[Up] [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fw: Dauphin, charts, why?

Cousins,  This is a conversation that John Q. and I had so have sent it on
to you.  It involves 4 questions.

1. Part one gives more information on the origin of the title "Dauphin" and
who was the French King that started using the term Dauphin for his son?
How did he get the territory of Dauphine?  (The example of Dauphin was used
as an example of how the title of  Atheling was used in Saxon Kingly lines.)
2.  If the Sinclairs were so important to Malcolm and Margaret why didn't
William the Seemly get a
    better title than just "baron"? Question for FAQ
3.  Why didn't the Bruce's receive more land?
4.  Why was the name of Douglas missing from Sinclair de la Behottiere's

>>Thanks for the encouragement.  I feel like the little 2-year old that
>>asking "WHY, Why", so I know how annoying that can get.....but.....Laurel
>How else will you find out anything?
>Sometimes I think you and Niven are kin,
>always asking new questions.
>Wait, you *are* kin. :-) John
>>I was wondering:
>>    Was Dauphin used only that one generation?  I have the impression that
>>it was used generation after generation but maybe that King (do you know
>>which one it was to start with?) lived so long and did so many things
>>historically that it just seems like his Dauphin was around a long
>So far as I know, dauphin was a title that was used for the French
>heir-apparent for many generations.  But I don't know much about it.
>Someone who might is Sinclair de la Behottiere, with his house in
>Normandy and his French mother.  I suggest you ask the question on the
>list, and I bet he will answer.
>Here's a much later example, however:

> http://www.royal-stuarts.org/francis.htm

>And it turns out that Louis XIV was called dauphin before he was king.
>So there are three examples from three different centuries (15th, 16th,
>ranging over 300 years, so it's clear the title was traditional.
>According to dictionary etymologies the title did derive from the ruler
>of the region Dauphine', which is located in what now is the border of
>France with Italy.  It probably was part of Charlemagne's empire, but
>it was not part of France for a long time, for a while it was even
>part of the Holy Roman Empire.  Its ruler was called the dauphin.
>Infoplease says:
>  In 1349 the area was sold to France by Dauphin Humbert II, who was
>  childless, and for the next century it was governed as a
>  separate province by the eldest son of the king of France. In
>  1457 it was annexed by the crown. John
Now that seems like a very good system.  It gave the Prince (Dauphin) a
place to practice to be king and kept him busy until he became
ing.  )Laurel
>So the use of the title dauphin for the French heir-apparent
>predates Charles VIII by a century, and the title is, as you noted,
>quite parallel to Prince of Wales.  Dauphine is even a mountainous
>border country, similar to Wales (although Dauphine has real mountains;
>the Alps).John
>>Fixing up the Glossary was a big job.  Haven't looked at it yet.  Thanks
>>all your super efforts. Laurel
>You're welcome.  Keep sending interesting stuff. John
>>Have you ever wondered why, if the Sinclairs were such important people
>Well, there are numerous opinion on *that* subject.Nigel Tranter goes out
of his way to sneer at Sinclairs.
A very respectable history of Robert the Bruce I'm reading
>mentions numerous Sinclairs, but in most cases by title
>so that you wouldn't know if you didn't know, and in
>one case where a Sinclair had undeniable importance
>in the wars of independence he breaks up the references
>among three chapters so you wouldn't know if you weren't
>checking all of them by the index.
>A fellow I know in Scotland grew up near Roslin and never thought
>much about Sinclairs.  Even though he had of course read Scott in school,
>he had never been to Roslin Castle.
>Another Scot I know was aware of the Sinclairs of Caithness, but even
>after he visited Rosslyn Chapel was not aware that it was related.
>One key feature of the importance of the Sinclairs in Scotland
>(and elsewhere) is the extreme historical continuity of the family.
>That's what Sir Walter Scott is referring to when he says
> ``The lordly line of high St. Clair.''
>High as in high antiquity, not necessarily high place,
>although some of them had that, too.John
>>did so much for Malcolm and Margaret that William was only made a
>Well, he was a foreigner.  There were only a certain number of Scottish
>(at that time, the traditional seven), and you didn't get to be one by
>appointment of the king; you had to be elected by tanistry from among
>a small set of descendents of a previous earl of the same line.
>The King of Scots at that time was not an absolute monarch in the
>style of Louis XIV.  No king was then; that kind of centralization
>of power was a later phenomenon.John
>>  Maybe in those days there were only Earls and Barons. Laurel
>Come to think of it, I don't recall reading of any marquesses
>or dukes in Scotland at that time, which would make sense, since
>those titles are mostly of Norman origin. (Well, the titles themselves
>derive from Roman terms, but the use of the titles in the medieval
>sense was so far as I know reintroduced into Britain by the Normans.)John
>>  I have read (how much truth?) that the Earlship was bestowed
>>upon a family members usually, so maybe that's why. Laurel
>Yes.  The earls in Scotland were the successors of the ancient Pictish
>mormaers, who were among other things electors of the king, who was
>himself also selected from among a set of eligible family members by
>The earls weren't created by the king.  Their titles and offices predated
>the institution of King of Scots as king of all Scotland, and they decided
>who would be king.John
>>  Or  Perhaps there
>>wasn't more to give out since local guys owned most of the land and it
>>have caused really bad feelings to take it away from them to give to
>>  The Bruces didn't receive much land in Scotland either. Laurel
>The Bruces didn't have any land in Scotland when Malcolm gave Roslin to
>William.  The family of de Bruis came into Scotland with Malcolm and
>Margaret's son King David I, as did half a dozen other Norman families.
>Here is another piece of the high antiquity of the Sinclairs in Scotland:
>they were there before all the other Norman families in Scotland.
>The Bruces also had a much more ambiguous position, in that they had
>lands in Cumbria as well as in Annandale.  Although Cumbria was part
>of Scotland in David I's reign, it later reverted to England, resulting
>in the famous ambiguity of the Bruce family over which monarch they
>>I didn't see the Douglas in the list that Privateers sent. Laurel
>Douglas is a Galloway family.
>According to scotclans:
> In Gaelic, dubh means black, and glas means grey. These are the main
> shades used in the tartan.  The earliest recorded Douglas seems to be
> William of Douglas, whose name appears as a witness to charters between
> 1175 and 1211 around Lanarkshire, but from whom he was descended is
> unknown. John
>Maybe we could have a list of the titles and descriptions of their use.  If
others were added through the years that could be indicated.  Much of what
you have said John would explain this so well for everyone.Laurel


