Melisande de Coucy, wife of Hugh de Gournay
Douglas Richardson
As I was going through Leo van de Pas' great genealogics website this
past month, I noticed that Millicent de Cantelowe, wife of Eudes la
Zouche (died 1279), was missing a link to some of her distinguished
Continental and Carolingian ancestry through the Gournay and Coucy
families. My files show that Millicent's paternal grandmother,
Millicent de Gournay, is the daughter of Hugh de Gournay, seigneur of
Gournay-en-Brie, by his 2nd wife, Mélisande (or Millicent), daughter
of Thomas de Coucy (or de Marle), seigneur of Coucy, Marle, de la Fere
and Boves, Count of Amiens, by his 2nd wife, Mélisande, daughter and
heiress of Guy de Montlhery, Chatelain de la Ferte. I see that Leo
correctly notes that Thomas de Marle, sire de Coucy, had unnamed
daughter who married Hugues de Gournay. However, this couple are not
connected to Millicent de Cantelowe's ancestry.
As for evidence of Hugh de Gournay's marriage to Melisande de Coucy, I
can refer Leo and other newsgroup readers to the following source:
Monumenta Germaniae Historica SS XIII (1881): 253
Genealogiæ Scriptoris Fusniacensis
"Predicta Thomas de Marla, dimissa sorore comitis Balduini, iunxit
sibi uxorem cuiusdam militis de terra Ambianensi nomine Milesendem,
que peperit ei Ingelrannum de Marla et Robertum Bovensem et filiam
nomine matris appellatam, que maritum habuit Hugonem de Gornai dominum
eiusdein loci."
I've copied below my file account of Hugh de Gournay and his wife,
Mélisande (or Milicent) de Coucy. Mélisande is specifically named as
Hugh de Gournay's wife in published charters in the Cartulary of
Missenden Abbey, which source I have cited in my references.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GOURNAY FAMILY
3. HUGH DE GOURNAY, seigneur of Gournay-en-Brie, Gaillefontaine, etc.,
and, of Caister, Norfolk, Mapledurham, Oxfordshire, born about 1091
(of full age in 1112). During his minority, he was raised by King
Henry I and his lands were administered by Drew de Monceaux, his
step-father. He married (lst) BEATRICE DE VERMANDOIS, daughter of
Hugh le Grand, Count of Vermandois and Valois, Count of Amiens and
Crepy, by Alix, daughter and heiress of Herbert IV, Count of
Vermandois and Valois. They had one son, Hugh (died young). He
joined Stephen, Count of Aumale, and others in 1118, in an attempt to
place William Clito, son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, on the throne.
He seised the castle of Plesssis and ravaged Norman terrritory. King
Henry I crushed the revolt at Noyon in 1119, after which he submitted
and was pardoned. In 1134 King Stephen granted him the manors of
Wendover, Buckinghamshire and Houghton Regis, Bedfordshire. His wife,
Beatrice, was living in 1144. In the period, 1147/55, he witnessed a
charter for his nephew, Roger de Mowbray. In 1147 he accompanied King
Louis VII of France to the Holy Land. This crusade was unsuccessful
and returned in 1149. He married (2nd) MILLICENT (or MELISENDE) DE
COUCY, widow of Aleaume Fitz Adam, Governor of the Citadel of Amiens,
daughter of Thomas de Coucy (or de Marle) (descendant of Charlemagne),
seigneur of Coucy, Marle, de la Fere and Boves, Count of Amiens, by
his 2nd wife, Melisende de Crecy, daughter and heiress of Guy de
Montlhery, Chatelain de la Ferte. They had two sons, Gerard and Hugh,
and one daughter, Aidieve (wife of Nicholas de Stuteville, of
Kimberley, Norfolk). He and his 2nd wife were benefactors of the
Abbey of Bec. They founded the Abbey of Gaillefontaine in the period,
1144/64. HUGH DE GOURNAY died in 1181, said to be "very old." His
wife survived him.
