Orkney brides from scandinavian royalty - Florence and Ingeborg
M.Sjostrom
some sorts of family traditions appear to join two Sinclair of Orkney gentlemen to two little-attested scandinavian royal ladies in late 1300s.
* Henry Sinclair would have married a lady named Florentia, apocryphally Florentia Magnusdottir of Norway.
* John Sinclair would have married a lady Ingeborg Valdemarsdatter from Danish royal house.
book: St. Clair of Isles
First observation: such marriages would not have been implausible. Jarls, claimants and yunger sons of the ruling family were occasionally marying daughters of kings, either illegitimate or in some cases legitimate.
The political climate in 1350s-1390s would argue for marriage alliances of Orkneys and its claimants, all the time with royal house of Norway, and starting from 1370s, royal house of Denmark.
----
The Ingeborg would have been a bastard daughter of king Valdemar IV of Denmark - who was born c1320 and deceased in 1375. His legitimate children were born mostly in 1340s, and the youngest survivor in 1353.
Some book would make Ingeborg as daughter of Valdemar IV by 'Jova Litle', daughter of knight Jon Litle, governor in Rugen.
* names are basically plausible from scandinavian nomenclature
* king Valdemar had mistresses
* there was at least one noble family bynamed Litle
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00444032&tree=LEO
King Valdemar's eldest legitimate daughter was named Ingeborg Valdemarsdatter, and she married Duke of Mecklenburg.
But we know that half-siblings sometimes were namesakes.
So, an illegitimate daughter of king Valdemar, would be half-sister of queen Margaret of Norway, and marriage of such to an younger son of Orkney rulers in, say, 1370s-1390s would be plausible. she could have been born in 1350s, 1360s or up to 1376.
----
Florentia is not that plausible, as name and as of family of birth - but a (preferably differently-named) daughter dying young betrothed in 1360s, would not be implausible.
"sister to King Haakon"
* The Royal Archives of Sweden have no records of a Florentia.
* The Royal Archives of Denmark (WHICH WAS NOT THEIR COUNTRY) say that "a tradition attributes three sisters to King Haakon VI, but as to their names or lives nothing reliable seems to be known."
This lady Florence appears to verge on the borders of apocrypha.
-------------------------
does anyone have anything to confirm these, or further material.
M.Sjostrom
Had these ladies existed, and married their Sinclairs, their genealogical connections would have been:
Florentia Magnusdottir of Norway and Sweden
a daughter of this family:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00027150&tree=LEO
married to this gentleman:
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00127746&tree=LEO
Ingeborg Valdemarsdatter, bastard of Denmark
a daughter of this king:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00027155&tree=LEO&displayoption=all&generations=4
married to John de Sinclair, a younger son (or, more unlikely, younger grandson) of this family:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00127745&tree=LEO&displayoption=all&generations=3
M.Sjostrom
The name Florentia, Florence, does not have a historical presence in royal scandinavian houses, and almost no presence in Norway, Sweden or Denmark of that century. It would have been an exceptional, foreign loan name, if used for any sort of daughter of that family.
That said, the queen Blanka Jonsdottir, from Namur, is almost the only medieval queen in Scandinavia of that century who *could* be imagined to have a daughter of hers to be baptized Florence.
She being from Flanders heritage, a low-countries name the female counterpart of 'Floris', is *possible*.
Blanka's own name was exceptional in Scandinavia of those days. And, Blanka's own close direct ancestry did not have any female names familiar to Scandinavia, except the name Margret.
Also, in that century, the Tale of Floris and Blancheflor was popular in Sueco-Norwegian royal court circles.
It may have been felt that Queen Blanche's family would be better completed, if there'd be the other part of Blancheflor, Flor(ence) too, in addition to Blanka.
If queen Blanka had daughters, such daughters would have been young in 1340s and 1350s and if one of youngest, still in 1360s.
And, careful genealogies (I checked from Miroslav Marek's collection), which have collected also insignificant children to their tables, mention that this royal couple had daughters who died young, at least two such daughters. Even those careful genealogies do not know attested names of such daughters.
Scandinavian royal families had a centuries-long custom of adopting foreign, loaned, names from their queens: some male names (such as Filip, Magnus) but particularly many female names (Eufemia, Rikissa/Regitze, Birgitta, Filippa, Dorotea/Dordi/Dorte, Kristina, Margareta, Katarina, Helena) seem to have come via such route. Blanka, Isabella and Florentia, had they made themselves popular as names, would not have been an exception of that habit.
