Parentage of PHILIP DESPENSER
Guy Vincent
not come across a definitive answer. Is Philip Despenser,
husband of Margaret Goushill considered to be son or
brother of Hugh Despenser husband of Eleanor de Clare.
I've looked back over the archives and found opinions to
be divided on this one.
Guy Vincent
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
You can find the answer to your question about the parentage of Sir
Philip le Despenser in my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), page 612
(sub Nettlestead). I list as one of my sources, Gage's History &
Antiquities of Suffolk: Thingoe Hundred (1838): 4-8, which cites a
Placita coram Rege, Term. S. Hill. 8 Edward II. [Year: 1315], Rot. 77,
which names Philip le Despenser as "filio ipsius Hugonis" (that is,
son of Hugh le Despenser).
Inasmuch as Sir Philip le Despenser's wife, Margaret de Goushill, was
born in 1294, and their son and heir, Philip, was born in 1313, it is
clear from the chronology that Sir Philip le Despenser (husband of
Margaret de Goushill) was a younger son of Hugh le Despenser, usually
styled "the elder," Earl of Winchester (died 1326) and his wife, Isabel
de Beauchamp. Hugh the elder and his wife Isabel were married sometime
after 7 July 1283.
Conversely, it is chronologically impossible for Sir Philip le
Despenser to have been the son of Hugh le Despenser the younger, who
married shortly after 14 June 1306 Eleanor de Clare.
If you think you're interested in pursuing the Despenser family
further, I recommend you obtain a copy of my Magna Carta Ancestry book.
I include a great deal of information about this family in the book.
Contact me privately for details about ordering a copy.
Lastly, I might suggest you visit Jim Weber's and Hal Bradley's great
online databases, both of which have helpful information on the
Despenser family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe
CP VI pp. 42-3, note (e) gives Philip's marriage and CP IV, p. 289 incl
note (a) which last has on p. 289:
"... Philip le Despenser [m.] Magaret ... da. and h. of Ralph de
Gousille ... The last named Philip was yr s. of Hugh le Despenser the
elder ... not, as usually stated, of Hugh the younger."
So the answer is that he was the brother of your above Hugh Despenser.
I would thoroughly recommend the purchase of CP (Complete Peerage). I
say this from the point of a long-standing user and have no connection
with the publishers let alone am I touting something I had anything to
do with. You can even get the first fourteen volumes on CD from here:
http://www.abc-publications.co.uk/shop/products.php?p=33931f
though I suspect there may be some copyright infringement for the later
volumes.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> That's the correct answer, Tim, but what sources did Complete Peerage
> cite to prove that Philip le Despenser was the son of Hugh le Despenser
> the elder? By any chance, did Complete Peerage cite the law suit which
> I mentioned which named Philip as Hugh's son? If not, what evidence
> did they use?
Sounds like rhetorical questions to me.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Tim, sounds like you're dodging the questions to me. We'll try it one
more time. Complete Peerage either cited a source to substantiate its
claim, or it didn't. Which is it? Also, did Complete Peerage cite the
law suit I mentioned as evidence to prove Philip le Despenser was the
son of Hugh le Despenser the elder? The questions are easy to answer.
Todd A. Farmerie
> That's the correct answer, Tim, but what sources did Complete Peerage
> cite to prove that Philip le Despenser was the son of Hugh le Despenser
> the elder? By any chance, did Complete Peerage cite the law suit which
> I mentioned which named Philip as Hugh's son?
You quoted:
> I list as one of my sources, Gage's History &
> Antiquities of Suffolk: Thingoe Hundred (1838): 4-8, which cites a
> Placita coram Rege, Term. S. Hill. 8 Edward II. [Year: 1315], Rot. 77,
> which names Philip le Despenser as "filio ipsius Hugonis" (that is,
> son of Hugh le Despenser).
This (as it appears here) is only sufficient to indicate that Philip was
son of _a_ Hugh (perhaps the rest of the document specifies which, but
we can't tell from this abbreviated quotation). Further, you did _not_
cite the law suit, you cited Gage's reference to the law suit. As to
the question of _which_ Hugh, you argued:
> Inasmuch as Sir Philip le Despenser's wife, Margaret de Goushill, was
> born in 1294, and their son and heir, Philip, was born in 1313, it is
> clear from the chronology that Sir Philip le Despenser (husband of
> Margaret de Goushill) was a younger son of Hugh le Despenser, usually
> styled "the elder," Earl of Winchester (died 1326) and his wife, Isabel
> de Beauchamp. Hugh the elder and his wife Isabel were married sometime
> after 7 July 1283.