Daniel Gurney, Record of the House of Gournay (1848), pp. 22, 84-127,
754, 763, 779. Monumenta Germaniae Historica SS XIII (1881): 251-256
(Genealogiæ Scriptoris Fusniacensis). Desc. Catalogue of Ancient
Deeds 6 (1915): 279. Bedfordshire Historical Record Society 7 (1922):
153-157; 19 (1937): charts fol. pg. 99. Oxfordshire Record Society 7
(1925): 7-15. J. G. Jenkins, Cartulary of Missenden Abbey 1 (1938):
164-165, 188; 3 (1962): 13, 15, 16. C. T. Clay, Early Yorkshire
Charters 9 (1952): 42, 45-47. Paget (1957), 266: 1-4 (sub Gurnay).
D. E. Greenway, Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, 1107-1191 (pub.
1972), pg. 142 (charter dated 1147/55 issued by Roger de Mowbray
witnessed by "Hugone de Gurnai avunculo meo [my uncle]." West Winter,
Descendants of Charlemagne (800-1400) (1987): XII.21.
Peter Stewart
Be so good as to tell us which of these sources gives you warrant to
state without qualification that the mother of Hugh de Gournay's second
wife was "daughter and heiress of Guy de Montlhery, Chatelain de la
Ferte" [sic]?
Have you even the slightest idea who the last-name personage might have
been?
I can only assume you are relying on one of the works cited below, since
the text above would need some _very_ smart argument to reconcile it
with the claim. Perhaps while you are at it you could provide us with a
translation of the extract you posted from the Foigny genealogy. This
would be a basic courtesy, of just the sort you demand from others when
it suits you, and of course it might be interesting to know what you
make of it.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Peter Stewart <p m ste...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<3U%Ec.74262$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> I can only assume you are relying on one of the works cited below.
You assume incorrectly.
> Perhaps while you are at it you could provide us with a
> translation of the extract you posted from the Foigny genealogy.
I'll leave the Latin translation to you, Peter.
Douglas Richardson
Peter Stewart <p m ste...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<3U%Ec.74262$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> I can only assume you are relying on one of the works cited below.
You assume incorrectly.
> Perhaps while you are at it you could provide us with a
> translation of the extract you posted from the Foigny genealogy.
I'll leave the Latin translation to you, Peter.
Peter Stewart
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> Peter Stewart <p m ste...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<3U%Ec.74262$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
>>I can only assume you are relying on one of the works cited below.
>
>
> You assume incorrectly.
Then you are pathetically deluded & mistaken - how can "uxorem cuiusdam
militis de terra Ambianensi nomine Milesendem" possibly tell you that
this woman was the daughter & heiress of somone called "Guy de
Montlhery, Chatelain de la Ferte" - or, for that matter, that Melisendis
was the "second" wife of Thomas (another error, needless to say)?
>>Perhaps while you are at it you could provide us with a
>>translation of the extract you posted from the Foigny genealogy.
>
>
> I'll leave the Latin translation to you, Peter.
Um, no - you raised this, and chose to dump a passage of Latin on the
newsgroup to make it look as if you were on top of the subject, but
which you clearly don't understand. You apparently expect people to
believe that you have come across such texts for yourself, in the course
of your light reading, instead of swallowing them uncritically from
references found in out-dated secondary works that you neglect to
mention, and without even bothering to check for more recent & scholarly
editions than you find cited there.
I'm not going to provide you with more free assistance to save your
embarrassment - _you_ quoted this passage, implying that _you_
understood it. That is plainly untrue. You can dig your own way out of
this hole. One of your claque can no doubt provide you with the same
kind of rough translation that you have misrepresented as your own
before now. I hope this will be better than your rendering of the
passage from the Sens chronicle continuation that so failed to impress
Kevin Bradford and J. Fina.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
The post from Douglas Richardson above is an example of his pernicious
habit - shared by few other SGM members, but not unique to him - of
taking out uncomfortable bits & pieces from other people's messages
without indicating this.
My complete remarks appended to his earlier post, which he silently
edited were as follows:
> Be so good as to tell us which of these sources gives you warrant to
> state without qualification that the mother of Hugh de Gournay's
> second wife was "daughter and heiress of Guy de Montlhery, Chatelain
> de la Ferte" [sic]?
>
> Have you even the slightest idea who the last-name personage might
> have been?
>
> I can only assume you are relying on one of the works cited below,
> since the text above would need some _very_ smart argument to
> reconcile it with the claim. Perhaps while you are at it you could
> provide us with a translation of the extract you posted from the
> Foigny genealogy. This would be a basic courtesy, of just the sort
> you demand from others when it suits you, and of course it might be
> interesting to know what you make of it.
