for the death of Herod the Great, Antiquities 17:169, Jewish War 1:656, and he
notes biblical parallels at Jdt 16:17 and 2
Macc 9:9. Bede quotes the Josephus passage (via Eusebius, though he doesn't
mention that) in the Expositio Actuum
Apostolorum (CCSL 121: 60).
With them I take delight in weal 1
And seek relief in woe;
And, while I understand and feel
How much to them I owe,
My cheeks have often been bedewed
With tears of thoughtful gratitude.
John William Houghton
Mary Institute and Saint Louis
October 1994
My thoughts are with the dead; with them
I live in long-past years;
Their virtues love, their faults condemn,
Partake their hopes and fears,
And from their lessons seek and find
Instruction with a humble mind.
My hopes are with the dead; anon
My place with them will be;
And I with them shall travel on
Through all futurity,
Yet leaving here a name, I trust,
That will not perish in the dust.
Robert Southey
1
A sound, prosperous state of well-being.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 152
CAN LEADERSHIP QUALITIES BE GENETICALLY INHERITED?
CAN LEADERSHIP
tionateQUALITIES
numbers?
BE GENETICALLY INHERITED?
by Kenneth Harper Finton
Is it more than coincidence that so many
world leaders and politicians share the
same genetic pool as ancient royalty? This
is a weighted question, full of implications
that can neither be proven nor disproven at
this time. For example, Bill Clinton is the
forty-second president of the United
States. I have heard that his ancestry,
through his real father, can also be traced
through the Bohun family to the Plantagenet line, but evidently the proofs are not
complete at this time. Tracing a family lineage is quite difficult. Proofs that will satisfy the professional genealogists are hard
won and often open to debate and skepticism. Several published genealogies such
as Lincoln, Garfield, and Nixon, have
failed to pass the acid test, according to
modern research techniques. It is more
than probable, given the large percentage
of leaders with the same family lines, that
more of our political leaders are from the
same roots and their lineage is simply impossible to trace. Due to lack of good
records, many of these descendants, now
living, will forever be unable to prove
their lineage, including many who are political leaders now or will be in the future.
We have had at least eighteen presidents
of the United States who have a proven
descent from European royalty – and that
is 43% of our presidents in 1994. If one is
to give credence to the claims for Lincoln,
Garfield, Nixon and Clinton, then twentytwo American presidents are from this
stock––or at least 52%. Either way, it is an
amazing number. Was their rise to political power based upon coincidence alone?
Is there a special quality, perhaps
genetically passed, that distinguishes and
enables men of this stock to succeed in
matters of leadership in such disproporOctober 1994
It has been estimated that five out of a
thousand living people of British descent
are direct descendants of England’s King
Edward III alone. 1 Many more trace a direct descent from other royal lines, so the
living descendants of European royalty
must be a very large number. Part of this
is probably due to the survival of the richest. Nobility fared much better than the
common classes. Not only did they live
longer, but they had the ability to keep
their children alive to childbearing years,
especially during periods of plague famine, and war. The common soldiers
were the ones decimated, while the rich
were held hostage or imprisoned.
The question remains: is there a genetic
trait that prepares some people for world
leadership roles? If there is such a trait, is
that link strong enough to survive the
common marriages that dilute royal
descents, especially in such a melting pot
as America?
We are all aware that the noble families
intermarried incessantly, and every attempt
was made to stay within the social class
for hereditary positions. We are also very
much aware that cultural bias, conditioning, and hereditary wealth, played a very
important part in the perpetuation of this
class rule. Is it possible that, like dogs and
horses, leadership qualities can be bred
and passed from one generation to another?
Back in ancient Greece, Hippocrates described four basic human temperaments.
These, he linked to various body fluids, or
humors: (1) the sanguine temperament, an
1 The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal,
preface, the Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval, Genealogical Publishing Co., reprint
1994.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 153
CAN LEADERSHIP QUALITIES BE GENETICALLY INHERITED?
energetic and optimistic personality, (2)
the melancholic, a moody and withdrawn
personality, (3) the choleric, an irritable
and impulsive personality, and (4) the
phlegmatic, a calm, slow and imperturbable character trait.
As quaint as this theory may seem, Hippocrates’ theories have been revived in the
modern linkage of biochemistry with behavior. His categories adequately describe
types of people that are as familiar today
as they were in the days of ancient
Athens.
A recent article in the Atlantic Monthly
had this to say about the subject:
Over the past decade modern genetics has
made research into temperament intellectually
acceptable again, though it is not well loved
in some circles, where it is regarded as a
right-wing theory of predestination. Even
those who study temperament can be defensive or vaguely apologetic about their findings. Lykken rolls his eyes over his reputation as a “biological fascist.” Jerome Kagan,
a Harvard developmental psychologist preeminent among temperament researchers, and
the author of the recently published Galen's
Prophecy: “Temperament in Human Nature,”
observes, 2 “Because of my training, politics, and values, in my work I once muted the
power of biology and maximized the environment's.” Twenty years ago, when he observed a shy toddler, Kagan saw a child influenced by unpleasant social experience; today he sees one who has a certain type of
neurochemistry. “I have been dragged, kicking and screaming, by my data to acknowledge that temperament is more powerful than
I thought and wish to believe,” he says.
“That's where I am, not out of prejudice but
out of realism.”
Scientists are just beginning to develop
the technology that allows them to look
into neurotransmitters. These are the
2 “How We Become What We Are,” by Winifred
Gallagher,The Atlantic Monthly, September 1994
October 1994
brain's chemical agents of communication,
impulses that are translated into patterns of
behavior. The idea that our personality involves our biological as well as our social
heritage rests on two types of research:
At the University of Minnesota's Center for
Twin and Adoption Research and elsewhere,
scientists have established certain traits as
genetically rooted by comparing the characteristics of pairs of identical and fraternal
twins who have been reared together or
adopted separately in infancy and raised apart;
the relatively few observed differences in the
identicals' personalities must be caused by
environment. In longitudinal studies Kagan
and others monitor developmental changes in
their subjects from infancy in order to search
for the biopsychological consistencies that
suggest temperamental origins ... some of
the most important, if indirect, insights into
human temperament come from classical nature-nurture experiments in which generations of animals are selectively bred for particular traits and then closely monitored in
different settings. The research psychologists
Stephen Suomi, of the National Institute for
Child Health and Human Development, and
J. D. Higley, of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have produced
strains of rhesus monkeys that are variously
inhibited, uninhibited, or aggressive, and
have then tracked their neurobiology through
their neurotransmitters' metabolites, or end
products, in cerebrospinal fluid. “When you
observe groups of primates, they look a lot
alike initially,” Higley says. “Within a few
minutes, though, you identify the solitary,
inhibited one, who peeks at you around a
corner, and the bold one, who leaves the
group and approaches in hopes of a treat. Our
monkeys show big differences in these traits,
which tend to be the most enduring ones in
humans as well.” 3
The article goes on to show that evi3 “How We Become What We Are,” by Winifred Gallagher, The Atlantic Monthly, September 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
page 154
CAN LEADERSHIP QUALITIES BE GENETICALLY INHERITED?
dence from the twin studies and the subjects' family histories convinced Kagan
that the inhibited and uninhibited natures
begin with genes. When scientists compare personalities, their estimates of how
much of the variety among individuals is
due to biology and how much is due to
learning differs widely, from 20 to 80
percent One study suggests that 40 percent of the difference in inhibition among
a group of middle-class children depended
on genes.
“To ask what proportion of personality
is genetic rather than environmental is like
asking what proportion of a blizzard is
due to cold temperature rather than humidity," Kagan says. “The same loud noise
that scares an inhibited child will intrigue
an uninhibited one.”
The genetic impact upon our personalities is just beginning to get scientific attention. Even so, human beings have a lot of
control over their moods and talents.
"This biological-predisposition business
has become ridiculous," Kagan says.
"Even if there's a genetic component to a
person's behavior, that doesn't mean he
has no control over it . . . many scientists
hope to win the Nobel Prize for finding
the circuit in the brain responsible for the
fact that I can start to do something and
then stop," he says. "That's will, which is
a special quality of homo sapiens that allows us to control our behavior––and it's
part of nature."
What makes for a leader in the first
place? Some of history’s most distinguished western block leaders have all belonged to the same genetic pool––Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln (with some
debate), Roosevelt, and Churchill. All but
Lincoln were born into money and socially acceptable circles. This environmental
asset undoubtedly played an important
part in boh their culturing and their subsequent success as leaders.
Since the time of Pericles, most have
subscribed to the theory that a leader is a
October 1994
superior person and the subjects are inferiors. The superior person notion assumes
that the leader is indeed superior, more
disciplined, stronger, and better organized
than the average citizen. This theory reached its peak with the absolute powers of
ruling monarchs. As democracy began its
long ascendancy, the superior person theory was replaced with the notion that a
good leader carries out the will of the people. In the modern version, the leader has
been reduced to the role of a salesman
who treats the followers as customers.
These “customers” buy the leader’s point
of view after these views have been tailored and fitted for popular acceptance by
the leader and his advisory group.
Of course, leaders cannot exist without
followers. So what is it about a great leader that brings people to agree with a particular platform and replace their own viewpoint with the will of the leader?
Leaders and followers are but two aspects of the formula. Like a two-legged
chair, neither can stand alone. The missing
aspect is a common goal and the faith by
the follower that the leader will direct him
toward a place he wished to go.
All great leaders have constructed a
vision that fit the goals of the subjects––a
plan that fits the followers and takes them
to a place they want to be. Though the
successful leader may be the author of the
plan, only by careful observation of his
own time and the needs of the followers,
can such a plan be constructed.
For those descended from ancient kings,
and for many who are not, there may be a
sublimated desire to return to the old ways
of monarchy. It was, after all, a simpler
solution. But close inspection of the great
leaders, even in the old days, show that
great leadership is impossible without
great visions that can appeal to the followers. A certain democracy has always existed, especially in diplomatic and intellectual circles.
We must assume that the residual wealth
from ancient land endowments, class
The Plantagenet Connection
page 155
CAN LEADERSHIP QUALITIES BE GENETICALLY INHERITED?
structure, primogeniture, and the opportunities that these assets can purchase has
been the primary reason that so many
American presidents and other world leaders have a similar ancestry. I have serious
doubts that good leadership can be a
genetic quality. Old money has always
had the stuffy air of superiority attached to
it. Money alone cannot buy the creative
vision and intelligence that can persuade
vast groups to follow one man’s plan and
subordinate themselves to his ideals. But
today, it certainly can purchase the air time
and slick campaigns.
bles of the second year were ploughed into
the soil, then the second ploughing was
performed (called Falgen or Felgen). Finally after manuring it the Brache (fallow
land) was ploughed and then peasants
sowed. If arable land was not ploughed
during several years it could be used by
the whole village community as pasture
and could legally become common property after a given period of time.
Hartmut Erland
THREE FIELD FARMING
HUMOR
I have heard much about three field
farming, but once again, I do not know
when this advance took place. Can
someone provide me with an approximation as to when this advance took place?
Also, does anyone know where it occurred and how it traveled across Europe?
Joe Wesvic
Where Germanic people settled arable
land was devided into three parts and that
was obviously the beginning of the three
field farming. They called the divisions
Fluren. So the Saxons called one of these
arable Fluren Koppel (from there the synonym Koppelwirtschaft (from French
couple) meaning Dreifelderwirtschaft).
The Thüringer called it Schlag and the Bavarians Zelge to mention a few. The three
field farming meant that all those fields
which belonged to one Flur were used periodically within three years for the same
succession of cultivation. So for two
years the Zelge, or the Schlag was used
for Winterfrucht (winter cereal), the second year for Sommerfrucht (summer cereal) and the third year nothing was grown
on it (fallow season?). The not used Land
was called Brache or Driesch. These fields
were ploughed three times. First the stubOctober 1994
CAMPING ALERT
In case anyone is considering doing
some camping, please note the following public service announcement:
In Alaska, tourists are warned to wear
tiny bells on their clothing when
hiking in bear country. The bells
warn most bears.
Tourists are also cautioned to watch
the ground on the trail, paying particular attention to bear droppings to
be alert for the presence of Grizzly
Bears.
One can tell a Grizzly dropping because it has tiny bells in it.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 156
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF
AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
KennethHarper
Harper Finton
by-by
Kenneth
Finton
The genetic pool that produced the ruling classes from the most ancient of times is
still producing many of our world leaders and politicians. In America, many presidents
have descended directly from European royalty. Some of these men trace their relation
to these monarchs through many different lines.
In his book, Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts wrote:
“Totals: nineteen presidents, forty separate immigrants, eight lines from
Edward III, King of England, d. 1377; sixteen lines from Edward I, King of
England, d. 1307; one line from John, King of England, d. 1216; two lines
from Henry II, King of England, d. 1189; five lines from Henry I, King of
England, d. 1135; two lines from James II, King of Scotland, d. 1460; one line
from James I, King of Scotland, d. 1437; one line from Robert III, King of
Scotland, d. 1406; one line from Robert II, King of Scotland, d. 1390; two lines
from William I, King of Scotland, d. 1214; two lines from Henry I, King of
France, d. 1060; two lines fom Hugh Capet, King of France, d.996; three lines
from Louis IV, King of France, d. 954; one line from the Welsh Prince,
Rhywallon of Powys , d. 1070; for a total of forty-seven in all.
“The best lines for seven presidents (Washington, Jefferson, J.Q. Adams,
Taylor, the two Roosevelts and Nixon) are from Edward III, King of England, d.
1377 (with F.D. Roosevelt also from James II, King of England, d. 1460; and
T. Roosevelt from James I, King of Scotland, d. 1437); the best line for eight
presidents (Madison, the two Harrisions, Cleveland, Coolidge, Hoover, Ford,
and Bush) are from Edward I, King of England, d. 1307; the best line for Pierce
is from Henry I, King of England, d. 1135; the best line from Buchanan is from
Robert III, King of Scotland, d. 1406; the best line for Hayes is from Henry I,
King of France, d. 1060; and the best line for Taft is from Louis IV, King of
France, d. 954.”
George Washington, 1st President of the United States
Both George Washington and his wife, Martha Dandridge Custis, trace their descent
from European royalty through many lines.
(1) Edward I = Margaret of France
|
(2) Edmund of Woodstock = Margaret Wake
|
(3) Joan Plantagenet = Thomas Holand
|
(4) Thomas Holand = Alice FitzAlan
|
(5) Eleanor Holand = Edward Cherlton
|
(6) Joyce Cherlton = John Tiptoft (Tibetot)
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
page 157
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
|
(7) Joyce Tiptoft = Sir Edmund Sutton (or Dudley)
|
(8) Sir John Sutton = _______ Charroll
|
(9) Margaret Sutton = John Butler
|
(10) William Butler = Margaret Greeke
|
(11) Margaret Butler = Lawrence Washington
|
(12) Lawence Washington = Amphyllis Twigden
|
(13) John Washington of VA.= Anne Pope
|
(14) Lawrence Washington = Mildred Warner
|
(15) Augustine Washington = Mary Ball
|
(16) George Washington = Martha Dandridge Custis
Washington’s ancestors, through Mary Townley Warner, can also tbe traced to William the Lion, King
of Scotland, d.1214.
Sources: Burke’s Landed Gentry of Great Britain, 1939 edition. Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd
Roberts.
George Washington is also an eighth cousin, six times removed, to Sir Winston Churchill, through
Robert Kytson of Warton, Lancashire. (1) Robert Kytson, wife’s name unknown (2) Sir Thomas
Kytson = Margaret Kytson (3) Katherine Kytson = Sir John Spencer (4) Sir John Spencer = Mary
Catlyn (5) Robert Spencer = Margaret Willoughby (6) William Spencer = Lady Penelope Wriothesley
(7) Henry Spencer = Lady Dorothy Sydney (8) Robert Spencer = Lady Anne Digby (9) Charles Spencer
= Lady Anne Churchill (daughter and co-heiress of the 1st Duke of Marlborough (10) Charles Spencer =
Elizabeth Trevor (11) George Spencer = Lady Caroline Russell (12) George Spencer Churchill = Lady
Susan Stewart (13) George Spencer-Churchill = Lady Jane Stewart (14) John Winston Spencer
Churchill = Lady Frances Anne Emily Vane (15) Lord Randoph Churchill = Jennie Jerome (16) Sir
Winston S. Churchill.
To George Washington, the list reads: (1) Robert Kytson. wife’s name unknown (2) Margaret
Kytson = John Washington (3) Lawrence Washington = Amy Pargiter (4) Robert Washington =
Elizabeth Light (5) Rev. Lawrence Washington = Margaret Butler (6) Rev. Lawrence Washington =
Amphyllis Twigden (7) Col. John Washington = Anne Pope (8) Capt. Lawrence Washington = Mildred
Warner (9) Captain Augustine Warner = Mary Ball (10) George Washington.
Source: Burke’s Presidential Families of the United States of America, 1975, Burke’s Peerage, Ltd., London.
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
page 158
SOME ROYAL ANCESTORS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESID
E
T SA L A N C ES T O R S OF P R E S ID E N T GE OR GE W A S H IN GS O M E RN
OY
TON
Henry III, King of England = Eleanor of Provence
Eleanor of Castile Edward
(1)
I = Marguerite
Edmund Crouchback = Blanche of
=
of France
Artois
Edward II = Isabella of France
Thomas of Brotherton
Henry, 3rd Earl of Lan= Alice Hayles caster = Maude de Chaworth
Edward III = Philippa of Hainault
Margaret = John de Se-Joan of Lancaster =
grave,
John de Mowbray,
4th Baron Segrave
3rd Baron Mowbray
John of Gaunt = Katherine Roet
Elizabeth de Segrave = John de Mowbray,
4th Baron Mowbray
Joan Beaufort = Robert Ferrers,
Eleanor Mowbray = John Welles, 5th Baron Welles
2nd Baron Ferrers
Mary de Ferrers = Ralph Neville
Eudo Wells = Maude de Greystock
John Neville = Elizabeth Newmarch
Joan Neville = Sir William Gascoigne
Lionel Welles = Joan Waterton
Margaret Welles = Sir Thomas Dymoke
Sir William Gascoigne = Margaret Percy
Sir Robert Dymoke = Jane Sparrow
Elizabeth Gascoigne = Sir George Talboys
Anne Talboys = Sir Edward Dymoke
Mildred Reade = Col. Augustine Warner
Frances Dymoke = Sir Thomas WindeMildred Warner = Capt. Lawrence
banke
Washington
Mildred Windebanke = Robert
Capt.
Augustine
Washington = Mary Ball
Reade
Col. George Reade = Elizabeth
Martiau
October 1994
George Washington
1st President of the United States of
America
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 159
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
Some Royal Ancestors of President George Washington
Henry III, King of England = Eleanor of Provence
Eleanor of Castile (1)Edward
=
I = MargueriteEdmund Crouchback = Blanche of Arof France
tois
Edward II = Isabella of France
Thomas of Brotherton
Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster
= Alice Hayles
= Maude de Chaworth
Edward III = Philippa of Hainault
Margaret = John de Segrave,
Joan of Lancaster =
4th Baron Segrave John de Mowbray,
3rd Baron Mowbray
John of Gaunt = Katherine Roet
Elizabeth de Segrave = John de Mowbray,
4th Baron Mowbray
Joan Beaufort = Robert Ferrers,
Eleanor Mowbray = John Welles, 5th Baron Welles
2nd Baron Ferrers
Mary de Ferrers = Ralph Neville
Eudo Wells = Maude de Greystock
John Neville = Elizabeth Newmarch
Joan Neville = Sir William Gascoigne
Lionel Welles = Joan Waterton
Margaret Welles = Sir Thomas Dymoke
Sir William Gascoigne = Margaret Percy
Sir Robert Dymoke = Jane Sparrow
Elizabeth Gascoigne = Sir George Talboys
Anne Talboys = Sir Edward Dymoke
Mildred Reade = Col. Augustine Warner
Frances Dymoke = Sir Thomas Windebanke
Mildred Warner = Capt. Lawrence Washington
Mildred Windebanke = Robert Reade
Col. George Reade = Elizabeth Martiau
October 1994
Capt. Augustine Washington = Mary Ball
George Washington
1st President of the United States of
America
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 159
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson’s descent has been traced back to Henry I, King of Engand’s illegitimate son, Robert of
Caen. (1) Henry I, King of England (2) Robert of Caen, illegitimate son of Henry, made the 1st
Duke of Gloucester = Mabel FitzHamon (3) Maud of Gloucester = Ranulph de Meschines, 2nd Earl of
Chester (4) Hugh Kevelioc, 3rd Earl of Chester (5) Amicia de Meschines (illegitimate) = Ralph de
Mainwaring (6) Bertrade de Mainwaring = Henry de Audley ((7) Emma de Audley =Gruffydd ap Madog,
Prince of Powys Fadog (8) Margaret ferch Gruffydd ap Madog = Sir John Arderne (9) Agnes Arderne =
Sir John Whetenhall (10) Margaret Whetenhall = Adam Bostock (11) Adam Bostock = Janet Bradshaw
(12) Sir Ralph Bostock = Isabel Lawton (13) Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables (14) Nicholas
Bostock = Catherine Mobberly (15) Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath (16) George Bostock = Joan
Horne (17) Joan Bostock = William Jennings (18) Thomas Jennings = Alice Bright (19) Catherine Jennings = William Branch (20) Lionel Branch = Valentia Sparkes (21) Christopher Branch of VA. = Mary
Addie (22) Christoper Branch, Jr. = _______ (23) Mary Branch = Thomas Jefferson (24) Thomas Jefferson, Jr. = Mary Field (25) Peter Jefferson = Jane Randolph (26) Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of
the United States = Martha Wayles Skelton.
Sources: GVFVM 1: 208-32 (Branch); W.H. Rylands, ed., The Four Visitations of Berkshire, Vol. 2, (HSPVS,
Vol. 57. 1908) pp. 76-78 (Bostock, Jennings); George Ormerod, History of the County Palantine & City of
Chester, 2nd Edition, 1982. Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts.
Jefferson is a cousin of George Washington through John Tibetot, 1st Baron Tiptoft. This line proceeds through (1) Henry II, King of England, (2) William de Longespee (illegitimate son of Henry
and Alix de Porhoet (?) (3) Stephen de Longespee = Emmeline de Riddleford (4) Emmeline de Longespee = Maurice FitzMaurice (5) Juliana FitzMaurice = Thomas de Clare (6) Margaret de Clare = Bartholomew Badlesmere, 1st Baron Badlesmere (7) Margaret Badlesmere = John de Tibetot, 2nd Baron Tibetot (8) Robert de Tibetot, 3rd Baron Tibetot = Margaret Diencourt (9) Elizabeth de Tibetot = Sir Philip
Despencer (10) Margery Despencer = Sir Roger Wentworth (11) Margaret Wentworth = Sir William
Hopton (12) Margaret Hopton = Sir Philip Booth (13) Audrey Booth = Sir William Lytton (14) Sir
Robert Lytton = Frances Cavalery (15) Anne Lytton = Sir John Borlase (16) Ann Borlase = Sir Eusuby
Isham (17) William Isham = Mary Brett (18) Henry Isham of VA. = Katherine Banks (19) Mary Isham
= William Randolph (20) Isham Randolph = Jane Rogers (21) Jane Randolph = Peter Jefferson (22)
Thomas Jefferson.
Sources: LDBR 5: 723-724; CP Tibetot (Tiptoft) & Badlesmere articles; AR 6 lines 200, 54, 178, 31, & 30. A
Survey of the Ishams in England and America, 1938, H.W. Brainerd. Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary
Boyd Roberts.
Edward III = Philippa of Hainault
John of Gaunt = Catherine Roet
Joan Beaufort = Ralph Neville
Edward Neville = Catherine Howard
Catherine Neville = Robert Tanfield
William Tanfield = Isabel Stavely
Francis Tanfield = Bridget Cave
October 1994
Elizabeth Vincent = Richard Lane
Anne Tanfield = Clement Vincent
Dorothy Lane = William Randolph
Richard Randoph = Elizabeth Ryland
William Randolph of VA. = Mary Isham
Isham Randolph = Jane Rogers
Jane Randoplh = Peter Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 160
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
James Madison
Madison descends in several lines: a line from
Henry II, King of England through William de
Longespee, Robert Holand, Sir John Savage, and
Martha Eltonhead of VA. From Ethelred II
(The Unready), his line is traced through the
Flemings,
Cansfields,
Haringtons,
and
Eltonheads. Through Edward I, King of
England, the line, though unproven, is through
Humprey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford and
Essex, Thomas Stanley, 1st Baron Stanley, and
Anthony Savage, the Virginia immigrant.
(1) Henry II
|
(2) William de Longespee = Ela of Salisbury
|
(3) Stephen de Longespee = Emmeline de
Riddleford
|
(4) Ela de Longespee = Sir Roger la Zouche
|
(5) Alan la Zouche = Eleanor de Segrave
|
(6) Maud la Zouche = Robert Holand
|
(7) Maud Holand = Sir Thomas Swinnerton
|
(8) Sir Robert Swinnerton = Elizabeth Beke
|
(9) Sir John Savage = Maud Swinnerton
|
(10) Sir John Savage = Eleanor Brereton
|
(11) Alice Savage = Sir Henry Bold
|
(12) Maud Bold = Thomas Gerard
|
(13) Jennet Gerard = Richard Eltonhead
|
(14) William Eltonhead = Anne Bowers
|
(15) Richard Eltonhead = Anne Sutton
|
(16) Martha Eltonhead of VA. = Edwin Conway
|
(17) Edwin Conway, Jr. = Elizabeth Thornton
|
October 1994
(18) Francis Conway = Rebecca Catlett
|
(19) Eleanor Rose Conway = James Madison
|
(20) James Madison, Jr. 4th U.S. President =
Mrs. Dorothea “Dolly” Payne Todd
John Adams / John Quincy Adams
(1) Edward III = Philippa of Hainault
|
(2) John of Gaunt = Katherine Roet
|
(3) Cardinal Henry Beaufort = Alice FitzAlan
(not married) Alice was married to John Cherlton,
4th Baron Cherlton of Powis
|
(4) Jane Beaufort (illegitimate daughter) =
Sir Edward Stradling
|
(5) Sir Henry Strading = Elizabeth Herbert
|
(6) Thomas Stradling = Janet Mathew
|
(7) Jane Stradling = Sir William Griffith
|
(8) Dorothy Griffith = William Williams
|
(9) Jane Williams = William Coytmore
|
(10) Rowland Coytmore = Mrs. Katherine Miles
Gray of MA..
|
(11) Elizabeth Coytmore = William Tyng
|
(12) Anna Tyng = Thomas Shepard, Jr.
|
Anna Shepard = Daniel Quincy
|
John Quincy = Elizabeth Norton
|
Elizabeth Quincy = William Smith, Jr.
|
Abigail Smith = John Adams, Jr. , 2nd U.S.
President
|
John Quincy Adams, 6th U.S. President =
Louisa Catherine Johnson
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 161
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
James Monroe
Edward III = Philippa of Hainault
Elizabeth Mure (1)=
Robert II, King of Scotland =
Euphemia Ross (2)
John of Gaunt = Katherine Roet
Robert III,
King of Scotland
= Annabelle
Drummond
John Beaufort = Margaret de
Holand (descended from Edward I)
Lady Joan Beaufort = James I, King of Scotland
James II
= Marie of Gueldres
Anabelle of Scotland
= George Gordon
James III
Alexander Gordon
= Margaret of Denmark = Lady Jean Stewart
James IV
Lady Margaret Stewart
(natural daugther
=
Robert , Duke of Albany
= Muriella Keith
Lady
Egidia Stewart =
Sir William Douglas
Lady Marjory Stewart =
Sir Duncan Campbell
Egidia Douglas
=Henry Sinclair
Archibald Campbell = ElizaWiliam Sinclair
beth Somerville
= Marjory Sutherland
Colin Campbell = Isabel
Stewart
Lady Eleanor Sinclair =
John Stewart (son of
Joan Beaufort and
King James II
Archibald Campbell = Lady
Elizabeth Stewart
John Gordon
Lady Mary Campbell = John Stewart
2nd Earl of Atholl
George Gordon = Lady Elizabeth Keith
Lady Elizabeth Gordon =
John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Atholl = Grizel Rattray
John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl
Lady Elizabeth Stewart = Hugh Fraser
Margaret Fraser = James Cumming
William Monroe = Margaret Bowcock
Janet Cumming = Rev. Alexander Munro
Andrew Monroe = Christian Tyler
Agnes Munro = David Monroe
Spence Monroe = Elizabeth Jones
Andrew Monroe = Elizabeth Alexander
James Monroe,
5th U.S. President
Source: Burke’s Presidential Families of the United States of America, 1975, Burke’s Peerage Ltd., London.
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 162
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
William Henry Harrison
Benjamin Harrison
(1) Edward I = Eleanor of Castile
|
(2) Elizabeth Plantagenet = Humphrey de Bohun
|
(3) Margaret de Bohun = Hugh Courtenay
|
(4) Elizabeth Courtenay = Sir Andrew Luttrell
|
(5) Sir Hugh Luttrell = Catherine Beaumont
|
(6) Elizabeth Luttrell = John Stratton
|
(7) Elizabeth Stratton = John Andrews
|
(8) Elizabeth Andrews = Thomas Windsor
|
(9) Andrews Windsor = Elizabeth Blount
|
(10) Edith Windsor = George Ludlow
|
(11) Thomas Ludlow = Jane Pyle
|
(12) Gabriel Ludlow = Phyllis _____
|
(13) Sarah Ludlow of VA. = John Carter
|
(14) Robert “King” Carter = Elizabeth Landon
|
(15) Anne Carter = Benjamin Harrison IV
|
(16) Benjamin Harrison V (signer of the Declartion of Independence) = Elizabeth Bassett
|
(17) William Henry Harrison, 9th U.S.
President
= Anna Tuthill Symmes
|
(18) John Scott Harrison = Elizabeth Ramsey Irwin
|
(19) Benjamin Harrison, 23rd U.S. President
= (1) Caroline Lavinia Scott
= (2) Mrs. Mary Scott Lord Dimmick
York & Connecticut, 1964. Ancestors of American
Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts.
[The Harrisons may also be traced to
Hugh Capet, King of France.]
Zachary Taylor
(1) Edward III = Philippa of Hainault
|
(2) John of Gaunt = Katherine Roet
|
(3) Joan Beaufort = Ralph Neville
|
(4) George Neville = Elizabeth Beauchamp
|
(5) Sir Henry Neville = Joanna Bourchier
|
(6) Richard Neville = Anne Stafford
|
(7) Dorothy Neville = Sir John Dawney
|
(8) Anne Dawney = Sir George Conyers
|
(9) Sir John Conyers = Agnes Bowes
|
(10) Eleanor Conyers = Lancelot Strother
|
(11) William Strother = Elizabeth _____
|
(12) William Strother of VA. = Dorothy ____
|
(13) William Strother, Jr. = Margaret Thornton
|
(14) Francis Strother = Susannah Dabney
|
(15) William Strother = Sarah Bayly
|
(16) Sarah Dabney Strother = Richard Taylor
|
(17) Zachary Taylor, 12th U.S. President =
Margaret Mackall Smith
Sources: Colonial Families of the United States of
America, George Mackenzie, Vol. 5, 1915, reprint
1966, pp. 492-93. Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts.
Sources: Colonial Families of Long Island, New
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 163
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
Franklin Pierce
(1) Henry I,
King of England
|
(2) Robert of Caen (illegitimate) = Mabel FitzHamon
|
(3) William FitzRobert
|
(4) Mabel (illegitimate) = Gruffydd ab Iforbach
|
(5) Hywel Felyn = Sara le Sore
|
(6) Madog = Iwerydd
|
(7) Joan = Dafydd
|
(8) Goleuddyeld = Rhys LLyd ab Adam ap Rhys
|
(9) Gwilym = Margred
|
(10) Gwenllian - Jenkin Guner
|
(11) Margred Gunter = Roger
|
(12) John = Maude Aubrey
|
(13) Alice = Owain
|
(14) Gruffydd Bowen = Anne Berry
|
(15) Philip Bowen = Elizabeth Vaughn
|
(16) Francis Bowen = Ellen Franklyn
|
(17) Griffith Bowen of MA.,
= Margaret Fleming
|
(18) Henry Bowen = Elizabeth Johnson
|
(19) John Bowen = Hannah Brewer
|
(20) Abigail Bowen = Caleb Kendrick
|
(21) Benjamin Kendrick = Sarah Harris
|
(22) Anna Kendrick = Benjamin Pierce, Jr.
October 1994
|
(23) Franklin Pierce, 14th U.S. President =
Jane Means Appleton
Another line for Pierce comes through
the same Celtic ancestry as James Buchanan, making them distant cousins:
James Buchanan
(unproven)
(1) Robert III
KIng of Scotland = Annabelle Drummond
|
(2) Mary Stewart = Sir William Edmonstone
|
(3) Sir William Edmonstone = Matilda Stewart
|
(4) Sir Archibald Edmonstone = Janet Shaw
|
(5) Margaret Edmonstone = George Buchanan of
that Ilk
|
(6) Janet Buchanan = Thomas Buchanan of Carbeth
|
(7) John Buchanan of Gartincaber = ____
|
(8) George Buchanan of Gartincaber = Elizabeth
Leckie
|
(9) John Buchanan of Blairlusk = _____
|
(10) George Buchanan of Blairlusk = Elizabeth
Mayne
|
(11) Thomas Buchanan of Ramelton = _____
|
(12) ____ Buchanan = ______
|
(13) John Buchanan of Ramelton = Jane Russell
|
(14) James Buchanan of PA. = Elizabeth Speer
|
(15) James Buchanan, Jr..
15th U.S. President, unmarried.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 164
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
Edward I, King of England = Eleanor of Castile
Eleanor of England = Henri III Count of
Bar
Eleanor of Bar = Llwelyn ab Owen,
Lord of South Wales
(marriage is disputed)
Thomas ap Llwelyn = Eleanor
d/o Philip ab Ivor
Helen of Iscoed = Gruffyd Fychan
II
Lord of Glyndyfrdwy
Robert ap Lewis
Evan ap Robert ap Lewis
Evan Evans
Cadwaladr Evans, immigrated
to Philadephia
Sarah Evans* = John Hanks
of Whitemarsh, PA.
Lowri ferch Gruffydd
(sister of the celebrated Owen Glendower)
= Robert Puleston
John Hanks, Jr.
Joseph Hanks = Nancy Shipley
John Puleston = Angharad Hammer
Nancy Hanks = Thomas Lincoln
Margaret Puleston = Dafydd ab Ieuan ab Einion
Einion ap Daydd
Abraham Lincoln
16th U.S. President
m Mary Ann Todd
Llywelyn an Einion
Sources:Burke’s Presidential
Families of the United States
of America,1975, Burke’s
Peerage, Ltd. London.
Cathrine ferch Griffith = Edward ab Leuan
Griffith ap Llwelyn
* Note: This genealogy is disEllen ferch Griffith = Lewis ap Griffith puted. There is lack of proof
that the Sarah Evans who married John Hanks is the same
woman whose ancestry traces
to Edward.
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 165
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
Rutherford B. Hayes
(1) Henry I
King of France = Anne of Kiev
|
(2) Hugh Magnus = Adelaide of Vermandois
|
(3) Isabel of Vermandois = Robert de Beaumont
|
(4) Isabel de Beaumont = Gilbert de Clare
|
(5) Richard de Clare (Strongbow) = Eve of Leinster (of ancient Irish lineage)
|
(6) Isabel de Clare = William Marshall
|
(7) Eva Marshall = William de Broase
|
(8) Eva de Broase = William de Cantilupe
|
(9) Milicent de Cantilupe = Eudo la Zouche
|
(10) Elizabeth la Zouche = Nicholas Poyntz
|
(11) Hugh Poyntz = Margaret (Pavely?)
|
(12) Nicholas Poyntz = Eleanor (Erleigh)
|
(13) Margaret Poyntz = John de Newburgh
|
(14) John Newburgh = Joan Delamere
|
(15) John Newburgh = Alice Carent
|
(16) Thomas Newburgh = Alice _____
|
(17) Walter Newburgh = Elizabeth Birport
|
(18) Richard Newborough = Elizabeth Horsey
|
(19) Richard Newberry = Grace Matthew
|
(20) Thomas Newberry of MA. = Jane ____
|
(21) Rebecca Newberry = John Russell
|
(22) Samuel Russell = Abigail Whitling
|
(23) John Russell = Sarah Trowbridge
October 1994
|
(24) Rebecca Russell = Ezekiel Hayes
|
(25) Rutherford Hayes = Chloe Smith
|
(26) Rutherford Hayes, Jr. = Sophia Birchard
|
(27) Rutherford Birchard Hayes,
19th U.S. President = Lucy Ware Webb
President Hayes ancestors may also be
traced to Hugh Capet, King of France
through the Trowbridge family of Connecticut. The de Clares, long the richest
family in England, were descendants of
Capet.
Sources: Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary
Boyd Roberts. Newberry Genealogy, Gardner Bartlett, 1914.
James Abram Garfield
(1) Henri I = Anne of Russia
King of France
|
(2) Hugh the Great = Adele of Vermandois
|
(3) Isabelle of Vermandois = William de Warren
(2nd Earl of Surrey)
|
(4) Reginald de Warren = Alice de Wirmgay
|
(5) William de Warren = Beatrix de Perepoint
|
(6) Reginald de Warren = Aldelia de Mowbray
|
(7) Sir John Warren
|
(8) Sir Edward Warren
|
(9) Sir Edward de Warren
|
(10) Sir John de Warren
|
(11) Nicholas de Warren
|
(12) Sir Lawrence de Warren
|
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 166
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
(13) John de Warren
|
(14) Sir Lawrence de Warren
|
(15) William Warren
|
(16) John Warren
|
(17) John Warren
|
(18) Christopher Warren
|
(19) William Warren
|
(20) Christopher Warren
|
(21) John Warren of Watertown, MA (1630)
|
(22) Mary Warren = John Bigelow
|
(23) Joshua Bigelow = Elizabeth Flagg
|
(24) Mercy Bigelow = Thomas Garfield
|
(25) Thomas Garfield = Rebecca Johnson
|
(26) Solomon Garfield = Sarah Stimson
|
(27) Thomas Garfield = Asenath Hill
|
(28) Abram Garfield = Elizabeth Ballou
|
James Abram Garfield = Lucretia Rudolph
20th President of the United States
(Note: There is some dispute among genealogists
as to whether Garfield is actually descended from
Henri of France. Through the Ballou line, another
descent can be traced to Rhys ap Tewdwr King of
Deheubarth (d 1093).
Source: Burke’s Presidential Families of the United
States of America, 1975, Burke’s Peerage Ltd., London.
|
(2) Joan Plantagenet = Gilbert de Clare
|
(3) Margaret de Clare = Hugh de Audley
|
(4) Margaret de Audley = Ralph Stafford
|
(5) Katherine Stafford = Sir John Sutton
|
(6) Sir John Sutton = Jame _____
|
(7) Sir John Sutton = Constance Blount
|
(8) John Sutton = Elizabeth Berkeley
|
(9) Jane Sutton = Thomas Mainwaring
|
(10) Cecily Mainwaring - John Cotton
|
(11) Sir George Cotton = Mary Onley
|
(12) Richard Cotton = Mary Mainwaring
(also descended several times from Edward I)
|
(13) Frances Cotton = George Abell
|
(14) Robert Abell of MA. = Joanna ____
|
(15) Caleb Abell = Margaret Post
|
(16) Experience Abell = John Hyde
|
(17) James Hyde = Sarah Marshall
|
(18) Abiah Hyde = Aaron Cleveland
|
(19) William Cleveland = Margaret Falley
|
(20) Richard Falley Cleveland = Anne Neal
|
(21) Stephen Grover Cleveland
22nd and 24th U.S. President =
Frances Folsom
Grover Cleveland
(1) Edward
King of England = Eleanor or Castile
October 1994
Sources: The Abell Family in America, 1940. Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 167
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
(1) James I
King of Scotland = Joan Beaufort
|
(2) Joan Stewart = James Douglas
|
(3) Janet Doulas = Patrick Hepburn
|
(4) Janet Hepburn = George Seton
|
(5) George Seton = Elizabeth Hay
|
(6) Beatrix Seton = Sir George Ogilvy of Dunlugas
|
(7) Janet Ogilvy = William Forbes of Tolquhon
|
(8) Thomas Forbes of Waterton = Jean Ramsay
|
(9) Grizel Forbes = John Douglas of Inchmarlo
|
(10) John Douglas of Tilquhillie = Agnes Horn
|
(11) Euphemia Douglas = Charles Irvine of Over
Boddam
|
(12) John Irvine of GA. = Ann Elizabeth Baillie
|
(13) Anne Irvine = James Bulloch
|
(14) James Stephen Bulloch = Martha Stewart
|
(15) Martha Bulloch = Theodore Roosevelt
|
(16) Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
26th U.S. President=
1. Alice Hathaway Lee
2. Edith Kermit Carow
of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts.
William Howard Taft
(1) Louis IV
King of France
=Gerberga (d/o Henry the Fowler)
|
(2) Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide
|
(3) Gerberga = Lambert, Count of Louvain
|
(4) Maud of Louvain = Eustace I
Count of Boulogne
(5) Lambert, Count of Lens = Adeliza of Normandy,
sister of William the Conqueror
|
(6) Judith of Lens = Waltheof II
|
(7) Matilda of Northumberland = Simon de St. Liz
|
(8) Matilda de St. Liz = Robert de Clare
|
(9) Walter Fitz Robert = Maud de Lucy
|
(10) Alice FitzWalter, sister of Robert Fitz Walter,
leader of te Magna Carta Barons, = Gilbert Pecche
|
(11) Hamon Pecche = Eve _____
|
(12) Gilbert Pecche = Joan de Creye
|
(13) Gilbert Pecche = Iseult ____
|
(14) Gilbert Pecche = Joan ____
|
(15) Katherine Pecche = Thomas Notbeam
|
Another line for Teddy Roosevelt pro(16) Margaret Notbeam = John Hinkley
ceeds through Kenneth Baillie, father of
|
Elizabeth Baillie, through the Mackenzies
(17) Cecily Hinkley = Henry Caldebeck
and the Stewarts to John Beaufort, son of
|
John of Gaunt, grandson to Edward III of
(18) Thomasine Caldeback = Thomas Underhill
England.
|
Sources: A History and genealogy of the Famlies
(19) Anne Underhill = Thomas Knighton
Bulloch & Stabo & Irvine of Cults, 1911. Ancestors
|
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 168
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
(20) Joan Knighton = Charles Bull
|
(21) Richard Bull = Alice Hunt
|
(22) Elizabeth Bull = John Lawrence
|
(23) Thomas Lawrence = Joan Antrobus of MA.
m (2) John Tuttle
|
(24) Jane Lawrence = George Giddings
|
(25) Joseph Giddings = Susanna Rindge
|
(26) Joseph Giddings Jr. = Grace Wardwell
|
(27) Susannah Giddings = William Torrey
|
(28) Joseph Torrey = Deborah Holbrook
|
(29) William Torrey = Anna Davenport
|
(30) Samuel Davenport Torrey = Susan Holman
Waters
|
(31) Louisa Maria Torrey = Alphonso Taft
|
(31) William Howard Taft
27th U.S. President = Helen Herron
Sources: The Visitation of Suffolk, Joan Corder,
ed.TheVisitation of Hertfordshire in 1634, 1896,
Bull. Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd
Roberts. Burke’s Presidential Families of the United
States of America, 1975, Burke’s Peerage Ltd., London.
Calvin Coolidge
(1) Edward I = Eleanor of Castile
King of England
|
(2) Joan Plantagenet = Gilbert de Clare
|
(3) Margaret de Clare = Piers de Gaveston
|
(4) Amy de Gaveston = John de Driby
|
(5) Alice de Dribney = Sir Anketil Malory
October 1994
|
(6) Sir William Malory = _____
|
(7) Margaret Malory = Robert Corbet
|
(8) Mary Corbet = Robert Charlton
|
(9) Richard Charton = Anne Mainwaring
|
(10) Anne Charlton = Randall Grosvenor
|
(11) Elizabeth Grosvenor = Thomas Bulkeley
|
(12) Edward Bulkeley = Olive Irby
|
(13) Sarah Bulkeley = Sir Oliver St. John
|
(14) Elizabeth St. John of MA. = Samuel Whiting
|
(15) Samuel Whiting, Jr. = Dorcas Chester
|
(16) Samuel Whiting III = Elizabeth Read
|
(17) Katherine Whiting = John Lane, Jr.
|
(18) Susanna Lane = Nathaniel Davis
|
(19) Nathaniel Davis, Jr. = Lydia Harwood
|
(20) Mary Davis = John Moor
|
(21) Hiram D. Moor = Abigail Franklin
|
(22) Victoria Josephine Moor = John Calvin Coolidge
|
(23) John Calvin Coolidge, Jr.
30th U.S. President
=Grace Anna Goodhue
Calvin Coolidge is also traced to Edward
I through his father, the immigrant being
Samuel Appleton of MA. This line proceeds through Welsh familes to Lowri
ferch Gruffydd Fychan, sister of Owen
Glendower, the famous Welsh rebel, a
line that is in common with Abraham Lincoln, making the two men distant cousins.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 169
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
Samuel Appleton’s wife, Judith Everard, (16) Anne Dudley, known as Mrs Anne Bradstreet,
traced her ancestors through the Cornish
poet, = Simon Bradstreet, Gov. of MA.
and Pecche families, so Coolidge and Taft
|
were cousins as well.
(17) Dudey Bradstreet = Anne Wood
Another line for Coolidge through Wil|
liam Goddard, immigrant, connects to the
(18) Margaret Bradstreet = Job Tyler
Goddards, the Giffords, and the Paulets,
|
through the Segraves and Thomas of
(19) Hannah Tyler = John Spofford IV
Brotherton, son of Edward I
|
Source:Burke’s Presidential Families of the United
States of America, 1975, Burke’s Peerage Ltd., London.
Herbert Hoover
(1) John
King of England
|
(2) Richard FitzRoy (illegitimate son of John and
___ de Warren) = Rohese of Dover
|
(3) Lorette de Dover = Sir William Marmion
|
(4) John Marmion = Isabel ____
|
(5) John Marmion = Maud Furnival
|
(6) Avice Marmion = John Grey
|
(7) Maud Grey = Sir Thomas Harcourt
|
(8) Sir Thomas Harcourt = Jane Franceys
|
(9) Sir Richard Harcourt = Edith St. Clair
|
(10) Alice Harcourt = William Bessiles
|
(11) Eizabeth Bessiles = Richard Fettiplace
|
(12) Anne Fettiplace = Edward Purefoy
|
(13) Mary Purefoy = Thomas Thorne
|
(14) Susanna Thorne = Roger Dudley
|
(15) Thomas Dudley, Gov. of MA. = Dorothy
Yorke
|
October 1994
(20) Phoebe Spofford = John Grout, Jr.
|
(21) Phoebe Grout = Jacob Winn III
|
(22) Endymia Winn = Thomas Sherwood
|
(23) Lucinda Sherwood = John Minthorn
|
(24) Theodore Minthorn = Mary Wasley
|
(25) Hulda Randall Minthorn = Jesse Clark
Hoover
|
(26) Herbert Clark Hoover
31st U.S. President = Lou Henry
Through Thomas Dudley, Governor of
MA., Hoover’s line proceeds directly to
Edward I through Joan Plantagenet, the
Staffords, the Suttons, the de Audleys and
the Dudleys.
Source: Burke’s Presidential Families of the United
States of America, 1975, Burke’s Peerage Ltd., London.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Sara Delano, FDR’s mother, was directly descended from Edward I of England and James II of
Scotland. James Roosevelt, her husband, was a direct descendant of Edward III.
(1) Edward III = Philippa of Hainault
KIng of England
|
(2) Lionel of Antwerp = Elizabeth de Burgh
|
(3) Philippa Plantagenet = Edmund Mortimer
|
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 170
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
(4) Elizabeth Mortimer = Henry “Hotspur” Percy
|
(5) Henry Percy = Eleanor Neville
|
(6) Henry Percy = Eleanor Poynings
|
(7) Anne Percy = Sir Thomas Hungerford
|
(8) Mary Hungerford = Edward Hastings
|
(9) Anne Hastings = Thomas Stanley
|
(10) Margaret Stanley = Robert Radcliffe
|
(11) Jane Radcliffe = Anthony Browne
|
(12) Hon. Anthony Browne = Mary Dormer
|
(13) Dorothy Browne = Edmund Lee
|
(14) Dorothy Lee = Sir John Temple
|
(15) Mary Temple = Robert Nelson
|
(16) John Nelson of MA. = Elizabeth Tailer
|
(17) Rebecca Nelson = Henry Lloyd
|
(18) Margaret Lloyd = William Henry Smith
|
(19) Rebecca Smith = John Aspinwall
|
(20) John Aspinwall, Jr. = Susan Howland
|
(21) Mary Rebecca Aspinwall = Isaac Roosevelt
|
(22) James Roosevelt = Sara Delano
|
(23) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
32nd U.S. President
= (Anna) Eleanor Roosevelt
Another line of descent from Edward I goes
through FDR’s mother from Humphrey Bohun
and Elizabeth Plantagenet. James Roosevelt descended through Edward’s daughter Joan and Gilbert de Clare as well.
Source: Burke’s Presidential Families of the United
October 1994
States of America, 1975, Burke’s Peerage Ltd., London.
Richard Milhous Nixon
(1) Edward III
King of England
= Phiippa of Hainault
|
(2) Edmund of Langley = Isabel of Castile
|
(3) Constance Plantagenet of York = Edmund de
Holand, descended from Edward I, not married .
|
(4) Eleanor Holand (illegitimate by Edmund Holand, 4th Earl of Kent) = James Touchet, 2nd Baron Audley
|
(5) Constance Touchet = Robert Whitney
|
(6) Eleanor Whitney = John Poleston
|
(7) Sir John Poleston = Gainor Roberts
|
(8) Jane Poleston = Rhys Thomas
|
(9) Gainor Thomas = Richard Pugh
|
(10) Elizabeth Pugh = Rowland Owen
|
(11) Thomas Owen = _____
|
(12) Harry Thomas Owen = _____
|
(13) Hugh Harry of PA. = Elizabeth Brinton
|
(14) John Harry = Frances ____
|
(15) Miriam Harry = Record Hussey
|
(16) Lydia Hussey = Jacob Griffith
|
(17) Amos Griffith = Edith Price
|
(18) Elizabeth Price Griffith = Joshua Vickers
Milhous
|
(19) Franklin Milhous = Almira Park Burdg
|
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 171
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
(20) Hannah Milhous = Francis Anthony Nixon
|
(21) Richard Milhous Nixon
37th U.S. President
= Thelma Catherine (Pat) Ryan
Sources: T.A. Glenn, Welsh Founders of Pennsylvania, Vol. 1, 1911. Ancestors of American Presidents,
Gary Boyd Roberts.
Note: Recent findings dispute the connection of
the Harry family (No. 13,14,& 15). It is now held
that this genealogy is inaccurate. See The American Genealogist, September 1994.
Gerald Rudolph Ford
(1) Edward I = Eleanor of Castile
King of England
|
(2) Joan Plantagenet = Gilbert de Clare
|
(3) Margaret de Clare = Hugh de Audley
|
(4) Margaret de Audley = Ralph Stafford
|
(5) Katherine Stafford = Sir John Sutton
|
(6) Sir John Sutton = Jane _____
|
(7) Sir John Sutton = Constance Blount
|
(8) John Sutton = Elizabeth Berkeley
|
(9) Eleanor Sutton = Sir Henry Beaumont
|
(10) Contsance Beaumont = John Mitton
|
(11) Joyce Mitton = John Harpersfield
|
(12) Edward Harpersfield (alias Mitton) = Anna
Skrimshire
(13) Katherine Mitton = Roger Marshall
|
(14) Elizabeth Marshall of Maine = Thomas Lewis of Maine
|
(15) Judith Lewis = James Gibbins
October 1994
|
(16) Hannah Gibbins = ____ Hibbert
|
(17) Mary Hibbert = Joseph Jewett
|
(18) Nathan Jewett = Deborah Lord
|
(19) David Jewett = Sarah Selden
|
(20) Elizabeth Jewett = Anselm Comstock
|
(21) Betsey Comstock = Daniel Butler
|
(22) George Selden Butler = Elizabeth Ely Gridley
|
(23) Amy Gridley Butler = George Manney Ayer
(24) Adele Augusta Ayer = Levi Addison Gardner
|
(25) Dorothy Ayer Gardner = (1) Leslie Lynch
King, (2) Gerald Rudolph Ford
|
(26) Gerald Rudolph Ford =Mrs. Elizabeth
Ann (Betty) Bloomer Warren
38th U.S. President
(named changed from Leslie Lynch King, Jr. to
Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr.)
Another line for President Ford through Thomas
Lewis is traced through the Welsh royal families
to Cynfyn, Prince of Powys. Ford is related to
Rutherford B. Hayes through Thomas Newberry of
MA., whose second wife was Jane _____. Their
daughter, Martha Newberry, married Daniel Clark,
one of whose descendants was Elizabeth Ely Gridley. Mrs. Gridley is traced then to Henry I, King
of France.
Source: Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary
Boyd
Roberts.
George Herbert Walker Bush
(1) Edward I
King of England
= Eleanor of Castile
|
(2) Joan Plantagenet = Gilbert de Clare
|
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 172
THE ROYAL ANCESTRY OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS
(3) Margaret de Clare = Piers de Gaveston
|
(4) Amy de Gaveston = John de Dribny
|
(5) Alice de Dribney = Sir Anketil Malory
|
(6) Sir William Malory = _____
|
(7) Margaret Malory = Robert Corbet
|
(8) Mary Corbet = Robert Charlton
|
(9) Richard Charton = Anne Mainwaring
|
(10) Anne Charlton = Randall Grosvenor
|
(11) Elizabeth Grosvenor = Thomas Bulkeley
|
(12) Edward Bulkeley = Olive Irby
|
(13) Rev. Peter Bulkeley of MA. = Jane Allen
|
(14) Edward Bulkeley = Lucian _____
|
(15) Peter Bulkeley = Rebecca Wheeler
|
(16) Rebecca Bulkeley = Johnathon Prescott. Jr.
|
(17) Able Prescott = Abigail Brigham
|
(18) Lucy Prescott (sister of Dr. Samuel Prescott
who completed Paul Revere’s “Midnight Ride,”
19 Apr 1775) = Jonathon Fay Jr.
|
(19) Samuel Prescott Phillips Fay = Harriet Howard
|
(20) Samuel Howard Fay = Susan Shellman
|
(21) Harriet Eleanor Fay = James Smith Bush
|
(22) Samuel Prescott Bush = Flora Sheldon
|
(23) Prescott Sheldon Bush, U.S. Senator = Dorothy Walker
|
(24) George Herbert Walker Bush
41st U.S. President
= Barbara Pierce
October 1994
The Bush family tree can be traced to Edward I,
King of England, through Mrs. Anne Marbury
Hutchinson. Though President Bush may regret it,
his ancestry is much the same as Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. Another line from Edward I is traced
through Richard Palgrave, another ancestor of
FDR’s as well. The Bush lineage follows from
Robert II, KIng of Scotland, through Robert Livingston the Elder. From William I (The Lion), his
ancestry proceeds through William’s illegitimate
daughter Isabel, who bore a child with Richard
Avenal. This line also proceeds to the Bulkeley
family.
From Henry I, King of England to Catherine
Hamby of MA., the line also proceeds to the Bush
family, much as FDR’s ancestry.
Sources: Donald Lines Jacobus, The Bulkely Genealogy, 1933, pp. 38-51, TAG 42 (1966): 129-135;
F.L. Weis The Families of Standish, Lancashire,
England, 1959, pp. 14-15, AR 6, line 170. Also
same as F.D. Roosevelt. The Ancestors of American
Presidents, Genealogical Pubishing Co, Gary Boyd
Roberts.
Anne Bradstreet
Mrs. Anne Bradstreet (1612-1672) was
one of the earliest poets in America (see
Herbert Hoover’s ancestry). Daughter of
Governor Thomas Dudley of Massachusetts, her husband, Simon Bradstreet,
also became governor.
When her poems were published in London in 1650, the publishers called her “The
Tenth Muse, lately sprung up from America.”
Her poetry was didactic and meditative,
not particulary bold nor stylish. She was
the mother of eight children whom she remembered in these domestic rhymes:
I had eight birds hatcht in the nest;
Four cocks there were,
and hens the rest.
I nursed them up with pain and care,
Nor cost nor labor did I spare:
Till at the last they felt their wing,
Mounted the trees, and learnt to sing.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 173
The Royal Ancestry of American Presidents
PRESIDENT
IMMIGRANT
ROYAL ANCESTOR
Washington, George
George Reade of VA
Edward III of England
Washington, George
John Washington of VA
Edward I of England
Jefferson, Thomas
William Randolph of VA
William I of Scotland
Jefferson, Thomas
Henry Isham of VA
Henry II of England
Jefferson, Thomas
Christopher Branch of VA
Henry I of England
Madison, James
Mrs. Martha Eltonhead Conway of VA
Henry II of England
Madison, James
Anthony Savage of VA
Edward I of England
Adams, John Quincy
Mrs. Elizabeth Coytmore Tyng of MA
Edward III of England
Harrison, William Henry
Mrs. Sarah Ludlow Carter of VA
Edward I of England
Harrison, Benjamin
Anthony Collamore of MA
Hugh Capet of France
Taylor, Zachary
William Strother of VA
Edward II of England
Taylor, Zachary
Anthony Savage of VA
Edward I of England
Pierce, Franklin
Griffith Bowen of MA
Henry I of England
Buchanan, James
James Buchanan of PA
Robert III of Scotland
Lincoln, Abraham
Cadwaladr Evans
Edward I of England
Hayes, Rutherford B.
Thomas Newberry of MA
Henry I of France
Hayes, Rutherford B.
Thomas Trowbridge of CT
Hugh Capet of France
Garfield, James Abram
John Warren of MA.
Henry I of France
Cleveland, Grover
Robert Abell of MA
Henry I of France
Roosevelt, Theodore
John Irvine of GA
James I of Scotland
Roosevelt, Theodore
Kenneth Baillie of GA
Edward III of England
Taft. William Howard
Mrs. Jane Lawrence Giddings of MA
Louis IV of France
Coolidge, Calvin
William Goddard of MA
Edward I of England
Coolidge, Calvin
Mrs. Elizabeth St. John Whiting of MAEdward I of England
Coolidge, Calvin
Samuel Appleton of MA
John of England
Coolidge, Calvin
Mrs. Judith Everard Appleton of MA
Louis IV of France
Hoover, Herbert
Gov. Thomas Dudley of MA
Edward I or John of England
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
John Nelson of MA
Edward III of England
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
James Murray of NC
James II of Scotand
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
Mrs. Barbara Bennet Murray of NC
James II of Scotand
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
Mrs. Elizabeth Coytmore Tyng of MA. Edward III of England
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
Mrs. Anne Marbury Hutchinson of RI
Edward I of England
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
Thomas Southworth of LI, NY
Louis IV of France
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
Richard Palgrave of MA
Edward I of England
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
Catherine Hamby Hutchinson of MA
Henry I of England
Roosevelt, Franklin D.
Thomas Lawrence of LI, NY
Hugh Capet & Louis IV of France
Nixon, Richard
Hugh Harry of PA
Edward III of England
Ford, Gerald
Mrs. Elizabeth Marshall Lewis of ME
Edward I of England
Ford, Gerald
Thomas Lewis of ME
Rhywallom, Prince of Powys
Bush, George
Mrs. Anne Marbury Huchinson of RI
Edward I of England
Bush, George
Richard Palgrave of MA
Edward I of England
Bush, George
Rev. Peter Bulkeley of MA
Edward I of England
Bush, George
Jane Allen Bulkeley
William I of Scotland
Bush, George
Robert Livingston of NY
Robert II of Scotland
Bush, George
Catherine Hamby Hutchinson of MA
Henry I of England
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 174
The Royal Ancestry of American Presidents
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 175
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
by Ron Collins
[Author’s note: This article is intended to show
what life was like during the time of the Plantagenets. I have collected a number of excerpts from
original sources from between the year 1154,
when Henry II Plantagenet ascended the throne,
and the year 1485, when Richard III lost it. These
excerpts from the 331 years of the Plantagenet
Dynasty give a flavor of what the living conditions were like for them.]
load every week for a half-penny [a year],
and a man's load weekly for a farthing.
THE SCOTTISH COUNTRYSIDE,
Fourteenth Century 2
Scotia, also, has tracts of land bordering
on the sea, pretty level and rich, with
green meadows, and fertile and productive
fields of corn and barley, and well adapted
for growing beans, pease and all other
produce; destitute, however, of wine and
oil, though by no means so of honey and
wax. But in the upland districts, and along
the highlands, the fields are less productive, except only in oats and barley. The
country is, there, very hideous, interspersed with moors and marshy fields,
muddy and dirty; it is, however, full of
pasturage grass for cattle, and comely with
verdure in the glens, along the watercourses. This region abounds in woolbearing sheep, and in horses, and its soil
is grassy, feeds cattle and wild beasts, is
rich in milk and wool, and manifold in its
wealth of fish, in sea, river and lake ...
Let us start with the physical layout of
the land. Much of England, France, Wales
and Scotland were still covered by deep
forests of oak, ash––and, in the highlands,
conifers. Small towns and villages dotted
the landscape, mostly near rivers and bodies of water, or within the tillable meadows between the forests. The main cities,
and the main roads connecting the cities,
were those established by the Romans a
thousand years earlier.
The great forests were the special hunting preserves of the nobility. A man could
be hung if caught poaching his lord's
game or collecting firewood from his
lord's forest. Sometimes, as the first of
the two excerpts below indicates, the financial needs of the lord allowed the comInside the towns, the homes were
mon man to make use of these great natu- mainly wood and thatch. Only the richest
ral resources.
could afford to build in stone. The homes
were packed close together for two reaTOWN AND FOREST, 1253 1
sons: first they tended to physically support one another with common walls; secThe jury say, upon oath that the forest of ond, the land of a town dedicated to flocks
Leicester was so great and thick and wide or tillable fields was so valuable that the
that a man could scarce go by the wood- homes were packed close to occupy as litways for the multitude of dead wood and tle of the usable land as possible. As a rewind-fallen boughs; and then, by assent sult of this close packing, fires were a
and will of the Earl and his council, it was constant menace. In time, the cities forced
granted that all might fetch dead wood at home builders to replace thatch with tile
six cartloads for a penny, and a horse- and woodframe with stone. These zoning
load
laws first began in London. The story fol1 Leicester Records, Charles Bemont, Simon de
Montfort.
October 1994
2 John Fordun, Chronicles of the People of Scotland, translated by F. J. H. Skene, Historians of
Scotland.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 175
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
lowing is from this transition period.
TOWN AND FIRE, 1302 3
Thomas Bat came before John le Blund,
Mayor of London, and the Aldermen, and
bound himself, and all his rents, lands,
and tenements, to keep the City of London
indemnified from peril of fire and other
losses which might arise from his houses
covered with thatch, in the Parish of St
Laurence Candelwykstrete; and he agreed
that he would have the said houses covered with tiles about the Feast of Pentecost
then next ensuing. And in case he should
not do the same, he granted that the
Mayor, Sheriffs, and bailiffs, of London,
should cause the said houses to be roofed
with tiles out of the issues of his rents
aforesaid.
Sewers, as we know, them did not exist
anywhere. Nor were there any enforced
ordinances concerning the keeping of livestock within a city or town. In an age with
no refrigeration, having your meat supply
alive until you were ready to consume it
was the only alternative. Slowly, the practice of buying meat freshly-dressed, from
a butcher, was forced upon urban dwellers, as town ordinances against animals
were enforced. The presence of animals
and animal by-products, on top of the lack
of sewers for human wastes, certainly
must have given the air in cities a certain
miasma during the hot days of summer.
The excerpt below gives you a sense of
the sanitation situation.
and put in Ditches, Rivers and other Waters, and also within many other Places,
within, about and nigh unto divers Cities,
Boroughs, and Towns of the Realm, and
the suburbs of them, that the air is greatly
corrupt and infect, and many Maladies and
other intolerable Diseases do daily happen,
as well to the Inhabitants, and those that
are conversant in the said Cities, Boroughs, Towns and Suburbs, as to others
repairing and travelling thither, to the great
Annoyance, Damage and Peril of the Inhabitants, Dwellers, Repairers and Travellers aforesaid: It is accorded and assented, That Proclamation be made as well in
the City of London, as in other Cities,
Boroughs, and Towns through the Realm
of England, where it shall be needful, as
well within Franchises as without, that all
they which do cast and lay all such Annoyances, Dung, Garbages, Intrails, and
other Ordure in Ditches, Rivers, Waters,
and other Places aforesaid, shall cause
them utterly to be removed, avoided, and
carried away betwixt this and the Feast of
St Michael next ensuing after the end of
this present Parliament, every one upon
Pain to lose and forfeit to our Lord the
King L20.
The sanitation situation exacerbated the
already persistent problem of chronic epidemics. The gruesome tale of the effect of
the Bubonic Plague on Europe is given
very well in Barbara Tuchman's A Distant
Mirror. Between a third and a half of Europe was exterminated by the plague during the fourteenth century. The plague
swept through Europe in three major re4
occurrences and who knows how many
TOWN SANITATION, 1388
local breakouts. The census figures of
For that so much Dung and Filth of the towns and counties in England taken beGarbage and Intrails as well of Beasts fore and after one of the last breakouts of
killed, as of other Corruptions, be cast the plague illustrates what devastation our
ancestors survived.
3 H. T. Riley, Memorials of London.
4 Statutes of the Realm (1810-1828), Vol. II, translation, G. G. Coulton, Social Life in Britain from the
Conquest to the Reformation
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 176
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
POPULATION OF SOME ENGLISH
TOWNS AND COUNTIES
IN THE REIGN OF RICHARD II.
Figures are taken from the Poll Tax Returns in 1377 and
1381.
TOWNS
Bath
Bury St Edmunds
Bristol
Cambridge
Canterbury
Chichester
Colchester
Coventry
Exeter
Gloucester
Lincoln
London
Newcastle-on-Tyne
Northampton
Oxford
Shrewsbury
Southampton
1377
1,902
570
2,445
6,345
2,574
869
2,995
4,817
1,560
2,239
3,412
23,314
2,647
1,477
2,357
2,082
1,152
1381
1,739
297
1,334
5,662
2,123
787
1,609
3,974
1,420
1,446
2,196
20,397
1,819
1,518
2,005
1,618
1,051
Counties
Bedfordshire
Cornwall
Devonshire
Cumberland
Dorsetshire
Hampshire
Huntingdonshire
Lancashire
Middlesex
Norfolk
Northamptonshire
Rutland
Shropshire
Staffordshire
Suffolk
Surrey
Westmoreland
1377
20,339
34,274
45,635
11,841
34,241
33,241
14,169
23,880
11,243
88,797
40,225
5,994
23,574
21,465
58,610
18,039
7,389
1381
14,895
12,056
20,656
4,748
19,507
22,018
11,299
8,371
9,993
66,719
27,997
5,993
13,041
15,993
44,635
12,684
3,859
impression that there was a fair amount of
criminal activity to be concerned with if
you needed to leave your home, especially
at night or during holidays.
NO TOWN WANDERING IN THE
DARK, 1398 5
Memorandum: that on Maundy Thursday in the twenty-first year of the reign of
King Richard II, in the presence of the
mayor and community of the town, it was
ordered and agreed that no man of whatever condition dwelling within the borough of Wycombe is to go out wandering
in the town after ten o'clock at night, unless he has some reasonable cause for his
wandering; and if anybody should be
found so wandering after the hour aforesaid, he is at once to be taken and imprisoned by the town officers, and kept in
prison until he shall be released by the
mayor or his deputy and the community.
Item: it was ordained the same day and
year that nobody may play at dice in the
town under pain of imprisonment; and
also he who as host has received him shall
pay to the community 4Od
CHRISTMASTIDE, 1405 6
We do command and charge you ... that
you do order good and sufficient watch of
folks, properly armed and arrayed, to be
kept in your Ward every night during this
solemn Feast of Christmas; going always,
and passing, through all the streets and
lanes in your said Ward, in manner as
heretofore has been wont to be done. And
that no persons shall go in the said city, or
the suburbs thereof, with visors or false
faces, on the pain that awaits the same.
