GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-08 > 0966906879


From: Richard Borthwick < >
Subject: CP XIV: BALLIOL
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:14:39 +0800


I have a reply from the editor of XIV. The relevant excepts follow.

"Many thanks for your message about note (c) at CP vol 1 p.386. My
reference to this in volume 14 is correct, it is a 'housekeeping'
correction, to reflect the fact that the Appendix it refers to was in fact
omitted from the final volume - the editors at the time felt that the point
was adequately covered by
Appendix H in volume 4.

"I had not noticed, although should have done, that it has been reasonably
established that note (d) is wrong and that 'sisters' should read 'aunts'.
There seems no doubt about this and I believe it may be a proof reading
error in the original CP since if they had been sisters of Edward Baliol
his peerage by writ would not have become extinct at his death (as CP says)
but would (presumably) have fallen into abeyance. The Scots Peerage only
mentions the sons of John Baliol, not his daughters, but does agree (vol.
1, p.508), that the daughter who married John Comyn was named Eleanor."

This thread: