[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 9 St. Clairs at Hastings
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: 9 St. Clairs at Hastings
- From: "dgiff245" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:32:29 -0400
- Organization: @Home Network
- References: +ADw-200009270705.e8R75UM00325+AEA-akira.aus.us.mids.org+AD4- +ADw-001901c0288a+ACQ-238b3f20+ACQ-624a0318+AEA-srst1.fl.home.com+AD4- +ADw-00ae01c029ac+ACQ-85b94840+ACQ-76f082d0+AEA-laurelfe+AD4-
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thank you so much for the information. It never ceases to amaze me the
wisdom and knowledge that is shared by so many Sinclairs. I have much to
----- Original Message -----
From: +ACI-Spirit One Email+ACI- +ADw-laurel+AEA-spiritone.com+AD4-
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 8:30 PM
Subject: 9 St. Clairs at Hastings
+AD4- Dear Dorothy,
+AD4- This is a very complex subject and answer. Hopefully more records
+AD4- be found to fill in the missing pieces.
+AD4- I will try my best then probably others will add their thoughts too.
+AD4- There probably were enough St. Clairs to make up the 9 at Hastings and
+AD4- not include William the Seemly. This list depends upon the intrepretation
+AD4- of whether
+AD4- (1) Duke William the Conqueror was included in the 9-this could happen if
+AD4- the person making the statement was a Sinclair and trying hard to show a
+AD4- close connection to the Duke by linking him to the other branch of the
+AD4- family by including him in the nine.
+AD4- (2) Morrison includes uncle Hamo as one of the 9 at Hastings so we are
+AD4- including uncles.
+AD4- (3) how far did +ACI-cousins+ACI- extend?
+AD4- (4) How accurate was the statement when it was written down maybe 200
+AD4- after Hastings? Morrison was wrong about Hamo, Sr. and Walderne being at
+AD4- Hastings. So if he were counting Walderne, the number in the statement is
+AD4- wrong or maybe the statement included other cousins that we don't know
+AD4- to make up for Walderne and William the Seemly. He also confused the two
+AD4- Maugers, making the wrong one Archbishop of Rouen. If you take into
+AD4- consideration these problems, this statement then becomes an inaccurate
+AD4- gauge of whether William the Seemly was at Hastings.
+AD4- If you strictly count as St. Clair cousins only those descended through
+AD4- Walderne who married Helen or Margaret (as Morrison calls her- and Niven
+AD4- thinks she would have been a +ACI-natural daughter+ACI- of Duke Richard II) then
+AD4- you only have 4 sons for Walderne, Lord of St. Clair, only 4 strickly
+AD4- speaking St. Clair 1st cousins. Even then if you interpret this +ACI-9 with
+AD4- Duke William+ACI- you would then have just 5.
+AD4- So the relationship has to be expanded to mean the descendants of
+AD4- father, Maugar/Malgar. So far I have not come across a title of Count or
+AD4- Lord of St. Clair for Maugar but he had a castle or land near St.
+AD4- Clair-sur-Elle so he and his offspring could all be labeled St. Clair.
+AD4- Then we will have to include the 2nd cousins to William the Conqueror and
+AD4- back another generation to pick up these St. Clair second cousins and
+AD4- uncles. Here are the people that Morrison says were at Hastings marked
+AD4- with +ACo-
+AD4- So going Back a generation to Mauger, Count of Mortain and Corbeil, who
+AD4- 4 sons:
+AD4- (1)Hamo, Count of Corbeil (killed 1047so was not at Hastings) had sons:
+AD4- +ACo-Hamo Jr. and Robert (Robert not listed at Hastings by Morrison but where
+AD4- was he-surely he was old enough and was a warrior type , received lands in
+AD4- Rye, England from Wm. the Conq. can he be discounted?)