That any living daughter of king Magnus and queen Blanka dod not appear in 1380s, when the dearth of heirs of Sweden and Norway, the family of king Hakon VI, was dire, argues for such Florentia of Sweden having died earlier.
And, indeed, she is not alleged to have had children, which would be a sure sign to live to some adulthood.
queen Blanka's roots:
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00027150&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
In normal circumstances, daughters of this royal couple should have received family names. Such as, Ingeborg, that having been mother of Magnus, should have been name of one of eldest daughters.
But a female name from queen Blanka's side should also have been in the pattern. Her mother appears to have been Maria. However, that name is really rare in medieval scandinavia - some awe towards giving Virgin Mary's name to living persons.
---
I also opined:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/9243d0762be26d37
WJho...@aol.com
They "died young" only because we hear no more about them.
In a message dated 1/4/2009 8:24:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
qs...@yahoo.com writes:
And, careful genealogies (I checked from Miroslav Marek's collection), which
have collected also insignificant children to their tables, mention that
this royal couple had daughters who died young, at least two such daughters.
Even those careful genealogies do not know attested names of such daughters.
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
M.Sjostrom
Miroslav Marek's collection has two daughters 'died young'
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/scand/sweden4.html
Yes, I think that almost always such 'died young', if without actual mention of date of death or burial, or if without some approximation of such,
is an assumption of death made on basis of not appearing further.
In my experience, swedish royal family's doings were relatively well-followed already in those days, I mean that any child of theirs to survive to adulthood, would be appearing in some context.
There have been centuries, earlier, when even adult queen's name was not preserved (i.e, in 1100s sweden), but from 1300s I believe we have record of all swedish royals who achieved adulthood.
Besides, this couple's children faced a dearth of heirs, starting from 1359. I would predict that in the problematic situation of 1359 when Eric, their elder son died, and soon Eric's widow and unborn child succumbed also, either to some disease or childbed or both;
the revolting magnates whose figurehead Eric had been, would have snatched a living, breathing legitimate sister of Eric and married her rapidly to one of their allieds. Then they would have had a viable figurehead again; however as there was no such, these magnates had to make their peace with king Magnus (though it took some time) - not long afterwards, those magnates invited king Magnus' nephew Albrikt to be their figurehead against Magnus.
So, in such circumstances, the assumption 'died young' is fairly safe.
M.Sjostrom
The chronology:
One of points of Orkney-Sweden connections in this would be the dates when Erengisle Sunason av Fogelvik, lord of Hultboda, was jarl of Orkney.
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00489497&tree=LEO
It is ascertained from scandinavian materials that his investiture to the jarlship (in right of his wife, presumably named Aigneis, who dief bef 1360; daughter of this
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00327121&tree=LEO
) took place in the spring 1353.
In 1357, king Haakon VI declared his earlship forfeited, because earl Erengisle had joined the revolt of swedish magnates against Haakon's father king Magnus, and FOR Haakon's elder brother king Eric XII.
However, in 1359 there apparently was no living a daughter of the royal couple to be taken advantage of.
earl Erengisle was, until 1357, the royals' trusted man, to keep Orkney. No significant interest to support jarl Erengisle's rival(s). and it would not be a really good idea to marry a legitimate royal daughter of sweden or norway to Sinclair of Rosslyn, a minor lordling from Scotland - legitimate daughters of kings of Sweden of those days married dukes, counts and ruling princes, generally.
However, this changed in 1357. Now the king Haakon, and the king Magnus, and queen Blanka, had a good reason to make alliance with Erengisle's rival. Whom they could start to designate as Jarl of Orkney. [Aigneis' nephew, the Sinklar boy]
Therefore I would assign (if she existed) Florentia Magnusdottir's betrothal to Orkney to about the year 1357.
And, before 1359 she would be dead, because she was not being approached to advantage of rebellious magnates.
As she was young enough to vanish without observed records, I think she was born in late 1340s or in early 1350s.
And such birthdate would be consistent with her not giving birth yet (and then never), plus the marriage remaining unconsummated as it probably did.
