ladies in 1400s named Bethoc Sinclair
M.Sjostrom
for a reason or another, the name Bethoc, latinized as Beatrix, appears in use in the family of first Sinklar jarls of Orkney...
I am asking whether anyone knows if these were two distinct ladies (of two successive generations, as I tend for now to think), or whether it was one and same lady....
Beatrix, or Bethoc Sinclair (de santa clara) is attested in having received in 1411 the dispensation to marry her second cousin, knight William of Borthwick (who presumably was the one who deceased in 1429).
[their need of dispensation seemingly comes from both being great-grandchildren of knight William de Sinclair, heir of Rosslyn, who was slain in 1330 in his crusade in Iberia]
Beatrix, or Bethoc Sinclair, is listed as having married (before 1426) knight James de Douglas, who then in 1440 became 7th earl of Douglas. Her that spouse was an already middle-aged younger son of the magnate family at the time of marriage.
Of course these *could* be shoehorned into one person: first marriage in 1411 or bit later; first spouse deceased before 1426 (and not as late as in 1429, as mentioned elsewhere); and second marriage in or before 1426. And the lady's fertile age would have anyway been almost 30 years, so no impossibility in that regard, for her to be born in, say, c1395 and be fertile to c1440. But the first husband's death dating thus far seems to pre-empt this: death in 1429 does not make it easy for his wife to *remarry* before 1426, absent a divorce....
So, these Bethocs should be two separate individuals, and the name Bethoc just was popular in the family. Perhaps some grandmother or great-grandmother (thus far unknown to our genealogies) had been so named.
The first Bethoc's parents would have been jarl Henry I, ruler of Orkney, and his second wife Johanna Haliburton; and the second Bethoc's parents would have been jarl Henry II, ruler of Orkney, and his wife Jill/Egidia de Douglas.
As the same name would not easily have been given to sisters. Thusly they should represent two separate generations, i.e easiest setting, to be aunt and niece.
the first Beatrix (Lady of Borthwick) seemingly produced issue, and I feel fairly plausible that the following two were her children (which means their issue are hers...):
* http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00060604&tree=LEO
(Janet or Johanna Borthwick, whose baptismal name on one hand reflects a name seemingly already in earlier generations in use in the Borthwick family; and on the other hand, may signify Bethoc's own mother, the Haliburton lady who was countess-consort of Orkney...)
* http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00117458&tree=LEO
(William Borthwick, likely the one who became the 1st Lord of Parliament, peerage baron, of the Borthwick line; his wife not necessarily was a Hay, though it's still a possibility)
* whereas I am fairly certain that Margaret Borthwick, the one who married Abernethy, cannot have been daughter of this particular couple. Margaret's and her kids' chronology suits very ill with Margaret's parents getting married only as late as in 1411... The said Margaret must have been daughter of an earlier generation of the Borthwick family...
The Borthwicks are known to have been allies of the Red Douglases (= earls of Douglas, and lords of Galloway), against the Black Douglases (earls of Angus).
the latter Beatrix (since 1440 countess-consort of Douglas, if she survived that late) left also lots of descendants:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00021552&tree=LEO
Her spouse and married family were Red Douglases.
----
one of problems in this 'TWO BETHOCS' model would be the marriage of the second Bethoc.
She married James, 7th earl of Douglas. However, her own mother (IF she belonged to that generation) Jill/Egidia was a Douglas too.
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00026894&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=6
As genealogics now presents their ancestries,
earl James, himself a grandson of the 'Good Knight James' de Douglas, would have married his said grandfather's great-great-granddaughter. Consanguinity would have been stark, and the church would not have liked such a close marriage at all. And a dispensation should have been sought, granted... is there any record of such ?
This specific consanguinity problem would vanish, had the Bethoc, wife of earl James of Douglas, been daughter of Henry I of Orkney, and thus not at all born of Jill/Egidia de Douglas of Nithsdale - but this would mean that the two Bethocs were same individual.
And, here we have the already-mentioned inconsistency of 1429 and before 1426....
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/29/2008 2:09:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
qs...@yahoo.com writes:
The first Bethoc's parents would have been jarl Henry I, ruler of Orkney,
and his second wife Johanna Haliburton; and the second Bethoc's parents would
have been jarl Henry II, ruler of Orkney, and his wife Jill/Egidia de Douglas.
