Re: Sir Paunettus, kinsman to Edward the Black Prince: Clue to ancestry of P...
Jwc...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/10/2008 6:00:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Jwc...@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 3/10/2008 12:05:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
katheryn...@gmail.com writes:
Yes, of course, you are quite right. I had thought to mention this
caveat but alas only after pressing the 'send' button. <sigh>
Still, even the relative charge of base lineage -- IF Paon/Payne de
Roet/Roeulx = Giles Roeulx -- strikes me as odd given that it was one
of the big families of 12-13th century Hainault. OTOH, it might just
as well be yet another of those oddities and outright misstatements
for which Froissart is regrettably well known, in both adapting/
continuing the chronicles of others (Jean le Bel?) as well as writing
some things considerably after the fact.
Katherine Roet Swynford's father might well have been an illegitimate
Giles... complicated by the existence of a contemporary legitimate
Giles (not impossible certainly), and he (her father) seems to have
held a hereditary office (near as I can tell from reading Malcom Vales
"The Princely Court").
As I have said, I struggle to understand all this and should doubtless
feel better knowing that there are those far more knowledgeable on the
subject who struggle as well.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
On Mar 10, 1:25 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> <katheryn.swynf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Froissart didn't exactly say that Katherine's pedigree was "base" in its
own
> right, but rather that her lineage compared poorly to the families of John
> of Gaunt's two previous wives - the text is "elle estoit de basse lignie au
> regard des deux autres dames la duchesse Blanche et la duchesse Constance,
> que le duc Jean avoit en devant eues par mariage".
>
> According to Froissart her father was named "Paon de Ruet", described as
"un
> chevallier de Haynnau" (a knight from Hainaut), and as you say he would
have
> known about the man's background. If Paon was related to the old noble
> family - of the same surname in Froissart's spelling - and whether or not
he
> was the man also called Gilles, the link might have been through an
> illegitimate son for all we can surmise.
>
> Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
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
Dear Judy,
How did this Gilles hold a hereditary office if He
were illegitimate ? especially as this whole family basicly rendered
themselves illegitimate by returning all their lands to the Count of Hainault, yet
perhaps that is the whole reason behind the mysterious wording, that They had
made themselves "a little pawn"
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
____________________________________
It's Tax Time! _Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance._
(http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
katheryn...@gmail.com
I don't claim to have a perfect understanding. The Cartulaire of the
Counts of Hainault record that he held a position like 'master of the
house' for Marguerite of Bavaria in the early 1350s. Malcom Vale's
book suggests that this position may well have been hereditary. We do
not know if Katherine Swynford's father was illegitimate; there was
indeed a legitimate Giles Roeulx who was contemporaneous. As for the
family disinheriting itself to the counts of Hainault, I don't
understand it but it seems that everybody in the family lost
everything and the Lordship of Roeulx was held by the count until the
early 1430s when it was granted to the Croy family in recognition of
the family's services.
Oh... were you joking? It would take a mighty big pawnshop to carry
the lands of Roeulx!
;-)
mj...@btinternet.com
> Hi James,
>
> I don't claim to have a perfect understanding. The Cartulaire of the
> Counts of Hainault record that he held a position like 'master of the
> house' for Marguerite of Bavaria in the early 1350s.
Judy
Should this be "master of the horse" do you know, or is it some kind
of "major domo" position?
Regards, Michael
JudyL...@gmail.com
Well -- No, I don't know. :-/
I'm trying to dig it out now but it's not in the first 4 big binders
of printed out stuff I have handy (you'd think I'd have databased this
stuff by now, but, nooooooo....!).
From the index:
"Ruet ou Ruete (Paon ou Pannet de), maitre chevalier de l'hotel de la
comtesse de Hainaut. Voyez Roet (Gilles dit Paonnet de).
Ruet (Raoul de), homme de fief du comte de Hainaut, VI, 55 [vol. 6, p.
55]
Ruet (Wauthier de), huissier du comte de Hainaut, VI, 142, 144."
For Paon, he is mentioned in the capacity of 'maitre chevalier de
l'hotel de la comtesse' six times: Vol. I, 321, 753, 765, 766; Vol.
VI, 129, 131.
====================================================
This info from the PDF of:
Cartulaire des Comtes de Hainaut, de L'avenement de Guillaume II a la
mort de Jacqueline de Baviere; Leopold DeVillers, Tome VI - second
part. Bruxelles, 1896.