Henry Sinclair himself would have been around ten years in 1357 - impossible for him to be an adult. As Henrik was born presumably in late 1340s, it's fitting his royal bride were born in same years or early 1350s. Henrik was not himself necessarily yet in 1357 of sufficient age to consummate a marriage.
His father, William Sinclair, laird of Rosslyn, is known to have deceased just therearound 1358 or so.
The Scandinavian kings probably were confident that the Sinclairs (the young bridegroom's father and relatives) would keep Erengisle from receiving support from Orkneys....
Much later, when both Aigneis and Florentia were dead, and jarl Maoliosa's inheritance was to be resolved, king Haakon VI (in 1379) decided against two other claimants (Alexander of the Airth and Maoliosa Guttormson of Skaldale, other maternal grandsons of jarl Maoliosa), and decided in favor of Henrik de Sinklar - who once had been betrothed to the king's younger sister.
This chronological reconstruction of course is just a hypothesis, a fit of probable events thought out to years they would have best fit to.
It hinges largely on the existence of such a betrothal, existence of that 'Florence'.
------
by the way, the Norwegian investiture in 1353 of Erengisle, gives a point narrowing the range when Maol Iosa V of Sratheireann, jarl of Orkney, had to die.
Because erengisle was so invested in spring 1353, it should be presumed that Maol Iosa, 8th earl, was dead by then. (and not as late as in 1357...)
In the year 1353 Erengisle is, on 10 April, executing a deed as plain Erengisle Sunason,
however on 6 May same year, his signature appears in a diploma, occupying the foremost place among the nobles of Norway, and with the title of the jarl of Orkney.
He must have received the title of Earl of the Orcades from the King of Norway.
M.Sjostrom
these two (possibly apocryphal, possibly really existent) ladies from Scandinavia, and their 'presence' in LITERATURE in British Isles,
reveals a very sad picture about (traditional) British genealogical literature, imo.
it is almost like: Trust that British literature has got it somehow fatally confused. !
These ladies are from 'traditional' anglo literature. Thus far, I have seen that BE, SP, CP and Burke's have one or both of them. These (and particularly SP & CP) are so-called standard literature.
and how do they present these two ladies:
We see that Ingeborg Valdemarsdatter, whom the literature itself assigns as daughter of king Valdemar, is presented in a generation and in time what she practically cannot have been. Approximately one generation in flaw.
We see that a couple of Brit books doubt Florentia's existence - but seemingly such doubts are much due to that a correct spot for Florentia was not able to found, in light of all the mistaken info about her.
Those Brit literature which have Florentia,
seem to assign a wrong (impossible) father = king Olav, to her.
Seem to confuse her country: mentioning Denmark, when that was not plausible nor supportable.
One Jon de Sinclair was apparently missing or misplaced in the Brit literature.
Particularly the British genealogical literature appears to have lacked touch with chronology. [Some simple assumptions help very much in these: assume that a nobleman appears to records when he is in his 20s or 30s. Assume that a man has kids born when he is between 25-40. Assume that a lady marries and consummates when around 20 and possibly tad younger. assume that a lady birthes most of her children in her 20s.]
When we look at Brit literature, it seems that they practically were opposed against such normality, and want ladies to give birth when under 10 or over 50, stretch many things to abnormality....
Chronological considerations are a weak point in medieval Brit genealogies as they very much are as reconstrued yet, imo.
[I wonder whether all other medieval info in CP, SP etc also suffers from similar mistakings, and that everything in those would be suspect because of the tendency to get details wrong]
These ladies look totally different, and quite plausible, when they are placed in more correct context.
I am no longer claiming that they necessarily were apocryphal.
Do they come from oral tradition?
Or some written material which was much later?
some heraldry or such material or institution?
Or, do they really exist in some near-contemporary record, either or both ?
It would actually be worthwhile if those who are able to use British original sources, would check what there possibly is about these two.
---------------------------------
british literature, as unreliable as it has now been observed, is not sufficient.
These two cases are possible to place, as you see, using knowledge about the contexts of Scandinavia in those times.
And such contextual knowledge places them to where Brit literature had usually not even thought them to be.
IIRC only some minuscule mention in some literature had it right as to Florentia: sister of king Haakon of Norway, issue of king Magnus.
Not Olav, not Denmark
Florentia would be from Sweden-Norway, not Denmark. king Olav would have been her nephew, whom she seemingly did not survive to see.
