Ida mother of William Longspee'
AdrianBnjmBurke
William Longspee's mother Ida?
Douglas Richardson
I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
of Salisbury.
The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
connection between the Longespée and Bigod family. His book may be
found at the following weblink:
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Note: William Longespée has long been thought to have been the
illegitimate child of Henry II, King of England, by his mistress,
Rosamond Clifford. New evidence has surfaced in recent years,
however, which indicates William was actually the son of King Henry II
by another mistress, a certain Ida, afterwards wife of Roger le Bigod
(died 1221), Earl of Norfolk [see C.P. 9 (1936): 586-589 (sub
Norfolk); Kemp, Reading Abbey Cartularies 1 (Camden 4th Ser. 31)
(1986): 371]. For conclusive evidence that William Longespée was the
son of Countess Ida le Bigod, see London, Cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1979): 143, 188, which includes two
charters in which Earl William Longespée specifically names his
mother, Countess Ida. Furthermore, among the English prisoners
captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, there was a certain Ralph
[le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record refers to as
"brother" [that is, half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of
Salisbury [see Brial, Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de
Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17)
(1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in
bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis"); see
also Malo, Un grand feudataire, Renaud de Dammartin et la coalition de
Bouvines (1898):199, 209, which author identified Ralph le Bigod as
brother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury]. For newly published
evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see
Morris, The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th Century (2005): 2, who
cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl
Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South
Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de
Tony [see Rotuli Hundredorum 1 (1812): 504, 537]. Morris shows that
Earl Roger le Bigod received these manors by writ of the king, he
having held them for three quarters of a year at Michaelmas 1182 [see
PR 28 Henry II, 1181-1182 (Pipe Roll Soc.) (1910):64]. This appears
to pinpoint to marriage of Ida de Tony and Earl Roger le Bigod as
having occurred about Christmas 1181. As for Countess Ida's
parentage, it seems virtually certain that she was a daughter of Ralph
V de Tony (died 1162), of Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife,
Margaret (b. c.1125, living 1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd
Earl of Leicester [see C.P.7 (1929): 530, footnote e (incorrectly
dates Ralph and Margaret's marriage as "after 1155" based on the
misdating of a charter--correction provided by Ray Phair); C.P. 12(1)
(1953): 764-765 (sub Tony); Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth
and Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 525 (Tosny pedigree)]. For
evidence which supports Ida's placement as a child of Ralph V de Tony,
several facts may be noted. First, Countess Ida and her husband,
Roger le Bigod, are known to have named children, Ralph and Margaret,
presumably in honor of Ida's parents, Ralph and Margaret de Tony [see
Thompson, Liber Vitæ Ecclesiæ Dunelmenis (Surtees Soc. 136) (1923): fo.
63b, for a contemporary list of the Bigod children]. Countess Ida was
herself evidently named in honor of Ralph V de Tony's mother, Ida of
Hainault. Next, William Longespée and his descendants had a long
standing association with the family of Roger de Akeny, of Garsington,
Oxfordshire, which Roger was a younger brother of Ralph V de Tony
(died 1162) [see C.P. 8 (1932): chart foll. 464; 14 (1998): 614; Loyd,
Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Fams. (1951): 2; VCH Oxford 5 (1957):
138; Harper-Bill, Dodnash Priory Charters (Suffolk Rec. Soc. 16)
(1998): 34-37, 39-40, 72-73; Fam. Hist. 18 (1995-97): 47-64; 19
(1998): 125-129]. Lastly, Roger le Bigod and his step-son William
Longespée both had associations with William the Lion, King of
Scotland, which connection can be readily explained by virtue of King
William's wife, Ermengarde, being sister to Constance de Beaumont,
wife of Countess Ida's presumed brother, Roger VI de Tony [see C.P.