As the same name would not easily have been given to sisters. Thusly they
should represent two separate generations, i.e easiest setting, to be aunt and
niece.>>
-----------------
I would speak against the interpretation that a lady with a marriage
dispensation in 1411 (and not listed as a widow) would be a daughter of a woman
known to be having children in the 1360s or 1370s. That seems a bit old. Which
would speak more toward the interpretation that these were the same woman, a
dispensation in 1411 probably as a minor, since Gill Douglas' parents were
married in 1389. Her first husband, or espoused, dies and she then married
James who later became the 7th Earl of Douglas.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
M.Sjostrom
Johanna de Haliburton was not presumably having children yet in 1360s.
She is known to have been jarl Henry I's SECOND wife
(there was an earlier wife, called florence, and sometime mentioned as of Denmark)
Henry himself was possibly not born any earlier than c1345, and possibly tad later (even c1350). The 1345 dating for him has always felt tad tight to me...
IF Henry's first marriage took place already in 1360s (it may as well have taken place in 1370s...)...
But, anyway, it's more likely that Johanna de Haliburton started to produce kids only in 1370s (if not even tad later...), and her fertile years could be expected to stretch to 1390s.
another of Johanna's daughters, Marjorie, seems to have married in c1409.
Bethoc (the elder) could well have been one of Johanna's younger children. Born in, say, 1390. Or even tad later...
All in all, the dispensation date, 1411, suits very well imo to a daughter of jarl Henry I and Johanna. No necessity because of that, to move that Bethoc (of Borthwick marriage) to the next generation.
Besides, the precise information of Bethoc's dispensation, i.e she was a second cousin (consanguinity of third degree) of her Borthwick spouse, fits to the generation of kids born to jarl Henry I. Had the Borthwick wife been child of next generation, the information in the dispensation text would seemingly be inconsistent.
Therefore, I feel quite convinced that Will's view is untenable.
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, WJho...@aol.com <WJho...@aol.com> wrote:
M.Sjostrom
thanks Will for reminding of existence of the date...
Some other material shows them to have married in 1387.
Still, the Bethoc the younger de Sinclair's chronology is very tight, which speaks actually against her separate existence:
Her some Douglas son, a younger one, mentioned to have been born in 1426. Some elder child born even earlier. 1425 or earlier.
This means that Bethoc would have been born to Jill/Egidia in c1405.
Jill/Gill/Egidia needs to have been still a teenager.
And then Bethoc the younger were a teenager when marrying to the widower Douglas, and starting to procreate.
If the marriage of Jill's parents took place only as late as in 1389, it renders the lineage almost impossible: a couple married in 1389, their granddaughter starts to procreate before 1425.
Very tight. Or, Bethoc, countess of Avondale and Douglas were daughter of jarl Henry I.
WJho...@aol.com
Archibald Douglas, Earl of Moray (from 1449 to 1455) is called "third son"
and he was likely born *by* 1430 but if we have a source that is specific about
some son born in 1425 exactly, that would be helpful.
Jared & Christina Olar
SP II p. 95. The mention of this dispensation for the marriage of Beatrice
Sinclair and a William Borthwick is placed under Sir William Borthwick who
probably died in or soon after 1414, but SP says, "On 1 May 1411 a
dispensation was issued for the marriage of William Borthwick and Beatrice
Sinclair, but there is no clue as to which William Borthwick is meant (Reg.
Aven., 337, f. 170). He had a daughter, Janet Borthwick, for whose marriage
to Adam Hepburn, lord of Hailes, a Papal dispensation was granted on 2
November 1411 (Reg. Aven., 339, f. 549)."
Apparently that means Janet was daughter of Sir William who died in or soon
after 1414, not that she was daughter of William Borthwick and Beatrice
Sinclair??
As for James, 7th Earl of Douglas, I only took down information from Scots
Peerage on the Earls of Douglas down to that James, but omitted information
on his marriage, so I've got nothing on his marriage to Beatrice Sinclair.
But based on what you say here, I would agree that it seems most unlikely
that William's wife Beatrice was the same as James' wife Beatrice.
Jared L. Olar
> The first Bethoc's parents would have been jarl Henry I, ruler of Orkney,
> and his second wife Johanna Haliburton; and the second Bethoc's parents
> would have been jarl Henry II, ruler of Orkney, and his wife Jill/Egidia
> de Douglas.