Ingeborg's husband needs to be an uncle of the generation she was placed in Brit literature.
--
Is someone making corrections to the CP ??? and SP ??
would these considerations -contexts of these two ladies- be in such corrections ?
Doug McDonald
>
> Particularly the British genealogical literature appears to have
>lacked touch with chronology. [Some simple assumptions help very much in
>these: assume that a nobleman appears to records when he is in his 20s
>or 30s.
Thta's a bad assumption ... very frequently they appear as children.
Remember, that in England at various times, chilren could "marry"
at 7. That is, they could be **contracted** to marry, in our modern terms.
> Assume that a man has kids born when he is between 25-40.
A bad assumption. The dates are 14-60, though the higher ages are
uncommon until late in the medieval period, and the lower ones are
uncommon in later periods.
>Assume
>that a lady marries and consummates when around 20 and possibly tad
> younger. assume that a lady birthes most of her children in her 20s.]
Possibly quite a bit younger. And the second part is simply
preposterous. Many ladies had too many children to have been born in a
single decade.
> When we look at Brit literature, it seems that they practically were
opposed against such normality, and want ladies to give birth when under
10 or over 50, stretch many things to abnormality....
> Chronological considerations are a weak point in medieval Brit
genealogies as they very much are as reconstrued yet, imo.
I think you are misunderstand some dates. "About" means just that,
a guess from other data. It is perfectly possible to have a birth date
"about 1200" for a lady and a child born to her "about 1255" ... it just
means the "abouts" have that error. OF course, you can build chains of
"abouts" that add up to genuine impossibilities, no matter how
you try to fit together the puzzle. But it's up to you to do
the fitting.
There are errors in both CP and SP. But if I were you I would be very,
very careful and check recent compilations of them before making claims.
That said, Scandinavian connections are the weak link in both. The links
there tend to be early ones and the British compilers unfamiliar with
all the data we now have. So you are simply tilling the most fertile
ground for unfound errors. You most certainly cannot extrapolate
errors there into the "central" times and places.
Doug McDonald
Jared & Christina Olar
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:47 AM
Subject: Orkney brides from scandinavian royalty - Florence and Ingeborg
> these two (possibly apocryphal, possibly really existent) ladies
We should make that "probably apocryphal, possibly real." As far as we can
tell at this time, there is no primary source evidence for their existence.
> from Scandinavia, and their 'presence' in LITERATURE in British Isles,
> reveals a very sad picture about (traditional) British genealogical
> literature, imo.
>
> it is almost like: Trust that British literature has got it somehow
> fatally confused. !
That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with.
> These ladies are from 'traditional' anglo literature.
No, they're from traditional Sinclair genealogies: Scottish, not English.
> Thus far, I have seen that BE, SP, CP and Burke's have one or both of
> them.
It's erroneous to group SP and CP together with Burke's publications.
Anyone with any discernment can see the vast difference in scholarly quality
between SP/CP and Burke's.
It's also misleading for you to claim that SP and CP have one or both of
these legendary Sinclair brides, since the Burke's publications mention them
as if they were real, whereas SP doesn't mention Florentia at all and
indicates doubt regarding Ingeborg. CP explicitly says that Florentia is
fictitious, rejecting her out of hand.
> We see that Ingeborg Valdemarsdatter, whom the literature itself
> assigns as daughter of king Valdemar, is presented in a generation and
> in time what she practically cannot have been. Approximately one
> generation in flaw.
It should not be surprising to find that a woman who may not have ever
existed was said in older, pre-critical literature to have married out of
her proper generation.
On the other hand there is no reason why Valdemar IV could not have
conceived a bastard daughter later in life. It's not likely, but not
impossible. It does give us further reason to doubt that Ingeborg ever
existed, though.
> We see that a couple of Brit books doubt Florentia's existence - but
> seemingly such doubts are much due to that a correct spot for Florentia
> was not able to found, in light of all the mistaken info about her.
Excellent reasons to doubt her existence: that and the fact that she never
appears in any known historical records around the time she supposedly
lived.
> One Jon de Sinclair was apparently missing or misplaced in the Brit
> literature.
No, both of the John Sinclairs seem to be in their proper place.