>
> Conversely, it is chronologically impossible for Sir Philip le
> Despenser to have been the son of Hugh le Despenser the younger, who
> married shortly after 14 June 1306 Eleanor de Clare.
A perfectly valid chronological argument, but hardly the type to beat
your chest (or someone else's) over.
taf
Chris Phillips
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> I would thoroughly recommend the purchase of CP (Complete Peerage). I
> say this from the point of a long-standing user and have no connection
> with the publishers let alone am I touting something I had anything to
> do with. You can even get the first fourteen volumes on CD from here:
>
> http://www.abc-publications.co.uk/shop/products.php?p=33931f
>
> though I suspect there may be some copyright infringement for the later
> volumes.
Yes - as I understand it these people do not have permission to copy and
sell the parts of CP that are still protected by copyright.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I posed my questions to Mr. Powys-Lybbe in good faith. I recommend
that we wait for Mr. Powys-Lybbe to answer them before you intervene to
save him. I'm sure that Mr. Powys-Lybbe can speak for himself.
In the meantime, please don't speak for me either. The continued
confusion over Sir Philip le Despenser's parentage is a serious ongoing
problem in the literature. It may take a century or more to debunk the
older sources in print which have assigned him as a child to his
brother.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Parentage of PHILIP DESPENSER
> Dear Mr. Farmerie ~
>
> I posed my questions to Mr. Powys-Lybbe in good faith. I recommend
> that we wait for Mr. Powys-Lybbe to answer them before you intervene to
> save him. I'm sure that Mr. Powys-Lybbe can speak for himself.
>
Dear Mr. Richardson,
Speaking in a public place, and speaking to a wider audience, is inviting
and allowing anyone to make comments. If you wanted Tim Powys-Lybbe ONLY to
hear your remark and ONLY Tim Powys-Lybbe to respond, you should have send
your message ONLY to Tim Powys-Lybbe. And how do you know whether Mr.
Farmerie does not have a better knowledge than Tim Powys-Lybbe? In which
case, Thank you Mr. Farmerie for speaking out.
Best wishes as always
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Tim, sounds like you're dodging the questions to me. We'll try it one
> more time. Complete Peerage either cited a source to substantiate its
> claim, or it didn't. Which is it? Also, did Complete Peerage cite the
> law suit I mentioned as evidence to prove Philip le Despender was the
> son of Hugh le Despenser the elder? The questions are easy to answer.
I agree that they are easy to answer if one digs out ones copy. However
it is obvious that you know the answer and it is certain that you
either have your own copy of CP or very ready access to same. Hence it
is a rhetorical question and rhetorical questions are those asked for
effect and not in fact for an answer.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> I posed my questions to Mr. Powys-Lybbe in good faith. I recommend
> that we wait for Mr. Powys-Lybbe to answer them before you intervene to
> save him. I'm sure that Mr. Powys-Lybbe can speak for himself.
We have been down this path before. This is a public newsgroup. All
points are made in public and anyone can comment on anything they wish.
There is no justification for your (Mister DR's) little rule.
If you (Mister DR) really wished to address a question to me
personally, you would take it privately. The fact that you (Mister DR)
choose to raise your questions in public indicates that you (Mister DR)
are not addressing the question specifically to me and are being
somewhat hypocritical.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
The inevitable supplementary question is why the copyright owners
(Sutton?) have not taken the matter up with the above and sued them for
damages. Or perhaps there is an action pending, though if there was I
would expect the speedy award of an injunction to desist pro tem.
Mysterious.
Jim Weber
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
>
> I would thoroughly recommend the purchase of CP (Complete Peerage). I
> say this from the point of a long-standing user and have no connection
> with the publishers let alone am I touting something I had anything to
> do with. You can even get the first fourteen volumes on CD from here:
>
Tim,
As an amateur genealogist who strives to be accurate, I would heartily
concur with your recommendation of CP. It is undoubtedly the most
comprehensive work on the English Peerage up through Victoria. Other
works may be more detailed and up-to-date in selected lines, but none
have the broad scope that CP does.
I do wish to express a certain disappointment and frustration with the
correction volume (XIV). First it was relatively expensive, adding
about 35 or 40 percent to the purchase price of the other 13 volumes.