12(1) (1953): 760-769 (sub Tony)]. William the Lion was likewise near
related to both of Countess Ida's presumed parents, her father by a
shared descent from Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror,
and her mother by a shared descent from Isabel de Vermandois, Countess
of Surrey. Roger le Bigod and William Longespée were both present
with other English relations of William the Lion at an important
gathering at Lincoln in 1200, when William the Lion paid homage to
King John of England [see Stubbs, Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene
4 (Rolls Ser. 51) (1871): 141-142]. Thus, naming patterns, familial
and political associations give strong evidence that Ida, wife of Earl
Roger le Bigod, was a daughter of Ralph V de Tony.
AdrianBnjmBurke
> Dear Adrian ~
>
> I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
> Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
> of Salisbury.
>
> The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
> connection between the Longespée and Bigod family. His book may be
> found at the following weblink:
>
>
> pg. 199:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...
>
> pg. 209:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...
Thank you Mr R - hopefully this will spur further research to prove
conclusively her ancestry. Thanks!!
ABB
t...@clearwire.net
On Jan 30, 9:32 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Adrian ~
>
> I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
> Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
> of Salisbury.
>
> The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
> connection between the Longespée and Bigod family.
Not really an accurate portrayal. He noticed that a source called a
Ralph le Bigod brother of William Longespee. There is no indication
that he recognized any significance to this information, or concerned
himself with the Bigod family in the least. He appears to be doing
nothing but repeating what the original source said, without further
effort at genealogical analysis. As you known, Ray Phair was the
first to publish recognition of the genealogical significance of this
information - that it showed a relationship between the Toeny family
and William Longespee and thereby confirmed the previously unsupported
speculation regarding the shared maternity through Ida.
There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> As you known, Ray Phair was the
> first to publish recognition of the genealogical significance of this
> information - that it showed a relationship between the Toeny family
That should have said "Bigod family"
Douglas Richardson
After Henri Malo published his important work correctly identifying
Ralph le Bigod as the brother of William Longespée, genealogists such
as Walter Lee Sheppard, FASG, and Charles Evans, F.S.A., F.S.G.,
failed to take notice. Sheppard, for example, published a dreadful
article in 1964, in which he identified the mother of William
Longespée as Annabel de Baliol. In 1979 Vera London published charter
evidence which conclusively proved that William Longespée was the son
of an unidentified "Countess Ida." In 1993 Douglas Richardson
identified William's mother as Ida, wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk. Finally, in 2005, Marc Morris published evidence from a
royal inquest dated 1275, in which the jurors affirmed that Earl Roger
le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South
Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de
Tony. Thus, in this train of events, it was finally revealed that the
mother of William Longespée was Ida de Tony.
As for Ray Phair, he merely repeated the same information published
many years earlier by the historian, Henri Malo. In fact, the list of
the prisoners taken at the Battle of Bouvines which Malo cited as his
source was available in print to anyone as early as Brial, Monumens de
Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de Louis VIII, volume 1 (Recueil des
Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17) (1878): 101 (Guillelmus
Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus
Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis").
This item may be viewed at the following weblink (Go to item marked
D):
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-50135&M=tdm
D. Spencer Hines
We need not worry about Bishop Berkeley in this situation [he coined that
thought puzzle].
If we find a genealogical tree fallen in the forest -- even long after it
fell -- we don't really care whether it made a noise or not.
He who cares about such trifles is lost.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:89e2caa5-6ccf-4e3a...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
John Foster
>fell -- we don't really care whether it made a noise or not.
Y'all should know better than that. There wasn't any forest left in England.
Most of the trees had been cut down for other uses. England was starting to
import wood by the 1620s from Scandinavia, and later the colonies.
http://hwj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/1/28
http://www.eh-resources.org/wood.html
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> cross-posted:
>He who cares about such trifles is lost.
What would you know about him who cares about such trifles?
"To her the marble Capitol shining on its hill was a sacred temple,
and the great shaft that struck upward through the sunlight, though
yet unfinished, a fitting memorial to him who had led the barefoot
soldiers of the colonies through ridicule to victory."
Winston Churchill, Coniston
"It is up to he who makes the decisions as to how we proceed. --
CORRECT"
Spencer Hines, Usenet
Churchill writes "to him".