And that on the outside of every house that
Poll Tax Returns, as quoted in Powell The Ris- is upon the high streets and lanes of the
said city, every night during the solemn
ing in East Anglia in 1381
Feast aforesaid, a lantern shall be hung,
If the sanitation or the diseases didn't 5 The First Ledger Book of High Wycombe, editget you, then there was always your fel- ed by R. W. Greaves, Bucks. Record Society
low man. The two articles below give the 6 H. T. Riley, Memorials of London
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 177
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
with a lighted candle therein, the same to
burn so long as it may last; on pain of
paying fourpence to the Chamber of the
Guildhall, every time that default in such
light shall be made. And this you are in no
manner to omit.
Now that we have a feel for the physical
conditions of life during this time period,
what about family life? To start a family,
one must find a mate. The games and unromantic thoughts that can be found in today's dating process were also present in
the middle ages. First the courtship:
COURTING IN THE FIFTEENTH
CENTURY 7
The same day that I come to Northleach
on a Sunday before mattins from Burford
William Midwinter welcomed me and in
our communication he asked me if I were
in any way of marriage. I told him nay,
and he informed me that there was a
young gentlewoman whose father's name
is Lemryke and her mother is dead and
she shall inherit from her mother L40 a
year as they say in that country, and her
father is the greatest ruler and the richest
man in that country ... When I had packed
[the wool] at Camden and William Midwinter departed I came to Northleach
again to make an end of packing, and on
Sunday next after, the same man that William Midwinter brake first came to me and
told me that he had broken to his master
according as Midwinter desired him ...
and if I would tarry till May Day I should
have a sight of the young gentlewoman,
and I said I would tarry with a good will
... to mattins the same day come the
young gentlewoman and her mother-inlaw, and I and William Bretten were saying mattins when they come into church,
and when mattins were done they went to
a kinswoman of the young gentlewoman
and I sent to them a bottle of white romnay and they took it thankfully for they
7 The Cely Letters, quoted in J. J. Bagley, His-
torical Interpretation.
October 1994
had come a mile afoot that morning and
when mass was done I come and welcomed them and kissed them and they
thanked me for the wine and prayed me to
come to dinner with them, and I excused
me and they made me promise to drink
with them after dinner, and I sent them to
dinner a gallon of wine and they sent me a
roast heron, and after dinner I come and
drank with them and took William Bretten
with me and we had right good communication, and the person pleased me well, as
by the first communication she is young,
little and very well favoured and witty and
the country speaks much good by her. Sir,
all this matter abideth the coming of her
father to London that we may understand
what sum he will depart with and how he
likes me. He will be here within three
weeks. I pray send me a letter how you
think by this manner ... Writ at London on
the 13 day of May per Richard Cely.
Then the marriage:
MARRIAGE, 1220
8
Further we enjoin that marriages be decently celebrated, with reverence, not with
laughter and ribaldry, not in taverns or at
public drinkings and feastings. Let no man
place a ring made of rushes or of any
worthless or precious material on the hand
of a woman in jest that he may more easily
gain her favours lest in thinking to jest the
bond of marriage be tied. Henceforth let
no pledge of contracting marriage be given
save in the presence of a priest and of
three or four respectable persons summoned for the purpose.
There were many works done to instruct
women on how to be good wives. There
were significantly fewer books on instructing men on how to be good husbands. Either men needed less instruction,
or there was a slight gender bias. In fact,
8 Constitutions of Richard de Marisco, Bishop of
Durham, at the Council of Durham, 1220
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 178
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
gender bias was so prevalent during this
time period that the most chauvinistic male
Let us peek into that domain of man and
alive today would be considered dan- wife, the bedroom:
gerously liberal by men, but also by
women, the church and society in general,
BEDS, Twelfth Century 10
if he lived during this period. Here is one
of the rare male instructional pieces conIn the bedchamber let a curtain go acerning wives:
round the walls decently, or a scenic canopy, for the avoiding of flies and spiders ...
A tapestry should hang appropriately.
WIVES 9
Near the bed let there be placed a chair to
And son, if ye would have a wife, take which a stool may be added, and a bench
her not for her money, but inquire wisely nearby the bed. On the bed itself should be
of all her life, and give good heed that she placed a feather mattress to which a bolster
be meek, courteous and prudent, even is attached. A quilted pad of striped cloth
though she be poor; and such an one will should cover this on which a cushion for
do you more good service in time of need, the head can be placed. Then sheets of
muslin, ordinary cotton, or at least pure
than a richer.
And if your wife be meek and good, linen, should be laid. Next a coverlet of
and serve you well and pleasantly, look ye green cloth or of coarse wool, of which
be not so mad as to charge her too the fur lining is badger, cat, beaver, or
grievously, but rule her with a fair hand sable, should be put––all this if there is
and easy, and cherish her for her good lacking purple or down. A perch should
deeds. For a thing unskilfully overdone be nearby on which can rest a hawk ...
makes needless grief to grow, and it is From another pole let there hang
better to have a meal's meat of homely clothing... and let there be also a chamberfare with peace and quiet, than an hundred maid whose face may charm and render
dishes with grudging and much care. And tranquil the chamber, who, when she
therefore learn this well that if you want a finds time to do so may knit or unknit silk
wife to your ease, take her never the more thread, or make knots of orpryes [gold
for the riches she may have, though she lace], or may sew linen garments and
woollen clothes, or may mend. Let her
might endow you with lands.
And ye shall not displease your wife, have gloves with the finger tips removed;
nor call her by no villainous names, for it she should have a leather case protecting
is a shame to you to miscall a woman; and the finger from needle pricks, which is
in so doing, ye are not wise, but if ye de- vulgarly called a 'thimble'. She must have
fame your own wife, no wonder that scissors and a spool of thread and various
another should do so ! Soft and fair will sizes of needles – small and thin for embroidery, others not so thick for feather
tame alike hart and hind, buck and doe.
On the other hand, be not too busy to stitching, moderately fine ones for ordifight and chide, if thy wife come to you at nary sewing, bigger ones for the knitting
any time with complaint of man or child; of a cloak, still larger ones for threading
and be not avenged till you know the laces.
truth, for you might make a stir in the
Having a pretty maid hanging around a
dark, and afterwards it should rue you
modern bedroom may appeal to some
both.
9 “The Wise Man and his Son” in The Babees' Book
Medieval Manners for the Young Done into Modern
English from Dr. Furnivall's Texts , by Edith Rickert
October 1994
10 U. T. Holmes, Jr., Daily Living in the Twelfth
Century, based on the Observations of Alexander
Neckham.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 179
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
men, but few modern wives would go
along. Soon after the marriage comes the
next big event in a family's life––the children. Boys were written about more than
girls (more sex bias?). Then again, boys
are usually the target of some severe criticisms in the articles written about or for
them. The piece below illustrates that
maybe the girls, in not being written
about, got off lucky:
BOYS, Thirteenth Century
11
Boys have bad habits ... They care
nothing about the future at all and love
games and vanities. They refuse to attend
to what is profitable and useful. They value trifles as if they were important and regard important matters as if they were trifies or nothing at all. They like what is
bad for them. They make more fuss about
the loss of an apple or of a pear than of an
inheritance.
They have no memory for past kindness. They clamour and snatch greedily at
everything they see. They like the talk and
ideas of boys like themselves and shun the
company of the old. They do not keep a
secret but repeat tactlessly everything they
see or hear. They suddenly laugh, they
suddenly cry, they make a ceaseless noise
and endless chatter. They hardly shut up
for sleep. As soon as they have been
washed, they make themselves filthily dirty. They make violent resistance when
their mothers wash or comb them. They
only think of their own stomachs ... and
are scarcely out of bed before they demand food.
A BATH, c. 1460
12
If your lord wishes to bathe and wash
his body clean, hang sheets round the
roof, every one full of flowers and sweet
green herbs, and have five or six sponges
to sit or lean upon, and see that you have
one big sponge to sit upon, and a sheet
over so that he may bathe there for a
while, and have a sponge also for under
his feet, if there be any to spare, and always be careful that the door is shut. Have
a basin full of hot fresh herbs and wash
his body with a soft sponge, rinse him
with fair rosewater, and throw it over him;
then let him go to bed; but see that the bed
be sweet and nice; and first put on his
socks and slippers that he may go near the
fire and stand on his foot sheet, wipe him
dry with a clean cloth, and take him to bed
to cure his troubles.
A BATH OF BOILED HERBS,
c. 1460 13
Boil together hollyhock, mallow, wall
pellitory and brown fennel, danewort, St
John's wort, centaury, ribwort and camomile, heyhove, heyriff, herb-benet, bresewort, smallage, water speedwell, scabious, bugloss, and wild flax which is good
for aches––boil withy leaves and green
oats together with them, and throw them
hot into a vessel and put your lord over it
and let him endure it for a while as hot as
he can, being covered over and closed on
every side; and whatever disease,
grievance or pain ye be vexed with, this
medicine shall surely make you whole, as
Somehow, a discussion of boys and men say.
sanitation leads one to consider the bath.
When baths are referred to, it is not in
Personal hygiene is usually written
conjunction with boys however. It is the about as an exception rather than a rule.
lord of the manor who seems to attract 12
John Russell, Book of Nurture, from Edith Rickpieces concerning baths. I will leave it to
ert, The Babees' Book: Medieval Manners for the
your speculation as to why.
Young Done into Modern English from Dr. Furni11 Bartholomew the Englishman, translated by
John of Trevisa
October 1994
vall's Texts
13 John Russell, Book of Nurture
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 180
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Certainly, those civilizing items such as
deodorants, tooth paste, shampoos, and
mouthwash, did not exist. Going to
church on a warm Sunday morning with a
hundred of your neighbors must have
been a trial to the olfactory system. The
Welsh, by exception, seem to stand out.
HAIR AND TEETH, 1188
14
them out until they grow up. People in the
middle ages did just that. This practice
was for continued for various reasons.
Psychologist have suggested that death
due to disease and other factors was so
prevalent that parents traded children so
that they would not develop too much affection for the child who stood a good
chance of not living to the age of twenty.
This reduced the emotional pain of having
and then losing children, as often happened during this time period. Contemporary authors suggest a little of this loss,
but they also say that as the child grows
up, the social ties formed in the process of
maturing were the very ties you would
need for support later in life.
In the middle ages, there were no efficient means of travel nor a reliable communication system. You did not see your
neighbors of ten miles away very often.
The important people in your life were
your parents, your siblings, and cousins.
In the extended family, the act of growing
up in someone else's home becamea very
important lesson in long-term survival.
The extended family was an important
source of support. It was a source of potential mates for your children or
grandchildren. This networking was very
important between small towns and villages, within which most families were related. The extended family was a source of
new blood into the family line.
The men and women [of Wales] cut
their hair close round to the ears and eyes.
The women, after the manner of the
Parthians, cover their heads with a large
white veil, folded together in the form of a
crown.
Both sexes exceed any other nation in
attention to their teeth, which they render
like ivory, by constantly rubbing them
with green hazel and wiping with a woollen cloth. For their better preservation they
abstain from hot meats, and eat only such
as are cold, warm, or temperate. The men
shave all their beard except the moustaches (gemoboda). This custom is not recent but was observed in ancient and remote ages, as we find in the works of Julius
Caesar, who says 'The Britons shave every part of their body except their head and
upper lip;' and to render themselves more
active, and avoid the fate of Absalom in
their excursions through the woods, they
are accustomed to cut even the hair from
their heads; so that this nation more than
any other shaves off all pilosity
[hairiness]. Julius also adds, that the BriRELATIONS BETWEEN
tons, previous to an engagement, anointed
PARENTS AND CHILDREN 15
their faces with a nitrous ointment, which
gave them so ghastly and shining an apThe want of affection in the English is
pearance, that the enemy could scarcely strongly manifested towards their children;
bear to look at them, particularly if the for after having kept them at home till they
rays of the sun were reflected on them.
arrive at the age of 7 or 9 years at the utmost, they put them out, both males and
Back to life within the home – as those females, to hard service in the houses of
of us who have raised children through other people ... and few are born who are
the turbulent teenage years know––there exempted from this fate, for every one,
are times when you would like to ship however rich he may be, sends his children into the houses of others, whilst he, in
14
Gerald of Wales, Description of Wales, translated by Sir R. C. Hoare
October 1994
15 Italian Relation of England
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 181
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
return, receives those of strangers into his
own. And on enquiring the reason for the
severity, they answered that they did it in
order that their children might learn better
manners.
The other great room of the household
was the kitchen. In many homes then, as
now, the kitchen is often the center of the
household activities. The well-appointed
twelfth-century kitchen did not have the
labor saving devices of the modern kitchen. How many modern cooks, do you
suppose, would have a special area set
aside for entrails, bird pluckings and fish
pickling ...
KITCHENS, Twelfth Century
16
In a kitchen there should be a small table
on which cabbage may be minced, and
also lentils, peas, shelled beans, beans in
the pod, millet, onions, and other vegetables of the kind that can be cut up. There
should also be pots, tripods, a mortar, a
hatchet, a pestle, a stirring stick, a hook, a
cauldron, a bronze vessel, a small pan, a
baking pan, a meathook, a griddle, small
pitchers, a trencher, a bowl, a platter, a
pickling vat, and knives for cleaning fish.
In a vivarium [aquarium] let fish be kept
in which they can be caught by net, fork,
spear, or light hook, or with a basket. The
chief cook should have a cupboard in the
kitchen where he may store many aromatic
spices, and bread flour sifted through a
sieve––and used also for feeding small
fish––may be hidden away there. Let there
be also a cleaning place where the entrails
and feathers of ducks and other domestic
fowl can be removed and the birds
cleaned. Likewise there should be a large
spoon for removing foam and skimming.
Also there should be hot water for scalding fowl
Have a pepper mill and a hand [flour?]
16 U. T. Holmes, Jr., Daily Living in the Twelfth
Century, based on The Observations of Alexander
Neckham
October 1994
mill. Small fish for cooking should be put
into a pickling mixture, that is, water
mixed with salt ... To be sure, pickling is
not for all fish, for these are of different
kinds ... There should be also a garderobe pit through which the filth of the
kitchen may be evacuated. In the pantry let
there be shaggy towels, tablecloth, and an
ordinary hand towel which shall hang
from a pole to avoid mice. Knives should
be kept in the pantry, an engraved saucedish, a saltcellar, a cheese container, a
candelabra, a lantern, a candlestick, and
baskets. In the cellar or storeroom should
be casks, tuns, wineskins, cups, cup
cases, spoons, ewers, basins, baskets,
pure wine, cider, beer, unfermented wine,
mixed wine, claret, nectar, mead, ... pear
wine, red wine, wine from Auvergne,
clove spiced wine for gluttons whose
thirst is unquenchable.
And of course, the kitchen had a pantry.
THE PANTRY, c. 1460
17
... In the pantry, you must always keep
three sharp knives, one to chop the loaves,
another to pare them, and a third sharp and
keen, to smooth and square the trenchers
with.
Always cut your lord's bread, and see
that it be new; and all other bread at the
table one day old ere you cut it, all household bread three days old, and trencher
bread four days old.
Look that your salt be fine, white, fair,
and dry; and have your salt-plane of ivory,
two inches wide and three long; and see to
it that the lid of the salt-cellar touch not the
salt.
Good son, look that your napery be
sweet and clean, and that your table-cloth,
towel, and napkin be folded neatly, your
table-knives brightly polished and your
spoon fair washed––ye wot well what I
17 The Duties of a Panter or Butler in John Russell'sBook of Nurture; The Babees' Book Medieval
Manners for the Young done into Modern English
from Dr. Furnivall's Texts by Edith Rickert
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 182
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
mean.
The spice trade, important in Europe
since Roman times, served many purposes. First, the spices enhanced flavors; second, they acted as a mild preservative; and
finally, they helped cover up some of the
less savory aspects of the fourteenth century condition of no refrigeration. Food
spoils quickly. Even members of the court
were not immune to having to stomach
food that was overly ripe. Peter of Blois
in his Letters says:
A priest or soldier attached to the court
has bread put before him which is not
kneaded, nor leavened, made of the dregs
of beer, bread like lead, full of bran...
wine spoiled either by being sour or moldy ... Indeed the tables are sometimes
filled with putrid food, were it not for the
fact that those who eat it indulge in powerful exercise, many more deaths would
result from it.
Spices were often used to camoflage bad
food, but they were not cheap ...
LOVE OF SPICES SHOWN
IN A GROCER'S BILL, 1380 18
Robert Passeleive, knight, was summoned to answer Edmund Fraunceys, citizen and grocer of London, in a plea that
he pay L6 ... whereof Edmund says that,
whereas Robert, between the Feast of
Pentecost, Richard II, and the Feast of
Easter following, in the parish of St Stephen in the ward of Walbrook at divers
times purchased of Edmund pepper, saffron, ginger, cloves, dates, almonds, rice,
saunders [horse parsley], powder of ginger, powder called 'pouderlumbard',
powder of cinnamon, figs, raisins, myrrh,
and canvas for the said L6, payable on the
Feast of the Ascension [May 3l next following the said Easter, though often required, Robert has not paid, and has
hitherto refused to pay.
In the piece above, Peter of Blois seems
18 Common Pleas, Plea Roll 487m. 438d
October 1994
bitter. One gets the impression that he had,
rather recently before writing that piece,
been personally insulted by being given
ripe food. The piece below gives another
impression. It seems to indicate that if you
try hard, and make a special effort, that
good food, good friends, and a good time
can be had.
MEAL AND GUESTS, 1398
19
... at feasts first meat is prepared and arranged, then guests are called together,
forms and stools set in the hall, and tables,
cloths and towels ordained, dispersed and
made ready. Guests are sat with the lord in
the chief place of the board, and they sit
not down at the board before the guests
wash their hands. Children are sat in their
place, and servants at a table by themselves. First knives, spoons and salt are
set on the board, and then bread and drink
and many different dishes. Household
servants busily help each other to everything diligently, and talk merrily together.
The guests are gladdened with lutes and
harps. Now wine and dishes of meat are
brought forth and despatched. At the last
cometh fruit and spices, and then they
have eaten, board cloths and scraps are
borne away, and guests wash and wipe
their hands again. Then graces are said
and guests thank the lord. Then for gladness and comfort drink is brought yet
again. At the end men take their leave, and
some go to bed and sleep, and some go
home to their own lodgings.
All that is rehearsed before of dinners
and feasts accordeth to the supper also.
Many things are necessary and proper for
supper. The first is convenient time ... not
too early, not too late. The second is convenient place, large, pleasant and secure
... The third is the hearty and glad cheer of
him that maketh the feast: the supper is
not worthy to be praised if the lord of the
house be not heavy cheered ... The fourth
19 John of Trevisa, translation of Bartholomaeus
Anglicus, De Proprietatibus Rerum
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 183
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
is many divers dishes, so that who that
will not taste of one may taste of another
... The fifth is divers wines and drinks ...
The sixth is courtesy and honesty of servants ... The seventh is kind friendship
and company of them that sit at the supper
... The eighth is mirth of song and of instruments of music: noble men use not to
make suppers without harp or symphony
... The ninth is plenty of light of candles
and tapers and of torches, for it is shame
to sup in darkness and perilous also for
flies and other filth. Therefore candles and
tapers are set on candlesticks to burn. The
tenth is the deliciousness of all that is set
on the board, for it is not used at supper to
serve men with great meat and common as
it is used at dinner, but with special light
meat and delicious ... The eleventh is long
during of the supper, for men use after
full end of work and travail to sit long at
the supper. For meat eaten too hastily
grieveth against night, therefore at the
supper men should eat by leisure and not
too hastily ... The twelfth is sureness, for
without harm and damage every man shall
be prayed to the supper, and after supper
that is freely offered it is not honest to
compel a man to pay his share. The thirteenth is softness and liking of rest and of
sleep. After supper men shall rest, for
then sleep is sweet and liking ... for when
smoke of meat cometh into the brain, then
men sleep easily.
And with meals and guests went good
table manners.
GOOD TABLE MANNERS,
c. 1475 20
Cut your bread with your knife and
break it not. Lay a clean trencher before
you, and when your pottage is brought,
take your spoon and eat quietly; and do
not leave your spoon in the dish, I pray
20 Edith Rickert, The Babees' Book of Medieval
Manners for the Young Done into Modern English
from Dr. Furnivall's Texts
October 1994
you.
Look ye be not caught leaning on the
table, and keep clear of soiling the cloth.
Do not hang your head over your dish,
or in any wise drink with full mouth.
Keep from picking your nose, your
teeth, your nails at mealtime––so we are
taught.
Advise you against taking so much meat
into your mouth but that ye might right
well answer when men speak to you.
When ye shall drink, wipe your mouth
clean with a cloth, and your hands also, so
that you shall not in any way soil the cup,
for then shall none of your companions be
loath to drink with you.
Likewise, do not touch the salt in the
salt-cellar with any meat; but lay salt honestly on your trencher, for that is courtesy.
Do not carry your knife to your mouth
with food, or hold the meat with your
hands in any wise; and also if divers good
meats are brought to you, look that with
all courtesy ye assay of each; and if your
dish be taken away with its meat and
another brought, courtesy demands that ye
shall let it go and not ask for it back again.
And if strangers be set at table with you,
and savoury meat be brought or sent to
you, make them good cheer with part of it,
for certainly it is not polite when others be
present at meat with you, to keep all that is
brought you, and like churls vouchsafe
nothing to others.
Do not cut your meat like field-men who
have such an appetite that they reck not in
what wise, where or when or how ungoodly they hack at their meat; but, sweet
children, have always your delight in
courtesy and in gentleness, and eschew
boisterousness with all your might.
When cheese is brought, have a clean
trencher, on which with a clean knife ye
may cut it; and in your feeding look ye appear goodly, and keep your tongue from
jangling, for so indeed shall ye deserve a
name for gentleness and good governance,
and always advance yourself in virtue.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 184
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
What were prices like during this time?
The common unit of cost was the pound
(L), the shilling (s), and the penny (d). It
is very difficult to translate the value of
money then to the value now. The 20
fowls mentioned in the first line below
cost 20d in 1425 would cost (assuming 20
ten pound chickens at $1.00 a pound)
$200 today. Is a penny then worth $10 today and a pound $1000 ?
FROM A FIFTEENTH-CENTURY
ACCOUNT ROLL,
1425 Expenses of the Kitchen 21
For 20 fowls bought by the cook at the
feast of St Kalixtus, 20d., and for a quarter of beef bought in Burcester [Bicester]
market on the feast of St Thomas Apostle
for salting, 16d., and for 1 cade [barrel]
of red herrings bought of Harmand Banbury, 8d. And for pork bought for the
clerks of the Lord Archbishop sitting at an
inquiry at Burchester the Wednesday next
before the past of the Conversion of St
Paul, l9d., and 1 frayle [basket made of
rushes] of figs, 3s. 4d., and for 12 lbs. of
sparrows' eggs, 13d., and for 3 couple of
green fish with a lyng (of the cod family),
3 congers and, a couple of hake, 9s. 7d.,
and for a great chopper called a flesh axe,
15d., and for a saltstone bought for the
dovecot, 22d.
FURTHER PROVISIONS
For white bread bought at sundry times
for the Prior and guests, 3s. 10d,, and for
beer, to wit, 132 1/2 gallons bought for
John Spinan, Alice Bedale and other
brewers, 4s. 10d., and for 32 galls. of red
wine bought of Richard Brayser of Burcester at 8d. a gallon, 21s. 4d., and for 3
gallons, 3 quarts of sweet wine bought of
the same, at 16d. a gallon, 5s., and for
canvas bought at London by Richard
21 Account Roll of the Manors of Miaxter Priory,
quoted in Home,Manor and Manorial Records, R. B.
Morgan, Readings in English Social History
October 1994
Dymby before the feast of St Osith Virgin
for making sheets, 3s.
OTHER NECESSARY PROVISIONS
And for one great candle bought at the
feast of St Kalixtus, Pope this year 2d.,
and for parchment bought at St Frideswide's fair 6d., and for paper bought at
the same time, 4d., and for a box chair
bought at London on the feast of St Thomas Apostle, 9s., and in payments to the
sub-prior for copperas and galls bought
for making ink at the same time 2d., and
for 2 Ibs. candles bought for the Prior's
lantern at Christmas this year, l2d., and
for 8 lbs. of wax bought at Oxford the
same year to make torches against Christmas for the Prior's Hall, 3s., ... and for
soap bought for washing the Prior's Hall,
ld., and for 8 snodes of pack thread
bought for making a net for snaring rabbits, 6d., and 1 lb. of birdlime, 3d., and
for two hand baskets, 7d., and for 4
matts, 13d.
Clothing was expensive then, as now.
As the merchant classes obtained wealth
and the nobility began to lose it (which
they did through increased taxes and poor
financial management), there was a time
when the merchant class was out dressing
the nobility. This could not be allowed, so
they developed sumptuary laws that dictated what you could wear, based upon your
class in society. This sat well with the
merchant class men who paid the bills for
their wives dressing style, but not with the
wives. The wives won. The first of the
three pieces below sounds like a tight-wad
husband scolding his wife for buying a
new dress. The second and third piece are
illustrative of the sumptuary laws, which
were ignored and non-enforceable The result was much like trying to tell children
today what kind of clothes to wear. It was
a waste of time in yesteryear, much as it
is today.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 185
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
LOVE OF DRESS IS A SNARE
22
In order that ye may compass men's
praise ye spend all your labour on your
garments––on your veils and your kirtles.
Many of you pay as much to the sempstress as the cost of the cloth itself; it must
have shields on the shoulders, it must be
flounced and tucked all round the hem; it
is not enough for you to show your pride
in your very buttonholes, but you must
also send your feet to hell by special torments, ye trot this way and that way with
your fine stitchings. Ye busy yourselves
with your veils, ye twitch them hither, ye
twitch them thither; ye gild them here and
there with gold thread; ye will spend a
good six months' work on a single veil ...
when thou shouldest be busy in the house
with something needful for the goodman,
or for thyself, or thy children, or thy
guests, then art thou busy instead with thy
hair, thou art careful whether thy sleeves
sit well, or thy veil or thy headdress,
wherewith thy whole time is filled.
REGULATION ISSUED IN 1363
ABOUT CLOTHING AND
WORKING CONDITIONS 24
It is ordained ... first, as to grooms, as
well the servants of great men as of traders
and craftsmen, that they shall be served
once a day with meat or fish, the rest with
other food, as milk, cheese, butter, and
other such victuals according to their estate. And they shall have cloth for their apparel whereof the whole cloth does not
exceed two marks ... And that they shall
not use any article of gold or silver or embroidered or enamel, or of silk ...
And their wives, daughters and children
shall be of the same condition in their apparel; they shall wear no veils exceeding
12d. each ...
And the carters, ploughmen, drivers,
oxherds, cowherds, shepherds, swineherds, dairywomen, and other keepers of
beasts, threshers of corn and all manner of
men engaged in husbandry, and other
people who have no goods and chattels
worth 40s., shall wear no cloth save blanABOUT WEARING FUR, 1281 23
ket and russet, 12d., the yard. They shall
wear no girdles, and shall have linen ac... No woman of the City shall from cording to their condition. They shall live
henceforth go to market, or in the King's upon such food and drink as is suitable,
highway, out of her house, with a hood and then not in excess.
furred with other than lambskin or rabbitskin, on pain of losing her hood to the use
One reason why the lower classes were
of the Sheriffs; save only those ladies who catching up financially to the upper classes
wear furred capes, the hoods of which was the development of schools and unimay have such furs as they may think versities during this time period. A lower
proper. And this, because that regratresses class person could improve their lot by be[retailers], nurses and other servants, and coming a clerk. A lower order of religious
women of loose life, bedizen themselves, worker often became the scribes and other
and wear hoods furred with gros vair documenters of the court, the church and
[great vair] and with miniver, in guise of for noble houses. They were often the tugood ladies.
tors for the children of the noble houses.
They also spread knowledge and skills
amongst their own children and class of
society which slowly improved the lot of
the lower classes. It taught them math and
22 Berthold von Regensburg, Sermons, c. 1260
writing skills that lead to the development
23 City Letter Book Regulations about wearing fur,
1281, H. Riley, Memorials of London and London
Life
October 1994
24 Sumptuary Ordinance issued at the request of the
Commons
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 186
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
of the great middle class of merchants, man, they took his three fellow-clerks
doctors, lawyers, and artisans.
aforesaid, who knew nothing whatsoever
of the homicide, and cast them into prison.
OF SCHOOLS, 1173 25
And, after a few days, at the King's bidding but in contempt of all ecclesiastical
In London three principal churches have liberties, these clerks were led out of the
by privilege and ancient dignity famous city and hanged.
schools, yet very often by support of
Whereupon some three thousand clerks,
some personage, or of some teachers who both masters and scholars, departed from
are considered notable and famous in phi- Oxford, so that not one of the whole Unilosophy; there are also other schools by versity was left; of which scholars some
favour or permission. On feast days the pursued their study of the liberal Arts at
masters have festival meetings in the Cambridge, and others at Reading, leaving
churches. Their scholars dispute, some by Oxford utterly empty.
demonstration, others by dialectics, some
recite enthymemes [a syllogism with one
HENRY III WRITES TO
premise omitted], others do better in using
THE MAYOR AND BAILIFFS
perfect syllogisms. Some are exercised in
OF CAMBRIDGE IN 1231 27
disputation for display, as wrestling with
opponents; others for truth, which is the
The King to the Mayor and Bailiffs of Camgrace of perfectness. Sophists who feign bridge: Greeting. It is well known to you that a
are judged happy in their heap and flood multitude of scholars flows together to our city of
of words. Others paralogise [mislead by Cambridge for the sake of study, from various
false reasoning]. Some orators, now and places at home and abroad; which we hold right
then, say in their rhetorical speeches pleasing and acceptable, for that from thence no
something apt for persuasion, careful to small profit comes to our kingdom and honour to
observe rules of their art, and to omit none ourself; and above all you, amongst whom the
of the contingents. Boys of different students have their daily life, should rejoice and be
schools strive against one another in vers- glad. But we have heard that in letting your lodges, and contend about the principles of ings you are so heavy and burdensome to the
grammar and rules of the past and future scholars dwelling amongst you, that unless you
tenses.
behave yourselves more measurably and modestly
IN BITTER PROTEST MASTERS
AND SCHOLARS LEAVE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY 26
About this time, 1209, a certain clerk
who was studying in Arts at Oxford slew
by chance a certain woman, and, finding
that she was dead, sought safety in flight.
But the mayor and many others, coming
to the place and finding the dead woman,
began to seek the slayer in his hostel
which he had hired with three other clerks
his fellows. And, not finding the guilty
25 William Fitz-Stephen, Descriptio Nobilissimae
Civitatis Londonae
26 Roger of Wendover, Chronicle
October 1994
towards them in this matter of your exactions,
they must leave our city, and, having abandoned
the University, depart from our land, which we in
no respect desire. And therefore we command you
... that, concerning the letting of the aforesaid
lodgings ... according to the custom of the University, you should estimate the aforesaid lodgings
by two masters and two good legal men of your
town, and according to their estimate should permit them to be hired ...
Witness the King
at Oxford the third day of May.
Universities were not free. As is demonstrated below the annual cost to be student
27 Heywood and Wright, King's College and Eton
College Statutes
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 187
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
in 1374 was about 176 shillings a year, or
WAGES OF FARM LABOURERS, 29
about 15L a year. If our cost translation
Late Thirteenth Century
above is correct, this would be about
$15,000 a year––comparable to today's
You can well have three acres weeded
university costs.
for a penny, and an acre of meadow
mown for fourpence, and an acre of waste
UNIVERSITY EXPENSES, 1374 28
meadow for threepence-halfpenny, and an
acre of meadow turned and raised for a
Also, for the board of the said Tho- penny-halfpenny, and an acre of waste for
mas, during the said 13 years; 2 shillings a penny farthing. And know that five men
per week being paid by the same Robert can well reap and bind two acres a day of
while he was at the Schools at Oxford, for each kind of corn, more or less. And
his board there, and the same throughout where each takes twopence a day then you
the said time, making 104 shillings yearly, must give fivepence an acre, and when
and in the whole––67L. 12s.
four take a penny-halfpenny a day and the
Also, for the clothes, linen and wool- fifth twopence, because he is binder, then
len, and shoes, of the same Thomas for you must give fourpence for the acre.
the said 13 years, at 40 shillings yearly, And, because in many places they do not
expended by the said Robert––26L.
reap by the acre, one can know by the
Also, for the teaching of the same reapers and by the work done what they
Thomas for ten years out of the said thir- do, but keep the reapers by the band, that
teen, at 2 marks yearly, by the same Rob- is to say, that five men or women,
ert paid, making 20 marks.
whichever you will, who are called half
Also, for sundry expenses, namely, men, make a band, and twenty-five men
his riding at Oxford and elsewhere, and make five bands, and twenty-five men can
for moneys laid out upon a master for the reap and bind ten acres a day working all
said Thomas, at the rate of 20 shillings day, and in ten days a hundred acres, and
yearly, making in the whole 13L.
in twenty days two hundred acres by five
score. And see then how many acres there
How did people pay for their education. are to reap throughout, and see if they
You can be sure that many worked their agree with the days and pay them then,
way through school. Notice that it took and if they account for more days than is
Thomas 13 years to complete his program right according to this reckoning, do not
above. Was it this long because he could let them be paid, for it is their fault that
only learn at a rate that he could work off they have not reaped the amount and have
the cost? Wages were in flux during this not worked so well as they ought.
period. Population was dropping due to
the plague. There were less hands to do
The above wages translates into approxthe work and accordingly the cost of labor imately 7 days labor for 1 d. From this acwas rising. The piece below gives the ex- count a man can thrash 40% of an acre per
pected wages before the plague struck Eu- day and receive 0.7d per day for a wage.
rope.
Compare the wages below after the plague
swept through Europe twice. Now the
wage for thrashing a quarter of an acre
(25% of an acre) is 3 d. The per acre cost
above is 1.7 d, the per acre cost in 1366
given below is 12d. This 6 fold increase is
28 H. T. Riley, Memorials of London
October 1994
29 Printed with Walter of Henley's Husbandry, edited by Elizabeth Lamond
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 188
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
due to the effect of the plague reducing the
For reaping 14 acres 3 rods of barley at
available workforce by 40%.
12 d. an acre 14 s. 9 d.
For reaping 2 acres 3 rods of barley 24 d
WAGES, 1366 30
...
Wage for 1 hired reaper as above at the
For wage of one man mending collars lord's board for 7 weeks 11 s.
and gear of a cart for 2 days 10 d ...
Wage for 2 men reaping, binding and
For 1 carpenter hired to mend carts for 7 sometimes carting for 5 weeks at the
1/2 days at 5 d. a day 3 s. 12 d ...
lord's board 18 s.
For wage for 1 man making collars and
Wage of 1 other reaper and binder for all
mending harness of cart after 1 August for autumn 9 s.
2 1/2 days 7 1/2 d ...
Paid to 1 roofer for roofing the PeynThe upper classes saw their world falltidechaumber, chapel, hall and le Chaf- ing apart as plagues swept through and
fons at 4 d. per day for 7 days 2 s. 4 d ... killed their peasants. The workers were
For wage of 1 carpenter mending the demanding higher wages, good food, and
door, mending the cart and helping make more. In every generation, there seems to
the kiln for 3 days 15 d.
come a time when people throw their
For wage of 1 carpenter mending the hands in the air and exclaim that "the
house at the staithe at 5 d. a day for 18 world is going to hell in a hand basket,"
days 7 s. 6 d . . .
and "things are getting worse and worse
For wage of 1 roofer roofing the all the time,” and "why in my day we
grange, kitchen and the house at the didn't have these problems.” It was no
staithe at 4 d. a day for 9 days 3 s ...
different when the Plantagenets were on
In costs of washing and shearing the the purple throne. This final article sums it
lord's sheep as seen by the auditor by the all up:
details examined 2 s. 11 d.
For 1 man hired at 3 d. a day for 4 1/2
FROM BAD TO WORSE, c. 1375 31
days to wash and hang herrings 13 1/2 d.
For 3 men hired for I day for same 12 d
The world goeth fast from bad to worse,
...
when shepherd and cowherd for their part
For thrashing at 3 d. a quarter 60 quar- demand more for their labour than the
ters and 2 bushels of wheat, 4 bushels of master bailiff was wont to take in days
rye and 5 quarters of peas.
gone by. Labour is now at so high a price
For 275 quarters 4 bushels of barley and that he who will order his business aright
27 quarters of oats thrashed at 22 d. a must pay five or six shillings now for
quarter 63 s. 4 d.
what cost two in former times. Labourers
For winnowing said corn nothing, as it of old were not wont to eat of wheaten
was done by the manor house maid ...
bread; their meat was of beans or coarser
For weeding the lord's corn this year 18 corn, and their drink of water alone.
d ...
Cheese and milk were a feast to them, and
For mowing and binding 2 acre of rarely ate they of other dainties; their dress
wheat 7d.
was of hodden grey [coarse woollen cloth
For mowing and binding 52 acres of rye made without dyeing]; then was the world
at 15 d. each plus 12 d. in all 7s.
ordered aright for folk of this sort ...
For reaping and binding 2 acres of rye 2
s.
30 Extracts from the bailiff's account for the Abbot
of Dereham
October 1994
31 John Gower, Mirour de l'Omme
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 189
HOW THEY LIVED IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Three things, all of the same sort, are merciless when they get the upper hand; a water-flood, a wasting fire, and the common multitude of small folk. For these will never
be checked by reason or discipline; and therefore, to speak in brief, the present world is
so troubled by them that it is well to set a remedy thereunto. Ha! age of ours, whither
turnest thou? for the poor and small folk, who should cleave to their labour, demand to
be better fed than their masters. Moreover, they bedeck themselves in fine colours and
fine attire, whereas (were it not for their pride and their privy conspiracies) they would
be clad in sackcloth as of old ... Ha! age of ours, I know not what to say; but of all the
estates that I see, from the highest to the lowest, each decayeth in its own degree. Poor
man or lord, all alike are full of vanity; I see the poor folk more haughty than their
lords; each draweth whither he pleaseth.
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 190
POET’S CORNER
THE TOBACCO-SMOKER’S DREAM
by Siuer de Saint Amant, 1594-1661
Upon a fagot seated, pipe in lips
Leaning my head against the chimney wall
My heart sinks in me, down my eyelids fall,
As all alone, I think on life’s eclipse.
Hope, that put off the tomorrow for today,
Essays to change my sadness for a while,
And shows me, with her kind and youthful smile,
A fate more glorious that men’s words can say.
Meantime, the herb in ashes sinks and dies;
Then to its sadness back my spirit flies,
And the old troubes still rise up behind.
Live upon hope and smoke your pipe; all’s one.
It means the same when it is passed and done;
One is but smoke, the other is but wind.
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 191
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
CHARLES DUC D'ORLEANS
by Mike Talbot
HARLES d'ORLEANS
and his poetry were briefly touched upon
in the Plantagenet Connection, Volume 2,
No.1. This grandson of kings and father
to another was one of the most fascinating
men of his time, a time filled with fascinating people. He was a cousin to the
Plantagenets by many paths. His long life
epitomized the meaning of the ancient
Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times.”
His journey to fame began in 1394 when
he was born into a powerful, enlightened,
wealthy and idyllic family. These early
years were blessed by a lull in the 100
Years War. His father, Louis, doted upon
all of his children. He stressed and participated in their academic, ethical and spiritual education – something that was rare
for that era. He also excelled at the usual
chivalric and military training for the
young boys.
His mother, Valentina Visconti, heiress to
the Duchy of Milan, ranks as one of the
most loving, kind, forgiving, and dutiful
women in history. When her husband
sheepishly presented her with an illegitimate son from a brief tryst, [1403, the
famous Jean Count d'Dunois, “le Bastard
d'Orleans,” son of the noble woman,
Mariette de CANY], her words were: "My
only regret is that I could not bring this
fine son to you, from this day, he is our
own."
She was true to her pledge.
In 1406, at age 12, Charles d'Orleans
was married to the love of his life, cousin
Isabelle de Valois. Isabelle was the pretty, 17-year-old widow of King Richard
II of England. At first, Isabelle scorned
her marriage to "a mere child of non-regOctober 1994
al position.” Charles’ natural gifts of
charm, wit, and his budding poetic talents
soon won her heart. After three years, she
was to bear him a beautiful daughter. Was
this the stuff of fairy tales?
At the peak of Charles' youthful utopia,
his entire world began to collapse. In
1407, Charles' father was brutally assassinated and mutilated by the henchmen of
the Duke of Burgundy. This act would begin the long Armagnac-Burgundy French
civil war.
In a year, his mother had grieved herself
to death. The cruelest blow was to fall on
13 September 1409, when his beloved
Isabelle was taken from him by complications of childbirth.
By this time, the insanity of Charles' uncle and father-in-law, King Charles VI,
had become obvious, leading France to
many disasters. Charles most personal
disaster was his capture, while embarrassingly mired in the mud, at the 1415 debacle of Azincourt, shortly before his 21st
birthday.
He had to watch the murder of thousands
of his fellow prisoners-of-war and friends
when the English, in a panic, mistook a
small raiding party for the arrival of the
main French army (still stretched out on
the road from Paris). His life was saved
only by his high ransom potential.
A quarter-century of captivity followed.
His 21st birthday present while in prison,
was the news of the death of his second
wife, petite Bonne d'Armagnac, far away,
in France (Her father, Bernard VII, Count
d'Armagnac, was the leader of Charles'
faction of the civil war in France). Few
mortals experience such pinnacles and
depths of emotion in a full "three-scoreand-ten."
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 192
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
Charles' integrity, chivalry and charm
soon won his release from the dungeons
and freedom to roam the English Court.
He quickly gained the friendship and admiration of the lords and became a favorite
with the ladies. It is without doubt that he
has many anonymous, perhaps Plantagenet, English descendants.
From his "velvet prison," Charles d'Orleans secretly and successfully directed the
Armagnac side of the civil war in France.
He diverted funds intended for his ransom
to that effort, a measure of revenge for the
untimely demise of his father. He was to
hear of the glory and then unjust execution
of the peasant girl, General Jeanne d'Arc.
He received the tidings that his half-brother, Jean count Dunois, had distinguished
himself in the service of that Maid of Orleans. Charles also received the grievous
news that his daughter, Jeanne, wife to
Jean Count d'Alencon, this beloved vestige of his cherished Isabelle, had died in
1432.
Upon his return to France, the "Mad
King" Charles VI, had died and the capable Charles VII“the Victorious,” ruled.
But the turbulence was to continue. Charles d'Orleans was to witness the shameful trial and execution of Gilles de Rais de
Laval, a distant cousin and war hero, the
infamous Bluebeard, perverted torturer
and murderer of 400 young boys. He
failed in his attempt to regain the Duchy of
Milan, inherited from his mother. His admired son-in-law, Jean d'Alencon, impoverished by the war, sold out to the
English and was tried and executed for
treason. Charles was to participate in the
successful conclusion to the 100 Years
War. He lived to watch his old enemy,
England, mired in the War of the Roses,
and thus no longer a threat.
Charles duc d'Orleans, the fires of youth
slaked to a warm glow, was comfortably
married to young Marie de Cleves in
1440. They had three loving children that
they doted on just as Charles' parents had
doted upon him and his siblings. Charles,
October 1994
Marie, two daughters and son, the future
King Louis XII, were to live in peace, at
last. After so much turmoil, his final days
were amply filled with his family and the
evenings with his treasured books, writings, and mixed thoughts of his Plantagenet cousins, so long ago. He was to die,
peacefully in bed, during a visit to Amboise Castle, the night of 4 January 1465,
aged 70. A portion of his pedigree follows
this article.
Biography and Recommended reading:
Charles Duke of Orleans, Poet and Prince, by
Norma Goodrich, Macmillan, N.Y., 1963.
Genealogical References:
Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, by Chenaye & Badier, Chez Schlesinger, Paris, 1865. Nobiliare Universal de France, ed. M. de St. Allais, Paris,
1874. Lineage & Ancestry of H.R.H. Charles,
Prince of Wales, by Gerald Paget, Skilton, London, 1977. Historica Genealogica da Casa Real
Portuguesa, by Antonio de Sousa, 1738, reprint
1946. Avgvstae Regiaeqve Sabavdae Domvs,
(House of Savoy), by Francisco Maria Ferrerro a
Labriano, 1702. And the kind help of Marlyn Lewis via FIDO-NET, sharing his Europaische
Stammtafeln data.
THE ANCESTRY OF
CHARLES D’ORLEANS
SUMMARY: Total Ancestor Positions Filled: 213
Unique Ancestors: 152
Other Relatives: 274 / 389
Editorial Note: This ahnentafel chart is filled with
information, and may be quite confusing if one does
not realize what the content means. Due to the program and space limitations, many items are run together with no spaces after commas, slashes and periods, but with a little concentration, you will soon
understand the depth of the information.
To find the ancestor number of a person's parents,
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 193
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
double that person's ancestor number giving father's
number, then add 1 for mother's number.
“ch.” is the abbreviation used for child or children.
[ ] = [Parents of person to the left, Father/Mother].
( ) = (a spouse of person to left) or (ahnentafel # of
that person or ahnentafel # of 1st occurrance).
1 Numbers immediately following entry are children of that marriage.
“ch.:” = children of other marriage.
1. ORLEANS, Charles duc d', b. 24 Nov 1394
Paris, Fr.; d. 4 Jan 1465, Amboise, Fr. Other wife:
m1. 29 Jun 1406 Senlis Cathedral; FRANCE, Isabelle deValois, b. 9 Nov 1389, Paris, Fr. Other wife:
m2., 1410, ARMAGNAC, Bonne d' [Bernard 7
ct.d'/BERRY, Bonne de] b. 1395? France. Other wife:
m3. 1440, CLEVES, Marie de [Adolf / BOURGOGNE, Marie de Bourgogne], b. 19 Nov 1426,
France; d. 1487, (m1 FRANCE, KING Louis 12, b. 27
Jun 1462, d. 1515 /m./ ENGLAND, Mary of, b. 1498
[Henry Tudor / ENGLAND, Elizabeth of York]
2. ORLEANS, Louis duc d', b. 13 Mar 1372,
Paris, Fr.; d. 23 Nov 1407, Paris. Other wife: m1.
(not married) prisoner; ENGHEIN, Mariette de Cany
d' [NN sgr.d'] b. 1380?, France. Ch: Jean, le Batard
Dunois ct. d'. 1403 (HARCOURT, Marie deMontgome); m2. Sep 1389, Melun, France.
3. VISCONTI, Valentina deMilan, b. 1366,
Milan, Italy; d. 4 Dec 1408, Blois, Fr.
4. FRANCE, KING, Charles 5 leSage, b.23 Jan
1337, Vincennes, Fr.; d. 16 Sep 1380, Nogent sur
Marne, m1. 1349.
5. BOURBON, Jeanne de, b. 1338 France; d.
1377.
6. VISCONTI, Gian Galeazzo,duc deMilan
[Galeazzo /SAVOY, Blanche de] b.16 Oct 1351 Milan, It.; d. 3 Sep 1402 Milan. Other wife: m2. 1390
?; VISCONTI, Caterina [Barnabo sgr.de / SCALLA,
Regina] b. 1370?, Milan. Ch.: Filippo Maria duc
Milan. 1389 (MAINO, Agnese del); m1. 1360
7. VALOIS, Isabelle de, b. 1348 France; d.
1372
8. FRANCE, KING, Jean 2 leBon b.26 Apr
1319 leMans, Fr.; d. 8 Apr 1364 London, Eng. Other
wife: m2. 1348 BOULOGNE, Jeanne de [Guillaume
/EVREUX, Marguerite d'] b. 1330? France.
ch.:Isabelle de. 1348, m1. 22 May 1332
9. LUXEMBOURG, Bonne Judith de, b. 20
May 1315, Bohemia; d. 11 Sep 1349, France
10. BOURBON, Pierre 1, duc de, b. 1311
France; d. 1365, m1. 1337
11. VALOIS, Isabelle de, b. 1320? France; d.
1356
October 1994
12. VISCONTI, Galeazzo 2, duc de Milan, b.
1320 Milan,It.; d. 4 Aug 1378 Pavia, It. m1. 28
Sep 1350
13. SAVOY, Blanche de, b. 1336 Savoy; d. 31
Dec 1387, Milan
14. FRANCE, KING, Jean 2 leBon, b. 26 Apr
1319, le Mans, Fr.; d. 8 Apr 1364 London, Eng.
m2. 1348
15. BOULOGNE, Jeanne de b. 1330? France; d.
1351
16. FRANCE, KING, P h i l i p p e 6 d e V a l o i s b.
1293, France; d. 22 Aug 1350, Nogent-le Roi,Fr.
Other wife: m2. 1350 NAVARRE, Blanche d'Evreux
de [Philippe /FRANCE, Jeanne 2 de] b. 1333 Navarre, m1. Jul 1313
17. BOURGOGNE, Jeanne de b. 1293 Burgundy; d.12 Sep 1348 France
18 BOHEMIA, KING, Jean deLuxembourg
b.10 Aug 1296, Luxembourg; d. 26 Aug 1346, Crecy, battle, m1. 31 Aug 1310, Speyer, Bavaria
19 POLAND-BOHEMIA, Elizabeth de, b. 20
Jan 1292, Bohemia; d. 28 Sep 1330, Bohemia
20 BOURBON, Louis 1, duc de b. 1279 France;
d. 21 Jan 1341 m1. Sep 1310, Pontoise, Fr.;
21 HAINAUT, Marie d'Avesnes de, b. 1290?
Hainault; d. 28 Aug 1354 Chateau-Murat, Fr.
22 VALOIS, Charles 1 ct. de b. 12 Mar 1270
Careme, Fr.; d. 5 Dec 1325 Nogent de Roi, Fr. Other
wife m1. COURTENAY, Catherine de, b. 1274
France. ch.: Jeanne de.1300 (ARTOIS,Robert 3
ct.d'); Other wife m2. 16 Aug 1290 Corbeil. Fr.; ANJOU, Marguerite de Naples d',b. 1273 Italy. ch.:
Philippe 6 deValois, 1293; Jeanne de, 1294; Margueite de, 1295 (BLOIS, Gui 2, deChatillo); Charles
2,Valois ct. d'. 1297 (SPAIN, Maria de la Cerda); m3.
Jun 1308
23 ST. POL, Mahaut deChatillon de, b. 1290?
France; d. 3 Oct 1358, m1 VALOIS, Isabelle,
b.1320?, d. 1356 /m./BOURBON, Pierre 1, duc de b.
1311
24 VISCONTI, Stefano sgr.de [Matteo / BORRI, Bonacossa] b. 1290? Milan,It.; d.4 Jul 1327,
Milan. Other wife m1. BORRI, Bonacossa
[Squarcino] b. 1250? m2. 1318
25 DORIA, Valentina diGenoa [Barnabo de], b.
1290? Genoa,It.; d. m1 VISCONTI, Galeazzo 2,duc
deMilan* {Anc.#12} b.1320 , d.1378 /m./SAVOY,
Blanche de b. 1336 [Aimon /MONTFERRAT, Yolande]
2 VISCONTI, Barnabo sgr. de b. 1323 , d.
1385 / m. /SCALLA, Regina b. 1330? [Mastino
/CARRARA, Thaddea]
26 S A V O Y , A i m o n l e P a c i f i c c t . d e [Amadeus
/BAUGE, Sybile brns. de] b. 15 Dec 1291 Bourg,
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 194
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
Bresse; d. 22 Apr 1343 Montmeillan. m1.1 May
1330
27 MONTFERRAT, Yolande Palaeologus de
[Theodore / SPINOLA,Argentina], b. 1310? Byzantium; d. 24 Dec 1342
1 SAVOY, Amadeus 6, leVert ct. de b. 4 Jan
1334, d. 1383 / m./BOURBON, Bonne de b. 1340
[Pierre 1,duc de/VALOIS, Isabelle de]
25 SAVOY, Blanche de *{Anc.#13} b. 1336 , d.
1387 /m./ VISCONTI, Galeazzo b. 1320 [Stefano
sgr. de /DORIA, Valentina di Genoa]
28 FRANCE, KING, Philippe 6 de Valois*
{Anc.#16, 2 lines} [Charles 1 ct. de/ANJOU, Marguerite] b. 1293 France; d. 22 Aug 1350 Nogent-le
Roi, Fr.
29 BOURGOGNE, Jeanne de* {Anc.#17, 2
lines} [Robert 2, duc de / FRANCE, Agnes de], b.
1293 Burgundy; d. 12 Sep 1348, France.
30 BOULOGNE & AUVERGNE, Guillaume
1 2 duc de [Robert 7 ct. de /CLERMONT, Blanche de]
b. 1304? France; d. 1332
31. EVREUX, Marguerite d' [Louis / ARTOIS,
Marguerite d'], b. 1300? France; d. 1 BOULOGNE,
Jeanne de* {Anc.#15} b. 1330?, d. 1351 /m./
FRANCE, KING, Jean 2 le Bon b. 1319 [Philippe /
BOURGOGNE, Jeanne de]
32. VALOIS, Charles 1 ct. de * {Anc.#22, 3
lines} [Philippe /ARAGON, Isabel d'] b. 12 Mar
1270 Careme, Fr.; d. 5 Dec 1325, Nogent deRoi, Fr.
m2. 16 Aug 1290 Corbeil. Fr.;
33. ANJOU, Marguerite de Naples [Charles 2
d'Anjou /HUNGARY, Marie de], b. 1273, Italy; d. 31
Dec 1299. m1. FRANCE, KING, Philippe 6 de
Valois * {Anc.#16} b. 1293, d. 1350 /m. / NAVARRE, Blanche b. 1333 [Philippe / FRANCE,
Jeanne 2 de]. m2. VALOIS, Jeanne de b.1294 , d.
1342 / m./ HAINAUT, Guillaume 3 ct. de, b. 1286
[Jean /LUXEMBOURG, Philippa de] m3. VALOIS,
Margueite de, b. 1295 , d. 1340 /m. / BLOIS, Gui b.
1290? [Hugh / FLANDERS, Beatrix] m4. ALENCON,
Charles 2,Valois ct.d' b. 1297, d. 1346 /m./SPAIN,
Maria b. 1310? [Fernando /LARA, Juana Nunes de]
34 BOURGOGNE, Robert 2, duc de [Hugh /
DREUX, Yolande de] b. 1249 Burgundy; d. 9 Oct
1305 m1. 1279
35 FRANCE, Agnes de [Louis 9, St. / PROVENCE, Marguerite de], b. 1260 France; d. 1327
1 BOURGOGNE, Marguerite de b.1290?, d.1328
/m. / FRANCE, KING, Louis X le Hutin b. 1289
[Philippe 4 le Bel/ CHAMPAGNE, Jeanne]
2 BOURGOGNE, Jeanne de*{Anc.#17} b. 1293 ,
d. 1348 /m. /FRANCE, KING, Philippe b. 1293
[Charles 1 ct. de/ ANJOU, Marguerite]
36 H.R.EMP., Henry 4, ct. 7 de Luxembourg
October 1994
[Henry 6 ct. de /AVESNES, Beatrix d'] b. 1274 Luxembourg; d. 24 Aug 1313 Buonconvento, Siena m1.
9 Jun 1292
37 BRABANT, Marguerite de [Jean / FLANDERS, Marguerite de], b. 4 Oct 1276 Brabant; d. 14
Dec 1311 Luxembourg
1 BOHEMIA,KING, Jean de Luxembourg*
{Anc.#18} b.10 Aug 1296 , d.1346 /m./POLANDBOHEMIA, Elizabeth de b.1292 [Wenceslas 2/
HAPSBURG, Judith Guta v.]
38 BOHEMIA, KING, Wenceslas 2 [Premysl
Otakar 2/BULGARIA-KIEV, Kunigunde] b.27 Sep
1271 Praha, Bohemia; d.21 Jun 1305 Praha, Bohemia Other wife m2. 1300 POLAND, Elisabeth Rixa
v. [Przemyslaw /SWEDEN, Rixa v.] b. 1286 Poland
m1.24 Jan 1285 Jihlava,Bohem.;
39 HAPSBURG, Judith Guta v. [Rudolf
/HOHENBERG, Anne Gertrude v.], b. 13 Jan 1271
Austria; d.18 Jun 1297
1 BOHEMIA, Anna de b.1290 , d.1313 /m./ BOHEMIA, KING, Heinrich b. 1270
2 POLAND-BOHEMIA, Elizabeth de*{Anc.#19}
b.20 Jan 1292 , d.1330 /m./BOHEMIA, KING, Jean
deLuxembourg b.1296 [Henry / BRABANT, Marguerite de]
3 BOHEMIA, Margarita v. b.1296 , d.1322 /m./
LIEGNITZ-BRIEG, Boleslaw 3 hg.v. b.1291
[Heinrich /KALISZ-POLAND,Isabel v.]
40 CLERMONT, Robert deFrance ct.de [Louis
9, St. /PROVENCE,Marguerite de] b. 1256 France;
d.16 Jan 1317
m1. 1272 Clermont-Beauvoisis;
41 BOURBON-BOURGOGNE, Beatrix de
[Jean / BOURBON, Agnes deDampierre], b. 1260?
France; d.1 Oct 1310
1 BOURBON, Louis 1,duc de*{Anc.#20} b.1279 ,
d.1341 /m./HAINAUT, Marie b.1290? [Jean / LUXEMBOURG, Philippa de]
2 CLERMONT, Blanche de*{Anc.#61} b.1280?,
d.1304 /m./BOULOGNE-AUVERGN, Robert 7 ct.de
b.1277? [Robert 6 ct.d'Eu-/MONTGASCON, Beatrix
de]
3 BOURBON-CLERMONT, Jean ct.de Charolais
b.1285?, d.1316 /m./DARGIES, Jeanne heiress de
b.1290? [Renaud ]
42 HAINAUT, Jean 2,d'Avesnes ct.de [Jean
/HOLLAND, Adelaide cts.v.] b. 1247 Hainault; d.22
Aug 1304 Vlenciennes, Fr. m1. 1270
43 LUXEMBOURG, Philippa de [Henry /BAR,
Marguerite de], b. 1253 Luxembourg; d.6 Apr 1311
Valenciennes,Fr.
1 HAINAUT, Guillaume 3 ct.de b.1286, d.1337
/m./VALOIS, Jeanne de b.1294 [Charles 1 ct.de/ ANJOU, Marguerite]
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 195
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
2 HAINAUT, Marie d'Avesnes de*{Anc.#21}
b.1290?, d.1354 /m./BOURBON,Louis 1,duc de
b.1279 [Robert /BOURBON-BOURGOGN, Beatrix
de]
44 FRANCE, KING, Philippe 3 leHardie
[Louis 9, St./PROVENCE, Marguerite de] b.1 May
1245 Poissy,Fr.; d.5 Oct 1285 Perpignon Other
wife m2.23 Aug 1274 BRABANT, Marie de [Henry 3
duc de/BOURGOGNE, Aleidis de] b. 1255? Brabant
ch.: Louis deValois ct. d'. 1275 (ARTOIS, Marguerite
d')*{Anc.#62}; Marguerite de. 1282 (ENGLAND,
KING, Edward 1 Longshanks); m1.28 May 1262
Clermont, Fr.;
45 ARAGON, Isabel d' [Jaime
/HUNGARY,Yolande de], b. 1243 Aragon; d.23 Jan
1271 Clermont,Auvergne, Fr. 1 FRANCE, KING,
Philippe 4 leBel b.1268 , d.1314 /m./ CHAMPAGNE, Jeanne b.1272 [Henry /ARTOIS, Blanche
d'] 2 VALOIS, Charles 1 ct.de*{Anc.#22} b.12 Mar
1270 , d.1325 /m./ST.POL,Mahaut b.1290? [Guy /
BRETAGNE, Marie de]
46 ST.POL, Guy 3 Chatillon ct.de [Guy / BRABANT, Mahaut de] b. 1260? France; d. 6 Apr 1317
47 ST.POL, Mahaut deChatillon de*
{Anc.#23} b. 1290?, d.1358 /m. / VALOIS, Charles
1 ct.de b.1270 [Philippe / ARAGON, Isabel d'] 2
ST.POL, Jean ct.Chatillon de b.1290?, d.1344
/m./FIENES, Jeanne de b.1300? [Jean de/ FLANDERS, Isabelle de] 3 CHATILLON, Eleonore deSt.Pol
de b.1295?/m./MALET,Jean b.1280? [Jean
/WAVRIN,Jeanne Anne] 4 CHATILLON, Isabeau deSt.Pol de b.1297?/m./COUCY,Guillaume b.1290?
[Enguerrand /SCOTS, Chretienne] 5 CHATILLON,
Beatrix deSt.Pol de b. 1300?/m. /FLANDERS, Jean
b.1290? [Guillaume / CLERMONT, Alix de Nesle de]
47 BRETAGNE, Marie de [Jean / ENGLAND,
Beatrice of] b. 1268 France; d. 5 Mar 1339. Other
wife ch.: Mahaut de Chatillon de.1290 (VALOIS,
Charles 1 ct.de)* {Anc.#23}; Jean ct. Chatillon de.
1290 (FIENES, Jeanne de); Eleonore de St. Pol de.
1295 (MALET, Jean 3 sgr.Gravi); Isabeau de St. Pol
de. 1297 (COUCY, Guillaume sr.Mar); Beatrix de St.
Pol de. 1300 (FLANDERS, Jean sgr.Nesle-T); 48
VISCONTI, Matteo 1 ct. de Milan [Tebaldo / PIROVANO, Anastasia] b.15 Aug 1250 Novara, It.; d. 24
Jun 1322 Milan, It.
49 B O R R I , B o n a c o s s a [Squarcino], b. 1250?; d.
1321
1 VISCONTI, Stefano sgr.de*{Anc. #24} b.1290?,
d.1327 /m./DORIA,Valentina diGenoa b.1290?
[Barnabo de] Other husband m1. VISCONTI, Stefano
sgr.de [Matteo / BORRI, Bonacossa] b. 1290? Milan, It.
50 DORIA, Barnabo de b. 1260? Genoa,It.; d. 1
October 1994
DORIA, Valentina di Genoa*{Anc.#25} b. 1290? /
m. / VISCONTI, Stefano sgr. de b.1290? [Matteo /
BORRI, Bonacossa]
52 SAVOY, Amadeus 5,il Grande ct.de [Thomas /
FIESCHI, Beatrix] b. 4 Sep 1249 Bourge,Savoy; d.
16 Oct 1323 Other wife m 2. Apr 1297 BRABANT,
Marie de [Jean / FLANDERS, Marguerite de] b. 1275?
Brabant ch.:Catherine de. 1295 (HAPSBURG, Leopold 1 hg.v.); m 1. 1272
53 BAUGE, Sybile brns. de [Guy brn.Bresse de
/ MONTFERRAT, Beatrix dphn. de], b. 1255? Bresse;
d. 27 May 1294 Savoy
1 SAVOY, Eleonore de b.1275?, d.1324 / m. /
MELLO, Dreux b.1270? [Dreux / LUSIGNAN, Eustachie de]
2 SAVOY, Agnes de b.1290?, d.1322 / m. / GENEVA, Guillaume ct. de b. 1280? 3 SAVOY, Aimon le
Pacific ct. de* {Anc.#26} b. 15 Dec 1291, d. 1343 /
m. / MONTFERRAT, Yolande b.1310? [Theodore
/SPINOLA, Argentina]
54 MONTFERRAT, Theodore 1, Palaeologus
mrq. [Andronicus 2 / MONTFERRAT, Irene Yolande
de] b. 1280 Byzantium; d. 1338
55 SPINOLA, Argentina [Opicin], b. 1280?
Genoa,It.; d.
1 MONTFERRAT, Jean 2, Palaeologus mrq.
b.1300?, d. 1333 / m. / MAJORCA, Isabel de
b.1310? [Jaime 3 de Aragon / ARAGON, Constanca
de]
2 MONTFERRAT, Yolande Palaeologus
de*{Anc.#27} b.1310?, d.1342 / m. / SAVOY, Aimon b. 1291 [Amadeus /BAUGE, Sybile brns. de]
56 VALOIS, Charles 1 ct.de* {Anc.#22, 3 lines}
[Philippe / ARAGON, Isabel d'] b. 12 Mar 1270
Careme, Fr.; d. 5 Dec 1325 Nogent deRoi, Fr.
57 ANJOU, Marguerite deNaples d'*
{Anc.#33, 2 lines} [Charles 2 d'Anjou / HUNGARY,
Marie de], b. 1273 Italy; d. 31 Dec 1299
58 BOURGOGNE, Robert 2,duc de* {Anc.#34,2
lines} [Hugh / DREUX,Yolande de] b. 1249 Burgundy; d. 9 Oct 1305
59 FRANCE, Agnes de*{Anc.#35,2 lines} [Louis
9, St. / PROVENCE, Marguerite de], b. 1260 France;
d. 1327
60 BOULOGNE-AUVERGNE, Robert 7 ct. de
[Robert 6 ct. d'Eu- / MONTGASCON, Beatrix de] b.
1277? France; d. 13 Oct 1325 St. Geraldus Other wife
m2. Dec 1312 FLANDERS, Marie de [Guillaume /
CLERMONT, Alix de Nesle de] b. 1290? Flanders
ch.:Jean 1 duc d'. 1320 (BOURBON-CLERMONT,
Jeanne de); Mahaut de. 1320 (GENEVA, Amadeus 3
ct.de); m1.25 Jun 1303
61 CLERMONT, Blanche de [Robert / BOURBON-BOURGOGN, Beatrix de], b. 1280? France; d.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 196
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
1304 m1 BOUL AUVERGNE, Guillaume 12 duc
de*{Anc.#30} b. 1304?, d. 1332 / m./ EVREUX,
Marguerite d' b.1300? [Louis /ARTOIS, Marguerite
d']
62 EVREUX, Louis deValois ct.d' [Philippe /
BRABANT, Marie de] b. May 1275 France; d. 19
May 1319 m1. 1301
63 ARTOIS, Marguerite d' [Philippe / BRETAGNE, Blanche de], b. 1285? France; d. 23 Apr
1311, m
1 EVREUX, Marguerite d'*{Anc.#31} b. 1300?/
m./ BOUL AUVERGNE, Guillaume b. 1304? [Robert
7 ct. de/ CLERMONT, Blanche de]
2 EVREUX, Marie d' b.1300?, d. 1335 /m.
/BRABANT, Jean 3,duc de b. 1296 [Jean 2, duc
de/ENGLAND, Marguerite of]
3 NAVARRE, KING, Philippe ct. Evreux leBon b.
1302, d. 1343 / m. /FRANCE, Jeanne 2 de b.1312
[Louis X le Hutin / BOURGOGNE, Marguerite de]
64 FRANCE, KING, Philippe 3 le Hardie*
{Anc.#44, 4 lines} [Louis 9, St. / PROVENCE, Marguerite de] b.1 May 1245 Poissy, Fr.; d. 5 Oct 1285
Perpignon
65 ARAGON, Isabel d' *{Anc.#45,3 lines}
[Jaime / HUNGARY,Yolande de], b. 1243 Aragon; d.
23 Jan 1271 Clermont, Auvergne, Fr.
66 NAPLES-JERUS, KING, Charles 2 d'Anjou [Charles 1 d'Anjou / PROVENCE, Beatrix] b.
1248 France; d. 6 May 1309 Naples m1. 1270
67 HUNGARY, Marie de [Stephen 5 / KUMANS,
Elisabeth de], b. 1257 Hungary; d. 25 Mar 1323 assassinated
1 HUNGARY, KING, Charles Martel d'Anjou b.
1271, d. 1295 /m. / HAPSBURG, Clemence v. b.
1260? [Rudolf /HOHENBERG, Anne Gertrude v.]
2 ANJOU, Marguerite deNaples d'* {Anc.#33}
b.1273, d. 1299 / m. / VALOIS, Charles 1 ct. de
b.1270 [Philippe / ARAGON, Isabel d']
3 NAPLES, Blanche d'Anjou de b. 1281?, d. 1310 /
m. /ARAGON, KING, Jaime 2 leJuste b.1262 [Pedro
3 d'Aragon / SICILY, Constance]
4 NAPLES, Eleonore de b. 1289, d. 1341 / m./
SICILY, KING, Frederick b. 1272 [Pedro 3 d'Aragon
/ SICILY, Constance]
68 THESSALONICA, KING, Hugh 4, duc de
Bourgogne [Eudes 3, duc de / VERGY, Alix de] b. 3
Sep 1212 Burgundy; d. 27 Oct 1272 Villane-en
Duesmois Other wife m2. 1258 CHAMPAGNE, Beatrix de [Thibaud / BOURBON, Marguerite de] b.