>
> Peter Stewart
It is especially underhanded to include another person's signature quite
unnecessarily while leaving their words above it out of context.
We can't expect professional courtesy or collegial good manners from
Richardson, of course, but I hope others will take care not to copy his
oafish tricks.
Peter Stewart
Doug McDonald
I mentioned this to the newsgroup, but here it is anyway:
on p. 211, Frances Latham was NOT widow of Thomas Dungan, "of
Lincoln's Inn". If she were, her child Rev. Thomas Dungan,
immigrant to America, would be a descendant of Edward I,
as was Thomas "of Lincoln's Inn".
She was widow of William Dungan, Perfumer, of London. Said
William was NOT a son of Thomas Dungan "of Lincoln's Inn".
His ancestry is unknown. The ancestry of Lewis Latham is
not known perfectly, but there is no doubt that he derives from
a long line of falconers to the nobility; there are no known
royal connections, though I suspect that one could be found ...
I'm surprised you didn't find one!
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
> You asked for private notes telling of errors in your book.
This was supposed to be private ... it is basically a duplicate.
Doug
Jared Linn Olar
> We can't expect professional courtesy or collegial good manners from
> Richardson, of course, but I hope others will take care not to copy his
> oafish tricks.
>
> Peter Stewart
Personally I think both you and Mr. Richardson have at times crossed
the bounds of professional courtesy and collegial good manners. I
don't know why you two seem to find it so difficult to treat each
other politely and respectfully, since you both are important and very
helpful participants in this group.
Jared Linn Olar
Douglas Richardson
> habit - shared by few other SGM members, but not unique to him - of
> taking out uncomfortable bits & pieces from other people's messages
> without indicating this.
>
Peter -
You have your panties in a ruffle again, don't you? You poor thing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry@msn.com
Douglas Richardson
I've printed out your post and placed it in my file of submitted
additions and corrections to Plantagenet Ancestry. Thank you for
taking your time to share this with me.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Doug McDonald <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<cc3op9$d9k$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
D. Spencer Hines
These corrections to PA3 should be filed PUBLICLY to SGM -- NOT
privately to Richardson -- where they may simply disappear down the
Orwellian Memory Hole.
Just give Richardson a drop copy.
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.04070...@posting.google.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Richardson may take FIVE YEARS or more to put out a new edition of PA3.
And who knows what he will correct and what he won't correct.
People need to know about these corrections NOW.
DSH
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...
Leo van de Pas
I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you, both at the same time. I
wish, like you, that Peter Stewart's messages were not necessary, but they
are. Whether he agrees with me or not, Douglas Richardson has placed himself
in a very special position. He wants to be accepted as a scholar and at the
same time sell as many copies of his book as possible. Both may be laudable
goals but then, like Caesar's wife, Douglas Richardson has to be above
suspicion, but he is not. Regularly he will remove the more valid points and
only reply to the minor ones. However, he should have done it the other way
around. Remarks about people having their knickers in a knot are not helpful
either, they are not even funny. Throwing lists of sources at people is not
helping either as many do not have access to them and if Peter Stewart is
one of the few who has, we have to be grateful he uses his time disecting
for those who do not have a chance of seeing the sources referred to.
Instead of wasting his own time and everyone else's, Douglas should spend
his time answering the valid questions, not trying to avoid them. Genealogy
is a very precious knowledge, and we should say thank you to Peter Stewart
for trying to weed out errors-----errors in print can have a very long life!
Some have lasted decades and more!
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
MWelch8442
I have to agree with you and disagree with you. Peter Stewart has only offer
his opinion on this group now he wants us to take him for his word. Well I
can't. He hasn't proven anything except he knows more languages well good for
him on that I give him a standing high five for that. He can't stand for this
board to be without a fight. He thrive's on it. He deserves no respect he has
offer no help except to translate a few documents (mind you if he did so
correctly I'm now guessing wrong). Do I think Doug word is the end all be all.
The answer is no but he has many times put his sources on this board. Peter
doesn't thats not genealogy. So what does that serve. Proof is in the pudding.