Also, is it really correct to refer to Balfour Paul's volumes as "Brit
literature"? Sir James was a Scotsman, you know, and Scots have never been
very enthusiastic about being called "British."
> Particularly the British genealogical literature appears to have lacked
> touch with chronology.
Another really broad brush you're painting with.
> Chronological considerations are a weak point in medieval Brit
> genealogies as they very much are as reconstrued yet, imo.
I doubt you have much if any evidence to support that assertion.
> These ladies look totally different, and quite plausible, when they
> are placed in more correct context. I am no longer claiming that
> they necessarily were apocryphal.
You may do that if you wish, but it's wiser only to do that when there is
actually some evidence to support the existence of persons mentioned only in
later, traditional genealogical tracts. We have no evidence that Florentia
and Ingeborg existed.
> Do they come from oral tradition?
> Or some written material which was much later?
They certainly appear in written material which was much later, but that
material is often erroneous, which is why SP and CP omitted them or
indicated doubts about them.
> some heraldry or such material or institution?
> Or, do they really exist in some near-contemporary record, either or both
> ?
Or were they invented out of whole cloth, as was common in old Scots noble
genealogy?
> It would actually be worthwhile if those who are able to use British
> original sources, would check what there possibly is about these two.
Yes, that would be helpful. I wouldn't hold my breath though. If there
were anything to support their existence, it probably would have surfaced by
now. But there are new discoveries all the time, so we might be pleasantly
surprised.
> These two cases are possible to place, as you see, using knowledge
> about the contexts of Scandinavia in those times.
Sure, hypothetically. But since we have no evidence that they existed at
all, it's really not possible to place them in any family tree.
> Is someone making corrections to the CP ??? and SP ??
> would these considerations -contexts of these two ladies- be in such
> corrections ?
Correction to CP and SP are posted at Gen-Medieval from time to time. I
doubt any corrections regarding the probably imaginary wives Florentia and
Ingeborg have ever been published, thoug.
Jared L. Olar
Jared & Christina Olar
Jared L. Olar
M.Sjostrom
"...Or were they invented out of whole cloth, as was common in old Scots noble genealogy? "
Was that usual in old scots noble genealogies ?
Interesting.
However, in my experience, the invented people were not so-plausible-looking as these or one of these are.
Rather, the real inventions encountered, have felt to me as impossible. Such as, using a name which came to fashion only centuries later, or which was taken from bible.
And, such cases as for example 'Scota, daughter of Pharaoh'...
'Valdemarsdotter' did not look as something easy to invent, and still come so close to plausibility.
Inventions typically did not take place in time in nearness of the correct generation, but only so much later that the real situation was already forgotten - because an invention had a way to be detected and denigrated, if made so early that some may have remembered the truth or have been told by contemporary about who were wives of those Jons.
Denmark had no king Valdemar after Valdemar IV, therefore his name would not have been easy to remember at a time when it was already safe to invent a wife for someone who lived in 1418. At the earliest time of the invention, an inventor would have probably thought the name 'Kristiern' to be one suitable for Danish kings. Or invented a totally unauthentic name for a Danish king, like Shakespeare did.
Besides, in have had an impression that Scots did not generally remember the name 'Valdemar' in its correct, Scandinavan rendition, but rather used own variants such as Wolmer and Walter.
That the 'tradition' (or whatever was the source for old genealogies about this Ingeborg) had her father as 'Valdemar', imo speaks for that she had genuinely existed, living among Scotsmen and/or Orcadians.
Now that I have bothered to go through these two ladies and their plausibility, I have had that overall feeling which is so neatly expressed in my country's proverbs with
'no some without fire'
-----
about inventing Florentia: what would have been a weighty enough real point ?
The tradition definitely seems to have had her as childless.
The *inventions* usual, have been that inventing families created a fine *direct* ancestor for themselves.
I would have been lots more suspicious, if the sinclair or scots genealogical tradition had held that Sinclairs descended directly from 'Princess Florence, in her issue legitimate heiress of the two kingdoms of the North'. but that seemingly was not the case. They admitted that their foremother in that generation was Johanna de Haliburton.
That 'Florentia of Denmark' -as the tradition had her- does not just look something which would have been any worth to concoct from total inexistence.
M.Sjostrom
Are there newer compilations of SP and CP in existence ???
Or is that just some red herring.
iirc I have been reading occasionally such CP where Howard de Walden was one of compilers.