1230? Navarre ch.:Marguerite de. 1260 (CHALONARLAY, Jean 1 sr.d'); m1. 1229
69 DREUX, Yolande de [Robert / ST. VALERY,
Leonore de], b. 1212 France; d. 30 Oct 1248 Citeau
m
October 1994
1 BOURGOGNE, Eudes ct. Nevers /d'Auxerre b.
1230 , d. 1269 /m. /BOURBON, Mahaut b. 1235?
[Archembaud / CHATILLON,Yolande de]
2 BOURBON, Jean sr. de Bourgogne* {Anc.#82}
b. 1231 , d.1 268 /m. / BOURBON, Agnes deDampierre b.1237 [Archembaud / CHATILLON, Yolande
de]
3 BOURGOGNE, Aleidis de*{Anc.#149} b. 1233 ,
d. 1287 /m./ BRABANT, Henry 3 duc de b.1230?
[Henry 2 duc de/ SWABIA, Marie v.]
4 BOURGOGNE, Robert 2, duc de*{Anc.#34} b.
1249 , d. 1305 /m. / FRANCE, Agnes de b.1260
[Louis 9,St. / PROVENCE, Marguerite de]
70 FRANCE, KING, Louis 9, St. [Louis / CASTILE, Blanche de] b. 25 Apr 1215 Poissy,Fr.; d. 25
Aug 1270 Tunis, 8th crusade m1.27 May 1234
Sens,Fr.;
71 PROVENCE, Marguerite de [Raymond
/SAVOY, Beatrix de], b. 1221 St. Maime, Fr.; d. 20
Dec 1295 St. Denis, Fr.
1 FRANCE,KING, Philippe 3 leHardie* {Anc.#44}
b. 1 May 1245 , d. 1285 /m./ BRABANT, Marie de b.
1255? [Henry 3 duc de/BOURGOGNE, Aleidis de]
2 FRANCE, Pierre ct. Alencon de b. 1250?, d.
1283 /m./ CHATILLON, Jeanne b. 1254 [Jean
ct.Blois de/ BRETAGNE, Alix de]
3 FRANCE, Blanche le Jeune de b. 1253, d. 1323
/m./ CASTILE, Fernando b. 1256 [Alfonso X leSage/
ARAGON, Yolande d']
4 CLERMONT, Robert de France ct. de* {Anc.#40}
b. 1256 , d. 1317 /m./ BOURBON-BOURGOGN, Beatrix de b. 1260? [Jean / BOURBON, Agnes de Dampierre]
5 FRANCE, Agnes de* {Anc.#35} b. 1260, d.
1327 /m. /BOURGOGNE, Robert 2, duc de b. 1249
[Hugh / DREUX, Yolande de]
72 LUXEMBOURG, Henry 6 ct. de [Henry
/BAR, Marguerite de] b. 1242 Luxembourg; d. 5 Jun
1288 Worringen, battle m1. 1261
73 AVESNES, Beatrix d' [Baudoin / COUCY, Felicite de], b. 1245? Flanders; d. 1 Mar 1321 Luxembourg 1 H.R.EMP., Henry 4, ct.7 de Luxembourg *
{Anc.#36} b. 1274, d. 1313 / m./ BRABANT, Marguerite de b. 1276 [Jean / FLANDERS, Marguerite de]
74 BRABANT, Jean 1 Antoine,duc de [Henry 3
duc de/ BOURGOGNE, Aleidis de] b. 1253 Brabant;
d. 3 May 1294 Bar-leDuc, tournament m1. 1273
75 FLANDERS, Marguerite de [Gui / BETHUNE,
Mathilde], b. 1251 Flanders; d. 3 Jul 1285
1 BRABANT, Marie de b. 1275?, d. 1337 / m./ SAVOY, Amadeus b. 1249 [Thomas / FIESCHI, Beatrix]
2 BRABANT, Jean 2, duc de b. 27 Sep 1275, d.
1312 /m./ ENGLAND, Marguerite of b. 1275 [Edward
/ CASTILE, Eleanor]
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 197
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
3 BRABANT, Marguerite de* {Anc.#37} b. 4 Oct
1276 , d. 1311 /m. / H.R.EMP., Henry b.1274
[Henry 6 ct.de/AVESNES,Beatrix d']
76 BOHEMIA & POLAND, KING, P r e m y s l
Otakar 2 [Wenceslas 1/SWABIA,Kunegunde v.] b.
1233 Praha,Bohemia; d.26 Aug 1278
Stillfried,Austria m1.25 Oct 1261
77 BULGARIA-KIEV, Kunigunde v.Halicz
[Retislaw /HUNGARY,Anna v.], b. 1246 Poland; d.9
Sep 1285
1 TROPPAU, Premko Nicolai 1,hg. b.1260?,
d.1318 /m./,Adelaide b.1270? []
2 BOHEMIA, Agnes v. b.1269 , d.1296 /m./
HAPSBURG, Rudolf b.1160? [Albert
/PFULLENDORF,Ita v.]
3 BOHEMIA,KING, Wenceslas 2*{Anc.#38} b.27
Sep 1271 , d.1305 /m./POLAND,Elisabeth Rixa v.
b.1286 [Przemyslaw /SWEDEN, Rixa v.]
78 H.R.E MP., Rudolf 1 v.Hapsburg [Albert
/KYBURG, Hedwige v.] b.1 May 1218 Austria; d.15
Jul 1291 m1. 1240
79 HOHENBERG, Anne Gertrude v. [Buchard 3
gf.v./TUBINGEN,Mechtilde v.], b. 1225 Germany;
d.16 Feb 1281
1 HAPSBURG, Mathilde v. b.1251 , d.1323 /m./
BAVARIA, Ludwig b.1229 [Otto /BRUNSWICKHANOVE,Agnes v.Saxe-]
2 HAPSBURG, Clemence v. b.1260?, d.1293 /m./
HUNGARY, KING, Charles b.1271 [Charles 2 d'Anjou/ HUNGARY,Marie de]
3 HAPSBURG, Agnes v. b.1260?, d.1322
/m./SAXE-WITTENBERG,Albert 2 von b.1250?
[Albert 1 hg.v.]
4 HAPSBURG, Judith Guta v.*{Anc.#39} b.13 Jan
1271 , d.1297 /m./BOHEMIA,KING,Wenceslas 2
b.1271 [Premysl Otakar 2/BULGARIAKIEV,Kunigunde]
5 H.R.EMP., Albert 1 v.Hapsburg b.Jul 1278 ,
d.1308 /m./CARINTHIA,Isabella b.1263 [Meinhard
/BADEN,Agnes v.]
80 FRANCE,KING, Louis 9,St.*{Anc.#70,7
lines} [Louis /CASTILE,Blanche de] b.25 Apr 1215
Poissy,Fr.; d.25 Aug 1270 Tunis,8th. crusade 0
81 PROVENCE, Marguerite de* {Anc.#71,7
lines} [Raymond / SAVOY, Beatrix de], b. 1221 St.
Maime, Fr.; d. 20 Dec 1295 St.Denis, Fr.
82 BOURBON, Jean sr. de Bourgogne [Hugh
/ DREUX, Yolande de] b. 1231 Burgundy; d. 29 Sep
1268 m1. Feb 1248
83 BOURBON, Agnes deDampierre
[Archembaud / CHATILLON, Yolande de], b. 1237
France; d.7 Sep 1288
1 BOURBON-BOURGOGNE, Beatrix
de*{Anc.#41} b.1260?, d.1310 /m./CLERMONT,
October 1994
Robert b. 1256 [Louis 9, St./ PROVENCE, Marguerite de]
84 HAINAUT, Jean 1, d'Avesnes ct.de [Bouchard /
FLANDERS, Marguerite] b. 1 May 1218 Etraeungt,
Nord, Fr.; d. 24 Dec 1257 m1.9 Oct 1246
85 HOLLAND, Adelaide cts.v. [Florent 4 ct. v./
BRABANT, Mathilde de], b. 1225 Holland; d. 1284
1 HAINAUT, Jean 2, d'Avesnes ct. de*{Anc.#42}
b.1247, d. 1304 / m./ LUXEMBOURG, Philippa de
b. 1253 [Henry /BAR, Marguerite de]
2 HAINAUT, Marguerite d'Avesnes d' b. 1250?/
m./ ARTOIS, Robert b. 1250? [Robert / BRABANT,
Mahaut de]
86 LUXEMBOURG, Henry 5, le Blond ct.de
[Valeron 4 mrqs. d'/ LUXEMBOURG, Ermesinde] b.
1217 Luxembourg; d. 24 Nov 1281 m1.4 Jun 1240
87 BAR, Marguerite de [Henry 2 ct.de/ DREUX,
Philippine de], b. 1220 Bar; d. 23 Nov 1275
1 LUXEMBOURG, Isabelle cts. Namur de b. 1240?,
d. 1298 /m. / FLANDERS, Gui b. 1225? [Guillaume /
FLANDERS, Marguerite]
2 LUXEMBOURG, Henry 6 ct. de* {Anc.#72} b.
1242 , d. 1288 /m./ AVESNES, Beatrix d' b. 1245?
[Baudoin /COUCY, Felicite de]
3 LUXEMBOURG, Valeran 1 ct. de Ligny b. 1245 ,
d. 1288 /m. /BEAUREVOIR, Jeanne de b. 1250?
[Baudoin sgr.de]
4 LUXEMBOURG, Philippa de*{Anc.#43} b. 1253
, d. 1311 /m./ HAINAUT, Jean b. 1247 [Jean / HOLLAND, Adelaide cts.v.]
88 FRANCE, KING, Louis 9, St.* {Anc.#70, 7
lines} [Louis / CASTILE, Blanche de] b.25 Apr 1215
Poissy,Fr.; d. 25 Aug 1270 Tunis, 8th crusade
89 PROVENCE, Marguerite de*{Anc.#71, 7
lines} [Raymond / SAVOY, Beatrix de], b. 1221 St.
Maime, Fr.; d. 20 Dec 1295 St.Denis, Fr.
90 ARAGON, KING, Jaime 1, the Conqueror
[Pedro 2/ MONTPELLIER, Marie de] b. 1 Feb 1208
Montpellier, Fr.; d. 26 Jul 1276 Valencia, Sp. m1. 8
Sep 1235 Barcelona;
91 HUNGARY, Yolande de [Andre 2/ COURTENAY, Yolande de], b. 1213 Hungary; d. 9 Oct 1251
Huesca, Sp.
1 ARAGON, Yolande d' b. 1230?, d. 1300 /m.
/CASTILE-LEON, KIN, Alfonso X leSage b.1221
[St.Fernando 3/ SWABIA, Beatrix Elis.v.]
2 SICILY,KING, Pedro 3 d'Aragon b. 1236, d.
1285 /m./ SICILY, Constance b.1249 [Manfred v.
Saxe/ SAVOY, Beatrix de]
3 ARAGON, Isabel d'* {Anc.#45} b. 1243 , d.
1271 /m./ FRANCE, KING, Philippe b.1245 [Louis
9, St./PROVENCE, Marguerite de]
4 MAJORCA, KING, Jaime 1 deAragon b. 1243 , d.
1311
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 198
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
5 ARAGON, Constaza d' b. 1250?/ m./ CASTILE,
Manuel b. 1235? [St. Fernando 3/ SWABIA, Beatrix
Elis.v.]
92 CHATILLON, Guy 1 ct. St. Pol/ Blois [Hugh
/AVESNES, Marie d'] b. 1230? France; d. 12 Mar
1289 l'Eglise deCercamp
93 BRABANT, Mahaut de [Henry 2 duc de/
SWABIA, Marie v.], b. 1218 Brabant; d. 29 Sep
1288
1 ST.POL, Hugh 2 Chatillon ct. de b. 1260?, d.
1307 /m. /FLANDERS, Beatrix b.1270? [Gui / LUXEMBOURG, Isabelle]
2 ST.POL, Guy 3 Chatillon ct.de* {Anc.#46} b.
1260?, d. 1317 /m./ BRETAGNE, Marie de b.1268
[Jean /ENGLAND, Beatrice of]
3 CHATILLON, Jacques sgr. Leuse-Conde de b.
1260?, d. 1302 /m. /CONDE, Catherine b. 1260?
[Nicolas / CARENCY, Catherine] Other husband
m2. 14 Jun 1237 Campiegne; FRANCE, Robert 1,
leBon ct. Artois, de [Louis /CASTILE, Blanche de] b.
Sep 1216 France ch.:Blanche d'.1248
(LANCASTER, Edmund Crouchback); Robert 2,
ct.d'Eu d'.1250 (COURTENAY,Amicie
de)*{Anc.#252};
94 BRETAGNE, Jean 2, Richmont duc de [Jean
/CHAMPAGNE, Blanche] b. 4 Jan 1239 Rennes, Fr.;
d. 18 Nov 1305 Lyons m1.22 Jan 1260 St.Denis;
95 ENGLAND, Beatrice of [Henry / PROVENCE,
Eleanor de], b. 25 Jun 1242 Bordeaux, Fr.; d. 24 Mar
1275 London, Eng.
1 BRETAGNE, Arthur 2, duc de b. 1262, d. 1312
/m./ DREUX,Yolande b. 1263? [Robert 4 ct.de/
MONTFORT, Beatrix de]
2 BRETAGNE, Blanche de* {Anc.#127} b. 1265?,
d. 1327 /m. /ARTOIS, Philippe b. 1263? [Robert /
COURTENAY, Amicie de]
3 BRETAGNE, Marie de* {Anc.#47} b. 1268 , d.
1339 /m. /ST.POL, Guy b. 1260? [Guy / BRABANT,
Mahaut de]
96 VISCONTI, Tebaldo [Andreotto] b. 1225?
Italy; d.
97 PIROVANO, Anastasia [], b. 1225? Italy; d.
1 VISCONTI, Matteo 1 ct.deMilan* {Anc.#48} b.
15 Aug 1250, d.1322 /m./BORRI Bonacossa b.
1250? [Squarcino]
98 BORRI, Squarcino [ ] b. 1220?; d. 1 BORRI,
Bonacossa* {Anc.#49} b. 1250?, d. 1321 /m.
/VISCONTI, Matteo b. 1250 [Tebaldo/ PIROVANO,
Anastasia]
104 SAVOY, Thomas 2, ct. dePiedmont de
[Thomas 1 ct. de/GENEVA, Beatrix] b. 1199 Savoy;
d. 7 Feb 1259 Haute Combe Other wife m2. 1237
HAINAUT, Jeanne de Constantinople de [Baudoin /
CHAMPAGNE, Marie de] b. 1199 Flanders
October 1994
105 FIESCHI, Beatrix deLavagna di [Theodore
/ CAPECORSE, NN. de], b. 1220? Genoa; d. 9 Jul
1283 niece, Pope Innocent 4
1 SAVOY, Thomas 3, ct. dePiedmont de b. Nov
1248 , d. 1282 /m. / BOURGOGNE, Guiette de b.
1250? [Hugh ct.de/ BOURGOGNE, Alix cts. de]
2 SAVOY, Amadeus 5, il Grande ct. de* {Anc.#52}
b. 4 Sep 1249, d. 1323 /m./ BRABANT, Marie de
b.1275? [Jean /FLANDERS, Marguerite de]
106 BAUGE, Guy brn. Bresse de [Renaud
/BEAUJEU, Sybille de] b. 1220? Bresse; d. 1255?
107 MONTFERRAT, Beatrix dphn. de
[Guillaume / CLAVESANA, Berta], b. 1210? Savoy;
d. 1274
1 BAUGE, Sybile brns.de*{Anc.#53} b. 1255?, d.
1294 /m./ SAVOY, Amadeus b.1249 [Thomas
/FIESCHI,Beatrix]
108 BYZANTIUM EMP., Andronicus 2
[Michael 8/ DOUKAS, Theodora] b. 1259 Byzantium; d. 13 Feb 1332
Other wife m1. HUNGARY, Anne d' [ ] b. 1260? ch.:
Maria. 1280 (WALACHIA, Tictomer voevod); m2. 2
109 MONTFERRAT, Irene Yolande de
[Guillaume /ENGLAND, Elizabeth of], b. 1260? Savoy; d. 1317
1 MONTFERRAT, Theodore 1,Palaeologus
mrq.*{Anc.#54} b.1280 , d. 1338 /m./ SPINOLA,
Argentina b.1 280? [Opicin]
110 SPINOLA, Opicin [ ] b. 1250? Genoa; d.
1 SPINOLA, Argentina*{Anc. #55} b. 1280? /m./
MONTFERRAT, Theodore b. 1280 [Andronicus 2/
MONTFERRAT, Irene Yolande de]
112 FRANCE, KING, Philippe 3 leHardie *
{Anc.#44, 4 lines} [Louis 9, St. /PROVENCE, Marguerite de] b. 1 May 1245 Poissy, Fr.; d. 5 Oct 1285
Perpignon
113 ARAGON, Isabel d' *{Anc.#45, 3 lines}
[Jaime /HUNGARY, Yolande de], b. 1243 Aragon; d.
23 Jan 1271 Clermont, Auvergne, Fr.
114 NAPLES & JERUSALUM, KING, Char l e s 2 d'Anjou* {Anc.#66,2 lines} [Charles 1 d'Anjou / PROVENCE, Beatrix] b. 1248 France; d. 6 May
1309 Naples
115 HUNGARY, Marie de *{Anc.#67, 2 lines}
[Stephen 5/ KUMANS, Elisabeth de], b. 1257 Hungary; d. 25 Mar 1323 assassinated
116 THESSALONICA, KING, Hugh 4,duc de
Bourgogne *{Anc.#68, 3 lines} [Eudes 3,duc de/
VERGY, Alix de] b. 3 Sep 1212 Burgundy; d. 27 Oct
1272 Villane-en Duesmois
117 DREUX, Yolande de *{Anc.#69, 3 lines}
[Robert / ST.VALERY, Leonore de], b. 1212 France;
d. 30 Oct 1248 Citeau
120 BOULOGNE & AUVERGNE, Robert 6 ct.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 199
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
d'Eu- [Robert 5 ct.de / BAFFIE, Eleonore] b. 1245?
France; d. 1317 m1.14 Jul 1276
121 MONTGASCON, Beatrix de [Faulcon 3 sgr.
de/ VENTADOUR, Isabeau Marie de], b. 1255?
France; d.
1 BOULOGNE-AUVERGNE, Robert 7
ct.de*{Anc.#60} b. 1277?, d. 1325 /m./ FLANDERS,
Marie de b.1290? [Guillaume / CLERMONT, Alix deNesle de]
122 CLERMONT, Robert de France ct. de*
{Anc.#40, 2 lines} [Louis 9, St. /PROVENCE, Marguerite de] b. 1256 France; d. 16 Jan 1317
123 BOURBON-BOURGOGNE, Beatrix de*
{Anc. #41, 2 lines} [Jean /BOURBON, Agnes deDampierre], b. 1260? France; d. 1 Oct 1310
126 ARTOIS, Philippe sr.Conches d' [Robert /
COURTENAY, Amicie de] b. 1263? France; d. 11 Sep
1298 Furnes, battle m1. Nov 1281
127 BRETAGNE, Blanche de [Jean / ENGLAND,
Beatrice of], b. 1265? France; d. 19 Mar 1327
1 ARTOIS, Marguerite d'*{Anc. #63} b. 1285?, d.
1311 /m./ EVREUX, Louis b. 1275 [Philippe /
BRABANT, Marie de] 0
2 ARTOIS, Robert 3 ct. d' b. 1287, d. 1343 / m./
VALOIS, Jeanne de b.1300? [Charles 1 ct.de COURTENAY, Catherine de]
3 ARTOIS, Marie d' b. 1290?, d. 1365
/m./NAMUR,Jean b. 1266 [Gui
/LUXEMBOURG,Isabelle]
4 ARTOIS, Jeanne d' b. 1300?/m./ FOIX, Gaston 1
ct.de b. 1275? [Roger / MONCADE, S Marguerite]
130 ARAGON, KING, Jaime 1, the Conqueror *
{Anc.# 90, 3 lines} [Pedro 2/MONTPELLIER, Marie
de] b. 1 Feb 1208 Montpellier ,Fr.; d. 26 Jul 1276
Valencia, Sp.
131 HUNGARY, Yolande de*{Anc.#91, 3 lines}
[Andre 2/ COURTENAY,Yolande de], b. 1213 Hungary; d. 9 Oct 1251 Huesca,Sp.
132 NAPLES, KING, Charles 1 d'Anjou [Louis
/ CASTILE, Blanche de] b. Mar 1226 France; d. 7 Jan
1285 Foggia,It. m1. 1246
133 PROVENCE, Beatrix cts. Forcalquier
[Raymond /SAVOY, Beatrix de], b. 1234 France; d.
23 Sep 1267 Norcera
1 NAPLES & JERUSALEM KING, Charles 2 d'Anjou * {Anc.#66} b.1248 , d. 1309 /m. /HUNGARY,
Marie de b. 1257 [Stephen 5/KUMANS, Elisabeth
de]
2 ANJOU-NAPLES-SICILY, Beatrix d' b. 1250?, d.
1275 /m. /CONSTANTINE EMP.,Philippe b. 1243
[Baudoin /BRIENNE, Marie de]
134 HUNGARY, KING, Stephen 5 [Bela 4
CONSTANTINOPLE, Maria] b. Dec 1239 Hungary; d.
1 Aug 1272 Other wife m1. POLAND, Fenvena de
October 1994
[Zemol /Gertrude duchesse] b. 1240? Poland m2.
1254
135 KUMANS, Elisabeth de [Kuthen/HALICZGALICIA, pr.v.], b. 1240? Bosnia; d.
1 HUNGARY, Marie de* {Anc.#67} b. 1257 ,
d.1323 /m./ NAPLES-JERUSAEM KING, Charles 2
d'Anjou b.1248 [Charles 1 d'Anjou/ PROVENCE,
Beatrix]
136 BOURGOGNE, Eudes 3, duc de [Hugh 3,duc
de/ LORRAINE, Alix de] b. 1166 Burgundy; d. 1218
m1. 1199
137 VERGY, Alix de [Hugues sr.de /TRAINEL,
Gilles de], b. 1180? France; d. 1251 Burgundy
1 THESSALONICA,KING, Hugh 4,duc deBourgogne * {Anc.#68} b. 3 Sep 1212 , d. 1272 /m./
CHAMPAGNE, Beatrix de b. 1230? [Thibaud /
BOURBON,Marguerite de]
2 BOURGOGNE, Beatrix de b. 1220?/m./ VILLARS, Humbert b. 1220? [Etienne / FAUCIGNY,
Beatrix de]
138 DREUX, Robert 3 ct. deBraine [Robert 2
ct.de/ COUCY,Yolande de] b. 1185 France; d. 3 Mar
1234 St. Ived, Braine m1. 1210
139 ST. VALERY, Leonore de [Thomas sr.de/
PONTHIEU, Adele de], b. 1192 France; d. 15 Nov
1252
1 DREUX, Yolande de* {Anc.#69} b. 1212 , d.
1248 /m./ THESSALONICA, KIN, Hugh b.1212
[Eudes 3, duc de/VERGY, Alix de]
2 DREUX, Robert sgr. Beu de b. 1215?, d. 1264
/m./ CHATEAUDUN, Clemence vct. de b. 1220?
[Geofroy 4 vct. de/ ROCHES, Clemence des]
3 DREUX, Jean 1 ct. de b. 1215?, d. 1249 /m./
BOURBON, Marie de b.1220? [Archembaud
/MONTLUCON-BOURBO, Mahaud de]
140 FRANCE, KING, Louis 8 Coeur-deLion
[Philippe /HAINAUT, Isabelle de] b. 5 Sep 1187
Paris, Fr.; d. 8 Nov 1226 Auvergne, Fr. m1. 23 May
1200 Pont-Audemer, Norm.;
141 CASTILE, Blanche de [Alfonso
/PLANTAGENET, Eleonore], b. 4 Mar 1188 Palencia; d. 26 Nov 1252 Maubuisson Pontois, Fr.
1 FRANCE,KING, Louis 9,St.*{Anc.#70} b.25
Apr 1215 , d.1270 /m./PROVENCE,Marguerite de
b.1221 [Raymond /SAVOY,Beatrix de]
2 FRANCE, Robert 1, leBon ct. Artois, de b. Sep
1216 , d. 1250 /m./BRABANT, Mahaut de b.1218
[Henry 2 duc de/SWABIA, Marie v.]
3 FRANCE, Alphonse ct. Poitiers de b. 11 Nov
1220 d. 1271 /m./TOULOUSE, Jeanne cts. de b.
1225? [Raymond 7 ct. de/LUSIGNAN, Marguerite]
4 NAPLES,KING, Charles 1 d'Anjou*{Anc.#132}
b. Mar 1226 , d. 1285 /m./PROVENCE, Beatrix b.
1234 [Raymond / SAVOY, Beatrix de]
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 200
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
142 PROVENCE-FORCALQUIER, Raymond
Berenger 5, ct. de [Alfonso /SABRAN, Garsinde]
b. 1198 France; d. 19 Aug 1245 Aix,Fr. m1. 5 Jun
1219 Dez, Fr.;
143 SAVOY, Beatrix de [Thomas 1 ct.de/ GENEVA, Beatrix], b. 1198 Savoy; d. Dec 1266 Aragon
1 PROVENCE, Eleanor de*{Anc.#191} b.1217 , d.
1291 /m./ENGLAND, KING, Henry b.1206 [John 1
Lackland/ ANGOULEME, Isabelle]
2 PROVENCE, Marguerite de*{Anc.#71} b.1221 ,
d.1295 /m./FRANCE, KING, Louis 9, St. b.1215
[Louis /CASTILE, Blanche de]
3 PROVENCE, Sancha de b.1225?, d.1261
/m./H.R. EMP., Richard b. 1209 [John 1 Lackland/
ANGOULEME, Isabelle]
4 PROVENCE, Beatrix
cts.Forcalquier*{Anc.#133} b. 1234 , d. 1267
/m./NAPLES, KING, Charles 1 d'Anjou b.1226
[Louis /CASTILE, Blanche de]
144 LUXEMBOURG, Henry 5, leBlond ct. de*
{Anc.#86, 2 lines} [Valeron 4 mrqs.
d'/LUXEMBOURG, Ermesinde] b. 1217 Luxembourg; d. 24 Nov 1281
145 BAR, Marguerite de* {Anc.#87,2 lines}
[Henry 2 ct. de/DREUX, Philippine de], b. 1220 Bar;
d. 23 Nov 1275
146 AVESNES, Baudoin sr. Beaumont d'
[Bouchard /FLANDERS, Marguerite] b. 1200? Flanders; d.
147 COUCY, Felicite de [Thomas /RETHEL,
Mahaud de], b. 1225? France; d.
1 AVESNES, Beatrix d'*{Anc.#73} b. 1245?, d.
1321 /m./LUXEMBOURG, Henry 6 ct. de b.1242
[Henry /BAR,Marguerite de]
148 BRABANT, Henry 3 duc de [Henry 2 duc de/
SWABIA, Marie v.] b. 1230? Brabant; d. 21 Feb
1261 m1. 1261
149 BOURGOGNE, Aleidis de [Hugh /DREUX,
Yolande de], b. 1233 Burgundy; d. 23 Oct 1287
1 BRABANT, Geofroy sr. Arschot de b. 1250?, d.
1302 /m./VIERZON, Jeanne de b.1250? [Herve 4 sr.
de/ MEZIERES-BRENNE, Jeanne de]
2 BRABANT, Jean 1 Antoine, duc de*{Anc.#74}
b. 1253, d. 1294 /m./FLANDERS, Marguerite de
b.1251 [Gui / BETHUNE, Mathilde]
3 BRABANT, Marie de* {Anc.#125} b.1255?, d.
1322 /m./FRANCE, KING, Philippe b.1245 [Louis
9, St. /PROVENCE, Marguerite de]
150 FLANDERS, Gui 2 Dampierre ct.Namur[Guillaume /FLANDERS, Marguerite] b. 1225? Flanders; d. 1305 Other wife m2. 1265 LUXEMBOURG,
Isabelle cts. Namur de [Henry /BAR, Marguerite de]b.
1240? Lux. ch.:Marguerite de. 1260 (GUELDRE,
Rainald 1 ct.v.N); Jean 1 Dampierre mq.de. 1266
October 1994
(ARTOIS, Marie d'); Beatrix Dampierre de. 1270
(ST.POL,Hugh 2 Chatillon); Isabelle de. 1270
(FIENES, Jean de); m1. 1246
151BETHUNE, Mathilde deTenremonde[Robert /MAREACONES, Isabeau], b. 1230? France;
d. 1264
1 FLANDERS, Robert 3, Bethune ct. de, b. 1247 ,
d. 1322 /m./BOURGOGNE,Yolande b. 1250? [Eudes
/BOURBON, Mahaut]
2 FLANDERS, Marguerite de *{Anc.#75} b. 1251 ,
d. 1285 /m./BRABANT, Jean b.1253 [Henry 3 duc
de/BOURGOGNE, Aleidis de]
3 FLANDERS, Guillaume sgr. Crevecour de b.
1260?, d. 1312 /m./CLERMONT, Alix deNesle de, b.
1260? [Raoul /DREUX,Alix]
152 BOHEMIA & POLAND, KING, W e n c e s l a s 1 [Premysl Otakar 1/HUNGARY, Constance of]
b. 1205 Beroun; d. 1253 m1. 2458
153 SWABIA, Kunegunde v. [Philip
/BYZANTIUM, Irene Angelina of], b. 1200 Swabia;
d. 1248 Poland
1 BOHEM.POLAND, KING, Premysl Otakar 2*
{Anc.#76} b. 1233 , d. 1278 /m./BULGARIA-KIEV,
Kunigunde b.1246 [Retislaw /HUNGARY, Anna v.]
154 BULGARIA, KING, R e t i s l a w v. Masco, pr.
Halicz [Mikhail /KIEV, Maria] b. 1225 Kiev; d.
1263 m1. 1243 Buda-Pest;
155 HUNGARY, Anna v. [Bela 4/ CONSTANTINOPLE, Maria], b. 1227 Buda-Pest; d. 1274
1 BULGARIA-KIEV, Kunigunde v.Halicz
*{Anc.#77} b. 1246 , d. 1285
/m./BOHEM.POLAND,KIN,Premysl Otakar 2 b.1233
[Wenceslas 1/SWABIA,Kunegunde v.]
156 HAPSBURG, Albert 4,leSage gf.v. [Rudolf /
ZAHRINGEN, Agnes] b. 1190? Alsace; d.22 Nov
1240 m1. 1217
157 KYBURG, Hedwige v. [Ulrich 3
gf.v./ZAHRINGEN, Anna v.], b. 1200? Germany; d.
1260
1 H.R.EMP., Rudolf 1 v.Hapsburg *{Anc.#78} b.
1 May 1218 , d. 1291 /m./HOHENBERG, Anne Gertrude v. b. 1225 [Buchard 3
gf.v./TUBINGEN,Mechtilde v.]
158 HOHENBERG, Buchard 3 gf.v. [Buchard 2
gf.v./ AICHELBERG, Wilipirg v.] b. 1210? Germany; d. 14 Jul 1253 m1. 1233
159 TUBINGEN, Mechtilde v. [Rudolf 2 pgf.v./
WURTEMBURG, Adelheid v.], b. 1215? Germany; d.
1 HOHENBERG, Anne Gertrude v. *{Anc.#79}
b.1225 , d.1281 /m./H.R.EMP.,Rudolf b.1218
[Albert / KYBURG, Hedwige v.]
160 FRANCE, KING, Louis 8 Coeur-deLion *
{Anc. #140, 3 lines} [Philippe /HAINAUT, Isabelle
de] b. 5 Sep 1187 Paris, Fr.; d. 8 Nov 1226 Au-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 201
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
vergne, Fr.
161 CASTILE, Blanche de* {Anc.#141, 3 lines}
[Alfonso / PLANTAGENET, Eleonore], b. 4 Mar
1188 Palencia; d. 26 Nov 1252 Maubuisson Pontois, Fr.
162 PROVENCE-FORCALQUIER, Raymond
Berenger 5,ct. de* {Anc.#142, 3 lines} [Alfonso /
SABRAN, Garsinde] b. 1198 France; d. 19 Aug 1245
Aix, Fr.
163 SAVOY, Beatrix de* {Anc.#143, 3 lines}
[Thomas 1 ct. de/GENEVA, Beatrix], b. 1198 Savoy;
d. Dec 1266 Aragon
164 THESSALONICA, KING, Hugh 4,duc de
Bourgogne* {Anc.#68,3 lines} [Eudes 3, duc
de/VERGY, Alix de] b. 3 Sep 1212 Burgundy; d. 27
Oct 1272 Villane-en Duesmois
165 DREUX, Yolande de* {Anc.#69, 3 lines}
[Robert /ST.VALERY, Leonore de], b. 1212 France;
d. 30 Oct 1248 Citeau
166 BOURBON, Archembaud X Sr. de
[Archembaud /MELLO, Agnes de] b. 1200? France; d.
19 Jan 1249 Cyprus m1. 30 May 1228
167 CHATILLON, Yolande de [Guy 3 ct. St.Pol/
NEVERS-AUXERRE, Agnes], b. 1215? France; d.
1254
1 BOURBON, Mahaut Dampierre cts.Nevers
b.1235?, d.1262 /m./BOURGOGNE, Eudes b. 1230
[Hugh /DREUX, Yolande de]
2 BOURBON, Agnes de Dampierre* {Anc.#83} b.
1237, d. 1288 /m./BOURBON, Jean b. 1231 [Hugh
/DREUX,Yolande de]
168 BEAUMONT, Bouchard d'Avesnes sgr. de
[Jacques sgr. d'/GUISE, Ameline de] b. 1190?
Avesnes; d. 1244 m1. Jul 1212
169 FLANDERS, Marguerite 2 Constantinople
[Baudoin / CHAMPAGNE, Marie de], b. 2 Jun 1202
Constantinople; d. 10 Feb 1280
1 AVESNES, Baudoin sr. Beaumont d'*
{Anc.#146} b. 1200?/m./COUCY, Felicite de b.
1225? [Thomas /RETHEL, Mahaud de]
2 HAINAUT, Jean 1, d'Avesnes ct. de* {Anc.#84}
b.1 May 1218 , d. 1257 /m./HOLLAND, Adelaide
cts.v. b. 1225 [Florent 4 ct.v./ BRABANT,
Mathilde de] Other husband m2. 1223 DAMPIERRE,
Guillaume 2 sgr de [Guy, Archembaud /BOURBON,
Mathilde 1 cts. de]b. 1190? France
170 HOLLAND, Florent 4 ct.v. [Wilhem 1 ct.v./
GUELDRE, Adelaide v.] b. 24 Jun 1210 Holland; d.
19 Jul 1234 m1.6 Dec 1224
171 BRABANT, Mathilde de [Henry
/BOULOGNE-FLANDER, Mathilde de], b. 1200?
Brabant; d.27 Dec 1267 Hague
1 HOLLAND, Adelaide cts.v.*{Anc.#85} b.1225 ,
d.1284 /m./HAINAUT,Jean b.1218 [Bouchard
October 1994
/FLANDERS,Marguerite]
2 HOLLAND, Willem 2 ct.v. b.1230?, d.1256
172 ARLON-LIMBURG, Valeron 4 mrqs.d'
[Henry /SAARBRUCKEN,Sophia von] b. 1176?
France; d.2 Jul 1226 Rolduc m1. May 1214
173 LUXEMBOURG, Ermesinde deNamur
cts.de [Henry 1,duc de/GUELDRE,Agnes v.], b. Jul
1186 Luxembourg; d.12 Feb 1247
1 LUXEMBOURG, Catherine de b.1214 , d.1255
/m./LORRAINE,Mathieu 2,duc de b.1193 [Ferry
2,duc de/BAR,Agnes de]
2 LUXEMBOURG, Henry 5,leBlond
ct.de*{Anc.#86} b.1217 , d.1281
/m./BAR,Marguerite de b.1220 [Henry 2
ct.de/DREUX, Philippine de] Other husband m1.
1198 BAR-LE-DUC, Thibaut 1 ct.Brie- [Renaud
/CHAMPAGNE, Agnes deLigny de]b. 1158 Lorraine
174 BAR-LE-DUC, Henry 2 ct.de [Thibaut
/BAR-SUR-SEINE,Emesinde] b. 1190? BarleDuc,Lorraine; d.13 Nov 1239 Gaza,battle m1.12
Nov 1218
175 DREUX, Philippine de [Robert 2
ct.de/COUCY,Yolande de], b. 1192 France; d.17 Mar
1242
1 BAR, Marguerite de*{Anc.#87} b.1220 , d.1275
/m./ LUXEMBOURG,Henry b.1217 [Valeron 4 mrqs.
d'/ LUXEMBOURG, Ermesinde]
2 BAR, Thibaut 2 ct.de b.1220?, d.1291 /m./ TOUCY, Jeanne de b.1230? [Jean 1 sgr.de/LAVAL,Emme
cts.de]
176 FRANCE, KING, Louis 8 Coeur-deLion*
{Anc.# 140, 3 lines} [Philippe /HAINAUT, Isabelle
de] b.5 Sep 1187 Paris,Fr.; d.8 Nov 1226
Auvergne,Fr.
177 CASTILE, Blanche de*{Anc.#141, 3 lines}
[Alfonso / PLANTAGENET, Eleonore], b.4 Mar 1188
Palencia; d.26 Nov 1252 Maubuisson Pontois,Fr.
178 PROVENCE-FORCALQUIER, Raymond
Berenger 5,ct.de*{Anc.#142,3 lines} [Alfonso
/SABRAN,Garsinde] b. 1198 France; d.19 Aug 1245
Aix, Fr.
179 SAVOY, Beatrix de*{Anc.#143,3 lines}
[Thomas 1 ct.de/GENEVA,Beatrix], b. 1198 Savoy;
d. Dec 1266 Aragon
180 ARAGON,KING, Pedro 2 [Alfonso 2 Ramon/ CASTILE-LEON,Sancha de] b. 1176 Aragon;
d.13 Sep 1213
181 MONTPELLIER, Marie de [Guillaume 8
sr.de/ COMNENE,Eudoxia pr.], b. 1182 France; d.21
Apr 1213 Rome
1 ARAGON,KING, Jaime 1,the
Conqueror*{Anc.#90} b.1 Feb 1208 , d.1276
/m./HUNGARY,Yolande de b.1213 [Andre
2/COURTENAY,Yolande de]
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 202
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
182 HUNGARY,KING, Andre 2 [Bela
3/CHATILLON-SUR-LO,Agnes] b. 1176 Hungary;
d.7 Mar 1235 Other wife m1. 1203 MERAN-CROATIA, Gertrude von [Berthold /GROITZSCHROCHLI,Agnes]b. 1180? Andechs ch.: St. Elizabeth
von.1200(THURINGIA,Ludwig 4 von); Bela 4.1206
(CONSTANTINOPLE,Maria Lascarina); Other wife
m3.14 May 1234 ESTE, Beatrix d' [Aldobrando ]b.
1210? Italych.:Marc of.1235(CROY,Catherine
heires); Stephen
hg.v.Slavonia.1235(VENICE,Thomasina deMoro);
m2. 1215
183 COURTENAY, Yolande de [Pierre / HAINAUT, Yolande d'], b. 1194 France; d. 1233
1 HUNGARY, Yolande de*{Anc.#91} b.1213 ,
d.1251 /m./ARAGON,KING,Jaime b.1208 [Pedro 2/
MONTPELLIER, Marie de]
184 CHATILLON, Hugh ct.St.Pol/Blois [Gaucher
/ ST. POL, Elisabeth de] b. 1200? France; d.9 Apr
1248. Other wife m1. 1216 BAR, Agnes de [Thibaut
/BAR-SUR-SEINE,Isabeau de]b. 1200? France m2.
1225
185 AVESNES, Marie d' [Gautier
/BLOIS,Marguerite de], b. 1210? France; d. 1241
1 CHATILLON, Jean ct.Blois de b.1230?, d.1279
/m./ BRETAGNE,Alix de b.1236? [Jean
/CHAMPAGNE,Blanche]
2 CHATILLON, Guy 1ct.St.Pol/Blois*{Anc.#92}
b.1230?, d.1289 /m./BRABANT,Mahaut de b.1218
[Henry 2 duc de/SWABIA,Marie v.]
3 CHATILLON, Gaucher sr.Crecy/Crevecoeur/
b.1230?, d.1261 /m./VILLEHARDOUIN,Isabeau
b.1230? [Guillaume /MELLO,Marguerite]
4 CHATILLON, Philipine de
b.1230?/m./GUELDRE,Otto b.1210? [Gerard 3
ct.v./BRABANT,Margareta v.]
186 BRABANT, Henry 2 duc de [Henry
/BOULOGNE-FLANDER,Mathilde de] b. 1189 Brabant; d.1 Feb 1248 Louvain Other wife m1. THURINGIA, Sophia von [Ludwig 4
von/HUNGARY,St.Elizabeth von]b. 1220? Thuringia ch.:Heinrich 1
lgf.v..1245(BRUNSWICK,Adelaide von); m2.9 Feb
1207
187 SWABIA, Marie v. [Philip
/BYZANTIUM,Irene Angelina of], b. 1201 Swabia;
d. 1235 Brabant
1 BRABANT, Mahaut de*{Anc.#93} b.1218 ,
d.1288 /m./FRANCE,Robert b.1216 [Louis
/CASTILE,Blanche de]
2 BRABANT, Henry 3 duc de*{Anc.#148}
b.1230?, d.1261 /m./BOURGOGNE,Aleidis de
b.1233 [Hugh /DREUX,Yolande de]
188 BRETAGNE, Jean 1,leRoux duc de [Pierre
October 1994
/THOUARS,Alix] b. 1217 France; d.8 Oct 1286 Abbey dePrieres m1.16 Jan 1236
189 CHAMPAGNE, Blanche deNavarre de
[Thibaud /BEAUJEU,Agnes de], b. 1220? Navarre;
d.11 Aug 1283 Hede
1 BRETAGNE, Alix de
b.1236?/m./CHATILLON,Jean ct.Blois de b.1230?
[Hugh /AVESNES,Marie d']
2 BRETAGNE, Jean 2,Richmont duc de*{Anc.#94}
b.4 Jan 1239 , d.1305 /m./ENGLAND,Beatrice of
b.1242 [Henry /PROVENCE, Eleanor de]
190 ENGLAND,KING, Henry 3 Plantagenet
[John 1 Lackland/ANGOULEME,Isabelle] b.1 Oct
1206 Winchester, Hamps; d.16 Jun 1272 Westminster Palace m1.14 Jan 1236 Canterbury;
191 PROVENCE, Eleanor de [Raymond
/SAVOY, Beatrix de], b. 1217 Provence, France;
d.24 Jun 1291 Ambresbury, Wilts
1 ENGLAND,KING, Edward 1 Longshanks b.17 Jun
1239 , d.1307 /m./FRANCE,Marguerite de b.1282
[Philippe /BRABANT,Marie de]
2 ENGLAND, Margaret b.5 Oct 1240 , d.1275
/m./SCOTS,KING,Alexander 3 b.1241 [Alexander
2/COUCY,Marie de]
3 ENGLAND, Beatrice of*{Anc.#95} b.25 Jun
1242 , d.1275 /m./BRETAGNE,Jean b.1239 [Jean
/CHAMPAGNE, Blanche]
4 ENGLAND, Elizabeth of*{Anc.#219} b.1245?,
d.1271 /m./MONTFERRAT,Guillaume b.1243
[Boniface /SAVOY,Marguerite de]
5 LANCASTER, Edmund Crouchback e.of b.16 Jan
1245 , d.1296 /m./ARTOIS,Blanche d' b.1248
[Robert / BRABANT, Mahaut de]
192 VISCONTI,Andreotto [Umberto ] b. 1200?
Italy; d.
1 VISCONTI, Tebaldo*{Anc.#96} b.1225? /m. /
PIROVANO, Anastasia b.1225? []
208 SAVOY, Thomas 1 ct.de [Humbert 3 ct.de/
MACON,Beatrix] b.20 May 1171
Carbonierres,Savoy; d.1 Mar 1233 Aosta,Savoy m1.
May 1196
209 GENEVA, Beatrix Margaret de Faucign y de [Guillaume 1 ct.de/FAUCIGNY,Beatrix de], b.
1180? Gen.ID.controversial; d. 13 Apr 1236 PierreChatel
1 SAVOY, Amadeus 4 ct.de b.1197 , d.1253 /m./
BOURGOGNE-VIENNO,Marguerite b.1219 [AndreGuiges /MONTFERRAT,Beatrix dphn.de]
2 SAVOY, Beatrix de*{Anc.#143} b.1198 ,
d.1266 /m./PROVENCE-FORCALQ,Raymond b.1198
[Alfonso /SABRAN,Garsinde]
3 SAVOY, Thomas 2,ct.dePiedmont
de*{Anc.#104} b.1199 , d.1259
/m./HAINAUT,Jeanne b.1199 [Baudoin
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 203
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
/CHAMPAGNE,Marie de] 0
4 SAVOY, Pierre 2,ct.de b.1215 , d.1268
/m./FAUCIGN, Agnes de b.1220? [Aimon 2
sgr.de/BOURGOGNE,Beatrix de]
210 FIESCHI, Theodore ct.Lavagna di [Ugo
ct.Lavagna di/GRILLO,NN.di] b. 1190? Genoa; d.
bro.PopeInnocent 4
211 CAPECORSE, NN.de [], b. 1200? Italy; d.
1 FIESCHI, Beatrix deLavagna di*{Anc.#105}
b.1220?, d.1283 /m./SAVOY,Thomas b.1199
[Thomas 1 ct.de/ GENEVA, Beatrix]
212 BAUGE, Renaud 4 sr.deBresse- [Ulric
/MACON, Alexandrine] b. 1188? Bresse; d. 1249
m1.1 Jan 1229
213 BEAUJEU, Sybille de [Guichard 4 sr.
de/HAINAUT,Sybille d'], b. 1200? Beaujolais,Fr.; d.
1 BAUGE, Guy brn.Bresse de*{Anc.#106}
b.1220?, d.1255?/m./MONTFERRAT,Beatrix
dphn.de b.1210? [Guillaume /CLAVESANA,Berta]
214 MONTFERRAT, Guillaume 5 mrq.de
[Boniface /BUSCA,Helena di] b. 1180? Savoy; d.17
Sep 1225
215 CLAVESANA,Berta
mrqs.deMambascaro[Boniface], b. 1180? Italy; d.
1224?
1 MONTFERRAT, Boniface 3 ilGigante mq.de
b.1210?, d.1254 /m./SAVOY,Marguerite de b.1222?
[Amadeus 4 ct.de/BOURGOGNE-VIENNO,Marguerite]
2 MONTFERRAT, Beatrix dphn.de b.1210?,
d.1274 /m./BOURGOGNE,Andre-Guiges b.1184
[Hugh 3,duc de/ALBON-VIENNE,Beatrix cts.d']
3 MONTFERRAT, Beatrix dphn.de*{Anc.#107}
b.1210?, d.1274 /m./BAUGE,Guy brn.Bresse de
b.1220? [Renaud / BEAUJEU,Sybille de]
216 BYZANTIUM EMP., Michael 8
[Andronicus / PALEOLOGIUS,Theodora] b. 1224
Byzantium; d.11 Dec 1282
217 DOUKAS, Theodora [Ioannes], b. 1230? Byzantium; d.4 Mar 1303
1 BYZANTIUM EMP.,Andronicus 2*{Anc.#108}
b.1259, d.1332 /m./MONTFERRAT,Irene Yolande de
b.1260? [Guillaume /ENGLAND, Elizabeth of]
218 MONTFERRAT, Guillaume 5 mrq.de
[Boniface /SAVOY,Marguerite de] b. 1243 Italy; d.
1292
219 ENGLAND, Elizabeth of [Henry
/PROVENCE, Eleanor de], b. 1245? Eng.; d. 1271
Savoy
1 MONTFERRAT, Irene Yolande de*{Anc.#109}
b.1260?, d.1317 /m./BYZANTIUM,Andronicus 2
b.1259 [Michael 8/DOUKAS,Theodora]
226 ARAGON,KING, Jaime 1,the Conqueror*
{Anc.#90, 3 lines} [Pedro 2/MONTPELLIER,Marie
de] b.1 Feb 1208 Montpellier,Fr.; d.26 Jul 1276
October 1994
Valencia,Sp.
227 HUNGARY, Yolande de*{Anc.#91,3 lines}
[Andre 2/COURTENAY,Yolande de], b. 1213 Hungary; d.9 Oct 1251 Huesca,Sp.
228 NAPLES,KING, Charles 1
d'Anjou*{Anc.#132,2 lines} [Louis
/CASTILE,Blanche de] b. Mar 1226 France; d.7 Jan
1285 Foggia,It.
229 PROVENCE, Beatrix
cts.Forcalquier*{Anc.#133,2 lines} [Raymond
/SAVOY,Beatrix de], b. 1234 France; d.23 Sep 1267
Norcera
230 HUNGARY,KING, Stephen
5 *{Anc.#134,2 lines} [Bela
4/CONSTANTINOPLE,Maria] b. Dec 1239 Hungary;
d.1 Aug 1272
231 KUMANS, Elisabeth de*{Anc.#135, 2
lines} [Kuthen / HALICZ-GALICIA,pr.v.], b. 1240?
Bosnia; d.
232 BOURGOGNE, Eudes 3,duc de*{Anc.#136,2
lines} [Hugh 3,duc de/LORRAINE,Alix de] b. 1166
Burgundy; d. 1218
233 VERGY, Alix de*{Anc.#137,2 lines}
[Hugues sr.de/ TRAINEL,Gilles de], b. 1180? France;
d. 1251 Burgundy
234 DREUX, Robert 3 ct.deBraine*{Anc.#138,2
lines} [Robert 2 ct.de/COUCY,Yolande de] b. 1185
France; d.3 Mar 1234 St.Ived, Braine
235 ST.VALERY, Leonore de*{Anc.#139,2
lines} [Thomas sr.de/PONTHIEU,Adele de], b. 1192
France; d.15 Nov 1252
240 BOUL.AUVERGNE, Robert 5 ct.de
[Guillaume /LOUVAIN-BRABANT,Aleyde de] b.
1225? France; d. 1276
m1. 1245
241 BAFFIE, Eleonore d'Ambert de [Guillaume
sgr.de/ALBON,Eleonore d'], b. 1225? France; d.
1285?
1 BOUL.AUVERGNE, Robert 6 ct.d'Eu*{Anc.#120} b.1245?, d.1317
/m./MONTGASCON,Beatrix de b.1255? [Faulcon 3
sgr.de/VENTADOUR, Isabeau Marie de]
2 BOUL.AUVERGNE, Guillaume 11 ct.de b.1245?,
d.1279
242 MONTGASCON, Faulcon 3 sgr.de [] b.
1230? France; d.
243 VENTADOUR, Isabeau Marie de [], b.
1240? France; d.
1 MONTGASCON, Beatrix de*{Anc.#121}
b.1255?/ m./BOUL.AUVERGNE,Robert 6 ct.d'Eub.1245? [Robert 5 ct.de/BAFFIE,Eleonore] Other
husband m2. 1276 MONTBERON, Robert 4 sgr.de
[Robert 3 sgr.de]b. 1240? France
246 BOURBON, Jean
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 204
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
sr.deBourgogne*{Anc.#82,2 lines} [Hugh
/DREUX,Yolande de] b. 1231 Burgundy; d.29 Sep
1268
247 BOURBON, Agnes
deDampierre*{Anc.#83,2 lines} [Archembaud
/CHATILLON,Yolande de], b. 1237 France; d.7 Sep
1288
250 BRABANT, Henry 3 duc de*{Anc.#148,2
lines} [Henry 2 duc de/SWABIA,Marie v.] b. 1230?
Brabant; d.21 Feb 1261
251 BOURGOGNE, Aleidis de*{Anc.#149,2
lines} [Hugh /DREUX,Yolande de], b. 1233 Burgundy; d.23 Oct 1287
252 ARTOIS, Robert 2,ct.d'Eu d' [Robert /
BRABANT, Mahaut de] b.17 Sep 1250? France; d.11
Jul 1302 Courtrai,battle Other wife m1. HAINAUT,
Marguerite d'Avesnes d' [Jean /HOLLAND,Adelaide
cts.v.]b. 1250? Holland ch.:Mahaut
d'.1270(BOURGOGNE,Ottone 4 ct.de);
m2.13 Jun 1262 Paris;
253 COURTENAY, Amicie de [Pierre /JOIGNY,
Petronelle de], b. 1250? France; d.
1 ARTOIS, Philippe sr.Conches d'*{Anc.#126}
b.1263?, d.1298 /m./BRETAGNE,Blanche de
b.1265? [Jean /ENGLAND,Beatrice of]
254 BRETAGNE, Jean 2,Richmont duc
de*{Anc.#94,2 lines} [Jean /CHAMPAGNE,Blanche]
b.4 Jan 1239 Rennes,Fr.; d.18 Nov 1305 Lyons
255 ENGLAND, Beatrice of*{Anc.#95,2 lines}
[Henry /PROVENCE,Eleanor de], b.25 Jun 1242
Bordeaux,Fr.; d.24 Mar 1275 London,Eng.
Genealogical References:
Dictionnaire de la Noblesse, by Chenaye & Badier,
Chez Schlesinger, Paris, 1865.
Nobiliare Universal de France, ed. M. de St.Allais,
Paris, 1874.
Lineage & Ancestry of H.R.H.Charles, Prince of
Wales, by Gerald Paget, Skilton, London, 1977.
Historica Genealogica da Casa Real Portuguesa, by
Antonio de Sousa, 1738, reprint 1946.
Avgvstae Regiaeqve Sabavdae Domvs, (House of
Savoy), by Francisco Maria Ferrerro a Labriano,
1702.
And the kind help of Marlyn Lewis via FIDO-NET,
sharing his Europaische Stammtafeln data.
TO THE VIRGINS
by Robert Herrick (1591-1674)
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may:
Old time is till a flying;
And this same flower that smiles today,
Tomorrow will be dying.
Editorial Disclaimer: Genealogical records
submitted to this publication are not
checked for accuracy nor typographical error. Though we assume the information
herein to be accurate, we are not responsible for errors.
The glorius lamp of heaven, the Sun,
The sooner he’s a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
The nearer he’s to setting.
“I’d rather be a success at something I enjoy than be a success at
something I hate.”
Then be not coy, but use your time.
And while ye may, go merry;
For having lost but once your prime,
You may forever tarry.
That age is best, which is the first,
When youth and blood are warmer,
But being spent, the worse, and worst
Times, still succeed the former.
- George Burns
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 205
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 206
CHARLES OF ORLEANS
CORNEILLE READING IN THE HOTEL DE RAMBOUILLET
October 1994
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 206
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANCESTRY OF ELIZABETH OF YORK
GENERATION 4
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANCESTRY 2 0 . John de Neville is often referred to as
the 5th, not the 3rd, Baron Neville.
OF ELIZABETH OF YORK
Much acclaim and excitement has accompanied the announcement of the of forthcoming publication of Marlyn Lewis’ work in
progress detailing the ancestors of the Plantagenet Dynasty. It is a work of much complexity, constantly reviewed and revised, as
new information comes in from worldwide
sources. We now have what we believe to be
the most up-to-date information on twenty
generations that has yet been assembled. The
work is being proofed by experts from all
over the world, the top experts that we can
find in the field. It is only to be expected that
such critical studies would turn up some errors and discrepancies from contradictory
source materials. Ancient records often require a judgment call from conflicting reports.
Our sincere thanks to the many experts
who have helped to correct the database. It is
our hope that the final form will be the most
authenticated reference work available for European royal family connections.
Since this is a work in progress, other information, still unknown to us at this date,
may come to light and make further corrections necessary. That is one of the purposes
of this journal. We are trying to assemble
correct information. Such a task will probably take many years and much input from others to complete. The following questions
were put to Marlyn Lewis, the compiler of
the work, by Huey Pledger, PhD.
Kenneth Harper Finton, Editor
GENERATION 1
2 . Edward IV, b 1442. Verified Encyclopedia Britannica.
Reply: Edward IV. Burke's Peerage p. xiii (1963
edition) says 1441. However, Paget says 1442.
Take your pick.
October 1994
Reply: It really is a modern invention to
“number” these people. Any numbering convention that makes you happy is one you should use.
I'm the first to say that the convention should be
the same for everyone, but it isn't. I don't know
of anyone who has the clout to make it so, either.
2 2 . John of Gaunt, 2nd Duke of Lancaster, not 1st, as Blanche's father, Henry, was 1st Duke. Verified Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Reply: All sources, except one, that I have just
says “Duke of Lancaster”. Burke's Peerage, p. 31
(1938 edition) says that he was 1st Duke. His father-in-law was also 1st Duke of Lancaster. However, John of Gaunt was CREATED Duke of
Lancaster by his father. Dukedoms then didn't
pass through a daughter without “recreation” by
the King.
GENERATION 5
42. Henry de Percy and Iodine de Clifford m 1324?
Reply: Henry de Percy and Iodine de Clifford. That
marriage is described in Weis, The Magna Charta
Sureties, 1215, p. 11; and Europaische Stammtafeln, Vol. 3, chart 711.
GENERATION 6
6 6 . William III, not William I.
Reply: William III not William I, Count of Holland, Hainault, etc. The weight of sources agrees
with Pledger. I changed my database.
8 0 . Randolph de Neville, 3rd Baron Neville, not 1st, since Geoffrey FitzRobert
who assumed his maternal grandfather's
name of Neville was 1st Baron Neville.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 207
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANCESTRY OF ELIZABETH OF YORK
Reply: Randolph de Neville IS 1st Baron Neville.
Complete Peerage by Cokayne, Vol. 9, p. 497.
Further, the ancestors of Randolph were Lords of
Raby, Brancepeth, and Sheriff Hutton. However,
Randolph was the first in the creation of Lord Neville.
GENERATION 7
161. Mary FitzRalph. I believe Middleham might have been in Yorkshire rather
tha Durham. I am not certain that Durham
County even existed in medieval times.
Middleham Castle is in Yorkshire.
Reply: Mary FitzRalph of Yorkshire or Durham.
Pledger may be right, but my sources insist that
it was Durham, not Yorkshire. I'm not sure when
Durham was created as a county, but I'm not seeing a reason to change it.
GENERATION 8
3 3 2 . Roger de Mortimer, b 1221, not
1231.
Pledger: Why is she not called Botiller,
the name of her father?]
Reply: Her father was a Botiller, but she went by
Verdon, because her mother’s ancestry and property were more illustrious than her fathers. You
will see this in many of genealogies.
703. Why Emmiline de Riddlesford, not
Ulster?
Reply: Again, the mother’s land holdings outshone the father’s, so she took her mother’s
name.
1028. Alfonso III, son of Alfonso II,
King of Aragon.
Reply: Alfonso II NOT Alfonso III. This is because we are talking about the Count of Provence,
not King of Aragon. The counting of Alfonso’s
for Provence started with his father who was Alfonso II, King of Aragon and I, Count of Provence.
GENERATION 10
Reply: Roger de Mortimer WAS born in 1231.
His parents were married in 1230 and his mother’s first husband didn't die until 1228.
1030. Thomas, b 20 May 1177.
Reply: Already corrected in the database. However,
514. Raymond V Berenger, not IV. Ray- Stargardt insists that the year is 1178, not 1177.
mund IV was the grandfather, b 1151.
Take your pick.
(Submitted by Huey Pledger).
1032. King of Leon, not Castille.
Reply: Raymond V Berenger, not Raymond IV.
All but one source agree with Pledger. I've
changed my records.
GENERATION 9
673. Isabel de Brus, m abt 1190.
R eply: Isabel de Brus, md. about 1190. This is
entirely possible. A child,William de Percy was
born in 1193. However, I'd like a good reason to
show the marriage as abt 1190. What is the
source?
6 8 1 . Maud de Verdon [Note from Huey
October 1994
Reply: King of Leon is right. I stand corrected.
1034. Alphonso VIII.
Reply: Alphonso VIII. Pledger is right. His 1st
cousin was Alphonso IX. I stand corrected.
1041. Blanche of Castile, b at Valencia,
not Palencia.
Reply: Blanche of Castile of Valencia. Already
corrected.
1044. Pedro II, other sources say b
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 208
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANCESTRY OF ELIZABETH OF YORK
1180, not 1174. Additional verification
requested.
Reply: Pedro II. Stargardt, chart 70, says that it
was 1174, NOT 1180.
1082. Raymond V, not Raymond IV.
Reply: Raymond V, not IV. See above, already
fixed.
1 3 8 7 . Agnes of Chester. Should this not
be Agnes de Meschines?
Reply: Agnes and Mabel de Meschines were
daughters of Hugh le Meschines, but during their
lives were called Agnes of Chester and Mabel of
Chester. That is because their father held Chester
as part of his domain and le Meschines was a
"modifier" for him, not a designation for his family. It’s like Hugh the Fat: his daughter would
not be known as Agnes the Fat.
GENERATION 11
2050. William VIII, not X.
Reply: William X, NOT William VIII. This is
from Paget, Vol. 1, p. 61; and Stargardt, Vol. 2,
chart 76. The old numbering shows VIII. However, counting all persons with the name of William holding the title, the correct designation for
this person is William X.
2 0 9 4 . Peter II Courtney, b abt 1172, not
1155, Verification requested.
Reply: Peter II Courtenay, b. 1155, NOT abt
1172. See Stargardt, Vol. 2, chart 17.
2 3 1 2 . Simon de Joinville, some soucres
say b abt 1200?
Reply: The father died in 1190, so the child
couldn't have been born in 1200. I stand by the
birth year of 1176.
2 5 2 3 . Margaret Bellomont. Some sources say b abt 1154.
October 1994
Reply: #2523 could not be born in 1154 as the
mother was born in 1149. So, I'll stand by my
year of about 1164.
2704. Geoffrey V, did not marrry concubine #1.
Reply: The computer program doesn't deal well
with unknown spouses when another spouse is
known. In this case, an unknown concubine was
the mother of the child in question. But, the father
shows as having married Maud and another person. Without #2705 being present, one should
conclude that the mother is unknown. However, it
is not clear due to the way the software handles it.
3612 / 3613. Simon IV Montfort. Simon V Montfort was 2nd Earl of Leinster,
b 1200 in France, m Eleanor Plantagenet,
d battle of Eversham.
Reply: Simon V Montfort, NOT Simon IV. This
is because he is not counting one of the Simons
who did not have children, but did hold the title.
So, Simon VI, son of the above md. Eleanor of
England. His father was Simon V who married
Alix de Montmorency (as above). His father was
Simon IV who married Amicie de Beaumont. His
father was Simon III and his wife Mahaut (Maud)
(surname unknown). His father was Amauri III
and his second wife Agnes de Garlande. This
Amauri III had an older brother Simon II who
succeeded to the lands and title in 1098. He died
25 September after 1104. Simon II didn't not have
any children. Therefore, the land and title devolved
to his younger brother, Amauri III who passed the
barony along to his posterity.
No doubt about it, error is the rule,
truth is the accident of error.
-Georges Duhamel (1933)
Intelligence is not to make no mistakes
but quickly to see how to make them
good.
-Bertolt Brecht (1930)
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 209
The Plantagenet
Connection
Volume III, Number 1
April 1995
The Brinton House
(near Dilworthtown, Pennsylvania)
This house, built in 1704 by William and Jane (Thatcher ) Brinton,
was restored and furnished in 1955 by the Brinton Family Association
and the Chester County Historical Society
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 210
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
The Bryn Mawr Medieval Review is an
electronic publishing organization edited by James
O’Donnell (University of Pennsylvania), Paul
Remley (The University of Washington) and Eugene Vance (The University of Washington).
Subscriptions to these book reviews are available
on the internet. Address queries to:
[email protected]. These reviews are reprinted with the gracious permission of the editors.
Medieval Queenship
Reviewed by Miriam Shadis
John Carmi Parsons, editor. Medieval Queenship. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. Pp.
viii, 264. 18 black-and-white illustrations; genealogical charts. $49.95.
Including the introduction by its editor John
Parsons, titled "Family, Sex, and Power: The
Rhythms of Medieval Queenship," this collection
contains the following essays: "Roles and Functions of Queens in 'Arp'adian and Angevin Hungary (1000-1386 A.D.) (J'anos M. Bak);
"Queenship in Medieval Denmark" (Inge Skovgaard-Peterson with Nanna Damsholt), "Women
at the Court of Charlemagne: A Case of Monstrous Regiment?" (Janet L. Nelson), "Mothers,
Daughters, Marriage, Power: Some Plantagenet
Evidence, 1150-1500" (John Carmi Parsons),
"Queens-Dowager and Queens-Regent in TenthCentury Le'on and Navarre" (Roger Collins),
"Capetian Women and the Regency: The Genesis
of a Vocation" (Andr'e Poulet), "The King's
Mother and Royal Prerogative in Early-SixteenthCentury France (Elizabeth McCartney), "The Portrayal of Royal Women in England, Mid-Tenth to
Mid-Twelfth Centuries" (Pauline Stafford),
"Reigning Queens in Medieval Europe: When,
Where, and Why" (Armin Wolf), and "Female
Succession and the Language of Power in the
Writings of Twelfth-Century Churchmen" (Lois
Huneycutt). As their titles indicate, the essays in
this volume explore the varieties of experience
April 1995
and interpretation of medieval queenship in Europe
from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries.
There is a certain dissonance among the essays
collected in this volume. The traditional, descriptive approaches of the first two essays on Hungarian and Danish queenship, and the essay on hereditary queenship are informative, but lack the theoretical and conceptually challenging interpretations
of queenship offered by the other essays. These
essays show that women could be queens (or at
least, queenly) by reason of their positions as
mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, or aunts; that
fertility, or conversely, virginity could be their
strongest asset, and strongly suggest that well
known, contemporary sources deserve re-evaluation with the tools available to modern historians
of women. Ultimately they call for a closer look
at current understandings of the specifically female
office of queenship, a look which I believe will
provoke reconsideration of medieval politics in
general.
Because queens in medieval Hungary and Denmark are the least known, Parsons has chosen to
start off the volume with the essays by Bak and
by Skovgaard-Peterson and Damsholt. As fairly
straightforward narratives of the experiences of
royal women in Hungary and Denmark, the essays
are similar to Wolf's "Reigning Queens," which
identifies those twelve women in Europe between
1350 and 1450 who claimed to inherit a variety of
realms (and thus in at least one instance is redundant with the above; compare the discussions of
Margarethe I of Denmark). Wolf's essay provokes
the question "What is a queen?," for he applies the
most limited definition of queenship in identifying
the women in his study as queens. Wolf's essay is
next to last in the volume, and seems oddly outof-place; placed earlier it might offer a working
definition of queenship against which the other essays could be tested. The essay is rather brief, and
bears all the indications of being an unrevised
conference paper. This is unfortunate as readers
will want to know more, especially about the
queens who came before his carefully delineated
period. Furthermore, Wolf does not offer much in
the way of gender analysis, something which I
think most readers will want to explore, and with
which other essays (especially Huneycutt, Par-
The Plantagenet Connection
page 211
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
sons, and Poulet) engage.
The order of the essays is somewhat puzzling;
they are neither strictly chronological nor grouped
together according to kingdom, nor according to
theme. Skovgaard-Peterson's, Bak's, and Wolf's
essays complement one another as they are
straight-forward discussions of queens (however
defined as consorts, heiresses, or regents) in Denmark, Hungary, and Europe at large respectively.
Huneycutt and Stafford present interesting essays
on the interpretation of contemporary sources regarding the legitimacy and sources of queenly
power, and queen's own influence on the writing
of contemporary history; as lessons in interpretation, it strikes me that these might be read first as
a historiographical exercise. The essays by Parsons, Poulet, McCartney and Collins engage with
the most interesting problems, and probably not
coincidentally, deal with the kinds of queenship
that was perhaps the most acceptable to medieval
powerbrokers, the most dependent upon the personal abilities and qualities of individual women,
and the least definable: the roles of royal women
as mothers and/or regents. Collins' essay is also
important in highlighting the differences among
queens, related to the different political contexts in
which they lived.
