Neither Johannes Andreae's apparatus on the Arbor consanguinitatis [printed
at the end of vol. 1 of Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. E. Friedberg] or
[scanned quickly] the title on Consanguinity in the Decretals of Gregory IX
showed any specific mention of illegitimacy.
At 08:13 PM 11/30/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>This is the one about marriage, consanguinity, divorce and all that
> > stuff.
>Dear Angus and others with similar knowledge -
>from one whose Latin is poor, slow and unreliable -
>Under "Consanguinity", does Pope G. make any distinction between a
>legitimate and an illegitimate child with respect to consanguinity on the
>father's side - given that an illegitimate child technically and legally had
>no father ?
>I have been conducting a correspondence with a fellow genealogist about a
>twelfth century Breton noblewoman named HAVOISE who is the mother of the
>founder of the de la Zouche line.
>My 18th C Breton genealogy is silent on the subject of her paternity but
>later trees name her father as Alan IV Fergent Duke of Brittany. This is
>superficially plausible, given that the name "Havoise" was a common name in
>the ducal family.
>However, Havoise's eldest son (not La Zouche but his elder brother) Eudo II,
>Count of Porhoe"t married Bertha, the legitimate granddaughter of Duke Alan
>If Havoise was Duke Alan's daughter, then Eudo and Bertha were FIRST COUSINS
>and surely too far within the bounds of consanguinity as to be marriageable
>by any mediaeval standard. (I have found no trace of a dispensation - that
>doesn't mean there wasn't one.) I thought that SEVEN degrees of
>consanguinity were prohibited at this period - middle 12th C.
>However, if the consanguinity rule only applied to legit. children on the
>father's side, this might be construed as evidence that Havoise was Alan's
>bastard - and certainly not his legitimate child has some have postulated.
>If the consanguinity rule applied to bastards on the father's side as well,
>it might be construed to mean that Havoise was not Duke Alan's child at all.
>If you think this question ought to have been posted to a genealogy site, I
>apologise for taking space, but it seems to me more a matter of canon law
>than of genealogy.