And second it is written in a "cookbook" style (ie. in the manner of an
editor's corrections to the original), with such directions as "Page
472. line 33. Add '[Lord Fauntleroy]' after 'George'." So you end up
laboriously counting lines on page 472, and then finding the text, and
then inserting the new or changed text. This is too often done without
any new source being given. Is this because the original source was
merely misread?
As an example of my latest frustration was a correction to the entry on
Giles Brugge of Cubberley (CP III:151), which originally read that
Giles was "born and bap. at Haresfield, co. Gloucester, 21 December
1396." CP XIV:167 corrects that entry to read "Hasfield" instead of
"Haresfield" with no explanation. Yet about three lines up from that
entry on the same page (CP III:151) is a description of Giles' father
as "Thomas Brugge, of Haresfield and Matson, co. Gloucester", which
volume XIV leaves as originally stated. Does this mean that the family
held Hasfield in addition to Haresfield, or was it an oversight on the
part of volume XIV not to correct the father's information, or was the
mother merely visiting the mid-wifery at Hasfield for the birth?
Oh well, I suppose you need volume XIV to be the most accurate.
Jim Weber
Todd A. Farmerie
> I posed my questions to Mr. Powys-Lybbe in good faith.
Taking your word for it that the first time was in good faith, by the
_third_ time, . . .
> Tim, sounds like you're dodging the questions to me. We'll
> try it one more time. . . .
The reader can judge for themselves as to the faith in question.
> I recommend
> that we wait for Mr. Powys-Lybbe to answer them before you intervene
And I recommend that anyone having anything to add to the discussion
feel free to do so. This is a discussion group, not an exclusive
one-on-one dialog that everyone else should just be happy to sit quitly
and watch. Potential posters need not feel restrained by any individual
participant's personal whims.
> to save him.
I have no intention of saving him. He is on his own, against all
comers, as am I, and as are you. Further, nothing I said prevents him
from answering or not, as he sees fit. There are those who would be
happy, as each such response provides another opportunity to grandstand.
> I'm sure that Mr. Powys-Lybbe can speak for himself.
I am sure he can too, and he is free to do so, just as you are free to
speak for yourself, and I am free to speak for myself, which I did.
> In the meantime, please don't speak for me either.
I didn't - go reread what I wrote (you quoted it all below) and point
out at what point I 'spoke for you'.
> The continued
> confusion over Sir Philip le Despenser's parentage is a serious ongoing
> problem in the literature. It may take a century or more to debunk the
> older sources in print which have assigned him as a child to his
> brother.
True, as is the case with all of the common errors. How is this unique
to this particular question, and how does it relate to me speaking for
you? (Given when CP was published, it looks like we are well into your
century already.)
Here are a couple of questions - have you (or anyone else here) seen the
original lawsuit, or just Gage's citation of it? What is the exact
phrase used in identifying the Hugh, of whom Philip was a son?
(I recommend that anyone willing to answer these questions should feel
free to do so - I am interested in the information, whoever it comes
from. Still I'd appreciate your answer, Douglas.)
taf
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> >
> > I would thoroughly recommend the purchase of CP (Complete Peerage).
> > I say this from the point of a long-standing user and have no
> > connection with the publishers let alone am I touting something I
> > had anything to do with. You can even get the first fourteen
> > volumes on CD from here:
> >
>
> concur with your recommendation of CP. It is undoubtedly the most
> comprehensive work on the English Peerage up through Victoria. Other
> works may be more detailed and up-to-date in selected lines, but none
> have the broad scope that CP does.
>
> I do wish to express a certain disappointment and frustration with the
> correction volume (XIV). First it was relatively expensive, adding
> about 35 or 40 percent to the purchase price of the other 13 volumes.
Vol XIV is indeed expensive, as were the originals for the first
fourteen volumes. What makes then cheaper is that the latter are now
produced in photo-reduced form.
> And second it is written in a "cookbook" style (ie. in the manner of an
> editor's corrections to the original), with such directions as "Page
> 472. line 33. Add '[Lord Fauntleroy]' after 'George'." So you end up
> laboriously counting lines on page 472, and then finding the text, and
> then inserting the new or changed text. This is too often done without
> any new source being given. Is this because the original source was
> merely misread?
I agree that there is a certain lack of sources in Vol XIV, not quite
up to the high standard of the earlier volumes.
