On 1/06/2016 2:45 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 5/31/2016 2:32 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > >> Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' will find this on p. 19: > The abstract of the article on the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy" > website makes the following statement: "He also offers a few thoughts on > the Agatha problem." Does the article have anything of significance on > this subject? > MacEwan discussed some marriages that would have been consanguineous under different hypotheses, coming to this conclusion (pp. 20-21): 'Of the four twelfth-century Henrician marriages discussed above, those of Henry V and Henry the Lion according to the Brunswick solution and of Earl Henry and the Young King according to the Kievan solution were within the forbidden degrees. But proponents of these two solutions have yet to show that even one of these marriages, all four of which had important political ramifications, was in fact incestuous in the eyes of the Church and required a dispensation. The reason why such evidence is not forthcoming should by now be obvious. [para] Twenty years ago the author spent considerable time investigating a possible Polish solution (since espoused by Ravilious), which had – and has – its charms. But if pressed for an opinion, my best guess – no more – would be that Agatha was a granddaughter – perhaps great-granddaughter – and namesake of the Saint Agatha, Matron, whose feast falls on 5 February, “The wife of a Count of Carinthia, devoted to her domestic duties and a model of patience under the most grievous trials. She was ever occupied in good works and especially in the care of the poor and distressed. She died AD 1024, and many miracles since worked at her tomb bear witness to her sanctity. She is not included in the Roman Martyrology, the Official Church Register.” [para] Sadly, absent the fortuitous appearance of a document which actually names Agatha’s parents, her identity will probably never be known with certainty.' Peter Stewart

On 1/06/2016 9:39 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 1/06/2016 2:45 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: >> On 5/31/2016 2:32 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: >> >>> Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' will find this on p. 19: >> The abstract of the article on the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy" >> website makes the following statement: "He also offers a few thoughts on >> the Agatha problem." Does the article have anything of significance on >> this subject? >> > MacEwan discussed some marriages that would have been consanguineous > under different hypotheses, coming to this conclusion (pp. 20-21): > > 'Of the four twelfth-century Henrician marriages discussed above, those > of Henry V and Henry the Lion according to the Brunswick solution and of > Earl Henry and the Young King according to the Kievan solution were > within the forbidden degrees. But proponents of these two solutions have > yet to show that even one of these marriages, all four of which had > important political ramifications, was in fact incestuous in the eyes of > the Church and required a dispensation. The reason why such evidence is > not forthcoming should by now be obvious. [para] Twenty years ago the > author spent considerable time investigating a possible Polish solution > (since espoused by Ravilious), which had – and has – its charms. But if > pressed for an opinion, my best guess – no more – would be that Agatha > was a granddaughter – perhaps great-granddaughter – and namesake of the > Saint Agatha, Matron, whose feast falls on 5 February, “The wife of a > Count of Carinthia, devoted to her domestic duties and a model of > patience under the most grievous trials. She was ever occupied in good > works and especially in the care of the poor and distressed. She died AD > 1024, and many miracles since worked at her tomb bear witness to her > sanctity. She is not included in the Roman Martyrology, the Official > Church Register.” [para] Sadly, absent the fortuitous appearance of a > document which actually names Agatha’s parents, her identity will > probably never be known with certainty.' > Apologies, I left out MacEwan's reference for his quotation (in double marks above). This is: *The Book of Saints*, Compiled by the Benedictine Monks of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate, 3rd ed., New York, 1944, pp. 8b, 1. MacEwan did not argue the case for his 'best guess'. Assuming it is based on onomastics, he would have had a hard time establishing that the matron who died in 1024 and the problem Agatha were not both just co-incidentally named (directly or otherwise) after St Agatha of Sicily, whose cult was widespread and very popular in their time. Peter Stewart