On 5/31/2016 6:53 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 1/06/2016 9:39 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: >> On 1/06/2016 2:45 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: >>> 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. Thank you for the information. St. Agatha appears as St. Agatha Hildegarde in Acta Sanctorum (Feb. vol. 1, pp. 727-9), and it escapes me why MacEwan though that such a wild guess would be preferable to proposed solutions (however problematic) that are least based on direct evidence. I wonder if Agatha holds the record for most different published theories on her origin and parentage, or if that distinction belongs to some other figure. Stewart Baldwin