> As an example of my latest frustration was a correction to the entry
> on Giles Brugge of Cubberley (CP III:151), which originally read that
> Giles was "born and bap. at Haresfield, co. Gloucester, 21 December
> 1396." CP XIV:167 corrects that entry to read "Hasfield" instead of
> "Haresfield" with no explanation. Yet about three lines up from that
> entry on the same page (CP III:151) is a description of Giles' father
> as "Thomas Brugge, of Haresfield and Matson, co. Gloucester", which
> volume XIV leaves as originally stated. Does this mean that the family
> held Hasfield in addition to Haresfield, or was it an oversight on the
> part of volume XIV not to correct the father's information, or was the
> mother merely visiting the mid-wifery at Hasfield for the birth?
>
> Oh well, I suppose you need volume XIV to be the most accurate.
No, what we all need is Chirs Phillips' painstaking accumulation of
further corrections and additions. And then, when the pace of
corrections slows to a very small trickle, it would be fantastic if a
third edition could be produced which was fully corrected from the
start. But I just can't see anyone funding that massive exercise.
(The second edition of the Dictionary of National Biography is, I hear,
a severe drain on the reserves of Oxford University Press. I don't
think they'll ever get their money back.)
mhol...@mac.com
this 2nd edition of CP. When was it published? The importance in the
date is that does it incorporate all the known and revised scholarship
of the last century? Certainly, Richardson's book does, so starting
there is not a bad choice. Why start at CP when this newsgroup is
replete with corrections to that work? Wouldn't it make more sense to
start with something much more recent that may already incorporate new
findings?
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
cite to prove that Philip le Despenser was the son of Hugh le Despenser
the elder? By any chance, did Complete Peerage cite the law suit which
did they use?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I'm rather surprised you would want butt into this thread, inasmuch as
your own database (www.genealogics.org) has Sir Philip le Despenser's
parentage listed incorrectly. Sir Philip is your Person #I00042724.
You have misidentified Sir Philip le Despenser as the son of his
brother, Sir Hugh le Despenser (usually styled "the younger"). This is
chronologically impossible, as you are well aware. Unless you want to
look a bit foolish, I recommend you get this correction made to your
database as soon as possible.
I also suggest you visit the great online genealogical databases of Jim
Weber and Hal Bradley. Both men have Sir Philip le Despenser's
parentage correctly stated. Perhaps their list of sources can help you
out. Likewise Dave Utzinger gave Sir Philip le Despenser's parentage
correctly this past month in at least three of his posts on the
descendants of Aline de Gay. You'll want to study that great series of
posts as well.
If you need any more help, buddy, please let me know.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo
updated quite soon and so this will have to wait till the next one. Probably
end July. Lately I have been bussy with adding details to medieval people
and these details will become searchable. And some of the results I tested
are quite surprising. And yes I do appreciate corrections and additions as
stated on my website, it will only improve the information freely supplied.
A pity you did not address the subject of my message, but then you are good
at avoiding owning up to your own misconceptions.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Chris Phillips
mhol...@mac.com wrote:
> Going to this website, I noticed that there is no publication date for
> this 2nd edition of CP.
No doubt for the reason that Tim mentioned (copyright infringement).
> When was it published? The importance in the
> date is that does it incorporate all the known and revised scholarship
> of the last century? Certainly, Richardson's book does, so starting
> there is not a bad choice. Why start at CP when this newsgroup is
> replete with corrections to that work? Wouldn't it make more sense to
> start with something much more recent that may already incorporate new
> findings?
The 2nd edition of CP was published in 13 vols (in 14 parts) between 1910
and 1959. Volume 14 (corrections and additions) followed in 1998.
I think the reason why there are so many CP corrections posted here is just
the scope of the work and the nature of the subject matter. The work was
done by many contributors, and the quality can be uneven (and was definitely
lower in the first 4 volumes), but on the whole I think it is still better
than anything comparable.
I'd also say that where there _is_ a problem with CP, it is - by and large -
much easier to investigate than in other works because usually (though not
in the first 4 volumes) references are given separately for separate facts.
These references are much easier to use than those given in long lists after
each article, as is the case not only with Douglas Richardson's book, but
others such as Keats-Rohan's "Domesday" books and the new Dictionary of
National Biography (a step backwards from much of the Victorian first
edition).
Chris Phillips
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Going to this website, I noticed that there is no publication date for
> this 2nd edition of CP. When was it published?
Between 1910 and 1998. There were a total of 15 volumes. It was a
massive project.
