[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: a little help??
Thank you so much for responding to my call. Two other offers came from
people in the area so will use one of them. What I am attempting to do is
make contact with Michael SInclair who is a football player with Seattle
Seahawks. I have his stats from the internet but think it would be
interesting for us and even him to make contact if possible. It would be
interesting if a black Sinclair has traced his ancestry back to the Sinclair
owner in our early southland. His biography says he is studying for the
ministry and gives his church's name so it will be easy for someone to give
me the address of that church. I'll send the mail through the church and he
can answer me if he desires.
Now curiosity has got me. Will your speaking engagement be one that we
could attend. I know that the folks on the east coast were beside
themselves that they didn't know that Niven was speaking at that college.
We need to get the word out. We really fell isolated from the rest of
Sinclair happenings here in the NW.
I read your book Rex Deus quickly through December. I felt that I would
like to go back and discuss a number of things with you as I reread it
again. "Discuss" is not a negative word here. I thought of possible things
I have come across that might add to the thought process and the next
printing. I know that there are always so many Sinclair projects underway
and your time is limited.....but can you see this happening between us
somehow? Have you talked with anyone from other clans on your level? Do
they have so much research and discovery going on among their clans?
Knowing that such a conversation might have to be put on hold or be done
gradually here and there, I will jump to the area that has taken up much of
my thought and research for the last two years. I do this just in case you
might be touching on this in your February meeting: St. Margaret.....
I am looking at a chart pg 426 of "The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland" by
Prince Michael. I am supposing that your thinking came from such a chart.
However this is not what the research of 4-5 authors I have read show. The
most comprehensive book on this is "Lost King of England" by Gabriel Ronay,
an author that Niven led me to. I can give you their proofs that Agatha
couldn't possibly be St. Stephen's daughter, as they see it, for Margaret's
mother, Agathab. c. 1025, being the d/o Ludolf, Margrave of Westfriesland b.
1008 d. 1038 and Gertrudis d/o Hugh IV of Egisheim Ct. of Lower Alsce.
Ludolf's parents were Bruno, Ct. of Brunswick 990, mc 1004 d.before 1013 and
was the first husband of Gisela of Swabia m. wnd Ernst m. 3rd Conrad II the
Salian King of Germany 1024. Emperor 1027, m. 1016 to Gisela in 1016. He
was King of Burgundy 1032.
Gisela and Conrad II's son was Henry III the Salian b. 1017 d. 1056 King of
Germany 1039 and Holy Roman Emperor 1046.
(This is where it gets really interesting) Henry married first Gunhilde d/o
Queen Emma (d/o Duke Richard I of Normandy -St. Clair) and King Knute the
Great of England. Gunhilde died within a year of heat stroke in Italy.
It is recorded that King Knute was in Rome at the time that Conrad was
which also supports the idea of their familiarity and opportunity to
contract this marriage for his son, Henry. Henry married second Agnes d/o
William duke of Aquitaine. Their daughter Sopia married Solomon s/o King
Andrew I of Hungary and Anastasia d/o Grand Duke Yaroslav of Kiev.
Then in 1043/44 Agatha married Edward the Atheling at Kiev with Conrad II,
her 1/2 uncle, as her sponsor. There is more about the political climate
between Henry III and Hungary that sheds light on some of the actions
surrounding the return of Edward to England. An understanding of the
events in Hungary really are an eye opener to Margaret's childhood.
It just seems to me with all these Balkin connections of Agatha's
parents, you must still have your link to the Davidic and Hasmonean lines
that your book requires. Please let me know about this???
...There is even another slight St. Clair connection in all of this. Roger
I of Sicily married second to Eremberga d/o William of Mortain. Which must
be the uncle of William the Seemly. So Eremberga and WIlliam the Seemly
were cousins. Roger really didn't like having the Normans in Sicily because
they were so arrogant and thus caused real bad feelings among his
multicultural island. So I would suspect that William the Warling spent most
of his time in Apulia with the rest of the Normans itching to get their
hands on Sicilian territory. William (the Warling) must have become Ct. of
Mortain following Hamon and Walderne's deaths in 1047. (many more thoughts
on the Warling but will hold them now)
Roger I's daughter, Constance, married third to King Henry VI of Germany
and then by 1096, in his old age, Henry was also King of Sicily. John
Julius Norwich chart on pg. 333 shows that it is unknown whether Constance
was the d/o Eremberga or the first wife, Judith of Grantmesnil. (Judith, I
think would also be a St. Clair cousin). Constance's brother born just
before her is named Mauger. So another tie to the St. Clair's perhaps.
Researchers say, that when the dangerous political situation was
changed, King Henry IV (her 1/2 cousin's son) gave them a ship (probably
plenty of guards) and they went quickly and safely to England. So despite
the drama of the St. Clair legend this was not a dangerous voyage except
perhaps that there was someone on board that poisoned her father. He was
the only one that was ever in danger because he was the only politically
important person on board! William the Conqueror would certainly have
wanted this done.
All this myth that the English had lost track of Edward the Exile is a
bunch of BUNK.
We see that since Knutes time, there was contact with Henry III and
somewhere before 1043 the alliance put together by Kiev between themselves,
the Germans and England against more Scandinavian incursions (one theory)
produced a contract between Edward the Exile and Henry's 1/2 niece. This is
a much more important connection than being the d/o St. Stephen. One author
thinks this theory appeared during WWI when the Hungarians were anxious to
have English allies so made up this connection between Stephen and Agathe to
make the English more sympathic to their plight. They sucessfully did the
same thing with the French. (there is an example given of this)
Margaret and Malcom Canmore were never engaged, I'm sure. When she
arrived in England at about the age of 11, she was considered of
marriageable age even from birth when some contracts were drawn up. So why
didn't they marry? Malcolm was still unmarried at that time. Or was he? We
can't believe that he was without a "wife" in 1057 at the age of 27. The
same goes for our William the Seemly who was now about 29.