Best always
Mike
Douglas Richardson
As a followup to my earlier post on the Coucy and Gournay families, I
thought I'd post a partial list of the enormous number of 17th Century
New World immigrants who descend from Mélisande (or Millicent) de
Coucy, 2nd wife of Hugh de Gournay. As I indicated in my last post,
Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy possesses illustrious Continental
and Carolingian ancestry.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby,
Barbara Aubrey, Christopher Batt, Anne Baynton, Essex Beville, Richard
& William Bernard, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph
Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent,
Thomas Bressey, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth Butler, Edward Carleton,
Charles Calvert, Jeremy Clarke, William Clopton, John Culpeper, St.
Leger Codd, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Jane, Frances, & Katherine
Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, John Fisher,
Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Mary Gye, Elizabeth & John
Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Henry Isham, Edmund
Jennings, Edmund & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah
Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe,
Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John
Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph &
Mary Need, John Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, Williamd & Elizabeth Pole,
Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas
Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, James
Taylor, Samuel & William Torrey, Jemima Waldegrave, John & Lawrence
Washington, Olive Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Mary Wolseley,
Hawte Wyatt, Henry Wyche.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasrichardson@royalancestry,net
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.04070...@posting.google.com>...
Peter Stewart
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As a followup to my earlier post on the Coucy and Gournay families, I
> thought I'd post a partial list of the enormous number of 17th Century
> New World immigrants who descend from Mélisande (or Millicent) de
> Coucy, 2nd wife of Hugh de Gournay. As I indicated in my last post,
> Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy possesses illustrious Continental
> and Carolingian ancestry.
You have misstated her "illustrious" ancestry and then avoided the
issues raised about this.
Do you seriously think that pandering to an interest in descendants is
going to get you round this problem of your own making with ancestors?
This is a newsgroup for genealogy, not snobbery.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>>The post from Douglas Richardson above is an example of his pernicious
>>habit - shared by few other SGM members, but not unique to him - of
>>taking out uncomfortable bits & pieces from other people's messages
>>without indicating this.
>>
>> > Peter Stewart
>
>
> Peter -
>
> You have your panties in a ruffle again, don't you? You poor thing.
You can't tell the difference between sharp observation and physical
discomfort - just the kind of response that would be expected from
someone who refuses to address the issue. which is the dishonesty of
reshaping another person's sentences without ackowledging any interference.
I shoud have thought a simple "<snip>" or "...." would be within even
your intellectual grasp.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
You haven't understood this any better than your puppeteer Richardson. I
am not proposing anything that I want SGM to take my word for -
Richardson is doing that, now as on so many other occasions.
I am not asking for respect or attention, just for careful thought &
regard for sources, and logic, in proposing relationships between
medieval people.
If it were true that I thrive on fighting, why do you suppose that
Richardson by far the most frequent object of my strong criticism?
The idea that Richardson consistently puts "his sources on the board"
and I don't is quite preposterously silly. In posts he usually fudges
this on any contentious issue and declines to answer queries; in print
he hides his sources in lists that are useless to anyone who can't check
them all.
Your spelling has improved markedly, even indeed suspiciously, from your
previous posts - though your grammar hasn't. Puppetry is a difficult craft.
Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
>As a followup to my earlier post on the Coucy and Gournay families, I
>thought I'd post a partial list of the enormous number of 17th Century
>New World immigrants who descend from Mélisande (or Millicent) de
>Coucy, 2nd wife of Hugh de Gournay. As I indicated in my last post,
>Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy possesses illustrious Continental
>and Carolingian ancestry.
[immigrant list deleted]
How about showing us the intervening generations in this Carolingian
ancestry?
Stewart Baldwin
MWelch8442
It's to bad you have to resort to name calling. I'm my own person. I'm nobody's
puppet,Troll, or lap dog if you don't like my opinion to bad.
Best
Mike
Peter Stewart
So it's all your own doing that you reappear to gush like the 'Old
Faithful' geyser when Richardson backs himself into a corner and wants
some distraction?
A puppet that doesn't know it has strings attached....and does your nose
grow a bit each time you post to SGM?
Peter Stewart
MWelch8442
Douglas Richardson
Good to hear from you as always.
You can find an interesting history of Coucy Castle and its lords in
French on the following website:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_du_ch%C3%A2teau_de_Coucy.
