Part I: Birth/death dates of Edward of Angoulême, son of Edward the Black Prince and Joan of Kent
Douglas Richardson
I've stated before that historians frequently make poor genealogists.
The reasons for this are many, but the chief reason I believe that
this is so is because historians are trained to look at the big
picture, whereas genealogists focus on collecting vital data on
individuals and their respective families. Thus, the two approaches
are different and the need for specific information varies from
historian to genealogist.
Having said that, I thought I'd give another example of a historian
who got his genealogical facts wrong, although as we shall see, he is
not the only one to do so. In this case, it is the respected
historian, Thomas Frederick Tout, who wrote a useful and well written
set of volumes entitled Chapters in the Administrative History of
Mediaeval England.
In volume 5 of this series, Mr. Tout discusses the household setup of
Edward the Black Prince, son and heir apparent of King Edward III of
England. On page 384, he states that "John Delves and John Bacon ...
visited the prince in Gascony about 1364, and there survives a list of
the points upon which they were to get instructions and opinions of
the prince, together with notes of the results of the
conversation" (see Dipl. Docs. Exch., 1647).
In footnote 1 on the same page, Mr. Tout notes that Delves was given a
protection and appointed attorneys in April 1364 (Gasc. 77, m. 3). In
November 1365 he was granted an annuity by the king for bringing back
the good news of the birth of Edward, the Black Prince's son (Cal.
Patent Rolls, 1364-1367, pg. 180). So far, so good. Tout then says
the following:
"... It seems probable, therefore, that this son [Edward] was born in
July 1365 (see D.N.B. for uncertainty as to date of his birth)." END
OF QUOTE.
Tout does not explain why he selected the date July 1365 as the
probable birthdate of Edward, son of Edward the Black Prince, as Tout
gives us evidence that John Delves who announced the child's birth
allegedly went to Gascony in 1364, not 1365. Unless, of course, Tout
computed that a voyage from Gascony took four months, which would
explain why Delves was not rewarded by King Edward III until November
1365 for bringing the announcement of young Edward's birth.
Regardless, Tout's "probable" date of birth for young Edward is wrong.
In order to get at the truth of young Edward's birth and death dates,
I examined a variety of sources, both contemporary and modern
secondary, which discuss Edward's vitals. Quite surprising, a
conflicting picture emerged from these sources. As it turns out,
contemporary or near contemporary sources pin the birth date of Edward
as being 1363, 1364, or 1365. For interest's sake, I've copied below
a review of the sources I consulted and the specific results.
1. Banks The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 335
("Edward, born at Angolesme, in 1365, the news of whose birth was so
acceptable to his royal grandfather, that the king conferred upon the
messenger, John Delves, an annuity of forty pounds per annum for
life. But this young prince afterwards died in Gascoigne, in the 7th
year of his age, before his father).
2. Beltz, Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (1841): 18
("Edward, born at Angoulême in February 1365 (according to Hollinshed,
and in 1364, according to Leland), who died at Bordeaux, in the sixth
year of his age.").
3.Hog, Adami Murimuthensis Chronica sui temporis (1846): 201 (sub A.D.
1365: Anno Domini M.CCC.LXV., et regis Anglorum Edwardi tertii anno
XXXIX., natus est principi Walliæ et Aquitaniæ filius, Edwardus
vocatus, qui septimo ætatis suæ anno diem suum clausit extremum; no
tamen præmature, ut plurimi asserebant.).
4. Capgrave, The Chronicle of England (1858): 224 ("In the yere of
Edward XXXIX. [1365] was born Edward, the first begote child of Prince
Edward. And whan he was VII. yere old he deyed.").
5. Haydon, Eulogium (Historiarum Sive Temporis): Chronicon ab Orbe
Condito Usque ad annum Domini M.CCC.LXCI 3 (1863): xlv ("The birth of
Edward, son of the Black Prince, at Angoulême is described with much
particularity; his baptism is said to have been performed 'in civitate
Castelli.' ... Froissart puts the event in A.D. 1363, the Continuator of
Murimuth in A.D. 1365."), 236 (sub A.D. 1364: "Hoc anno Edwardo
principi Aquitaniæ natus est filius qui vocatus est Edwardus. Hic a
Conquæstu jure hæreditario dicitur Quintus. Natus est enim infans in
Wasconia in castello Angolismo et in civitate Castelli ab
archiepiscopis et episcopis nonnullis baptizatus est, comitibus et
baronibus, militibus cum magna procerum multitudine circumastantibus.
