Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Jack,
I was just going over some of my notes on lines of royal descent, and a thought struck me!
IF, and that is a big if...Robert were actually the legal child of a de facto marriage between Margaret Douglas and Ld. Thomas Howard, then he would have had a better claim to the English throne than James VI had.
James' claim was through his grt-grandmother Margaret Douglas, and Robert's claim would have been through his supposed mother, the same Margaret Douglas. A few generations closer, and he was English to boot. I think the English nobles would have prefered an englishman over a Scot at that time in history, but I could be wrong.
I suppose this train of thought could also be used to discredit Robert's claim as Margaret's son...since he was never brought forward by the peers of the realm.
One other thought I had while checking my notes on Moss' theory. Moss makes much of the coat of arms granted in 1714 to Matthew and Richard Howard of London. He, Moss that is, puts forth the supposition that since the blazon included a Mullet; which also appears in the Douglas arms, that there has to be a connection. But anyone who has even a slight understanding of heraldy and the language of arms can tell you, a mullet between two cinqfoils is not the same as three mullets of the field. And the use of the crosslets fitche combined with the mullet does not mean that the arms granted to Matthew and Richard Howard were a combinatin of the Howard and Douglas arms as Moss would have you believe.
If the arms granted to these two Howards in 1714 were infact meant to show a connection between the Howard and Douglas families; then the arms would have been a impalment of the two arms side by side. Furthermore, they would have been recognized as a cadet branch of the Ducal Howards in the wording of the grant; which they were not.
This was an entirely new granting of arms to a seperate Howard family group, evidenced by the grants actual wording..."Upon Searching the Books of the Herald's Office and not finding any Entry of their Family, Recorded in the said College"
This is what I mean when I say that there are too many gaps in Moss' theory. He gives the actual evidence to discredit his own theory, but hopes no one will recognize it for what it really is... He ladens you down with all kinds of documentation, but unless you take each piece of evidence and examine it seperately on its own merit, you of course draw the exact conclusion which Moss wants you to come to.
We won't even go into what Moss had to say about the church not having to be involved in a marriage to make it legal...that is for another time or perhaps not, just keep in mind that the King had shaken off the yoke of the catholic church, and was in the process of setting up the Church of England; which still had the fundamental beliefs of the old church at heart...without the pope attached to it. In order for a marriage in *de praesenti* (in the present) to be recognized, it had to be solomized by the church...only a marriage in *de futuro* (in the future) did not require the church's blessing, as the marriage had not taken place yet.
Moss' comparison with Thomas' brother Ld. William of Effingham marrying, and his wife Margaret Gamage giving birth six months after the marriage...means nothing, except that William and Margaret consumated their union prior to the actual vows being spoken, they were contracted in marry *in futuro* several years prior to the actual ceremony.
But Moss does not tell you this, because it would defeat his purpose. Another smoke screen in my opinion; because he then throws in the possibility of a double wedding having been planned. Now where did he get that information from...was he there...was he privy to the wedding plans?
One very big point that Moss fails to include in his story and his evidence...Margaret was a niece of the King...any marriage for her would have been in the right of the King to grant...and ONLY the king. Any marriage contract, even if it was devised between her parents and the groom's parents would have had to be approved by the King.
Just say that Margaret and Thomas did actually marry and they kept it a secret...then she got pregnant. Kings perogative gave Henry the right to have the marriage set aside, and any children from the union labled bastards; which has been done on previous occasions in medieval history. Case in point, William, Marquis of Northampton and his wife Elizabeth had married without the Kings permission, Henry had their marriage struck and their two children bastardized. After Henry VIII died, William and Elizabeth pleaded for a reversal of the act from Edward V the new King..."An act for Willyam Marques of Northampton and Elisabeth his wyffe to make thiere marriag lawful and theire children legittimat" Act: 5 & 6 Edw V ino 30 (PRO C 89/4/11) from the proceeding of Chancery: Private Acts of Parliament, Certiorari, Rolls Chaple Series.
This is why I say that Moss published his book in fiction format, because he knew that if he wanted to present this sort of evidence to the genealogical professionals for review, it would have never been accepted.
We can go into other points of Moss' theory at a later date if you like~
Cheers,
Karen
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/howard/messages/10388.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|