You can find two interesting stories regarding Mélisande (or
Millicent) de Coucy's father, Thomas de Marle, in the medieval
sourcebook, Abbot Suger: Life of Louis the Fat, on the following
website:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/suger-louisthefat.html
Thomas de Marle is called the "vilest of all men" and a "pernicious
man who persecuted the church" in this account.
The extended ancestry of Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy can be
found on many websites due to the vast number of her descendants.
Just a few of them are:
The Penrose Family Website
http://www.penrose.org
http://www.mathematical.com/coucymelisende1126.html
http://www.armidalesoftware.com/issue/full/Thaler_614_main.html
http://www.geneajourney.com/gourny.html
http://www.geneajourney.com/coucy.html#melmarl
http://rcbailey.tripod.com/d391.htm#P1051
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/s021/f751094.htm
http://www.gordonbanks.com/gordon/family/2nd_Site/geb-p/p174.htm#i9235
http://www.koti.phnet.fi/ossian/charlemagne.htm#Taulu%201110
The last named website is specically devoted to descendants of
Charlemagne. It all looks like fun stuff. Good luck!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<770ce09ff3eir98vb...@4ax.com>...
Peter Stewart
could imagine that he practices.
Any number of websites repeating the same nonsense can't make his
rubbish correct or worthwhile.
Melisendis, the third (not second) wife of Thomas de Coucy, was NOT a
daughter of the parents Ricahrdson has ascribed to her, and she had no
ancestry - "illustrious" or otherwise - that is recorded.
Turton & others got this wrong. There is no excuse for an allegedly
"trained" historian to go on repeating their error. The genealogy
presumed to have been written by the abbot of Foigny, that Richardson
quoted in support of his claim, does not in any way validate it.
Taking refuge behind other people's mistakes is a feeble cop-out.
Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
The old "look it up yorself" type of answer (which is essentially what
you have given) is not a very helpful answer in such cases. I am well
aware of the fact that various inadequately documented websites will
give an ALLEGED descent of Melisendis from Charlemagne. However, I
was assuming that you were referring to a VALID such descent. Was
that an incorrect assumption on my part?
Here is a more specific question. Does the descent of Melisendis from
Charlemagne that you had in mind include Giselbert of Roucy as an
intervening generation? If so, what sort of evidence do you have
linking Giselbert to his alleged child? If not, what alternate route
to Charlemagne are you using?
Stewart Baldwin
StNeel
>Richardson may take FIVE YEARS or more to put out a new edition of PA3.
>And who knows what he will correct and what he won't correct.
>
>People need to know about these corrections NOW.
Gosh - Hines - you could do lots of your own research, document all the errors
you find and Egads! - publish you own book based on the sweat of your brow.
Then I could review you :-)
Sigh - just when I thought Hines was getting civilized.
StNeel
Douglas Richardson
<SNIP MANY UNNECESSARY INSULTS>
> Melisendis, the third (not second) wife of Thomas de Coucy, was NOT a
> daughter of the parents Ricahrdson has ascribed to her, and she had no
> ancestry - "illustrious" or otherwise - that is recorded.
You completely misread my last post. The person whose illustrious
ancestry I addressed was Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy, wife of
Hugh de Gournay, not her mother. You need to get your reading glasses
checked. You are correct about one thing. Mélisande's mother, also
named Mélisande, was the 3rd not the 2nd wife of Thomas de Marle (or
de Coucy). Thomas de Marle's second wife is mentioned (but not named)
in the online account by Abbot Suger which source I cited in my last
post. The marriage of Thomas and his 2nd wife was annulled on grounds
on consanguinity.
I found Abbot Suger's material quite interesting to read. The website
for this great medieval resource again is:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/suger-louisthefat.html
> Turton & others got this wrong. There is no excuse for an allegedly
> "trained" historian to go on repeating their error. The genealogy
> presumed to have been written by the abbot of Foigny, that Richardson
> quoted in support of his claim, does not in any way validate it.
Michael Welch is right about you. You post no sources. You just want
to start arguments and flame wars. I feel sorry for the lurkers who
have to put up with your petty tantrums. My apologies to them for
these unfortunate outbursts.
This is a newsgroup for adults, not a sandbox for children. For
someone who is as intelligent as I know you are, you show an extreme
lack of maturity. I respect your intellect, Peter, not your lack of
judgement. Your contempt for other posters is more than obvious.
> Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: Melisande de Coucy, wife of Hugh de Gournay
<SNIP>
> Michael Welch is right about you. You post no sources.
"Michael Welch" talks nonsense of course - Peter does post sources and is an
expert on the period, hence his criticism of your methodology. Unfortunately
not having fluency in Latin you are unable to understand them or their
context. Which is something of a major handicap for someone who will no
doubt later claim to be an authority on European medieval geneaology. The
idea mooted by some lurkers that Peter is jealous of your ability is
completely misguided.
You just want
> to start arguments and flame wars. I feel sorry for the lurkers who
> have to put up with your petty tantrums. My apologies to them for
> these unfortunate outbursts.
This is an excellent example of hypocrisy considering your recent example of
telling someone their knickers are in a twist. I'm sure no-one requires you
to apologise on anyone's behalf in such a patronising manner.
>
> This is a newsgroup for adults, not a sandbox for children. For
> someone who is as intelligent as I know you are, you show an extreme
> lack of maturity. I respect your intellect, Peter, not your lack of
> judgement. Your contempt for other posters is more than obvious.
Your lack of judgement in your contempt for the newsgroup is even more
telling. As soon as you come under critical questioning which you can't
answer or won't acknowledge error, frequently out comes a wave of
sidestepping posts such as this one distracting attention away from a
particular gaff. This is a technique commonly employed by parents of
children, as you are no doubt aware. The archives are full of this cyclical
pattern of behaviour of yours, but if you think it fools everyone, think
again. Do you have such a low opinion of members of this newsgroup to treat
us like children who can be distracted in such a manner?
I understand that it is the silly season in the northern hemisphere so no
doubt a flame war is somewhat inevitable.
Rosie Bevan
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart <p m ste...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<Y1vFc.76489$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> <SNIP MANY UNNECESSARY INSULTS>
>
>>Melisendis, the third (not second) wife of Thomas de Coucy, was NOT a
>>daughter of the parents Ricahrdson has ascribed to her, and she had no
>>ancestry - "illustrious" or otherwise - that is recorded.
>
>
> You completely misread my last post. The person whose illustrious
> ancestry I addressed was Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy, wife of
> Hugh de Gournay, not her mother. You need to get your reading glasses
> checked.
No, you specified her mother's alleged parentage - if they are not part
of Melisande de Coucy's ancestry, we are all waasting out time on SGM.
> You are correct about one thing. Mélisande's mother, also
> named Mélisande, was the 3rd not the 2nd wife of Thomas de Marle (or
> de Coucy). Thomas de Marle's second wife is mentioned (but not named)
> in the online account by Abbot Suger which source I cited in my last
> post. The marriage of Thomas and his 2nd wife was annulled on grounds
> on consanguinity.
>
> I found Abbot Suger's material quite interesting to read. The website
> for this great medieval resource again is:
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/suger-louisthefat.html
>
>
>>Turton & others got this wrong. There is no excuse for an allegedly
>>"trained" historian to go on repeating their error. The genealogy
>>presumed to have been written by the abbot of Foigny, that Richardson
>>quoted in support of his claim, does not in any way validate it.
>
>
> Michael Welch is right about you. You post no sources. You just want
> to start arguments and flame wars. I feel sorry for the lurkers who
> have to put up with your petty tantrums. My apologies to them for
> these unfortunate outbursts.
So why not answer the question I put to you in the first place - what
source/s are you relying on for the alleged parentage of Thomas de
Coucy's thrid (as you now admit) wife Melisande? You tried to turn this
around by insisting that it wasn't one of the sources listed below the
information in your post, and it can't have been the source quoted
above. So what is it?
>
> This is a newsgroup for adults, not a sandbox for children. For
> someone who is as intelligent as I know you are, you show an extreme
> lack of maturity. I respect your intellect, Peter, not your lack of
> judgement. Your contempt for other posters is more than obvious.
For SOME other posters, but mercifully few indeed - good, then I'm not
totally wasting my time.
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Stewart ~
>
> Good to hear from you as always.
Genealogy is supposed to come up with verifiable statements. The
verifications should lead us to surviving documents of the times of the
people described. So we expect to see sources mentioned against the
facts reported. So I have gone through this list of sites to see what
can be seen.