One chart I have thinks Ingibiorg chould have been his second "wife".
Of course, this might have been a "wife" in the Viking tradition so really
no barriar to engaging in a real marriage to Ingebiorg. (there is so much
more to say about this. -I don't want to make this much longer--I fear you
are yawning already. But Please let us go into more depth on this before
you write or speak about Margaret's lineage again.
I have not heard about there being a Hungarian knight guarding
Margaret??? There were many Hungarians that came with them. Why would
Margaret be more important than Edgar the Atheling??? He was the male heir
to Edward. If, indeed, Margaret had a guard, then Edgar must have had 20
knights. Christina must have had a guard. Agatha must have had 10 guards.
She was probably still able to have children and it was her line that you
think carried the royal blood. Wouldn't the male (Edgar) have been the
most important personage? I just can't understand the emphasis on her.
I have written to Gabriel Ronay about Margaret and the Norman Knight
escort. He thinks it is ridiculous.
I can build a plausible case for William the Seemly being sent by his
father's cousin, King Edward the Exile, as a representative of King Edward
to escort Edward the Exile back but to have had everyone buzzing around
protecting Margaret and ignoring Edward and Egar, Christina and Margaret
would be ridiculous. If there is some emphasis on the woman's more than
the male, in the blood line descent, then they should have been watching out
for Christina just as much. Margaret could die any time. Margaret was not
coming back to be a Queen of England. Malcom was now about
Furthermore, Niven, thinks Ingibiorg was Earl Thornfinn's wife as do other
writers. But "Professor Gordon Donaldson says: 'may well have had the same
name as her mother' (from "A Northern Commonwealth, by G. Donaldson,
And Gabriel Ronay adds "This conclusion makes much more sense. Malcolm
III would have wanted to lose no time in coming to a territorilly
satisfactory arrangement with the Orcadian earl. To wait until 1065, would
have been too long. Too much hostility could hve arisen between the two
lords during that time and in the absence of any alternative strategies, 'it
is much more plausible that Malcolm, eager to ensure the succession after he
had overthrown Macbeth in 1057, lost no time in coming to terms with
Macbeth's ally Thorfinn and marrying his daughter' around 1059. (Donaldson,
1990") Ingibiorg was a member of Norway's royal house and Scotland's first
Scandinavian queen, a good diplomatic choice and much better than marrying
Margaret and they were second cousins with a lot more in common than
Margaret. They had possibly 3 sons
Let's examine the odds of Ingibiorg being the wife of Earl Thorfinn II of
Orkney, as Niven and earlier researchers have written. (from "British Kings
& Queens by Mike Ashley) ..Thornfin had married, Ingibiorg, the niece of
Kalf Arneson "some years before 1042"...(Maybe 5 years=1037 ) When
Ingibiorg was 15=born 1022?? Thornfinn died in 1065. She would now be
about 43 years old and Malcolm about 35 but she yet had to produce 3 sons
which, at the lest, would have taken 4 years. This now puts her at 48 when
the last was born about 1069. So as I work this out, it looks possible
Thornfinn's wife could have married Malcolm III and possibly died in
childbrith in 1069 and he quickly married Margaret thereafter. That means
he had his eye on Margaret even as Ingibiorg was dying.
But, contrary to Niven's romantic ideals, I don't believe Margaret
willingly married him. He was called "Canmore' or big head because he was a
bully. Whatever the circumstances surrounding Ingibiorg's death should have
been a major concern for Margaret. And he had just sent a raid in to
northern England with the orders to kill, burn and pillage. And they obeyed
with a vengence. Whereas in the past, raiders had burned, yes, cut off a
few noses, taken hostages for ransom and slew a few but now they were
killing the common folk. A thing that repulsed everyone. And Malcolm had
all these little kids to take care of. He had a checkered background
concerning "wives" that would have upset the orthodox Margaret and now he
had Edgar as a hostage and threatening to do him harm if she didn't marry
him. Margaret had firmly decided to not marry. That has to be recognized.
Really nice way to impress your loved and cherrished one. I think Malcolm's
loyalty to the Saxon throne maybe even involving a pledge to King Edward to
protect this family whould be considered a major factor in this marriage.
Plus how symbolic to be married to Margaret and blend the Saxon and Scots'
lines. Politically this would perhaps bring more of the English to his side
against King William. Yes, they grew to love one another but that is
history in hindsight.
I think Agatha has been overlooked in this matter. David C. Douglas in
"William the Conqueror" thinks that the reason Agatha and the kids hung
around England so long was that she had hopes that William would marry her
instead of sending for his wife in Normandy. --Indeed as I think of it, you
must really admit how unusual it was to have a dethroned king and his
supporters still milling about King William's court. Did he -age 38- give
Agatha age 31 some encouragement along these lines?
If this idea has any merit, then we might entertain the thought that she
would have urged this marriage to Malcolm (1) to save Edgar from harm (2)
helped hold on to the English supporters that could help defeat King William
and get Edgar back on the throne, (3) get even with WIlliam :)
I've got to stop and eat. But there is much more to consider
historically then the condensed version of William the Seemly that gives so
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Wallace-Murphy" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: a little help??
> Dear Laurel,
> Will be going to Seattle for a speaking engagement sceduled for the last
> weekend in February. Will only be there for three days, but is I can be of
> help, please let me know.
> Best wishes
> [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, firstname.lastname@example.org
> [ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
[ 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