Hines writes "to he".
'Nuff said
AdrianBnjmBurke
Thanks for the clarification Mr R - will this ancestry of Ida be
included in future additions of your P. Descent?
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d7beb4bb-f2e6-4054...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Adrian ~
>
> After Henri Malo published his important work correctly identifying
> Ralph le Bigod as the brother of William Longespée,
This cretinous, self-serving lie was exposed last October - see
Richardson has absurdly seized on the book by Henri Malo, who never even
attempted to examine the point in question, in order at first to filch
credit from Pay Phair, and now to poke ridiculous aspersions at Walter Lee
Sheppard and Charles Evans, all intended to promote himself with the false
implication that he did his work and knew his stuff better than any of them,
and for NO other purpose whatsoever.
In fact, the source material was already in print LONG before Henri Malo's
time, making utter nonsense of the following from Richardson:
> As for Ray Phair, he merely repeated the same information published
> many years earlier by the historian, Henri Malo. In fact, the list of
> the prisoners taken at the Battle of Bouvines which Malo cited as his
> source was available in print to anyone as early as Brial, Monumens de
> Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de Louis VIII, volume 1 (Recueil des
> Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17) (1878): 101 (Guillelmus
> Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus
> Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis").
Clearly Richardson still has no idea who is indicated by "Guillelmus
Amoricus", or the value of his information, or where and when this was first
printed, or how it has been corroborated, or what other scholars may have
remarked on it in this context before Malo failed to understand its import.
Ray Phair was the first researcher to link the prisoner list from Bouvines
with the Bradenstoke charters, in order to establish that William
Longespee's mother was definitely the countess of Norfolk. Marc Morris
independently found late evidence showing that she belonged to the Tosny
family. These two scholars did the work to provide proof for a conjecture to
which Richardson himself had been dragged kicking and screaming, as usual,
when his own earlier ideas had proved to be unsustainable.
The unprofessional, indeed flatly unethical, nature of his proceeding since
then is no surprise now, and never will be in future, to anyone who
approaches this subject with open eyes as well as basic honesty.
Peter Stewart
John Foster
presented amateur webpage of disproofs would help matters.
>Todd, it might be useful to present all of this on a web >page so there's
>no further confusion between amateur and professional >genealogists and
>amateur and professional historians on the exact sequence of >events.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 12/1/2007
12:05 PM
Peter Stewart
> [childish crosspost removed]
>
> On Jan 30, 9:32 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Adrian ~
>
> > I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
> > Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
> > of Salisbury.
>
> > The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
> > connection between the Longespée and Bigod family.
>
> Not really an accurate portrayal. He noticed that a source called a
> Ralph le Bigod brother of William Longespee. There is no indication
> that he recognized any significance to this information, or concerned
> himself with the Bigod family in the least. He appears to be doing
> nothing but repeating what the original source said, without further
> effort at genealogical analysis.
Indeed, Henri Malo insofar as he even put 2 + 2 together came up not
with 4 but with a garbled version of pi. He did not identify William
Longespee's brother Bigod properly - believing in error that Rosamund
Clifford was the mother of both men he called this person "Bigot de
Clifford".
> As you known, Ray Phair was the first to publish recognition of the
> genealogical significance of this information - that it showed a
> relationship between the Toeny family and William Longespee and
> thereby confirmed the previously unsupported speculation regarding
> the shared maternity through Ida.
And this correct speculation had been argued most persuasively by Paul
Reed - by contrast, Richardson at one stage was trying to claim that
"Countess Ida" was the same as Ada de Chaumont.
> There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
> tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.
But in Malo's case a whole tree did not fall in the first place, he
just snapped off a twig, incidentally, that fell into lower branches,
never hitting the ground.
Peter Stewart
us...@domain.invalid
>
> There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
> tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.
>
If its there for all to find, the answer is yes. It up to everybody to find it.
Credit should go to the first person (in modern times, that is) to
find it. If it sits unused, yes, secondary credit should go to
a popularizer.
