On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:02:04 AM UTC+10, taf wrote: > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 10:34:15 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > > The closest relationship I found was that they were fourth cousins once > > removed, as follows: > > > > 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. > : > > 7. Geoffroy V, d. 1151, count of Anjou, duke of Normandy. > > > > 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. > : > > 6. Matilda of England, d. 1167. > > There is the same degree of kinship in a descent from Geoffrey I of Anjou: > > 1. Geoffrey I, Count of Anjou > 2. Foulques III, Count of Anjou > 3. Ermengarde m. Geoffrey of Gatinais > 4. Foulques IV, Count of Anjou > 5. Foulques V, Count of Anjou > 6. Geoffrey V > > 1. Geoffrey I > 2. Ermengarde, m. Conan I of Brittany > 3. Judith m. Richard II of Normandy > 4. Robert I of Normandy > 5. William I of England > 6. Henry I of England > 7. Matilda of England > > It should be noted that all of this was previously worked out - > Matilda's brother William AEtheling had been affianced to Geoffrey's > sister so the relationships would already have been investigated. This relationship must have been very carefully scrutinised - William and Geoffrey's sister Matilda were betrothed as children in February 1113, then married in June 1119 when the bride had reached the age of 12. In this long interval the French had every motive to interfere with the alliance between their fathers sealed by their betrothal, if consanguinity had allowed that possibility. But as far as we know from the sources no such argument was ever proposed. Peter Stewart