The unwritten consensus of the authors is that
royal women were generally accepted as transmitters of family power–especially when they themselves had been denied access to that power, as in
the Visigothic tradition of requiring dowager
queens to enter the cloister (from whence they
still might guide their sons), or under Salic Law
in France. Poulet's essay on the development of
Capetian regency is based on his supposition that
medieval queens were like other medieval women
in that their role was defined relative to the roles
of men (pointed out also by Huneycutt, as a contemporary conception of writers such as John of
Salisbury or Bernard of Clairvaux). Poulet does
not consider explicitly, however, how women's
roles were defined by pregnancy and
childbirth–experiences often essential to queenship. I take issue with his definition of a queen
as an archetypal medieval woman, differing only
in the prestige of her office, for that very prestige
brought her into a different realm of health, feApril 1995
cundity, foreignness (discussed by Bak and
Parsons), and political influence. Poulet's position that royal women were no different from other medieval women is essential to his thesis that
out of this domestic and legal confinement they
were able to develop a calling as regents. I am
uncomfortable with this broad generalization
about medieval women, but overall Poulet's efforts to explain the operation of gender in society
are important to understanding medieval queens as
women. Poulet's work thus exemplifies the need
for future work on queenship. His interpretation,
to be effective, needs comparison: do other European dynasties handle gender in the same way as
the Capetians? McCartney's essay on Louise of
Savoy continues to map out the development of
female regency in France; both authors show how
royal mothers such as Blanche of Castile and Louise made a political space for themselves in the
government of France as regents for their royal
sons.
Parsons, who has an advantage as the collection
editor and thus could refer to other essays in the
volume (something from which the other writers
might have benefited), proposes that women in
the Plantagenet family exercised significant influence over the matrimonial fate of their daughters, and that this influence not only demonstrated
the value of daughters, but also a level of "self-realization" drawn from mothers' own experiences as
daughters. Furthermore, he proposes a
"multicultural perspective" on the part of these
queens, with which some readers will doubtless
quibble as a too modern construct, but which I
found convincing as a paradigm for accessing
queenly mentalit'e. Nelson's essay on the women
at the court of Charlemagne discusses explicitly
the problems faced by royal women in a polygynous society, and stretches in a very useful way
the limits of interpreting or identifying the office
and role of queenship when she suggests that
Charlemagne's daughters might be seen as a type
of collective queen, negotiating the family politics
of competition between Charlemagne and his
sons. Ultimately, she finds, that the "crowd of
girls" (one kind of regiment) only held an ancillary, dependent power, and were thus no regiment
at all (in John Knox's infamous sense of ruler-
The Plantagenet Connection
page 212
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
ship). So, while Nelson provokes a reconsidera- clearly the need for further study of gender and rution of the definition of queenship, she also rec- lership in the Middle Ages.
ognizes along with Poulet and Parsons the degree
to which women in power colluded, of necessity,
with the patriarchy under which they lived. These
The Politics of Dreaming
essays serve as an important contrast to Wolf's in
in the Carolingian Empire.
that they challenge his (not unreasonably) narrow
by Paul Edward Dutton
definition of queenship, something with which
Reviewed by Patrick J. Geary
(perhaps like feudalism), scholars should be prepared to grapple.
The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian
Medieval Queenship is a nicely produced vo- Empire. Dutton, Paul Edward. Regents Studies in
lume, with some interesting and well explicated Medieval Culture. Lincoln and London: Universiblack-and-white reproductions of medieval archi- ty of Nebraska Press, 1994. Pp. xii, 1- 329.
tectural elements and illuminations. Unfortunate- $40.00. Reviewed by Patrick J. Geary--UCLA.
ly, the cost in cloth will be prohibitive to students, who would be most likely to find these
A generation ago, one could have agreed with
studies useful. I found the method of citation Jacques Le Goff that the oneiric world of the Mid(both in-text and end-notes) distracting; the com- dle Ages had been unjustly neglected. Today, this
piled bibliography of both printed primary and is no longer the case. Michel Aubrun, Peter Dinsecondary sources, however, is thorough and help- zelbacher, Stephen F. Kruger, and Franz Neiske
ful in and of itself. The volume is indexed. Over- have investigated the general literature of medieval
all this book will be of interest to both historians dream visions; Hans Joachim Kamphausen has
of medieval politics and of medieval women. analyzed Carolingian poetic dream and vision litSpecialists in medieval women's history will be erature; S.R. Fischer and Lawrence. T. Martin
interested in the number of individual (and some, have studied dreambooks, and Claude Lecouteaux
'til now, quite obscure) women presented here, and and Jean-Claude Schmitt have investigated visions
will want to read the essays to test various appli- of ghosts, to mention but a few of the scholars
cations of feminist theory (regarding reproduction, who have taken up Le Goff's challenge. For the
or the question of public and private spheres, for Carolingian period in particular, specific political
example). Specialists in medieval political history dreams and visions have long been a subject of
who have not thought about gender will be en- considerable discussion ever since Wilhelm Levilightened by the careful considerations of the son's 1921 general article on the topic, including a
scholars here, and will be challenged to rethink series of studies of the Visio Wettini by David A.
the management of power and authority within Traill, the Visio Eucherii by Ulrich Nonn, and the
royal circles. Those who have been studying Vita Karoli Magni by P. Geary, to mention but a
queenship for some time may not find any earth- few.
shattering or ground-breaking perspectives on the
Had Paul Dutton written the book that his title
institution itself, but may make use of the essays suggests, yet another analysis of the political conwhich cover areas outside their own, either chro- texts and contents of Carolingian dream visions,
nologically or geographically. The volume will the result might have been largely summary. In
be most useful, however, to students who are be- fact, the title hardly gives a hint of the richness
ginning to combine the fields of gender and polit- and breadth of the book. Far from being yet
ical history, and who should be especially careful another political analysis of the Carolingian politto note the ways in which the authors exploit ical dream tradition, it is a far-ranging and eleganttheir sources. Medieval Queenship succeeds in ly written analysis of the imaginative literature of
collecting an interesting variety of essays about political protest in the Carolingian world. PolitiEuropean medieval queens, and points out very cal dreams, strictu sensu, form only a part of his
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
page 213
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
focus. He is equally interested non-dream visions,
in the political propaganda of royal vitae, in astronomy, in prophesies, in conversations with demons during exorcisms, in the iconography of
Carolingian sarcophagi, gospel books, and apocalypses, in poetic evocations of the battle of Fontenoy, and much much more. In its focus, Dutton's book stands very much in the tradition of
Heinrich Fichtenau's Carolingian Empire, a book
whose brilliant chapters on Louis the Pious and
his sons were cut from the English translation
along with the appropriate subtitle, "Soziale und
Geistige Problematik eines Grossreiches." Like
Fichtenau, Dutton is interested in the literary
manifestations of unrest, opposition, and criticism that, along with political conspiracy, revolt,
and civil war were an integral part of the Carolingian world. Through his broad knowledge of this
literature, his lively and perceptive translations,
and his witty, engaging prose, he weaves together
these disparate texts to evoke, from the margins
of Carolingian literary production, a penetrating
image of the deepest preoccupations of learned
Churchmen in the eighth and ninth centuries.
In his first chapter, Dutton reviews the tradition of royal sleeping and wakefulness from Plutarch and King David to the Carolingians. He
stresses the centrality of Charlemagne, the everwakeful king, in the construction of Carolingian
royal ideology. Thus the very state of sleep in
which dreams occur was suspect. This chapter sets
the stage for the following, which is a summary
discussion of dream traditions and dream interpretation as inherited and employed by the Carolingians to the end of the eighth century. Since antiquity, oneiroctitics assumed that kings, who
stood closer to the divinities than other mortals,
received dreams of universal importance and, less
strongly, that dreams about kings or emperors
might also have political significance. The biblical tradition held that royal dreams were conduits
for warnings and punishments. But these two legacies were ambivalent: Romans had never found
dreams and visions a satisfactory source of systematic divination, and the biblical tradition condemned most dream interpretations as the work of
false prophets. Royal dream accounts appear sporadically through late antiquity and the early middle
April 1995
ages, most importantly in Gregory the Great's
Dialogues, in Gregory of Tours, and in the Donation of Constantine. The tension between meaningless phantasma and revelatory visiones was always great and the categorization of dreams as one
or the other could always be disputed. Nevertheless, from the last quarter of the eighth century,
court poets began to weave royal revelatory
dreams into works such as the epic Charlemagne
and Pope Leo, probably written by Einhard. Until
almost the end of the Carolingian period, as Dutton points out, such dreams were always the literary constructs of poets and polemicists, not of
kings. Authors of royal dreams were treading a
difficult path: not only were they pretending to
know the innermost thoughts of Charlemagne, in
using the conceit of the revelatory dream, they
were giving dreams a validity explicitly denied
them in royal and ecclesiastical legislation. Initially, these were dreams that confirmed divine
favor and guided royal action. In the ninth century,
these dreams would be turned against kings in the
hope of shifting "the massive weight of royal
power in a new direction."
The third chapter moves to the reign of Louis
the Pious and focuses on this shift toward polemical dreams, concentrating primarily on the Vision
of Rotcharius, the versions of Vision of Wetti,
and the Vision of a poor Woman of Laon. Each of
these announces that Charlemagne suffered punishments for his sins. Dutton sees the three originating in the orbit of Reichenau, within a specific
"textual community" (he takes the phrase from the
work of his mentor Brian Stock even though the
latter denies the existence of such communities
before the eleventh century) that became "a monastic laboratory for the collection, creation, and
adaptation of dream texts." (p. 75) The first two
dreams criticize Charlemagne for his sexual conduct, a criticism allowed, if not actually encouraged, by Louis the Pious as part of his policy of
eliminating the factions that developed around his
sisters and bastard brothers. But once the possibility of royal criticism was permissible, it quickly
took Louis himself as its target, particularly in
the third vision, which attacks him for his treatment of Bernard of Italy.
Chapter Four, moving away from royal
The Plantagenet Connection
page 214
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
dreams, explores a wider circle of criticism directed against Louis the Pious, particularly by Einhard, Theodolf of Orleans, Agobard of Lyons, and
Walahfrid Strabo during the bitter struggles within the royal family. The texts examined include
not only dreams texts themselves and a pamphlet
dictated to a blind man by the archangel Gabriel
and intended for the emperor, but also the portents
in the Vita Caroli, and in the Royal Frankish Annals, confessions of a demon named Wiggo cast
out of a possessed girl, and dreams and portents in
the Annales of Saint-Bertin. Dutton does not
claim that dreams and portents were the primary
vehicle of the propaganda war, but he argues that
they were a vehicle of criticism that actually
reached the king, who was said to actually read or
heard a number of them. Royal dream literature
was beginning to reach its intended audience.
The following chapter takes us still further
from traditional dream texts with literary treatments of the civil wars that followed the death of
Louis and especially the accounts of the catastrophic battle of Fontenoy fought between Louis
and Charles, on the one side, and Lothar on the
other. The battle and its aftermath gave rise to a
flood of prophetic and apocalyptic writings, particularly the bizarre Revelations of the suffragan
bishop of Sens Audradus. In the 840’s and 850’s,
this complex polemicist penned a series of
visions and revelations within the context of a defense of the chorepiscopate against attacks by
Hincmar, castigation of rulers for failure to protect Neustria against the Northmen, and the seizure of ecclesiastical property. At the heart of his
revelations was a vision of Christ and his saints
at which Louis the Pious and his sons were proclaimed to be the causes of the kingdom's evils.
Nevertheless, each son was confirmed as having
some good in him, provided that they observed a
perpetual peace: the division of the Carolingian
realm was no longer in question. Publication of
this vision certainly reached the king: Charles the
Bald himself interrogated Audradus in 853.
Chapter Six addresses the use of cautionary
visions to protect church property, particularly
the Vision of Eucher, in which Hincmar claims to
report that the eighth-century bishop had seen
Charles Martel in torment for his confiscation of
April 1995
church property, and the Vision of Bernold, in
which Hincmar described the late Charles the Bald
in torment for failing to follow the advice of
Hincmar.
The penultimate chapter focuses on the Vision
of Charlemagne, a dream vision recorded at Mainz
in the kingdom of Louis the German in the 860’s
or early 870’s. In spite of its somewhat unusual
features (Charlemagne is presented a sword with
Old High German words inscribed on its blade; the
king himself rather than his advisors interprets the
dream), Dutton sees it as a coherent creation
"bated with just the right lures" to attract the attention of Louis the German. The message was
clear: time was running out on the Carolingian
family. From the days of divine favor and abundance to the dark days of his grandsons, the crimes
and greed of the kings in the "modern age" had
brought devastation and ruin to the kingdom. By
the modern age, too, the via regia of dreams had
moved from the periphery to the center. Early royal dream visions develop far from the court and in
the minds of people alienated from court. By the
870’s, the tradition had moved to the very heart,
or better the unconscious of the king himself.
Dutton argues that the dream reported by Louis
the German in 874, although certainly a genuine
royal dream that concerned Louis enough to send
letters to all the monasteries of his kingdom asking for prayers on behalf of his father, entirely in
the tradition of earlier visions: the king was
dreaming within the pattern created by the tradition of dream literature.
The final chapter focuses on two visions written in the orbit of Rheims that focus on the end of
the reign of Charles the Fat. The first, the Vision
of Raduin, that Dutton dates to between 877 and
888, and the Vision of Charles the Fat, penned around 888 to legitimize the adoption of Louis of
Provence by Charles. He interprets both as part of
the claims advanced by Archbishop Fulk, successor of Hincmar, to Rheims' exclusive right to
crown kings and emperors. Dutton goes so far as
to speculate that Louis' mother Ermengard may
have commissioned the Vision of Charles the Fat,
a commission that Fulk, eager to find a Carolingian alternative to the Roberting Odo, was happy
to support. If this hypothesis is correct, then in
The Plantagenet Connection
page 215
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
this final great Carolingian dream vision, the tradition had made the full progression from a tool
of opposition to an instrument of propaganda employed by members of the royal family itself.
Throughout the study, Dutton is at pains not
to overstate the significance of the dream visions
he discusses relative to other forms of Carolingian
polemical or propagandistic literature. Nor does he
suppose that the authors, for the most part members of the highest circles of Carolingian political
clergy, expected them to influence profoundly the
kings toward whom they were directed or to resonate widely in Frankish society. He sees these
texts as a marginal literature whose intended public was always and almost exclusively the king, a
literature that nevertheless served, and serves, as
an alternate history of the Carolingian dynasty, in
his terms, as oneiric annals.
Ultimately, the visionary and prophetic literature surveyed here is the expression of part of a
tradition, actually wider even than the circles of
Dutton's textual community of monks and
bishops, the other extreme of which is explored in
Karl Brunner's Oppositionelle Gruppem im Karolingerreich. From its inception, the Carolingian
stirps faced enormous opposition both from other
powerful families and from within its own ranks.
Although the bastard royals and noble families
that fought the Carolingian princes and kings
from the seventh through the tenth centuries may
not have fully participated in the learned traditions
in which the royal visionary tradition was rooted,
from the beginning to the end, from the Vision of
Wetti to that of Charles the Fat, the authors and
patrons of this literature had interests that extended into these aristocratic opposition groups.
Moreover, as the case of the prophetess Thiota
shows, visionaries appealed not only to kings,
but to the common people as well. One need not
deny the biblical references and the internal coherence of these visions to suggest that their ability to penetrate the subconsciousness of commoners' and kings' alike may have been in part their
resonance with traditions and values broader and
wider than the classical and biblical traditions of
dream literature.
Among the many merits of Dutton's study are
his flair for translating Carolingian Latin, a talent
April 1995
already amply evident in his earlier Carolingian
Civilization: a Reader (Peterborough: Broadview,
1993). As befits someone who admires rhetoric, I
would also mention his style, which is unusually
vivid and enjoyable for a medievalist. Here again
his book recalls that of Heinrich Fichtenau. In
sum, The Politics of Dreaming in the Carolingian
Empire is an important and engaging book. It explores central tensions in Carolingian political
culture by focusing on the margins, an imaginary
dream world in which past, present, and future can
be reconstructed and interpreted for the waking.
Women's Lives in Medieval Europe
Reviewed by Michael Calabrese,
California State University, Los Angeles
Women's Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook. Edited by Emile Amt. New York and
London: Routledge, 1993. Pp. x, 347, $49.95
(HB), $15.95 (PB), ISBN 0-415-90627-x (HB), 0415-90628 (PB).
This book of source material about women's
lives features only two pages from Christine de
Pizan and makes no mention of Chaucer or the
Wife of Bath. In other words, it avoids the
famous, the imaginary and the literary in order to
provide legal, medical, philosophical and historical documents that tell us something about the ordinary lives of women across class, ethnicity and
religiosity in the middle ages (see p.7). As Amt
baldly states, the book's purpose "is to present
first hand information about women's everyday
lives and activities," to show us "on what sorts of
evidence historians base their conclusions about
these aspects of history" (1). The ambition is
both humble and wide, and the need for the volume is clear, and right from the start I say that
the book will find its way into many courses in
medieval history, literature, and culture. Because
it offers so many diverse documents spanning cultures and times, Amt's collection accordingly offers no argument or perspective on women's history. It merely wants to facilitate discussion of
social, political, and medical history of medieval
The Plantagenet Connection
page 216
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
women. So teachers, particularly non-historians,
will have to create carefully a course context in
which to read the material.
Toward this end, Amt provides some basic historical guidance in the introduction and in the
chapter headings throughout, allowing the nonhistorian and the student reader at least some access to the particular milieu under
study.
The material is "grouped thematically and arranged chronologically," a plan which highlights
the greater availability of documents from the
12th and later centuries. Amt begins with excerpts
from the Bible, the Church Fathers, Classical
law, and letters and Germanic law up until the 6th
century. The excerpts in Part I give no uniform
or coherent picture of one society or civilization.
They are as diverse as the cultural moments that
spawned them, so it is difficult to assess the overall force of Part I. At least, Amt reveals the range
of ideological, legal, and––in some cases, such as
Seneca's letter to his mother––the warmly human
apprehension of womanhood in Europe in the early periods sampled. Reaction to Part I, like all
parts of the book, depends on the pedagogical
context. Students reading Chaucer or any medieval
literature about women and gender (i.e., all medieval literature) will certainly benefit from having Paul, Augustine, and Jerome on hand. But
the smatterings of Germanic law are, by definition, confusing and dull. Without a historian's
full apparatus, it is hard to relate in any credible
way to the lives of ordinary women. Because of
the topic's current urgency, we will naturally
gravitate toward documents concerning crimes and
punishments of violence against women. Scholars
have often commented that the application of laws
was spotty and unreliable when it came to rape
and assault. The relationship between law and
real practice is hard to establish, but that does not
stop us from hearing in these documents a kind of
historical immediacy about the daily lives of
women that the Aeneid, Beowulf, and the Chanson de Roland will never provide. Part I is a bit of
a hodgepodge, but full of gold.
In Part II, we find many more legal documents
from the high Middle Ages. These documents ar
more involved and elaborate than earlier material,
April 1995
primarily concerned with law, marriage, health,
and family. These are absolutely thrilling 13thcentury Norman legal documents that detail the
fines for refusing to pay a prostitute. These pages
will offer students the immediacy of a voice from
our legal-sexual past (57). Also compelling are
the discussions of rape and a Sicilian jurist's impatience with the loophole rapists attempt by
marrying their victims to avoid capital punishment (61). The same Sicilian laws specify fines
for anyone who "hears a woman who is being attacked ... but does not go to her assistance" (62).
These documents picture a culture that is struggling with fairness, standards of consent and the
problems of evidence, wishing––at least on paper
––for a kind of clarity and reform. The penalty offered by one Sicilian document for raping a prostitute is death. The author proudly points out that
prostitutes merit protection too, despite their
shame. For this largess, the jurist recommends
that the prostitutes "rejoice in gratitude" (60).
Yet too, these same Sicilian laws offer some
severe ancient customs: "If a husband catches his
wife in the very act of adultery, he may kill both
the adulterer and his wife" (68). The additional
caveat that this crime is only excused if done
"without any further delay" does not seem to soften the shock we feel at the allowance of double
murders of passion. All these documents contain
ironies – mad mixes of compassion and brutality.
Repeat offending madams will have their noses
slit, as will mothers who prostitute their daughters (68-9). Yet, that penalty is too severe if the
mother and the daughter have acted willingly because of their poverty and their need to find a man
who "gives them sustenance for life" (69). Other
legal documents are mainly homey and anecdotal,
such as records of a woman, one Alice Shether,
arrested for "being a common scold" and verbally
abusing her neighbors. Her endless backbiting
merited her an hour in the pillory (74).
The next section compiles marriage law and theory from such sources as Gratian, the liturgy, and
Holy Maidenhood. We learn from Gratian that it
is "no sin to marry an immoral woman" (75); that
a man cannot become a monk without his wife's
consent and, if he does, so he "must return to her"
(79); that consent makes a marriage and therefore
The Plantagenet Connection
page 217
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
"no woman who is unwilling ought ever to be
joined to anyone" (81). Such dicta take their place
in the history of gender power relations. The efforts to establish fairness and respect the women's
will may surprise modern readers. So too will
Gratian's law that "Men are to be punished more
severely for adultery than women," and "No man
may kill his adulterous wife" (82, 83), which opposes the Sicilian law cited above. These documents provide us with no uniformity, only voices
– authoritative, yet strange voices which we cannot easily correlate with "real" events or with
medieval literature. This makes everything in the
sourcebook thrilling, but mercurial. Yet, how
wonderful to be able to read the "blessing of the
marriage chamber" (88) and the “Liturgy for
Mothers” containing blessings for pregnant women and women after childbirth (97-98). The antimarital “Holy Maidenhood,” which graphically
lays out the horrors and sufferings of childbirth
and the misery of married life, is well included.
This text, the flip side of the Jeromian antifeminist tradition, is sure to delight, as it blasts the
horrors of marriage, childbirth, child care, and living with a man, who "chideth and jaweth thee, as
a lecher does his whore" and "beateth thee as his
bought thrall and patrimonial slave" (92). We here
feel a living history of women and of the female
body in particular.
We feel this even more so in the medical and
health documents that follow. All readers of
Chaucer know of Trotula, but who has ever read
her? In the court records of Jocoba, who was indicted for practicing medicine without a license,
we read that "it is better and more suitable and
proper" (111) that women be doctor to other
women, because men should not violate female
shame or privacy. After all, women are more apt
to reveal ailments and their bodies to other women. Indeed, Trotula shares this sentiment (99).
Again, anecdotally, we are disappointed to hear
from Trolula that wet nurses should, above all,
avoid garlic (105), and Trolula’s list of herbs gets
tiresome, but truth is in the details. In solving the
problems of scant or excessive menstrual flow,
this medieval female physician reveals to us the
history of the body in just such detail. Not all
the book's material focuses on women, per se.
April 1995
Documents on lepers and Boccaccio's classic account of the plague tellingly fill out Part II. No
doubt, the plague knew no gender, and Amt is
right to try to reveal woman's history as human
history, never neglecting to reveal in the selections that class, as much as sex, determined one's
power, potential, hope, and despair.
Part III, "The Noble Life," contains testaments
to various women of fame, power, or sacred notoriety through biographies and personal accounts.
It includes: the life of the chaste Christina of
Markyate; Guibert of Nogent's homage to the
holy, dedicated life of his mother; the household
accounts of the wealthy widow, Dame Alice de
Byrene; the holy, royal bravado of Leonor Lopez
de Cordoba; and some personal letters (a medieval
oddity) from Margaret Paston to her husband. The
theme here is social diversity and varieties of
power, as we see women exercising authority over
such matters as the grocery shopping for her estate, or over her own spiritual life and the use of
her body.
Part IV deals with work, rural and urban, peasant
and mercantile. Court roles and census material
are difficult to appreciate and apply. In these pages, we read much telling information about working women and gender roles in medieval society.
In Alexander Necham's "Observations" concerning
estate management, we learn that a chambermaid
should have a face that can "charm and render tranquil the chamber (181). Coroners' records are
haunting, and with heavy heart we read about
Emma Sutton falling in a well and downing (19091). Illustrations of estates and peasant dwellings
add some helpful visual detail to the events discussed. Guild regulations and documents testifying
to bread that has been incorrectly weighed, or bakers stealing dough bring us glimpses of the world
inhabited by Chaucer's miller and his heavy gold
thumb. In business contracts, we see women at
work, like the wife of Bath. The London documents that follow are concerned with guardianship, regulation of prostitutes' clothing, and an
indictment of a corrupting procuress who deceives
young women into prostitution – an act more
grave than the practice itself. Here, we witness the
pre-Puritan supervision of what was seen as a
problematic but necessary position for women in
The Plantagenet Connection
page 218
BOOK REVIEWS
Reprinted from the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review
medieval society (210-13).
Part V deals with the minority of medieval
women leading an institutional religious life.
Though it contains some familiar material, such
as the Ancrene Riwle (the guidebook for female
recluses), Margery Kempe's story of her pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and a letter of Hildegard of
Bingen, this part also offers church degrees and
statutes from the 5th century on. Ampt includes
such materials as Caesarius of Arles' “Rule for
Nuns,” and some bizarre stories of bold women
who died for violating gender segregated church
lands. The part offers copious excerpts from the
“Rule of St. Clair.” (235-45), offering us a woman's voice speaking to women about the daily
physical and spiritual care required in this most
holy order. This is a delightful and informative
selection for students of medieval female spirituality and any reader of Shakespeare's “Measure for
Measure!”
The book's final part compiles documents on
women as "outsiders," Jewish, Muslim, and Heretical. These thirty dense pages offer such documents as Hebrew chronicles of the massacre of
Jews in the First Crusade, Maimonides's book on
Jewish women and marriage, selections on female
mores from the Koran, text from Muslim Spain,
and stirring inquisition records, such as the first
person narrative of a Cathar woman, produced
through interviews with the inquisitor Jacques
Fournier. On a less dark note, the collection ends
with the 14th-century “Manual for His Wife,” by
the so called "Goodman" of Paris (317-30). The
anachronism of the condescending tone of this
work provides humor, but this does not stop the
work from evidencing the domestic expectations
put on wives – in this case, a woman of the lower
nobility. The advise boils down, one might argue, to love God, love your husband (like Sarah,
Rebecca and Rachel did), and choose servants carefully.
Again, the book makes no argument, advocates
no political position or any particular kind of
feminist critical poetics or historical analysis.
Refreshingly, Amt seems simply to want to get
these records, reports, and documents out to readers. The result seems to gloss, deepen, and broaden the literary, historical, and philosophical study
April 1995
of the lives of medieval women. The bibliographical headnotes that begin each section certainly provides us with access to the sources of
the excerpted material, as does the ten page bibliography of suggested further readings, organized
conveniently by topic. It is difficult to imagine
another book in which one could find all this diverse material. No doubt, Amt's collection – in its
sheer richness, genuine clarity, and simplicity –
will take a prominent place in an expanded, diversified medieval curriculum. This curriculumn
takes class, gender, and ethnicity as central to an
understanding of world cultural history. Women's
Lives in Medieval Europe will certainly supplement any medieval literature study.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 219
LETTERS
Warren (RN=3266) 1139, d 12 Jun 1152 at Kelso,
Roxburgh, Scotland.
LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR
Henry’s father was: #8484,
David I --King
of Scotland (RN=5470), b 1084 at Scotland, m to
Matilda of Northumbria (RN=5471) 1113, d 24
May 1153 at Carlisle, Cumberland. Henry’s
mother, #8485, was Matilda of Northumbria
Editors,
Is there a way we could view the wives of all (RN=5471), b abt 1072, rm to David I --King of
the Warrens in the ancestry of James Garfield, on Scotland (RN=5470) 1113, d 1131.
pages 22 and 23 TPC, October 1994. I believe
John Warren, #21, was a brother to my Richard Editors,
Thank you for another great issue of TPC. I am
Warren of the “Mayflower”, and both were sons of
very
interested in receiving the presidential line of
Christopher and Alice (Webb) Warren.
Benjamin
Harrison through his ancestor, Anthony
-Hugh Rutherford
Collamore,
to Hugh Capet, King of France.
Shreveport, LA.
-Hugh Rutherford
Shreveport, LA.
Dear Editor,
Editorial
Reply:
I have from an unproven source an Ada DeWarren, married Henry, Earl of Huntington. Ada 1) Benjamin Harrison (23rd US President) =
Carolina Lavinia Scott
was the daughter of the Earl of Warren and Isabel
(2)
John Scott Harrison = Elizabeth Ramsey
de Vermandois. I also have information taken
Irwin
from the LDS files which list several children for
Isabel and the Earl of Warren, but Ada is not (3) Anna Tuthill Symmes = William Henry Harriamong these children in that file. Do your records son (9th US President)
(4) John Cleves Symmes = Anna Tuthill
show anything about this?
-Dan Capps (5) Timothy Symmes, Jr. = Mary Cleves
PO Box 10 (6) Elizabeth Collamore = Timothy Symmes
Superior, MT 59872 (7) (very probable) Anthony Collamore of Mass.
=
Sarah Chittenden
(8)
John
Collamore
= Mary Nicholl
Editorial
Reply: The work published in
(9)
Thomas
Collamore
= Agnes Adams
these pages by Marlyn Lewis is certainly handy in
(10)
Peter
Collamore
=
Edith ______
resolving such matters. So far as Ada is con(11)
Margery
Hext
=
John
Collamore
cerned:
(12) Thomas Hext = Wilmot Poyntz
#4243. Ada Warren (RN=3266), b abt 1120 (13) Joan Fortescue = Thomas Hext
at Surrey, England, m to Henry–Prince of Sco- (14) John Fortescue = Joan Prutteston
tland (RN=3265) 1139, d 1178. Her father, (15) William Fortescue = Matilda Falwell
#8486, was William de Warrenne (RN=5472), b (16) Elizabeth Beauchamp = William Fortescue
1071 at Sussex, England, m to Isabel de Verman- (17) Sir John Beauchamp = Margaret Whalesburgh
dois (RN=4832) 1118, d 10 May 1138. Her (18) Sir John Beauchamp = Joan ____, probable
mother of #17
mother, #8487, was Isabel de Vermandois
(19)
Sir Humphrey de Beauchamp = Sybil Oliver
(RN=4832), b 1081 at Vermandois, Normandy,
(20)
Alice
de Mohun = Robert de Beauchamp
France, rm to William de Warrenne (RN=5472)
(21)
Hawise
Fitz Geoffrey = Sir Reynold de
1118, d 17 Feb 1131 at St. Nicaise, Meulan, DMohun
Sens, France.
(22) Aveline de Clare = Geoffrey FitzPiers
As to Henry – Prince of Scotland, he is (23) Roger de Clare (2nd Earl of Hertford) =
Maude de St. Hilaire
#4242. (RN=3265), b 1117 at Scotland, m to Ada
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
page 220
LETTERS
(24) Richard de Clare = Adeliza de Meschines
(25) Adeliza of Clermont = Gilbert de Clare
(26) Margaret of Montdidier = Hugh I, Count of
Clermont
(27) Alice of Roucy = Hildouin IV, Count of
Montdidier
(28) Beatrix of Hainault = Ebles I, Count of
Roucy
(29) Edith of France = Ranier IV, Count of
Hainault
(30) Hugh Capet, King of France, d 996 = Adeliza
of Poitou
(Sources: Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary
Boyd Roberts, Genealogical Publishing Co.,
Genealogy of the Descendant of Anthony Collamore of Scituate, Mass., 1915, pp. 9-25, and the
Northam, Devon, parish register.
Editorial Reply:
Regarding the Fiennes-Clinton connection,
I only find this information. Penelope WELBY, d
5 June 1834, married Clinton James FiennesClinton, Duke of Newcastle, and had several
children. Penelope Welby was a direct descendant
of Edward III through Penelope Glynne who married a Welby. This is much later than the date you
provided for Anne Fiennes-Clinton, d 1663, but
her husband was probably related to this family.
Source: The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal,
Mortimer-Percy Volume, pp. 50-51.
BOOK NOTES
New Genealogical Publications
Dear Editor,
I am looking for a Jane Beaufort who married Sir Edward Stradling. I believe Jane to
New books have been published by several loyal
be the daughter of Henry Beaufort, and Henry to subscribers and editorial consultants of The Planbe the son of John of Gaunt and Katherine tagenet Connection.
Roett.
-Juanita Ward
Mike Talbot, 1609 Cleary Ave., Metairie,
Spokane, WA 99205-6136 LA. 70001, has recently completed his work on
The Royal Ancestry of Charles Latour. Contact
Editorial Reply:
the author for further information. Mike, as you
According to information published in TPC in remember, wrote an article and published some
April 1993, p 17, by Carolyn Collins, this Henry genealogical works relating to Charles d’Orleans
was the Cardinal of St. Eusebius, 4 times Chan- in the October 1994 issue of TPC.
cellor of England, and died 30 Dec 1440. Perhaps
this is who you mean.
James K. Trigg, 3622 Robin Road, Nashville, TN. 37204-3825, has recently pubished a
Dear Editor,
large hardbound book (1225 pages) on Trigg HisI have enjoyed each and every issue of your tory. The Trigg family connects with the Tyndal,
publication and look forward the the next issues. the Taylor, the Baldwin, the Bullitt, the Madison,
My connection is via Eleanor de Lancaster and and the Gascoigne families, among many others,
Richard FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel. Also, I am and descends from European royalty. Information
told there is a family connection between the on the contents and cost are available from the auFiennes-Clinton line and Edward III. Anne thor.
Fiennes-Clinton, b 1596 in New Castle, England,
d 1663 in Charleston Suffolk, MA., m John Harrington, b abt 1595 in Bath, Somerset, England,
d 1630 in Charleston, Suffolk, MA. If you have
any information along this line, I would love to
see it in print.
-Jim Williams
Mt. Eden, CA.
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
page 221
TIPS FOR RESEARCHERS
SEARCH THE
"BOOK OF SUFFERINGS"
FOR QUAKER ANCESTORS
By Carol Collins
Religious turmoil highlighted the early
part of the 17th century, especially in Britain. Atten-dance at and financial responsibility to the Church of England were
mandatory, but the country's leadership
was so corrupt that many in England
questioned the validity of the church and
its tenets.
George Fox, born in 1624, was one of
these. He concluded that religion was a
matter of the spirit, not of the intellect, and
he devised the concept of the "Inner
Light," which is the heart of Quakerism.
By 1644 he began preaching his ideas
in Leicestershire; the Quaker movement
spread so rapidly that by 1654 there were
Quakers living in most of the English
counties, Scotland, Ireland and the Colonies.
George Fox had a genius for organization. From the very beginning, the Quakers kept excellent genealogical records.
Meetings were organized on four levels:
the local worshipping group, usually
known as a "particular" meeting; the
"monthly" meeting, made from a number
of particular meetings, which was the
principal administrative unit of Quaker
government; a "quarterly" meeting, initially encompassing one county, but later embracing a group of counties and drawing
from a number of monthly meetings; and
the "national yearly" meeting.
The monthly meeting is of greatest import-ance to genealogists, for here were
recorded births, marriages, deaths, migration, and other items of importance.
Many of the vital records have been
transcribed and published and are familiar
to researchers. But the Quakers suffered
severly in the 17th century, and records
were kept of these sufferings and of the
April 1995
attempts made by others to mitigate them.
Anyone researching Quaker ancestors during that time should search for the "Book
of Sufferings" pertaining to their area.
Letters of recommendation preceded the
mig-ration of a family from one meeting to
another and had nothing to do with social
concerns. Rather, they were the result of
the Poor Laws in effect in England during
the 1650s which held the parish responsible for any indigent member, even those
not living in the parish currently.
The former parish wanted to be sure that
the responsibility was passed on legally to
the new parish, and the letters of recommendation were the means of doing so.
London Library Holds 300 Years
of Quaker Records
Should you happen to be in London,
you'll find a visit to the Religious Society
of Friends very interesting and beneficial.
Located in Friends House on Euston
Road, opposite Euston Station, the Library is open Tuesday to Friday from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m., and usually the first Saturday of the month, as well. It is closed for
a week in the spring and fall; this year it
will be closed Nov. 22-25.
It is not essential to let the library know
before each visit, but it is advisable – in
order to save time or perhaps avoid a
wasted journey.
The library holds printed material, manuscripts, and pictures, as well as the central archives of the London Yearly Meeting
of the Society of Friends in Great Britain.
From the mid-17th century on, monthly
meetings, some particular meetings, and
some quarterly meet-ings kept register
books of births, marriages and burials.
In 1840, under the Non-parochial Registers Act, the society surrendered 1,445
original registers, for the period up to
1837, to the Registrar General. These are
now kept at the Public Record Office as
The Plantagenet Connection
page 222
TIPS FOR RESEARCHERS
part of class RG6.
Before their surrender, however, the
Society of Friends compiled digests of
these registers. The digests are available
on microfilm at Friends House. The microfilm collection covers records from all
of the British Isles.
Also available are many indexes to public-ations. Since most of these publications are available here in the States, especially at Haverford College, near Philadelphia, the in-dexes can be most helpful.
A typescript titled "Dictionary of Quaker
Biography" is a major source of information, with entries for over 15,000 Quakers. A copy exists at Haverford College.
The "Journal of the Friends Historical Society" is useful for information about early
Friends.
The library staff will not do any research
by mail. However, a letter to the Association of Genealogists and Record Agents,
Joint Secretaries: Mr. & Mrs. D.R.
Young, 29 Badgers Close, Horsham,
West Sussex RH12 5RU, will bring research help.
Printing (PETERSEN Graphics) in South
Bend. If you have anything you would be
willing to share with the family, please
contact Bev Petersen, 16305 Chandler
Blvd., Mishawaka IN 46544.
5325. Seeking descendants of Thomas
DIGNAN, b. Ireland 1811, d. Niles,
Mich. 1872, m. Anna HASTINGS 28
Feb. 1865; children: Elizabeth, James,
Frances, Katie (Catherine). Janet Hendershott, 2411 Bond St., Niles MI 49120.
The Veils of Time
by Kenneth Harper Finton
© 1995-1999 HT Communications
How often down these gravel roads
my bike and I would roam.
Downhill like the lightning flash,
up with winded moan ...
mapping streams and woods about me,
finding spots where no one came.
Africa could be no stranger
than the place in my dreamscape.
NEWS AND NOTES:
The Irish Genealogical Foundation has
announced publication of two books of
interest to Irish researchers. Both will be
released November 1. "The Families of
County Kerry, Ireland," by Michael C.
O'Laughlin, covers more than 10,000 families from ancient times to the present
and costs $27.95. "Historical Essays on
the Kingdom of Munster," by The MacCarthy Mor, Prince of Desmond, is $30.
INQUIRIES
5324. Correction of address for inquiry
5322. Searching for any "relics" relating
to the 75 year history of PETERSEN
April 1995
Ghosts of dead forgotten Indians,
birch canoes and forest game,
hidden in the brambled forest,
there beside the fields of grain.
Tadpoles swam among the minnows,
dragonflies would dart and play.
Waterbugs and prickly nettles,
part of each midsummer's day.
As it was in the beginning,
so remain these things today,
in the places man's forsaken,
wilderness, ten feet away.
From a child's imagination,
pterodactyl seeks his prey.
Ages past still live forever
when the veil of time is raised.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 223
THE DUDLEY / BAGLEY CONNECTION
THE DUDLEY / BAGLEY CONNECTION
PRESIDENT RICHARD M. NIXON’S GENEALOGICAL DATA
Dear Editor,
I have located a copy of the article by
Neil D. Thompson in The American Genealogist (Vol. 69, No. 2, April 1994, p.
95) that attempted to disprove the royal
descent of Richard M. Nixon.
I have always said that the Hugh Harry
connection is unproven, but believed that
it was highly likely based upon the fact
that there were less than six hundred people in Machynlleth in the early 17th century. It seemed to me highly unlikely that
there were two men named Thomas Owen
of the right age to be the father of Harry
Thomas Owen. Neil Thompson provided
two pieces of information that now makes
me think that it is unlikely that Thomas
Owen, son of Rowland, is the father of
Harry. One is the fact that Harry Thomas
Owen may have moved to Machynlleth
later, thus nullifying my argument about
there only being six hundred people in the
town. New to me is information that
Hugh Harry was not named in the will of
Thomas Owen, a most convincing piece
of evidence. Although it was common for
the Quaker converts to be disowned by
their families, it is unlikely that he would
not have been mentioned in the will. It is
still possible that Hugh Harry was the son
of this Thomas, but the bottom line is that
I would not have compiled my book as
such if I had known about the will.
[Aristocrats and Royal Ancestors of Jane
Harry, 1991, Miami, OK., Leslie Ray
Tucker.]
However, there seems to be adequate
evidence that Richard Nixon had a royal
descent from Edward III by the line of
Lord Dudley.
It is the policy of this journal to open a
public forum for legitimate genealogical mysteries. We make every attempt to print both
the pros and the cons of ancient mysteries
in the hope that an enlightened public can
make up its own mind about such disputes.
With such a forum, other researchers may
perhaps find convincing pieces of evidence
that may weigh the argument toward one side
or the other. We are not responsible for errors in research, nor typographical mistakes.
COMMENTS ON THE
ROYAL DESCENT
OF ANN BAGLEY BRINTON
by Leslie R. Tucker
Ann Bagley, an ancestor of President
Richard Nixon, was probably born about
1635, the daughter of Edward Bagley of
Sedgeley, Staffordshire. She married William Brinton in 1659. They both converted
to the Society of Friends (Quakers) and
went to America in 1684.
Edward Bagley was christened October
17, 1602, in Dudley, Staffordshire. He
was the son of John Bagley, Gentleman,
of the same place. John married a daughter
of Edward Sutton, 5th Lord Dudley, by
his mistress, Elizabeth Tomlinson.
Through Lord Dudley, Ann Bagley Brinton has seven lines of descent from Edward III.
The royal descent of Ann is not currently recognized in the genealogies of the
United States presidents. This is puzzling,
as the proof of such descent seems conclusive. Edward Bagley and his brother,
Dudley, along with Thomas and Robert
(both assumed to be brothers as well),
- Leslie R. Tucker
were named in the will of Elizabeth Tomlinson in 1629.
I can think of only three reasons why
this royal descent is not recognized:
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
page 224
THE DUDLEY / BAGLEY CONNECTION
(1) We do not know the first name of
the wife of John Bagley (daughter of Lord
Dudley and his mistress).
(2) The will of Elizabeth Tomlinson
does not specify the relationship of the
four Bagleys.
(3) Edward Bagley was born in 1602.
This would make Lord Dudley (born in
1567) a grandfather at the age of 35.
As to those objections:
(1) The first objection is not a major
concern. It would be helpful to know the
name of the daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson, but the fact that the name is not
known does not disprove the connection.
(2) The second objection is not a major
concern either, since the will of Elizabeth
Tomlinson was non-cupative, that is, the
will was given orally and written down
later. It is not surprising that the relationship of those in the will is not specified,
as would be expected in a written will.
(3) The age of those concerned is well
worth considering. Age thirty-five is a
young age to become a grandfather, but it
is not a record by any means. If the mother of Edward Bagley was age eighteen
when Edward was born, that would put
her year of birth at 1584. Lord Dudley
was married in 1586. It appears that he
may have had a relationship with Elizabeth Tomlinson before that date. Sir Dud
Dudley, fourth son of Lord Dudley and
Elizabeth, was born in 1599. Assuming
an average of at least two years between
births, that indicates they were having
children by 1593. This fact, combines
with the likelihood of daughters being
born amongst the four sons, indicates that
Lord Dudley was having children with
Elizabeth well before 1593, and, therefore, it would not be surprising to have a
daughter born in 1584.
The fact remains that the four Bagleys
were named in the will of Elizabeth Tomlinson. Considering that she was the
mother of eleven children, it is hard to
imagine any reason that the four Bagleys
would have been given anything at all had
April 1995
they not been grandchildren. It is equally
difficult to imagine that anyone other than
Lord Dudley would have been the father.
Sir Dud Dudley contested the will stating
“ . . . that the said Elizabeth was incapable
of making a will, and that the bequests to
the Bagleys was the work of Lord Dudley.” (See the article by T.A. Glenn:
“Genealogical Gleanings in Great Britain,”
published in the Pennsylvania Magazine of
History and Biography, Vol. XXXVII,
1913.)
Again, considering the poor financial
situation of Lord Dudley and Elizabeth
Tomlinson, why would they leave money
to the Bagleys if they were not related? If
but one of the names appeared, we might
think that they were repaying some personal favor– but all four names?
In addition to the will, there is further
evidence that collaborates the claim that the
Bagleys were grandsons of Lord Dudley
and his mistress. John Bagley, Gentleman, was of the class that one would expect to marry the illegitimate issue of Lord
Dudley. Lord Dudley’s legitimate issue
would be expected to marry into the upper
classes or aristocracy, whereas the illegitimate children, being of lower status,
would likely marry into the gentry. John
Bagley bore the title of “Gentleman.” William Brinton, in the memorial he wrote for
his wife, Ann Bagley Brinton, described
her family as: “. . . not of mean rank as to
worldly account.” 1
John Bagley, Gentleman, had gone in
with Robert Dudley, Gentleman, and
George Guest in a lease from Lord Dudley
of Oulde Park and Connigree. This establishes an association between John Bagley
and the children of Lord Dudley and Elizabeth, as Robert Dudley was one of the
sons of this relationship and George Guest
had married one of the daughters. It also
shows that they had ties with Lord Dudley. It should be pointed out that the land
1 From the memorial written by William Brinton as
reprinted in The Ancestors of Hugh Harry and Elizabeth Brinton.)
The Plantagenet Connection
page 225
THE DUDLEY / BAGLEY CONNECTION
in Connigree (Coneygree) was more than
tenant property. The land was located on
the east side of the castle and contained
iron deposits that led to the establishing of
a furnace and the making of steel. Part of
this land was leased to Sir Dud Dudley in
1619, and then in 1631 to William Ward,
husband of Lord Dudley’s legitimate
daughter and eventually the Lord’s heiress. It does seem that Lord Dudley wanted to keep the land in the family and not
lease it merely to the first person who
would pay him rent. (See “Genealogical
Gleanings in Great Britain, ibid.)
In addition to the relationship between
John Bagley and the family of Lord Dudley, the naming patterns seem to indicate
that they were family. Of course, the most
obvious is the fact that John Bagley had a
son named Dudley. It is possible that he
picked up this name because that was the
name of the town in which they lived.
Although Americans sometimes bear
names that come from a location, it is very
uncommon for this to happen with English names. Even with Americans, a location name is the place from which the person came from, not where they presently
live. It was a very common practice to
name a son after the surname of the mother. The surname used by the children of
Lord Dudley and Elizabeth was Dudley.
Also, they had a son, previously mentioned, Sir Dud(ley) Dudley. The other
names seem to be a typical 17th century
naming pattern. They were: (1) Edward,
Lord Dudley’s Christian name. (The father of John Bagley was Thomas, not Edward, as has been claimed by some.) (2)
John, named after the father. (3) Dudley,
the mother’s surname, and also a brother
of the mother. (4) Elizabeth, named after
the grandmother, Elizabeth Tomlinson.
(5) Thomas, the name of the father of
John Bagley. (6) Robert, named after
April 1995
Robert Dudley, a brother of the mother. 2
Conclusion: I would have to stretch my
imagination to find a reason that Elizabeth
Tomlinson would have named the four
Bagleys in her will if they were not her
grandchildren. Lord Dudley was not in a
good financial position, and even Elizabeth’s famous son, Sir Dud Dudley, was
not well off financially. In addition, John
Bagley had ties with Lord Dudley and his
illegitimate issue. The naming patterns that
John Bagley used for his children also
support this conclusion. It is clear to me
that Edward Bagley was the grandson of
Lord Dudley, and that his daughter, Ann,
who married William Brinton and came to
America, shared the seven descents from
Edward III, passed on to her by her greatgrandfather.
One Descent from Edward III:
Edward III
|
John of Gaunt = (m3) Katherine Swinford
|
Joan Beaufort (d/o John of Gaunt) =
Ralph Neville
|
Catherine Neville = Sir Thomas Strangeways
|
Sir William Willoughby = Joan Strangeways
|
Cicely Willoughby =
Edward Sutton, 2nd Lord Dudley
|
John Sutton, 3rd Lord Dudley =
Cicely Grey
2 The names of Edward, John, Dudley, and Elizabeth
are from the Parish Register of St. Edmunds, Dudley,
Staffordshire, Vol. 1, 1540-1611, in which they are
all named as children of John Bagley. It appears that
John died before 1629, as he was not named in Elizabeth’s will. It is assumed that Thomas and Robert
were brothers of Edward and Dudley, probably born
after 1611.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 226
THE DUDLEY / BAGLEY CONNECTION
|
Edward Sutton, 4th Lord Dudley =
(m2) Jane Stanley
|
Edward Sutton, 5th Lord Dudley
= (not married) Elizabeth Tomlinson?
or other unknown woman
|
____Dudley = John Bagley
|
Ann Bagley = William Brinton
|
Hugh Harry of PA. = Elizabeth Brinton
|
John Harry = Frances ____
|
Miriam Harry = Record Hussey
|
Lydia Hussey = Jacob Griffith
|
Amos Griffith = Edith Price
|
Elizabeth Price Griffith = Joshua Vickers Milhous
|
Franklin Milhous = Almira Park Burdg
|
Hannah Milhous = Francis Anthony Nixon
|
Richard Milhous Nixon
37th U.S. President
Edward Sutton, 4th Lord Dudley =
Jane Stanley (d/o Edward Stanley, 3rd Earl of
Derby)
|
Edward Sutton, 5th Lord Dudley
= (not married) Elizabeth Tomlinson?
or other unknown woman
Sources: The Plantagenet Ancestry; Magna
Carta Barons; Funk & Wagnalls; Burke: The
Royal Lineage, The Plantagenet Chronicles;
Burke: Dudley; Cokayne: The Complete Peerage,
(1916); Wurts: MagnaCarta; Dudley: The Mediaeval Town; Dudley, The Town in the Seventeenth
Century; Dudley Castle; Burke: Aber-gavenny;
Four Gothic Kings.
General George Brinton McClellan, civil
war commander and Democratic party candidate for president, is also a descendant
of Ann Bagley and William Brinton.
William Brinton = Ann Bagley
|
William Brinton, Jr. = Jane Thatcher
|
Joseph Brinton = Mary Peirce
|
George Brinton = Christina Hill
|
John Hill Brinton = Sarah Steinmetz
|
George McClellan = Ela Zaber Sophia Brinton
Another Descent from Edward III
|
Gen. George Brinton McClellan
Edward III
|
John of Gaunt
|
Joan Beaufort = Ralph Neville
|
Richard = Alice Montagu
|
Catherine = William Bonville
|
Cecily Bonville = Sir Thomas Grey
|
Cicely Grey= John Sutton, 3rd Lord Dudley
|
April 1995
Editorial Disclaimer:
It seems to us that this genealogy is still
an unsolved mystery. A response from a
leading researcher in the field, Col. Charles M. Hansen, 25 Rodeo Ave., #22, Sausalito, CA. 94965, and another companion
response from Neil Thompson, (author of
the The American Genealogist article disproving the Hugh Harry connection to royalty) takes a different thread.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 227
THE DUDLEY / BAGLEY CONNECTION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FROM CHARLES M. HANSEN:
Dear Mr. Finton,
I am writing in response to your letter
of 17 February concerning whether John
Bagley’s wife was an illegitimate daughter
of Edward Sutton, Lord Dudley, as given
in L.R. Tucker’s article. That this was so
was suggested as early as 1913 by T.A.
Glenn, has been included in the Family
History Library Ancestral File, and was
published in 1987 in The Ancestor’s and
Descendants of Hugh Harry and Elizabeth
Brinton, by Robert Jesse Harry, page 29.
My research on this problem over the
past decade has included searches by me
and by genealogists in England of many
many public records as well as of original
parish registers, probate records, manorial
records, court rolls, chancery court
records and the Dudley archives. The collections of the College of Arms were also
searched on my behalf by one of the the
Heralds. Although I have compiled a great
deal of information on John Bagley and
his family, I have found nothing which
establishes the identity or parentage of his
children’s mother.
The Visitation entry for Dudley was
certified by Mr. Dud Dudley on 10 April
1663 (Visitations of Staffordshire, edited
by H. Sydney Grazebrook, London,
1885, pp. 114-117). He listed himself
therein as eldest son (not 4th son, as in
Tucker’s article) of Edward, Lord Dudley, by his concubine, Elizabeth Tomlinson. As other children of this connection
[Dud Dudley’s siblings] he named three
younger brothers, noting that two had
died in their youth. He listed seven
sisters, six of whom were shown with
husbands, and one was given as died
young. In my judgment, this record establishes that John Bagley’s wife was not
a daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson. That
John Bagley and his wife were dead before the Visitation is not a factor, as Dud
April 1995
Dudley (I have not found him called “Sir”
or a “knight” in the records) specifically
named two brothers and a sister who had
died. The fact that he had legal disputes
concerning the Bagleys would not be an
argument for their omission from the Visitation. The chancery court records show
that he had many legal disputes with his
siblings and their spouses, and in fact accused his brother-in-law, Thomas Dudley,
of falsifying his mother’s will to make bequests of £30 to Edward Bagley, £20 to
Dud Bagley, and 20s each to Thomas
Bagley and Robert Bagley, all sons of
John Bagley. Dud Dudley contested this
testimony, stating that the claim of an oral
will was false, and had been made at the
instigation of Edward, Lord Dudley.
As seen from the 1633 Visitation entry,
it is evident that John Bagley was not husband of a daughter of Elizabeth Tomlinson. It therefore appears that such bequests had been made by Tomlinson on
her death bed under pressure from Lord
Dudley. Why Lord Dudley would cause
such relatively large bequests to be made
to two Bagley brothers could be explained
by the fact that they were sons of an early
illegitimate daughter, born before his relationship with Tomlinson.
Lord Dudley was baptized 17 Sep 1567
and John Bagley’s eldest son, Edward,
was baptized at St. Edmund, Dudley,
Oct., 1602. Chronologically, Edward
could have been a grandson of Lord Dudley, allowing 17.5 year per generation.
The records of John Bagley’s marriage has
not been found. Perhaps it was between 3
June 1600 and 3 May 1601, when there is
a gap in St. Edmund’s parish register.
However, as attractive as this theory is,
the bequests to John Bagley’s sons do not
prove them to be grandsons of Lord Dudley. John Bagley became Lord Dudley’s
principal deer keeper in 1611 and had testified on his behalf in various legal actions.
It is therefore possible that Lord Dudley
caused Tomlinson to make bequests to Bagley’s sons because of Bagley’s long
The Plantagenet Connection
page 228
THE DUDLEY / BAGLEY CONNECTION
service to him. Also, based on the names
of Bagley’s sons, Edward and Dudley, it
is also possible that these were god-children of Edward, Lord Dudley. While these
arguments are not compelling, they do
show that there could be explanations other than kinship to Lord Dudley to account
for the bequests. In 1629, at the time of
the bequests, John Bagley had seven living sons: Edward, bp. 1602; John, bp.
1603 (John did not die before 1629 as
suggested in the article by Tucker, footnote 2, but was still living in 1655); Dudley, bp. 1614; Thomas, bp. 1610; Robert, bp. 1612; Samuel, bp. 1614; and
Richard, bp. 1616. Why John, Samuel,
and Richard were not included in the bequests is unclear.
I am still searching for evidence that
will prove or disprove a Dudley/Bagley
descent, although most of my best leads
have been exhausted. I have a personal
interest on this problem, as I share the
Brinton/Bagley descent.
Charles M. Hansen
COMMENTARY FROM
NEIL THOMPSON, Ph.D., C.G.
Dear Mr. Finton,
My own view is that there are some
suggestive things about the proposed connection, but that it is far from being
proved, and that the wife of John Bagley
cannot have been a daughter of Elizabeth
Tomlinson, even though she may have
been a daughter of Lord Dudley.
Neil Thompson
tion. Yet, the naming patterns, the land
leases, and the substantial financial bequests provide good circumstantial evidence that John Bagley’s children by his
unknown wife were still grandchildren of
Lord Bagley. If their grandmother was not
Elizabeth Tomlinson, then she may well
have been another mistress of Lord Dudley, another unknown woman who shared
his life and bed previous to the childrearing relationship with Elizabeth Tomlinson,
and probably before his marriage to his legitimate wife, Theodosia d/o Sir James
Harrington. If this is so, then the line still
proceeds to the royal houses, but must be
regarded as circumstantial and not proven
evidence.
The conjecture that Lord Dudley may
have been an god-father seems highly
remote, as does the possiblity that John
Bagley’s children were rewarded for service to Lord Dudley by their father.
No details about the missing pages from
the church registry that would have
recorded the Bagley marriage are known
by me, but if the pages are torn out, that
could be evidence of a conspiracy on the
part of the other heirs to hide the fact of
this marriage and thus protect their own
interests.
After all this time, the line will probably
never be proven beyond doubt, but the
likelihood that this line continues to Edward III and beyond seems to be an acceptable hypothesis.
Our view is that this lineage should be
included in collections of royal descent
with a disclaiming commentary on the
probability of the connection. In other
words, it is neither proven nor disproven.
Editorial Conclusion:
Kenneth Harper Finton
The opinion at this time seems to be that
the unknown woman who was John Bagley’s wife was still an illegitimate daughter of Lord Dudley, though probably not
Elizabeth Tomlinson’s daughter. Proof of
this seems to be clear from the list of the
siblings of Dudley Bagley at the VisitaApril 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
page 229
THE LINCOLN ANCESTRY
John Taylor (b 1607), immigrant = Elizabeth ____
James Taylor ( b 1635) = Frances Walker
James Taylor 2 ( b 1670 ) = Martha Thompson
Frances Taylor (b 1700) =
Ambrose Madison
Zachary Taylor (b 1707) =
Elizabeth Lee Jones
James Madison (b 1723 =
Eleanor Conway
Col. Richard Taylor (b 1744) =
Sarah Dabney Strother
President James Madison
(b 1751) = Dorothy Payne Todd
President Zachary Taylor
( b 1784) = Margaret Mackall Smith
Sarah Knox Taylor =
Jefferson Davis (President Confederate States of America)
Thomas Taylor (b 1637) = Mary ____
Thomas Taylor 2 (b 1657) = Elizabeth Harwood
Dorothy Taylor (b 1681) = William Lee 2
William Lee (b 1704) = unknown woman
Nancy Anna Lee (b 1728) = Joseph Hanks, Sr.
Joseph Hanks, Jr. (b 1764) = Nancy Shipley
or Lucy Hanks = unknown Virginia planter
Nancy Hanks (b 1780) = Thomas Lincoln
President Abraham Lincoln = Mary Todd
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 230
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
Compiled by Kenneth Harper Finton
I would like to share a little known fact
on the ancestry of ABRAHAM LINCOLN
that I learned from reading Willard Mounts’
book, The Pioneer and the Prairie Lawyer,
Boone and Lincoln Family Heritage.
Nancy Hanks was the granddaughter of Joseph and Nancy (Shipley) Hanks. The story
is that Joseph’s sister, Lucy Hanks, fell in
love with her employer/teacher (a wealthy
plantation owner in Alexandria, Virginia).
When she became pregnant with Abraham
Lincoln’s mother, Nancy, Lucy returned to
her family and gave birth to Nancy. Eventually, she married Henry Sparrow. Ap-parently, we will never know who the plantation owner/grandfather of Abraham Lincoln
was.
-Diane Hitchcock–Owens
Larkspur, Colorado
Excerpt from:
T he Pioneer and the Prairie Lawyer,
Boone and Lincoln Family Heritage,
by Willard Mounts
Lafayette placed his life and fortune at
the disposal of the fighting American colonists in 1777 and served without pay.
Congress gave him the rank of major general and placed him directly under General
Washington’s command.
Lafayette was instrumental in inducing
the French government to sign a Treaty of
Alliance with the colonies in 1778. Without that, the colonists probably would not
have won the war. He was also a main
factor, along with the aid of Rochambeau’s land army and De Grasse’s naval
fleet, in the final defeat and surrender of
Cornwallis’ army.
April 1995
It was the second Sunday in November
when Washington and Lafayette attended
the morning service at Christ Church in
Alexandria. Afterward, they stood on either side of the exit, shook hands, and conversed as the congregation slowly made its
departure. This was a long affair, because
most war news was word-of-mouth and
everyone wanted to hear details of victory
from someone of authority.
As one account goes, after a great length
of time, vivacious Lucy Hanks, sixteen,
emerged on the side where Lafayette was
doing the greeting. He seemed attracted to
Lucy, because he not only shook her
hand, he also kissed her. A wealthy young
Virginia planter, who was a bachelor and
an Oxford student, observed with great interest when Lucy was kissed.
Lucy’s family had been neighbors of the
Boone and Lincoln families in Burks
County about thirty years earlier. They left
the area about the same time and built a log
cabin located between the Potomac and
Rappahannock rivers in Fairfax County,
Virginia.
Early Tuesday morning, the young planter, in high spirits, rode horseback to the
Hanks cabin and knocked at the door.
Lucy answered it. He inquired if she
would be interested in being employed at
his plantation. Lucy was thrilled with the
chance to earn money, because hers was
an illiterate but decent family living in a
cabin with a dirt floor.
He did not give Lucy an “easy” job,
such as working in the fields with the
slaves, or in the kitchen cooking and
washing dishes. He gave her a “hard”
task, which was dusting the furniture with
a feather duster.
One day, when walking through the library, he found Lucy gently dusting and
simultaneously looking at pictures in a history book.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 231
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
He asked Lucy, “Would you like to
learn to read and write?”
With enthusiasm, she said, “Yes.”
At that time, Virginia had no free
schools and a family who wished to send
a child to a private school surely would
not send a second-class female citizen. It
was unheard of for a servant girl to aspire
to learn to read and write.
As time passed, Lucy learned to read
and write. One thing led to another, especially at night, while sitting around an
open fire. It was easy for her to fall in
love with her tutor.
It was inevitable that one day Lucy
would discover that she was pregnant.
For several weeks she was in agony, not
knowing what to do. Finally, when she
could no longer hide it, she told the father. Lucy was then given some money
and eased out the back door to return
home. For a young lady to be with child
out of wedlock was, at that time, most
disgraceful. The identity of Lucy’s lover
was never disclosed but it can be assumed
that her family knew. Whether it was
from great love, respect, shame, or plain
stubbornness, it was indeed kept a secret.
The burden was heavy for Lucy and her
family. Her family withstood the humiliation as long as they could. Then they
moved about one hundred miles into the
wilderness to Mineral County Virginia
(now West Virginia), located seven-anda-half miles up Mike’s Run from Antioch
along the present highway 50. Lucy’s father, Joseph Hanks, built a two-room
cabin there.
It was there, on February 4, 1783, that
baby Nancy’s life in the world began.
Lucy was assisted by her mother and
sisters. Nancy was born in an area where
Indians were still a menace. However,
she was surrounded by a loving mother,
three doting aunts, and other family members . . .
The Virginia Enumerator, dated September 24, 1782, was incorporated into
the U.S. Census of 1790. It showed the
April 1995
Hanks family as new residents at that time.
Eighty-one years later, on June 20, 1863,
President Lincoln signed a bill declaring
West Virginia a separate state.
In a biography of Lincoln written by
William H. Herndon, who was Lincoln’s
law partner for twenty-one years, the following quote appears on pages three and
four in the first volume: “On the subject of
his ancestry and origin, I only remember
one time when Mr. Lincoln ever referred
to it. It was about 1850, when he and I
were driving in his one-horse buggy to the
court in Menard County, Illinois. The suit
we were going to try was one in which we
were likely to touch upon the subject of
hereditary traits. During the ride, he spoke
for the first time, in my hearing, of his
mother, dealing on her characteristics and
mentioning or enumerating what qualities
he inherited from her.
“He said, among other things, that she
was the daughter of Lucy Hanks and a
well-bred, but obscure Virginia farmer or
planter; and he argued that from this last
source came his power of analysis, his
logic, his mental activity, his ambition,
and all the qualities that distinguished him
from the other members and descendants
of the Hanks family.”
Years later, when Lucy’s grandson,
President Lincoln, was asked about the
identity of his grandfather on his mother’s
side, his reply was, “I believe he was a
planter and his ancestors were second families of Virginia.”
When baby Nancy was about nine
months old, her grandfather, Joseph
Hanks, and his family, left Mike’s Run
and migrated to North Carolina where they
met the Boone and Lincoln families again.
At the same time, Captain Abraham Lincoln, son of Virginia John, moved his
family from Linville Creek, Virginia, to
North Carolina, in preparation for migrating to Kentucky. Boone had encouraged
him to do so when he had visited with him
two years earlier.
At that time, Boone organized his last
The Plantagenet Connection
page 232
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
family group to migrate to Kentucky. In
this group was Captain Lincoln and his
wife Barsheba and their three sons, including Thomas, five-years-old, and two
daughters. In this same group was Joseph
Hanks and his family, including Lucy and
her baby, Nancy.
Editorial Note:
Burke’s Presidential Families of the United States of America, 1975 Burke’s Peerage Ltd., London, has Nancy Shipley and
Joseph Hanks, Jr. as mother of Nancy
Hanks in the genealogy of Abraham Lincoln, as printed in TPC, October 1994,
page 21.
The EncyclopediaBritannica, 1954, Vol.
15, page 157, has this to say about Lincoln’s parentage: “The paternal descent,
though unknown to him beyond the third
generation back, has been traced by enthusiastic genealogists to a lost or strayed
member of a distinguished New England
family of the same name. On his mother’s
side, he was descended from an east Virginia family of the name of Hanks who were
of humble station. His grandmother,
Lucy Hanks, migrated with her parents in
1782 to the Virginia mountains. There,
soon afterward, she had a natural child,
Nancy Hanks, who eventually removed to
Kentucky and married, in 1806, Thomas
Lincoln. Their second child, but first son,
was Abraham Lincoln. Nothing is known
of the father of Nancy Hanks, though there
is a persistent tradition that he was a Virginia aristocrat. Nancy’s famous son appears to have believed this story and to
have felt that whatever distinction he possessed had come to him from this unacknowledged heritage of aristocracy.”
The Lincoln genealogy is masked in
confusion and complicated arguments.
Some new information has been rescued
from old wills and land records and has
April 1995
been presented to The Plantagenet Connection. We have not had the time nor resources to authenticate these records, but
the logic and completeness of this information seems worthy of publication. Other
researchers may benefit from the clues
contained herein. Though we assume the
information contained herein is correct, we
are not responsible for errors in research
or typographical mistakes.
The primary source for this information
is the book From Log Cabins to the White
House: a History of the Taylor Family, by
Mary Taylor Brewer. This book was privately published and not well-circulated.
As Mrs. Brewer died soon after completing the book, and was never able to effectively circulate the information, much of
the content is unknown and unverified by
professional genealogists researching the
Hanks and Lincoln lines. The information
contained herein was provided by James
Trigg, 3622 Robin Rd., Nashville, TN.
37204-3825, a descendant of immigrant
John Taylor. Mr. Trigg has a copy of one
of the seven hundred original copies of
Mary Taylor Brewer’s book.
Abraham Lincoln, 16th U.S. President, b 12 Feb 1809, Mill Creek, Hardin
Co KY., d 15 Apr 1865, Washington
D.C., m 4 Nov 1842 , Mary Todd, d/o
Robert Todd of Lexington, KY.
Children of Abraham and Mary Todd
Lincoln:
1. Robert Lincoln, b 1843.
2. Edward Lincoln, b 1850, d young.
3. Wallace Lincoln b 1850
Abraham Lincoln’s brother’s and sisters
were all born at Mill Creek, Hardin Co.,
KY:
Sibling 1. Sarah Lincoln, a 10 Feb
1807, d 1828, m Aaron Grigsby of
Spencer County, IN. in 1826, two years
before her early death.
Sibling 2. Thomas Lincoln, b 1811, d
The Plantagenet Connection
page 233
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
infant.
Aug 1801
to Ralph Crume, s/o Phillip
Abraham, Thomas and Sarah were and Anne Crume of Nelson Co., KY.
children of:
Mary was buried on the old family cemetery on Mill Creek, Hardin CO., KY.
1st Generation:
Sibling 4: Nancy Lincoln, b 25 Mar
Thomas Lincoln = Nancy Hanks 1780, d 9 Oct 1815, m 12 Jan 1801 to
Nancy Hanks, b 25 Mar 1780, d 5 William Brumfield, b Mill Creek CeOct 1818 , m 12 Jun 1806 to Thomas metery, Hardin Co. KY. Diary of Dr.