> The importance in the date is that does it incorporate all the known
> and revised scholarship of the last century?
More or less and up to 1998, yes. Volume XIV (the fifteenth) was
titled "Addenda and Corrigenda".
> Certainly, Richardson's book does, so starting
> there is not a bad choice. Why start at CP when this newsgroup is
> replete with corrections to that work?
It is quite simple. Complete Peerage is a _complete_ account of all
peers of the British Isles from around 1000 AD. There is nothing else
like it in completeness.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to start with something much more recent
> that may already incorporate new findings?
Of course. But you have first to define "new findings". At its best
Complete Peerage make a practice of:
(a) Verifying facts individually,
(b) Giving separate references for each fact,
(c) Using as their reference a surviving document of the time concerned
or a very good transcript of such documents.
I will be the first to admit that this exalted practice was not always
followed. Further as time went on more information was found and the
early volumes are notable for having the greatest number of entries in
Volume XIV (the 15th volume).
But there are very few modern volumes that try to emulate the above
practices. Further you must by now have realised that Richardson's
books do not emulate them, as has been well documented in this
newsgroup:
(a) These books do not verify facts individually,
(b) They do not give separate references for each fact,
(c) They are not written from surviving documents of the times.
(The fact that I have followed a similar policy in my primitive work is
totally irrelevant. At least I have admitted in this newsgroup that it
is not a very good policy!)
Nevertheless they can be useful finding aids to suggest lines of
descent for expert verification by other means, again as has been done
for selected cases on this newsgroup.
Finally of course, if you want to find about the medieval gentry of
England, then Complete Peerage is by and large useless. Other studies
will be of greater use. And if you want to find about the ordinary men
and women in medieval times then nothing is much good at all.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Evidently my correction didn't come soon enough, because you still have
the error about Sir Philip le Despenser's parentage in your database.
If you continue making silly errors like this, we're going to have
start calling you "Leo van de Blooper." Just teasing you. You're such
a good sport.
Leo
perhaps a course in reading might do the trick. You avoid and with this
message have removed what it is all about, your silly pompous attitude to
people.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of PHILIP DESPENSER
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Despenser's parentage is a small matter. Really it is.
Leo
I think most people will agree with me when I say you do not have a sense
for humour, and your apparent attempt is rather rediculous. I am not as
worried about mistakes as you should be, mine can (and are) corrected quite
quickly, they do not linger in the genealogical world like yours. So far I
have not heard anyone say " Douglas Richardson does not make mistakes".
But we are getting away from the subject, your silly attitude towards people
and how people can act or react. on gen-med. You are very good at
diversions, but that is dishonest as well, never mind the bloopers.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> Douglas,
>You are very good at
> diversions, but that is dishonest as well, never mind the bloopers.
Dear Leo ~
Never mind the bloopers? I'm glad to see you're being such a good
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Richardson royala...@msn.com" <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> No need to get in a huff, Leo. Your blooper about Sir Philip le
> Despenser's parentage is a small matter. Really it is.
If it was that small, why do you raise it so often? Three times in 24
hours is really rather excessive. To call your repeated interest small
is an example of hypocrisy.
On the 30th at 6:45am (some part of world time) you, Mister DR, wrote:
> I'm rather surprised you would want butt into this thread, inasmuch as
> your own database (www.genealogics.org) has Sir Philip le Despenser's
> parentage listed incorrectly. Sir Philip is your Person #I00042724.
> You have misidentified Sir Philip le Despenser as the son of his
> brother, Sir Hugh le Despenser (usually styled "the younger"). This
> is chronologically impossible, as you are well aware. Unless you
> want to look a bit foolish, I recommend you get this correction made
> to your database as soon as possible.
I would say this was done in a hectoring, bullying manner and with no
courtesy to a man who provides all this information for free.
Then later in the same day, at 14:10 you, Mister DR, wrote:
> Evidently my correction didn't come soon enough, because you still
> have the error about Sir Philip le Despenser's parentage in your
> database. If you continue making silly errors like this, we're going
> to have start calling you "Leo van de Blooper." Just teasing you.
> You're such a good sport.
I think this also was bullying. It lacked courtesy and delighted in
teasing a generous other person.
Further the insistence on updating a database with 24 hours is as bad
as if we were to say that you, Mister DR, should pulp all copies of
your, Mister DR's, books and have a new print-run by later tonight. It
just is not feasible to do that sort of pulping. It is stupid to ask
for it. Equally it just is not feasible to do those sort of database
alterations. It is stupid to ask for it.