> As the same name would not easily have been given to sisters. Thusly they
> should represent two separate generations, i.e easiest setting, to be aunt
> and niece.
>
Jared & Christina Olar
wife called Florence, perhaps of Denmark? Or is it just SAID that he had
said earlier wife? Scots Peerage is aware of just the one wife, Jean
Halyburton, daughter of Sir Walter Halyburton of Dirleton. What evidence is
there for the existence of this putative earlier wife Florence?
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
> --- On Mon, 12/29/08, WJho...@aol.com <WJho...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> From: WJho...@aol.com <WJho...@aol.com>
>> Subject: Re: ladies in 1400s named Bethoc Sinclair
>> To: qs...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
>> Cc: The...@aol.com
>> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 5:30 PM
>> In a message dated 12/29/2008 2:09:45 PM Pacific Standard
>> Time,
>> qs...@yahoo.com writes:
>>
>> The first Bethoc's parents would have been jarl Henry
>> I, ruler of Orkney,
>> and his second wife Johanna Haliburton; and the second
>> Bethoc's parents would
>> have been jarl Henry II, ruler of Orkney, and his wife
>> Jill/Egidia de Douglas.
>> As the same name would not easily have been given to
>> sisters. Thusly they
>> should represent two separate generations, i.e easiest
>> setting, to be aunt and
>> niece.>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------
>>
>> I would speak against the interpretation that a lady with a
>> marriage
>> dispensation in 1411 (and not listed as a widow) would be a
>> daughter of a woman
>> known to be having children in the 1360s or 1370s. That
>> seems a bit old. Which
>> would speak more toward the interpretation that these were
>> the same woman, a
>> dispensation in 1411 probably as a minor, since Gill
>> Douglas' parents were
M.Sjostrom
For all I know, the existence of Florence is one of the category 'said'.
I rely as to that Florence, on genealogies which seemingly draw from the dormant and extinct peerages book and such.
compare:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00127747&tree=LEO
Would anybody have an occasion to look at it at CP, and Burke's, please.
Myself, I have wondered a bit about the claimed connection of the name Florence and Denmark. I am ready to assure that the name Florentia was almost unknown in Denmark (or Norway) of that era.
The Denmark connection could be just some wishful thinking.
Also the lady herself *could* be apocryphal, but I would not be surprised, were some contemporary thing to mention his wife Florencia.
To me, that lady is almost nonexistent, as it looks like nobody is descended from her.
Her existence or non-existence does not alter the point that Johanna de Haliburton probably was fertile throughout 1370s-1390 or so.
Her that son who became heir (= Henry II of Orkney), seems not to have been born before 1370s.
---
by the way, in my view the expression
"Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney"
is a grave anachronism.
Henry Sinclair was jarl of Orkney as confirmed to it by the liege lord, king of Norway (Haakon VI, in 1279), and as hereditary inheritance of a long line of Norse jarls. It was a Norwegian fief yet almost a century afterwards, not Scottish, and certainly it was Norwegian long after Henry I's death.
The Norwegian jarldoms are not within any custom to make them '1st Earl', or any sort of peerage titulary numbering, '3rd earl', '22nd earl'
Henry Sinclair was in no meaningful way the FIRST earl of anything, seeing that his earl rank was one inherited from his earlier generations.
So, to me the expression 'Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney' conveys an impression that one who so writes, does not know practically anything about him, his epoch, his lands...
This non-genuine *numbering* could be a signal why some peerage genealogy book should not be trusted...
Jared & Christina Olar
Peerages p. 493 says:
"Earl Henry is said to have m. 1st, Florentia, a lady descended from the
royal family of Denmark, by whom he had no issue. He m. 2ndly, Jean, dau. of
Sir John Haliburton, Lord of Dirleton, by whom he had issue."
There is probably no real evidence for this first marriage, which would
account for Scots Peerage not mentioning it at all.
As for the old conventional numbering of the Earls of Orkney, it's true that
Orkney at that time was still a Norwegian fief, but it has long been
conventional to number the Scottish Earls of Orkney starting with Henry
Sinclair of Roslyn . . . despite the fact that it wasn't a Scottish peerage
yet, and there were several Scottish jarls of Orkney prior to Henry Sinclair
(beginning with Harald Maddadarson, who was only Norse on his mother's
side). I'm not sure, but I suppose the conventional numbering arose because
with the succession of the Sinclairs to Orkney, the gradual "Scotticisation"
of the jarldom/earldom became irreversible. It may also have something to
do with Orkney becoming a Scottish fief in the time of Henry's grandson
William Sinclair, the third of his family to hold the Orkney
earldom/jarldom.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
M.Sjostrom
'Henry Sinclair, 2nd Earl of Orkney' and likes:
Any numbering of 1300s or 1400s 'peers' is anyway anachronistic, afaik. Their contemporary world did not use that style, '5th earl' and such.