>
> You can find an interesting history of Coucy Castle and its lords in
> French on the following website:
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_du_ch%C3%A2teau_de_Coucy.
I can see no sources mentioned on this page.
>
> You can find two interesting stories regarding Mélisande (or
> Millicent) de Coucy's father, Thomas de Marle, in the medieval
> sourcebook, Abbot Suger: Life of Louis the Fat, on the following
> website:
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/suger-louisthefat.html
This is a translation of the text of some medieval history book. It
does not show, like history books these days show, what sources confirm
the facts reported.
> Thomas de Marle is called the "vilest of all men" and a "pernicious
> man who persecuted the church" in this account.
>
> The extended ancestry of Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy can be
> found on many websites due to the vast number of her descendants.
> Just a few of them are:
>
> The Penrose Family Website
> http://www.penrose.org
I could find no sources given on this site.
> http://www.mathematical.com/coucymelisende1126.html
The only sources mentioned are "ancestry.com" and "LDS".
> http://www.armidalesoftware.com/issue/full/Thaler_614_main.html
The source given here is Plantagenet Ancestry by W H Turton, a book
that is rated Outdated by others (I do not have a copy). This rating is
to be found on: http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/bookeval/t.htm
> http://www.geneajourney.com/gourny.html
The sources given are Complete Peerage for one entry and A R
(Ancestral Roots? and if so it is rated as Generally Reliable) for the
others.
> http://www.geneajourney.com/coucy.html#melmarl
The sources given are Complete Peerage for one entry and A R for the
others plus a SGM posting from Paul McBride
>
> http://rcbailey.tripod.com/d391.htm#P1051
No sources given.
>
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/s021/f751094.htm
No sources that I could see.
>
> http://www.gordonbanks.com/gordon/family/2nd_Site/geb-p/p174.htm#i9235
The source is mostly Marlyn Lewis "Ancestry of Elzabeth of York" but
with no page numbers. I know nothing about this book.
>
> http://www.koti.phnet.fi/ossian/charlemagne.htm#Taulu%201110
I can't recognise anything in this that looks like a source reference.
In summary
==========
My conclusion is that none of these references are to information that
makes a serious attempt to present a well researched genealogy.
The conclusion from that is that this list of sites is offered us as a
joke and not as a reasonable response to the request.
> The last named website is specically devoted to descendants of
> Charlemagne. It all looks like fun stuff. Good luck!
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
> Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:<770ce09ff3eir98vb...@4ax.com>...
> > On 2 Jul 2004 14:57:04 -0700, royala...@msn.com (Douglas
> > Richardson) wrote:
> >
> > >As a followup to my earlier post on the Coucy and Gournay
> > >families, I thought I'd post a partial list of the enormous number
> > >of 17th Century New World immigrants who descend from Mélisande
> > >(or Millicent) de Coucy, 2nd wife of Hugh de Gournay. As I
> > >indicated in my last post, Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy
> > >possesses illustrious Continental and Carolingian ancestry.
> >
> > [immigrant list deleted]
> >
> > How about showing us the intervening generations in this Carolingian
> > ancestry?
> >
> > Stewart Baldwin
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<1jgde0t0kibemdlbf...@4ax.com>...
> On 3 Jul 2004 00:46:04 -0700, royala...@msn.com (Douglas
> Richardson) wrote:
>
> >Dear Stewart ~
> >
> >Good to hear from you as always.
<SNIP>
> >The extended ancestry of Mélisande (or Millicent) de Coucy can be
> >found on many websites due to the vast number of her descendants.
> >Just a few of them are:
> >
> >The Penrose Family Website
> > http://www.penrose.org
> >
> >http://www.mathematical.com/coucymelisende1126.html
> >
> >http://www.armidalesoftware.com/issue/full/Thaler_614_main.html
> >
> >http://www.geneajourney.com/gourny.html
> >http://www.geneajourney.com/coucy.html#melmarl
> >
> >http://rcbailey.tripod.com/d391.htm#P1051
> >
> >http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/s021/f751094.htm
> >
> >http://www.gordonbanks.com/gordon/family/2nd_Site/geb-p/p174.htm#i9235
> >
> >http://www.koti.phnet.fi/ossian/charlemagne.htm#Taulu%201110
> >
> >The last named website is specically devoted to descendants of
> >Charlemagne. It all looks like fun stuff. Good luck!
