Constance Princess Of Bretagne^[1]

Abt 1118 -

• Name	Constance Princess Of Bretagne
  Birth	Abt 1118	, , Bretagne, France
  Gender	Female
  Person ID	I36527	Master
  Last Modified	18 May 2019

  
  

  Father	Conan III "Le Gross" Duke Of Bretagne,   b. 1096, , , Bretagne, France d. 17 Sep 1148 (Age 52 years)
  Mother	Maud, Princess Of England,   b. Abt 1091, , , , England
  Marriage	Mar 1113	, , , England
  Family ID	F8735	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

• Event Map

  Birth - Abt 1118 - , , Bretagne, France  = Link to Google Earth

  
  

• Notes

  Comments: "I have been trying to find accurate dates for Constance Le Gros, daughter of Conan Le Gros and Maud FitaRoy and everything I find is totally implausible. It's like peope post stuff to their family trees without even thinking. If Constance was indeed born in 1118 (which is reasonable if Conan and Maud were married around 1113 and Constance was the youngest of 3 children), how could she have born a son (Alan) in 1124 and another (Geoffrey) in 1126? Six and eight years old seems awfully young for people to have had children. Some people show Constance born in 1108, but with Conan born in 1096, which most historical sites I have examined seem to agree on, he would have only been 12 years old when she was born. I see you are listing as sources the LDS Family Search web site, which is only as accurate as the people submitting the information and a lot of people don't seem to have been looking at dates when submitting. Most historical sites I have looked at also put ! Constance's birth at 1118, and Geoffrey's at 1126 (I've only seen the earlier 1124 son Alan on one other site besides yours), but I just don't see how that is possible. Have you considered the absurdity of that information?" Sincerely, Sharee Hughes Response: Well, you're right, of course. But since most genealogical data shows the dates you call into question, I'm not sure what can be done about it at this point. For my part, in my database I've added 10 years to the likely birth dates of both of Constance's children, and double-checked that both are still labeled "About" to signify that the dates are, at best, approximate. This doesn't conflict with the birth dates of Geoffrey's wife or children, and I believe it represents a good compromise, given that first hand knowledge of the specific dates are almost 900 years removed. - Wicasta Lovelace

  
  

• Sources

  [S23] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Ancestral File (R), (Copyright (c) 1987, June 1998, data as of 5 January 1998).