But the anachronistic assignation of peerage numbering to holders of a Norwegian fief, is imo yet more absurd just because of making it to look like scottish peerage as opposed to its technical and recognized status of being Norwegian.
That makes the anachronism *grave* in my eyes.
Any explanation of why were Sinclairs just a suitable stage in development, are imo hollow.
Rather: It really was a Norwegian fief until Norway in late 1460s ceded it to scottish king. That changed its essence - and that meant, in a few years, the end of its Norwegian-granted holder dynasty, of which the sinclairs were the last part.
So, I am going to mention them, trying to show a bit more authenticity, as jarls Heinrek or Henrik and Viljalm or Vilhelm.... or just like I would mention any other scandinavian earl.
I know that peerage historians tended to have next to no respect to real history, usually they preferred their own *systems* at the expense of authenticity.
No doubt there were '11th Duke of Normandy' and such creatures....
Or, king Henry II should probably have been either '1st Duke of Normandy' or '2nd Duke of Normandy', right ?
M.Sjostrom
'Henry Sinclair, 2nd Earl of Orkney' and likes:
Any numbering of 1300s or 1400s 'peers' is anyway anachronistic, afaik. Their contemporary world did not use that style, '5th earl' and such.
But the anachronistic assignation of numbers to holders of a Norwegian fief, is imo yet more absurd just because of making it to look like scottish peerage as opposed to its technical and recognized status of being Norwegian.
M.Sjostrom
I am reconsidering my position on the separateness of Bethoc de Sinclair as two individuals.
A kind colleague friendly showed me a way to access the SP, and I have now been reading the prosopographical data about knight William Borthwick (fl 1424) and his son William, 1st Lord Borthwick (fl 1457).
Everything about a William Borthwick post-1425 can esily be counted as doings of the son. and I actually presume that a doing in 1425 attributed in SP to the son, was the father's.
This would mean that easily, knight William deceased in 1425, perhaps never embarking to the embassy towards Rome,
and that his widow, Bethoc de Sinclair (born probably in early 1490s), one of youngest daughters of jark Henrik I of Orkney and his wife Johanna de Haliburton,
was in perfect opportunity soon to remarry the widower, the mighty knight James de Douglas, who in future got created Earl of Avondale.
Knight James de Douglas was an ally of the family, belonging to the famed *Black Douglases* of Galloway (not 'Red', who were Angus...), was widower, and as younger son, who did not necessarily need heirs, a plausible consort to widowed, thirty-year-old but wealthy widow, whose ten-year-old or about kids would have him as guardian.
Though not in need of heirs, knight James and Bethoc launched a brood of kids, born obviously within about ten years, starting from late 1420s, to the point when the wife had menopause when turning about 45 years, i.e in late 1430s.
Beatrix, or Bethoc Sinclair (de santa clara) is attested in having received in 1411 the dispensation to marry her second cousin, knight William of Borthwick [their need of dispensation seemingly comes from both being great-grandchildren of knight William de Sinclair, heir of Rosslyn, who was slain in 1330 at the battle of Teba in course of his crusade in Iberia]
As there is not necessarily a Borthwick death in 1429, but already earlier,
Thusly there would NO exist second Bethoc, daughter of jarl Henry II, ruler of Orkney, and his wife Jill/Egidia de Douglas.
Accordingly, the consanguinity problem and forbidden degree vanishes:
Bethoc's second husband, James de Douglas, who was UNCLE of Jill/Egidia de Douglas of Nithsdale, wife of Henry II of Orkney,
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00026894&tree=LEO&paren...
knight James de Douglas, himself a son of the Archibald, earl Douglas, was thusly not marrying his half-brother's granddaughter (as Jill/Egidia's daughters were), but Jill/Egidia's widowed sister-in-law.