So we have now a litany of offences against humanity: hypocrisy,
bullying and now stupidity. What more do you, Mister DR, wish me to add
to this list?
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> Further the insistence on updating a database with 24 hours ..."
> --
> Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
Dear Mr. P-L ~
Further yourself. I never said that. That is a complete lie. Take it
back.
Richard Smyth at Road Runner
CP, one might spend a little time thinking about some rudiments of the
classification of the sciences. Most work on the classification of the
sciences acknowledges at least three grand divisions: sciences of
discovery, sciences of review, and practical sciences. An individual may
participate in both the work of discovery and the work of review, but in the
two cases, the work ought to be held to very different standards. The
authors of an encyclopedia---a typical product in the science of
review---ought not to be required to have inspected the original facts on
the truth of which the assertions in the encyclopedia depend. (On the other
side, one might question whether those authors should even be encouraged to
introduce as facts observations which have not previously been submitted to
the community of inquirers.) What the users of an encyclopedia or other
work of review expect to find are references to useful secondary sources,
not references to original observations. I believe one of the reason CP
took so long is that it was never conceived as a mere review of the existing
state of our knowledge.
While on this subject of classification of the sciences, I should mention a
second and much more basic consideration. Both the sciences of discovery
and the sciences of review are theoretical (or "truth-seeking") sciences
and, as such, belong to an entirely different universe of discourse from
practical sciences, like the science of bee-keeping, which aim at satisfying
some human need (possibly a complex need, such as 'honey with minimal
stings'). Where ought genealogy, taking it as it is normally practiced, be
classified? I say "as normally practiced", because Peter's recent comments
mark him off, in my mind, as a clear exception; he is not doing genealogy as
"family history". Peter to the side, most people who engage in genealogical
research are not animated by a passion to participate in a process whereby
sooner or later the truth may eventually be established, whether by them or
by others. That process of truth-seeking is governed by standards that are
necessarily anti-consequentialist---mandating behavior of a certain type
regardless of the consequences. Normal family history is entirely
consequentialist---one aims at as much of what one is willing to accept as
the truth about one's ancestry as will satisfy one's imagination or possibly
one's fancy. It is true that for many on this list the imagination sets
very high standards as to what can be accepted as the truth. But it is also
true that "if the end of the philosopher is despair, the end of the poet is
fulfillment . . ." The power of the imagination "consists chiefly in this,
that only it can protect us against itself"; it supplies the imagined
protection against the imaged stings. On this subject of the relation of
imagination and reality and the way the imagination (in distinction from
fancy, the main source of stings in genealogy) adheres to the real, I
recommend Stevens' "The Necessary Angel." On the fallacy of believing that
science of discovery can be founded on the end of gratifying one's
curiosity, I recommend Peirce's "Collected Papers" v. 7, sect. 58, and,
for the general topic of the classification of the sciences, the first
volume of his C.P.
> But there are very few modern volumes that try to emulate the above
> practices. Further you must by now have realised that Richardson's
> books do not emulate them, as has been well documented in this
> newsgroup:
>
> (a) These books do not verify facts individually,
>
> (b) They do not give separate references for each fact,
>
> (c) They are not written from surviving documents of the times.
. . . .
> > Nevertheless they can be useful finding aids to suggest lines of
> descent for expert verification by other means, again as has been done
> for selected cases on this newsgroup.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
D. Spencer Hines
Lord Love A Duck!
When did SGM reinvent itself as a Comedy Newsgroup?
DSH
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:67d12b8...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
| So we have now [sic] a litany of offences against humanity: hypocrisy,
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
The sources cited by Complete Peerage 4 (1916): 289, footnote a, to
prove Sir Philip le Despenser's parentage are as follows:
Close Rolls, 6 Edward II, m. 21.
Close Rolls, 20 Edward III, p. 1, m. 25 d.
Close Rolls, 21 Edward III, p. 1, m. 6.
Ancient Deeds, A, no. 3185.
The latter item appears to be the identical to the following record
found in the National Archives catalog
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk):
E 42/63
Letters patent of Hugh le Despenser, knight, appointing Richard de
Louctheburg, rector of the same church [sic] as guardian of Philip his
son, a minor, to receive seisin of the manors of Parlington and
Alkborough (Hauctebarg):[Yorks, W.R], [Linc.]. Date: 22 Edward I
[Year: 1294].