Doug McDonald
mills.je...@gmail.com
Doug McDonald
Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in
1898.
Jennifer Mills
mills.je...@gmail.com
You mentioned Charles Evans. Why is he important to this discussion?
Jennifer
Leo van de Pas
like someone copying hieroglyps and then needed is someone else who
interpreted them.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mills.je...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Doug McDonald
Jennifer Mills
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1251 - Release Date: 1/30/2008
9:29 AM
Peter Stewart
Nonsense - Doug McDonald is quite right, and the person who read the
list of prisoners from Bouvines (not "found" however, as this had been
recorded by a royal historiographer in the first place and was known
to historians for centuries before Henri Malo happened to mention it
in passing), and also knew what to make of this in the context of
William Longespee's parentage, was Ray Phair.
You only have Douglas Richardson's word for it that Henri Malo had
supposedly come up with anything new or worthwhile about William
Longespee in the biography of Renaud de Dammartin published in 1898,
unless you are co-incidentally making the same mistake about this -
and if you have participated in SGM for any time you ought to realise
how little Richardson's word is worth.
Peter Stewart
t...@clearwire.net
If that . . . .
I was addressing my analogy to the claim (that the publication of 'the
answer' in 1898 renders Ray Phair's contribution nugatory), not to the
actual facts of the case.
taf
Peter Stewart
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:94105d8b-74a0-4313...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yes, understood. Speaking of Ray Phair's contribution, there was a time when
Douglas Richardson was willing to cadge off this directly: on 7 December
2002 starting a thread titled "Countess Ida, mother of WIlliam Longespee,
Earl of Salisbury", he posted:
> The following explantory note is what presently appears in the draft
> of the manuscript of the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry,
> regarding Countess Ida, mother of William Longespee, Earl of
> Salisbury. Comments are invited.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
> NOTE: William Longespée has long been thought to have been the
> illegitimate child of Henry II, King of England, by his mistress,
> Rosamond Clifford. However, new evidence has surfaced in recent
> years which indicates William was actually the son of King Henry II
> by another of his mistresses, a certain Ida, afterwards the wife of
> Roger Bigod (died 1221), 4th Earl of Norfolk, a noted Magna Carta
> baron. For the Bigod family, see C.P. 9 (1936): 586-589 (sub
> Norfolk); A.H. Thompson ed. Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmenis
> (Surtees Soc., vol. 136) (1928). For conclusive evidence that
> William Longespée was the son of Countess Ida, see V.C.M.
> London Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc., vol.
> 35) (1979): 143,188, which includes two charters in which William
> Longespée specifically names his mother, Countess Ida. Moreover,
> among the prisoners captured at the battle of Bouvines in Flanders in
> 1214 was a Ralph Bigod, who contemporary records specifically call
> "brother" [i.e., half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
> [see J.W. Baldwin ed. Les Registres de Philippe Augustus (1992),
> miscellanea no. 13].
The last citation is of course to the appropriate modern edition of the text
in question, as posted by Ray in his original notification of the evidence
to SGM.
Since then, however, Richardson has tried to cover his tracks by switching
to an obsolete extract of the same material published in 'Recueil des
historiens' vol. 17 as copied below from the present thread.
> I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
> Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
> of Salisbury.
<snip>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Note: William Longespée has long been thought to have been the
> illegitimate child of Henry II, King of England, by his mistress,
> Rosamond Clifford. New evidence has surfaced in recent years,
> however, which indicates William was actually the son of King Henry II
> by another mistress, a certain Ida, afterwards wife of Roger le Bigod
> (died 1221), Earl of Norfolk [see C.P. 9 (1936): 586-589 (sub
> Norfolk); Kemp, Reading Abbey Cartularies 1 (Camden 4th Ser. 31)
> (1986): 371]. For conclusive evidence that William Longespée was the
> son of Countess Ida le Bigod, see London, Cartulary of Bradenstoke
> Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1979): 143, 188, which includes two
> charters in which Earl William Longespée specifically names his
> mother, Countess Ida. Furthermore, among the English prisoners
> captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, there was a certain Ralph
> [le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record refers to as
> "brother" [that is, half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of
> Salisbury [see Brial, Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de
> Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17)
> (1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in
> bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis");
An instructive comparison - nothing the first time round in the draft for
his book to suggest that Richardson had not actually seen the work cited, to
verify the information he had clearly taken from Ray's post, and nothing in
the current file note to account for the weird switch of references for the
same evidence.