But to have it available is a hassle here, because it's in the storage of a library, and needs a pre-request...
And SP is that which is in the byu internet library. also I have heard that one rarity library in my hometown would have it.
----
'Central' times and places seem also to have a fair share of chronological misplacings.
I have recently came to encounter all too many apparently incorrect generation-assignations in those very books.
such as Bethoc de sinclair, and more than one daughters of the various Borthwickes.
It's all too common, for my taste. Therefore I feel that the 'broad brush' is even needed.
Why to swear for these books, when they seem to have a *big* percentage of medieval daughters misplaced.
In my view, it would be better to be cautioned by broad brush, and check carefully for the correct placement of each one.
Jared & Christina Olar
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:30 AM
Subject: Orkney brides from scandinavian royalty - Florence and Ingeborg
WJho...@aol.com
Are these two names the same? I mean male-female versions of the same name?
Or do they have separate origins?
It might be a useful task to merely show who had this name at various times
in various communities. It seems like a fairly rare name.
Will Johnson
M.Sjostrom
as I have a reminiscence that some Florises, counts of Holland, were in latin documentation 'Florencius' and are translated as 'Florent' to french etc,
I suppose Florentia and Floris are male and feminine versions of same name.
about early appearance: Holland had men named Floris as its ruling counts already some centuries before these people. from genealogies, looks to me that the name Floris/Florent, not too common, remained in circulation among some low-country descendants of those counts.
Catholic church had a saint named Florentia.
I am fairly certain that next to no one in medieval scandinavia had that name.
And I am certain that Namur belongs and belonged to the cultural region of Low Countries.
But, as my hypothesis is mostly based on the connection between Blanche and Flor (in this genealogy case, mother and daughter) and its evolution from Ballad of knight Flores and princess Blancheflor,
I have lingering thoughts that Florentia may have been an interpretation of some of this child's name (perhaps because the canonized saint's name was so rendered), while her parents may have thought alternatively something like 'Flora'. You know, medieval people had names and scribes wrote names down and church had its calendar of saints, and sometimes correlations between these are hassled by variety of things, such as alternative renditions and what one perceived of the other...
WJho...@aol.com
an *older* version of CP then the one typically used.
And then CP itself took many years (decades?) to finish, the last volumes I
think went into the 1920s or 1930s which is why only the first four volumes
are readable, out-of-copyright in the US now, while the latter ones are not yet
(but will be).
And then there is a volume of "corrections" which I think is CP volume 14 ?
I don't know when that was published right off hand, but it was much later.
Perhaps it's time for a new volume of corrections. Do we *have* enough
corrections for a new volume ?
Will Johnson
In a message dated 1/6/2009 1:33:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
qs...@yahoo.com writes:
Are there newer compilations of SP and CP in existence ???
Or is that just some red herring.
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
M.Sjostrom
Of course, there's the point that corrections are difficult always, because they are not automatically there where they will be noticed.
Alternative idea:
Because *medieval* genealogy is always a different sort of art than the routine genealogy of the recent couple centuries,
having a clearly different quality of reliability,
having a *much* more limited amount of primary material,
having a clearly more limited number of people and at that, limited chiefly to certain upper classes of the society,
requiring somewhat different use of sources, different arguments and reasonings.... practically, doing biographies of each person...
There could actually be a series, Medieval Genealogy of the British Isles.
Stopping to a convenient point, after which most genealogies are presumably routine work...
first of all, then the material concerning each person would be at one spot in a new standard work,
and I believe that recent centuries do not require that much corrections anyway - the routine-like work has presumably produced relatively accurate volumes already.
So, the purpose of the volumes of Medieval Genealogy of British Isles, would be to collect all documented medieval persons, who are known in a way that at least some genealogical connection to someone else is available in materials related to that person.
pgrho...@tiscali.co.uk
>
> And then there is a volume of "corrections" which I think is CP volume 14 ?
> I don't know when that was published right off hand, but it was much later.
> Perhaps it's time for a new volume of corrections. Do we *have* enough
> corrections for a new volume ?
>
> Will Johnson
>
There is already an excellent collection of corrections compiled by
Chris Philips, another 'former member' of this newsgroup, at
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/index.shtml.
The whole of his site is a mine of information about mediaeval
genealogy.