Lincoln. Nancy lived with her grand- William Smith: “I saw Nancy Lincoln very
mother, “Nannie”, until she went back to often and have been to her house. I call her
Virginia to live with her “aunt “ [quite the star of the Lincolns. She was a woman
possibly her real mother] Lucy Hanks of more than average mind and sense. She
Sparrow, m 1790 to Henry Sparrow. She was liked by her neighbors, went about a
lived with Lucy until 1795 when her aunt great deal, and was about unafraid as a
Elizabeth married Henry’s brother, Tho- man. [These were the times of the Indian
mas Sparrow, then she lived with Eliza- Wars, the American Revolution, and the
beth and Thomas until she was married to War of 1812.] None of
the Lincolns
Thomas Lincoln in 1806. 1
were afraid, that I’m aware of. Nancy
lived here I suppose, most of her life and
Thomas Lincoln, b 5 Jan 1778, d 17 she had a pretty good man in Bill BrumJan 1851 near Janesville, at Coles Spring, field. They were helping neighbors with a
IL., married 12 Jun 1806 to Nancy lot of good fun in them.”
Hanks, d 5 Oct 1818. Thomas m2, Sarah
Bush Johnson, b 13 Dec 1788, d 10 Dec
2nd Generation: Maternal
1869 near Janesville. IL. Sarah was the
widow of Daniel Johnson. Sarah and Joseph Hanks, Jr. = Nancy Shipley
Thomas had no children of their own, but
or
Sarah raised Nancy Hanks children and
Lucy Hanks and _________,
was a major influence in their lives.
a young plantation owner
near Alexandria, VA.
Thomas Lincoln’s brothers and sisters
were:
Lucy and Joseph Hanks were brother
Sibling 1. Mordecai Lincoln, b 1771 d and sister.
1830, m Mary Mudd. The couple spent
many years in Hardin Co., KY, then
Joseph Hanks, Jr., b 1764 is genermoved to Hancock, IL. around 1827.
ally regarded the father of Nancy Hanks.
Sibling 2. Josiah Lincoln, b 1772. d In his will, recorded at Nelson County,
Sep 1835, m Catherine Barlow. The di- KY., he left his daughter Nancy Hanks “a
ary of Dr. William Smith, a neighbor who cow named Piedy.”
lived two miles from the Lincoln family
on Mill Creek says: “Josiah was more
Lucy Hanks, b circa 1770, possibly
slender and not as clever as Thomas. He had an illegitimate female child in 1783
lived most of his life in Hardin County with an Alexandria, VA. planter, m 1790
with Squire Boone.” 2
to Henry Sparrow. Pregnant Lucy was
Sibling 3. Mary Lincoln, b 1775, m 5 whisked away by the family, who moved
1 The Lincoln Family, History of Lee County, Vir- to the wilderness areas in Mineral County,
Virginia.
ginia, Anne Wyche.
2 The Smith diary, as quoted in “The Lincoln Book,”
by Harry Magers.
April 1995
Joseph Hanks, Jr. and Lucy Hanks
The Plantagenet Connection
page 234
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
brothers and sisters were:
been 80-years-old. Nancy Anna Lee was
the daughter of:
Sibling 1. Nancy Hanks, m Levi Hall.
Sibling 2. Polly Hanks.
4th Generation: Maternal
Sibling 3. Charles Hanks.
Sibling 4. Thomas Hanks, b 1759, m
William Lee 3. = _________
31 Mar 1791 to Nancy Hammock.
Sibling 5. Joshua Hanks.
William Lee 3, b 14 May 1704, d
Sibling 6. William Hanks.
1764. Children:
Sibling 7. Elizabeth Hanks, b 1775 , m
1. Elizabeth (Betty) Lee, b 1723/24. m
1795 to Thomas Sparrow.
Thomas Hanks, b 26 Jul 1728, s/o William and Hester Mills Hanks.
Joseph Jr., Lucy Hanks and siblings
2. Nancy Anna Lee, b circa 1728, m
were children of:
Joseph Hanks, Sr.
3. Richard Lee.
3rd Generation: Maternal
5th Generation: Maternal
Joseph Hanks, Sr. = Nancy Anna
Lee
William Lee 2 = Dorothy Taylor
Joseph Hanks, Sr., b 21 Dec 1725,
North Farnham Parish, Richmond Co.,
VA., d 1793, son of John and Catherine
Hanks, m 1750 to Nancy Anna Lee. Joseph’s father, John, was a cousin to Thomas Hanks, who married Nancy’s sister,
Elizabeth (Betty) Lee. Joseph lived in
Mineral Springs, WV. He moved to Nelson County, KY., where he died in 1793.
His will is listed in Nelson County, naming his wife “Nannie” (Nancy) and the
children listed above.
Nancy Anna Lee, b circa 1728, m
1750 to Joseph Hanks, Sr. After Joseph
died, Nancy and son Joseph, Jr., sold the
Nelson County Kentucky property to her
other son, William Hanks, entering into a
contract for sale 10 Jan 1794. From
there, they went to Rockingham County,
Virginia, where Nancy’s family lived.
Nancy died there, and Joseph Jr. returned
to Nelson County, KY where he later
recorded his will and died. Nancy
“Nannie” Hanks was living near Brock
Gap in Rockingham Co., VA. on 8 Oct
1808, when she was baptized by Baptist
church officials who were holding a meeting near her home. She would have then
April 1995
William Lee 2, b 1682, d 1717, s/o
William Lee 1 of Westmoreland and King
and Queen Counties, VA., m 1703 to Dorothy Taylor. His wife, Dorothy, and her
brother, Thomas Taylor, were administrators of his estate. She left her grandchildren the inheritance left to William 2 by his
mother, Elizabeth Harwood Taylor. Thomas Hanks received 9 lbs., 11 shillings,
and 8 pence. Joseph Hanks received 2
lbs., 2 shillings, and 6 pence. Richard Lee
received 4 shillings. Nothing is listed for
John Lee, who probably died young.
Dorothy Taylor, b 1681, m 1703 to
William Lee 2. Dorothy m2 circa 1720 to
Richard Croucher. On 13 Apr 1745, she
was witness to the will of Henry Williams,
on Richmond Co. VA., signed as Dorothy
Croucher. Children with William Lee 2:
1. William Lee 3, b 14 May 1704
2. Charles Lee b 18 Sep 1706
3. Richard Lee, b 9 Apr 1711
4. John Lee, b 11 Oct 1713, d young.
6th Generation: Maternal
Thomas Taylor 2 =
Elizabeth Harwood
The Plantagenet Connection
page 235
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
Thomas Taylor 2, b 1657, d 1712,
was m in 1680 to Elizabeth Harwood, d/o
William Harwood, who gave them a a
deed of land. Thomas’ will of 29 Mar
1712, was probated, 4 Jun 1712
(Farnham Parish, Richmond Co., VA.,
Records p. 80). The will stipulated that
his sons Thomas, Benjamin and John
were to be set at liberty at age sixteen,
Thomas (the eldest) was to have 50 acres
of land binding on Lawrence Taliaferro,
Benjamin was to have 50 acres binding on
John Jones, and the youngest son, John,
to have 50 acres between his brothers.
There was no executor, and the witnesses
were John Shaples and Thomas Sisson.
An inventory of his estate was made 17
May 1713.
Children of Thomas Taylor 2 and Elizabeth Harwood:
1. Dorothy Taylor, m William Lee 2.
2. Sarah Taylor Ellate, b c 1688.
3. Thomas Taylor 3, b 1690, m Ann
Jones. Thomas made his will in 1712.
His mother, Elizabeth Harwood, outlived
him by many years. She made her will on
11 May 1747, (WB 5, p 331, Richmond
Co., VA.) Her daughters, Sarah Ellate
and Dorothy Croucher, received her
clothing, to be divided between
them, and Dorothy was to “have her
Coyas.” Her grandson, William Lee, was
named as executor. Mentioned in the will
were great-granddaughter, Betty
Lee
(d/o grandson, William Lee 2), Anna
Lee (d/o grandson, William Lee 2), and
Richard Lee (s/o grandson William Lee
2).
4. Benjamin Taylor, b circa 1702 m
Eleanor _______. Benjamin left a will
dated 11 Feb 1775 in St. Marks Parish,
Culpepper Co., VA. “My land, prayer
book, and tools to be given to son Thomas, to daughters Elizabeth Miles and
Mary Butler, negroes and their increase,
to godson Charles James Jones Taylor,
40 shillings for schooling. The rest of my
April 1995
estate to son-in-law Charles Miles, son-inlaw James Butler, and wife Eleanor.”
[Virginia Magazine of History, Vol. Six;
Taylor Bulletins, 1973.]
5. John Taylor, b 1710.
7th Generation: Maternal
Thomas Taylor 1 = Mary ________
Thomas Taylor 1, b 1637 in England, was the son of immigrants John and
Elizabeth Taylor. He came to America in
1650 by Headright, sponsored by Richard
Tye and Charles Sparrow of Charles City,
VA. His wife, Mary, d 1687.
On 20 Mar 1662, Thomas patented 281
acres of land which he bought from Matthew Edlow, located on the north side of
the James River. The land itself was called
“Harrahatocke, over against King’s Island, bounded by the river, a little below
the orchard adjacent to land of Arthur
Bayley.” Thomas claimed land by Headright for the transport for his daughter,
Dorothy Taylor, John Bell, John Young,
and others under the Headright System, 23
Sep 1667. On 2 May 1666, Thomas
bought land in Surrey Co., VA. He paid
tithe there in 1672 and made statements
that he was 35 years of age. His will was
recorded in Rappahanock Co., VA., 22
Jan 1686, and was probated 2 Mar 1687.
Children of Thomas Taylor 1 and Mary
____:
1. Thomas Taylor 2, b 1657.
2. Richard Taylor, b 1658, mentioned in
Southwark Parish Surrey Co., with wife,
Sarah. His will, of 6 May 1705, names his
wife, Sarah, and children: Richard, John,
and Thomas. Thomas mentions that he received land from his grandfather Thomas
Taylor. (A.E. Casey, Some Southern Virginia Families, p 175.)
3. Elizabeth Taylor, b 1660, m 1678
John Tavener, Sr.
4. Dorothy Taylor, b 1662, d 1688.
There were probably other children as
well.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 236
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
8th Generation: Maternal
John Taylor = Elizabeth _____
John Taylor, b 10 Aug 1607, in England, d Jan 1652, m Elizabeth. Records
in both Northumberland and Lancaster
Counties, VA., show that he came to
America around 1648, as he is listed in
Greer’s Immigration List, 1648. That
year, John Taylor, James Jones, and John
Ellis patented 500 acres of land. On 28
Apr 1651 he patented 950 acres and 1400
acres.
Children of immigrant John Taylor and
wife Elizabeth:
1. Richard Taylor, b 1625, England.
2. John Taylor 2, b 1627, England.
3. Robert Taylor, b 1630, England.
4. William Taylor, b 1632-4 or 1638,
England.
5. James Taylor 1, b 1635, m Frances
Walker. His granddaughter, Frances
Taylor, m Ambrose Madison, and was the
grandmother of James Madison U.S.
President. Also, his grandson, Zachary
Taylor, b 1707, was the grandfather of
Zachary Taylor, b 1784, U.S. President.
6. Thomas Taylor 1, b 1637, England.
7. Elizabeth Taylor, b 1645, came to
America in 1648
with her parents, m Simon Sallard.
8. Richard Taylor, b 1650, Northumberland Co.,VA. 3
ter the birth of his daughter to settle in
England.
The children of Thomas Taylor 2 and
Margaret Swinderly: 4
1. Robert Taylor, b 7 Nov 1601, d
1699, m 1 Jun 1627 to Patience Margaret
Palmer.
2. Margaret Taylor, b 10 Sep 1603,
England.
3. William Taylor, b 8 Jul 1605, a soldier in Cromwell’s army.
4. John Taylor, b 10 Aug 1607, immigrated to America.
5. James Taylor, b 12 Feb 1610, d
1655, immigrated to America in 1635, m
Elizabeth Underwood, who later divorced
him (the first divorce registered in Virginia).
10th Generation: Maternal
Thomas Taylor = Elizabeth Burwell
Thomas Taylor, b 15 Sep 1548, m
Elizabeth Burwell, b circa 1552 at Hadleigh. Hadleigh, of County Suffolk,
England, is an old town dating back to the
days of Guthrum and Alfred the Great.
Elizabeth Burwell died two years after her marriage, leaving son, Thomas.
Her husband, Thomas Sr., then remarried
an unknown woman with whom he had
two more sons, Edmund and Nathaniel.
They lived in Cambridge, England.
9th Generation: Maternal
11th Generation: Maternal
Thomas Taylor =
Margaret Swinderly
Dr. Rowland Taylor
= Margaret Tyndale
Thomas Taylor, b 15 Mar 1574, d
1618, m 9 Oct 1599 to Margaret SwinderDr. Rowland Taylor,4 m 1525 Marly, b circa 1578, d/o Andrew Swinderly garet Tyndale, d/o of the John of the house
(who left Copenhagen, Denmark soon af- of Tyndale. John was a member of the
Merchant Tailor Guild and brother of Wil3 The custom of giving two sons the same Christian liam Tyndale who translated the Latin Biname was common in both England and Virginia at
this time, especially if the older son married or 4 William James Brown, The Life of Rowland Taylor,
moved away. (John T. Hassom. The Hilton Family, p Epworth Press, England. The Book of Martyrs, Fox,
105.)
published in England 1610, Vol.1.
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
page 237
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
ble into English and was burned at the
stake 6 Oct 1536 at Vilvorde.
Dr. Rowland Taylor was educated at
Cambridge, receiving an L.L.D. in 1530.
In 1542 Dr. Taylor was appointed Rector
of Hadleigh in the Deanery of Bocking.
On 3 May 1552 he was appointed Archdeacon of Cornwall for life. Dr. Taylor
was caught up in religious arguments and
persecution resulting from his objection to
the Catholic Mass in his church. He was
tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.
During Dr. Taylor’s trial he said he had
nine children, five of whom were deceased. Among those mentioned were:
1. Susan Taylor
2. George Taylor
3. Ellen Taylor
4. Robert Taylor
5. Zachary Taylor
6. Thomas Taylor, b 15 Sep 1548,
was six years old when his father was executed, 5 Feb 1555.
An inscription in All Saints Chapel,
York Minister, names Anne Taylor as d/o
Rowland Taylor, accounting for seven of
the nine children. Anne married William
Palmer, Rector of Kirk Deighton, and had
seven children. After Dr. Taylor’s death,
widow Margaret remarried Rev. Charles
Wright of Yorkshire., B.A. 1553/4 from
St. Johns College. He became Vicar of
Chesterton near Cambridge in 1557.
The written history of Dr. Taylor was
recorded by William James Brown in The
Life of Dr. Rowland Taylor, Epworth
Press, England, 1610. A copy exists in
the present Rector of Hadleigh. The book
points out that according to family legend
and many other sources, the original
Taylor name came from the time of William the Conqueror. The Taylors were descendants of Baron William Taliaferro
who accompanied William I to England
and died in the Battle of Hasting. The Taliaferro name changed over the years to
Tallifer, then to Tailor, and finally to
April 1995
Taylor.
Margaret Tyndale, wife of Dr. Rowland Taylor, was descended from Charlemagne:
Margaret Tyndale = Dr. Rowland Taylor
|
Sir John Tyndale = Amphyllis Coningsby
|
Sir William Tyndale
|
Sir Thomas Tyndale = Margaret Yelverton
|
Helena de Felbrigg = Sir William Tyndale of Dene
|
Sir Simon de Felbrigg = m1 Margaret m2 ____
|
Sir Roger le Bigod (alias Felbrigg) = Cecelia
|
Sir Simon le Bigod = Maud de Felbrigg, a widow
|
Maud Marshall = Hugh Bigod (Magna Carta Surety)
|
Isabel de Clare = Sir William Marshall
|
Richard (Strongbow) de Clare = Aoife / Eve
|
Isabel (Elizabeth) de Beaumont = Gilbert de Clare
|
Isabel de Vermandois =
m1) Robert de Beaumont m2) Hugh Magnue
|
Herbert IV, Count of Vermandois = Adele of Vexin
|
Otho, Count of Vermandois = Parvie
|
Herbert III, Count of Vermandois = Ermengarde
|
Albert I (The Pious) = Gerberga of Lorraine
|
Herbert II, Count of Vermandois = Hildebrante
|
Herbert I de Vermandois = Beatrice
|
Bernard, King of Italy
|
The Plantagenet Connection
page 238
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
Pepin King of Italy
|
Charlemagne = Hildegarde
Sources: Weiss, Frederick Lewis. Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists Who
Came to New England between 1623 and
1650, 6th Edition, Genealogical Publishing Company. Langston, Aileen Lewers.
Pedigrees of Some of Charlemagne’s Descendants, Vol. II., pp 175-178, Order of
the Crown of Charlemagne in the United
States of America, 1974.
History has portrayed Abraham Lincoln
as being born without comforts in a oneroom log cabin, his parents dirt poor,
destitute, and without meaningful education. Evidently, this image was a carefully
concocted political scheme to win sympathy from poor rural voters. Hardin
County records show conclusively that
the home of Thomas Lincoln and Nancy
Hanks Lincoln was one of the better cabins in the county. Though Thomas has
been thought to be rather worthless, the
facts contradict the popular image. Thomas Lincoln owned 5,800 acres of land in
Hardin, Washington, and Jefferson
Counties. He is said to have had over
$18,000 when he died.
Thomas’ mother, Barsheba Lincoln, returned from Washington County, Virginia
to her old Mill Creek home in 1798. The
next year, Thomas, still single, began to
rebuild the old place, as it had gone to
ruin while the family was away in Virginia. Records show that Thomas purchased 238 acres of land, including the
old homestead, in November of 1803.
Barsheba lived in the old home that Thomas fixed until her death in 1833.
Thomas Lincoln met Nancy Hanks in
Rockingham, Virginia while she was visiting relatives. Nancy had, until then,
lived most of her life in Nelson County,
Kentucky where Joseph Hanks, Jr. had
settled in 1784.
In 1804, Thomas Lincoln built a new
April 1995
home for himself near his mother’s old
home, as he planned to marry Nancy
Hanks.
Thomas and Nancy were married in
Hardin County, Kentucky 12 June 1806.
They lived in this new log home for the
next twelve years.
Thomas was a skilled carpenter. He was
a cabinet and mantle maker, a mechanic,
and a millwright as well. Thomas Lincoln
was active in community affairs even before his marriage. Hardin County records
show that he served several times on juries
from 1804 to 1811. In June of 1805, he
was appointed as a prison guard by the
court. In 1807, he was appointed by the
court to supervise the building of a new
road that passed by his home on Mill
Creek. He helped his neighbors build their
own homes and was a deputy sheriff in
1811. Evidence indicates that Thomas
was anything but lazy and shiftless.
Thomas visited his cousin, Hananiah
Lincoln, who lived in Illinois sometime in
1814. On 14 Oct 1814, he sold his Mill
Creek farm to Charles Melton and took his
family to Illinois. In 1816, he left Illinois
to settle on Pigeon Creek in Indiana, sixteen miles north of the Ohio River, where
the family lived rustically in an “openfaced” camp [a cabin with only three
walls, one open to the weather]. Here,
near Gentryville, Indiana, Nancy became
ill with undulant fever and died 5 Oct
1818.
Thomas returned to Elizabethtown in
Hardin County, Kentucky. There, he married his second wife, Sarah Bush Johnston, on 2 Dec 1819. Sarah and Thomas
Lincoln had no children of their own, but
Sarah helped to educate and rear her stepchildren, Sarah and Abraham Lincoln.
2nd Generation: Paternal
Abraham Lincoln,
= Barsheba Herring Merriot
Abraham
The Plantagenet Connection
Lincoln,
Sr., b 13 May
page 239
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
1744, d 1786 in Kentucky, m Barsheba
Herring Merriot in Rockingham Co., VA.
about 1769/70.
Barsheba Merriot was born about
1745 in Virginia. In 1780, the couple left
Rockingham County and went over the
mountains to settle in Jefferson County,
Kentucky. That section later became Nelson County in 1775, then renamed Hardin
County in 1792/3. Abraham built a twostory log cabin on his homestead. The
place served the family until fall 1786. In
May of 1786, according to the story told
by Barsheba to her neighbor, Dr. William
Smith, Abraham was hoeing corn near
his cabin and was killed by a Wabash Indian.
Barsheba was standing by a window
when she saw an Indian approach Abraham. Abe was not carrying a gun and assumed that the Indian was friendly. The
Indian stopped and spoke with Abraham,
waved goodbye, and returned to the
woods. Barsheba heard a shot and saw
Abraham fall to the ground. Then she saw
the Indian come back out of the woods
carrying a gun. She grabbed a rifle and
called for her son Mordecai. They leveled
their guns from the window sill and shot
the Indian, who fell very close to Abraham’s body. The neighbors, alerted by
the gunfire, came within a few minutes.
Justice was often swift on the frontier.
When the crops were sold in the fall,
Barsheba sold the property and took her
family to Washington County, Virginia,
where they lived for the next twelve
years.
County, Kentucky.
3. Mary Lincoln, b 1775, m 5 Aug 1801
to Ralph Crume, s/o Phillip and Anne
Crume of Nelson Co., KY. Mary is buried
on the old family cemetery on Mill Creek.
4. Thomas Lincoln, b 5 Jan 1778, d
17 Jan 1851, near Janesville, Coles
Spring, IL., m 12 Jun 1806 to Nancy
Hanks, d 5 Oct 1818, m2) 2 Dec 1819 to
Sarah Bush Johnston, b 13 Dec 1788, d
10 Dec 1869, near Janesville, IL., the
widow of Daniel Johnston.
5. Nancy Lincoln, b 25 Mar 1780, d 9
Oct 1815, m Jan 1801 to William Brumfield, b Mill Creek Cemetery, Hardin Co.,
KY.
Abraham Lincoln was the son of:
3rd Generation: Paternal
John Lincoln and Rebecca _____
John Lincoln, son of Mordecai and
Hannah Salter Lincoln, was b 3 May 1716
in Monmouth, NJ. He moved to Burks
Co., PA., where his children were born.
On 22 Jun 1768, he purchased 600 acres
of land in Rockingham County, VA., part
of the 1200 acre patent granted to McKay
Green and Hite in 1739. His will was
recorded in Rockingham County, VA., 8
Feb 1786, and named his wife, Rebecca,
and his children: Thomas, Abraham 5 (m
Ann Boone), Isaac, Jacob, John, Hannah,
Lydia, Sarah, Rebecca, and his granddaughter, Hannah Bryan (d/o Lydia?). Issue:
1. Abraham Lincoln, m Barsheba
The children of Abraham and Barsheba Merriot
Lincoln were:
2. Hannah Lincoln, b 9 Mar 1748, m
John Harrison, s/o Zebulon Harrison, s/o
1. Mordecai Lincoln, b 1771, d Dec
1830, m Marry Mudd. After many years 5 Mary Foulke, a descendant of a Welsh Quaker imin Hardin County, they moved to Han- migrant, married James Boone of Exeter, Burks
County, who was Daniel Boone's uncle. It was her
cock, IL. around 1827.
2. Josiah Lincoln, b 1772, d Sep 1835, daughter Ann who married Abe's grandfather's brothm Catherine Barlow. Josiah lived most of er, a representative from Burks County at the ConstiConvention of 1790. [Early Friends Families
his life near Squire Boone in Hardin tutional
of Upper Bucks.]
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
page 240
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
John Harrison, Sr. Hannah died in Rockingham Co., VA., in Dec 1803.
3. Lydia Lincoln, twin to Hannah
4. Isaac Lincoln, b 5 Mar 1750, d 10
Jun 1816, Watauga, TN., m Mary Ward.
5. Jacob Lincoln, b 18 Nov 1751, d 20
Feb 1822, m 29 Aug 1780 to Dorcas
Robinson, d/o David and Dorcas Robinson.
6. John Lincoln, b 15 Jul 1755, d 13
Jul 1835, m 27 Jun 1782 to Mary Yarnell,
d/o Francis and Mary Yarnell of Burks
Co., PA. On 10 Jul 1810 he lived in
Shelby Co., KY., near Hinton. Around
1819, he moved to Lebanon, OH., where
both he and Mary died. They are buried in
the Baptist Cemetery, Lebanon, OH.
7. Sarah Lincoln, b 18 Sep 1757, m
_____ Dean.
8. Rebecca Lincoln, b 18 Apr 1767, d
Sep 1840 near Greenville, TN., m 26 Apr
1786 to John Rymel of Rockingham Co.,
VA.
THE LEE FAMILY
The Lee family of Virginia has a long
family history. In the third maternal generation from Abraham Lincoln, Nancy
Anna Lee married Joseph Hanks,
Sr. Nancy was the daughter of:
William Lee 3 and an unknown wife.
William 3 was the son of:
William Lee 2 and Dorothy
Taylor. William 2 had 230 acres of land
in Essex County, given to him by his
brother John, who had inherited it from
their father. Brother John was Major John
Lee, b circa 1680, who owned 6,200 acres of land adjoining the land of Zachary
Taylor and John Key. John died 5 Oct
1731 and named Zachary Taylor and John
Key as guardians of his children, William, James, and Betty. 6
John and William Lee 2 were the sons
of:
Col. William Lee = Alice Felton
6 King and Queen Co. Records, Beverly Fleet.
April 1995
Col. William Lee, b 1646, m Alice,
widow of Thomas Felton, who gave her
150 acres of land lying between Surry and
Charles City, VA. William was the founder of King and Queen County, from which
New Kent was formed in 1691. William
was Burgess and Justice of King and
Queen County until his death in 1703. He
owned 6,064 acres of land adjoining that
of James Taylor. William Lee was the son
of:
COL. RICHARD HENRY LEE
AND ANNA CONSTABLE
Col. Richard Henry Lee was born
around 1618, d 1664. He came to America
in 1641 as Secretary of the King’s Privy
Council. In 1642, he received a land grant
of 1000 acres called “Indian Springs,”
which he claimed as Headright land for
transport of his wife Anna. [ Northumberland County, VA. records.] By 1648, he
had patented other large tracts of land in
York, Gloucester, and in upper Norfolk
Counties.
Col. Richard Henry Lee was a merchant
and trader who owned two ships and became a wealthy planter. He served as Attorney General of the Virginia colony in
1643, Secretary of the Colony in 1651,
and Burgess of York in 1663.
In 1663, Richard returned to England to
settle his English estate and arrange for the
education of his children. His will is mentioned in Charles Campbell’s History of
Virginia, page 157. He died in 1664, leaving his wife Anna his plantations Stratford-on-Potownacke, and Mock Neck; his
son, Francis, another plantation, PaperMaker’s Neck. Children: 7
1. Henry Lee, b 1643, d 22 Mar 1654,
age 11. [Surrey County, VA., Records.]
2. Captain John Lee, b 1644, who
claimed 3100 acres of Headright land in
Westmoreland Co., VA. to transport 62
people, one of who was Thomas Sparrow,
7 C. Gordon, Jr. The Lee Chronicle, p. 361.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 241
THE LINCOLN / HANKS CONNECTIONS
18 Oct 1668.
3. Francis Lee, b circa 1644, never
married.
4. Major Richard Henry Lee 2, b 1645,
Gloucester Co., VA., m 1676 to Letitia
Corbin, b 1657, d 6 Oct 1706, d/o Henry
and Alice Eltonhead Corbin.
5. Col. William Lee, b 1646, m
Alice Felton.
Col. Richard Henry Lee’s father was:
RICHARD HENRY LEE
Col. Richard Henry Lee, b 1597 in
England, of the House of Litchfield. The
founder of the Lee family name, originally
from France, was Lancelot Lee, who accompanied William the Conqueror to
England in 1066. He was granted large
estates in Essex, England for his services.
Lionel Lee accompanied Richard the
Lion Hearted on the Third Crusade in
1192. He was created the first Earl of
Litchfield for his gallantry and an estate
named “Ditchley” was given to him by
Richard.
Richard Lee, of the House of Litchfield,
accompanied the Earl of Surry on his expedition against the Scots in 1542.
The infomation contained in this article is
likely to be debated. Despite years of research, the Lincoln genealogy is still a
mystery. Something is likely wrong with the
descent from Charlemagnes, because it
should be common knowledge if it is true.
So far, I cannot find it. but we will revisit
this later. It is the policy of this journal to
open a public forum for legitimate genealogical mysteries. We make every attempt
to print both the pros and the cons of ancient mysteries in the hope that an enlightened public can make up its own mind
about such disputes. With such a forum,
other researchers may perhaps find convincing pieces of evidence that may weigh
the argument toward one side or the other.
We are not responsible for errors in research, nor typographical mistakes.
April 1995
OSSIAN’S LAMENT IN OLD AGE
[This traditional Celtic poem is from a collection of Gaelic poetry gathered by a churchman from the clan MacGregor in the early 16th
century. The original collecion is in the Advocates’ Library. Edinburgh, Scotland. The poem
is thought to have been written by Ossian in
the third century, but the origins of these Gaelic writings have long been disputed by historians.]
Long are the clouds this night above me
The last was a long night to me,
This day that drags its weary way
Came from a wearier yesterday.
Each day that comes is long to me;
Such was not my wont to be.
Now there is no fine delight
In battle-field and fence of fight;
No training now to feats of arms,
Not song, nor harp, nor maiden’s charms,
Nor blazing hearth, nor well-heaped board,
No banquet spread by liberal lord,
Nor stag-pursuing, nor gentle wooing,
The dearest of dear trades to me.
Alas! that I should live to see
Days without mirth in hut or hall,
Without the hunter’s wakeful call,
Or bay of hounds, or hounds at all,
Without light jest or sportive whim,
Or lads with mounting breast to swim
Across the long arms of the sea.
Long are the clouds this night above me.
In the big world there lives no wight
More sad than I this weary night,
A poor old man with no pith in my bones,
Fit for nothing but gathering stones.
The last of the Finn, a noble race,
Ossian, the son of Finn, am I,
Standing beneath the cold gray sky,
Listening to the sound of bells.
Long are the clouds this night above me!
The Plantagenet Connection
page 242
MAGNA CARTA BARONS
MAGNA CARTA BARONS
by Ron Collins
by Ron Collins
Of all the lasting influences that resulted
from the reign of the Plantagenet Dynasty,
none may be as important as The Magna
Carta. John I Plantagenet inherited a nearly bankrupt England from his brother,
Richard I. Henry II, the first Plantagenet
king, and John's father, had very effectively found a way to enrich the royal
coffers in return for a firm rule of law and
security within the realm. His new system
was a balance of extraction of tax for returned value. If it was not pleasant, it was
at least acceptable to the land owning barons. Richard, succeeding on Henry's
death in 1189, used those same revenue
extraction methods plus some of his own
devising to fund his many campaigns on
the continent. Richard is quoted as being
willing to sell England herself if he was
offered enough. Richard was driven by
his French interests. He only saw England
as a source of men and money to accomplish his goals in France. He was Duke of
Normandy and Aquitaine before he was
King of England. By the time of his death
in 1199, Richard had stripped England
bare.
John, upon ascending the throne, was
faced with a broken and demoralized England. His French domains were under attack by Philip I of France. In England, he
fared badly as well. A group of barons
that had submitted to the warlike Richard
were not willing to bend to the weaker
John. Certainly, John made his own mistakes, but he also had the deck stacked
against him from the beginning. He lost
the majority of his French possessions by
1204 to Philip. He made ineffective and
costly mistakes in dealing with the church,
but his biggest problems were with his
own barons. They had enough of paying
taxes, fighting, and dying without seeing
any return for their efforts.
April 1995
His baronial troubles came to a head in
the Spring of 1215 when a baronial revolt
resulted in John signing the most famous
law document in history––The Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta, the great charter of
liberties exacted from King John by his
rebellious barons and sealed at Runnymede on June 15, 1215, is famous as an
embodiment of resistance to monarchy unregulated by law. It was the first encoding
of the limitation of royal prerogatives that
had staying power and long term effects
on history. Henry II had also written and
encoded the laws, as he saw them, in
his troubles with Thomas Becket, but
they did not have the long range effect of
the Magna Carta.
The rebellion of the barons and their adherents stemmed from John's demand for
overseas service that they felt was not
owed. John's policies of ensuring their
personal loyalties by intimidation set well
with no one. John’s domestic policies
(especially increased financial exactions)
were not only initiated by of John himself,
but also those of his predecessors Henry
II and Richard I. Events that led to the
baronial revolt had been building for many
years. The baronial opposition initially intended to restore what it regarded as the
good old days of the Norman kings
(William I, William II, and Henry I);
however, realistic considerations led to an
insistence on pragmatic reforms. The issue
thus became one of control of the innovations introduced by the Plantagenet kings,
rather than of their nullification. The charter, some of it framed and written by Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury,
set forth the law on points raised by the
rebels and attempted to reform specified
abuses.
The Plantagenet Connection
page 243
MAGNA CARTA BARONS
A major statesman of the English
church, Stephen Langton, b. c.1155, d.
July 9, 1228, was instrumental in securing King John's concession of the Magna
Carta. He was created (1206) a cardinal
by Pope Innocent III and appointed
(1207) archbishop of Canterbury. King
John, however, did not recognize the appointment, and England was placed under
interdict until 1213, when the king was
reconciled with the papacy. Stephen took
his seat at Canterbury and from then on
was active in English politics. His support
of the barons against the king in securing
the Magna Carta led to his suspension as
archbishop, but he was restored to office
in 1218. He was a prolific writer and the
probable composer of the hymn, Veni
Sancte Spiritus.
The church, stated the charter, was to be
free. Following the ecclesiastical concessions, the Magna Carta specified liberties
for all free men so that all might be defended from royal whim. Certain taxes
were not to be levied without the common
consent of the kingdom, whose representatives' decisions were binding on all (a
forerunner of "no taxation without representation"). The barons acquiesced in the
growth of royal jurisdiction since 1154
(the year of the beginning of Henry II
Plantagenet's reign), but certain clauses
sought to control the direction of legal reforms. The evolution of Due Process was
reflected in the requirements that proper
trial be held before execution of sentence
and lawful judgment in royal courts.
Many of the Magna Carta's 63 clauses
dealt with feudal privileges of benefit only
to the barons. Moreover, the charter was
soon violated by King John (he got the
Pope to nullify the charter), bringing a resumption of civil war. Nonetheless,
John's successor, Henry III, reissued it,
and by 1225, when it received its final
form, it was accepted by all the parties. It
remains a major symbol of the supremacy
of law.
At the time of the signing by John, HuApril 1995
bert de Burgh, d. 1243, was appointed
justiciar and was effectively ruler of England during the minority of King Henry
III. After John's death (1216) and the succession of the 9-year-old Henry, Hubert
repelled a French invasion and rapidly became the most powerful man in the realm,
overshadowing the regent, William
Marshal, Earl of Pembroke. He restored
royal authority after the prolonged baronial
revolt, but his self-aggrandizement alienated the barons and, eventually, the young
king. Henry dismissed him in 1232.
Many families today in the United States
are descended from the Plantagenets and
from the barons who stood opposite King
John at Runnymede in 1215. Below is
some genealogical information on some of
those families. The information below, as
well as, detailed family descents can be
found in The Magna Carta Sureties,
1215], by Arthur Adams and Frederick
Weis, published by the American Society
of Genealogists, Boston, 1955.
Magna Carta Barons and Their Wives
Descended from Charlemagne
and Alfred The Great:
S igner:
Wife:
William D'Aubigny Of Belvoir
Hugh Bigod
Maud Marshall
Roger Bigod
Ida*
Henry De Bohun Jr
Maud Fitz Geoffrey
Gilbert De Clare Jr
Isabel Marshal
Richard De Clare
Amice De Gloucester
John Fitz Robert
Ada De Baliol*
Robert Fitz Walter
Rohese*
William De Huntingfield* Isabel Fitz William*
John De Lacy*
Margaret De Quincy
William De Lanvalle
William Malet*
Aliva Basset*
William De Mowbray
Avice*
Saier De Quincy*
Margaret De Beaumont
Robert De Ros*
Isabel Of Scotland
Robert De Vere
Isabel De Bolbec*
The Plantagenet Connection
page 244
MAGNA CARTA BARONS
Barons Named
In The Magna Charta
William D'aubigny
(Of Arundel)
Alan Basset*
Thomas Basset*
Alan Of Galloway
William Longespee
William Marshal
William De Warenne
Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, d. 1219 ,
William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey,
d. 1240.
Mabel of Chester
Margaret [Huntingdon]
Ela of Salisbury
Isabel De Clare
Maud Marshal
* Descent from Charlemagne or Alfred
unknown.
Bibliography: Davies, G.R., Magna Carta, rev.
ed. (1982); Holt, James C., Magna Carta (1965)
and Magna Carta and Medieval Government
(1985); Jolliffe, J.E.A., Plantagenet Kingship, 2d
ed. (1963); Jones, J.A., King John and Magna
Carta (1971); Langdon-Davies, John, Magna Carta: A Collection of Contemporary Documents
(1964); Stenton, Doris M., After Runnymede:
Magna Carta in the Middle Ages (1965); Warren,
W.L., King John, rev. ed. (1982).
Magna Charta Sureties, 1215
(signers of the Magna Charta)
William D'Aubigny, Lord of Belvoir
Castle, d. 1236, Hugh Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk and Suffolk, d. 1225, Roger
Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, d. 1220, Henry
de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, d. 1220,
Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, d.
1229, Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford, d. 1217, John Fitz Robert, of
Warkworth, d. 1240, Robert Fitz
Walter, leader of the Barons, d. 1234,
William de Huntingfield, of Frampton, d. 1221, John de Lacy, Lord of
Pontefract Castle, d. 1240, William de
Lanvallei, Lord of Stanway Castle, d.
1217, William
Malet, Sheriff of
Somerset and Devon, d. 1224, William
de Mowbray, Baron of Axholme, d.
1222, Saier de Quincy, Earl of
Winchester, d. 1219, Robert de Ros,
Lord of Helmsley Castle, d. 1226, Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, d. 1221.
Barons Named in
the Magna Charta, 1215
William D'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel, d. 1221, Alan Basset, Thomas
Basset, Alan of Galloway, Constable
of Scotland, d. 1234, William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, d. 1226, William
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
page 245
Some American Families Who Are Descendants of the Magna Charta Signers.
(For the details of the family descents see The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215.)
Family Name
Principle
State of
Immigration
Family Name
Principle
State of
Immigration
Appleton
Mass.
Argall
Va.
Asfordby
N.Y.
Aston
Va.
Barclay
N.J.
Barham
Va.
Batte
Va.
Berkeley
Va.
Bernard
Va.
Bolles-Bowles Maine
Bosvile
Mass.
Boteler-Claiborne Md.
Bourchier-Whitaker Va.
Bradbury
Mass.
Brooke
Md. .
Bruen
Conn.
Bulkeley
Mass.
Burroughs
Maine
Calvert
Md.
Carleton
Mass.
Champernoun
Maine
Chauncy
Mass.
Chetwode- Bulkeley Mass.
Clarke
R. I.
Clopton
Va.
Constable
Conn.
Coytmore-Tyng Mass.
Cranston
R. I.
Davenport
Conn.
Deighton
Mass.
Digges
Va.
Drake
Conn.
Dudley
Mass.
Elkington
N.J.
Everard
N. C.
Fairfax
Va.
Fenwick
N. J. .
Fiennes
Mass.
Fitzrandolph
N.J.
Foliot
Va.
Gorges
Maine
Gurdon-Saltonstall Mass.
Harlakenden
Mass.
Horsmanden-Byrd Va.
Irvine
Ga.
Jeffreys
Pa.
Josselyn
Maine
Kempe
Va.
Kenrick-Eddowes Pa.
Launce-Sherman Mass.
Lee
Va.
Leete
Conn.
Lewis-Gibbins Maine
Lewis-Gibson
N.H.
Lygon-Ligon
Va.
Lindsay
Va.
Livingston
N.Y.
Lloyd
Pa.
Lovelace-Gorsuch Va.
Ludlow-Brewster Conn.
Ludlow-Carter Conn.
Harrison
Va.
Lynde
Mass.
Mackworth
Mass.
Crowne
Mass.
Marbury
Mass.
Hutchinson
Mass.
Marbury-Scott R. I.
April 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Family Name
Principle
State of
Immigration
Norwood
N. C.
Norwood
Va.
Owen-Crispin
N.J.
Oxenbridge
Mass.
Palgrave
Mass.
Pelham
Mass.
Penhallow
N. H.
Poole (Pole)
Mass.
Prescott (James) N. H.
Prescott (John) Mass.
Randolph
Va.
Reade-Washington Va.
Rigby
Maine
Rodney
Del.
Saltonstall
Mass.
Skipwith
Va.
Southworth
Mass.
Throckmorton R. I.
Tillinghast
R. I.
Torrey
Mass.
Tyndal-Winthrop Mass.
Washington (John) Va.
Welby-Farwell Mass.
Wentworth
N. H.
West
Va.
Wetherill
N. J.
Willoughby
Mass.
Wingfield
Va.
Wingfield
Va.
Woodhull
N.Y.
Wright
S. C.
Wyatt
Va.
Wyche
Va.
page 246
The Plantagenet
Connection
Volume III, Number 2
October 1995
Geoffrey
Count of Anjou
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 247
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
REGARDING THE BIRTH DATE
OF EDWARD IV
Editor,
Wyrcster’s Annales, a contemporary record
[cited in CP 12(2) : note g] is clear on the date
and place of birth of King Edward IV – 28 April
1442 at Rouen in Normandy.
Thank you for sending a copy of Volume 3,
No. 1 of your journal.
-Neil D. Thompson, Ph.D.
Publisher, The Genealogist
BAGLEY-DUDLEY DESCENT
Dear Ken,
When I read Mr. Tucker’s article on the
claimed Bagley-Dudley descent, my conclusion was that it was far from proven. Charles
Hanson’s comments provide the full evidence that it was false as presented. It is possible that John Bagley’s wife was an illegitimate daughter of Edward, Lord Dudley, but I
think the possibility that Bagley’s children
were Dudley’s godchildren rather than his
grandchildren merits further investigation.
Remembering godchildren in wills was common at his social level. I agree that Bagley
names – especially Edward and Dudley – may
suggest a blood relationship, but the fact that
Lord Dudley was John Bagley’s employer
and close associate may also explain the
names. I think the claimed descent from the
Dudleys is no more than a possibility.
and still cannot be proven. The possibility that
the Bagley children were godchildren is a real concern, but the names of Edward and Dudley (that
suggest a blood relationship) make me believe
that it is more likely that they were his own illegitimate children. After all, the Lord Dudley did
have illegitimate children. Certainly, it was within the range of his character to have had others,
and cared dot them as he did the children with
Elizabeth Tomlinson. Also, the fact that church
records that could have proven or disproven the
connection are not there and I fins that suspect.
Some records Bagley’s wife should exist with all
the chldren she had. We do not even have a burial.
I am glad that I do not have that personal problem in tracing my own ancestry, and I feel a sympathy for those who do. That is why I believe that
the connection comes close enough (though far
from proven) to be recorded as a possible connection that may forever be unproven. I feel that is is
only fair to those who descend from this line.
CHARLEMAGNE TO JOHN TAYLOR
Mr. Finton, I've just received the latest edition. Please check your lineage in April 1995,
TPC, The Lincoln/Taylor materials. According
to Weis' 7th edition of ANCESTRAL ROOTS,
two generations were omitted between Herbert II, Count of Vermandois and his great
grandfather, Bernard, King of Italy. Please advise if I am in error. Thanks,
-Hugh Rutherford
Editorial Reply: Yes, a mistake was made. I
did not number the generations and that made it
-David Greene difficult for me to catch the error. The descent
Publisher “The American Genealogist” (TAG) from Charlemagne to John Taylor, possible
PO Box 398, Demorest, GA 30535 ancestor of ABRAHAM LINCOLN, should have
been:
Editorial
Reply: Certainly there is abundant
reason for your reasoning about the Bagley-Dudley descent. I agree that a royal connection is far
from proven and may remain that way forever.
However, a certain sadness must overtake those
descended from that line, in that it comes so close
October 1995
1) Count Warinus, d 677. Son:
2) Leutwinus, Bishop of Treves, d 713. Daughter:
3) Rotrude (Rotrou) d 724 = Charles Martel (The
Hammer), d 741. Son:
4) Pepin the Short (Mayor of the Palace) =
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 248
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Bertha
5) Charlemagne, d 814 = Hildegarde, d 782.
Son:
6) Pepin, King of Italy. Son:
7) Bernard, King of Italy. Son:
8) Herbert I de Vermandois = Beatrice
9) Herbert II, Count of Vermandois = Hildebrante
10) Albert I (The Pious) = Gerberga of Lorraine
11) Herbert III, Count of Vermandois = Ermengarde
12) Otho, Count of Vermandois = Parvie
13) Herbert IV, Count of Vermandois = Adela de
Vexin (m 1st: Sir Robert de Beaumont)
14) Isabel de Vermandois = Hugh Magnus
15) Isabel (Elizabeth) de Beaumont = Gilbert de
Clare
16) Richard de Clare (Strongbow) = Aoife (Eve)
17) Isabel de Clare = Sir William Marshall
18) Maude Marshall = Hugh Bigod (Magna Carta
Surety)
19) Sir Simon le Bigod = Maude de Felbrigg (a
widow)
20) Sir Roger le Bigod = Cecilia
21) Sir Simon Le Bigod (alias Felbrigg) = Alice
de Thorpe
22) Sir Roger Le Bigod (alias Felbrigg) = Elizabeth de Scales
23) Sir Simon de Felbrigg = m1) Margaret
m2)____
24) Helena de Felbrigg = Sir William Tyndal of
Dene
25) Sir Thomas Tyndale = Margaret Yelverton
26) Sir William Tyndale
27) Sir John Tyndale = Amphillis Coningsby
28) Margaret Tyndal = Dr. Rowald Taylor
29) Thomas Taylor, b 1548 = Elizabeth Burwell
30) Thomas Taylor, b 1574 = Margaret Swinderly
31) John Taylor, b 1607, immigrant to Virginia
HENRY II’S MARRIAGE
the information I have on that marriage shows
that it took place in the cathedral church of
Saint-Pierre at Poitiers, France, on Whit Sunday, 18 May 1152, barely eight weeks after
Eleanor’s divorce. I saw no correction in the
April issue. Isn’t the French location the correct one?
- Virginia Baker
Rt 1 Box 297
Van, TX 75790
Editorial Reply: Yes, Henry was married in
France and you have the correct information. The
data will be corrected to show this. Thank you for
your sharp eyes and your readiness to bring this
mistake to our attention.
BRUCE/STEWART FAMILIES
Ken: Do you have any more info on the
Bruce/Stewart family Clan and or the Connection to British Royalty? I am from the Bruce
Clan.
Jason Schilling
Wausau, WI
Editorial Reply: Bruce is the name of a very
old Scottish family of Norman descent. Variations
of the name are English as well (Braose, a name
common in royal genealogy; Breaux, and Brus).
Robert de Brus, the first of the known Bruce family, came from Normandy with William the Conqueror, receiving many manors in Yorkshire, the
most important being Skelton. His son Robert
was gifted with Annandale by David I. The fourth
Robert married Isabel, daughter of William the
Lion. Their son, the fifth Robert, married Isabel,
-KHF daughter of David, Earl of Huntington, niece of
the Scottish King David. The most famous, of
course, is the eighth Robert, Robert "the Bruce,"
who became King of Scotland in 1306.
-KHF
The ahnenliste chart in The Ancestry of
Elizabeth of York shows Henry II (#1024)
marrying Eleanor of Aquitaine at Whitsuntide, England, on 18 May 1152. However, all
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 249
COLUMNS AND CONNECTIONS
business without interrupting their work.
More than 90 percent of those who
work in a courthouse are quite willing to
-by Carol Collins
help, but a pleasant, confident demeanor
on the researcher's part will win over the
rare ones who are having a bad day to beThe other day, some friends and I were gin with.
discussing libraries we had visited recentNow––to see if I can get in that library
ly. We were amazed at one anothers' im- without having a bad day myself.
pressions of these libraries.
One that I have visited often with great
success and pleasant visits, they considCONNECTIONS
ered haughty and unfriendly. The one in
which I never seem to have a good experience was the favorite place of many of my
friends.
REGARDING QUEST FOR ADA
It must be attitude––the researcher's atti- DEWARREN TPC, APRIL 1995:
tude. I never expect to have a good experience in the latter library, so I enter
Ada was sometimes called Adeline de
with a frown. But at the first library I'm Warren, which may have deterred Mr.
confident and bouncy and feel welcomed. Capps attempt to locate her. (See Weiss
And this applies ever so much more to Ancestral Roots, (7th edition) line 89.)
visiting courthouses. The way we begin She hads brothers William III and Regiour search––the original contact with the nald, and a sister Gwendula .
clerk or auditor or recorder––often deter- Evelyn Metzler
mines the success of the visit.
726 Loveville Rd.
There are several givens in this situation.
Hoekessin, DE 19707-1505
First, the clerk and her helpers are busy.
Secondly, until we gain experience in this
field, we are often timid and exude the esRE: JANE BEAUFORT––
sence of unease. The clerk is not interestTPC, APRIL 1995:
ed in teaching a genealogist how to use the
records, nor do they have time for that.
Weiss Ancestral Roots, line 234 shows:
Therefore, the visit may be viewed as an (1) John of Gaunt = Katherine Roet, son:
inconvenience.
(2) Henry Beaufort (Cardinal, never marRemember two things about courthouse ried) = mistress: Alice FitzAlan: illegitiresearch: everything in the office is in- mate dau: (3) Jane Beaufort = Sir Edward
dexed, and we have a perfect right to ac- Stradling
cess the records.
- Evelyn Metzler
When making the first visit, it is best
simply to ask for the index to the records
you need. Know the time period (most inQUERIES
dex books cover a 10-year period), and
know what you're looking for. Being prepared will give you self-confidence and a
more positive beginning.
CROSBY / GRAVES / HARRISON
Do not expect the clerks to do your
/ KOSTES
work for you. Ask where to find the
proper books and then go about your
Seeking corresondence with anyone reIT'S ALL IN HOW YOU
LOOK AT IT
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 250
COLUMNS AND CONNECTIONS
searchng CROSBY, William, b 1798,
Connecticut,, d abt 1860, Avon, WI., m
Electa GRAVES, b 1799, Connecticut, d
aft 1845, WI., ch: Dolly, Rachel,
Washington, Esther, Haskell, David, Lydia.
Washington CROSBY, b 1821, Virgil,
NY., m Mary Ann NELSON, ch: Henry
W. CROSBY, b 1872, IA., m Lydia Klinetob, ch: Lucille, Aalen, Albert Elton,
Cecil.
Also seeking HARRISON, James
(Buckskin Harry), b ___, d 1919, SD? m
Juilia KOSTES: CH Horninko, b Russia
abt 1884, d 1954, SD., Ch: Rauney, Bessie, James Jr.
Also looking for: LARSON, WOLPERS, TANG, FREITAG, BALKE,
THORSTEINSON, HOUGE, KRACKE.
question: who were Margaret’s parents?
Was Margaret the daughter or the granddaughter of Richard and Clare?
[Editorial comment: To be the daughter, the
father would have been 54 when she was born, the
mother 36. This appears to be a bit old for those
days, but possible. I would tend to want to look
for a missing generation, though.]
Meriol Eure was the daughter of William (2nd Lord Eure) and Margaret Dymoke, daughter of Sir Edward Dymoke of
Scrivelsby and his wife Anne (Elizabeth)
Tailboys (Tailbois). About 1578, Meriol
married Richard Goodrick (no dates).
The question: was this Richard the son on
Richard Goodrick (1510-1581)? and was
Meriol’s husband, Richard, the father or
- Viola Thorsteinson brother of Margaret?
479 S Chesapeake Way
Henderson, NV 89015
GOODRICH / NORTON /
NEVILLE
I am having problems with a 16th-century relationship, if anyone can help me.
Here is all the information I have, followed by my questions:
Richard Goodrick (Goodrich, Goodrych) (1510 - 8 Jan 1581) of Kippax,
Yorkshire, England, married Clare Norton
(born about 1528) of Norton, Conyers,
Yorkshire, daughter of Richard Norton
(1502-1585) and Susanna Neville (born
28 Apr 1501) of Snape Hall. Clare was
one of the 11 sons and 7 daughters of
Richard and Susanna Norton.
Margaret Goodrick was born about
1564 and died 22 Sep 1598. In 1584 (in
Ripston or Ribston, England), she married Sir Frances Baildon (Balydon), born
in 1560 in Kippax, died 20 Jan 1622/3 in
Monk, Frystone, Yorkshire. Their son,
Sir Richard Belding (Baildon), was born
26 May 1591, in Kippax, changing his
name when he came to America, died 22
Aug 1655 in Wethersfield, CT. The
October 1995
[Editorial
comment: To be the father,
Richard would have been 68 when his daughter
was married. This does seem too long. To be a
brother, assuming Margaret to be the youngest
daughter, born when her mother was 36, Richard
would have been born around 1550-1560, and his
wife Meriol would be assumed to be younger than
he.]
I am also told that the name Eure means
“Evans.” Is this correct?
Virginia Nancy Birt Baker
Rt 1, Box 97
Van, TX 75790
Editorial Comment: Can anyone help Virginia with this? Please reply personally and let us at
TPC know of any further information on this
subject.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 251
REVIEWS
indeed wearing herself out in pregnancies––
From the Bryn Mawr Medieval Review, an elec- Eleanor of Castile would herself die in 1290 a year
tronic review system, reprinted with the gracious before her mother-in-law. This younger queen
permission of the editors.
consort thus shared the limelight throughout her
reign with the elder queen, Eleanor of Provence.
Despite fairly extensive information on Eleanor
Eleanor of Castile:
of Castile scattered through the various record colQueen and Society in
lections including some which were published in
Thirteenth-Century England.
the nineteenth century, little of the documentary
evidence for this queen has been drawn together by
John Carmi Parsons. New York: St. Martin's,
historians until recently. And the documents so
1995. xix + 364 pp. ISBN 0-312-08649-0.
assiduously collected by John Carmi Parsons to
$49.95
write her life, are far from easily interpreted.
Reviewed by Constance H. Berman While Parsons points to the 1945 article by V. H.
University of Iowa Galbraith on "Good Kings, Bad Kings," as a starting point for his own consideration of Eleanor of
Castile and medieval queenship, it seems as well
Eleanor of Castile (1241-1290), daughter of that Parsons has been influenced by the notion of
Ferdinand III of Castile and Leon, grandniece of "good cop, bad cop," in seeing Eleanor as someBlanche of Castile, great, great grand-daughter of times representing the bad face of Edward I. But
Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II, potential heir- the model could also apply to the two queens--and
ess to the county of Ponthieu in France through such a division of the labor and prestige of queenher mother Jeanne, countess of Ponthieu (herself a ship must inevitably have happened between
descendant of Aalis, daughter of Louis VII by his Eleanor of Provence and her daughter-in-law
second wife Constance), wife of Edward I of Eng- Eleanor of Castile, just as it inevitably did only
land and hence queen from 1272 until her death in slightly earlier between Louis IX's wife Marguer1290 is the subject of this important biography.
ite of Provence and his mother, Blanche of Castile. In the English case, unpopular administrative
That this Eleanor should become Queen of Eng- activities seem to have been focused in the activiland is somewhat a surprise for she was not a ties of the younger queen, while the elder queen
wealthy heiress; in Castile she contended may have acted more often the role of queen as in(unsuccessfully) for property with a number of tercessor, distributor of alms, and founder of relighalf-brothers from her father's first marriage. She ious houses. In some senses, then, Eleanor of
was so caught in a web of international blood Castile was cast as the bad queen both as a foil to
ties, that only a dispensation would allow her her husband, Edward I, and in contrast to Eleanor
marriage to any of the possible candidates. Given of Provence as well. There is no necessary contrathat she may well have had no dowry, it is a won- diction between this role which Eleanor of Castile
der that she eventually married Prince Edward, son played when the royal family came into contact
of King Henry III of England and Queen Eleanor with the outside world, and the affectionate treatof Provence. But despite the fact that she did not ment of her in Edward I's commemorative monuoutlive her mother-in-law, Eleanor of Provence, ments for her after her death.
the younger Eleanor of Castile did make a lasting
Although our picture of Eleanor of Castile inevmark on the world--not least in the much dis- itably is colored by this anomalous situation of
cussed Eleanor crosses, at Geddington and else- the constant existence of two queens during
where marking the route of her funeral procession- Eleanor of Castile's entire reign, and that the
-and commemorative sculpture elsewhere. Living younger Eleanor was never widow nor regent,
through the events of rebellion up to the battle of however, does not mean that her life is not a most
Evesham as a princess in England, accompanying interesting one to study. Indeed, the peculiar fiEdward on Crusade, producing many children–– nancial situation in which she found herself
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 252
REVIEWS
seemed to have forced her into a role as a managerial woman, and for those managerial activities of
Eleanor as princess and then as queen we have
considerable evidence––much more than we might
have for most married women undertaking the
same kinds of property acquisition and consolidation. Eleanor thus provides a model of other noblewomen's activities, and Parson's treatment a
model of the presentation of such evidence.
The unusual circumstances in which the dower
lands promised to Eleanor of Castile were for her
whole lifetime tied up in the dowager queen,
Eleanor of Provence, when added to the fact that
Henry III and Edward I felt themselves too impoverished to grant comparable lands to the younger
Eleanor elsewhere (added to the fact that she seems
to have come to her marriage without dowry
although Ponthieu would eventually come to her)
meant that Eleanor of Castile had to give her attention to amassing some property other than dowry or dower both to provide for her personal
needs as queen consort and to guarantee her own
support if she should suddenly become a widow.
And indeed, if she was seen as not especially generous to monastic and other religious foundations,
it may well have been not only because her mother-in-law was there to beseech, but because at an
early age Eleanor of Castile had not the wherewithal to make great bequests. In any case, the
consequence of her virtual pennilessness was that
Eleanor of Castile began entering the land market
to amass and consolidate considerable properties
for herself as queen and in the event of a widowhood. Using her prerogatives as queen, and her access to the King and to the specialized knowledge
of his clerks, she soon began the lengthy, but
successful process of consolidating an estate for
herself. By her death that estate would have become substantial; it would eventually be added to
the royal estates.
But to consolidate that estate for herself Eleanor
seems to have often profited from the financial
crisis in which the lower nobility of the thirteenth
century across Europe so often found itself, and to
do that in England was often to do so by foreclosing on land which had been given as surety for
loans––often for loans to the Jews. Eleanor's as-
October 1995
sociation with certain Jewish lenders, her accumulation of property through foreclosure on debts
seized from Jews, and the implacability of some
of her agents in their search for lands to add to her
estate––most of those activities totally unknown
at the time; there are but a handful of vague references by contemporaries which may refer to those
activities, has brought her a bad press among
some modern historians. This is a confused and
confusing issue, not made easier by the fact that
recently it has become de rigueur to include some
attention to Jewish matters in medieval social history, often as a nod to multiculturalism. Parsons
has demonstrated what should have been obvious
to anyone with a little common-sense: that
Eleanor, despite coming from Spain where Jews
were possibly more familiar than in thirteenthcentury England, had no friends among the Jews
or Lombards, although she may have had some
business dealings with them in the course of her
land acquisitions. Moreover, with one possible
exception, she was not employing Jews in her
land acquisition, but Jewish debts which had fallen
into royal hands; it was not Jews who were so assiduously pursuing her rights, but household
clerks.
Certainly Eleanor did not hesitate to use her
abilities to acquire land by way of foreclosing on
sureties which had been given for Jewish loans.
But is it no admission of some sense of guilt
about her dealings with Jews in particular that
Eleanor, on her deathbed, made the very common
deathbed request that an inquest be undertaken to
assure that she had incurred no sin in her lifetime's
financial transactions. And surely the fact that anti-semitism was on the rise in England during this
period and that a permanent expulsion of the Jews
was about to happen was only coincidental to
Eleanor's activities. Such foreclosures on loans, if
they had not been undertaken on her behalf, would
have been undertaken by someone else. What is
surely more objectionable is that Eleanor often
chose to pursue those indebted lands which would
neatly round out her own, which were held by
lower nobles lacking the power to resist her efforts. Her occasional miscalculations in this regard, in seeking to acquire land from someone
who turned out to have a powerful backer at court,
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 253
REVIEWS
were what led to the negative comments men- en than her mother in law Eleanor of Provence,
tioned.
but this is only to be expected. For why would
people turn to the younger Eleanor if there was
Although Parsons does a terrific job, both of the elder one were there? But as a portrait of a nodescribing the process of land acquisition in which ble woman in managerial roles, however, this is
Eleanor of Castile indulged and in attempting to an excellent study, and there is no need to justify a
balance it against other activities, it is hard not to biography of Eleanor of Castile. Enigmatic as her
overstress the acquisitive side of her nature. Yet career may at times have been, what emerges from
perhaps this aspect of Eleanor is overstated merely Parsons' exemplary treatment of her life is a fascibecause land acquisition is something for which nating picture not so much of a "Medieval queen"
documents survive in greater numbers than for as of a managerial woman of the second half of
virtually anything else. Moreover, that such man- the thirteenth century. Parsons' treatment
agerial prowess as Eleanor of Castile displayed will thus serve not only to resolve certain queswas deployed only to her own personal enrich- tions about Eleanor of Castile herself and to clariment leaves a negative impression – not least to fy just those points at which resolution is imposmodern academic historians who have their own sible, but as a model for the study of administraset of ideals about personal wealth-building. Cer- tive women across the spectrum of medieval life;
tainly such activities would have been considered noble ladies at a variety of phases in their careers
more legitimate by her contemporaries (and ours) as well as royal consorts, widow dowagers, and reif their ultimate aim had been were the foundation gents, heads of religious houses and their secular
or endowment of a religious community, as they sisters.
were when Blanche of Castile undertook similar
activities for the foundation of the abbey for CisOverall, this is a wonderful book; I would not
tercian nuns at Maubuisson, c. 1240. Similarly, say the same for its illustrations which should
the sharp practices of his agents seem somewhat have been printed on different paper, nor for its
more acceptable in a Louis IX amassing the re- genealogical tables, which are crowded and hard to
sources for a massive Crusade in 1248, than in follow, nor for an editor who seems to have exEleanor of Castile amassing an estate for her pri- cised all use of complex past tenses. But its subvate use. By not legitimizing her property acqui- ject matter and historical insight are wonderful.
sition in religious patronage or holy warfare, This volume reflects not only years of careful
Eleanor of Castile seems a somewhat unusual work, but the excellent training in how to give
medieval figure. Our models are much more of various weight to different documents which the
profligacy in largesse, but they are of course de- author received from the late Father Michael Sheerived from literary models written by impecunious han, to whom the volume is dedicated. That such
poets seeking patronage!
an exemplary study should be carried out so well
by such a relatively young scholar says much for
Parsons' approach to the study of Eleanor of the guidance of such a mentor as Sheehan, but
Castile in this book has been to query the diamet- also for the skill of Parsons himself.
rically opposed pictures of her which historians
have presented to us. His entire last chapter is deOn a more general note, I think too often we
voted to later treatments of this queen––and he has social historians look down our noses at biograunearthed some interesting material. But Parson phy as something easily done; not so. Whereas a
worries perhaps unnecessarily about how his social history study may be successfully carried
Eleanor will stand up against other medieval out by taking a slice of archival materials and dequeens because she did not play the active roles of scribing what is found in them, the good biograwidows and regents. Eleanor of Castile's preroga- pher must look everywhere possible for every
tives as queen may be a very small part of the trace of possible evidence on a particular individustory, and she may have been less of a traditional al. Moreover, he or she must weigh and measure a
queen figure as the reflection of the queen of heav- diversity of sources and a diversity of earlier opin-
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 254
REVIEWS
ions in the balance provided by considerable archival experience. Thus, Parsons' treatment of
Eleanor of Castile written relatively early in his
career, is remarkable in achieving the same type
of depth which after many years of research and
publication on a variety of topics, Marjorie Chibnall has brought to her most accomplished and
wonderful biography of the twelfth-century Matilda, Empress. Both are model works, but I have
found that many such biographical studies are disappointing because their authors lack the scholarly maturity necessary in order not to have to rush
into publication. Parsons' study thus reminds
those of us who direct graduate students that we
may be placing unnecessarily difficult barriers in
front of our students if we assign biographical
projects for dissertations, unless we can ourselves
provide those students with the extremely firm
grasp of a wide- range of source materials––and
particularly for women often deriving from a variety of national archival traditions––which must
necessarily be weighed and balanced if such endeavors should not end up just repeating the standard chronicles. That Parsons has lifted Eleanor of
Castile out of the standard treatments so well, is a
remarkable and applaudable feat.
The Bryn Mawr Medieval Review can be
accessed on the internet. Address your inquiries to [email protected]. (James
O’Donnell, Paul Remley, and Eugene
Vance, editors.)
BRAVEHEART
Directed by Mel Gibson.
Written by Randall Wallace
Director of photography: John Toll
Edited by Steven Rosenblum
Music by James Horner
Production Designer: Tom Sanders
Produced by Mel Gibson, with
Alan Ladd Jr., and Bruce Davey
Released by Paramount Pictures
October 1995
Running time: 179 minutes
Rated R
(Under 17 requires accompanying
parent or adult guardian.)
Profanity, brief nudity, blood and violence.
CAST
Mel Gibson as William Wallace
Sophie Marceau as Princess Isabella
Patrick McGoohan as King Edward I
(Longshanks)
Catherine McCormack as Murron
Brendan Gleeson as Hamish
Fans of Mel Gibson who saw the latest film
version of Hamlet know that he is one of the
most talented and convincing actors of our day. It
is never easy to do all things well, but Gibson
pulls off being the director, the star, and the producer of Braveheart.
It is an historical romance and drama about the
semi-legendary William Wallace, who led the
Scots in their struggle for freedom when the English King Edward I, sometimes known better as
“Longshanks,” attempted to subjugate Scotland.
The viewer can expect great photography and a
cast of thousands, in a fine and thrilling film reminiscent of the great epic movies of the past.
The film begins with young William wandering into a hut where members of his clan had
gone to seek peace with the English. His family’s
bodies are hanging from the rafters, swinging
slowly in the breeze to the eerie sounds of creaking ropes.
Wallace falls in love with Murron, a beautiful
Scottish lassie played by Catherine McCormack.
They are married secretly, as English law then
permitted nobles to have the first favors of Scottish brides on their wedding night. This law, as
one would expect, did not play well with Scottish
tempers. [JUS PRIMAE NOCTIS: the right by
which a lord may sleep the first night with the
bride of a newly married serf, although the custom
could be avoided by the payment of a fine.]
Edward I is portrayed as a cruel, stern leader
who knows exactly what he wants and will spare
nothing to achieve his ends.
Wallace (who has nothing left to live for since
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 255
REVIEWS
his wife was captured and cruelly murdered by the
villainous British nobles who ruled Wallace’s village) leads the Scots to rise up and fight against
Longshanks, convincingly played by Patrick McGoohan. In one scene, Longshanks pushes his
son's homosexual lover out a window to his death
with no more thought given to the act than the
swatting of a bug.
The film is very much an action movie, filled
with daring escapes, bashed heads and impaled
bodies. There are epic war scenes with thousands
of English arrows darkening the sky to fall like
rain upon the Scots while the Scots charge at the
English with pointed wooden poles.
At the Battle of Stirling, Wallace rides out before hundreds of Scots, rousing them to action.
The battle cry of “Freedom” may ring a little hollow in the ads for this film. The film is not nearly so much about the ideal of freedom as it is
about personal revenge.
It lightly touches upon a romance between
Wallace and Princess Isabella (played by Sophie
Marceau), wife of England’s future King Edward
II. Longshanks' daughter-in-law was sent as an
emmisary to the Scots, and somehow manages to
fall in love with Wallace, a man quite far removed
from her social class. Suddenly, she's pregnant,
and she disappears from Scotland.
Later in the film, she manages to spitefully
whisper to the dying Longshanks that his seed
will not rule, as his homosexual son was not the
real father of her child, the future Edward III.
This news, passed by almost as though it were
trivial information in the movie, is of great interest to the many descendants of Edward III. Among
these descendants are many crowned monarchs and
the current House of Windsor. Were this a fact of
history, it would tear away their genetic connection to the two elder Edwards and eliminate all but
the French ancestry of Isabella, replacing Henry II
with the ancestors of William Wallace.
Wallace was born circa 1270, d 1305, and is
believed to have been the son of Sir Malcolm
Wallace of Elderslie and Auchinbothie in Renfrewshire, Scotland. The poet, Blind Harry, who
lived about two centuries later, is the primary
source of the legends about Wallace’s younger
days. His accounts are supposedly taken from the
Latin writings of John Blair. Blair was a personal
friend of both Wallace’s uncle and Wallace himself, but Blair’s written accounts are no longer existent.