Natus est etiam in Januario, XXVII. die mensis, prima die
hebdomadæ.").
6. Stevenson, Letters & Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English
in France during the Reign of Henry the Sixth, King of England 2(2)
(1864): 749 (Wilhelmi Wyrcester Annales: "[A.D.] 1365. Martii xxiiij.
ie. Hoc anno apud Vasconiam in castello Angolismo, xxvij. die mensis
Januarii, natus est Edwardus, principis Edwardi primogenitus, qui
obiit juvenis vij. annorum.").
7. Chandos Herald, The Life & Feats of Arms of Edward the Black Prince
(1883): 277-278 ("After Limoges was taken, the noble Prince of high
price returned to Angoulême, where other news awaited him; for then he
found his son Edward, his first born, dead ... After that he scarcely
tarried, but made ready his array; and came into England, on account
of the sickness upon him."), 375 (Editorial note: "4086. Edward of
Angouleme, born in 1365. He was buried in the church of the Augustine
Friars, in London. See Weever, p. 419.").
8. Tait, Chronica Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cantuariensis, 1346-
1367 (Pubs. Univ. of Manchester Hist. Ser. 20) (1914): 164 ("Natus est
domino Edwardo ... Edwardo, filo regis Angliæ ac principi utriusque,
masculus, qui baptizatus in ecclesia dignissima ejusdem civitatis,
paterno nomine vocari meruit."), 324 ("Some doubt has hitherto been
felt as to the year of the birth of Edward, the elder son of the Black
Prince and Joan of Kent.").
9. Galbraith, The Anonimalle Chronicle, 1333 to 1381 (1927): 51
("Mesme celle an mille CCCLXIIII [1364], fuist nee en Gascoigne Edward
le quynt, fitz al tresnoble prince Dengleterre et de Gales, Edward le
quart; mes il morust deinz le septisme an.").
10. Taylor, English Hist. Literature in the 14th Century (1987): 296
(Wigmore Chronicle sub 1370: "Circa festum sancti michaelis [29
September] obiit Edwardus filius Edwardi principis Aquitanie et Wallie
in partibus transmarinis natus ex Johanna uxore dicti principis etate
sex annorum.").
+ + + + + + + + +
Since I was virtually certain that some exact reference of young
Edward's birth had survived the mists of time, I kept looking for that
kind of record. In due course, I finally found an abstract of such a
document which sets forth the young prince's exact date of birth. In
the published series, Calendar of Letter-Books of the City of London:
D, by Sharpe, published in 1902, reference is made on pages 301-311 to
a letter written by Joan of Kent, young Edward's mother:
Folio clxviii b.: "Letter from Johanna, Princess of Wales, to the
Mayor and Aldermen, announcing the birth of a son [Prince Edward of
Angoulême, eldest son of the Black Prince] on 27 Jan., 39 Edward III.
[A.D. 1365]. Dated at the Castle of 'Engolesme,' 4 Feb.").
See the following weblink for the above item:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=33089
As we can see, the London Letter-Books have preserved a transcript of
an original letter written by Joan of Kent, wife of Edward the Black
Prince, in which she announced the birth of her son, Edward, which
event took place on 27 January 1365 (or, if you prefer, 1364/5).
Moreover, the letter is written from Angoulême Castle, which is the
place where two sources, namely Continuator of Murimuth and Eulogium,
state young Edward was born. Thus, we have the testimony of the
child's own mother which provides us the date we are seeking. Quite
surprisingly, this information is at variance with many sources, among
them being the modern historian, Tout.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Renia
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I've stated before that historians frequently make poor genealogists.
Aren't you a trained historian?
Ron Head
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpvn82$t38$3...@mouse.otenet.gr...
Hence, "frequently" rather than "always"!
Douglas Richardson
I suggest we stick to the subject of the thread, Edward of Angoulême,
and avoid the personal polemics, Renia.
t...@clearwire.net
> On Feb 25, 5:41 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>
> > Aren't you a trained historian?
>
> I suggest we stick to the subject of the thread, Edward of Angoulême,
> and avoid the personal polemics, Renia.
