>>Has anyone
>>wondered why it took William the Seemly so long to get married.
>
>> He was born about 1028 and didn't marry until about 1058 at the age of
30. Don't you suppose he had a "wife" or two along the way in Hungary or
England/Scotland.
>
>>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 when
he
>>got to England/Scotland so that reason doesn't hold up too well.
>
>, like the Dauphin in Joan of Arc.
>
>The heir-apparent.
>
>> thus carried that title, it was not his name at
>>all. I think I heard that Dauphin 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 that
he
>>could have the region if he would use the name of his region as the title
>>for the Prince that would be king. Probably someone can enlarge on this
>>story or correct it.
>
>
>>But the tradition concerning Margaret doesn't fit the historical facts and
>>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
the
>>popular version of Thanksgiving-that leaves out 2 years of suffering) that
>>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
will
>>see the error of William the Seemly b. 1028 going to Hungary with Edgar
the
>>Atheling b.c. 1052 in Hungary. Now, does that make sense?
>
It was Edgar's
>>father, Edward the Exile, that went first to Russia in 1029 when WIlliam
>>was just 1 year old and of course Edgar not born yet.
>
>were the same.
>
>> They didn't even go to Hungary until 1045ish. I am almost to the point
that I can see how to
>>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 book,
>>he might have some relative information by now. He stated that he expect
>>that with the loosening of the Russian records, there might be useful data
>>out of Kiev.
>
> 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 just
to
>>try to bring more glory to William. Please, Please, don't stifle this
story
>>by clinging to a pale version of the real facts.
>
>A true story is usually even better than a trite story.
>>Laurel
>
>
[ 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