Wallace received his education at Dundee,
where he met John Blair. At Dundee, Wallace was
insulted by a young Englishman named Selby.
The incident turned into a fight, and Selby was
killed. Wallace was outlawed and driven into rebellion against the English.
Several important Scottish nobles joined Wallace in his rebellion including the steward of Scotland, Sir Andrew Moray. Several successful attacks forced King Edward to send an army led by
Sir Henry Percy and Sir Robert Clifford against
Wallace. The English met the Scots at Irvine.
There, all Wallace’s titled Scottish friends deserted
him and signed a peace with Edward called the
Treaty of Irvine.
Though deserted by the nobles, Wallace headed
to the north of Scotland and raised a large army of
commoners. In a short time, he conquered most of
the fortresses held by the English north of the
Firth River. He turned his attention to Dundee and
began to lay siege to the city when he heard that a
large English army was marching to meet him.
He left the siege of the Dundee fortress to the citizens of Dundee and hurried to meet the English at
Stirling, where a Scottish national monument to
the memory of Wallace now stands. Wallace’s
victory at the Battle of Stirling was complete and
the English were driven from Scotland.
A national famine had overtaken Scotland, so
Wallace organized raids into the north of England
to keep the English at bay and relieve the great
HOW CLOSE IS THE FILM
food shortages in his homeland. Wallace devastatTO HISTORICAL FACT?
ed the English countryside all the way to Newcastle. On his heroic return, he was elected guardian
The principle authorities for the life of Sir of the kingdom, despite jealousy and opposition
William Wallace are the British Dictionary of Na- from the Scottish nobles, whom he could never
tional Biography, and two biographies by James keep in line. For a few months Wallace regulated
Moir (1886) and A.F. Murison (1898).
Scotland’s affairs with much efficiency and wis-
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 256
REVIEWS
dom.
Longshanks was in Flanders when he heard
about the success of Wallace’s rebellion. He hastened home to raise a great army and marched into
Scotland in July of 1298.
Wallace chose to retreat before the great army,
wasting the grain and carrying off the supplies as
he retired. Edward was almost out of provisions
and had already issued an order to retreat when he
was informed of Wallace’s position. Edward
marched immediately and met Wallace at Falkirk.
A fierce battle was fought at this spot between the
Scots and the English, now known as the Battle
of Falkirk. The Scots were overpowered and suffered great losses. Wallace lost his best friend, Sir
John de Graham, whose death caused Wallace
much rage and grief, according to the poet Blind
Harry.
Wallace escaped into the forests he knew well
and retreated to the north. He resigned his post as
guardian of Scotland and sailed to France to seek
aid from the French king.
The question at this point: did William Wallace really have an affair with Isabella in France
and was Edward III really the son of Sir William
Wallace, as hinted in the film?
Since Edward III was born in 1312 and William Wallace died in 1305, the film version is fictional and intended for additional drama. Isabella
and Edward were not even married until 25 January 1308, almost three years after the death of
Wallace. Isabella was never an emissary for
Longshanks.
What happened to William Wallace?
In the winter of 1303-1304, Longshanks received the submission of the Scottish nobles.
William Wallace was expressly exempted from all
terms of peace. A price was placed on his head.
He was betrayed, caught, and taken to London under heavy guard to stand trial. Wallace was accused
of being a traitor to the King of England, to
which he replied: “I could never be a traitor because I was never a subject and I never swore fealty to the King.”
So ends the film, with a great cry of
“Freedom,” from the lips of Mel Gibson, and so
ends the historical life of William Wallace.
No wonder it is the stuff of legends.
Wallace was cruelly executed in August, 1305.
October 1995
His body was drawn and quartered, his head stuck
on a pike for all potential rebels to see.
The film is one of the best of 1995. It is a
must for all who love historical drama. Though
films of this sort tend to get away from historical
fact, Hollywood deems it necessary for additional
drama and love interest. After all, they are not
documenting history, but telling a story and
bringing to our times a new perspective and visualization of what this period must have been like
for those who lived there. In this respect, Braveheart is a great success.
-KHF
ROB ROY
Directed by Michael Caton-Jones
Written by Alan Sharp
Director of Photography: Karl Walter Lindenlaub
Editor: Peter Honess
Music by Carter Burwell
Production Designer, Assheton Gorton
Produced by Peter Broughan and Richard Jackson
Released by United Artists.
Running time: 134 minutes.
This film is rated R.
(Under 17 requires accompanying
parent or adult guardian).
It includes profanity, violence, sexual references.
CAST:
Liam Neeson as Rob Roy
Jessica Lange as Mary
John Hurt as Lord Montrose
Tim Roth as Cunningham
Eric Stoltz as McDonald
Brian Cox as Killearn
Rob Roy (b 1671, d 1734) has long been one
of Scotland's national heroes. The film seems to
take the legend seriously. The photography is
wonderful, the Scottish highlands both beautiful
and brutal, the lives and huts of the common folk
difficult to imagine as being survivable, let alone
comfortable. The contrast between the rich landholders and the common peasant is more realistic
in this film than any other film to come out of
Hollywood. It really brings to life the unbearable
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 257
REVIEWS
poverty stricken lives of the commoners in 18thcentury Scotland.
Rob Roy is full of surprises and is bound to be
a treat for those who have not yet seen it.
Tim Roth, as the villain Cunningham, plays
the role to the hilt. Almost effeminate in his
manner, one expects him to run after the men, but
he is the greatest swordsman in the land, as well
as the most evil of personalities. He takes to bed
a common lass named Betty, gets her pregnant
and abandons her with glee. "Love is a dunghill,
Betty, and I am but a cock that climbs upon it to
crow," he says to her.
Rob Roy borrows a thousand pounds from
Lord Montrose, played by John Hurt. Cunningham steals the money, makes Rob Roy an
outlaw, rapes his wife, played by Jessica Lange,
and burns their home to get at Rob Roy. (Jessica
Lange feels that this is one of her best films. She
will probably be nominated for an Oscar for her
performance in the film.)
Sir Walter Scott was the man to make Rob
Roy a household legend. Though some reviewers
felt that this film was slow and lacked any depth,
it is an individual preference, and certainly the
gains from seeing the film outweigh any small
flaws the movie might have. The film is gripping, haunting, amd memorable on many levels.
Rob Roy is worth seeing more than once.
-KHF
DUNBLANE AND
THE HIGHLAND BORDER
[Editorial Note: This letter was sent to us from
a Scottish descendant of Rob Roy who did not include his or her name. It was received by electronic mail without an address. The time to publish
these comments seems to be in conjunction to
this review.]
The man who stands out as the embodiment of
the old clansman, with all his good and his bad
points, is Rob Roy, immortalized by Scott. A
few miles beyond Loch Lubniag, in a lovely glen,
a side-road strikes off westward to Loch Voil, and
in the churchyard of Balquhidder village, is the
grave of Rob Roy. It is a modest grave for one
October 1995
who created such a stir, but the very fact that Rob
was able to die peacefully in his bed in the heart
of his home country itself typifies his blend of
cunning with courage.
The eagle, he was lord above,
And Rob was lord below.
The eagle still lords it above the Braes of Balquhidder, for there is a long-established eyrie in at
least one of the wild glens on the loch-side, and
the legend of Rob continues to lord it over the
whole of this MacGregor country as Robin Hood's
does in Sherwood forest. In making Rob into a bit
of a Robin Hood, Scott was not romanticizing entirely. There was a great deal of the rascal in the
man, and he inherited a long record of ancestral
trouble-making, causing “Letters of fire and sword
to be issued against the wicked clan Gregor, so
long continuing in blood, slaughter, theft and
robbery,” as a document of 1558 has it.
Rob was of the stuff of heroes of fiction. On
the one hand, he was decently educated and had a
proper respect for learning; on the other, he had a
splendid physique and was a masterly swordsman
with a phenomenal reach which made him truly
formidable in a fight. He possessed the lands of
Inversnaid and Craig Royston, and set out to be
respectable enough as a cattle dealer and stockman.
Unhappily, reavers from the north raided his herds
and forced him to recruit a band of prospective
guards. After a time he began to lend to those protectors, and, for a consideration, protected his
neighbours. Soon he was extorting dues from all,
and sundry as well (an elaborate system of blackmail which landowners in the district tried to
evade at their peril). Not that his neighbors
showed him any particular scruples when chances
arose. A web of feuds and acts of vengeance was
spun which entangled Rob Roy throughout most
of his life. He took sides in the quarrels of the
great families of the west, notably the Montroses
and the Argylls, but the event which got him into
greatest danger was the rebellion of 1715 in
which he sided with the Jacobites and was an officer in the Pretender's army at the battle of Sheriffmuir. Here, the wily Rob remained on a hill
with his clansmen and watched the battle, not out
of cowardice, but because of the friendly senti-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 258
REVIEWS
ments which he had for the general on the other
side. This man was Argyll Edinchip, of the house
of MacGregor. The home still exists today, only a
few miles along the road from Balquhidder, and
houses a seventeenth-century powder-horn with
the inscription: “LORD THOU ME DEFEND
FROM SUBTIL SORT OF THOSE THAT
FRIENDSHIP ME PRETEND AND ARE MY
MORTAL FOES.” I have sometimes wondered if
Rob ever contemplated this horn.
Rob Roy’s cunning stood him in good stead
when the Government set a price of 1,000 pounds
on his head, for somehow he escaped both scaffold
and exile. The spiritual course which he steered
was subtle too. Born a Presbyterian, as a friendly
gesture towards the Earl of Perth, he turned to
Rome, yet so lightly did he regard his adopted
faith that, as Scott records, he commented that extreme unction was “a great waste of oil.”
GENEALOGY OF THE
KING FAMILY
AND THE MACGREGOR CLAN
[Editorial Note: This information was sent to
us from a Scottish descendant of Rob Roy who
did not include his or her name. It was received by
electronic mail without an address. We have not
done significant research to confirm the total accuracy of these statements, but assume that the
writer lives in Rob Roy country and is speaking
from the authority of the local traditions.]
their fighting prowess. For many years all Highlanders were considered fighting men. The Macgregors won the great battle of Glen Fruin, but
because of their many misdeeds and underhanded
fighting ways, the Clan MacGregor was proscribed. 1 Later, in the year 1661, the proscription was rescinded.
The MacGregors earned the reputation of being
a fighting clan because they maintained possession of their lands by the sword. The Campbells
were their greatest threat, and eventually the MacGregors were again proscribed in 1693. They were
prosecuted and persecuted until 1774, when, by an
act of the Scottish Parliament, the claims were
dismissed and their lands restored.
Of necessity, many clan members took other
names to avoid being persecuted. The period of
proscription was indeed very hard on them. There
were those who helped them, but severe times had
been placed on those who sheltered or aided them.
Some of the names that the MacGregors took
were: Douglas, Campbell, Greorson, Gregor,
Gregory, White, Whyte, MacAra, MacNee and
King.
Robert MacGregor, better known as Rob Roy,
the most famous of the Macgregors, was a younger son of Lieut. Col. Donald MacGregor of Glengyle. Donald MacGregor was on officer in the
Scottish army of King James VII. Rob Roy's
mother was a daughter of Campbell of Glenfalloch, so he was well born.
Rob Roy had a dispute of land and finances
with the Duke of Montrose and for thirty years
carried on this fight. He was a brilliant swordsman, a very intrepid and adventuresome outlaw.
At various times Rob Roy owned lands on the
east bank of Loch Lomand, near the Mountains of
Glenfallch, near Loch Tay in Glen Dochart. On
the slopes of Men More is a good-sized cottage
known as Rob Roy's castle. He married the blackhaired, black-eyed Helen Mary, daughter of Macgregor of Croman. They had four sons: Coll,
Ronald, James Hamish (Scottish for James) and
Robert.
Rob Roy lived a very stormy and impetuous
life, as the Robin Hood of Scotland. He was the
dread of the rich and friend to the poor. He was
One of the most famous of the Highland Clans
and the Principal branch of the Clan Alpine is the
MacGregor Clan. Clan Alpine [or Siol Alpine]
trace their ancestry to Griogar, 3rd son of King
Kenneth McAlpin, first king of the United Picts
and Scots in the eighth century. They were at
home on the eastern border of Argull and the
Western border of Perthshire. The earliest possession of the clan, Glenorch in the Highland, was
bestowed on them by Alexander 11.
Highland Lairds of other Clans began to accept
crown charters for land which the MacGregors occupied but the MacGregors would not give it up
without a fight. In 1603, there was a great battle
at Glen Fruin, a bloody fracas because the MacGregors were noted for their wild temperament and 1
Exiled.
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 259
REVIEWS
very audacious and had a stormy wild temperament, representative of the MacGregor Clan. He
lived from about 1671 to December 28, 1734, and
died at his home at Balquhidder where he was
buried in the church yard there. He was never captured for his misdeeds. 2 His and his wife’s
graves are at the east end of the old kirk ruins at
Balqhidder. He was known as the hero in one of
Sir Walter Scott’s romances. Also, he was one of
the few who had his own tartan of red and black.
The badge of the Macgregor Clan is a lion’s
head crowned with an antique crown. Their Motto
is: “Royal is My Race.”
[The ancient Celtic form of "conaclon" poetry is a form where the end of one line
rhymes with the beginning of the next. An
example is Amerigin's Incantation. The
translation is from a turn-of-the-century
work by Dr. George Sigerson, “Bards of
the Gael and Gall.” Dr. Sigerson carefully
followed the original meters and rhyme
scheme.]
2 Editorial note: this information is in error, as he
was imprisoned at Newgate in 1722 after his reconcilliation to Montrose. In 1727, he was pardoned
just before he was to be transported to Barbados.
See Encycopedia Britannica, “Rob Roy.”
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
INCANTATION
by Amerigan
(A druid bard)
Fain we seek Erinn,
Faring o'er oceans
Motions to mountains,
Fountains and bowers,
Showers, rills rushing,
Gushing waves welling,
Swelling streams calling,
Falling foam-thunder,
Under lakes filling:
Willing -- (abiding,
Riding rounds, holding,
Olden fairs meetly) -Fleet to lift loyal
Royal king's towers,
Bowers for crowning;
Frowning foes over -Rover Mil's warlike
Starlike sons therein.
Erinn shall longer,
Stronger show honor,
On our Milesians. Wishing in trouble,
Noble isle's wooing,
Suing, we stay here;
Pray here to sail in,
Wailing maids royal!
Loyal chief-leaders,
Pleaders, blend prayer in.
So we seek Erinn.
Page 260
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
THE PLANTAGENET
FAMILY HISTORY
by Ron Collins
The following is Part I of a series of articles on
the founding families of the Royal Plantagenet
lines. The Plantagenet Royal Family begins with
Henry II, King of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. This series of articles will focus on the ancestral families of both of these people.
In Part I, the spotlight will be on the House of
Aquitaine; Part II will study the House of Anjou
from which Henry II descended; Part III is on the
people and families descended from them.
At the outset it should be stated that the House
of Aquitaine and the House of Anjou were related
by blood. In fact, Eleanor and Henry were one
another’s fifth cousins. Their common ancestor
was Robert II, the Pious, King of France. These
connections are given below. Please note that
Eleanor is also the fifth cousin of her first husband Louis VII, King of France, who is also descended from Robert II.
DESCENDANTS OF ROBERT II,
KING OF FRANCE
1027 in Falaise, France, d: September 09, 1087
in St. Gervais Priory near Rouen, m: Abt 1051 in
Eu, France.
4 Henry I, King of England, b: 1070 in Selby,
Yorkshire, England d: December 01, 1135 in St.
Denis-le-Fermont near Rouen, married Matilda
of Scotland, b: 1079 in Dunfermline, Scotland, d:
May 01, 1118 in Westminster Palace, m: November 11, 1100 in Westminster Abbey.
5 Matilda of England, b: 1102 in Winchester,
England, d: September 10, 1169 in Rouen,
France, married Geoffroi Plantagenet, Count of
Anjou, b: 1112 in France d: 1151 in France.
6 Henry II, King of England b: March 25,
1133 in LeMans, France, d: July 06, 1189 in
Chinon, France, married Eleanor of Aquitaine b:
1122 in Bordeaux, France, d: March 31, 1204 in
Fontevrault, France, m: May 18, 1152 in Poitiers, France on Whit Sunday.
1 Robert II, King of France b: 996 d: 1031.
2 Robert, Duke of Burgundy .
3 Audiard of Burgundy, married Guy Geoffrey, William VIII, Duke of Aquitaine, d: 1086.
4 William IX, Count of Poitou, Duke of Aquitaine, married Phillipa of Toulouse
5 William X, Duke of Aquitaine
married
Eleanor of Chatellerault
6 Eleanor of Aquitaine, b: 1122 in Bordeaux,
France, d: March 31, 1204 in Fontevrault, France,
married [2] Louis VII, King of France, b: 1120,
d: 1180 *2nd Husband of of Aquitaine Eleanor:
Henry II, King of England b: March 25, 1133 in
LeMans, France, d: July 06, 1189 in Chinon,
France, m: May 18, 1152 in Poitiers, France on
Whit Sunday.
1 Robert II, King of France b: 996 d: 1031.
2 Henry I, King of France, married Anne of
Kiev.
3 Philip I, King of France, d: 1108 married
Bertha.
4 Louis VI, King of France, d: 1137 married
Adelaide of Maurienne d: 1137.
5 Constance, married Raymond V, Count of
Toulouse d: 1194,
PART I
6 Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, married
THE HOUSE OF AQUITAINE
Joan, b: 1165, d: 1199.
5 Louis VII, King of France, b: 1120, d: 1180,
The House of Aquitaine contains some of the
married [1] Eleanor of Aquitaine b: 1122 in Bor- most colorful people in medieval history. The orideaux, France, d: March 31, 1204 in Fontev- gins of the family are lost in the mist of times.
rault, France.
The first mention of the name “Aquitaine”
[meaning: “land of the water”, or “land of rivers”]
1 Robert II, King of France b: 996 d: 1031.
occurred in Roman times. The Roman maps had
2 Adelaide, married Baldwin V, Count of Flan- Aquitaine I and Aquitaine II, referring respectively
ders d: 1067.
to the area centered at Toulouse and then north to
3 Matilda of Flanders, b: 1031, d: 2 Nov the Loire, and the second area on the coast area
1083 in Caen, married William the Conqueror, b: from the Pyrenees, along the Atlantic, to what is
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 261
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
now Brittany. Obviously there were Gauls in
Aquitaine before the Romans arrived, but very little is known about them.
Under Roman rule, the Aquitaine was considered a sub-kingdom. A ruling family was installed, probably of Gaelic blood. During the fifth
century, Rome was falling apart and to help in the
management of the regions of Gaul and the Iberian Peninsula, Rome installed a large tribe of the
Visigoths into the Aquitaine and northern Spain.
For a while the Goths created the Kingdom of
Toulouse, whose territory coincided almost exactly with the 12th- century Aquitaine. The Goths
did not last long and, in 507, the last Gothic king
was overthrown by an invasion of the Franks under Clovis.
THE MEROVINGIAN KINGS
Clovis is considered the first Merovingian
King of France. It was the great-great grandson of
Clovis, Charibert II, who was created the first
named King of Aquitaine [reigned from 629 to
632(1)]. At this time, the Aquitaine was a mixture of Celtic, Latin, Gothic, Basque, and Frankish blood, though most historians refer to them as
Gallo-Roman.
Life under Merovingian rule did not set well
with the Aquitainians. While considered a kingdom [with a Merovingian setting on the throne],
the real rule of the people was through the hereditary Dukes of Aquitaine that continued to exist
under Merovingian kings. The quote from Scherman, below, does two things: it illustrates the independence of the Aquitanian Dukes (with the first
names to appear in that role), and it documents
how the Aquitainians help end the Merovingian
dynasty.
“A contradictory factor further snarled the already anarchic situation. Besides his first sons, Drogo and Grimoald, Pepin had a bastard younger son
by his concubine, Alpaida; this was Charles (later
called Martel): ‘And the child grew, and a proper
child he undoubtedly was.’”
Charles was the young hero of the Austrasians,
who regarded him as their natural chief. Thus he
presented a threat to his stepmother, Plectrudis, in
her regency for her grandson. When she took over
the government of Austrasia, she had Charles im-
October 1995
prisoned. This put the Austrasians in a quandary.
Theudoald and his guardian, Plectrudis, were their
rulers by the choice of Pepin, and the nobles were
obliged to be loyal for the sake of their own defense against Neustria. On the other hand, Pepin’s
son, Charles, was their preferred champion.
After the defeat at Compiegne, however, the
knots began to untangle. Little Theudoald fled before the Neustrian advance, leaving the Austrasian
mayoralty chair untenanted. Shortly after this, the
Merovingian puppet king, Dagobert III, died. The
Neustrians chose another Merovingian relative as
King of all the Franks. This time they had sought
for and found one who was not infantile, imbecilic
or degenerate: a priest named Daniel, reputed to be
a genuine Merovingian descendant, and renamed
Chilperic II. At about the same time the scion of
the house of Pepin, Charles, escaped from prison
‘by God’s help’ implemented by his Austrasian
followers.
Two strong men now faced each other across
the border of Austrasia and Neustria. Charles
(Martel) received the homage of Plectrudis’s defeated forces as well as his father’s treasure, at the
hands of his now compliant stepmother. But with
a much smaller army at his command he was not
immediately successful against the Neustrians and
their new, energetic king. Besides their barbaric
Frisian ally, King Rathbod, the Neustrians had the
aid of Duke Eudo, ruler of semi-independent Aquitaine. The great Gallo-Roman land between the
Pyrenees and the Loire, wealthy and superior in
civilization, had only reluctantly accepted the suzerainty of the Franks. Aquitaine was at this time
virtually a separate realm and its duke elected to
ally himself with the more Latin Neustrians
against the cruder Austrasians. Charles met a reverse at the hands of this formidable opposition
before he succeeded in restructuring Plectrudis’s
Austrasian forces.
Like his father, Charles was a keen military
strategist. He knew the value of combined moderation and discipline, and before long he commanded a skilled, flexible and devoted force. With his
little army he met the Neustrians at Vincy, near
Cambrai. Again, in imitation of Pepin, Charles
offered to negotiate in order to spare the lives of
courageous men on both sides. The Merovingian
king had a far larger, but raggedly trained army
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 262
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
consisting of the dregs of society. Unwisely, he
refused to come to terms. The ensuing battle was
an unequivocal victory for Charles, who pursued
the demoralized Neustrians to the gates of Paris.
He was not yet strong enough to take over the reins of defeated Neustria, so he left the ex-priest,
Chilperic II, to his throne. Returning to Cologne
he began the task of trying to restore the vitality
of his own disordered realm.
But peace for reconstruction was not yet allowed to Charles. Chilperic II still refused to be a
cipher king and he had the injudicious backing of
his Mayor of the Palace. Two years after the defeat at Vincy, Chilperic asked Duke Eudo to help
him renew the war against Austrasia, promising
in return the complete independence of Aquitaine.
Eudo agreed, and in 719 he brought his army of
Gascons to Paris. Efficient fighters as the Gascons were, they were not prepared for the swiftness of Charles’ small army, which jumped on
them before they were ready, defeating them
roundly. Eudo fled back to Aquitaine, taking the
Merovingian king with him, and Charles was left
to be, if he wished, undisputed master of Neustria.
But again the victor chose moderation: he offered
Eudo terms of peace if he gave up Chilperic and
acknowledged the suzerainty of the north. Charles
attached another condition to his mercy: he promised to acknowledge Chilperic as king of all the
Franks if he himself were recognized as mayor of
the united kingdoms of Austrasia, Neustria and
Burgundy. Eudo and Chilperic had no choice but
to accept. The following year, in 720, Chilperic
died. The next Merovingian to ascend the throne,
Theodoric IV, was a child of seven. Charles was
uncrowned king of the Frankish kingdoms. But
Duke Eudo, nominally subject to the Franks, retained his autonomy as well as his rebellious
spirit, and Charles was momentarily unable to
conciliate him.” (2)
THE CAROLINGIANS
Now the Carolingians were on the throne. This
did not help quell the unrest in the Aquitaine. The
Dukes still wanted to be independent of the
Franks. It did not matter much to them who sat
on the throne of France. What mattered was that
cultured Aquitaine not be under the thumb of bar-
October 1995
baric Franks. Again quoting from Scherman, we
see how things developed for the Great Grandfather
of Charlemagne. “Although Pepin had confirmed
his dynastic claim on the Frankish throne his wars
were not over. After four years of respite there began a bitter and tiresome campaign which lasted
the rest of his life, from 760 to 768. This was the
conflict with Aquitaine, waged with the rancor of
a civil war.”
Historically, Aquitanians and Franks despised
one another. They were brash Teutons versus
overbred Gallo-Romans. Their mutual dislike led
to clashes starting with Clovis and his rampaging
son, Theodoric, in 507. This enmity had been inherited by their Merovingian descendants and was
fully shared by the German oriented house of Pepin. In this war, we see a side of Pepin discordant
with his magnanimity to defeated enemies.
Vengeful hostility marks every stage of his endeavor to render Aquitaine an inalienable part of
the Frankish empire.
The present lord of Aquitaine was Duke Waifar.
Besides his contumacious attitude to his Frankish
neighbor and liege lord, Waifar had the potentially
dangerous background of collateral Merovingian
descent. The Aquitanians riskily indulged in border
inroads. They so aroused Pepin’s exasperation that
in 760 he issued a series of ultimatums. If Waifar
obeyed them all he would be rendered entirely subordinate to the Frankish king. The alternative,
which the duke invited, was wholesale war. Pepin’s initial attacks were petty marauding raids in
which his men fired and devastated Auvergne until
Waifar cried for quarter. After exacting promises,
Pepin “returned home, by God’s help unscathed,
laden with much plunder.”
Waifar had no intention of honoring his enforced pledges. The next year he took the initiative. He invaded Burgundy, plundering and burning northward to Chalon-sur-Saone. Pepin reacted
with fury. Following his victory over the invaders, he stormed after them into Auvergne, where
he put all his prisoners to death, burned towns
along with their helpless inhabitants and “tore up
all the vineyards from which almost all Aquitaine,
rich and poor, used to obtain wine.” So violent
was the fighting that even monks took up arms.
One of Waifar’s vassals, the count of Poitiers,
“who had gone plundering in Touraine, was killed
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 263
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
by the men of Abbot Wulfard of the monastery of
the blessed Martin.”
By 764, both sides were exhausted. Pepin’s
forces refused to move. There was a year of rest;
then the Aquitanians, persistent as hornets from a
disturbed nest, began raiding the borders again.
Pepin’s vassals were aggravated into action, and
in 766 they voted to end the Aquitanian nuisance
decisively. Pepin threw all his strength into this
last campaign. The Aquitanians, though they
could not equal the Franks in fighting ability, defended their homeland with hopeless courage for
two years. Finally exhausted, they had to beg
mercy from their conquerors.
But there was no mercy for Waifar. His wife
and children were captured, his chief supporters
were caught and hanged. He himself, deserted by
his soldiers, hid out in the Forest de Ver (near
Perigueux in Dordogne). There he wandered like a
wild animal until his own followers assassinated
him, “allegedly with the king’s connivance.”
With the death of Waifar, the independence of
Aquitaine was extinguished. This intractable corner of France, whose inhabitants had defied conquerors with stubborn valor as far back as Caesar,
finally succumbed. “And all came to [Pepin] to
become his men.” From 768 Aquitaine was part
of the Frankish empire, governed by vassals of
the king of the Franks." (3).
The historical personalities that we can follow
with some details and with clear understanding of
the blood relationships start with Eble Manzer,
Count of Poitou.
5 William VI, Duke of Aquitaine d: 1038
5 Eudes d: 1039
5 Adela married Count of Armagnac
5 William VII, Duke of Aquitaine d: 1058
5 Agnes, married Henry III, King of Germany,
Emperor d: 1056
5 Guy Geoffrey, William VIII, Duke of Aquitaine
d:1086 married [5] of Burgundy Audiard
6 Agnes married [13] Alfonso of Castile
6 IX William, Count of Poitou, Duke of Aquitaine married Phillipa of Toulouse
7 [11] Raymond of Antioch
7 William X, Duke of Aquitaine married [10]
Eleanor of Chatellerault (8) of Aquitaine, Eleanor
b: 1122 in Bordeaux, France d: March 31, 1204
in Fontevrault, France, married [1] Louis VII,
King of France b: 1120 d: 1180 *2nd Husband
of of Aquitaine Eleanor: Henry II, King of England b: March 25, 1133 in LeMans, France d:
July 06, 1189 in Chinon, France m: 18 May
1152 at Saint-Pierre at Poitiers, France, on Whit
Sunday. Adela married Raoul of Vermandois
3 Adelaide of Poitou married Hugh Capet, King
of France d: 996
4 Robert II, King of France b: 996 d: 1031
5 Henry I, King of France, married Anne of Kiev
6 Philip I, King of France d: 1108, married
Bertha
7 Louis VI, King of France d: 1137, married
Adelaide of Maurienne, d: 1137
8 [1] Louis VII, King of France, b: 1120 d:
1180 married [2] Eleanor of Aquitaine, b: 1122
in Bordeaux, France d: March 31, 1204 in Fontevrault, France
First let us look at the genealogical connec- 5 Adelaide married Richard III, Duke of Normantions.
dy
*2nd Husband of Adelaide: married Baldwin V,
GENEALOGY OF THE HOUSE OF
Count of Flanders, d: 1067
AQUITAINE AND TOULOUSE
6 Matilda of Flanders, b: 1031, d: November
02, 1083 in Caen, married the Conqueror Wil[Please note: generations are numbers at left.
liam, b: 1027 in Falaise, France d: September
Those with the same numbers are siblings.]
09, 1087 in St. Gervais Priory near Rouen, m:
Abt 1051 in Eu, France
1 Eble Manzer, Count of Poitou d: Abt 932
2 William III, Duke of Aquitaine d: 963 married
(See Descendants of Robert II, King of France
Aumode of Provence
above)
3 William IV, Fier-a-bras, Duke of Aquitaine d:
995 married Emma of Blois
Now let us put some flesh on these bones.
4 William V, Duke of Aquitaine
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 264
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
The duke of Aquitaine became for his subjects
the heir of the Carolingian sub-kings of Aquitaine, and also of their predecessors, the GalloRoman dukes of the province. In turn, these associations created loyalties beyond the area in which
he was actually powerful, making his duchy a reality, albeit a tenuous reality, from the Atlantic
Ocean to the eastern fringes of the Auvergne. The
history below is based upon The Origins of the
Duchy of Aquitaine and the Government of the
Counts of Poitou, 902-1137, by J. Martindale,
an unpublished doctoral thesis for Oxford University, Oxford, England 1965.
The year 887 saw the end of the Carolingian
sub-kingdom of Aquitaine, in spite of continued
royal ambitions in the area. Yet, the feeling
among both the Aquitainians and the Franks that
Aquitaine was different from the lands north of the
Loire lingered on for many years. It was to be exploited in turn by three different aristocratic
houses.
WILLIAM THE PIOUS AND HIS SUCCESSORS
In 888, William the Pious, son of Bernard
Plantevelue, was securely in charge of an enormous inheritance in the south. Through his
mother, he was count of Auvergne; from his father he obtained overlordship over Berry, the Maconnais, the Lyonnais, the March of Gothia
(Septmania), and the Limousin. Although he was
forced to cede his father’s county of Toulouse to
Eudes (ruled 918-919), son of Bernard of Toulouse, he maintained some form of superiority
there. His position was enhanced by his close
friendship with Ranulf II, count of Poitou, described by the Annals of St Vaast as “dux maximae partis Aquitaniae.” (4) Between them, they
controlled nearly all of the country south of the
Loire, with the exception of Gascony and Catalonia. Due to their blood relations to the Carolingians, neither William nor Ranulf was inclined to
support the new ruler, King Eudes of France. In
fact, in 889, Eudes had to launch a royal campaign into the south to force William to yield.
Despite some tension, he remained loyal to Eudes
October 1995
even after Fulk of Rheims had crowned Charles
“le Simple” (born 879 - died 922) in 893. On Ranulf’s death, Eudes succeeded in nominating one
of his own men to Poitou even though by 902
Ranulf’s illegitimate son had returned to some
power. William welcomed Charles the Simple’s
uncontested accession in 898.
William’s power was solidly based in the Auvergne. Elsewhere, it depended on his skill in
managing counts, viscounts, and other lords.
Since he was a close friend of Eble of Deols,
Eble’s successful intrusion in Berry enlarged William’s influence. Though Gerald of Aurillac refused to pay homage to him, the two men remained on excellent terms. On such links were
principalities built.
By 909 William had brought so many lords
into his ’mouvance’ (a network of fideles) that he
referred to himself as “count, marquis, and duke”
in a charter that survived in the Brioude cartulary.
(5) St. Odo of Cluny and Ademar of Chabannes
both stressed his very noble birth and his piety as
reasons why he was well respected. Even in his
own lifetime, he was revered as a man of outstanding piety. Over doing his religious convictions he embraced the life of celibacy and left no
heir.
William’s federation, based on personal loyalty,
was bound to be difficult for his successor to hold
together. His successor, his nephew William II,
kept the ducal title and gave it new concreteness
by minting coins inscribed with his own name at
the mint of Brioude the first “feudal” coins of
West Francia. (6) This gesture of independence,
however, made no difference in the long run. He
lost the March of Gothia to Raymond III Pons of
Toulouse, the Lyonnais to Hugh of Arles, the
Maconnais to Hugh the Black of Burgundy, and
faced a revolt in Berry which put an end to his
lordship there. His fate was to preside over the
disintegration of his uncle’s duchy. The last of his
line, his son Acfred, who ruled from 926 to 927,
was left only with the Auvergne and a form of superiority over the Limousin, which soon passed to
other hands.
The year 927 marked the end of the attempt to
consolidate the duchy around the Auvergne. The
ducal title went to Toulouse, where Raymond
Pons briefly bore it. The political advantage
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 265
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
brought about by the collapse of William the Pious’ dynasty was highly beneficial to the counts
of Poitou. In many ways, Poitou was a better
center for political power than the Auvergne,
which had always been cut off by the Massif Central. Although the area around Poitiers had suffered badly from Viking attacks, after 930 recovery was on the way. It was expanding again as the
fields around it returned to their former fertility.
Within the county, the silver-mines of Melles
were still producing (7). The count, William, was
well placed to take advantage of Louis IV’s accession, because he was of Carolingian descent. In
addition, he benefited by an alliance with the new
Norman rulers. His father, Eble Manzer, Count of
Poitou from 902 to 932, had married William to
the daughter of Rollo, first count of Rouen so he
had friends in the north who might be expected to
help contain any future Viking attack.
The first task Eble, William III Tete d’Etoupe
(932-63) and William IV Fier-a-bras (963-95)
faced was that of bringing the neighboring counts
and viscounts into their mouvance, and obtain a
formal recognition of their overlordship. The
counts of Angouleme and Perigueux, the count of
La Marche, the viscounts of Limoges, and the
newly-established viscounts of Turenne in the
south and Thouars in the north, all came to the
court at Poitiers from time to time, and expressed
their deference by taking fidelity and pledging
loyalty. In the case of the count of Angouleme, a
man of very noble status and long-entrenched position, the relationship was purely one of friendship; with the others, there was perhaps an element of condescension on the count of Poitou’s
part. But it is unlikely that he acquired much in
the way of financial gain from any of them: even
the viscounts already had established territorial
rights in their own areas, and would have endeavored to keep their public dues for themselves. In
the circumstances, his overlordship was based on
alliance more than obligation; yet the alliance
grew, over the years, into something solid.
Perhaps the extent of the external opposition
they faced explained the acquiescence in the count
of Poitou’s leadership within Aquitaine. First,
there were the attacks of Raymond III Pons of
Toulouse He was anxious to obtain mastery over
the county, and his death, probably around 950,
October 1995
brought an end to those threats. Raymonds’ demise also produced a chance for Poitevin domination in the Auvergne and Velay, and finally the
opportunity to take the ducal title, as William IV
did in 965. Then there were the ambitions of
Hugh Capet, called the Great, in Aquitaine, which
received the backing of Louis d’Outremer. Neither
Louis’ brief appearance south of the Loire, nor
Hugh the Great’s campaign of 955, during which
he besieged Poitiers, did the counts of Poitou
much harm. They may simply have rallied local
support, for men from the Auvergne are known to
have helped in the relief of the siege of Poitiers.
Lothaire’s later attempt to re-establish Aquitaine
as a sub-kingdom for his son was equally fruitless. It simply provided the count with an excuse
for abandoning the Carolingian cause in 987. Of
far greater long-term importance was the Angevin
pressure on the north of the county, which began
in the 960s and 970s. According to Ademar, this
was easily contained in its early stages. He records
that William IV defeated Count Geoffrey Grisegonelle of Anjou, and made him take homage for the
honor of Loudun, which he had annexed. (8)
Within Poitou the counts were wealthy. The
money producing lands of the fisc appear to have
passed into their hands early. They used the royal
palaces at Poitiers and Chasseneuil and held the
royal monasteries in their garde. They also preserved most comital rights, including control of
the coinage. Furthermore, their position as lay abbots of St. Hilaire in Poitiers gave them influence
within the church, which was strengthened during
the time that William III’s brother was bishop of
Limoges. Peasants owed labor service for the erection of fortifications directly to the counts. Poitevin castles were built at the center of each vicariate. These facts indicate an unusually forceful
comital supervision in the early stages of castlebuilding within the county. These assets, in conjunction with the regular oaths of fidelity received
from their officials, conferred formidable local
power on William III and William IV. In this picture of the situation of the times, the achievements of Eble, William III, and William IV were
more than simple conservation of the Carolingian
tradition of government; they involved at least
some degree of reconstruction.
When trouble struck, the counts were able to
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 266
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
handle it. William IV defeated an attack by the
count of Perigueux and held down the rebellious
viscount of Limoges. But, in general, the mid
tenth century was a peaceful breathing-space in
Aquitaine. When William IV assumed the title
“duke of the Aquitanians” in 965, he was merely
doing justice to his own, his father’s, and his
grandfather’s striking successes south of the
Loire. Hugh Capet’s reluctant acquiescence in the
family’s self-promotion in 988 was proof that
even outsiders could not deny them their preeminence.
The Poitevin duchy of Aquitaine had been built
up by a combination of military skill, diplomatic
agility, and inherited claims, to the point where it
exercised some sort of hegemony from the borders
of Burgundy to Gascony, and from the Loire to
the slopes of the Pyrenees. So when William V,
the Great, became duke in 990, he had only to expand upon the traditions of his predecessors to
take the preeminent place among the princes of
West Francia. In Ademar of Chabannes, he had
the benefit of a lavish eulogizer: “Duke of the
Aquitanians, count of Poitou, the aforesaid most
glorious and powerful William was amiable to
all, great in counsel, outstanding for his prudence,
most liberal in bestowing, a defender of the poor,
father of monks builder and lover of churches, devoted to the holy Roman church.” (9)
William stood comparison with Louis the Pious, Charlemagne, Theodosius, and even Augustus. After that, it is an anti-climax to be told that
he seemed more like a king than a duke. Ademar
was not alone in portraying William as an emperor in the classical mold; Fulbert of Chartres,
who had less incentive to indulge in blind flattery,
called him piisimus dux, serenissimus princeps,
imperial adjectives, in his letters. And their contemporaries saw no exaggeration when these
terms were applied to a man whose daughter married the emperor Henry III and whose son was a
contender for the throne of Lombardy.
Yet there was little imperial about William’s
authority over the other great counts of his duchy.
It was a cornerstone of his policy, as Ademar relates it to maintain close friendship with his powerful neighbor, the count of Angouleme. Count
William was a regular visitor to the ducal court,
held fiefs of the duke, and joined him in military
October 1995
expeditions; but the duke had no right of interference within Angouleme. With Boso II, count of
La Marche and Perigueux, Duke William’s relations were not quite so smooth. Ademar and Richer tell of fighting over castles in the early years of
his reign. This suggests that William had at least
some claim to authority in Boso’s lands. With the
help of Robert the Pious, William defeated Boso,
and lived on good terms with him from that time
forward. It is possible that the division of Perigord
and La Marche that occurred on Boso’s death was
brought about by William’s fear of further trouble. (10) With the viscount of Limoges, the duke
had less need of diplomacy. He disciplined him in
1000 and appointed his successor in 1025. Outside
Poitou, William bullied where he could and beguiled where he could not bully. That his lordship
had powers of attraction, even for the great and independent, is evident from Eudes of Deols’ willingness to swear fidelity to him. Eudes was described as William’s satelles fidelissimus et familiarissimus, his most faithful and intimate henchman. This tie established a very loose Aquitanian
hegemony over Lower Berry, significant only in
so far as it blocked any infiltration there by Blois
or Anjou.
Inside Poitou, William’s extensive demesne
lands and the “lay abbacy” of St. Hilaire in Poitiers, produced a solid power base in the south of
the county. Further north, Angevin intervention
and the viscount of Thouars’ control checked his
ambitions. The contrasting poles of the count’s
authority can be seen in his relations with Hugh
IV de Lusignan and Fulk of Anjou. Hugh held
lands of moderate size near Poitiers, and was advocate of the monastery of St. Maixent. He was,
therefore, a man of some social standing in his
neighborhood. Yet, in order to reinstate himself in
William’s favor, after an act of defiance, and to
guarantee for himself the possession of one of the
castles he had sought, he was forced to acknowledge that he owed William jurisdiction for affairs
of justice in the court and military service. In addition, he was obliged to accompany the count on
military expeditions, even when his own lands
were under attack. He had no right to build a castle
on his lands without the count’s authorization.
Even his marriage might be his lord’s affair. In
every way, Hugh was subject to William’s whim.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 267
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
Fulk of Anjou, on the other hand, held the
trump cards in coming to terms with William.
After his steady expansion from the Angevin fief
of Loudun into much of the Gatine of Poitou and
into the Saintonge, William was forced to ratify
these gains. In exchange, Fulk became his vassal,
attended his court, and produced propaganda for the
duke’s Italian enterprises. After William’s death,
he restrained, albeit ineffectually, his own son’s
ambitions in Poitou.
So Ademar’s claim that William subjected the
whole of Aquitaine to his rule’ (11) suggests a
uniformity of control which was absent. Nevertheless, the duchy was still an entity; Aquitaine
meant something. This was very plain in ecclesiastical affairs, evidenced by the ecclesiastical
synods, which were held at various times in his
reign. They were attended by churchmen from the
whole duchy, a breach with tradition, since Aquitaine was divided between the metropolitan jurisdictions of Bourges and Bordeaux. The greatest of
these synods was the council William called to
Poitiers in 1010. Whereas the earlier peace councils of the duchy, those of Le Puy (975 and 994)
and Charroux (989), had been summoned by
bishops, their canons enforced by excommunication, now William took the initiative. The peace
was as much his as his bishop’s. His action here,
and in convening the latex council of Charroux
(1028) for the condemnation of heresy, revived
memories of Charlemagne.
William V’s death, in 1029, was followed by a
decline in ducal power during which his creation
was threatened with destruction. His son William
VI was captured in battle and imprisoned by Geoffrey Martel of Anjou. William was a sick man
upon his release in 1036. His death in 1038, and
that of his brother Eudes duke of Gascony in the
following year, left infant heirs, whose nearest
relative was their grandmother Agnes, widow of
William V, recently married to Geoffrey Martel of
Anjou.
The minority of William VII was a period of
opportunity for the Angevins. As regents, Geoffrey and Agnes consolidated Angevin interests in
the north to such an extent that they became a
permanent feature of the landscape. It was probably during the eleventh century that this part of
October 1995
Poitou embraced the langue d’oil. The people of
Aquitaine, including its rulers, spoke a tongue
very different from that of Northern France, as did
Eleanor of Aquitaine, a century later. All the
southern French used a number of dialects known
collectively as Provencal, or langue d’oc, as opposed to the langue d’oil of the north. One of
these dialects of Provencal, the Lemosin, became
a written literary language. It was the remarkable
achievement of Provencal to create the first vernacular lyric poetry of any merit (with the exception of Irish poetry) in Western Europe, since
classical times. “Twelfth century Provencal, softer
than sleep,” Helen Waddell says of it. She adds
that “Provencal poetry demands no other intellectual background than that of its century, a May
morning, the far-off singing of birds, a hawthorn
tree in blossom, a crusade for the holy sepulcher.
It is the Middle Ages in the medium of a dream.”
(12)
Even on his coming of age, William VII never
fully emancipated himself from others. It was not
until 1058, with the accession of his younger
brother, Guy Geoffrey (who took the title William
VIII), that the ducal house flourished once more. It
was Guy Geoffrey’s great achievement to unite
Aquitaine with Gascony. The last years of the
tenth century and the first decades of the eleventh
had been times of consolidation and prosperity in
Gascony. Under Bernard William (996-1009) and
Sancho William (1009-1032), the church had revived, monasteries had been restored, sees reestablished, and the whole subjected to the firm rule of
the duke. In the course of this reconstruction, the
famous scholar Abbo of Fleury had visited La Reole in 1004, and made his much-quoted comment
that there he was as powerful as the king of
France, since no-one in Gascony feared the king.
But apart from his independence, not much is
known of the duke’s secular powers. The Bordelais
were enfeoffed to a cadet of his own family. Much
of western Gascony was firmly in his grip, but
his control over the south and east was not nearly
so tight. The attractions of Gascony to the dukes
of Aquitaine lay in the salt, wine, and grain trades,
which were quite lucrative, especially in the ancient archbishopric of Bordeaux, which William V
had long aspired to influence. Eudes, William V’s
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 268
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
son by his Gascon wife Prisca, succeeded Sancho
William, though not without controversy. Upon
his death, Guy Geoffrey, his half-brother, fought
long and hard against the count of Armagnac to
win control. It was not until 1063 that the duchy
of Gascony was incontrovertibly Guy Geoffrey’s.
From 1063 on, the dukes of Aquitaine were
also dukes of Gascony. In acquiring the Atlantic
seaboard, they reoriented their whole regime
southwards. Poitiers, Saintes, and Bordeaux became the three great cities of their duchies, the
places where the dukes were to be found most frequently, the axis of their new interests. It was no
accident that Guy Geoffrey’s intervention in the
Spanish reconquista and his great victory at Barbastro in 1064 came during the time when he was
seeking to consolidate his reputation in the south.
Respect for his military skill was one factor in attracting the Gascon lords, the counts of Fezensac,
the viscounts of Bigorre and Bearn, to his court in
Bordeaux. Two of his daughters married into the
royal houses of Spain, where his son, William
IX, was to enjoy his greatest triumph in thrusting
down to Granada in 1125. The Gascon inheritance
conferred a whole new dimension on the duke of
Aquitaine’s standing within Europe.
There was one drawback to this splendid new
asset. It endangered the long friendship between
Poitou and Angouleme that had been central to
William V’s policies. The counts of Angouleme
were irked by the constant traveling around the
duchy of the ducal entourage, and by its residence
in Saintes, close to Angouleme spheres of interest. This coincided with new signs of trouble
within Poitou. It was recorded that in 1060, the
duke killed Hugh V de Lusignan. After Guy Geoffrey’s death in 1086, and during the regency of
his son William, control in the kernel of the
duchy of Aquitaine, in Poitou itself, grew looser.
When William IX began to rule, he was faced
with a long war against Hugh VII de Lusignan,
trouble with Parthenay, the intervention of Fulk
of Anjou, and the hostility of Angouleme. Had
William concentrated on the home front, it might
have been possible to solve these problems, but
he was often called away. First, a brief Norman
imbroglio consumed his attention, then his
claims in Toulouse, of which he became effective
lord until 1119, took his time. Then he made his
October 1995
crusade of 1101 to the Holy Land, followed by his
famous Spanish campaign, then there was trouble
in Gascony, where his defeat in 1120 permanently
excluded him and his successors from Fezensac
and all parts south. As a consequence of his absences, the castellans of Poitou began to escape
from ducal control, to take ducal tolls for their
own benefit, even to build fortifications without
authority.
WILLIAM IX
A closer look at the life of William IX is needed, for this was one of the most interesting, and to
his contemporaries, the most baffling men of his
age.
William IX, grandfather of Eleanor of Aquitaine, was the earliest troubadour known by name.
For Eleanor, he was the outstanding figure of her
early childhood, the first truly big man in her life,
and a hero who must have made an enormous impression upon her, even though he died when she
was only five. He was a man of extraordinary
complexity, alternately idealistic and cynical,
ruthless but impractical. He was no statesman
and, though aggressive and pugnacious, a notably
incompetent general. He failed in one scheme after
another. He claimed Toulouse as his wife’s inheritance, invading it while its count was away on a
crusade, but the invasion ended in disaster and humiliation.
In 1101 he himself took an army to the Holy
Land. It was cut to pieces near Heraclea and he escaped with difficulty. He may even have spent
some time as a prisoner of the Saracens. In 1114,
he made another attempt on Toulouse, occupying
the county for several years, but he was eventually
driven out. In 1119, he went on an expedition to
Aragon, helping its king to defeat a multitude of
Moors but receiving little reward. He was always
in trouble with the Church, and once threatened a
bishop with his sword. His private life made a
scandalous contrast with his ideals as a troubadour. His most lurid affair was with the dauntingly named Dangerosa of Chatellerault, whom he
carried off from her husband, seduced, and then
kept in the Maubergeon tower of his palace at
Poitiers (from whence she became known as La
Maubergeonne). Even his son rose up in arms at
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 269
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
such an insult to his mother. William IX died excommunicated in 1127. For all his talents and his
energy, none of his ambitious plans had succeeded. Nevertheless, contemporaries undoubtedly respected him as a mighty prince and a brave
knight. He successfully cowed and kept in subjection some of the most turbulent vassals in France
and he was able to bequeath an undiminished inheritance. Furthermore, even a hostile critic of his
own time had to admit that the duke was one of
the most courteous people in the world.
Duke William IX had always been an ardent
lover of women. His vehemently sensual nature
matured early, and he indulged his appetites with a
lusty, pagan delight. It made little difference to
him whether the woman was harlot or virgin,
peasant or noble maiden. When William IX was
fifteen, his father died, and the domain passed into
his hands. If his barons believed that the amiable
young man would be easy to manipulate, they
soon discovered their mistake, because he quickly
established himself as a lord worthy of respect.
For all the lad’s notoriety as a Don Juan, he was
intelligent, sensitive, and possessed a genius for
writing poetry that was not to blossom for another fifteen years.
In 1088, when William was sixteen, he married
the daughter of his northern neighbor, Fulk, count
of Anjou, a man so disagreeable that he won the
nickname “The Contrary.” Fulk’s daughter, Ermengarde, was beautiful and highly educated. She
appeared to be precisely the type of woman that
William wanted. It was not until after the wedding
that he realized she had inherited a streak of her father’s sour disposition. Ermengarde, he discovered, had good periods and bad periods, her moods
swinging drastically between vivacity and the
most alarming sullenness. It was possible that
William’s great weakness for chasing women
contributed to her fits of bad temper. Moreover,
she revealed a tendency to nag, a trait that thoroughly annoyed the carefree William. The marriage got off to a bad start. After a quarrel, Ermengarde would retire to a convenient cloister, where
she would sever all communication with the outside world, her husband included. After a period of
solitary retreat, she would suddenly reappear at
court, magnificently dressed and smothered in
jewels, behaving with a merriment that enchanted
October 1995
the courtiers and belied the fact that she had ever
shown a sulky face. Her schizophrenic behavior
soon proved too much for William. Since she had
failed to conceive, he probably felt justified in
sending her back to Anjou. The marriage was dissolved in 1091, and a year later Ermengarde married the duke of Brittany.
William took his time about remarrying. Not
until 1094 did he hastily journey south of the
Pyrenees to Aragon, where King Sancho Ramirez
had just been killed in battle, leaving his twentyyear-old queen, Philippa, a widow. Serious-minded, politically astute, she was not only a formidable woman but a great heiress, and this accounted
for the fact that William was not the only suitor
to cross the Pyrenees in pursuit of her hand. The
daughter of Count William IV of Toulouse, the
county of France adjoining Aquitaine on the
southeast, Philippa was one of those emancipated
southern women whom circumstances grew every
so often. Her father had married twice and sired
two sons, neither of whom lived. Without a male
to succeed him, Count William IV realized that he
would leave no heir save his daughter. This was
greatly disturbing. Even though Toulousain custom permitted women to inherit, it was considered
better that they inherit a minor fief rather than the
entire county itself. When Philippa was twelve,
William IV sent her to Aragon to be the wife of
Sancho Ramirez, a destiny of sufficient brilliance
that he hoped she would have no cause for complaint. Like all the Spanish Christian kingdoms,
Aragon had a sizable Moorish population. Owing
to the cultural exchange between Christians and
Moors, especially in architecture and poetry, the
Arabized court at Aragon had attained a degree of
oriental luxury foreign to European courts.
Two years after he had disposed of his daughter,
Count William IV, discouraged and frustrated,
suddenly resolved the crucial matter of succession
by a most unusual step. He announced that he was
departing for the Holy Land. In his absence,
although it is perfectly clear that the count had no
intention of returning, he appointed his brother,
Raymond, count of Saint-Gilles, to rule in his
stead. Within five years William was dead and his
brother had assumed the title, despite the fact that
Raymond’s claim to Toulouse was highly disputable. Nevertheless, in law, as in all things, might
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 270
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
became right. Raymond was a fifty-year old male
on the scene, the reins of power already in his
hands; his niece but a nineteen-year-old female
living beyond the Pyrenees.
Philippa, seething, could expect no help from
her husband, since at that time he was fully occupied in a bitter campaign of reconquest against the
Berber Moors, who had slowly managed to gain
control of most of Spain. When Sancho Ramirez
was killed by an arrow at the siege of Huesca, she
determined to remarry as quickly as possible with
the object of allying herself to a man who would
help her regain her patrimony. It is not surprising
that her choice fell upon Duke William of Aquitaine, a handsome man who knew how to woo a
woman and who could offer a position worthy of
her station in life. More important, William assured her that at the earliest opportunity she
would get back Toulouse. He would see to it. Not
that he had any intention of invading her native
land. On the contrary, he greatly preferred occupations more pleasurable than war, although he always fought fearlessly when conflict could not be
avoided. Momentous events were just beginning
to take shape would enable him to make good his
promise at a much earlier date than he or Philippa
ever dreamed.
At Clermont, on a hazy day in November
1095, Pope Urban kindled the fires of the First
Crusade, igniting a flame that would burn for
three centuries.
Duke William IX was not among the supporters of these ideas or one of those who spoke about
wresting the Holy Lands from the infidels. Sometime later, during Urban’s stay in Clermont, William personally expressed sympathy for the
pope’s Crusade, but he did not commit himself.
Instead he invited the pope to visit his court. In
view of the duke’s prestige and rank, Urban spent
Christmas of 1095 in Limoges and the following
January arrived in Poitiers, where William arranged a splendid reception in his honor. During
their many meetings over the course of the next
month, Urban must have sensed that something
was amiss despite William’s promises of support.
While the subject of their discussions is unknown, William may have hinted of a plan beginning to form in his mind. Since that day in November when Urban spoke at Clermont, one of
October 1995
the first and greatest lords to respond had been
Philippa’s uncle, Count Raymond of Toulouse.
Not only had Raymond been stirred to take the
cross, but he was quickly emerging as the main
organizer of the Crusade. With Raymond away,
William thought, what better opportunity to advance his wife’s claim to the county of Toulouse?
If he mentioned this line of reasoning to Urban,
he must have met with thorough disapproval, for
the pope had promised that the lands and family of
any Crusader would be safeguarded in his absence,
that any act of aggression would be regarded as a
mortal sin and the perpetrator’s soul damned forever.
For the moment, William did nothing. In the
fall of 1096, Count Raymond rode out from Toulouse at the head of an army numbering 100,000.
He also took his young wife, Elvira, and an infant
son, who would die on the journey. For Raymond, it was the beginning of a new life, because
he had taken an oath never to return. Aging, blind
in one eye, seeking a proper ending for his years,
he would remain in Outremer, the land across the
sea, and establish a new dynasty. Relinquishing
his claim to the countship, he nevertheless stubbornly refused to return the domain to a woman.
Instead, he left in charge his eldest son, Bertrand,
in charge.
Still, William took no immediate action. Not
until the spring of 1098 did he and Philippa march
into her homeland, taking the city of Toulouse
without a blow being struck or a life lost. Neither
she nor William regarded the act as aggression.
They were merely asserting a claim that they believed just and right. Others objected strenuously,
and certain ecclesiastics hastened to Rome in an
effort to persuade Urban that the duke should be
excommunicated. The matter mushroomed to such
heights that the bishop of Poitiers was forced to
hurry to the papal court, where he interceded for
his duke. On that occasion, William escaped censure. Later, he would not be so fortunate. His relations with the Church were never to be cordial
again.
The year following her return to Toulouse,
Philippa gave birth to a son, who would later be
called William the Toulousain, after the city of
his birth, and who would become the father of
Eleanor of Aquitaine. In the same year that Wil-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 271
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
liam X was born, news began drifting back to Europe of the capture of Jerusalem by the crusading
army. The Holy Land had been regained. Count
Raymond, Duke Godfrey, and the other great
princes were said to be living in palaces encrusted
with gold and jewels, wearing sables and silky
gossamer robes and lolling on Damascene couches, where Sudanese slaves served them chilled
wine. So far, few of the Crusaders had returned,
but the tales of glory preceding them were widely
believed. Meanwhile, the twenty-seven year-old
William, undisputed master of an enviable fief,
was having second thoughts about the Crusade.
Although not a particularly devout man, neither
was he devoid of religious feeling. His suddenly
kindled desire to see the Holy Land had little to do
with either religion or, as was the case with some
enthusiastic Crusaders, plunder. Rather, William
burned with a feverish desire to see something of
the world. The Crusade was the great adventure of
his generation, and he had missed it, a mistake he
resolved to remedy by organizing an army of his
own. In raising funds, he preferred to avoid imposing oppressive taxation on his people. Instead,
he attempted to mortgage his domain. This was
not an uncommon step in those crusading times,
but it was usually done on a much smaller scale.
His first feeler went out to William Rufus, king
of England. This offer was readily acceptable to
the son of William the Conqueror. Rufus believed
that the duke would never be able to redeem the
pledge. Before the transaction could be closed,
Rufus was killed in a hunting accident. William’s
next move must have outraged Philippa, who was
happily settled forever, she believed, in her palace
at Toulouse. Her husband turned to Count Raymond’s son Bertrand, the man Philippa had displaced, and offered to mortgage her lands. They
would, William recklessly promised, give up all
rights to Toulouse in exchange for a sum that,
even though considerable, Bertrand eagerly agreed
to raise. Within a few months, Philippa found
herself hustled back to Poitiers, where she was to
rule in William’s absence, and William himself
departed down the dusty white road toward the
Rhine with an army of sixty thousand soldiers and
pilgrims.
His expedition turned out to be anything but
romantic. On September 5, 1101, near the town
October 1995
of Heraclea in Asia Minor, the Turks swept down
and annihilated his entire army. William, standing
on a nearby hill and weeping bitterly, watched his
forces slaughtered before he fled with a few survivors. Behind he left only corpses and rusting armor. Ordericus Vitalis would write that when
William returned from the Crusade in 1102, “He
sang before the princes and the great assemblies of
Christians of the miseries of his captivity among
the Saracens, using rhymed verse jovially modulated.”
The chronicler was mistaken, for William had
never been captured. After Heraclea, he sought
asylum at the splendidly exotic court of Antioch.
Bohemund I, prince of Antioch, was being held
captive by the Moslems, but his nephew Tancred,
acting as regent, gave William a warm reception
and the opportunity to recover from his shocking
defeat amid an atmosphere of luxury and pleasure.
It was there that William familiarized himself
with the Moorish songs then popular in Syria,
and there is little doubt that his visit to Antioch
helped to shape the poetry he would soon begin to
write. In September 1102, William visited Jerusalem, where further campaigns against the Moslems were being planned by King Baldwin, but he
declined to participate. War, never terribly appealing to him, certainly held no lure at this point.
At home again, his restlessness presumably
purged during his eighteen months abroad, William settled down to write what would become
known as the first troubadour poetry. His love
poems, and those of the men and women he inspired, brought to perfection the type of lyric that
has continued in Western culture down to the
present time. His poetic vision did not, however,
spring full-blown from a vacuum. Although some
of the influences remain a matter of conjecture,
they would logically include the Latin verse of the
clerics, an oriental influence from his encounters
with Moors and Saracens, the cadences of Church
music, and the native popular songs of wandering
goliards, many of them unfrocked priests and runaway students who sang of love in Latin rhymes.
Nor were the ethereal themes of courtly love,
l’amour courtois, full-fledged in William’s lyrics.
Although he delighted in the beauty of women and
sang the praises of love, no secularized Virgin
Marys appear in his cantos. The duke’s view of
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 272
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
women is wholly and undisguisedly carnal, the
outcome of the lover’s quest is decidedly physical
rather than platonic. The significant departure in
his sensuous poems was the egalitarian idea that a
man could not demand a woman’s love; she must
freely consent to bestow it. The duke was a downto-earth man whose passionate pursuit of a lady
ended happily with “my hands beneath her cloak.”
Over the course of the next thirteen years William’s court became the center of European culture. Not the least of its attractions was the joyous song maker himself. During those years, too,
the duke’s family grew rapidly. Although Philippa’s dream of ruling Toulouse was temporarily
shattered, she dutifully fulfilled the requirements
of medieval womanhood by producing, after
young William, five daughters and then, a last
child, another son. She seems to have successfully ignored her husband’s amorous exploits, which
were common knowledge, since he did not hesitate to celebrate them in verse. So widespread became the scandals that they found their way into
the contemporary chronicles. William of Malmesbury related with relish that the duke erected “near
the castle of Niort, certain buildings after the form
of a little monastery, and used to talk idly about
placing therein an abbey of prostitutes, naming
several of the most abandoned courtesans, one as
abbess, another as prioress; and declaring that he
would fill up the rest of the offices in like
manner.”
This tale sounds very much like one of William’s sly digs toward Philippa, because over the
years, and to the duke’s undisguised dismay, his
wife had grown devoutly religious. She had become a convert to the teachings of a Breton reformer, Robert d’Arbrissel, who preached, among
other heresies, the superiority of women. In l099,
d’Arbrissel and his followers settled at Fontevrault
in the forest near the border of Anjou and built an
abbey dedicated to the Virgin Mary. His abbey,
however, was unique, because Fontevrault housed
both monks and nuns under the rule of an abbess.
Robert d’Arbrissel believed that women were better administrators than men on account of their
organizational experience gained in raising families and managing households, a view of feminine supremacy bound to attract Philippa. Her
passionate devotion to d’Arbrissel and his ideas
October 1995
annoyed William, who, despite his obsession with
women, was not quite prepared to concede their
supremacy. He objected to the great amount of
time that his wife gave to Fontevrault and to the
influence that d’Arbrissel and other ecclesiastics
wielded over her, but his frank boredom with her
as a wife was compounded by the fact that, now in
his early forties, he had reached the dangerous age
when men are apt to indulge in foolishness.
By this time, the Church heartily disapproved
of William. It could not sanction either his affairs
with women nor the worldliness of his court.
William found himself constantly at odds with
them over many matters. In 1114, the bishop of
Poitiers had threatened to excommunicate William
over an alleged infringement of the Church’s tax
privileges. William, furious, had stormed into the
Cathedral of Saint-Pierre with sword drawn just as
the prelate was about to pronounce the anathema.
Flinging himself upon Bishop Peter and seizing
him by the neck, he shouted, “I will kill you if
you do not absolve me!”
The startled bishop pretended to comply with
absolution, but when at last William released
him, he calmly finished reading out the excommunication. Then he thrust forward his neck and
said meekly, “Strike, then. Go ahead, strike.”
Hesitating for a moment, the duke sheathed his
sword and replied with one of the tart remarks for
which he was famous. “Oh, no,” he retorted. “I
don’t love you enough to send you to paradise.”
(13)
The following year, William’s quarrels with the
Church escalated after an incident that astonished
even the blase Aquitainians. Under the pretext of
keeping Poitou obedient, he had fallen into the
habit of making extensive journeys around the
county. Philippa, once again in control of Toulouse, rarely accompanied him.
On one of
these trips he made the acquaintance of a viscountess with the provocative name of Dangereuse, the
wife of Viscount Aimery of Chatellerault. This
most immoderate lady formed an exuberant attachment for William who, to understate the matter,
reciprocated. Later that year, while Philippa was
in Toulouse, William cemented his relationship
with the beautiful viscountess by setting off at a
gallop along the Clain River road to Chatellerault,
where, the story goes, he snatched the faintly pro-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 273
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
testing lady from her bedchamber and carried her
back to Poitiers.
It is unlikely that the eager viscountess protested vehemently, if at all, for she seemed quite
prepared to abandon husband and children for the
dashing duke. At home, William installed her in
his new keep, known as the Maubergeonne Tower, which he had recently added to the ducal palace.
Before long, the amused Poitevins were calling
his mistress La Maubergeonne. There was no
question of hiding Dangereuse, nor did the lovers
apparently practice discretion. Therefore, when
Philippa returned from Toulouse and discovered a
rival living in her own palace, her patience was
sorely tried. Eyes blazing, she appealed first to her
friends at court, then to the Church. With little
trouble she was able to persuade the papal legate,
Giraud, to speak to her husband about his imprudent behavior. William replied jokingly to the legate, who happened to be as bald as an egg, “Curls
will grow on your pate before I shall part with the
viscountess.” (14) Although William’s sentence
of excommunication was renewed, he failed to
take the matter seriously and, to Philippa’s disgust, had a portrait of Dangereuse painted on his
shield.
By 1116, Philippa could no longer tolerate the
situation. She had wept bitterly over her husband’s affair with the elegant viscountess, a woman younger and prettier than herself. For years she
had been obliged to put up with his infidelities,
with songs and poems of his sexual conquests,
with his blithely pawning her heritage to Bertrand
so that he could play the crusading hero at her expense. She had borne him seven children and
managed his lands with admirable efficiency, and
now, in repayment, he had mortified her by bringing a strumpet into her palace. Her heart full of
rancor, gathering the remains of her shredded
pride, Philippa withdrew from a situation, at once
ridiculous and demeaning, by retreating to the Abbey of Fontevrault. William did not attempt to
stop her.
Since Fontevrault’s beginnings some twenty
years earlier, this remarkable religious institution
had become a popular mecca for aristocratic women. If its abbesses were widows plucked from the
nobility, they were no less highborn than the
women who came there as novices or those who
October 1995
merely sought a restful retreat after an active career
as wife and mother. Among the women living
there when Philippa arrived was, ironically, William’s first wife, Ermengarde, who vacillated between the secular and the religious throughout her
life. A benefactress of the Abbey of Clairvaux,
she also built the monastery of Buzay near Nantes
and would end her life as a nun. She and Philippa,
it is said, became close friends. But despite Philippa’s great dedication to the abbey and to the ideal of feminine superiority on which it was based,
she was able to find little contentment living there
as a rejected wife. Full of resentment and anger,
she could not accept the fact that William had
treated her shamefully by tossing her aside for a
concubine. She soon disappeared from history, the
records stating only that she died on November
28, 1118, whether from illness or wretchedness
there is no way of knowing.
Little is known, too, about the viscountess of
Chatellerault, except for the obvious inference:
she was a woman who did as she pleased and who
cared little for public opinion. At the time of her
"abduction," Dangereuse had been married for
about seven years and had borne three children:
Aenor, Hugh, and Ralph. While her husband could
not have been pleased about being openly cuckolded, nonetheless the fact remained that the incorrigible William was his liege lord, and had Viscount Aimery objected strongly (for even in Aquitaine wife stealing was a faux pas) there was really
little that he could do to alter the situation. As
time passed, it became clear to all that La Maubergeonne had come to stay, and her presence at
court became more or less taken for granted.
Although Dangereuse could never become the
official duchess of Aquitaine, she determined that
her relationship with William be recognized in
some manner. After several years, she proposed
the ingenious scheme of marrying his eldest son,
William, to her daughter, Aenor; if she could not
be duchess, then her daughter would hold that title
in her stead. And it is a tribute to her perseverance
that the duke finally agreed. The marriage did not
take place without opposition. One of the main
objectors was young William himself. When
Dangereuse first arrived at court, he was barely
sixteen, a strapping lad who towered over his father. He had a prodigious appetite. It was later
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 274
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
claimed that he ate enough for eight men and already showed signs of a stubborn, quarrelsome nature. Although he had inherited his father’s
charming manner, the resemblance between father
and son ended there. One chronicler contended that
the boy, provoked beyond endurance by the injury
that his father’s liaison had done to his mother,
revolted in a seven-year struggle that ended only
with his capture by the duke. While the records
flatly contradict this theory, nonetheless it must
be concluded that young William did not adapt to
the changes in his family life without great difficulty. Although the idea of marrying the daughter
of his father’s mistress may have been distasteful
to him, the will of La Maubergeonne finally prevailed, and the marriage took place in 1121.