And I suggest we stick to a single newsgroup, rather than
egomaniacally and self-indulgently spewing our opinions too an obscene
number of newsgroups.
taf
Douglas Richardson
The authoritative Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 437, footnote b (sub
Cornwall) indicates that Edward of Angoulême, son and heir apparent of
Edward the Black Prince, "was born there 1365, and died young, v.p.,
1372 in Gascony." As we can see, no month and day are provided for
Edward's birth, nor is a month and day or exact place provided for
Edward's death. Worse still, no documentation is provided for this
information. Upon further checking, I likewise find that no addition
or correction was published in Complete Peerage, Vol. 14, published in
1998.
Thus, the full birth date for Edward of Angoulême with contemporary
source documentation appears to be a new addition to Complete Peerage.
Douglas Richardson
<
< And I suggest we stick to a single newsgroup, rather than
< egomaniacally and self-indulgently spewing our opinions too an
obscene
< number of newsgroups.
<
< taf
As taf knows full well, Google gives everyone the right to post to
more than one newsgroup whenever someone posts a message to a
newsgroup. On occasion, I choose to exercise that option. It's
called free speech (or in taf language, "spewing our opinions.").
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:96198164-d72b-4f12...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
t...@clearwire.net
> On Feb 25, 7:17 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> <
> < And I suggest we stick to a single newsgroup, rather than
> < egomaniacally and self-indulgently spewing our opinions too an
> obscene
> < number of newsgroups.
>
> more than one newsgroup whenever someone posts a message to a
> newsgroup. On occasion, I choose to exercise that option. It's
> called free speech (or in taf language, "spewing our opinions.").
As Mr. Richardson knows full well but disingenuously pretends he
doesn't: 1) a USENET post is on topic in the one newsgroup in which it
is most relevant; 2) Google makes the tools, not the rules; 3)
possibility and propriety are distinct concepts; 4) crossposting
continues to bring disruptive trolls to this group (Nebulous being
only the most recent). His actions are completely inappropriate and
potentially destructive to this community, and his pontificating to
others about appropriate behavior comes from the moral high ground of
the Marianas trench.
taf
letiTi...@gmail.com
get a life, Tafty Dafty, and get off your cross-posted hobby horse
Tafty Dafty has got into the bubbly ag'in
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
letiTi...@gmail.com
get a life, Tafty Dafty, and get off your cross-posted hobby horse
letiTi...@gmail.com
get a life, LittleMissKnowItAll, and get off your hissy-fit hobby
horse
LittleMissKnowItAll has got into the bubbly ag'in
John Watson
Hi Douglas,
That was a rather long-winded way of pointing out the exact birthday
someone who is of of little historical or genealogical interest, since
he died at the age of 6 or 7 and never had any descendants.
Keep up the good work.
Regards,
John
Peter Stewart
"John Watson" <Watso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:faa21e8b-7824-4754...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 3:42 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip of Ricahrdson's long yabber>
> Hi Douglas,
>
> That was a rather long-winded way of pointing out the exact birthday
> someone who is of of little historical or genealogical interest, since
> he died at the age of 6 or 7 and never had any descendants.
It would have been long-winded even if it contributed anything new, as of
course it did not. The birthdate of 27 January 1365 usually given for this
child, as Leo indicated, has not been in question, or contentious for any
reason, and the precise information was obviously not plucked out of thin
air just because this was missed by Tout and not given in CP.
Once again, Richardson has deluded himself that something he has just
learned must be news to the whole world, and even if it is utterly
insignificant the mere fact that he has learned it must still be important
news. So he has set out for us at inordinate length the stepping stones by
which he has managed to cross a stream right next to a bridge.
This attitude of his is not only a bore and a nuisance to this newsgroup
(and to several others...) but it is also a symptom of a major reason that
genealogy is held in low esteem by many historians: practitioners too often
come to think that our fascinating little corners and angles of interest in
history, that is our own or other living people's descent from identifiable
figures and the family connections of these distant ancestors, are actually
at the centre of the field.
Historians are frequently vague on genealogical details because for most
worthwhile purposes of analysing and interpreting the past these simply do
not matter in the least. When they do matter, historians are frequently well
ahead of genealogists in discovering the true facts - largely because they
work directly and (NB) critically from primary sources, and do not waste a
lot of time fossicking like Richardson in largely obsolete secondary works
or fretting over any tiny omission in CP.
Happily, many expert genealogists are as unlike him as possible, and so the
study progresses in spite of his dumb antics and pretences.