Peter G R Howarth
M.Sjostrom
dear Doug,
I do not think my assumption table is not at all bad.
Observe that I did not say they MUST fit into that frame.
My tool is to check very carefully all cases which are over the heuristic limits I set. There may be cases where they really were so, but my heuristic is based on a belief that *most* cases should fit within those limits.
Also, another tool is to estimate things which are having estimates all over the sheet, closer to their full siblings, and towards normal distances from their parents and children.
And, when I use these frames, amazingly well I get compact families....
(self-fulfilling system, y knoe)
* a nobleman appears to records when he is in his 20s or 30s.
Thta's a bad assumption ... very frequently they appear as children.
- Nope, only rarely do they appear as children. And even those cases, sometimes the underageness is indicated.
* that a man has kids born when he is between 25-40.
A bad assumption. The dates are 14-60, though the higher ages are
uncommon until late in the medieval period, and the lower ones are
uncommon in later periods.
- nope. Most cases are just as I said. 14-19-yo fathers were an exception. And, as medieval men frequently died around or before 40, it's numerically already much smaller thing to have dribblers who may push one or coupla kids yet near or in their 60s.
I always try to check carefully the plausibility (and length of career and many other things) if a guy seems to have become daddy in over 40 yo. And, same with daddies below 25.
* that a lady marries and consummates when around 20 and possibly tad younger. assume that a lady birthes most of her children in her 20s.
Possibly quite a bit younger. And the second part is simply
preposterous. Many ladies had too many children to have been born in a
single decade.
- only possibly very young. I check such candidatures with criticism.
- I wrote 'most' kids. They are rare cases where a majority of a lady's kids were born when she was over 30.
Besides, with a really big herds of kids, I already know to accept that this lady's birthing career would almost necessarily be longer that the basic assumption for the most.
Remember many women died early. And many husbands died early. So many factors to make most birthings to take place between the mother's 20-29 yrs.
about preposterous: you didnt observe the word 'most', dinna yu
"About" means just that,
a guess from other data. It is perfectly possible to have a birth date
"about 1200" for a lady and a child born to her "about 1255" ... it just
means the "abouts" have that error.
- in such cases I think that the estimate should be fitted better. As it is just an estimate, it should be wrangled towards plausible dates so the interval between those two generations would not be more than 45 yrs. And when I draft that sort of estimate, then often some other patterns become clearer, and I can make heuristic conclusions...
All in all, I see problems and underutilization in way of someone who routinely uses too wide limits for basic assumptions - knowing that families were very often quite compact in Middle Ages.
Jared & Christina Olar
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: WJho...@aol.com
To: ardg...@comcast.net ; GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Orkney brides from scandinavian royalty - Florence and Ingeborg
All this talk of "Flo-rence" made me think of the name "Flo-ris"
Are these two names the same? I mean male-female versions of the same name?
Or do they have separate origins?
It might be a useful task to merely show who had this name at various times in various communities. It seems like a fairly rare name.
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.Sjostrom
You seem to forget my little lecture about adoption of female names to scandinavia via ladies of the royal families.
Florentia is quite plausible in this Blanka situation. And more so, because royal women had introduced many names to scandinavia.
Let's think about Rikissa/Regitze.
Next to no one had that name in Scandinavia prior to 1120s. It was a (local) saint in Lorraine- nothing to scandinavia...
But then, Mogens Nielsson, son of king of Denmark and grandson of king of Sweden, married Regitze (Richeza) of Poland.
Two generations later, daughter of king Valdemar the great was baptiozed Regitze, because that earlier namesake was her grandmother.
This younger lady married in c1210 to become queen of Sweden.
Two generations, and there were daughters of Swedish ruler and danish ruler, receiving this name.
At this stage, I think several godchildren of so-named scandinavian royals received the name too, and it started to repeat.
Next generation, and again several daughters of kings received the name. This far, and a princess of that name had married to Norway too...
Later onwards, the name was present more in Denmark than in Sweden. But it continued.
---
I underline: Florentia as name is no impossibility.
Jared & Christina Olar
observed several times over the past few days, there is absolutely zero
historical evidence for this Florentia's existence. It's all well and good
to talk about what may have happened. We're just not in any position right
now to say that this marriage really did happen.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Orkney brides from scandinavian royalty - Florence and Ingeborg