Both his contemporaries and scholars of posterity have been baffled by William IX. First there is
his unexpected gift of versifying, in a mixture of
Lemosin and Poitevin. He may have been inspired
by Arab songs; his father had fought in Spain and
brought back Moorish slave girls, and William
himself knew Syria as well as Spain.
Whatever his inspiration, he was unquestionably a most competent poet, eleven of whose
pieces have survived. Some are unashamedly licentious, although one, “Pos de chantar m’es pres
talenz,” pays a melancholy farewell to earthly
joys: (15)
“Since now I have a mind to sing
I’ll make a song of that which saddens me,
That no more in Poitou or Limousin,
Shall I love’s servant be . . .”
The originality of a great lord turning troubadour was accompanied by less admirable eccentricities. In one of the earliest known examples of
heraldry, he had his concubine Dangerosa’s likeness painted on his shield, explaining repeatedly
that he wanted her over him in battle just as he
was over her in bed. He announced his intention
of building a special whore house for his convenience, just outside Niort, in the shape of a small
nunnery (16). His frivolity, his satirical wit and
his cynicism disturbed contemporaries. “Brave and
gallant but too much of a jester, behaving like
some comedian with joke upon joke,” Orderic Vitalis says of him. Orderic is supported by William
October 1995
of Malmesbury, who speaks of the duke as a giddy, unsettled kind of man “finding pleasure only
in one nonsense after another, listening to jests
with his mouth wide open in a constant guffaw.”
Although never a clown herself, Eleanor took after
this grandfather in her sarcastic wit and in the frivolity of her early years.
There was an uncomfortable legend about William IX that Eleanor seems to have remembered.
A holy hermit came to him, protesting in God’s
name at the rape of Dangerosa. He was received
with the duke’s usual mocking banter. The hermit
thereupon laid a curse on William – neither he nor
his descendants, whether through the male or the
female line, would ever know happiness in their
children.
When Eleanor was old, bishop Hugh of Lincoln (St. Hugh) often told this story, saying that
he had heard it from her husband, Henry II, and the
king must have heard it from Eleanor herself.
The more censorious of William IX’s contemporaries were inclined to attribute his troubles to
his failings of character. Certainly, he did little to
earn the approval of his bishops. The sensitivity
of his love poetry, which has excited the admiration of modern critics, appalled them. The biblical
echoes in his verses no doubt struck them as blasphemous. Yet, after Amatus’ elevation to the see
of Bordeaux, William may have calculated that,
since he could not hope for ecclesiastical support,
there were political gains to be made in blatant
anti-clericalism. His position attracted sympathy
among young laymen exasperated by clerical selfrighteousness.
The jibes, the sardonic humor, the sexual
imaginings of William’s poetry were part and parcel of the chivalric ethos for which his court was
famed, and which attracted to his mouvance natives of most of southern France. The duke set the
style for knighthood as he set it for troubadour
poetry. And here, perhaps, lay the rub. Spanish
expeditions, crusades, or even aggressive action in
Normandy and Toulouse, had far more appeal
among the adventure-hungry group that William
gathered about him than the endless small wars
within the duchy. If the duke’s “instability” (the
word is William of Malmesbury’s) (17) should be
blamed for his failures, it was the instability of
the crusader, rather than that of the romantic poet,
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 275
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
that was culpable.
For most of the eleventh century, excluding a
few short years at the end, relations between the
dukes of Aquitaine and the kings of France were
cordial but infrequent. William V was at the
French court in 1027; Richer recounts that Robert
the Pious had earlier assisted him against the
count of La Marche. Guy Geoffrey’s position as
first liegeman of the king of France was openly
proclaimed at the coronation of Philip I, when the
duke headed the parade of fideles. He later proved
his fidelity against Gregory VII’s attempts to lure
him into opposition to Philip I in 1074. (But his
homage entailed no military obligation; for when
Philip I sought help against the Normans in
1076, the king had to hurry to Poitiers to beg for
it.) William IX also attempted to prevent an ecclesiastical synod being convened in Poitiers in
1100 to condemn Philip’s marriage. His failure
merely added to his evil reputation in the church’s
eyes. Relations were usually governed by goodwill but not, it seems, by any sense of inferiority
on the part of the duke of Aquitaine. He did not
claim to be royal. In many respects, though, he
was at least the equal of his king.
The Pilgrims’ Book of Compostela is not a
source that inspires even minimal confidence. Yet
its description of the peoples of south-west France
is perhaps worth repeating, on account of its vividness. The author admired the Poitevins, who
were heroes, swift on horseback, elegant in their
dress, handsome, witty, and hospitable. But their
neighbors were less attractive: “The Saintonge
people already speak in a rather uncouth way, but
those of Bordeaux are even rougher.” And the
Gascons fascinated by their strangeness: “The
Gascons are frivolous, talkative, and full of
mockery, debauched, drunken, greedy, dressed in
rags, and they have no money; nevertheless they
have been well taught how to fight and are remarkable in their hospitality towards the poor.”
Whatever the value of these impressions, they
do at least point to contemporary awareness that
there was little cultural homogeneity within the
realms under the sway of the counts of Poitou.
north of Fezensac and Lomagne. Further south,
the intervention of the kings of Aragon in Bearn
and Bigorre increased substantially in the early
years of the century, strengthened not only by geographical proximity but also by the ambitions of
the viscounts of Bearn and Bigorre in the Spanish
reconquista. Local experiments in representative
government in these areas testified to the depth of
Spanish political influence. Then Armagnac,
whose count had disputed Guy Geoffrey’s claim to
the duchy, always afterwards leant towards Aragon. In 1131, Alfonso I of Aragon launched an attack in the Bayonne region that indicated the potential for Spanish expansion in the area. Only the
penetration of Poitevin coinage into southern
Gascony went some way to counteracting Aragonese influence. Further north, Poitevin power
was more effectively displayed; but the Bordelais
alone remained completely under the duke’s administration.
Within the frontiers of Aquitaine, the duke’s
regular passages from Poitiers to Saintes and Bordeaux continued to create resentment in the counts
of Angouleme and La Marche. That their bitterness could be dangerous was demonstrated by their
opposition to William X’s plan to marry the heiress of the Limoges viscounty. In the face of their
protests, the duke had to concede defeat and watch
with chagrin her marriage to Vulgrin, count of
Angouleme, with its consequent threat to ducal
control in Limoges. (18) Without skillful diplomacy to soften the blows, incidents of this kind
could threaten the break-up of the duchy.
WILLIAM X
William X, successor of William IX and father
of Eleanor of Aquitaine inherited a duchy in trouble. There was even trouble within Poitou. In
1111 a war between William IX and Hugh VII de
Lusignan, backed by the lord of Parthenay, provoked an Angevin incursion. The same quarrel
flared up again in 1118, only to be dampened by
William X’s destruction of Parthenay. The temporary peace thus secured was expensive, both in the
resources needed to secure it, and in its long-term
consequences; for after this, the lords of PartheThe defeat of William IX in 1120 had effective- nay, though much weakened, could be relied on as
ly limited Poitevin control in Gascony to the area allies for any rebels in northern Poitou; and the
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 276
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
lords of Lusignan had gained confidence in their
potential as trouble-makers. This unfortunate legacy was compounded by William X’s ecclesiastical policy. His blunder in adhering to the Roman
Anacletus in the papal schism of 1130 brought
him up against the bishops of Limoges, Saintes,
Perigueux, and Poitiers, the last of whom was exiled for five years between 1130 and 1135. Until
he finally gave in to St Bernard’s pressure in
1134, William’s obstinacy provided his political
opponents with plenty of propagandistic ammunition; and, unlike his father’s anti-clericalism,
William’s Anacletan sympathies provoked no
special sympathy among his lay subjects, to
compensate for the animosity they stirred up in
the church.
Duke William X, was almost as cultured as
William IX, just as colorful and still more pugnacious. He was a patron of poets and there were
many troubadours at his court, including foreigners from Aragon, Castile and Navarre, and from
Italy, and there was even a Welshman called
Bledhri. When this duke died, his Gascon friend,
Cercamon, wrote a lament that mourned his passing and the end of his munificence. However,
William X was better known for quarreling than
for verses. A man of huge physique and enormous
strength, he was an outsize personality in every
way. He was said to eat enough for eight ordinary
mortals at each meal. He was unwise enough to
involve himself in the Church schism that began
in 1130, supporting the anti-pope Anacletus
against Innocent II. He menaced prelates, ignored
excommunications and interdicts that stopped the
bells ringing in entire dioceses. He was completely undaunted by the threats of divine punishment
that issued from the redoubtable abbot of Clairvaux, St. Bernard, and refused to remove a schismatic bishop. When Bernard deliberately entered
his territory and publicly celebrated mass at
Parthenay, the duke burst into the church in full
armor, to teach the infuriating monk a lesson.
However, William had met his match. Bernard advanced on him, holding up the consecrated Host,
and spoke to such effect that the duke fell to the
ground rigid with fear and foaming at the mouth.
Although he had lost his battle with the Church,
William in no way abated his quarrelsomeness
when dealing with his vassals. Only his death
October 1995
prevented the whole of the Limousin from rising
in revolt.
Despite his less adventurous external policies,
William X did little to solve the problems his
predecessor had left him. In the matter of succession, he failed miserably. His only brother Raymond had quit his homeland to become prince of
Antioch many years before. His own marriage to
the daughter of the viscount of Chatellerault undertaken to strengthen his political position in
Poitou had resulted only in two daughters. So, before departing on the pilgrimage to Compostela,
on which he died in 1137, William married the
elder of the two, Eleanor, to the young prince
Louis Capet, in the hope that, as king, Louis
would show himself a good overlord and husband
in protecting Eleanor’s rights. But immediately
after the wedding, Louis set off on a progress of
Aquitaine, arranged an inauguration ceremony at
Bordeaux, granted and signed charters as duke of
Aquitaine, and treated his wife’s lands as his new
possessions. His assertiveness provoked dislike
among the traditional friends of the ducal house,
though not among its enemies. After this foray,
he withdrew to the north. Neither he nor Eleanor
visited the duchy for any length of time for the
rest of their marriage (though he passed through in
1141). Orderic recorded that “Louis, king of
France, leading an expedition against the Goths
and Gascons, is haunted by unremitting cares.”
(19) The rarity of his visits pleased the count of
Angouleme and Geoffrey, lord of Rancon, his
lieutenant in the area. For the lesser of the Aquitaine lords, the poor first impression he had created was compounded by his later indifference.
ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE
Finally, we come to Eleanor herself. Very little
is known of Eleanor’s mother, Aenor. She was
the daughter of the viscount of Chatellerault and
his wife Dangerosa, William IX’s concubine, the
Maubergeonne. In contrast to her colorful mother,
Aenor appears to have been a rather timid person
who lacked the smallest semblance of forcefulness. Puppet-like, she moved through life doing
the things expected of her and leaving behind no
trace of an interesting or even distinct personality.
Presumably her mousy character had been in-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 277
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
fluenced by the unorthodox events of her early
life, such as her abandonment as a child when her
mother suddenly disappeared one day. Perhaps it
was reinforced by the stigma of being the daughter
of a notorious adulteress. Did Dangereuse believe
that she was making up for Aenor’s early deprivation by arranging a brilliant marriage? Undeniably, the position into which she finagled Aenor
was highly desirable, but, on the other hand, there
is no evidence that it brought the girl happiness.
No more than fourteen and possibly younger,
Aenor moved into the Poitevin court under her
mother’s watchful eye and set about the difficult
task of trying to please a husband who must have
regarded her with something less than enthusiasm.
Careful to give no offense, she soon realized that
her main obligation, the route by which she
might gain favor, was to provide her awesome father-in-law with grandchildren. Luckily, she became pregnant within a few months.
Aenor had three children: William Aigret (who
died when still a boy), Eleanor of Aquitaine and
Petronilla (who is sometimes called Aelith).
There is a whimsical legend that the name Eleanor
in Provencal, Alienor is derived from the Latin
pun Alia Aenor (20), i.e. “Another Aenor.” The
duchess Aenor appears to have obtained the appointment of her uncle as bishop of Poitiers, perhaps because he was a supporter of Anacletus, and
she was probably excommunicated with her husband as an adherent of the anti-pope. There is a
story that, a few days before Eleanor’s birth, a
pilgrim approached her parents with the mysterious prophecy “From you will come nothing
good.” This legend grew up afterward, and it is
customary to remember prophetic statements once
time has already demonstrated the course of events. Unfortunately, few details are available
about Eleanor’s entry into the world. The one
other detail to survive is that Aenor died at Talmont, about the year 1130, when Eleanor was
only eight years old.
William X seems to have been noticeably fond
of his eldest daughter, making her his constant
companion. In consequence, Eleanor’s childhood
was passed under many roofs. Like all rulers of
the high Middle Ages, her father was perpetually
busy administering justice and bringing rebellious
vassals to heel. Eleanor went with him. Inside the
October 1995
Roman city walls of Bordeaux she lived in the
Ombriere palace with its tall keep, the
“Crossbowman,” although she must also have
stayed at the rambling old Tutelle palace just outside. When at Poitiers she inhabited the splendid
Maubergeon Tower, which had once housed her
grandfather’s ladies. There were similar keeps and
palaces at Limoges, Niort, St. Jean d’Angely,
Blaye, Melle, Bayonne and other towns, together
with all the fortresses of the vassals. In addition,
there were many rich abbeys that frequently had
the expensive honor of entertaining the ducal
household. There were also particularly favored
residences belonging to the duke, such as Belin
(near Bordeaux) and Talmont, a castle and hunting
lodge on the coast of Poitou.
Eleanor’s education was by no means confined
to needlework. She was taught to read Latin: first,
the prayers and services of the Church, then the
Bible, the writings of the fathers and Ovid. She
learned to such effect that later she was able to enjoy Latin comedies when they were performed before the court, and it is likely that she could speak
the language. She was certainly able to write it (a
rare accomplishment for a member of the laity).
She was also taught to read and write Provencal,
acquiring an expert knowledge of the gai saber
(joyous art), as the troubadours termed their craft.
Eleanor may well have picked up more than gai
saber from the troubadours. Many came from the
county of Toulouse, which (especially the town of
Albi) was the center of a new religion, a form of
Manichaeism. The romantic history of the Albigensians has obscured the nature of their beliefs.
They held all matter to be evil, procreation being
the ultimate sin. But such views intrigued poets
who practiced platonic love.
AQUITAINE AFTER THE MARRIAGE
OF ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE TO
HENRY PLANTAGENET
Eleanor’s first husband, Louis, was unpopular
among his peers. That fact explained the ease with
which Henry II established himself after his marriage with Eleanor in 1152. Unlike Louis, he had
the advantage of some acquaintance with the area,
as count of Anjou and the lord of Loudun. The
Poitevin lords who accepted him as duke of Aqui-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 278
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
taine may have realized that, for the first time
since the late tenth century, Angevin interests
could no longer be called into play against the ducal. If this was a loss for potential troublemakers,
it was a gain for everybody else. Unlike Louis,
Henry appreciated the need for personal government within the duchy. Before the Peace of Montmirail, in 1169, he visited often. Afterwards, until
1174, Eleanor, with their second son, Richard,
was in constant residence until Eleanor’s disgrace
and imprisonment in 1174, when Richard took
over. To reinforce this personal focus for loyalty,
Henry was represented in the duchy by a seneschal, in whose hands new vigor crept into the
conduct of business.
But neither the initial goodwill nor Henry’s
sensible ways of government could provide more
than temporary peace in a land which unsympathetic English chroniclers regarded as “plagued by
turbulent barons.” More charitably, it could be
seen as a federation held together only by weak
and conservative bonds of loyalty, regularly
strained by the competing interests of duke and
lords. In Poitou itself, Henry took the unusually
tough step of disinheriting the powerful viscount
of Thouars, who had supported his brother. For a
while, this act of overweening lordship intimidated potential opposition. But the lords of Lusignan
soon moved into alliance with the Rancon family,
natural opponents of the new ruler. In 1168, ably
seconded by the count of Angouleme, they led a
rebellion which caught Henry at an extremely inconvenient moment. In the course of it, his lieutenant, Patrick, earl of Salisbury, was slain. Only
the seriousness of his other problems caused the
king to make generous terms with the defeated rebels at Montmirail in 1169. He paid for it in
1173, when Geoffrey de Lusignan joined the
king’s sons in the great rebellion. Yet even now,
harsh measures were avoided. Geoffrey suffered
little. In fact, his self-confidence grew with every
unsuccessful coup in which he engaged. In 1177,
when Henry bought the county of La Marche
from its last count (who was setting out for Jerusalem and needed money) Geoffrey de Lusignan
put in an impudent counter-claim, to which he
and his family adhered with obstinacy until 1199,
when John was weak enough to concede it. (21)
The Angevinian unwillingness to crush the Lu-
October 1995
signans and Richard’s insistence upon the protection their interests during the Third Crusade has
exacted surprise with historians, yet Henry consistently followed Geoffrey le Bel’s line in seeking conciliation, no matter how often he was disappointed. The contrast with his treatment of the
viscount of Thouars was sharp.
If the Lusignans were the most troublesome of
the Poitevin vassals, the counts of Angouleme
were the least loyal of the major lords in the
duchy. Their participation in the revolts of 1168
and 1173 added weight to the rebels’ cause. In
1176, they rose against Richard’s rule, and were
joined for the first time by most of the duchy’s
chief families, the viscounts of Limoges, Ventadour, and Turenne, the lords of Chabanais and
Mastac. The ensuing campaign provided Richard
with his first opportunity to demonstrate that
military prowess for which he was soon to be
famed throughout Christendom. On this occasion,
the defeated rebels did suffer some confiscation of
property; but they were dispossessed neither of
their titles nor of their chief estates. William of
Angouleme led one last armed protest before he
departed on crusade in 1179, and his heirs remained to bother the Angevins for many years to
come.
So Henry and Richard were faced with regular
and open defiance. Preserving the duchy intact was
a full-time operation that not only absorbed the
superabundant Angevin energy but also imposed a
heavy burden on resources. The great castles erected across the land and the bands of mercenaries
paid to fight the duke’s cause were far from cheap.
Yet it may be that the costs involved were considerably less than the profits from tolls and customs
in the duchy: for the foundation of La Rochelle, in
1130, had both assisted and further stimulated the
flow of Atlantic trade, which Henry’s marriage
with Eleanor safeguarded. England was the perfect
market for Gascon wine, in that she produced rather little of her own, and was accessible by sea
(land transport of heavy wine-barrels was still an
uneconomic proposition). In addition, she needed
the dyes produced within Aquitaine for her clothmanufacture. In return, English grain, cloth, and
silver entered the duchy in sizable amounts. By
1180 this exchange was vital to the economies of
both regions. The profits it engendered ensured
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 279
THE PLANTAGENET FAMILIES
that, with Bordeaux and La Rochelle in his grasp,
the duke of Aquitaine was a wealthy man.
A trading surplus is suggested by the fact that
Angevin resources were sufficient not just to
maintain but also to extend ducal control. Though
the Aragonese could not be ejected from the south
of Gascony, their influence was limited by a campaign of Richard’s in 1178. As a consequence, the
count of Bigorre swore fealty to the duke and surrendered two castles as surety. This small incident
proved to be a turning-point in the area. Even
more importantly, Henry II’s aggressive campaign
against Toulouse brought him lordship over
Quercy in 1159 and the homage of Raymond V in
1173.
In the Auvergne, he rebutted Louis VII’s
claims in 1167. In 1177, he obtained a judgment
from the Auvergne barons that the suzerainty of
the county belonged to the duke, the king’s rights
being limited to patronage of the bishopric of
Clermont. This diplomatic triumph was spoiled
by Louis’ refusal to accept the verdict, the consequence of his pique at Henry’s growing influence
in Berry. In 1177, Henry had demonstrated the reality of his control among the southern barons in
Berry by successfully enforcing his claim as overlord to the wardship of the heiress of Deols,
whom he married to his trusted servant, Baldwin
de Redvers. The acquisition of Quercy and Deols
were trifles for a king whose lands already
stretched from the Pyrenees to the Tweed. But
they were clear signs that his government in the
south was dynamic, that its competence went
beyond mere self-preservation.
By 1180, though Henry and Richard’s lordship
relied more blatantly on force than their predecessors’, the periodic rebellions they faced were always crushed. They almost seem like tournaments, occasions for display rather than for the
resolution of conflicts.
Richard was admired as well as feared within
Aquitaine; his courts at Poitiers and Limoges attracted the duchy’s lords as well as its troubadours. And Henry had taken care that his son
should exploit the ancient traditions of the land
that he ruled. If the inauguration ceremony that
Richard underwent in 1170 was the same as the
one described in a surviving early thirteenth-century account, then his coronation was deliberately
October 1995
reminiscent of the past: Richard was the direct heir
of the Carolingian sub-kings of Aquitaine. (22)
Aquitaine could now see and determine the benefits of personal rule. For Poitou, the incorporation within the Angevin empire strengthened and
extended the grip of northern culture, as Angevin
legal custom and Angevin coins spread widely
across the county.
Notes and sources:
1 Scherman, Katherine, The Birth of France,
1989, Paragon House, New York. page xi.
2 Scherman, pages 244-245.
3 Scherman, pages 266-267.
4 Simson, B. von, Ed., Annales Vedastini, 1905,
MGH SSRG, Hanover and Leipzig, page 67.
5 Doniol, H., Ed., Cartulaire de Brioude, 1863,
Clermont-Ferrand, number 309.
6 Lafaurie, J., Numismatique des Carolingiens
aux Capetiiens, 1970, page 117-137.
7 Dunbabin, Jean, France in the Making, 8431180, 1985, Oxford University Press, page 60.
8 Chavanon, J. Chronique, 1897, Paris, page 152.
9 Chronique, page 163.
10 Martindale, J., The Origins of the Duchy of
Aquitaine and the Government of the Counts of
Poitou, 902-1137, 1965, an unpublished doctoral
thesis for Oxford University, Oxford, England,
page 50.
11 Chronique, page 163.
12 Seward, Desmond, Eleanor of Aquitaine, The
Mother Queen, 1978, Dorset Press, New York,
page 14
13 Meade, Marion, Eleanor of Aquitaine, a Biography, 1977, Hawthorn/Dutton, New York, page
15.
14 Meade, page 15.
15 Seward, page 16.
16 Seward, page 17.
17 Stubbs, W., Ed., Lubricus, Gesta Regnum ii,
1889, London, page 510.
18 Dunbabin, page 341.
19 Dunbabin, page 342.
20 Seward, page 18.
21 Painter, S., The Lords of Lusignan in the
Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 1957, Speculum
23, pages 27-47.
22. Dunbabin, page 345.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 280
ANGLO-SAXON ROYAL SAINTS
ANGLO–SAXON ROYAL SAINTS:
LEADERS IN TWO WORLDS
Anglo–Saxon Royal Saints:
Leaders in Two Worlds
by John Damon
Dept. Of English, ML 445
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Only kings became saints through death
in battle with pagans! Many Anglo-Saxons
died in battle fighting pagans. None of
them became saints thereby except for
kings.
What does this tell us about the relationship between royalty and sanctity? Perhaps
it presents royal activities as sacred, not
secular, duties. A king is fulfilling his
sacred duty by protecting the people and the
church through warfare. A thane who dies
in battle is fulfilling his secular duty to
obey his king, no matter who the enemy
is. A queen who becomes an abbess has
chosen sacred over secular duties. So has a
thane who becomes a monk. Neither could
become a saint by being a good queen or a
good thane. Only one or two kings become
saints by being especially holy, and in the
case of Edward the Confessor the political
reasons for his sainthood are very obvious:
his lack of an heir, interpreted as devout
celibacy, allowed the new regime, William
the Conqueror and the Normans, to seize
England. The only other pious king entered
a monastery before his death.
October 1995
One interesting aspect of English society in the
period before the Norman Conquest is the phenomenon of royal saints. The conversion of England began in 597, when Pope Gregory the Great
sent a band of missionaries to the southeastern
kingdom of Kent in an attempt to convert the pagan Anglo-Saxons to Roman Christianity. (1) At
the same time, Celtic Christians from Ireland were
carrying out their own missionary work in the
northern kingdoms of Northumbria. As the two
missionary movements made headway in their
Christianizing efforts, first one and then another
royal Anglo-Saxon came to be regarded as a saint.
This process continued throughout the AngloSaxon era, and included kings, queens, aethelings
(princes), and innumerable sisters, daughters,
brothers, wives, and sons of the kings of AngloSaxon England.
Scholarly opinion has been divided about the
fundamental causes of this phenomenon. William
A. Chaney, in his book The Cult of Kingship in
Anglo-Saxon England, (2) argued that the Christian veneration of royal saints was a direct outgrowth of a tradition of sacral kingship in pagan
Germanic society. More recently, scholars like Janet Nelson, Susan Ridyard, and David Rollason
(3) have rejected sacrality as the root cause for the
tradition of Anglo-Saxon royal sainthood, stressing instead the political and social processes by
which individual members of Anglo-Saxon royalty attained an aura of sanctity and came to be regarded as saints. However, an aspect of AngloSaxon kingship which may account for the tradition of royal sainthood is the special role of
kings in Anglo-Saxon Christian society. Kings
moved, it was believed, in two worlds: they alone
functioned as leaders in both the sacred and secular
realms.
Probably the first royal Anglo-Saxon saint was
King Edwin of Northumbria, converted to Christianity in 627 and killed in 632 at the battle of
Hatfield Chase, defeated by the pagan kings Cadwallon and Penda. (4) Evidence for his veneration
is scanty, but records show that his body was preserved at the abbey of Whitby while his head was
enshrined at the cathedral in York. (5) His wife,
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 281
ANGLO-SAXON ROYAL SAINTS
Queen Æthelburga, was also venerated as a saint.
Other royal saints included King Oswald of
Northumbria, (6) King Oswine of Deira, (7) King
Æthelberht of East Anglia, (8) and the boy-king
Kenelm of Mercia. One of the most famous of
Anglo-Saxon royal saints was St. Edmund, King
and Martyr, an East Anglian monarch killed in
870 by the Vikings. (9) King Edward the Martyr,
(10) whose assassination in 978 or 979 catapulted his unlucky half-brother Æthelred “the Unready” to the throne, was the last royal martyr,
unless one believes the account in the thirteenthcentury Vita Haraldi, (11) which claims that Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon ruler, rather
than dying at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 as all
other historical records assert, ended his life as a
very pious and un-warlike hermit long after the
Norman Conquest. Harold’s predecessor on the
throne was also a saint: Edward the Confessor,
officially canonized in 1161. (12)
Why did so many of the kings of the AngloSaxons enter the ranks of the sanctified? Was it a
holdover from pagan ritual kingship, as William
Chaney has argued? Logic leans against this,
since, large as the list may seem, still only a
handful among the many kings of the Anglo-Saxons ever came to achieve saintly status. England
for much of the Anglo-Saxon period was divided
up into smaller kingdoms, so that the number of
Anglo-Saxon kings far exceeds the count of Angevins or Plantagenets. At any time before the
unification of England in the tenth century, there
would have been eight or more kings within the
area we now call England, and the Anglo-Saxon
Christian era stretched from around 600 until
1066, more than four and a half centuries. If
sainthood grew directly out of the sacral nature of
kingship, there would be hundreds of royal saints,
rather than fifty or so documented cases.
Then was it instead all a matter of power politics, kingdoms and monasteries vying for social
position, political power, and a part in the lucrative pilgrimage trade? Certainly these factors
played a part, as Rollason and Ridyard have ably
demonstrated, but they cannot fully account for
this unique and fascinating process. Similar forces
were at work in other cultures, and none of them
produced as extensive a group of royal saints as
Anglo-Saxon England. (13)
October 1995
There may be another, more fundamental reason
why royalty might have been held to a different
standard in heavenly affairs as well as earthly, at
least in Anglo-Saxon society. While there are examples of royal saints who achieved sainthood by
living lives of outstanding piety, including kings
like Edward the Confessor and the East Anglian
king Sigeberht (14) and a number of wives and
daughters of kings like Æthelthryth (15) and Sexburga, (16) most royal saints merely died in the
right way to achieve sainthood, either defeated by
pagans, like Oswald and Edmund, or murdered by
enemies, like Kenelm and Æthelberht. AngloSaxon men and women of many stations achieved
sainthood by a life of piety; only kings did so
merely by dying right. As Ridyard points out,
“The Anglo-Saxons did not, to my knowledge,
create a single martyred aristocrat” (249). More
importantly, Anglo-Saxon society did not create a
single aristocratic, non-royal saint who did not
abandon secular duties for the religious life. Nonroyal saints gave up their earthly responsibilities
for a life devoted exclusively to God. Royal saints
continued to serve both God and man, leaders in
both the secular and sacred realms.
This situation was not universally true. The
early Roman church produced many ordinary
Christians who achieved sainthood without abandoning their secular roles. These men and women
were not members of any religious order; some
were soldiers, others were matrons, government
officials, or young men and women not yet committed to any career. They died for their faith
while still engaged in their usual secular occupations, executed for refusing to sacrifice before pagan gods or to renounce the Christian faith, and as
a result they were, and many still are, venerated as
saints.
Anglo-Saxon England did not produce a comparable group of non-royal martyrs. St. Alban fits
this model of sainthood. (17) He is called England’s “proto-martyr” and was venerated by the
Anglo-Saxons, but he died in Roman Britain,
long before the arrival of the Angles, Saxons and
Jutes. The only Anglo-Saxon martyrs who were
neither clerics nor kings were the male children of
royal families, like the Kentish princes Æthelred
and Æthelbert, who may have been murdered because they were Christians, or Wigstan, a prince
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 282
ANGLO-SAXON ROYAL SAINTS
of Mercia. Perhaps they counted as kings-to-be,
the royal seed sprouting but not yet fully grown,
faithfully fulfilling their roles as kings in training.
Many an Anglo-Saxon cleric achieved
sainthood by fulfilling with extraordinary faithfulness the responsibilities of his station. Many royal saints who were members of royal families but
not kings came to sainthood through the performance of sacred duties in their roles as bishops,
archbishops, abbots, abbesses, hermits, monks,
and nuns. But only kings (or, in the cases of
Æthelred, Æthelberht, and Wigstan, kings-to-be)
gained sainthood while still pursuing their normal
secular responsibilities.
The obvious implication is that the duties of a
king were not regarded by Anglo-Saxons as secular duties. All other Anglo-Saxons were divided
into groups, sometimes referred to as secular and
religious “orders.” King Alfred, one of the most
outstanding men to ever sit on the throne of England and the only English king to be called “the
Great,” translated a number of important
books from Latin into Old English as part of a
program to revitalize Anglo-Saxon society after
the devastation of the Viking invasions. (18) He
writes in the preface to his translation of Pope
Gregory the Great’s Cura Pastoralis how the
kings of old were advised by both the secular and
religious orders, thereby gaining success both in
war and in wisdom. (19) Again, in his translation
of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, he describes how the king must have at his disposal
three orders of men, soldiers and clerics and farmers, through which a kingdom could function
properly. (20) The king was not a part of these
societal divisions. He alone moved freely in both
secular and religious realms, because as king he
stood outside the division of affairs into secular
and religious.
Nonetheless, a king could not achieve sanctity
merely by ruling well. It was not King Alfred the
Great, the defeater of the Danes and savior of the
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms from obliteration under
the tide of Viking invasions, whom tenth and
eleventh century Anglo-Saxons venerated as a
saint, but rather St Edmund, King and Martyr,
who died a martyr to the cause of resistance. Like
the early soldier-saints, for whom martyrdom
October 1995
washed clean the slate, erasing any stain caused by
participation in bloodshed or other acts of uncleanness, the Anglo-Saxon king could be assured
a special place in
heaven if he suffered martyrdom in carrying out
his Christian duties. If unmartyred, the king
would face the same Judgment Day weighing of
souls as his subjects, religious and lay alike, unless he had lived his life with the scrupulous chastity and piety of the purest of monks. And how
many kings could claim that? “Monk-kings,” says
Susan Ridyard, “were not popular among the Anglo-Saxons” (247). Edward the Confessor, Harold
Godwinson’s predecessor, was not a monk, but he
did gain sainthood by leading a pious and chaste
life. His failure to leave behind an heir to the
throne played a significant role in the short and
unhappy reign of King Harold. William the Conqueror’s claim to the throne of England would
have amounted to little if a child of Edward’s had
been there to wear the crown.
The responsibilities of kingship included too
many aspects of secular life normally forbidden
within the sanctified realm, including the bearing
of children and the fighting of wars, for most
kings to become saints. Yet unlike the earls, ealdormen, thanes, and churls who made up the secular orders, kings operated within the sacred realm,
and in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons many of
them attained to the highest ranks of the holy.
Anglo-Saxon kings were men who moved in two
worlds. They lived outside the boundaries of an
existence carefully divided into religious and lay,
secular and sacred, mundane and holy. Thus it was
that a select group of them, by faithfully performing until death the duties of an office at once
earthly and divine, came to be regarded as saints.
References, Notes and Bibliography:
1. For a comprehensive account of the conversion
of the Anglo-Saxons, see H. Mayr-Harting, The
Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England,
3rd ed. (London, 1990).
2. William A. Chaney, The Cult of Kingship in
Anglo-Saxon England: The Transition from Paganism to Christianity (Manchester, 1970).
3. See especially Janet Nelson, “Royal Saints and
Early Medieval Kingship,” Sanctity and Seculari-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 283
ANGLO-SAXON ROYAL SAINTS
ty, Studies in Church History 10 (Oxford, 1974),
39-44; Susan J. Ridyard, The Royal Saints of
Anglo-Saxon England: A Study of West Saxon
and East Anglian Cults, Cambridge Studies in
Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 9
(Cambridge, 1988); David W. Rollason, “The
Cults of Murdered Royal Saints in Anglo-Saxon
England,” Anglo-Saxon England 11 (1983): 1-22.
Other important works on the topic by Rollason
include “Lists of Saints’ Resting-places in Anglo-Saxon England,” Anglo-Saxon England 7
(1978): 61-93; The Mildrith Legend: A Study in
Early Medieval
Hagiography in England
(Leicester, 1982); and Saints and Relics in AngloSaxon England (Oxford, 1989).
4. An account of the conversion and death of
King Edwin appears in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ii.9-20; a good modern English translation
is Bede, A History of the English Church and
People, trans. Leo Sherley-Price (1955; rvsd R.
E. Latham, London 1968; rpt London, 1988) 11440.
5. The primary source of evidence for the cult of
King Edwin is The Earliest Life of Gregory the
Great by an Anonymous Monk of Whitby, ed.
and trans. Bertram Colgrave (Lawrence, KS,
1968).
6. Bede, History, iii.1-3, iii.6-13 , iv.14, pp.
141-45, 150-163, 229-32. For an Old English
version (with Modern English translation) of Oswald’s Vita, see Ælfric, Ælfric’s Lives of Saints,
ed. Walter W. Skeat, 4 vols., E.E.T.S. o.s. 76,
82, 94, and 114 (London, 1881-95; rpt, 2 vols.,
London, 1966), ii.26, pp. 124-143.
7. Bede, History, iii.14, 24, pp. 163-166, 18485.
8. For two Latin versions of the Life see M. R.
James, ed., “Two Lives of St. Ethelbert, King and
Martyr,” English Historical Review 32 (1917):
214-244.
9. For the original Latin Vita, see Abbo of
Fleury, Life of St Edmund, in Three Lives of
English Saints, ed. Michael Winterbottom
(Toronto, 1972) 65-87; the Old English version
with Modern English translation appears in Ælfric, Lives of Saints, ii.32, pp. 314-35.
10. See C. E. Fell, Edward King and Martyr,
Leeds Texts and Monographs, New Series 3
(Leeds, 1971).
October 1995
11. See The Life of King Harold Godwinson in
Three Lives of the Last Englishmen, trans.
Michael Swanton (New York and London, 1984).
12. For a modern biography, see Frank Barlow,
Edward the Confessor (Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1984); on Edward’s canonization, see esp. 280-81.
13. For comparisons between Anglo-Saxon royal
sainthood and similar phenomena in other cultures, see Nelson, “Royal Saints,” 39-42; Ridyard,
Royal Saints, 2-5, 248; Rollason, Saints and Relics, 125-26.
14. Bede, History, ii.15, iii.18, pp. 131, 170-71.
15. Bede, History , iv.3, 19, 22, pp. 209, 238-42,
245; Ælfric, Lives of Saints, i.20, pp. 432-41.
16. Bede, History, iii.8, iv.19, pp. 154, 239.
17. Bede, History, I.7, pp. 44-47; Ælfric, Lives of
Saints, i.19, pp. 414-431.
18. See Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge, ed.
and trans., Alfred the Great: Asser’s ‘Life of King
Alfred’ and Other Contemporary Sources (London,
1983).
19. Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, 124.
The Old English phrase Keynes and Lapidge translate as “both in religious and secular orders,” ge
godcundra hada ge woruldcundra, appears also in
the laws [i.e. I Edmund 1,
The Laws of the Kings of England From Edmund
to Henry I, ed. and trans. A. J. Robertson
(Cambridge, 1925), 6-7], and in charters (i.e.
“Record of Negotiations Between Æthelred, Earl
of the Mercians, and Berkeley Abbey,” Select
English Historical Documents of the Ninth and
Tenth Centuries, ed F. E. Harmer (Cambridge,
1914) 20-22]. Similar distinctions appear, using
slightly different terms, throughout Old English
literature.
20. Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, 132133; the most recent study of the medieval theory
of the three orders of society is Timothy E. Powell, “The Three Orders’ of Society in AngloSaxon England,” ASE 23 (1994) 103-132. The
classic study is Georges Duby, The Three Orders:
Feudal Society Imagined, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago and London, 1982).
List of Anglo-Saxon Royal Saints
Not all these are equally well-attested saints.
Some may be spurious. Most are well document-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 284
ANGLO-SAXON ROYAL SAINTS
ed. I made use of a not-as-reliable source called
The Hallowing of England: A Guide to the Saints
of Old England and Their Places of Pilgrimage,
by 4) to fill the list out. The dates are dates of
death. I used all the sources listed in the article
notes as well. I’ve normalized (or at least regularized) the spellings of names. Many sources use
radically different spellings than these. Fr. Andrew
Phillips (Pinner, Middlesex: Anglo-Saxon Books,
19.
-John Damon
Anglo-Saxon Royal Saints
1. Alfred the Atheling, 11th cent.
2. Ælfgyfa of Shaftesbury, 944
3. Ælfwald of Northumbria, 8th cent.
4. Æthelberht and Æthelred, Kentish princes, 640
5. Æthelberht of East Anglia, 794
6. Æthelburga of Northumbria, 7th cent.
7. Æthelburga of Farmoutier-en-Brie, 7th cent.
8. Æthelburga, Queen of Wessex, 727
9. Æthelgifa, Queen of England, 971
10. Æthelred, King of Mercia, 716
11. Æthelthryth of Ely, 679
12. Æthelwine of Athelney, 7th cent., brother of
the King of Wessex
13. Caedwalla, King of Wessex, 689
14. Cuthburg, sister of Ine, King of Wessex, c.
725
15. Cwenburg, sister of Ine, King of Wessex,
c.735
16. Cyneburg, c. 680
17. Cyneswith, 7th cent.
18. Eadburg of Bichester, daughter of a King of
Mercia, c. 650
19. Eadburg of Winchester, daughter of King Edward the Elder, 960
20. Ealhmund, Northumbrian prince, c. 800
21. Eanfleda, daughter of King Edwin of Kent, c.
704
22. Eanswith of Folkestone, 7th cent.
23. Ebbe, 683
24. Edbert, King of Northumbria, 768
25. Edgar, King of England, 975
26. Edith of Wilton, daughter of King Edgar, 984
27. Edmund, King of East Anglia, 870
28. Edward the Confessor, King of England, 1066
29. Edward the Martyr, King of England, 978
October 1995
30. Edwin, King of Northumbria, 632
31. Edwold, brother of King Edmund of East Anglia, 9th cent
32. Eorcengota, 7th cent.
33. Eormenilda of Ely, 7th cent.
34. Frideswide, c. 680-735
35. Germin, prince of East Anglia, 7th cent.
36. Guthlac of Croyland, 714
37. Ine, King of Wessex, 727
38. Kenelm, King of Mercia, c. 821
39. Mildburg, 7th cent.
40. Mildgith, 7th cent.
41. Mildrith of Minster-in-Thanet, 7th cent.
42. Osthryth, Queen of Mercia, 697
43. Oswald, King of Northumbria, 642
44. Oswine, King of Deira, 651
45. Rumwold, 7th cent.
46. Sexburg of Ely, 7th cent.
47. Werburg, c. 700
48. Wigstan, prince of Mercia, 849
49. Wihtberg of Ely, 7th cent.
50. Wulflad and Rufinus, 7th cent.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 285
TIDBITS FROM THE INTERNET
ANGLO-SAXON MYTHS
I'm planning to return to school to earn
a Master's degree in English. I'm working
on fine tuning my planning as to what
classes I will take and my thesis topic.
My facination has been stories that have
been passed down through the years, becoming a convoluted mixture of fact and
fiction. I did papers in my undergraduate
program about Robin Hood and Richard
III.
My question has to do with these same
type of tales that originate in the AngloSaxon time period. The obvious ones, of
course, are the tales of King Arthur
which, whatever minute parts might be
historically accurate, managed to survive
long enough to be written down. Are
there others from this same time period
that also survived long enough to be written down? Are there any that continued to
facinate people past the original "penning"
like the stories of King Arthur have done?
Christine Peterson
[email protected]
There is a lot of interesting Anglo-Saxon narrative material in William of Malmsbury's Gesta Regum and the text has been
translated so you don’t have to wade
through three hundred pages of Latin to
find it.
Thomas D. Hill
Dept. of English
[email protected]
Cornell University
Many Anglo-Saxon "folk-tales" are preserved in Old and Middle English saints'
lives. While not as popular with modern
readers as tales of Arthur and Excalibur,
the accounts of the wolf guarding Edmund's head, Kenelm's wicked sister and
her plots, or the miraculous sword of
Athelstan are folk-tales of a type particularly popular with the Anglo-Saxons, if
their preservation well into the Middle
October 1995
English period is any indication. The
South English Legendary is a good place
to start if any of this sounds interesting to
you.
-John Damon
University of Arizona
You may be aware of some of the apocryphal stories concerning Alfred the Great,
such as "burning the loaves" (or was it
buns?), wandering through viking camps
disguised as a minstrel to gather intelligence of the enemy, etc. These are folk
tales, not grounded in any factual evidence
I know of. There's also the well-known
tale of Lady Godiva, Old English
“Godgifu”. She appears to have been
based on a historical Godgifu, but the
story is a myth.
Those are the only suggestions I can
make.
Kevin Streit
[email protected]
I'm a student myself and in a history department, not English, so I may not be in
the best position to advise. However, to
add to the ideas already offered, there's
some current interest in the extent to
which, and the ways in which contemporary experience passes into oral
tradition/popular memory passes into text.
Dr. Katy Cubitt in the History Department
at Birmingham University (UK) has been
working on examples from the hagiography of English saints and both times I've
heard her speak on the topic she has referred to the work done on folk memory in
Peru.
I'm afraid that saints take up a lot of
time for students of the AS period but as
others have already said, there is plenty of
"juicy" material to work on. I've often
wondered if anyone (and people who
know more about this than I do may be
able to give me an answer) has attempted a
checklist of topics in the legends of local
saints. Common motifs like the martyrdom of virgins and the springing up of
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 286
TIDBITS FROM THE INTERNET
wells where decapitated saints' heads fall,
crop up so often that we need a guide to
where, when and how these tales come
into circulation. A sort of Katharine
Briggs approach (Dictionary of British
Folk-Tales).
However, it sounds as if you may be
more interested in "national myths," so
Kevin's King Alfred and the Cakes, or
Hereward the Wake (or both in comparison?) might be the thing. Do you know
the paper by Marinell Ash on “William
Wallace and Robert the Bruce: the Life
and Death of a National Myth,” in The
Myths We Live By (ed. Raphael Samuel
and Paul Thompson, 1990)?
Since you're interested in the AngloSaxon "time period" you might want to
keep King Arthur in the frame, and indeed
the collection of Welsh legends that go
under the title of the Mabinogion. To do
proper justice to original work on the preGeoffrey of Monmouth Arthur you need
Old Welsh, but the meaning that gets attached to the legend very early on in the
post-Conquest period must derive
something from the sense of nationhood
of what was ethnically still a very mixed
bunch of people. Geoffrey Ashe's work is
probably getting a lot of revision now.
Kari Maund in our History department is
offering a course next academic year on
"Images of Arthur" - the guy just won't
go away!
Good luck with whatever you choose to
explore!
din, but not in the other, to a man who
was not Arthur. There is one short passage in the ninth-century Historia Brittonum and some unflattering remarks among
hagiographic common-places in Caradog
of Llancarfan's Vita Gildae.
The only other references are by William
of Malmesbury, who says that everything
he has heard of Arthur is raving nonsense
or old wives' tales about a hero who may
be worthy to be celebrated in verax historia, but about whom (he implies clearly)
nothing is written. Even Geoffrey writes
that apart from the references in Gildas
and Bede (which are, of course, no references at all) he found only things celebrated quasi inscripta, the inescapable inference from which is that they were NOT
written. There is quite clear evidence that
at least five writers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries who used Geoffrey's material not only believed that he had made it
all up but spent much imaginative effort
and not a little art telling even more outrageous fibs.
The Arthurian myth is one of the most
powerful ever to grip and hold men's
minds. We should study it as what it always has been and still is––a myth that
serves different functions for different
ages and societies. Trying to track its origins in historical texts as if it were history
is a supreme waste of time.
David Howlett
Department of English
Oxford University, UK
Graham Jones
Yet, can we assume that just because
Geoffrey's sources were not written, that
there is therefore no historical accuracy to
any of the Arthur myths. Given the nature
of the oral tradition (or even written) most
of us agree that 99.9% of the Arthur stories are myth. You run into the same situation with the Robin Hood myth – each
generation adds something to the stories.
Graham,
There is no pre-Geoffrey material about However, it would seem logical that some
Arthur in Welsh. There is an allusion in individual or individuals at one point,
one thirteenth-century MS of the Godod- however unlike subsequent oral and writDepartment of English Local History
University of Leicester
Marc Fitch House
5 Salisbury Road
Leicester LE1 7QR
United Kingdom
e-Mail: [email protected]
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 287
TIDBITS FROM THE INTERNET
ten versions of the story they actually the language––not the MSS––to before
were, inspired the original storyteller. 1100. I play with Welsh and once read
Comments?
some of Culuwch og Olwen in Middle
Christine Peterson Welsh, but I haven't done the work of [email protected] lowing out the arguments in detail, and
couldn't really evaluate them authoritativeChristine, perhaps you should rethink ly if I did. But I am inclined to believe the
what Dr. Howlett actually meant when he various authorities are not just being arbisaid, “Trying to track its origins in histori- trary, because they do not claim that the
cal texts as if it were history is a supreme language of the four branches of the Mabiwaste of time.”
nogion or the Welsh versions of Erec and
There is a point where what can be Enide or Yvain is that old.
known disappears into the remote past like
Thomas D. Hill
[email protected]
the road that disappears into the horizon.
Cornell University
We assume that the road goes on, but we
can know nothing about where it really
goes or what terrain it will travel. We all
can envision some real Arthur without the
THE TALIAFERRO
dragons to slay, perhaps no Lancelot to
FAMILY
fall in love with his lovely wife. But we
can never know it to be true. We enter into
the realms of of imagination, myth and faThe Taliaferro family is known to
ble.
have originated in remote antiquity.
Would that we could know of the real
Many royals houses are mixed with
Arthur, but it is a bit like knowing the real
the Taliaferro bloodline.
Santa Claus. There are no ancient writings
other than fables that refer to him. The real
Anyone interested in the American
Arthur, if the most ancient of legends had
branch of the Taliaferro family
even a speck of historical truth, has gone
please note that the hundred year
beyond the horizon to places we can never
old history “The Taliaferro Family
know, but only can imagine.
History, 1625-1899,” has been
Kenneth Harper Finton
saved from oblivion by John Kenneth Ellis II, J.D., 1097 Embassy
David Howlett recently wrote:
Way; Reno, Nevada 89523. Only
three barely legible copies were
“There is no pre-Geoffrey material about
known to exist until it was carefully
Arthur in Welsh. There is an allusion in
transcribed in its original form by
one thirteenth-century MS of the Gododdin,
Mr. Ellis from a barely legible rebut not in the other, to a man who was not
production by Charles Taliaferro in
Arthur. There is one short passage in the
1955.
ninth-century Historia Brittonum and some
unflattering remarks among hagiographic
common-places in Caradog of Llancarfan's
Vita Gildae.”
What about Culuwch og Olwen? Arthur
plays a major role in this narrative and
some of the Arthurian heroes, notably Kei
are important. The various authorities date
October 1995
The first giraffe ever seen in Europe
was sent to Rome from Egypt by
Julius Caesar.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 288
BEOWULF IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: FOR THE LADIES IN THE AUDIENCE
BEOWULF IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY:
FOR THE LADIES IN THE AUDIENCE
by Karen Foster
University of Kentucky
Department of English
Although the dating of the composition
of Beowulf has become one of the most
controversial issues of the late twentieth
century, most agree that the manuscript
can be dated to the eleventh century. Consequently, we can be reasonably sure that
the poem had an eleventh-century audience. And because many assume that the
poem was written for men, I would like to
discuss what the poem may have suggested to women auditors in the eleventh century. Although the women in Beowulf
have often been considered political
pawns and victims in a society driven by
the blood feud ethic, this perception of
women often involves dividing the female
characters into one of two extremes: good
or evil. However, a consideration of the
extremes in combination with the range
between the extremes suggests the full
range of power available to Anglo-Saxon
queens.
The title of this paper includes a pun on
the historical fact that, after King Beorhtric’s death in 802 (Whitelock ASC), purportedly due to Queen Eadburg’s fatal
poisoning of her husband, queens lost the
title of queen and were called ladies until
Æthelwulph restored the title to his wife,
Judith, King Alfred’s stepmother (Lingard
289). However much Asser suggests that
the “foul stigma” of Eadburg’s “very great
wickedness” (Keynes and Lapidge 71)
stained the status of queens after Eadburg,
it would be a mistake to conclude that
kings’ wives suffered any loss of power
or authority.
October 1995
King Alfred’s daughter, Æthelflaed,
ruled in Mercia not only on her husband’s
behalf, but, as well, during the eight-year
period following his death in 911. Lady
Æthelflaed had the complete support of the
Mercians, led campaigns against the
Danes, and built fortresses (Whitelock
ASC).
Women in the eleventh century may
have been reminded on the historical level
of Lady Æthelflaed’s rule and her campaigns against the Danes during her rule.
Closer to the eleventh century would be
Ælfthryth, who gained a reputation
(however fictive) for plotting the deaths of
both her first husband, Æthelwold, and
her step-son, Edward (Whitelock ASC
978) to place her son, Æthelraed, on the
throne. Because Æthelraed was Emma’s
husband before Cnut, female listeners in
Cnut’s time would have been able to draw
on the legends involving the actions of any
of these queens as a means of measuring
the actions of women in Beowulf.
In contrast to Eadburg, for instance,
Ælfthryth suffered neither the contemporary censure that Eadburg suffered, nor
was driven from the country. Instead, she
had the security of a queen-mother’s position, eclipsing her daughter-in-law’s hold
on Æthelraed’s affairs (Stafford, Queens
111). As importantly, Ælfthryth is noted
for supporting monastic reform (Queens
124).
The time period of King Cnut’s reign in
England (1017-1035), and the time period
between Cnut and Edward the Confessor
are best for a consideration of the poem’s
suggestions about the status of queens,
especially as mothers. For during the reign
of Æthelraed II (978-1015), it is difficult
to imagine that any group of English auditors would be sympathetic to the poem’s
attitudes toward the Danes (Kiernan, Beowulf, 15). And Edward the Confessor’s
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 289
BEOWULF IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: FOR THE LADIES IN THE AUDIENCE
reign (1042-1066) is noted for Edward’s
leaving no successors to the throne. The
intervening years (1035-42) were a period
of great instability, during which the
poem’s attitudes toward women would be
a welcome confirmation of power and authority. Harold, son of Cnut by Ælfgifu
of Northampton, was chosen regent of
England (Whitelock ASC). Later that year
the kingdom was divided, and Emma,
with Hardicanute’s housecarls, was appointed regent over Wessex because it
was 1040 before Hardicanute, Emma’s
son, returned from Denmark (Stafford,
Unification 79). The image of Queen
Wealhtheow in Beowulf would have resonated for Queen Emma while she was regent.
After Beowulf has killed Grendel and
the hall has been decorated by men and
women (l. 993), Beowulf, Hrothgar,
Wealhtheow, and the entire community
believe that Beowulf’s efforts are concluded (ll. 1176). They celebrate unstintingly (ll. 1035 ff.). Wealhtheow plays a
major role in this celebration, offering
Beowulf mead and giving him a splendid
neck ring that compares with the greatest
of necklaces the poet has ever heard of as
she blesses and rewards Beowulf (ll.
1195-96). But she also expresses concern
for her sons’ welfare (ll. 1175-1189). After suggesting to Hrothgar that he keep
their sons’ interest above his interest in
Beowulf as an adoptive son, Wealhtheow
turns to the table at which Beowulf sits
with her sons, Hrethric and Hrothmund
(l. 1191).
This seating arrangement implies a recognition on everyone’s part that Beowulf
has accepted a kinship role as both
Wealhtheow’s and Hrothgar’s son, a reflection both of humility and deference
that characterizes Beowulf while he is a
thane. For instance, Beowulf transfers the
necklace Wealhtheow gave him to Hygd,
who wore it until Hygelac wore it in the
battle which killed him (ll. 2172-2176).
And although Beowulf refuses Hygd’s
October 1995
offer of the kingdom when she expresses
her concern that her son is not fit to rule,
he nonetheless counsels her and her sons
until Heardred’s death (ll. 2369-2376). He
acts, in other words, like an adoptive or
foster father to Hygd’s sons.
In the reign of Cnut, Wealhtheow’s expression of concern would have had special significance for Queen Emma-Ælfgifu, who was the mother of English sons
Edward and Alfred by Æthelraed at the
same time that she was Hardicanute’s
mother and seemingly preferred his title to
the throne over the claims of her English
sons. The situation for Queen Emma was
especially complicated. In fact, according
to Pauline Stafford, Emma claimed that
Cnut had taken an oath promising “never
[to] set up the son of any other woman to
rule after him” (Unification 77). However,
Cnut was also married at the time to Ælfgifu of Northampton and had two sons by
her, Harold and Swegn. This bigamous
arrangement must have given both Ælfgifu
and Emma considerable anxiety. For at
any time Cnut could have repudiated either
of them (See Stafford’s book, Queens,
Concubines and Dowagers: the King’s
Wife in the Middle Ages, 1983, on the
subject of polygamy and the precarious
position of kings’ wives). Stafford suggests that the oath pledged in 1017 was
probably superseded by events in 1030.
By 1030, Cnut ruled Denmark, Norway
and England. He could distribute his holdings among his three sons. Emma’s son,
Hardicanute, was sent to Denmark, while
Swegn, Cnut’s son by Ælfgifu, was sent
to Norway. Stafford implies that Cnut was
preparing Harold, his other son by Ælfgifu, for England (Unification 77).
Women
listening
to
Queen
Wealhtheow’s concerns for her sons in
Beowulf could make an immediate link
with either Emma’s or Ælfgifu’ concerns
for her sons when Wealhtheow tells
Hrothgar that she has heard that he would
like to adopt Beowulf as a son: “One said
to me, that you would have warrior for a
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 290
BEOWULF IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: FOR THE LADIES IN THE AUDIENCE
son. Heorot is purged, splendid ring hall,
enjoy as long as you may more mead, and
to your kinsmen leave folk and kingdom,
when you see the decree of fate” (ll. 117580).
That women were integral to the intellectual community of the Anglo-Saxons at
court is suggested by the story that King
Alfred’s mother challenged him to learn
how to read. That women were part of the
poem’s audience is suggested by the presence of women in the poem. Not only are
women significant in the narrative episodes; they are also part of the audience
listening to the lay presented in celebration
of Beowulf’s victory over Grendel. The
men and women, “wera ond wifa,” all
decorate the hall after Beowulf’s victory
over Grendel (Klaeber ll. 990-993).
Wealhtheow and her female attendants accompany Hrothgar when he enters the hall
and sees Grendel’s arm on the roof. Helen
Damico points out that the phrase
“maegtha hose” (l. 924), which means
“troop of maidens,” implies that the
queen’s power in the court is equal to that
of her husband’s (Beowulf’s Wealhtheow
74). That is, Hrothgar has his troop of
followers, and Wealhtheow has her troop
of followers.
Wealhtheow’s second speech to Beowulf, set between Beowulf’s defeat of
Grendel and the attack of Grendel’s mother, also suggests her authority over the
male retainers in Heorot. As she blesses
Beowulf and hands him the necklace,
Wealhtheow counsels him to exhibit his
power. She suggests that he be “gentle of
counsel” to her sons, “ond thyssum cnyhtum wes lara lithe” (l. 1220). She follows
up this injunction not only by saying that
she will reward him for that (l. 1220); she
also mentions her sons again in the context of an assertion that she can rely on the
support of the warriors. She emphasizes
the loyalty of the retainers to each other
and to their lord, asserting that the thanes
do her bidding:
October 1995
Beo thu suna minum daedum gedefe dreamhealdende! Her is aeghwylc eorl othrum getrywe,
modes milde, mandrihtne hol[d], thegnas syndon
gethwaere theod ealgearo, druncne dryhtguman
doth swa ic bidde;
“Be you to my sons kind in deeds,
blessed! Here each lord to the others is
true, kind in spirit, loyal to the lord. The
retainers are united, people willing; drunken men do as I request” (ll. 1226-1231).
Moreover, the accumulation of minor
and major details suggest that the Queen’s
authority at Heorot is not, as many argue,
subordinate to the authority of the king.
For instance, Hrothgar pointedly uses the
sight of Grendel’s arm to compliment
Beowulf’s mother (ll. 942-946). This is a
minor detail, but it is nonetheless an indirect compliment to all mothers.
Even Beowulf’s initial boast to
Wealhtheow suggests that she is as important to please as Hrothgar. She thanks
God for the help she expects from Beowulf at the same time that she offers Beowulf the mead cup (ll. 624-628). After
drinking fully from the cup, Beowulf
boasts that he will either win victory for
Wealhtheow’s people or die in trying (ll.
631-638). The narrator points out that
Beowulf’s boast pleases Wealhtheow:
“Tham wife tha word / well licodon, /
gilpcwide Geates; The woman the words /
well liked, boast of the Geat (ll. 639-640).
Perhaps it goes without saying that Beowulf’s boast pleases Hrothgar. But the attention focussed on Wealhtheow’s reaction places Beowulf in a position subordinate to her.
Although Damico sees Wealhtheow and
Hygd as a complementary pair who contrast the complementary pair represented in
Modthryth and Grendel’s mother, Damico
accepts the validity of Norman Eliason’s
argument that Hygd-Modthryth are not
two different queens, but one queen in
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 291
BEOWULF IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: FOR THE LADIES IN THE AUDIENCE
whom the extremes of “generosity-niggardliness, wisdom-arrogance” are unified
in the development of a single personality
from violence to benevolence (Beowulf’s
Wealhtheow 51). As one person who
unites benevolence and force, or as the
violent queen who is the contrast to the
benevolent Queen Hygd, Modthryth, like
Wealhtheow, is attributed with the epithet
folccwen (l. 1931). Insofar as the term
“folccwen” reflects the concept of a nation’s queen, the status of the folccwen is
arguably not dependent on but independent of the king’s status as folccyning.
As a reflection of one personality instead of two in Hygd, the poet suggests
that good queens can unite force with benevolence, as did Ælfthryth, who, in spite
of charges that she was involved in the
death of her stepson, Edward, was respected for her support of the Church.
Queen Emma also supported the Church,
and she, like Ælfthryth and like Hygd
and/or Modthryth, emerges as a contradiction from the documents. In the AngloSaxon Chronicle, she is portrayed as parsimonious while she is portrayed as generous in the Encomium Emmae Reginae.
In analyzing Wealhtheow’s name,
Damico arrives at the conclusion that the
name means “servant of the chosen,” but
not before suggesting that the compound,
meaning “foreign captive” (slave) is “a
telling reminder of certain censurable
qualities, moral or social, peculiar to the
character that either aesthetic considerations or public or private censorhip prevented him from revealing more explicitly
in the narrative itself” (Beowulf’s
Wealhtheow 62). More simply put, the
poet does not want to reveal unsavory
traits of the historical queen who may be
the subject of his profile. During the reign
of Cnut, Wealhtheow’s name would have
resonated as an oblique reference to Queen
Emma, who was a foreigner from Normandy, an expression of ambivalence.
For, on the one hand, Cnut and Emma
won allegiance from the English; on the
October 1995
other hand, there may have been those
who preferred one of Emma’s sons by
Æthelred to the throne. At the same time,
for those listeners subject to Ælfgifu’s regency in Norway, the allusion to a foreign
queen would have resonated as a reference
to Ælfgifu’s status as a foreigner.
Just as the portrayal of Wealhtheow
may involve censorship of disconcerting
reminders, the portrayals of Grendel and
Grendel’s mother may conceal reminders
of unpleasant public events, for instance,
the twelve-year period of Grendel’s ravages against the Danes (l. 147). Although
there are no doubt numerous twelve-year
periods of suffering in Anglo-Saxon history, one twelve-year period began with
Æthelraed’s order to slaughter all the
Danes in England on St. Brice’s day in
1002 (Kiernan, Beowulf 17), the year that
also coincided with Æthelraed’s marriage
to Emma (Whitelock ASC). Æthelraed’s
action against the Danes prompted twelve
years of Viking raids, which ended only
with King Swein’s death in 1014
(Kiernan, Beowulf 18). In this instance,
Grendel can be linked to the persistent attacks of the Danes during Swein’s reign.
Insofar as King Swein’s motivation was
vengeance for the death of his sister, Gunnhild (Kiernan, Beowulf 17), Beowulf’s
victory over Grendel’s mother can be
linked to King Swein’s death, giving
Grendel and his mother topical as well as
archetypal significance as embodiments of
the blood feud ethic.
The Beowulf poet’s presentation of a
female monster to avenge her son offers
little to an understanding of the poet’s attitude toward the blood feud ethic. Even
though, as Kevin Kiernan points out,
Grendel’s mother represents a condemnation of the blood feud ethic (14), her death
does not suggest a lasting resolution to the
conflicts of the society portrayed in Beowulf. Moreover, it is also important to remember that as a representative of the kin
of Cain (l. 107), Grendel’s mother is human. For Beowulf’s advice to Hrothgar
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 292
BEOWULF IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: FOR THE LADIES IN THE AUDIENCE
that it is better to avenge than to mourn (l.
1383-1385), coupled with Hrethel’s suicidal grief over the killing of his son, Herebeald, by his other son, Haethcyn (l.
2471), seem to underscore the efficacy of
vengeance legally and psychologically.
More importantly, in a culture that has
been presumed driven by the blood feud
ethic, it is surprising that no one suspects
the existence of Grendel’s kin and the actions that might follow. This lack of suspicion may reflect elements of the common story recorded in “Atlakvitha.” A sophisticated audience would appreciate not
only the topical and archetypal associations between Grendel and his mother as
embodiments of the blood feud ethic,
among other archetypal associations. They
would also appreciate the association of
Grendel’s mother with Gudrun in
“Atlakvitha,” as well as with Wealhtheow
and with historical queens, as agents of
force and as mothers. “Atlakvitha” portrays a human woman as an avenger. An
audience aware of the story could have
appreciated the subtle ironies suggested by
the Beowulf poet’s variations on the
theme. In “Atlakvitha,” Gudrun does not
avenge her sons but her brothers, whom
her husband has killed. Instead, she kills
her sons, and, after feeding them to her
husband, a cannibalism reminiscent of
Grendel’s feasting on men, kills her husband. But the story suggests that even after Gudrun has told Atli that he has eaten
his own sons (stanzas 37, 10-11), Atli
does not suspect Gudrun of any further
violence (stanza 41, 11):
“Atli, unsuspecting ... / he had drunk himself weary, / he had no weapons, did not recoil from Guthrun–.”
Gudrun’s situation resonates with Hildeburg’s plight, with Hrethel’s grief at the
loss of his son, and with the grief motivating Grendel’s mother to action.
A mythic dimension contributes to the
historical and literary composite when
October 1995
Beowulf’s battle with Grendel’s mother is
further compared with Thor’s encounter
with Elli, the old hag in Snorri’s Edda. A
comparison of Beowulf’s fight with Grendel’s mother and Thor’s encounter with
Elli in giant land suggests that Beowulf’s
victory over Grendel’s mother represents
only a temporary solution to the ongoing
reality of feud.
Moreover, Beowulf, as much as Grendel’s mother, may be subject to the poet’s
criticism. In the prose Edda, Thor tries to
overcome Elli, but the more he strains, the
firmer she stands. When she begins to use
tricks, Thor falls to one knee. At that point
Utgarda-Loki stops the fight (65-66). The
next morning, outside his hall, UtgardaLoki explains to Thor that Elli represents
old age. In the context of Thor’s inability
to overcome Elli, Beowulf’s victory over
Grendel’s mother is as deceptive as
Wealhtheow’s belief that Beowulf has
purged Heorot in killing Grendel.
Eleventh-century audiences, aware of
the common stories linking Thor to Beowulf, would have been encouraged to recognize Grendel’s mere and UtgardaLoki’s hall both as sites of giants and
magic––and thus of deception. Grendel’s
mother is old, having ruled a mere for fifty
years (l. 1498). Hrothgar has likewise
ruled fifty years (l. 1769), and Beowulf
subsequently rules for fifty years (l.
2209). Although Thor did not defeat Elli
and Beowulf does defeat Grendel’s mother, her strength over Beowulf appears
stronger than Elli’s over Thor, for Beowulf is thrown completely off his feet (l.
1543-1545). Even so, Beowulf’s attitude
toward Grendel’s mother accords her the
respect due an adversary of equal strength
and cunning. This view of Grendel’s
mother puts her at one end of a spectrum
which includes all the women in the poem.
From hearing about Wealhtheow’s concern for her sons and the plight of Hildeburg to hearing about Beowulf’s battle
with Grendel’s mother, the eleventh-century audience of Beowulf would have
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 293
BEOWULF IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: FOR THE LADIES IN THE AUDIENCE
heard confirmation that men and women
are political, social and physical equals.
REFERENCES:
Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and
Other Contemporary Sources. Trans. and Intro.
Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge. New York:
Penguin, 1983.
“Atlakvitha.” The Poetic Edda: Heroic Poems.
Vol. 1.
Ed. Ursula Dronke. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.
Damico, Helen, Beowulf’s Wealhtheow and the
Valkyrie Tradition.
Kiernan, Kevin. Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1981.
Grendel’s Heroic Mother. In Geardagum 6 (1983):
13-33.
Klaeber, Fr. Beowulf. 3rd ed. Boston: Heath,
1950.
Lingard, John. A History of England, from the
First Invasions by the Romans, v. 1. 10 vols.
Philadelphia: Eugene Cummiskey, 1827.
Stafford, Puline. Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: the King’s Wife in the Early Middle
Ages. Athens: U of Georgia Press, 1983.
Unification and Conquest: a Political and Social
History of England in the Tenth and Eleventh
Centuries. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1989.
Sturluson, Snorri. The Prose Edda. Tr. and Intro.
Brodeur, Arthur. New York: the American Scandinavian Foundation, 1960.
Whitelock, Dorothy, David C. Douglas and Susie
I. Tucker. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: a Revised
Translation. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1961.
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 294
ANGLO-SAXON ANCESTRY TO ADAM
ROYAL ANGLO-SAXON
ANCESTRY TO ADAM
by Tony Jebson
The Anglo-Saxon kings did include both
Woden and Adam in their ancestory. For
example, the genealogy of Æthelwulf (in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 855)
appears in most of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle mss. However, there are significant
differences between them.