Peter Stewart
letiTi...@gmail.com
> [Cross-postings removed]
> <snip of Peter Stupor's long yabber>
> Happily, many expert genealogists are as unlike him as possible, and so the
> study progresses in spite of his dumb antics and pretences.
i want to wax poetic, Peter Stupor, but think plain prose will do
what a piece of work you are, Simon Cowell at his worst, which
at his best he is very good, something you never are nor understand
you are the most pompous A$$ in genealogy, bar none
Peter Stupor, Nerd of Stupid, Yabor of Nerdumberland
Persi of Persiflage
Ivan Grozny
For Old Men".
Martin
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpvn82$t38$3...@mouse.otenet.gr...
Could be an astrologer?
Martin
Douglas Richardson
As I continue to survey primary and secondary sources for information
relative to the birth and death dates of Edward of Angoulême, I've
encountered the following contemporory record concerning the
announcement of the birth of the eldest son ("premier fils") of Edward
the Black Prince and his wife, Joan of Kent, dated March 1364. In
this item, King Charles V of France makes a gift to the esquire of the
Black Prince who brought him the news of the birth ("les nouvelles de
la nativité") of the child to him. I assume 1364/5 is intended, as we
know from another contemporary record that Edward of Angoulême was
born 27 January 1364/5.
Joseph Moisant, Le Prince Noir en Aquitaine 1355-1356 -- 1362-1370
(1894): 149, footnote 3 ("Le 14 mars 1364, Charles V faisait remettre
'un hennap a pié, a couvescle doré et semé d'esmaux, pesant VIII
marcs, un gobelet a trepié à couvescle doré et semé d'esmaux à Louis
Cleuquier 'escuier de nostre tres cher et amé neveu le prince de
Galles, pour les nouvelles de la nativité de son premier fils, que le
dit escuier nous apportées. L. Delisle, Mandements de Charles V, no
198, p. 90.").
The above may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bkYJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA150&dq=Black+Prince+Octobre+1370#PPA149,M1
A transcript of the original grant may be found in L. Delisle,
Mandements et actes divers de Charles V, no 198, p. 90.
letiTi...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
> As I continue to ...... not give a damn about repeated request and examples
> of what it can cause----cross post and keep fingers crossed that some eager
> beaver on another group will dump a load of garbage on gen-med
the original post read,
As I continue to survey primary and secondary sources for information
relative to the birth and death dates of Edward of Angoulême, I've
encountered the following contemporory record ...
So, what gives?
Leaping Leo LEO RETARDED creates a FAKE MESSAGE from SGM's scholar
what is so lame brain about you, Leo?
you are a piece of crap, garbage, veritable s**t, excrement, not
worthy of us
please delist, you absolutely worthless A$$
you are pond scum, vile puke, worse than vomit
to create lies about scholars, you dimwit and your phony s**k up,
Wile
E CoJote
every one who reads these message boards knows you for what you are,
a frightened voice deep in the throes of bi-polar alzheimer's loss of
faculties
D. Spencer Hines
Aloha,
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:15bb97f2-0086-4f05...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
As I continue to survey primary and secondary sources for information
relative to the birth and death dates of Edward of Angoulême, I've
encountered the following contemporary record concerning the
Douglas Richardson
I've delayed making the fourth in this series of posts regarding the
birth and death dates of Prince Edward of Angoulême, elder son of
Edward the Black Prince and Joan of Kent, until I was more certain of
some of the original sources regarding these two events.
Courtesy of Martin Hollick, I now have a copy in my possession of the
text of the entry regarding the birth of Edward of Angoulême which
appear in Chronica Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cantuariensis,
1346-1367, published in 1914 by the historian, James Tait.
For starters, the Chronicon Johannis de Reading, pg. 164, has the
following entry regarding the birth of Edward of Angoulême under the
year, A.D. 1365:
"Medio tempore, septimo kalendas Februarii [26 January] in Aquitannia,
civitate Agolisma natus est domino Edwardo, filio regis Angliae ac
principi utriusque, masculus, qui baptizatus in ecclesia dignissima
ejusdem civitatis, paterno nomine vocari meruit."