Lady of Borthwick seemingly produced issue, and I feel fairly plausible that the following two were her children (which means their issue are hers...):
* http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00060604&tree=LEO
(Janet or Johanna Borthwick, heiress of Morton, whose baptismal name on one hand reflects a name seemingly already in earlier generations in use in the Borthwick family; and on the other hand, may signify Bethoc's own mother, the Haliburton lady who was countess-consort of Orkney...)
* http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00117458&tree=LEO
(William Borthwick, the one who became the 1st Lord of Parliament, peerage baron, of the Borthwick line; his wife not necessarily was a Hay, though it's still a possibility)
* whereas I am fairly certain that Margaret Borthwick, the one who married Abernethy, cannot have been daughter of this particular couple. Margaret's and her kids' chronology suits very ill with Margaret's parents getting married only as late as in 1411... The said Margaret must have been daughter of an earlier generation of the Borthwick family...
Lady Bethoc (since 1440 countess-consort of Douglas, if she survived that late) left also lots of descendants with her second husband:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00021552&tree=LEO
Her spouse and married family were Black Douglases.
------
rearrangement of SP-listed career data, according to my new hypothesis:
knight William Borthwick, 2nd of Catcune (the father):
1420 captain of Edinburgh castle, 1423 commissioner to treat for release of king James I, 1425 on Assize for the trial of Duke Murdoch, 9 june 1425 mentioned in a safe conduct to pass through England to Rome [this is because I seriously doubt that his c.12-yo son would have been sent as part of embassy to Rome].
Borthwick is seemingly not attested in Rome, nor anywhere else, after that.
William, ultimately in c1455 created Lord Borthwick: (in my estimate, born c1412)
1425 a substitute hostage (young hostage, 13-yo boys were fine for hostage purposes) for king James I (I believe that his father's embassy to Rome prevents the father being hostage this time) and thus in England until 1427, 1430 nominally he (but in reality his family) received licence to fortify a castle at Locherworth, said to have been knighted in 1430 in conjunction of the baptismal of the twin sons of king James I.
* In 1455, one of sealers of the forfeiture against James, 9th Earl of Douglas and Avondale, who in this scenario would be his half-brother.
---
Interestingly enough, both marriages of lady/ladies Bethoc produced kids named Johanna/Janet, and William:
Johanna/Janet Borthwick, m1 Dalkeith, m2 admiral Crichton
William, 1st Lord Borthwick
Jeannette de Douglas, m 1st Lord Fleming
William de Douglas, 8th earl of Douglas and Avondale
This is not impossible - half-siblings were culturally often receiving same names. The Douglas family antecedents were dictating the names William and Janet, i suppose. And, widows named their first-born sons of second marriage as namesakes of the late first husband...
------
knight James de Douglas would never have gotten dispensation to marry his half-brother's granddaughter:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00021542&tree=LEO&displayoption=all&generations=5
Therefore his wife simply cannot be daughter of Jill/Egidia douglas of Nithsdale.
------
all this in the hypothesis is nice, and would benefit from, for example,
if any of children or -in-laws of James de Douglas ever in authentic sources happened to mention either of the Borthwick siblings (or either of the husbands of Janet Borthwick) as 'brother' or 'sister'; or vice-versa....
Jared & Christina Olar
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-med...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 5:04 AM
Subject: ladies in 1400s named Bethoc Sinclair
> Any numbering of 1300s or 1400s 'peers' is anyway anachronistic,
> afaik. Their contemporary world did not use that style, '5th earl' and
> such.
Yes, but we do, for convenience and to make it easier to tell them apart and
to remember the order of succession in the peerage.
> Rather: It really was a Norwegian fief until Norway in late 1460s ceded
> it to scottish king. That changed its essence - and that meant, in a few
> years, the end of its Norwegian-granted holder dynasty, of which the
> sinclairs were the last part.
Yep. That's what every peerage history I've ever read says about it too.
> So, I am going to mention them, trying to show a bit more authenticity,
> as jarls Heinrek or Henrik and Viljalm or Vilhelm.... or just like I would
> mention any other scandinavian earl.
I doubt that would really be much more authentic. After all, at the time
that Henry Sinclair successfully pressed him claim to Orkney, the Sinclairs
were Scottish, not Scandinavian: they had a bit of Norse blood in their
veins, which is how they inherited the Norwegian earldom/jarldom of Orkney,
but genealogically inheriting a Norwegian peerage doesn't make one an ethnic
Norwegian, just of Norwegian descent.