Previous message:

>>>>Yes, that was the name of Malcolm's 1st or even second wife.  Has anyone
>>>>wondered why it took William the Seemly so long to get married.
>>>Now that you mention it, that is a good question.
>>>>  He was born
>>>>about 1028 and didn't marry until about 1058 at the age of 30.  Don't
>>>>suppose he had a "wife" or two along the way in Hungary or
>>>Wouldn't be surprised.  Probably lots of Hungarian Sinclairs out there.
>>>>I did read that men of great nobility delayed their marriage until they
>>>>reached their inheritence.  Such as when Edward the Confessor waited to
>>>>marry until after he became King.  But in that case he knew what he was
>>>>waiting for.  In William's case he didn't know what life would bring
>>>>got to England/Scotland so that reason doesn't hold up too well.
>>>Maybe he was just having fun being seemly.
>>>>Yes, like the Dauphine in Joan of Arc.
>>>Dauphin is masculine.
>>>Dauphine is feminine.
>>>The future Charles VIII was the dauphin.
>>>>He wasn't the king yet but was the person in line to be King,
>>>The heir-apparent.
>>>> thus carried that title, it was  not his name at
>>>>all.   I think I heard that Dauphine  was originally the name of a rich
>>>>region of France that one of the Kings wanted badly.
>>>Yes, Dauphine is such a region.
>>>Dauphin was Charles' title.
>>>>  When the childless
>>>>Duke (?) of the region was dying he made an agreement with that king
>>>>could have the region if he would use the name of his region as the
>>>>for the Prince that would be king.  Probably someone can enlarge on this
>>>>story or correct it.
>>>Don't know.
>>>Also, notice that you're only sending to me.
>>>This is probably because you're simply replying to me,
>>>and I sent my note only to you because it involved
>>>things that you might want to say to the list yourself
>>>rather than being perceived as me correcting you on them.
>>>>But the tradition concerning Margaret doesn't fit the historical facts
>>>>as yet no one will look at those facts, they just keep sing songing this
>>>>little tradition.  It's one of those short cut versions of history (like
>>>>popular version of Thanksgiving-that leaves out 2 years of suffering)
>>>>leaves out a generation of Margaret's ancestry, and ignores where people
>>>>really were at during certain times according to historical records.
>>>> --If you won't believe me look at Any lineage chart of England and you
>>>>see the error of William  the Seemly b. 1028 going to Hungary with Edgar
>>>>Atheling b.c. 1052 in Hungary.  Now, does that make sense?
>>>Good point.
>>>>  It was Edgar's
>>>>father, Edward the Exile, that went  first to Russia in 1029 when
>>>>was just 1 year old and of course Edgar not born yet.
>>>One of those typical genealogical lost generations because the names
>>>were the same.
>>>>  They didn't even go
>>>>to Hungary until 1045ish.  I am almost to the point that I can see how
>>>>blend the two stories but I believe there are still a few missing facts.
>>>>    If I could just make contact with the author of the St. Margaret
>>>>he might have some relative information by now.  He stated that he
>>>>that with the loosening of the Russian records, there might be useful
>>>>out of Kiev.
>>>Niven might be able to locate him.
>>>Maybe even Michael Baigent could help; Niven gave his address a while
>>>>    It isn't going to tarnish Margaret or diminish her importance to
>>>>Scotland to accept the whole historical story not just a piece of it
>>>>try to bring more glory to William.  Please, Please, don't stifle this
>>>>by clinging to a pale version of the real facts.
>>>A true story is usually even better than a trite story.
>>>Keep at it.

[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@jump.net.
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html