Why is that, can Richardson tell us?
Failing an explanation, we can only suppose a nefarious cover-up, that was
an outcome of more idle Googling to find an alternative for the same source,
hoping a casual or inexperienced reader would assume Richardson had come to
this independently by his own research.
Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
> Dear Adrian ~
>
> I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
> Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
> of Salisbury.
>
> The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
> connection between the Longespée and Bigod family. His book may be
> found at the following weblink:
>
>
> pg. 199:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...
>
> pg. 209:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...
>
<snip>
I note that you have neglected to credit me as a source for the names
of the children of Ida and Roger Bigod from the Durham Liber Vitae. It
would be nice if you extended the same scholarly courtesy you demand
of others, but I guess your hypocrisy in regard to theft of research,
and everything else shameless about you, is part and parcel of your
poverished reputation as a human being and scholar.
I posted this information to the newsgroup in July 2002 under the
thread "Liber Vitae and the family of Roger and Ida Bigod", and
followed it up in an article The Durham Liber Vitae: Some reflections
on its significance as a genealogical resource, Foundations (2005) 1
(6) pp. 414-424. The intellectual discussion and observations about
the Bigod family in the Liber Vitae are mine alone, as the listing is
not at all obvious on the folio. Not even Marc Morris had come across
this material.
(p. 419):
"Because they do not occur elsewhere, we are fortunate to have the
names of the entire family of Roger Bigod and Countess Ida listed in
the Durham Liber Vitae. Their grouping has been disguised by the
chaotic arrangement of names on the page by the cleric truncating the
lines two thirds of the way across and by the insertion of unrelated
individuals between the first and second lines in a later hand. We are
given
Comes Rogu's Bigot. Ida uxor ei'
Hugo Will's Rogu's Johs Radulf
Maria Margaret Ida pueri ei' "
I repeat Michael Andrews-Reading's query of yesterday, "how exactly do
you think these public displays of serious deficiencies will enhance
your reputation or assist you professionally?
Rosie Bevan
Peter Stewart
news:aad55f79-722e-46ee...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 6:32 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > For evidence which supports Ida's placement as a child of Ralph
> > V de Tony, several facts may be noted. First, Countess Ida and
> > her husband, Roger le Bigod, are known to have named children,
> > Ralph and Margaret, presumably in honor of Ida's parents, Ralph
> > and Margaret de Tony [see Thompson, Liber Vitæ Ecclesiæ
> > Dunelmenis (Surtees Soc. 136) (1923): fo. 63b, for a
> > contemporary list of the Bigod children].
>
> <snip>
>
> I note that you have neglected to credit me as a source for the names
> of the children of Ida and Roger Bigod from the Durham Liber Vitae.
> It would be nice if you extended the same scholarly courtesy you
> demand of others, but I guess your hypocrisy in regard to theft of
> research, and everything else shameless about you, is part and parcel
> of your poverished reputation as a human being and scholar.
>
> I posted this information to the newsgroup in July 2002 under the
> thread "Liber Vitae and the family of Roger and Ida Bigod", and
> followed it up in an article The Durham Liber Vitae: Some reflections
> on its significance as a genealogical resource, Foundations (2005) 1
> (6) pp. 414-424. The intellectual discussion and observations about
> the Bigod family in the Liber Vitae are mine alone, as the listing is
> not at all obvious on the folio. Not even Marc Morris had come across
> this material.