> I know that peerage historians tended to have next to no respect to
> real history, usually they preferred their own *systems* at the expense
> of authenticity.
That would depend on the peerage historian. It's certainly not true of the
editors of Scots Peerage and the revised Complete Peerage.
> No doubt there were '11th Duke of Normandy' and such creatures....
> Or, king Henry II should probably have been either '1st Duke of
> Normandy' or '2nd Duke of Normandy', right ?
Of course Henry II probably never called himself "Henry II."
Jared L. Olar
M.Sjostrom
It even is not necessarily important what was their own ethnicity, and what language (+ title translations) they had used.
Orkney of the time itself was practically not at all anglophone... Rather, it was a Norse society still, mostly with Norse culture, systems and language.
even today, after some centuries of central government, they have much of Norse legal tradition, and such...
----
I am curious: would you desire to have 'König Georg II von Grossbritannien' as the authentic naming of that monarch in Peerage books ?
----
did you not know that our French-speaking friend, king Henry II, actually seemingly was one of those exceptions in Middle Ages when most monarchs were not known by regnal ordinal that has retrospectively designated to them by more modern eras: as a signal of his rights coming from his maternal grandfather, Henry II really seems to have been known as *the second king of that name* and attributions to same effect :)
Jared & Christina Olar
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 8:57 PM
Subject: ladies in 1400s named Bethoc Sinclair
> It even is not necessarily important what was their own
> ethnicity, and what language (+ title translations) they
> had used.
I agree. That's why I tend to follow the usual conventions. It's simpler
that way, and I'm more readily understood.
> I am curious: would you desire to have 'König Georg II
> von Grossbritannien' as the authentic naming of that
> monarch in Peerage books ?
If I were German, reading a book on English history written in German, sure.
But since I speak English, I usually refer to Georg von Hannover as King
George II.
> did you not know that our French-speaking friend,
> king Henry II, actually seemingly was one of those
> exceptions in Middle Ages when most monarchs were
> not known by regnal ordinal that has retrospectively
> designated to them by more modern eras: as a signal of
> his rights coming from his maternal grandfather, Henry
> II really seems to have been known as *the second king
> of that name* and attributions to same effect :)
Is it only seems that way, then maybe you're mistaken?
Jared L. Olar
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
M.Sjostrom
I leave it to you for a nice pastime to go through authentic material which speaks about the person whom some would regard as 'Henry de Anjou, 2nd Duke of Normandy' in terms of his 'secondness as king'.
----
The expression 'Henry Sinclair, 1st (sic!) Earl of Orkney' looks like a grave anachronism, whatever are conventions.
Speaking about the conventions:
As you seem to regard it as convention,
Could you kindly specify with quotations, which good standard works actually have made Henry (c1345-c1400) precisely 'Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney' ??
I took a look in the internet firstly, and it looked to me that there, that precise formulation 'Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney' was used in websites of questionable quality - pretty much non-scholar hobby pages...
Whereas, when looking in the Scots Peerage, I did not found that precise 'Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney', instead he was mentioned without that un-genuine '1st', just titled as 'EARL OF ORKNEY'...
Hovite
> For all I know, the existence of Florence is one of the category 'said'.
>
> I rely as to that Florence, on genealogies which seemingly draw from the dormant and extinct peerages book and such.
> compare:http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00127747&tree=LEO
>
> Would anybody have an occasion to look at it at CP
The reference is an error. Florentia is not mentioned on X: 93.
But on X: 95 footnote a says: "According to the Dict. Nat. Biog. he
had m., 1stly, a da. of Olaus V, King of Denmark; but that is
fiction."
M.Sjostrom
"on X: 95 footnote a says: "According to the Dict. Nat. Biog. he
had m., 1stly, a da. of Olaus V, King of Denmark; but that is
fiction."
This lady Florence appears to verge on the borders of apocrypha.
It is quite certain that no such lady could have been daughter of king Oluf II of Denmark. Timing is wrong, and historically cannot hold water.