In a Notes section on pages 324-325, Mr. Tait make some rather
extensive editorial comments regarding the above entry. He clarifies
a few points about the birth of Edward of Angoulême, and then he
surprisingly makes an error of his own. Here are Tait's comments:
"Some doubt has hitherto been felt as to the year of the birth of
Edward, the elder son of the Black Prince and Joan of Kent, whose
early death opened the way for the tragic destiny of his younger
brother Richard. A certain ambiguity in the chronology of the author
of the Eulogium at this point (p. 236) led Malvern to place the event
definitely in 1364, and this seemed confirmed by the statement
originated by the continuator of the Polychronicon (VIII, 415) that
the boy was in his seventh year when he died just before his father
returned to England early in January, 1371 (Chandos Herald, ed. Pope
and Lodge, p. 126; Froissart, ed. Luce, VIII, x). He could not have
completed the sixth year if he was born late in January, 1365, and
this threw doubt upon the accuracy of the continuator of Murimuth and
the St. Albans compilers, who (without giving the month) place his
birth in this year. But convincing proof exists that Reading, from
whom they derived their date, is right and Malvern and the ordinary
Polychronicon continuation wrong. For on 14 March 1365, Charles V
credited Jehan l'Uissier with 300 francs for presents, which he and
his queen had made to an esquire of the prince of Wales, who brought
the news of the birth of his first son (Delisle, Mandements de Charles
V (Docs. Inedits) (1874), No. 198, p. 90; quoted by Moisant, Le Prince
Noir en Aquitaine, p. 149, but without correcting the date of the
order to the new style)."
"The day of the month on which the child was born has always been
given as 27 January on the authority of the Eulogium. But though the
Canterbury chronicler, who does not seem to have used that work,
concurs in giving this date (above p. 222), it is almost certainly a
day late. The author of the Eulogium himself excites suspicion of its
accuracy by adding that it was Sunday (prima die hebdomadae). The
27th of January, 1365, however, fell on a Monday, and as Reading's
date is 26 January, there is an overwhelming probability that the
Eulogium is right as to the day of the week, but made a slip in the
day of the month. A possible explanation of its mistake is suggested
by the fact that the next entry below contains the date 27 July
(hence, no doubt, the date 27 July, 1364, given by the writer of the
life of the Black Prince in the Dictionary of National Biography, as
the day of his elder son's birth!). A much worse case of assimilating
the date of an entry to another which was to be inserted immediately
after, occurs a few pages earlier (p. 232), where the chronicler sets
down the date of the arrival in England of the king of Cyprus as the
day on which the king of France came, through John II did not actually
arrive until nearly two months later."
"The Brut here (p. 316) gives Reading's date for the birth of young
Edward, but adds his age at death from the Polychronicon. This
addition omits the comment found in the later and fuller continuation
which was used by the continuator of Murimuth: "sed non praemature, ut
plurimi asserebant" (Addit. MS. 10,104, f. 152). The meaning of this
remark is not very clear, unless it belongs to a time when the enemies
of Richard II would not have hesitated to assert that his path to the
throne had been cleared by the removal of his brother." END OF QUOTE.
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
To be fair, Mr. Tait seems not to have known about Joan of Kent's
letter dated "at the Castle of 'Engolesme, 4 Feb." to the Mayor and
Aldermen of London, in which the Princess announced the birth of her
son [Prince Edward of Angoulême, eldest son of the Black Prince] on 27
Jan., 39 Edward III. [A.D. 1365] [see Sharpe, Calendar of Letter-Books
of the City of London: D (1902): 301-311]. This letter is iron clad
evidence of the exact date of the child's birth, it coming from the
child's own mother. Thus, we can be certain that the correct date of
the birth was Monday, 27 January 1364/5. With this sure knowledge in
hand, it is clear from the vantage in 2008 that Mr. Tait's belief that
Eulogium probably got the day of the week right, but the date wrong,
is now shown to be in error. Actually a correct statement would be
that the Eulogium got the date right, and the day of the week wrong.
Likewise, the Chronicon Johannis de Reading is now found to be be
error by one day as to the date of birth, the birth having taken place
on the 27th of January 1364/5, not the 26th.
One good thing: Tait's comments clarify that King Charles V of France
awarded the messenger who brought the new of Edward of Angoulême's
birth to him on 14 March 1364/5, not 1364 as stated by Moisant. This
is what I suspected.