This underlines not only the appalling behaviour of Douglas Richardson, in
the present instance and more generally over years, but also the resulting
loss to him of the benefits he might have gained from truly collegial and
unselfish exchanges with this newsgroup. In particular he has denied himself
the respect and cooperation of such genuine experts in the field that
engages most of his own time as Rosie Bevan and Paul Reed.
It's also interesting to note that by Richardson's own botched efforts he
has missed the most obvious direct evidence bearing on the immediate family
of Roger de Tosny and Ida, the charter confirming earlier donations and
naming his wife and all their children.
But of course since Richardson doesn't fairly ackowledge help given, or
taken, he can't expect to go on receiving it here.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
< 1898.
<
< Jennifer Mills
Dear Jennifer ~
You're entirely correct.
Mr. Malo definitely deserves the credit for discovering that Ralph le
Bigod was William Longespée's brother. He published first. That's
crystal clear.
Whether or not Mr. Phair knew about Mr. Malo's work is immaterial.
t...@clearwire.net
> < Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in
> < 1898.
>
No, not entirely, unless you are speaking solely about her recognition
that 1898 comes before the other publication dates involved. However,
as to the application of appropriate credit having to go to Malo, that
bears on the issue of what, exactly Malo published and whether credit
should accrue for what he published. To be accurate, you should have
said, "I agree with you entirely," rather than the formulation you
present here - that which agrees with the Richardson interpretation is
"correct", and by implication, that which disagrees is wrong. Tell
me, what came of qualifying presented opinions, Mr. Pot?
> Mr. Malo definitely deserves the credit for discovering that Ralph le
> Bigod was William Longespée's brother.
. . . . and that they were both children of Rosamund Clifford.
Repeating a record that has already been published, then
misinterpreting it, is hardly meritorious.
> He published first. That's
> crystal clear.
At least we have that math problem worked out. Now, what, precisely,
did he publish first?
> Whether or not Mr. Phair knew about Mr. Malo's work is immaterial.
Show us the page where Mr. Malo indicates that William and Ralph are
both children of Countess Ida. This mental contortionism in order to
avoid giving credit to the person who was first published a synthesis
of the two critical pieces of evidence, the Bradenstoke priory and the
Bouvines list, is unbecoming of a professional genealogist and
historian whose stated goal in participating here is to make friends.
taf
Douglas Richardson
< Show us the page where Mr. Malo indicates that William and Ralph are
< both children of Countess Ida.
<
< taf
taf ~
William Longespée was not identified as the child of Countess Ida,
wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, until someone named Douglas
Richardson did so in 1993. Since you've asked for the exact page
reference, here it is.
G.B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American
Colonies or the United States (1993): 347.
If you need any other help, please let me know.
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:66837936-6c91-4bbd...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
><G>
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
How would you translate that?
I suppose your semi-literate suggestion would be:
"Shame upon HE who thinks evil of it"
or
"Evil be to HE who evil thinks"
or
"Evil be to HE who thinks evil"
Luckily, the official website of the British monarchy is still staffed
by people who know correct English grammar:
"Evil be unto HIM who thinks evil"
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2542.asp
Or are they "mistakenly using German
grammar on the English language" (DSH)?
John Foster
the credit, even though that's not where he was trying to go.
We've discovered Ohio, Columbus ... or is it the other way around?
St. Brendan, the Navigator didn't make it back, either, if he went.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...
TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leov...@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: Fw: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
Wasn't Erik the Red the first one to reach America?
But it is Columbus who gets the credit because he did something with his
discovery. I wonder, did Columbus know about Erik the Red? Does it matter
whether he did know about him? It doesn't change anything. The re-discovery
by Columbus is what counts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
< Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in
< 1898.
<
< Jennifer Mills
Dear Jennifer ~
You're entirely correct.
Mr. Malo definitely deserves the credit for discovering that Ralph le
Bigod was William Longespée's brother. He published first. That's
crystal clear.
Whether or not Mr. Phair knew about Mr. Malo's work is immaterial.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Leo van de Pas
thought. It is not important whether it is Erik or Leif, nor how many other
people got to America before Columbus.