From: [email protected] (Tony Jebson)
To:
[email protected]
Ken,
The manuscripts are all, with the exception
of Asser, recensions of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle:
MS A are the Parker Chronicle.
BCD are recensions B, C and D
Ethelweard is Æthelweard’s MS
Ceawlin
Ceawlin
Ceawlin
Cynric
Cynric
Creoda
Cerdic
Elesa
Cynric
Creoda
Cerdic
Elesa
Esla
(omitted in D)
Gewis
Wig
Freawine
Freothegar
Brand
Baeldaeg
Woden
Cerdic
Elesa
30 Esla
Giwis
Wig
Freawine
Frithogar
Brond
Baeldaeg
Woden
Frithuwald
Frealaf
20 Frithuwulf
Fin
Godwulf
Geat
Taetwa
Beaw
Sceldwea
Heremod
Itermon
Hrathra
"Chronicon" (which is a Latin work) is clearly
(D:
derived from a version of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicles.
Asser denotes “Vita Alfredi”
(also in Latin), which to 887, is also derived 10 Noe
Lamach
from a version of the ASC.
Matusalem
– Tony Jebson
Enoh
Manuscripts
Ethelweard
Asser
BCD
Generations:
45 Ælfred
44 Æthelwulf
Ecgbryht
Ealhmund
Eafa
40 Eoppa
Ingild, Ine
Cenred
Ceolwald
Cutha
Cuthwine
October 1995
1
Æthelwulf
Ecgbryht
Ealhmund
Eafa
Eoppa
Ingild, Ine
Cenred
Ceolwald
Cutha
Cuthwine
Æthelwulf
Ecgbryht
Ealhmund
Eafa
Eoppa
Ingeld, Ine
Caenred
Cealwald
Cutha
Cuthwine
Iared
Maleel
Camon
Enos
Sed
Adam
Giwis
Brand
Baeldaeg
Woden
Frithuwald
Frealaf
Frithuwulf
Finn
Godwulf
Geat
Taetwa
Beaw
Sceldwa
Heremod
Itermon
Hathra
Hwala
Beduuig
Beowung
Seth
Noah
Lamech
Methuselah
Enoch
Mahalaleel
Cainan
Enos
Seth
Adam
Frealaf
Fin
Godulf
Geat
Taetwa
Beaw
Sceldwa
Heremod
Itermon
Hathra
Hwala
Bedwig
Beowi)
Sceaf
Noe
Lameh
Maturalem
Enoc
Iared
Malalehel
Camon
Enos
Seth
Adam
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (to pick a source I
have handy) is full of genealogies tracing the
ancestry of one king or another. Most all of these
trace back to Woden. For example, see entries (in
MS A):
547 Ida waes Eopping . . . Wodening, Woden . . .
Geating.
560 Ælle waes Yffing . . . Wodening, Woden . . .
626 Penda . . . Wodening.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 295
THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
by Owen Alun and Brendan O'Corraidhe
Copyright ©1994 Corrie Bergeron and Ben
Tucker. All rights reserved. Permissions:
This may be reproduced in SCA newsletters
for non-commercial purposes only. (i.e., If
you make any money off of it, send us a
cut.)
In the beginning there was an island off
the coast of Europe. It had no name, for
the natives had no language, only a collection of grunts and gestures that roughly
translated to: "Hey!", "Gimme!", and
"Pardon me, but would you happen to
have any woad?"
Then the Romans invaded it and called it
Britain, because the natives were "blue,
nasty, br(u->i)tish and short." This was
the start of the importance of “u” (and its
mispronunciation) to the language. After
building some roads, killing off some of
the nasty little blue people and walling up
the rest, the Romans left, taking the language instruction manual with them.
The British were bored so they invited
the barbarians to come over (under Hengist) and "Horsa" 'round a bit. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes brought slightly
more refined vocal noises.
All of the vocal sounds of this primitive
language were onomatopoeic, being derived from the sounds of battle. Consonants were derived from the sounds of
weapons striking a foe. "Sss" and "th" for
example are the sounds of a draw cut, "k"
is the sound of a solidly landed axe blow,
"b", "d", are the sounds of a head dropping onto rock and sod respectively, and
"gl" is the sound of a body splashing into
a bog. Vowels (which were either gargles
in the back of the throat or sharp exhalations) were derived from the sounds the
foe himself made when struck.
The barbarians had so much fun that they
decided to stay for post-revel. The British,
October 1995
finding that they had lost future use of the
site, moved into the hills to the west and
called themselves Welsh.
The Irish, having heard about language
from Patrick, came over to investigate.
When they saw the shiny vowels, they
pried them loose and took them home.
They then raided Wales and stole both
their cattle and their vowels, so the poor
Welsh had to make do with sheep and
consonants. ("Old Ap Ivor hadde a farm,
L Y L Y W! And on that farm he hadde
somme gees. With a dd dd here and a dd
dd there...")
To prevent future raids, the Welsh started
calling themselves "Cymry" and gave even
longer names to their villages. They figured if no one could pronounce the name
of their people or the names of their
towns, then no one would visit them. (The
success of the tactic is demonstrated still
today. How many travel agents have YOU
heard suggest a visit to scenic Llyddumlmunnyddthllywddu?)
Meantime, the Irish brought all the shiny
new vowels home to Erin. But, of course,
they didn't know that there was once an
instruction manual for them, so they scattered the vowels throughout the language
purely as ornaments. Most of the new
vowels were not pronounced, and those
that were, were pronounced differently
depending on which kind of consonant
they were either preceding or following.
The Danes came over and saw the pretty
vowels bedecking all the Irish words.
"Ooooh!" they said. They raided Ireland
and brought the vowels back home with
them. But the Vikings couldn't keep track
of all the Irish rules, so they simply pronounced all the vowels "oouuoo."
In the meantime, the French had invaded
Britain, which was populated by descendants of the Germanic Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes. After a generation or two, the people were speaking German with a French
accent and calling it “English.” Then the
Danes invaded again, crying "Oouuoo!
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 296
Oouuoo!," burning abbeys, and trading
with the townspeople.
The Britons that the Romans hadn't
killed intermarried with visiting Irish and
became Scots. Against the advice of their
travel agents, they decided to visit Wales.
(The Scots couldn't read the signposts that
said, "This way to LLyddyllwwyddymmllwylldd," but they could smell sheep a
league away.) The Scots took the sheep
home with them and made some of them
into haggis. What they made with the others we won't say, but Scots are known to
this day for having hairy legs.
known as Cockney. Later, it was taken
overseas and further brutalized by merging
it with Dutch and Italian to create Brooklynese.
That's what happened, you can check for
yourself. But I advise you to just take our
word for it.
The former Welsh, being totally bereft,
moved down out of the hills and into London. Because they were the only people in
the Islands who played flutes instead of
bagpipes, they were called Tooters. This
made them very popular. In short order,
Henry Tooter got elected King and begin
popularizing ornate, unflattering clothing.
Soon, everybody was wearing ornate,
unflattering clothing, playing the flute,
speaking German with a French accent,
pronouncing all their vowels "oouuoo"
(which was fairly easy given the French
accent), and making lots of money in the
wool trade. Because they were rich, people smiled more (remember, at this time,
"Beowulf" and "Canterbury Tales" were
the only tabloids, and gave generally favorable reviews even to Danes). And
since it is next to impossible to keep your
vowels in the back of your throat (even if
you do speak German with a French accent) while smiling and saying "oouuoo"
(try it, you'll see what I mean), the Great
Vowel Shift came about and transformed
the English language.
The very richest had their vowels shifted
right out in front of their teeth. They settled in Manchester and later in Boston.
There were a few poor souls who, cut
off from the economic prosperity of the
wool trade, continued to swallow their
vowels. They wandered the countryside in
misery and despair until they came to the
docks of London, where their dialect devolved into the incomprehensible language
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 297
Ancient Anglo-Saxon Charm #6:
For a Delayed Birth
Translated by Dr. Louis Rodrigues
The woman, who cannot bring her child to maturity, must go to a dead man's
grave, step three times over the grave and say these words three times:
This as my help against the evil late birth,
this as my help against the
grievous dismal birth, this as my help
against the evil lame birth.
And when that woman is with child and she goes to bed to her lord, then she
must say:
Up I go, I step over thee
with a live child, not with a dying one,
with a full-born child, not with a doomed one.
And when the mother feels that the child is alive, she must go to church, and
when she comes in front of the altar, then she must say:
Christ, I said, made this known!
The woman who cannot bring her child to maturity must take part of the grave of
her own child, wrap it up in black wool and sell it to merchants. And then she
must say:
I sell it, ye must sell it, this black wool
and the seeds of this grief.
The woman who cannot bring her child to maturity must take the milk of a cow of
one colour in her hand, sip up a little with her mouth, and then go to running water and spit the milk into it. And then with the same hand she must take a mouthful of water and swallow it. Let her then say these words:
I carried this great strong
one with me everywhere,
strong because of this great food;
such a one I want to have
and go home with.
When she goes to the stream she must not look round, nor again when she goes
away from there, and let her go into a house other than the one from which she
started, and there take food.
October 1995
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 298
The Plantagenet
Connection
Volume IV, Number 1
April 1996
Geoffrey
Count of Anjou
April 1996
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 299
BOOK REVIEWS
Florent et Lyon. Wilhelm Salzmann: Kaiser Octavianus
Reviewed by: Albrecht Classen,
University of Arizona
Xenja von Ertzdorff and Ulrich Seelbach, editors, with the assistance of Christina Wolf. Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft, 4. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Editions Rodopi, 1993. 402 pp.,
$107. ISBN 90-5183-622-8.
The question when the Middle Ages
came to an end is not easy to answer, particularly when we look at the tradition of
late-medieval prose novels (Volksbuecher)
that were passed on far into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Many medieval narrative motifs found a new audience among the broad masses of early
modern readers who were greatly interested in what the book printers and book
sellers offered on the markets. The other,
pertinent question whether these novels,
also called chapbooks, constituted something like early forms of "trivial" literature
is likewise hard to answer. In many cases
we know that, initially, these chapbooks
were commissioned and written by noble
readers and authors, whereas only later,
when printing became a cheap means of
disseminating literary material, the same
texts were also enjoyed by members of the
lower classes (see my study on this topic:
The History of the German Volksbuch
[Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edwin Mellen
Press, 1995]).
A third issue needs to be considered in
the case of the chapbooks. Irrespective of
where the original texts had been composed, many of them were soon translated
into the major European languages, a process which makes it a rather tricky decision for librarians where to shelve modern
editions in their collection, since they can
often be considered both "translations"
and original contributions to the respective
April 1996
national literatures.
In the case of Florent et Lyon, as it is
called in the original French, or Kaiser
Octavianus in the German translation by
Wilhelm Salzmann, the problem might not
be solvable, which forces the reader to be
a little computer savvy to trace the book in
the libraries.
The novel deals with Emperor Octavianus and his wife who has delivered twin
boys and is recovering from the birth. Her
mother-in-law is extremely jealous and accuses her of having committed adultery,
which led to the creation of the twin boys.
The old woman convinces her son of the
"truth" of her accusations, wherefore the
wife is to be burned at the stake. The lords
of the country intervene and beg for her
life, but only to win her life from the fire.
Instead of killing her, the Emperor expels
his wife and two sons from his country
who then experience a series of adventures. Eventually, when the sons have
grown up and gained knightly honors, the
marriage of their parents will be restored
and the sons gain the crown of Spain and
the crown of England respectively. The
narrator comments this whole section in
his introduction with the brief statement:
"das dann gar kurtzweilig zuo hoeren ist"
(6; which is very entertaining to hear). In
the meantime the Babylonian king attacks
France but is overcome by the Christians,
receives baptism and pays a large tribute
for the rest of his life.
This brief summary suffices to illuminate
some of the reasons why this and many
similar chapbooks became popular reading
material in the late-medieval and early
modern period. The themes of chivalric
warfare, adultery, conflicts between
Christians and Moslems, false accusations
of a wife, the evil mother-in-law, love affairs between a Christian knight and a
Turkish princess, tournaments and knighthood fill the pages of this novel and appeal to a wide range of readers.
The present edition offers, for the first
time, the French version (prose) in its old-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 300
BOOK REVIEWS
est printed form and the earliest printing of
Salzmann's translation into German. The
original tale was probably contained in the
Grandes Chroniques de France or Chroniques des Saint Denis in which the family
tree of the Carolingians and Capetians had
been outlined in fictionalized form. Literary adaptations of the same narrative materials were created by the Countess Elisabeth of Nassau-Saarbruecken (Koenigin
Sibille and Herpin), to which, unfortunately, the editors here never refer in
their commentary and epilogue. Salzmann's translation became, in turn, the
basis for translations into Yiddish, Polishand Russian (see W. Kosny, Das deutsche Volksbuch vom Kaiser Octavian in
Polen und Russland, Ph.D. Berlin 1967).
We know very little about Salzmann and
must rely on speculations about his person. He dedicated his work to a "Meister
Johansen Brun" who was a schoolteacher
and cantor in Brunndrut in the diocese Besancon in the Swiss Kanton of Bern. But
there are other candidates with the same
name whom Salzmann might have had in
mind. The translator knew his French
very well and also proved to be an excellent writer in his native German tongue.
More we cannot really say about him.
The German text edition is based on the
1535 Strassburg print, of which two copies in the Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbuettel (40 L 1878i) and the Wuerttembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart (HB
80.4) were consulted. For the French version, von Ertzdorff and Seelbach used the
copy from 1500 (today in Lyon, Bibliotheque Municipale, Inc. 903), which
Salzmann obviously had in front of him
for his translation. In editing both the
French and the German version of the text
only some technical emendations were applied to make the reading more easy, for
example abbreviations are written out and
some word division markers are added.
The changes to the 1526 edition are listed
in the appendix.
Salzmann's text from 1535 was often
April 1996
re-edited throughout the following centuries. The bibliography of prints includes
forty three entries from 1535 until 1850.
Seven more editions are mentioned in older scholarship, but could not be verified.
The French text is extant in fifteen editions
from 1500 until ca. 1620-1630.
The commentary provides information
and linguistic explanations both for the
French and the German text, but often
these hints and notes do not seem to be really necessary for the comprehension of
the texts. Two indices at the end contain a
list of German words discussed in the
commentary and a list of all names mentioned in Salzmann's translation.
The remarkable feature of this edition is
that both texts are printed face to face
which allows the direct comparison.
“Florent et Lyon” contains more illustrations than Salzmann's text, but they are
normally of a small size and not very elaborate. By contrast, the German illustrator
created fewer but highly artistic woodcuts
of great aesthetic value. Unfortunately, the
editors have not analyzed these illustrations and do not inform us, for example,
in what other chapbook editions they had
been used. The illustration on p. 227 appears, for example, to have been lifted
from Elisabeth von Nassau-Saarbr Åcken's Hug Schapler (ed. J.D.Mueller,
1990, p. 231). Often only half of an illustration is used from other editions, such as
the one on p. 265, where the right half
was taken from Hug Schapler p. 241. Art
historians will find much valuable material
for investigation in this and other chapbooks.
Although this edition offers two texts
which technically might not really belong
to the Middle Ages, the content and the
historical origin of the tale contradict this
impression. In fact, we might say that
"Romanticism" had important antecedents
as early as in the late fifteenth and sixteenth century, as Kaiser Octavianus amply documents. The dream of the medieval
past began rather early and in many re-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 301
BOOK REVIEWS
spects our own world is returning to this
dream by way of Hollywood productions
and subsequent toys and games.
Von Ertzdorff and Seelbach are to be
praised for their solid editorial efforts
which will serve as a model for other editions of French, German, Spanish and
Italian chapbooks. The difference between
this edition and one prepared by Theresia
Friderichs-Mueller (Hamburg 1981) is
that the latter was a facsimile edition,
whereas the present publication is in modern print and has been emended to some
extent. The Augsburg edition from 1568,
used by Friderichs-Mueller, served as a
model for the Yiddish translation. It
would have been very helpful if von Ertzdorff and Seelbach had discussed the differences
between
the
German
"Volksbuch" and the Yiddish, Polish and
Russian versions. In such a case, the inclusion of text samples indicating the significant thematic variations resulting from
the translation process would have been
very insightful. The translation from the
French into the German brought such
changes about – changes which need to be
examined in greater detail than is possible
in the commentary here. We assume that
the same things occurred when this novel
was rendered into Polish or Russian.
More information about these questions
can be expected from the proceedings
from a conference on this chapbook that
took place in Giessen, Germany, from
June 14 through 19,1993 (AmsterdamAtlanta: Editions Rodopi, 1994).
Be this as it may, von Ertzdorff and
Seelbach made an important contribution
both to late-medieval French and German
literature by providing us access again to
one of the more popular chapbooks.
April 1996
The Singer Resumes the Tale
by Albert Bates Lord
Reviewed by Barry B Powell
University of Wisconsin (Madison)
[email protected]
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995. Pp. 280.
$39.95. ISBN 0-8014-3103-4 (pb).
Lord was not like other scholars. By
the time of his death in July 1991, he had
attracted to himself almost a cult of devotees. I recently attended the 4th annual
Albert Bates Lord Conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, whose participants were
mostly scholars who had known Albert
Lord in the flesh and his presence dominated the conference. Most were Slavicists, unknown to classicists, but whose
research was guided by what we might
call the teachings of Parry/Lord. But the
mystery of the greatness of A. B. Lord
will always be bound with the mystery of
the poet Homer, whose very old stories of
war and home have fascinated the whole
world. More than any other, except for his
master Milman Parry, A. B. Lord elucidated just how such poems came into being.
A. B. Lord's The Singer of Tale (1960)
presented an epoch-making model for
Homeric composition based on the greatest collection of oral songs ever made in
the field. I should think that The Singer of
Tales is the most influential book published in Classics in this century. Lord's
model has endured sustained and sometimes angry attack, but remains today intact.
Lord's posthumous The Singer
Resumes the Tale, written in precise and
admirable prose, was intended to be a sequel to The Singer of Tales, but contains
additional material based on his papers.
The whole is expertly and lovingly edited
by his wife Mary Louise Lord and handsomely published in Gregory Nagy's
Myth and Poetics Series from Cornell.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 302
BOOK REVIEWS
The two principal topics are "the theme," a
technique of composition and one of the
proofs that Homer composed orally; and
"the transitional text," a bugbear in oral
studies. For the first time, Lord also discusses lyric poetry and the ballad.
Chapter 1, "The Nature and Kinds of
Oral Literature," begins with definitions.
Before writing, there is "oral literature";
generic distinctions appear only after writing. "Oral literature" appears to be a contradiction in terms, but by "literature" we
mean words crafted artfully. We have,
then, singers and listeners, but nothing in
writing. "Oral performance" takes place in
a "traditional" context, where the singer
knows his listeners and they know him.
Some are themselves singers and they
have heard him before. According to
Lord's South-Slavic experience, performance may take place in a house in a village where
neighbors gather. Feasts and weddings
also offer opportunities for oral song, as
do coffee shops. But always singer and
listeners share a tight communal life: such
is "traditional performance," so that "oral"
and "traditional" are not interchangeable
terms, the origin of a good deal of confusion in the literature. We classicists will
envision parallel conditions, mutatis mutandis, for the Greek Iron Age and, in
fact, Homer's own descriptions place oral
performance in similar contexts.
When applied to song, "tradition"
means all the performances of all the
songs the singer ever sang or the listener
ever heard. It is wrong to say that Homer
"made use of his tradition," because he
was in the tradition, a part of it. Though
traditions of song begin who knows when
and go on forever so long as there are
singers and listeners, they change constantly. Singers (not scribes) and their listeners preserve the tradition.
"Traditionality" consists of several elements: (1) the place in a social order for
story telling; (2) the art of composing
April 1996
songs in a special language with
"formulas"; (3) traditional content, story
patterns and the like; here Lord also includes such nonnarrative genres as lyric
(but is this content?); (4) specific songs,
such as Marko Kraljevic and Musa the
Highwayman, which have no original
version but consist of the sum of all their
variants; (5) oral poetics, standards for
judging achievement, for not all songs are
equally complex or skillful.
Lord's category (2), the art of composing, which includes formulas and themes,
has been the subject of enormous work in
oral studies. Lord emphasizes that formulas and themes exist as aids to composition in performance; that is why they are
there. "Formulas do not exist to make
memorization easier, but rather they make
memorization unnecessary" (11).
If a song has no fixed text, what, then,
does the singer remember? He remembers
the story, what happened next. The common pattern (a) absence, (b) devastation,
(c) arrival or return, (d) restoration of order can be found in many oral tales, including the Iliad and the Odyssey, but for
the singer, unlike ourselves, such patterns
are never separable from the story itself.
Such patterns may depend on mythic prototypes and in any event arouse deep-seated human sympathies.
Thus traditional epic entertains through
appeal to the serious concerns of the listeners (even as today, I think, powerful
cinema affirms deep moral preoccupations). For Lord, myth comes first, patterns of death and rebirth. History comes
second, an Achaean expedition against
Troy. Myth is the subject, really, and history is the background, a distinction that
many students of Homer seem unable to
learn. There are secular patterns too, for
example, the feud in medieval Irish legend.
Lyric and ritual songs offer other
"subject matter" for oral nonepic song:
when a lover asks a series of riddles, or
lovers bewail the coming of day.
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 303
BOOK REVIEWS
Lord's category (5), the poetics of oral
literature, presupposes that oral literature
not only changes, but evolves. Once
songs were simple, then they became
complex through the achievement of singers of distinction over the generations.
Much of what we admire in Homer will
depend on this evolution: his elaborate descriptions of objects and scenes, organization through ring composition and chiasmus and such rhetorical tropes as
anaphora. Homer's predecessors have invented these devices, not Homer, and they
have been passed on and elaborated still
further because they enhanced the power
of performance. All such traditional devices were passed on to written literature
eventually, but they did not originate
there.
But the poetics of oral and written literature soon diverge; written literature, for
example, eschews close verbal repetition
as inelegant, while oral poetics enjoys
repetition. Such differences have suggested to scholars that the artistry of oral literature is less than that of written literature,
but such prejudgments cannot withstand
scrutiny (what literate poet ever surpassed
Homer?). An important issue (rarely taken
into account by Homerists) is the editorial
reshaping of an oral text once it is written
down to make it look more like a written
text. A good example is found in the collection of Luka Marjanovich in the 19th
century, who in editing written versions
of oral South Slavic texts omitted lines or
blocks of lines, adjusted the meter, removed repetitions and combined two lines
into one. Homer's texts must have undergone just such editing, placing us in an
awkward position when evaluating his
poetics on the basis of the Alexandrian
vulgate.
songs actually does take place, for lyric
poems are short enough to be remembered
verbatim and the ritual context in which
often they are performed might encourage
such repetition. For a case study, Lord
turns to the Latvian dainas, quatrains sung
during work and festival, to show how,
though very short, there are nonetheless
innumerable multiforms of any one song.
Serbo-Croatian lyric women's songs in
the Milman Parry Collection at Harvard
offer similar patterns of variability. Parry's collection is superior not only in
quantity and breadth, but because he and
Lord took down the same song several
times from the same singer. Here Lord
examines in detail riddling and boasting
songs to show how the singer works with
blocks of lines intermediate between the
formula and the theme. He shows how
there is a stable but not fixed core of lines
to which additions can be made. The concept of a memorized text simply cannot
explain such multiforms, which appear to
issue from the same technique of composition-in-performance that produces oral
epic verse.
In an addendum, Mary Louise Lord
gathers remarks by Parry and others about
ancient Greek lyric and epic which support the thesis that Greek lyric and elegy
were created in the same way as Latvian
dainas and Serbo-Croatian women's
songs – that is, as multiforms without the
aid of writing (but at some point, of
course, were written down). I only wish
she had faced the problem that Greek lyric
and elegy are written by Alcaeus, Sappho
and Solon, while the songs Lord studies
are anonymous and never written down
by those who sang them. Did Alcaeus
write down his own songs? If so, why?
Did Solon compose in writing, or orally to
dictation, or compose orally then write
Chapter 2, "Oral Traditional Lyric Poet- down his own words? Or did different
ry," turns to the composition and trans- poets behave in different ways? In my
mission of oral traditional nonnarrative own mind, such questions remain.
songs. Here, if anywhere, we should find
evidence that verbatim repetition of oral
In Chapter 3 "Homer and the Muses:
April 1996
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 304
BOOK REVIEWS
Oral Traditional Poetics, a Mythic Episode
and Arming Scenes in the “Iliad," Lord
faces the criticism, once much heard, that
Homer's oral style precludes an appreciation of aesthetics in his poems. Lord's
kicking-boy is Paolo Vivante, who seems
to have thought that Homer was Wallace
Stevens and in The Epithets of Homer
(1982) applied to Homer a myopic vision
of the nature of poetry. Vivante is something of a straw-horse, for his book was
never taken seriously, but his sentimental
attitudes are an extreme form of an initial
response to Parry: that formulas are cogs
and machines are not beautiful (and build
themselves, no doubt). Vivante even denied mythical patterns to the Iliad and
Lord wonders what about the war of the
gods, then, well known from Mesopotamian myth and what about the mythic almost-death of the hero, a pattern in South
Slavic oral song too.
As for language, Homer's was like
what we speak, though metrical; yet who
would deny verbal creativity to a speaker
of English, just because he must observe
rules of grammar and employ a common
vocabulary? The modern poet, by contrast, attempts to create an individualistic
language, seeking new ways of thinking
and new ways of saying things. Such
forms of poetic communication were unknown in Homer's day (and depend on
writing). To ignore this fact is to remain
muddled about Homer's poetic achievement.
Lord presents a close reading of the four
arming scenes in the Iliad to show how
Homer has skillfully altered a type-scene
to enhance the present drama. His discussion, which contains some earlier published material, is a locus for understanding the flexibility of the oral style and the
creativity of a traditional poet working
with traditional material. Through such
comparison we can understand the aesthetics of Homeric composition.
Lord was not a classicist, but a comparatist and his scholarship was built on
April 1996
mastery of unrelated but parallel traditions. In Chapter 4, “Beowulf and Oral
Tradition," Lord describes how in the Old
English tradition meter was tonic, not syllabic like the Greek, employed alliteration
and formulas and used blocks of lines and
repeated themes to build the narrative:
such blocks and themes were not
"memorized," but "remembered." Presumably, Lord argues, such texts were
dictated (as were the Homeric poems) and
he criticizes sharply scholars who have
misunderstood what Lord and Parry
meant by "improvisation," that is, composition in performance. There's deja vu
here, but medievalists naturally think in
terms of texts composed in writing, as
well they might, and Lords's discussion
illuminates how Parry's theories apply to
an oral tradition different in its mechanics
from the Greek.
So how did Beowulf come into existence? Lord flirts with the notion that the
Beowulf poet, under the influence of
reading Virgilian epic in a monastic environment, might himself have recorded the
poem; the thesis would satisfy those medievalists who admire the poem's artistry,
on the assumption that oral poems are artless. The issue touches on the hard fought
question of the "transitional text," to
which Lord will later return. In any event,
Beowulf is built on an ancient and powerful mythic pattern, the monster-slayer, according to our expectation that oral compositions not only entertain, but inculcate
deeply held values and concerns. Lord
shows how this primordial pattern incorporated parallel Judeo-Christian traditions
about the creation and threats to It, for oral
poetics loves repetition as a way of driving home a point. In a fine editor's addendum, Marie Lord rejects attempts to prove
or disprove the oral origin of medieval
English poetry through examination of the
orthography of early manuscripts, when
poems known to be oral and those known
to be written share the same conventions.
Stylistic analysis remains our best guide to
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 305
BOOK REVIEWS
deciding on a poem's orality.
Allen,'" that means something (Lord calls
this a "sense of texuality"), still there is no
Chapter 5, "The Formula in Anglo-Sax- fixed text and, despite the influential
on Poetry," explores features of oral-tra- views of some English scholars, no rote
ditional style in Beowulf and other Anglo- memorization.
Saxon poetry. Lord enters the controversy
about formula-density in such poetry,
Chapter 8, "Rebuttal," addresses specifwhich leads to the controversy about the ic complaints and misunderstandings. To
nature of "formula," "formulaic expres- straighten the muddle, Lord distinguishes
sions," and "systems" of formulas. Lord three "schools" of approach to oral theory.
defends Parry's words, "an expression The first is the "philosophical," concerned
regularly used, under the same metrical with illiterate and preliterate societies and
conditions, to express an essential idea," the "oral mind" (e.g., E. Havelock, J.
and shows how this definition of formula Goody). The second school means by
works for Anglo-Saxon poetry. So much "oral" nonwritten, so that if someone
blood has been spilled, but Lord's chapter memorizes Virgil (or a written copy of
reminds me of the critical importance of Homer), he is an "oral poet" (e.g., Ruth
establishing clear definitions as a first step Finnegan). The third school consists of
in drawing historical conclusions. We are those who examine with great care the
arguing over definitions – what is oral po- words and groups of words, the actual
etry? what is a formula? – because we texts, of oral poems, to see how they were
classicists want to know what kind of poet put together. These are the philologists,
Homer really was.
like Parry and Lord himself, intensely
Chapter 6, "The Theme in Anglo-Saxon concerned with poetic quality and the unPoetry," turns now to the theme, for im- derstanding of traditional meaning. Such
portant scholars have denied that the distinctions need always to be kept in
theme, "a repeated passage with a fair mind in discussing "oral theory," a phrase
amount of verbal repetition," exists in An- which Lord thinks a misnomer. Parry's
glo-Saxon poetry. Lord agrees that such descriptions do not constitute a theory as
repetition does not work in the way it does such, but are conclusions based on fact
in Homeric poetry, but that it does occur, and not on supposition or plausibility.
identifiable through elements of single
With such distinction in mind, Lord
words or lexical units.
places various critics in this or that camp
Oral theory has concentrated on epic, and shows how their views and misunbut what about the shorter forms, ballad derstanding derive from unspoken points
and lyric? Lord already considered lyric of view. Of great interest is Lord's dem(Chapter 2), but examines ballad in onstration that rhyme does not assist
Chapter 7, "The Ballad: Textual Stability, memorization, but actually interferes with
Variation and Memorization." Placing side it.
by side different versions of "Barbara
In Chapter 9, "Two Versions of the
Allen," Lord shows how the unit of com- Theme of the Overnight Visi in The Wedposition is the couplet, which comes and ding of Smailagic Meho," Lord set out to
goes and shifts around very much as do show the range of variation in the presenHomeric formulas. Lord considers South tation of a single theme within a single
Slavic examples, too, and concludes that work, how the oral singer can produce
there is no fixed text of a ballad even for a long or short versions of song as the narsingle singer. While singers recognize that rative commands.
a song has a recognizable "text," so that
when you say "Please sing 'Barbara
Chapter 10, "The Transitional Text,"
April 1996
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 306
BOOK REVIEWS
faces one of the thorniest problems in oral
studies. We must always deal with written
texts in attempting to understand the past,
but how can we tell which were composed
in writing and which were composed orally? In earlier writings, especially The
Singer of Tales, Lord denied the transitional text: the poem is sung and taken
down by dictation, or it is composed in
writing from the start, one or the other.
On the one hand you have a fluid tradition;
on the other you have a fixed text and the
concept of the fixed text. But here Lord
retreats from his earlier position and admits that we can speak meaningfully of
transitional texts.
We must deal, first, with the problem of
editorial adaptation of oral material, for
example Italo Calvino's retelling of Italian
folktales, sometimes called a "transitional
text," but of course without verse or formulas. Calvino translated these stories
into standard Italian from dialectal versions taken from story-tellers. We might,
then, expect a "transitional text" to be a
doctored text, whose style and expression
has been altered according to a literate editor's fancies about what is crude or appropriate. Oral poetics are different from
written (surely it is depressing to read in
very modern commentaries how this or
that line of Homer is "inelegant," "crudely
constructed," or "unworthy of the poet").
The Grimms, whose Hausmaerchen might
also be called "transitional," altered the
original style still more than Calvino did
and created the genre of the literary
"folktale." In a similar way, in Old English poems translated from the Latin, poetics derived from oral English epic shape
the expression. Still, when you subject
such poems to rigorous examination, the
evidently oral style begins to look mechanical, as if composed by an amateur in
the art of oral verse making.
In coming to grips with the issue of the
transitional text, you must distinguish between two classes, insiders and outsiders.
The first are the traditional group, includApril 1996
ing the oral poets; the second class falls
into three subcategories: (a) collector
/editors, (b) retellers, (c) and imitators. To
(a) first belong Calvino and Parry. Retellers and imitators, if they use traditional
material may, however, create poems that
closely resemble oral poems and can be
hard to distinguish from them. Lord gives
three examples from the South Slavic tradition, whose poems would appear to be
truly "transitional." In one example, the
poet began as an oral traditional singer,
became literate and wrote songs imitating
oral style, then wrote fully literate works
with nontraditional subjects and motifs.
Such examples, however, Lord is careful to observe, cannot inform us about the
Homeric poems, which were certainly not
transitional texts. Homer's world was utterly different from that of medieval or
early modern society, where written Latin
and its ancient traditions were always
nearby.
Only as comparatists will we unravel the
mysteries of the Homeric poems. Taken
by themselves, they remain a puzzle. Lord
was a comparatist above all. His method
is to state a problem, cite scholars whose
views have defined the problem's terms,
then turn to original texts to show how the
problem can be solved. The book is a remarkable defense of theses first advanced
in The Singer of Tales and a natural companion to that seminal work. Not only
every Homerist, but every scholar wishing to understand the roots of culture will
read it eagerly. It is a deep well and a
heady draft.
The BRYN MAWR MEDIEVAL REVIEW
is an electronic book review service that
is accessible on the internet. The reviews have been reprinted with the kind
permission of the editors. Inquiries may
be directed to:
[email protected]
(James O’Donnell, Paul Remley
and Eugene Vance, are the editors.)
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 307
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
... concerning the April 1995 issue
where Jim Williams of Mt. Eden CA.
asked about Anne Clinton and John Harrington. My line is also through the Harringtons. I found some information on the
LDS family search. I do know that this is
sometimes not reliable, but it is a start. By
the way, I love TPC.
8. John Harrington, b 1561, Kelston,
Eng., m 6 Sept 1583, d 20 Nov 1612,
England, m Mary Rogers.
9. Mary Rogers (mother of # 4), b
1565, Somerset, Eng., d 1633, Eng.
10. Thomas Clinton, Earl of Lincoln,
b 1568, Lincolnshire, Eng., d 15 Jan
1618, m Elizabeth Knyvett. (Father of
Laura Meyer #5).
3801 Whitney Ave. 11. Elizabeth Knyvett, b 1578,
Flint, MI 48532 Charlton, Eng., (mother of #5).
16. John Harrington, b 1525, m
1554, d 1582, m Isabel Markham.
17. Isabel Markham (mother of #8), b
ANCESTOR CHART FOR
1529, d 1579.
JOSEPH HARRINGTON:
18. Thomas Rogers, b 1540. (Father
- Contributed by Laura Meyer
of #9).
19. ______, b 1540, (mother of #9)
20. _____Clinton (Fiennes), b
(To read: double numbers for the father, then add 1544, m 1557, d 1616, m Catherine Hastone for name of the mother.)
ings.
21. Catherine Hastings, b 1542, d
1576. (Mother of #10).
1 . Joseph Harrington, b 1652, Provi- 22. Henry Knyvett, b 1539, d 1598,
dence, RI, d 19 Apr 1699, Providence,
m Elizabeth Stump, b 1534.
Rhode Island, m Sarah ___, b 1656,
23. Elizabeth Stumpe, b 1524.
Providence RI. Son of:
(Mother of #11).
2. Benjamin Harrington, b 1618,
Eng., d 18 Apr 1694, Providence, RI, m
Elizabeth White.
Editorial reply: According to The
3. Elizabeth White, b 1609, Boston,
Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal
MA., d 1701, Providence, RI., d/o Wil(Clarence Volume), Ruvigny, reprint
liam White, b 1603, England, m 1630?, d 1994 by Genealogical Publishing Co., the
1673 Boston, MA., m Elizabeth _____.
descent from the Plantagenets is as fol4. John Harrington, b 1595, Bath,
lows:
Eng., d 1630, Boston Harbor, MA., m
Ann Clinton.
5. Ann Clinton, b 1595, New Castle,
10. Thomas Clinton (1588-1619), 3rd
Eng.,
Earl of Lincoln, m Elizabeth Knevett.
d 25 Dec 1632, Charlestown, MA.
(Table XVII). Father:
6. William White, b 1603, England, m 20. Henry Clinton (1540-1616), 2nd
1630?, d 1673 Boston, MA., m Elizabeth Earl of Lincoln, m (1557) Lady Katherine
__.
Hastings. (Table XVII). Mother:
7. Elizabeth ______, w/o William
21 Lady Katherine Hastings (1542White.
1579). Father:
42. Francis Hastings, Earl of HuntApril 1996
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 308
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
ington (1514-1561). Table II, m Katherine Pole (d1576).
43. Katherine Pole (d1576), m (1532)
Francis, Earl of Huntington (1514-1561).
Table II. Father:
86. Henry Pole, Baron Montagu
(1492-1539), m (1513) Janet Neville. Father:
172. Sir Reginald Pole (d 1505), m
(1494) Margaret, Countess of Salisbury
(1473-1541)
173. Margaret Plantagenet, Countess
of Salisbury (1473-1541), (known as the
Blessed Princess Margaret, the last of the
Plantagenets, beheaded on Tower Hill, 17
May 1541.) Father:
346. George Plantagenet, Duke of
Clarence (1449-1478), m (1469) Lady
Isabel Neville (1451-1476), (d/o Richard
Neville, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury,
“The King Maker.” ) George was the
brother of Edward IV and Richard III. Father:
692. Richard of York, 3rd Duke of
York (1412-1460), m (1424) Lady Cecily
Neville (1415-1495). Father:
1384. Richard of York, Earl of Cambridge (1375-1415), m Lady Anne Mortimer.
1385. Lady Anne Mortimer. Father:
2768. Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of
March (1374-1398), m Lady Eleanor Holland (d 1405). Father:
5536. Edmund de Mortimer (13521381), m (1368) Philippa of Clarence
(1355-1382). Father:
11072. Lionel of Antwerp (13381368), Duke of Clarence, m Lady Elizabeth de Burgh (d 1363). Father:
22144. Edward III, King of England,
m (1328) Philippa of Hainault. Issue:
(1) Edward the Black Prince
(2) Lionel of Antwerp
(3) John of Gaunt
(4) Edmund of Langley
(5) Thomas of Woodstock
(6) Isabel Plantagenet
April 1996
THE ISLE OF DOGS
Dear Editors,
. . . I am into dogs and I want to know
more about the Isle of Dogs. My desk calendar has a blurb on this subject: “By the
end of the Middle Ages, Great Britain has
already become what it is today – the
world’s leading exporter of dogs. In the
1500’s, the Tudor kings kept sumptuous
kennels on the Isle of Dogs – an island
devoted entirely to this enterprise. Later,
the Stuarts enlarged the kennels as the demand for dogs from continental European
nobility continued to grow.”
I will be anxiously awaiting anything
your staff or readership might be able to
supply on this subject. I still look forward
to each issue of your great magazine.
- Leslie McLaughlin
Jackson, CA 95642
Editorial reply: The Isle of Dogs is a district in London. It is enclosed on three sides by a
bend in the Thames River. The region includes
many docks and wharves as well as housing for
the working class. The actual reason for the name
of the area is unknown. There were old rumors
that royal kennels were located there, but that is
considered unlikely, as it has been the perfect
space for docks since the city was founded.
Another theory is that the name came from a corruption of “Isle of Docks.” This is also unlikely.
One thing is certain: it is not an island devoted to
the breeding of dogs. It is not even an island.
QUESTIONS ON THE ANCESTRY OF ELIZABETH OF YORK
ISBN: 1-892977-05-2
Question 1:
John MARSHAL #2668- Shows a
change that his father was Gilbert de
CLARE #5336, instead of Gilbert
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 309
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
MARSHAL? John MARSHAL was the
Marlyn Lewis
father of Isabel MARSHAL who married
Gilbert de CLARE. This is according to Question 3: A delete is shown for #5560,
Weiss.
Hugh BIGOD and his wife Juliana de
VERE #5561. If this is the case, then who
Editorial
Reply: John Marshal were the parents of Roger BIGOD #
(#2668 in The Ancestry of Elizabeth of 2780? Roger BIGOD was the father of
York) is not the same John Marshal that Hugh BIGOD who married Maud
the questioner is talking about. If I have MARSHALL, d/o William.
my notes right, the questioner is talking
about his grandson who had the daughter
Editorial Reply: You misread this.
Isabel Marshal who married Gilbert de The delete was for the pointback error.
Clare. The one at 2668 is John Marshal #2580 is Hugh Bigod who married Joan
who married Sybil de Salisbury. And Burnell. #5560 is his father who married
John Marshal is really more correctly Juliana de Vere. # 5160 is the grandfather
called John le Marischal (the marshall) Hugh Bigod who married Gundred de
FitzGilbert as he is, in fact, part of the de Warren.
Clare family.
Kenneth Harper Finton
John is #2668, then his father is #5336.
#5336 is shown as being Gilbert de Clare
(not a Marshall at all). He isn't a Marshal
RALEIGH CROSHAW
after you get back far enough. He dropped
the de Clare name, adopted FitzGilbert
(being the son of Gilbert) and changed Dear Editor,
again when he became Marshall of Eng- A book published by your firm called
land. The adoption of surnames is a mod- From Tribes to Nations [ISBN: 1ern invention. They did not find the ne- 892977-02-8] has information on Raleigh
cessity for surnames in those time.
Croshaw. I am hoping to find more inforMarlyn Lewis mation on him, as I am descended from
his son, Joseph.
Question 2: Matthew HOLLAND, #
Barbara Tuttle
2432, shows his father as #4864, Siward
4555 S Misson, Lot 549
de LONGWORTH. Why the name change
Tuscon, AZ 85746
or is this in error?
Editorial Reply: Raleigh Croshaw
Editorial Reply: The second question was the first published poet in the new
is a matter of some concern. Matthew Ho- world. He was mentioned by Captain
land took the name of the property he pos- John Smith in his book on the early Virgisessed. I can't recall the shire it is in, but nia settlement. Croshaw and others were
the manor was called Holand (near Up- ancient planters, a term applied to those
holland). His father, Siward de Long- persons who arrived in Virginia before
worth, took his name from another 1616, remained for at least a period of
manor. The source is not all that reliable three years, paid their passage, and sur(Michael Call and his “Royal Ancestors of vived the massacre of 1624. They reSome American Families”), but there are ceived the first patents of land on the new
others who have come up with the same world, as authorized by Sir Thomas Dale
data. I'll stand by this until someone can in 1618. A special society exists for defind something better. However, I won't scendants of such planters called “The Orstand by it very closely ...
der of Descendants of Ancient Planters.”
April 1996
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 310
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
It was founded October 13, 1991 in Raleigh, North Carolina. Information on
membership in this society can be had by
contacting Mrs. Ruby Carlton Sharber,
7909 River Ridge Road, Wake Forest,
NC 27587-9355. (919) 266-0402.
who is Ralph’s son (father of #2656).
#5391 Milicent, says same ass 5313,
however, there is no entry for 5313.
#4104 Wulgrin II Taliaferro same as 2714
who is listed as Wulgrin III. #4105 Ponce
de Montgomerie same as 2715, but 2715
is Elizabeth d”Amboise.
Other information sources
for Raleigh Croshaw and others:
Billings, Warren M. The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century, “An
Account of George Percey,” pp 22-27,
1975, UNC Press.
Boddie, John B. Colonial Surry.
1974, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, MD.
Campbell, Charles. History of the
Colony and Dominion of Virginia. 1860.
Lippincott.
Coldham, Peter W. The Complete
Book of Emigrants 1607-1660. 1987.
Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore,
MD.
Dorman, John F. Ed. Adventurers of
Purse and Person 1607-1624/5. 1987.
First Families of Virginia. 1987.
Hotten, John Camden, The Original
Lists of Persons of Quality. 1978. Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, MD.
Barbara Hopkins Moffitt
6588 E Woodbridge Rd
Acampo, CA 95220
Editorial Reply: Those are just a few
of the pointback errors that were the results of the corrections. Maryln has been
working on the data and making all the
necessary corrections. These corrections
will be incorporated in the reprint that we
will publish separately from the journal.
Kenneth Harper Finton
An honest tale speeds best being
plainly told.
- Shakespeare
Richard III
Kenneth Harper Finton
FEEDBACK ON THE ANCESTRY
OF ELIZABETH OF YORK
I find the ahnentafel chart for Elizabeth
Plantagenet to be a valuable resource. I realize that this is a work in progress and
therefore would like to point out a few entries that I believe need further attention:
#10080 Aubrey de Vere, which says same
as 5162, however, there is to entry for
#5162. #10081 Adeliza de Clare, same as
5187 which says same as 5162, however
there is no entry for #5163. #10624 Ralph
Mortimer, same as 5390 which says same
as 5212, but this is Hugh de Mortimer
April 1996
There is pleasure in hardship heard
about.
- Euripides
Helen
A story with a moral appended is
like the bill of a mosquito. It bores
you, and then injects a stinging
drop to irritate your conscience.
The Plantagenet Connection
- O’ Henry
The Gold That Glitters
Page 311
MOVIE REVIEWS AND COMMENTARY
RICHARD III
Reviewed by Kenneth Harper Finton
Based on a stage production
by Richard Eyre
from the play by William Shakespeare.
Directed by Richard Loncraine.
Written by Ian McKellen and Loncraine.
With:
Ian McKellen as Richard III
Annette Bening as Queen Elizabeth
Jim Broadbent as Lord Buckingham
Robert Downey Jr. as Rivers
Nigel Hawthorne as Clarence
Kristin Scott Thomas as Lady Anne
Maggie Smith as the Duchess of York
John Wood as King Edward
Director of photography: Peter Biziou
Production designer: Tony Burrough
Edited by Paul Green
Music by Trevor Jones
Produced by Lisa Katselas Pare
and Stephen Bayly
Released by United Artists Pictures.
Running time: 105 minutes.
Rating: R
Those who have grown accustomed to
other productions of Shakespeare’s
Richard III will have their imagination rekindled in this new production by Richard
Loncraine. Instead of a fifteenth-century
setting, the play has been transposed to an
imaginary England of the 1930’s where
fascism has taken over and the royals all
resemble Nazis. King Edward, in particular, bears an uncanny resemblance to
Adolph Hitler. They drive around in huge
limousines with an entourage of SS-like
soldiers.
The movie begins with a swing version
of Christopher Marlowe's poem “The
Passionate Shepherd to His Love,” sung
by a sultry nightclub singer who pulls the
song off in an appropriate torch-singer
rendition.
Enter Richard, whose deformity is
downplayed considerably. His lame arm
April 1996
and limp remain, along with some mottled
skin on his cheek, but he sports a thick,
soft, black caterpillar-like mustache. From
a distance, Richard is a lady’s man as
well. The viewer is a bit shocked that anything is left of the Shakespeare dialog in
this expensive production, until Richard
begins to speak to the nobles with, “Now
is the winter of our discontent.”
Shakespeare’s original plot is followed
as Richard proceeds to murder his way to
the throne, convincing henchmen and nobles alike to join him in his conspiracy to
rule. Richard promises great rewards,
then breaks these contracts at his whim.
With supreme cunning and design,
Richard could even force the lovely Lady
Ann, whose husband he had murdered, to
become his queen and share his bed. Her
brother Rivers is murdered in a particularly clever manner as a sword is automatically thrust through both a mattress and
Rivers’ own bare chest while he is engaged in foreplay with a passionate young
woman.
Richard’s brother Clarence, a naive and
trusting soul, meets his end in a bathtub,
as he is pushed below the water and his
throat slit in a crimson tide. All these murders take place at Richard’s command.
Of course, the young princes, Richard’s
ill-fated nephews, are summarily placed in
the tower and meet their demise as well.
For all of Richard’s treachery, Ian McKellen manages to keep the character alive
as a suave, chain-smoking, debonair figure with a touch of regal charm. Only
once does he actually lose his temper,
when Buckingham comes to him demanding his promised earldom. To this request,
he barks, “I am not in the giving mood
today.” The result is that Buckingham, the
right-hand man in Richard’s usurpation, is
driven to Richmond’s camp and the
House of Lancaster.
Throughout the movie we see bored
young ladies smoking from long cigarette
holders, sipping drinks from crystal
glasses, waiting for either age or Richard
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 312
MOVIE REVIEWS AND COMMENTARY
to catch up with them.
Silver-tongued dialog from both the
men and the women remind us of Shakespeare’ original play. The decadence and
the loss of Victorian morality that took
over the world before World War II
stands out in this production as a natural
social progression.
Richard’s attempt to force himself upon
the young Elizabeth of York (subject of
the ahnentafel in this publication) is repelled when she runs off with Henry
Tudor to make love in a tent before the
final battle scene.
The humor of the movie is ever present.
Often, the audience chuckles at the irony
that the strange setting brings to the production. Richard’s most famous line is
delivered when Richard is trying to flee
from the overwhelming forces of Richmond (Henry Tudor). His jeep bogs
down in the dirt amid fire and shells, and
he cries, “A horse, a horse, my kingdom
for a horse.”
With all the strange fascist fantasies,
one might wonder, does this movie really
work? The answer is a resounding “yes.”
Shakespeare is a man who wrote for all
the ages. Rip away the medieval settings,
the plot remains strong and intriguing.
Add millions of production dollars instead
of a cheap stage set, and the realism is
significantly enhanced. Add an all-star
cast, such as this, and the movie becomes
even more gripping.
Richard as a symbol of Satan is made
clear at the end. He falls, shot by Richmond, into a circle of fire, a smile on his
face, comfortably at home in the warm
pits of hell, to the sounds of Al Jolson
singing, “I'm Sitting on Top of the
World.”
With all this camp, one would think that
the movie is a farce, a pale imitation of old
Will’s masterpiece, yet things are gained
in this production that the more traditional
approaches cannot elicit. Modern viewers
are more at home with tanks and guns
than horses and lances. The idea of Nazi
April 1996
domination brings to mind images that are
easier to comprehend than a civil war between the houses of York and Lancaster.
No, the writers did not make a mistake
when they conceived of this idea. They
helped us to understand this story of William Shakespeare in a modern context, retaining enough of the poetic dialog to allow us to admire the intelligence and culture of the past, yet apply it to a world that
is much closer to the one we know.
THE MADNESS
OF KING GEORGE
Reviewed by Kenneth Harper Finton
Directed by Nicholas Hytner.
Written by Alan Bennett.
(based on his play, "The Madness of
George III")
Director of photography: Andrew Dunn
Edited by Tariq Anwar
Music adapted from George Frideric
Handel
by George Fenton
Production designer: Ken Adam;
Produced by Stephen Evans and David
Parfitt
Released by the Samuel Goldwyn Company
Running time: 105 minutes.
The film is not rated.
Starring:
Nigel Hawthorne as George III
Helen Mirren as Queen Charlotte
Ian Holm as Dr. Willis
Amanda Donohoe as Lady Pembroke
Rupert Graves as Greville
Julian Wadham as William Pitt
Rupert Everett as Prince of Wales
Engrossing, humorous, interesting, and
extremely well acted, this movie captures
the spirit of the English monarch who lost
the American colonies. George III showed
signs of mental illness as early as 1765,
but the symptoms were quick to pass. By
October of 1788, his mental instability be-
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 313
MOVIE REVIEWS AND COMMENTARY
came obvious. He became a danger to
those around him. Unfortunately, the
physicians of the period knew little about
how to treat such a disease. Even a routine
examination of the the king was considered improper. When George got worse,
he was placed under the care of cruel physicians who used restraints and beatings to
deal with his insanity.
The film confuses the restraints and beatings of previous physicians with the more
humane treatment of Dr. Willis, a specialist in the treatment of delusion. The script
is in error about Willis’ methods of treatment, which actually was more compassionate and soothing in manner.
Dr. Willis, in a scene in the film, talks of
his patients who imagine themselves to be
king. "He is the King," he says of his
royal patient. "Where shall his fancy take
refuge?"
Oppositionary forces, of course, arose
behind the Prince of Wales in an attempt
to make him regent. The Regency Bill was
brought before parliament, but under the
care of Dr. Willis, the king recovered by
March of 1789.
The film covers the short span of time
between 1788-1789. In 1811, after the
death of his favorite daughter, Amelia,
George became permanently insane and
blind as well. He remained impaired until
his death on 29 January 1820.
Several scenes are quite memorable.
There is a music recital that the king attends, where “Greensleeves" is played on
bells. "Fascinating stuff, what-what?
Let's have it again!" he says. He refused
to let a pregnant women be seated during
this cultural ordeal, saying: "If everybody
who's having a baby wants to sit down,
next thing it'll be everybody with gout."
Comfortably human, George has a wonderful way of addressing Queen Charlotte
as "Mrs. King."
In another scene, George decided to
rouse his servants at sunrise, announcing:
"Six hours' sleep is enough for a man,
seven for a woman and eight for a fool!"
April 1996
George reads Shakespeare aloud with
his Lord Chancellor one day. "'King
Lear'––is that wise?" asks the Lord Chancellor.
"I had no idea what it was about, sir,"
the King's physician replies.
The film includes swearing, sexual references and bathroom details closely
linked to the King's medical condition.
The King's malady has more recently
thought to be porphyria, a metabolic imbalance whose symptoms include mental
disturbance and a blue tinge in the urine.
The film is well worth the watching,
perhaps good for several viewings. Save
it for a Sunday treat after a stressful week.
The history of the world is the history of a privileged few.
The Plantagenet Connection
- Henry Miller
“Sunday After the War”
Page 314
THE BRADFORD CONNECTION
COMMENTARY
Why Genealogy?
by Kenneth Harper Finton
Historically, tracing one’s descent was
a very important thing. Ancient Celts who
could not trace their descent were little
more than outlaws with no property rights
of their own.
Yes, property rights and inheritance were
the primary reason for keeping up with the
family tree for many generations, but it
does go deeper than that. Genealogy is
more popular than ever today, thanks to
the ease of computer programs that can
make professionals of even the most sloppy researcher.
Medical research has focused on genetic
faults that carry a tendency toward certain
diseases and ailments with the hope of
corrective action in the near future and
early detection in the present. However,
one needs only go back a few generations
to provide an adequate medical genetic
profile.
What explains the desire to trace the line
of descent to the dim and ancient past?
That question is answered easily enough.
The process is enjoyable for most people.
One can become a scholar quickly, a specialist in their own small circle of researchers. Most genealogists also love
history. They believe that truth is often
stranger than fiction, and they relish finding new twists to old stories.
Genealogy can often require travel (or
help to rationalize the expense of travel) to
distant places for research. New friends
and acquaintances are made in the process, friends that can stick with you for a
lifetime. With the new popularity of genealogy boards on computer based on-line
services, new friends are often made on a
daily basis.
Genealogy and history are forever enApril 1996
twined in the skeletal remains of the past.
Proper courses of action in the present are
hardly ever simple reactions to environmental dilemmas. These same obstacles
have generally occurred before. Only by
being familiar with the study of past actions can an intelligent mind pour over the
information before it and come to a logical
conclusion that might work for the present. Without history, without genealogy,
we lose the very tools we need for intelligent survival. It is our knowledge of our
history that separates us from the beasts of
nature, and without it, we quickly revert
to primitive conditions.
THE BRADFORD CONNECTION
(The Sharpe Relation to the Mayflower Families)
By D. A. Sharpe
The Mayflower Pilgrims are related to the
Sharpe family through Gov. William Bradford.
Though some settle-ments of Spaniards occurred
earlier in Florida and South Carolina, and Jamestown was populated by English folk beginning in
1607, the Plymouth colony is considered by
many historians as the premier quality beginning
of what is now the population of the United
States.
The Mayflower was built circa 1610, and probably was a three masted, two decked ship as most
were in that time. It was under 100 feet long, and
its 25% owner was Christopher Jones, who served
as Master. It sailed September 16, 1620 with 102
passengers, taking 66 days to reach present day
Provincetown Harbor.
There were only 23 family units to survive that
cold winter after arriving November 21, 1620 in
what is now Provincetown Harbor. It was not until December 26 that they selected Plymouth
Rock, Mass. to establish their living quarters.
However, today it can be estimated that some 25+
million of our country's 260 million population
are descended from that original group of 102
Englanders. Most of them were members of the
Separatists religious movement in England which
objected (in good Presbyterian type fashion) to the
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 315
THE BRADFORD CONNECTION
Roman catholic likeness of the Church of England.
The Mayflower Compact, was written November
11, 1620 [This was November 21, old style calendar] off the coast of what was to become Massachusetts. This is the first written agreement for
self-government in America. It was signed on the
Mayflower, before landing at what became Plymouth Colony. There were 41 adult males who
signed the document. Of the 102 passengers, 37
were members of the "Separatists" who were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. Half the colony failed to survive the first winter, but the remainder lived on and prospered. One of the signers
was William Bradford, whom some historians
have called the Father of American History. He
basically was self-educated.
Bradford was born in Austerfield, Yorkshire,
England, March 19, 1589 anddied May 9, 1657.
He became learned in Dutch, Latin, French, Greek
and Hebrew. He studied the latter two languages,
it is reported, because of his interest to know the
scriptures in their original languages.
Bradford joined the Brownists in 1606, a dissident
Protestant sect in England. Three years later, in
search of freedom of worship, went with them to
Holland, where he became an apprentice to a silk
manufacturer. He returned to England later, which
led him to become among the Pilgrim folk who
sailed on the Mayflower.
Bradford was first chosen Governor after the initial winter in the New World in an election held
April 21, 1621, and was elected for 30 one year
terms out of the next 35 years. His major writing
was History of Plimoth Plantation, 1620 - 1647,
a vivid account of the early settlement and the
major source of information about it. The work
was not published in full until about 200 years
after his death.
His first wife, Dorothia May, was the first of the
Mayflower folk to die in the New World. She was
born March 19, 1596. She fell overboard and
drowned while they were anchored off Cape Cod
in a New England bay on December 9, 1620.
There is no evidence about how or why this
drowning occurred.
Bradford and Dorothy gave issue to John, but he
died without issue. Therefore, all of Bradford's de-
April 1996
scendants derive from his second marriage.
It is Gov. Bradford's second wife, Alice Carpenter
Southworth (a widow), arriving on the sail ship
"Ann" in 1623, who formed the marriage which
produced the lineage to which the Sharpes are related. It was the 4th marriage in this New World
Colony.
Alice Carpenter's first husband, Edward Southworth of London, born about 1590, married Alice
May 28, 1613 in Leyden, Holland where some of
the Separatists fled England for a time before returning where some of them sailed on the Mayflower. Edward died, before July, 1623.
Edward's significance is that records exist tracing
his ancestry for many generations to the first Anglo Saxon King in England, Cerdic, King of the
West Saxons. Cerdic had led a group of Saxons
from Germany whose first established settlement
was on the coast of England at what is now
Hampshire, in the year 495 A.D. The 41 generations from Cerdic to Edward of London contain 15
Kings of England in his direct lineage, plus a
number of Kings with lateral relationships.
Though his line is not a direct connection to our
Sharpe line, the fact of a marriage relationship
with it in the Mayflower's day is of great interest.
In 1621, Gov. Bradford negotiated a treaty with
Massasoit, Chief of the Wampanoag Native
Americans. Under the treaty, which was considered vital to the maintenance and growth of the
colony, Massasoit disavowed claims of his people
to the Plymouth area, and pledged peace with the
colonists. Bradford was a delegate on four occasions to the New England Confederation, of
which he was twice elected President.
Here is the direct lineage, without report of siblings for the most part:
1. Alice Carpenter was born on August 3,
1590 in Wrenthan County, England. She immigrated in July, 1623, arriving in the sail ship
"Ann." She died March 26, 1670 in Plymouth.
1. Gov. William Bradford and Alice Carpenter Southworth gave issue to Major William
Bradford, (June 17, 1624, Plymouth - February
20, 1703), who married Alice Richards (June 16,
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 316
THE BRADFORD CONNECTION
1627, Weymouth, Massachusetts - December 12,
1671, Plymouth) Major Bradford was Commander-in-Chief of Plymouth forces at Great Swamp
Fight in 1675 and was severely wounded. He was
Deputy ofPlymouth in 1657, Assistant Governor,
1659-81, and Deputy Governor of Plymouth
1682-1686, and 1689-1691. He was a member of
the Council of Massachusetts in 1691, and treasurer of it 1679-1685, and in 1689-1691.
2. Major William Bradford (Mayflower Index #4664) married Alice Richards in 1650, and
gave issue to Alice Bradford in 1659, who died in
Canterbury, Connecticut on March 10, 1745.
William and Alice gave issue to
3. Meletiah Bradford November 1, 1664,
who married John Steel. After William was widowed, he married Mary Atwood Wood, and they
gave issue to Ephraim Bradford.
3. John Steel was born in 1660. It then was
John Steel and Meletiah Bradford Steel
(Mayflower Index #4508) who gave issue to Ebenezer Steel (August 13, 1695 to 1745) .
4. Ebenezer Steel (Mayflower Index #32870)
married Susannah Merrill (born August 18, 1700)
and they gave issue to:
5. Mary Steel (January 1, 1721) (Mayflower
Index #32908), who married Samuel Kellogg
(November 15, 1718 to 1770).
5. Samuel Kellogg and Mary Steel gave issue
to Bradford Kellogg (March 24, 1759 - 1832),
who married Mary (Polly) Thompson. Bradford
(Mayflower Index #21891) served in the American
Revolutionary War.
6. Bradford Kellogg and Mary (Polly)
Thompson gave issue to Lansing Kellogg
(December 24, 1806 to 1882?), who married Caroline Bishop (October 9, 1809 - January 2, 1872).
7. Lansing Kellogg and Caroline Bishop gave
issue to Sarah Lavinna Kellogg (February 7, 1840
- August 1, 1877), who married John Elsefer
Sharp (II) (January 25, 1830 - May 18, 1897).
8. John Elsefer Sharp (II) and Sara Lavinna
Kellogg gave issue to Dwight Elsefer Sharp,
Alfred Sharp and Henry Seth Sharp. John's second
wife was Mrs. Mary E. (Thompson) Cope, whom
he married July 26, 1878 at Ravenna, Portage
County, Ohio (near Cleveland). Their only issue
was Charles.
A spelling change took place. Records in Ohio of
April 1996
Dwight, Alfred and Henry all spell the last name
as "Sharp." Records in Chicago for Dwight, and
in Texas for Alfred and Henry all reflect "Sharpe."
However, their half brother, Charles, who remained in Ohio, retained "Sharp" as the last name
spelling.
9. Henry Sharpe made use of the English diminutive of his name, and was known mostly as
Harry Seth Sharpe. He migrated to Georgetown
(Williamson County), Texas about 1895. There,
he married Mattie de Noailles Simons, of Taylor
(Williamson County), Texas, and they gave birth
to Dwight Alfred Sharpe and to Harry (Dede)
Sharpe.
10. Dwight Alfred Sharpe (September 4,
1901 - August 2, 1981) was married on May 31,
1926 to Martha Dixon Chapman (April 5, 1904 August 2, 1979) and they gave issue to Martha de
Noailles Sharpe Ehlers (born September 7, 1927);
Elizabeth Ann Sharpe Jumper (lived August 9,
1929 - December 30, 1973) and Dwight Albert
Sharpe (born June 24, 1939). Dwight Albert
Sharpe was married September 30, 1962 to Suzanne Margaret Boggess (Born April 2, 1938) in
New Orleans, Louisiana. He was known as D. A.
Sharpe and she was known as Suzanne. They have
issue to:
11. Taylor Marcus Sharpe (January 26,
1965), Tiffany Lenn Sharpe (August 4, 1966) and
to Todd Whitman Sharpe (January 26, 1969).
Both boys shared the same month and date of
birth, 4 years apart. These children represent the
12th generation from the original Mayflower families
Since Suzanne M. Boggess's family is traced
back to a May 25, 1610 arrival at Jamestown,
Virginia, this Sharpe family is among a much
smaller group which can trace back to both of
these early significant settlements in our American history. Being in the Sharpe family and
knowing these connections gives its members
more of a feeling of belonging to a much larger
family and to the deep political and religious roots
of the United States of America.
- D. A. Sharpe
3829 McFarlin Boulevard
Dallas, Texas 75205-1706
[email protected]
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 317
Cathedral at Gloucester
April 1996
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 318
THE LINCOLN / TAYLOR CONNECTION
1. Sir John LEE, Knight, of Wibunbury, Chester = Isabella DUTTON, d/o Ralph Dutton, Esq.
2. John LEE = Elizabeth FOWLEHURST, d/o Sir Thomas Fowlehurst.
3. Thomas LEE = Alice ASTON, d/o Sir John Aston.
4. John LEE, Baron de la Lee = Margaret HOCKNELL (m before 1475), d/o Sir Ralph Hocknell.
5. Benedict LEE will proved 20 Sep 1476 = Elizabeth WOOD, d/o John Wood. Isue: 1) Richard 2)
Edward 3) Robert 4) Roger
6.Richard LEE, will 20 Nov 1499 = Elizabeth SAUNDERS, d/o William Saunders
7. Benedict LEE, will 21 Feb 1543 = Elizabeth CHEYNE, d/o Robert Cheyne.
8. Robert LEE, Knight, will 15 Aug 1616 = Lucy PIGOTT, d/o Thomas Pigott.
9. Richard LEE, emigrated to VA. =1) Elizabeth Langdon = 2) Anna CONSTABLE
Thomas WENTWORTH = Grace GASCOIGNE
Francis CONSTABLE
b:____, England
(not proven)
Elder William BREWSTER (Mayflower) = Mary WENTWORTH (no evidence that Mary is a Wentworth) b:1568
Isaac ALLERTON = Fear BREWSTER b:circa 1606
Isaac ALLERTON Jr. = Elizabeth WILLOUGHBY
Richard Henry LEE = Ann CONSTABLE
Sarah ALLERTON = Hancock LEE, b 1653
Col. William LEE, b 1646 = Alice FELTON
William LEE 2, b 1682 = Dorothy TAYLOR b 1681
Zachary TAYLOR = 1) Swan JONES 2) Elizabeth LEE
Richard TAYLOR = Sarah Dabney STROTHER
President Zachary TAYLOR
William Lee 3, b 14 May 1704 = an unknown wife
Nancy Anna LEE = Joseph HANKS, Sr.
Joseph HANKS, Jr. (b 1764) = Nancy SHIPLEY or, Joseph’s sister, Lucy HANKS = unknown Virginia planter
Nancy HANKS (b 1780) = Thomas LINCOLN
Information from Wiley A. Jarrell and Mary
THIS CHART MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. IT
Brewer, “From Log Cabins to White House,” Paul
IS ONLY INTENDED TO BE USED AS A
Nagel, “The Lee’s of Virginia.” and Edmund JenGUIDELINE FOR SEARCHES.
nings Lee, M.D., “The Lees of Virginia.”
President Abraham LINCOLN = Mary TODD
Source: “The Family of Lee,” by Rev. Frederick George Lee, Lambeth, England;
Pub. by Mitchell and Hughes, London, 1884.
April 1996
The Plantagenet Connection
Page 319
THE LINCOLN / TAYLOR CONNECTION
JOHN TYNDALE
& AMPHILLIS CONINGSBY
Dear Editors,
In Vol. 3, [TPC, April 1995] is listed the ancestry of Margaret Tyndale, w/o Rowland Taylor.
My relationship to them is proven if we accept
that James Taylor, b 1635, is the son on John
Taylor.
By the way, my research shows that Elizabeth
and Richard Taylor, the last two children of your
listed children for John Taylor, were children of
2nd wife, Elizabeth Jones. [See TPC, April
1995.] The first five children, I show as children
by an unknown 1st wife. This was in “From Log
Cabins to the White House,” by M.T. Brewer,
with no source given.
Regarding Margaret Tyndale, I’ve enclosed a
Family Group Sheet on John Tyndale, K.B., d ca.
1538, County Norfolk, England. I’ve listed Margaret as one of his children, as did you.
In “Suffolk Manorial Families,” Vol. II, p. 1523, is a pedigree for Tyndale. John Tyndale has the
children I have listed, plus four unknown daughters showing their married names, but no Margaret and no female married to a Taylor.
- Robert Motley, 42 Rocky Lane,
Cohassest, MA 02025-1350.
Editorial
reply:
As you pointed out, Tyndale is a place name taken from the River Tyne.
Because the name springs from the place, many
un