Having established Edward of Angoulême's date and place of birth, we
can now turn our attention to determining the correct date and place
of his death. As we will soon see, Edward of Angoulême's death
occurred not in 1372, as stated by the authoritative Complete Peerage,
nor in 1371 as stated above by Tait, but actually in 1370. However,
before signing off, I wish to extend my special thanks to the ever
helpful Martin Hollick for providing me a copy of the above material
relating to Edward of Angoulême's birth. Mr. Hollick's assistance is
much appreciated.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7f0265fd-d1d1-444e...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I've delayed making the fourth in this series of posts regarding the
> birth and death dates of Prince Edward of Angoulême, elder son of
> Edward the Black Prince and Joan of Kent, until I was more certain of
> some of the original sources regarding these two events.
>
> Courtesy of Martin Hollick, I now have a copy in my possession of the
> text of the entry regarding the birth of Edward of Angoulême which
> appear in Chronica Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cantuariensis,
> 1346-1367, published in 1914 by the historian, James Tait.
>
> For starters, the Chronicon Johannis de Reading, pg. 164, has the
> following entry regarding the birth of Edward of Angoulême under the
> year, A.D. 1365:
>
> "Medio tempore, septimo kalendas Februarii [26 January] in Aquitannia,
> civitate Agolisma natus est domino Edwardo, filio regis Angliae ac
> principi utriusque, masculus, qui baptizatus in ecclesia dignissima
> ejusdem civitatis, paterno nomine vocari meruit."
>
> In a Notes section on pages 324-325, Mr. Tait make some rather
> extensive editorial comments regarding the above entry. He clarifies
> a few points about the birth of Edward of Angoulême, and then he
> surprisingly makes an error of his own.
<snip>
> To be fair, Mr. Tait seems not to have known about Joan of Kent's
> letter dated "at the Castle of 'Engolesme, 4 Feb." to the Mayor and
> Aldermen of London, in which the Princess announced the birth of her
> son [Prince Edward of Angoulême, eldest son of the Black Prince] on 27
> Jan., 39 Edward III. [A.D. 1365] [see Sharpe, Calendar of Letter-Books
> of the City of London: D (1902): 301-311]. This letter is iron clad
> evidence of the exact date of the child's birth, it coming from the
> child's own mother. Thus, we can be certain that the correct date of
> the birth was Monday, 27 January 1364/5. With this sure knowledge in
> hand, it is clear from the vantage in 2008 that Mr. Tait's belief that
> Eulogium probably got the day of the week right, but the date wrong,
> is now shown to be in error. Actually a correct statement would be
> that the Eulogium got the date right, and the day of the week wrong.
> Likewise, the Chronicon Johannis de Reading is now found to be be
> error by one day as to the date of birth, the birth having taken place
> on the 27th of January 1364/5, not the 26th.
On the same day in this thread you claim that Joan's letter to the mayor and
aldermen of London is "iron clad" evidence for the exact date of her son's
birth, while in another thread you accept without comment a modern historian
contradicting Frederick II on the date of birth the emperor stated for his
son in a letter to his brother-in-law.
Remember this:
On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
> It is stated by Weber that Isabel of England had her first son
> ["ersten Sohn"] born on 17 February 1238 (not the 18th February), as
> indicated by a letter written by her husband, Emperor Friedrich II, to
> Isabel's brother, Richard, Earl of Cornwall, from Turin on the 3rd
> March following.
Please explain how you work out that Joan's evidence is beyond question
while Frederick's isn't.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
< Please explain how you work out that Joan's evidence is beyond
question
< while Frederick's isn't.
<
< Peter Stewart
Well, you've confused me, Peter. In another thread (not even this
one), I posted a message which indicates that the German historian
Heinrich Weber stated that Isabel of England's first son was born on
the 17th of February 1238. You claim now in this thread that I have
"accepted" this date "without comment." In point of fact, most
authorities I've consulted have given the date as the 18th February of
the same year. Frankly, I'd very much like to know the reason why
Weber insisted on the change in the date.
Now back to this thread. I'm glad to see that you've accepted the
evidence of Edward of Angoulême's date of birth found in the letter of
his mother, Joan of Kent to the Mayor and Aldermen of London. Like I
said, the letter is ironclad evidence for the date of birth of Edward
of Angoulême
.
The universe is safe again.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. As an aside to my fellow newsgroup posters, I continue to be
amazed at how posters like Mr. Stewart constantly twist my words out
of context and insist they mean something different than what I intend
them to mean. After years of watching people practice such public
deception, I've gotten immune to even the most flagrant allegations
which are made here on the newsgroup. Even so, I'm still amazed when
people outright lie about me which happens here on a regular basis.