Thus, it would appear that the lawsuit I cited from Gage which names
Philip le Despenser as Hugh le Despenser's son is in fact a new
addition to Complete Peerage.
I trust this answers Mr. Vincent's question (and anyone else's) about
Sir Philip le Despenser's parentage once and for all.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
You're quite correct. Mr. Powys-Lybbe is out of control.
All this abuse because I courteously asked him to provide a couple of
citations from Complete Peerage. If he believes even half of what he
has written, he's one very disturbed cookie. I feel sorry for his
family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Leo" wrote:
> > Douglas,
>
> >You are very good at
> > diversions, but that is dishonest as well, never mind the bloopers.
>
> Dear Leo ~
>
> Never mind the bloopers? I'm glad to see you're being such a good
> sport.
>
This is now the fith time in 24 hours that you drawn attention to this
minor error. This is bullying. And referring to someone who us
suffering this abuse as a "good sport" is more bullying as you are
expecting him to take this abuse lying down.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> > Further the insistence on updating a database with 24 hours ..."
> Dear Mr. P-L ~
>
> Further yourself. I never said that. That is a complete lie. Take it
> back.
>
Let us see what you said:
At 6:45 am (probably european time) earlier today you wrote:
> I'm rather surprised you would want butt into this thread, inasmuch as
> your own database (www.genealogics.org) has Sir Philip le Despenser's
> parentage listed incorrectly. Sir Philip is your Person #I00042724.
> You have misidentified Sir Philip le Despenser as the son of his
> brother, Sir Hugh le Despenser (usually styled "the younger"). This
> is chronologically impossible, as you are well aware. Unless you
> want to look a bit foolish, I recommend you get this correction made
> to your database as soon as possible.
At 14:10 pm the same day your wrote:
> Evidently my correction didn't come soon enough, because you still
> have the error about Sir Philip le Despenser's parentage in your
> database. If you continue making silly errors like this, we're going
> to have start calling you "Leo van de Blooper." Just teasing you.
> You're such a good sport.
This second mention of this minor matter is within 8 hours of the
original mention. In this second mention you wrote:
"you still have the error ... in your database" (above)
Out of the horse's month, this is nothing than insistence (and bullying)
that the database be updated within 24 hours. The only thing that I will
withdraw was that your insistence was for an update within _24_ hours: I
should have written within 8 hours.
And will you withdraw your assertion that my previous statement was a
complete lie? (This is a rhetorical question, of course!)
(Why do we have to have this sort of ridiculous exchange?)
Leo
You ask why we have these kinds of rediculous exchanges. In my opinion
because Richardson takes himself so serious, has placed himself on a
pedestal and, sadly, there are some people who take him serious as well. On
top of that his errors (yes he makes errors) live a long life because he is
not the kind of person to admit he has made them, he uses his diversions to
get away from the subject. I think it is Richardson who needs treatment, not
you.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: Parentage of PHILIP DESPENSER
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: Parentage of PHILIP DESPENSER
D. Spencer Hines
Douglas Richardson?
Appalling -- And Puerile....
They are acting like small boys who got roughed up on the playground in
a game of stickball and are now running, weeping to the teacher.
Grown Men Acting Like Sissy Boys.
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Chris Phillips
> As an example of my latest frustration was a correction to the entry on
> Giles Brugge of Cubberley (CP III:151), which originally read that
> Giles was "born and bap. at Haresfield, co. Gloucester, 21 December
> 1396." CP XIV:167 corrects that entry to read "Hasfield" instead of
> "Haresfield" with no explanation. Yet about three lines up from that
> entry on the same page (CP III:151) is a description of Giles' father
> as "Thomas Brugge, of Haresfield and Matson, co. Gloucester", which
> volume XIV leaves as originally stated. Does this mean that the family
> held Hasfield in addition to Haresfield, or was it an oversight on the
> part of volume XIV not to correct the father's information, or was the
> mother merely visiting the mid-wifery at Hasfield for the birth?
This is a funny one.
Haresfield and Matson are fairly close together to the south of Gloucester,
while Hasfield is further away to the north. CP quotes the proof of age, in
which the place of birth is given as "Hasfeld'".
The Victoria County History account of Haresfield is online, and confirms
that Thomas Brugge (d. 1408) held a manor in Haresfield:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=15823
The VCH has also published an account of Hasfield (in vol. 8), but it's not
yet online.
Chris Phillips