CP Correction: Sir Hugh de Hastings, kinsman of Edward III of England
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
On 20 June 1346, Hugh de Hastings, knight, of Sutton Scotney, co.
Hants. was appointed by King Edward III of England as Captain and
Lieutenant of the King in Flanders, and commissioned in the same writs
to raise Flemish forces to assist the King against France. Concerning
this appointment, Miss Burford Butcher wrote
' The King addresses him in these writs " dilecto et
fideli consanguineo suo ": as Hugh was not a son of
Isabel (de Valence), the form of address must be viewed
as complimentary. ' [1]
The nearness of the relationship between Edward III of England and
Isabel de Valence (1st wife of John de Hastings, lord of Abergavenny,
d. 1312, and step-mother of Sir Hugh) was clearly what Miss Butcher had
in mind: if Sir Hugh had been related to the King through this
marriage, they would have been 2nd cousins 1x removed.
The author was in error, however, as she was unaware that a
relationship only slightly more distant existed between King Edward III
and Hugh de Hastings, as follows:
Aubri II = Maud de
de Dammartin I Clermont
_________________________I___________
I I
Simon de = Marie de Juliana = Hugh 'V'
Dammartin I Ponthieu de Dammartin I de Gournay
I__________ I____
I I
Ferdinand III = 2) Joan de William de = Millicent de
K of Castile I Ponthieu Cantelou I Gournay
I____ _______I
I I
Edward I = Eleanor of William de = Eve de Braose
K of England I Castile Cantelou I
____I I____
I I
Edward II of England Sir Henry de = Joan de
I Hastings I Cantelou
I _________I
I I
EDWARD III of England Sir John de = 2) Isabel le
Hastings I Despenser
I
I
Sir HUGH de Hastings
This chart indicates a relationship of 4th cousins 1x removed
between the King and Sir Hugh.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] CP VI:353 and note (b), which cites French Roll, 20 Edw. III,
p. 1, m. 1.
* John P. Ravilious
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your interesting and informative post. Much
appreciated. Your charts are wonderful!
You're quite correct. King Edward III's reference to Hugh de Hastings
as "his kinsman" was based on the king's personal knowledge of Hugh de
Hastings' extended ancestry. It was not intended as flattery or as an
idle complement. My research indicates that the kings were well
informed about anyone related to them within the fifth degree, which
you have shown Hugh de Hastings was.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<8b.13e88c5...@aol.com>...
Martin E. Hollick
Julia de Dammartin was the father of another Hugh de Gournay who
married Maud (---) and he in turn was the father of Milicent de
Gournay. See AR7 line 257.
Doug Smith
Hi all
I think John's post was correct Milicent (who was having children by
1205) was the sister of the Hugh who married Lucy and Maud. Her
Marriage to William de Coauntelou was her second marriage. See:
Burke, DEP, pps 100-101.
CP XII/2: 16-28.
Bartrum, Peter, C., Welsh Genealogies, AD 300-1400, Cardiff,
(1974)vol. 3, p 124.
Sanders, I. J., English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and Descent,
Oxford, (1960), pps 39-40.
CP III: 111 et seq.
CP V: 693.
CP XI: 316-331.
Rolls of Arms of Henry III, The Matthew Paris Shields, ca.1244-1259,
The Harleian Society, Oxford, (1967).
Farrer, KHF III: 420-423.
G. Herbert Fowler, ed., "Tractatus de Dunstaple et de Houcton,"
Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society [BHRS] XIX
(1937):85-87 and Appendix B, pp. 95-97 with appended chart.
G. Herbert Fowler and Michael W. Hughes, "A Calendar of the Pipe Rolls
of the Reign of Richard I for Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire,
1189-1199," BHRS VII (1923):153-57.
DD, p 493.
John Gillingham, Richard I, Yale English Monarchs Series, (1999).
Sir Steven Runciman, The History of the Crusades.
John Ravilious, post to SGM dated 2004-5-13, Possible Identification
of Juliana, wife of Robert de Chaucombe.
etc.
Doug Smith
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear John ~
>
> Thank you for your interesting and informative post. Much
> appreciated. Your charts are wonderful!
>
> You're quite correct. King Edward III's reference to Hugh de Hastings
> as "his kinsman" was based on the king's personal knowledge of Hugh de
> Hastings' extended ancestry. It was not intended as flattery or as an
> idle complement. My research indicates that the kings were well
> informed about anyone related to them within the fifth degree,
Or possibly the scribes drawing up the various documents? I just
cannot see the average king taking so great an interest in all his
relatives.
> which you have shown Hugh de Hastings was.
<snip>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org