Oluf was for a few centuries the only Oluf to occupy the throne of Denmark, so no way to confuse this one with another monarch of same name. He was the son of the union queen Margaret and king Hakon VI of Norway, he was himself born in 1370 and deceased unmarried on 23 August 1387, leaving his mother as regent of empty thrones, including the claimed throne of Sweden which Margaret managed to conquer (in a way, in Oluf's name) in 1388-89. Oluf had succeeded his father as king of Norway in 1380, some authentic coins actually mention him as Olav V (there had been four Olavs earlier reigning Norway, but one of them was just a nominal co-ruler; modern counting which assigned the 1900s king Olav as Olav V, omits that early co-regent and would have this Olav d 1387 as Olav IV of Norway, which is not authentic as to his own coinage). And at the beginning of things, the very young Oluf had succeeded his maternal grandfather king Valdemar IV as monarch of Denmark
in 1376.
Neither Norway nor Sweden of that century have another Olav as monarch, so no way of confusion there either.
It is relatively well-known from events of real history that Oluf did not leave any child to succeed him. The lack of surviving issue was a trouble to queen Margaret, who adopted a collateral relative for becoming heir. Had there been even a daughter legitimate, it would have changed some events of history. At least some would have made her a claimant....
Also an illegitimate is very unlikely, because even that would probably have been noticed in course of some scandinavian events.
Timing is wrong too: Oluf, b 1370, cannot have had daughter to even be engaged to anyone who then *secondly* married in 1370s at latest. Rather, from the chronological view, any such lady for Henry of Orkney should have been half-sister or aunt or cousin of king Oluf, if a close relative at all.
Queen Margaret, herself born in 1353, did not have other surviving children as far as history knows. and the situation was such that another child of Margaret would have been noticed, undoubtedly.
Haakon VI might have had bastards. Himself born in c1340, in 1360s any such illegitimate daughter must have been still young indeed.
---
Another piece of writings which I recall having once encountered in some book or other regarding this Florence, made her daughter or granddaughter of 'king Magnus'. There was no such king Magnus in Denmark of that century. But king Magnus (of Norway and Sweden) well existed:
Hakon VI's parents (king Magnus VII and queen Blanka) did seemingly not have daughters, sons only. [usually, already in those days, if a scandinavian queen birthed daughter who lived at least some years, a record would be somewhere. we know records of even some royal children who lived only some months.]
And, frankly, knowing the dearth of heirs in 1380s in Sweden and Norway, I think we would have heard in history of 1380s or later, had they had even illegitimate grandchildren, through either of their sons...
Any such issue, if existed, would therefore have lived (and died) only in those earlier decades when there was not yet a dire dearth of heirs. That's the only credible way why such heir(ess) would not have been digged for claimantships in 1380s... And, that must mean that any such died young. No time to grow into adulthood, because Magnus' sons were not capable of breeding before 1350s.
An illegitimate daughter of a king would not be an implausible bride for earl of Orkney, or claimant for earlship of Orkney.
One of the possibilities would therefore be that a Florentia died relatively young, being betrothed (but not credibly consummated) with Henry.
There is no record of queen Blanka having daughters. However, if they had, such daughter would have been young in 1350s, or 1360s.
I seriously doubt that king Magnus, who was labeled as homosexual, would have fathered illegitimate children. But who knows...
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.
Jared & Christina Olar
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 3:45 AM
Subject: ladies in 1400s named Bethoc Sinclair
> I leave it to you for a nice pastime to go through authentic
> material which speaks about the person whom some would
> regard as 'Henry de Anjou, 2nd Duke of Normandy' in terms
> of his 'secondness as king'.
I don't know who would regard him as 2nd Duke of Normandy, and I've never
seen him called that.
> The expression 'Henry Sinclair, 1st (sic!) Earl of Orkney' looks
> like a grave anachronism, whatever are conventions.
Yes, it's an old convention, but no, it's not historically accurate.
Apparently underneath it all, it just means "first Earl/Jarl of Orkney of
the Sinclair family."
> Speaking about the conventions:
> As you seem to regard it as convention,
> Could you kindly specify with quotations, which good standard
> works actually have made Henry (c1345-c1400) precisely 'Henry
> Sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney' ??
Both Burke's Dormant and Extinct Peerages (an old standard work, but not a
good one) and Scots Peerage number the Sinclair Earls of Orkney in that
fashion.
> Whereas, when looking in the Scots Peerage, I did not found that
> precise 'Henry Sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney', instead he was
> mentioned without that un-genuine '1st', just titled as 'EARL OF
> ORKNEY'...
Scots Peerage never numbers the peer of creation, the first in order, "1st
Earl" or "1st Duke," etc. It uses the ordinal numbers for the subsequent
lords. Thus Scots Peerage identifies Henry's grandson William as "third
Earl of Orkney."