+AD4- (2) Walderne (killed 1047 so not at Hastings) had +ACo-Richard, +ACo-Britel,
+AD4- the Seemly (Morrison says William the Seemly was at Hastings. See reasons
+AD4- below for possibly excluding him) Keep remembering that it was Walderne's
+AD4- marriage to Margaret/Helen (+ACI-natural+ACI- aunt of William the Conqueror) that
+AD4- connected these two branches and made Walderne's children 1/2-first
+AD4- to William the Conqueror. Walderne's 3 brother's would have been Duke
+AD4- William's uncles but not connected by blood until you get back to Duke
+AD4- Richard I.
+AD4- (3) William the Warling-little known about him but he could have had sons
+AD4- Hastings (although they might have been pretty fed up with the Duke for
+AD4- taking away their lands and titles in 1055-56 inherited when Hamo and
+AD4- Walderne died in 1047. It is probably this William-and others- carried on
+AD4- verbal smear campaign against the Duke's illegitimacy. They claimed he
+AD4- should be ineligible for the Dukedom and their family should carry on the
+AD4- Ducal line)
+AD4- (4) +ACo-Hubert (uncle by marriage, to Duke Wm.-thought to have had a
+AD4- mother than Hamo, Walderne, and William because he and his offspring
+AD4- supported Duke William so strongly despite the fact that the Duke and
+AD4- army killed his brothers/half-brothers Hamo and Walderne and Duke William
+AD4- took away the title and lands of Mortain from William the Warling and gave
+AD4- them to the Duke's 1/2 brother Robert), Sons of Uncle Hubert: +ACo-Radulph,
+AD4- +ACo-Hubert, +ACo-Adam, +ACo-Endo
+AD4- So counting the +ACo- you come up with 7 known cousins and second cousins for
+AD4- Duke William. Hamo Jr.,
+AD4- Richard, Britel, Radulph, Hubert, Adam, and Endo. Then add Uncle Hubert
+AD4- Wm. the Conqueror and you have 9.
+AD4- Duke William had other relatives at Hastings, Robert, Count of Eu was an
+AD4- uncle once removed. William count of Evreaux was a cousin once removed.
+AD4- Richard +ACI-fitz-Gilbert' of Tonbridge and Clare was a cousin once removed.
+AD4- Do you think that since he was +ACI-of Clare+ACI- that he could be counted as a
+AD4- Clare at Hastings also?
+AD4- Reasons why William the Seemly might not have been at Hastings:
+AD4- The army of King Henri I of France came to support young Duke
+AD4- claim on Normandy. In the battle of Val-es-Dunes 1047, William S's
+AD4- Waderne and uncle Hamo were killed as they tried either to support another
+AD4- contender or support their own claim on the Dukedom. Wm. S. would have
+AD4- been about 19 then. It is possible he left the area with his uncle
+AD4- the Warling for Apulia or Sicily. Or did he go then to safety with his
+AD4- father's cousin, King Edward the Confessor, in England.
+AD4- The legend of the Sinclairs seems to pick him up at Edward's court around
+AD4- 1056-7. By then he would have been 29. Had he married by then? Was
+AD4- a family in Normandy or England?? But the Sinclair legend is that he went
+AD4- with the delegation to Hungary to bring back Athling Edward the Exile and
+AD4- his family. It is quite possible that he went as one of King Edward's
+AD4- representatives or designated to be Cup Bearer to Edward the Exile, if not
+AD4- that, to have some sort of pledge of protection over the monarchy that he
+AD4- and his son, Edgar, represented.
+AD4- I am trying to show a close connection to Edward the Confessor who
+AD4- and took care of political refugees such as Malcolm Canmore who was there
+AD4- the very same time. It is possible that even back in Normandy Edward and
+AD4- Wm. S. could have formed an alliance. Edward was there until 1042 as an
+AD4- exile also. Being a pious man, he would have been very uncomfortable
+AD4- Duke William's father, Robert the Devil. Things might have been more
+AD4- peaceful over at uncle Mauger's castle at St. Lo. So I see a probable
+AD4- between William the Seemly with King Edward, the Athling monarchy and
+AD4- Malcolm Canmore that would have prevented him from helping Duke William at
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, email@example.com
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html