>
> The old "look it up yorself" type of answer (which is essentially what
> you have given) is not a very helpful answer in such cases.
You're quite correct. Information about Melisende de Coucy isn't
helpful if your question is really about Giselbert, Count of Roucy.
If you really meant to ask about Count Giselbert all along, I
recommend you should have done so in your first post. Otherwise, you
look like someone who likes to bait other posters. Are you?
> Here is a more specific question. Does the descent of Melisendis from
> Charlemagne that you had in mind include Giselbert of Roucy as an
> intervening generation? If so, what sort of evidence do you have
> linking Giselbert to his alleged child? If not, what alternate route
> to Charlemagne are you using?
I think these questions are better addressed to Leo van de Pas who
shows a descent from Giselbert of Roucy down to Melisende de Coucy on
his great website, www.genealogics.org. If you have concerns about
Count Giselbert, I'm sure Leo can answer them for you. I might note
that Leo's website also shows an interesting descent from King
Ethelred II of England down to Melisende de Coucy. Looks like great
stuff to me! Good luck in your sleuthing!
> Stewart Baldwin
Kevin Randolph Hearst
Absolutely! But I do agree that it would be wise to make the
corrections public. People may document their ancestors with the book
and then lay that line aside and that fallacy could be in their family
tree for generations.
__
Kevin Randolph Hearst
www.hearstmania.com
citizenkane1123[erase this gap]@hotmail.com
Quote of the Day
Source: self
"She was dating him, but they broke up. Didn't you read it in Star
magazine?...Yeah, I know. God, I hate that magazine."
Stewart Baldwin
>You're quite correct. Information about Melisende de Coucy isn't
>helpful if your question is really about Giselbert, Count of Roucy.
>If you really meant to ask about Count Giselbert all along, I
>recommend you should have done so in your first post. Otherwise, you
>look like someone who likes to bait other posters. Are you?
Yor original posting in this thread claimed that there was a descent
from Charlemagne to Melisende de Coucy. Given that, asking for
the line of descent was a perfectly reasonable question, since I was
(and still am) unsure whether or not such a descent existed. When
that question was answered with a "look it up yourself" type of
response, I asked again, and, having looked at it in more detail,
identified the troublesome link (Giselbert of Roucy) in the one
claimed descent which I found.
>> Here is a more specific question. Does the descent of Melisendis from
>> Charlemagne that you had in mind include Giselbert of Roucy as an
>> intervening generation? If so, what sort of evidence do you have
>> linking Giselbert to his alleged child? If not, what alternate route
>> to Charlemagne are you using?
>I think these questions are better addressed to Leo van de Pas who
>shows a descent from Giselbert of Roucy down to Melisende de Coucy on
>his great website, www.genealogics.org. If you have concerns about
>Count Giselbert, I'm sure Leo can answer them for you. I might note
>that Leo's website also shows an interesting descent from King
>Ethelred II of England down to Melisende de Coucy. Looks like great
>stuff to me! Good luck in your sleuthing!
Rather than non-answering responses, I would suggest that a more
useful type of response would be to simply answer the question. If
(as appears to be the case here) it involves a number of generations
for which you have not checked the details, you could qualify the line
by saying something like "I got this from <blank> but have not
checked the deatils on generations x through y" or something of the
sort. (Or, you could have included such a qualification in your original
statement that Melisence was a descendant of Charlemagne.)
Stewart Baldwin
Douglas Richardson
As you well know, the standard sources in the literature identify
Melisende de Coucy and her immediate family as descendants of
Charlemagne by way of Count Giselbert of Roucy. Studying newsgroup
archives, I've learned that in recent time, an article has been
published which suggests that the evidence linking Count Giselbert of
Roucy as the father of Count Ebles of Roucy and his siblings is weak
or nonexistent. Since I haven't seen this article, I can't make any
comment on it. However, I believe you have seen the article. If so,
please tell us the evidence or lack of evidence which exists which
connects these people to each other and how that situation might
affect Melisende de Coucy's Carolingian ancestry. Also, as an aside,
I'd appreciate your comments on the royal line from King Ethelred II
of England which Leo van de Pas includes for Melisende de Coucy in his
genealogical database. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<18682972.108931451...@wamui01.slb.atl.earthlink.net>...