Jared L. Olar
M.Sjostrom
so, Scots Peerage actually does not number Henry as
'Henry sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney'
(although you do number him so).
This is sufficient for me: even the scots peerage would not call him as 1st Earl.
by the way, does the Scottish Peerage allege that Henry's creation to earl was Scottish ?
In any way a part of any peerage corpus which has been incorporated into the today UK peerage ?
Would jarl Henry's heir have a claim to be reinstated to House of Lords elections as earl ?
---
I have realized that Burke's is not to be trusted in terms of historicity, authenticity, style....
even their medieval genealogical identifications leave a lot to be desired.
so, the worth of them as convention is low.
M.Sjostrom
oh, I thought you would like to call him as 2nd Duke of Normandy.
But that's not here nor there.
------
I leave it to you for a nice pastime to go through authentic material which speaks about him in terms of his 'secondness as king'.
I underline: second of that name, emphasizing his succession from his maternal grandfather.
Jared & Christina Olar
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: ladies in 1400s named Bethoc Sinclair
Jared & Christina Olar
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 9:29 AM
Subject: ladies in 1400s named Bethoc Sinclair
> so, Scots Peerage actually does not number Henry as
> 'Henry sinclair, 1st Earl of Orkney'
Not explicitly, no. Only implicitly.
> This is sufficient for me: even the scots peerage would not call him as
> 1st Earl.
But it does refer to his son Henry as "second Earl" and his grandson William
as "third Earl."
> by the way, does the Scottish Peerage allege that Henry's creation to earl
> was Scottish ?
No. It explicitly and repeatedly mentions that Henry's succession (not
creation) to the Orkney earldom was under Norwegian jurisdiction. It was
due to his successfully pressing his maternal claim before the King of
Norway, who thus gave him the titles of Earl of Orkney and Lord of Zetland.
> In any way a part of any peerage corpus which has been incorporated into
> the today UK peerage ?
The purpose of Scots Peerage was strictly to document genealogical histories
of Scots peers, so it doesn't touch on questions of that nature. My
impression is that it included the "Sinclair, Earl of Orkney" title to show
the historical and genealogical background of the title in the Scots peerage
(also to show the background history to the Earldom of Caithness and the
Sinclair Lordship, as to leave out the Sinclair earldom of Orkney would have
left too large a genealogical lacuna in the account of the
interrelationships of the Scots peers), not to assert that the Sinclair
earldom was itself a Scots peerage.
> Would jarl Henry's heir have a claim to be reinstated to House of Lords
> elections as earl ?
I'm no expert in Scots peerage law, but even before the recent "reform" of
the House of Lords I would doubt that the Sinclair title could have been
resurrected, since the Orkney earldom only became a Scots peerage when
William, third Earl, resigned his earldom into the hands of the Scottish
king. Since the earldom was resigned to the monarch, he or she could grant
it to whomever he or she wishes (in theory anyway). It was granted to a
branch of the Royal Stewart dynasty, but I'd have to look up what happened
to it after that.
> I have realized that Burke's is not to be trusted in terms of historicity,
> authenticity, style....
> even their medieval genealogical identifications leave a lot to be
> desired.
> so, the worth of them as convention is low.
"Convention" has no inherent "worth." It just is. Like journalistic or
publishers' styles: they're arbitrary, for the sake of convenience and
consistency, and, in theory, for the sake of accuracy.
Jared L. Olar
M.Sjostrom
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/browse_thread/thread/742bc522fb07346d#
The Complete Peerage's opinion, vol X p 95, I presume is based on the fact that king Olav cannot have been the father, both because chronology and historical events. Indeed, Florentia having been daughter of king Olav (b 1370, d 1387) must be *fiction*.
To me, it means that it is not necessarily fiction if Florentia were to have been daughter of king Magnus VII and his wife Blanka of Namur.
It's sad that Florentia is mentioned in the Burke's, a notoriously bad collection...
As her existence and even her name is plausible,
I would like to know what were the actual original sources about her, her Orkney engagement, and her parentage.
M.Sjostrom
of course conventions have whatever is their worth. I disagree.
There could be bad conventions and good conventions.
And, most importantly, I have seldom encountered cases where there is, or has ever been, only one convention.
People develop several conventions. and alternative conventions are used by different people.