The practice of lying about your fellow poster reminds of modern
politicians who, when they're down in the polls, begin to throw every
dirty allegation they can think of against their opponent. In the
end, however, lying about another person is merely a symptom of one's
own inordinant and deep seated insecurities. Love is the key to a
good life, not posturing for attention and lying about your fellow
human being.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6769105e-eb05-443c...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 12:15 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Please explain how you work out that Joan's evidence is beyond
> > question while Frederick's isn't.
> >
> > Peter Stewart
>
> Well, you've confused me, Peter. In another thread (not even this
> one),
Um, that's why I explicitly stated that you had posted the questionable
points in two threads....
> I posted a message which indicates that the German historian
> Heinrich Weber stated that Isabel of England's first son was born on
> the 17th of February 1238. You claim now in this thread that I have
> "accepted" this date "without comment."
No, I wrote "in another thread you accept without comment a modern historian
contradicting Frederick II". That is undeniable fact. It does not mean that
you accepted the date, but just the plain fact of the contradiction by a
19th-century historian of a medieval parent's dating of an own child's
birth.
> In point of fact, most authorities I've consulted have given the date
> as the 18th February of the same year. Frankly, I'd very much like to
> know the reason why Weber insisted on the change in the date.
He cited Winkelmann for this, as has been explained to you already. If you
very much want to know the reasons, you will have to consult Winkelmann for
yourself and try harder to understand what he wrote.
> Now back to this thread. I'm glad to see that you've accepted the
> evidence of Edward of Angoulême's date of birth found in the letter of
> his mother, Joan of Kent to the Mayor and Aldermen of London. Like I
> said, the letter is ironclad evidence for the date of birth of Edward
> of Angoulême
I have not accepted anything beyond what Tait wrote, that has been
acknowledged for 90+ years. That Joan's letter could be out by a day is as
easy to credit as that Frederick II's was. If you can't see a discrepancy in
your approach to these exactly parallel problems, you must be an even
greater idiot and/or liar than we took you for.
> The universe is safe again.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> P.S. As an aside to my fellow newsgroup posters, I continue to be
> amazed at how posters like Mr. Stewart constantly twist my words
> out of context and insist they mean something different than what
> I intend them to mean.
You mean that whenever you need to twist what you mean you claim the right
to have previous misstatements passed over in silence.
> After years of watching people practice such public deception, I've
> gotten immune to even the most flagrant allegations which are made
> here on the newsgroup. Even so, I'm still amazed when people
> outright lie about me which happens here on a regular basis.
Ah, the pious defender of truth and honour in public discussion....
> The practice of lying about your fellow poster reminds of modern
> politicians who, when they're down in the polls, begin to throw every
> dirty allegation they can think of against their opponent. In the
> end, however, lying about another person is merely a symptom of one's
> own inordinant and deep seated insecurities. Love is the key to a
> good life, not posturing for attention and lying about your fellow
> human being.
This can stand as a monument to Richardson's terminal hypocrisy. If ANYONE
here thinks he is right and justified in ANY RESPECT, please speak up for
the man.
Peter Stewart
mj...@btinternet.com
> Cross-postings removed.
>
> "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> > The practice of lying about your fellow poster reminds of modern
> > politicians who, when they're down in the polls, begin to throw every
> > dirty allegation they can think of against their opponent. In the
> > end, however, lying about another person is merely a symptom of one's
> > own inordinant and deep seated insecurities. Love is the key to a
> > good life, not posturing for attention and lying about your fellow
> > human being.
>
> This can stand as a monument to Richardson's terminal hypocrisy. If ANYONE
> here thinks he is right and justified in ANY RESPECT, please speak up for
> the man.
"But answer came there none -
And this was scarcely odd..."
MA-R
Peter Stewart
<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2b05eee3-6d90-4999...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
It could seem odd that not even the love-sic sailor in Hawaii has spoken up
for his moral paramour, but I dare say Hines is desperately trying to think
of a way to defend Richardson without making an ever bigger fool of himself
than he did earlier today, by surreptitiously correcting "hung" to "hanged".
For some reason he can't resist taking part in SGM - though he hasn't
contributed anything but stupidity, tedium & vexation for years - and of
course he can't risk alienating Richardson any further than he did with his
mad claim to have educated & improved the goon.
So for the moment the rancorous tongue of Hines is tied, and I suppose he
must be choking on his own vitriol.
Peter Stewart