====================================================
I will post more info as I come across it. My apologies for it not
being altogether altogether. Here I finally have the opportunity to
get answers from people who know something, and I can't produce!!!
Rats rats rats!
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/11/2008 10:05:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:
Sir Paon/Paonet de
Ruet/Roet, of Hainault, and Edward the Black Prince, my research into
contemporary records of this period indicates that the king and the
royal princes could and did address people as their kinsfolk, which
individuals could be related to them quite remotely.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Perhaps through marriage.
Douglas Richardson
< In a message dated 3/11/2008 10:05:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
<
<
< Sir Paon/Paonet de
< Ruet/Roet, of Hainault, and Edward the Black Prince, my research
into
< contemporary records of this period indicates that the king and the
< royal princes could and did address people as their kinsfolk, which
< individuals could be related to them quite remotely.>>
<
<
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< -
< Perhaps through marriage.
That's certainly possible, Will, but the records do not indicate that
this is so. I only have a handful of people in my database who may
have been styled king's kinsman/kinswoman and who may only have been
distantly related to the king by marriage. The rest of the people in
my database were clearly related by blood within at least the 5th
degree on at least one side.
As for the few individuals where it is unclear if it is by blood or
marriage, there are invariably gaps in the ancestry of the person in
question which prevents us from knowing the full range of their
ancestry and any possible connection they may have had to the king.
As a general rule, however, it is usually quite simple to spot the
blood relationship between the two parties.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. And, before someone says I left something out, yes, kings could
and did refer to their brothers-in-law as "brother" and the husbands
of their nieces as "nephew." I even have a reference to the wife of
the king's uncle being called "aunt" by the king. So, yes, close in-
law relationships were definitely acknowledged by the crown. Once you
get beyond the near kinships of uncle/aunt/brother/sister/niece/
nephew, the relationship intended by the king seems to be a blood one
in all but a handful of cases.
mj...@btinternet.com
> P.S. And, before someone says I left something out, yes, kings could
> and did refer to their brothers-in-law as "brother" and the husbands
> of their nieces as "nephew." I even have a reference to the wife of
> the king's uncle being called "aunt" by the king. So, yes, close in-
> law relationships were definitely acknowledged by the crown. Once you
> get beyond the near kinships of uncle/aunt/brother/sister/niece/
> nephew, the relationship intended by the king seems to be a blood one
> in all but a handful of cases.
Yes, it's another one of those "it invariably means this, except when
it doesn't" - a very useful rule indeed.
MA-R
Douglas Richardson
< Yes, it's another one of those "it invariably means this, except
when
< it doesn't" - a very useful rule indeed.
<
< MA-R
My files are loaded with countless references to kinship drawn from
the medieval time period. Medieval kinships fall into regular
patterns which are easy to analyze and plot, especially in England
after 1250 when the records are so plentiful.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ad73a443-19e1-4e77...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 10:42 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> < Yes, it's another one of those "it invariably means this, except
> when
> < it doesn't" - a very useful rule indeed.
> <
> < MA-R
>
> My files are loaded with countless references to kinship drawn from
> the medieval time period. Medieval kinships fall into regular
> patterns which are easy to analyze and plot, especially in England
> after 1250 when the records are so plentiful.
The most useful plotting to start with would be to sort these countless
kinsmen into "consanguinei" (that is not ambiguous) and "cognati" (that can
be).
Are you able to give us numbers for this interesting difference, or has your
"analysis" of the primary documents not reached this preliminary stage?
Peter Stewart
mj...@btinternet.com
> "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote
>
> > My files are loaded with countless references to kinship drawn from
> > the medieval time period. Medieval kinships fall into regular
> > patterns which are easy to analyze and plot, especially in England
> > after 1250 when the records are so plentiful.
>
> The most useful plotting to start with would be to sort these countless
> kinsmen into "consanguinei" (that is not ambiguous) and "cognati" (that can
> be).
>
> Are you able to give us numbers for this interesting difference, or has your
> "analysis" of the primary documents not reached this preliminary stage?
There's an analysis???
MA-R
Peter Stewart
<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1702db04-7648-4f13...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Well, Richardson wrote "kinships fall into regular patterns which are easy
to analyze", and he did not provide a source or weblink for the assertion.
Unless he actually wished to be ignored, according to his own precept, I
thought he should be prompted to back this up.
He can't very well know that a pattern is "easy" to analyse if he hasn't yet
tried, but of course we have seen no evidence that he has - despite his
receiving advice on several occasions as to how he might set about doing
this.
Now we shall see.
Peter Stewart