What is important, in the Countess Ida story, who was the Columbus?
Richardson or Ray Phar?
At the moment it looks like Richardson, who at last has identified when and
where his name was linked with the establishing of Countess Ida as the
mother of William Longespee. As he said, it is recorded in GBR's 500
Immigrants published in 1993. In which case what Ray Phar did in 2000 is
just an addition, to give wider knowledge.
With best wiishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Dear Jennifer ~
You're entirely correct.
-------------------------------
Nathaniel Taylor
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
> What is important, in the Countess Ida story, who was the Columbus?
> Richardson or Ray Phar?
>
> At the moment it looks like Richardson, who at last has identified when and
> where his name was linked with the establishing of Countess Ida as the
> mother of William Longespee. As he said, it is recorded in GBR's 500
> Immigrants published in 1993. In which case what Ray Phar did in 2000 is
> just an addition, to give wider knowledge.
Ray Phair was the first to offer synthesis and proof of what was until
then a conjecture based only on the fact that William had called his
mother 'countess Ida' in two Bradenstoke charters.
In 1982 Charles Evans published a notice drawing attention to the
Bradenstoke data (TG 3 [1982], 265-66), inviting further work on it
(saying he could not do so himself), and suggesting Ida, countess of
Boulogne, as the most compelling candidate.
In 1993 Gary Roberts published a statement that Mr. Richardson had
'identified' William's mother as Ida, wife of Roger Bigod, earl of
Norfolk; according to Roberts Mr. Richardson was shortly going to
publish a 'monograph' (i.e. an article) substantiating the
identification. That article was never published.
Douglas actually once wrote about how he came to focus on Ida, wife of
the earl of Norfolk. In a post by Mr. Richardson's co-author, David
Faris, back on 4 October 2000 --
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/03e49a9c305eadf
5?dmode=source
-- Faris quoted this passage by Mr. Richardson:
> "I believe I first became aware of the actual [Bradenstoke] charters
> as published by Vera London. I used to order a good many books by
> interlibrary loan, especially anything with charters. Afterwards
> I saw Mr. Evans' note attempting to identify Countess Ida as a
> Countess Ida of the continental Europe. I believe I am the first
> person to consider Roger Bigod's wife, Ida, as the Countess Ida who
> was William Longespee's mother. I went through all the lists of
> English earls in Complete Peerage until I found one with a wife Ida
> in thd right time period. In fact, I may have known of Earl Roger's
> wife Ida before I saw Charles Evans' note. I don't recall the exact
> chain of events. I never seriously considered Mr. Evans'
> identification of Countess Ida. As such, I am reasonbly certain
> I already had Roger Bigod's wife in mind when I found Evans'
> published note.
In reconstructing his reasoning Douglas is describing a proposed
identification, not a proof (however Roberts seems to have presented
it). There is nothing here to suggest that Mr. Richardson proved this
Ida's maternity of William or brought any other evidence to bear, beyond
the Bradentoke passages and a consideration of possible Idas. So Mr.
Richardson does seem to have first focused attention on Bigod's wife,
but he did not publish proof and does not seem to have found any. In
2000 neither Mr. Richardson nor any other genealogist had the Bouvines
data on the table. Ray Phair's find was extremely significant in that it
provided a proof where one had been lacking: it closed the case.
But Leo, in a way your intent is right: just because Mr. Richardson so
obviously wants to minimize the role of Phair, Evans and others in this
case, does not mean we should minimize Mr. Richardson's role in turn.
It's a pity: in another universe this whole issue could have been a good
example of collegiality in investigation and discussion.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
t...@clearwire.net
> On Jan 31, 9:45 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> < Show us the page where Mr. Malo indicates that William and Ralph are
> < both children of Countess Ida.
> <
> < taf
>
> taf ~
>
> William Longespée was not identified as the child of Countess Ida,
> wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, until someone named Douglas
> Richardson did so in 1993. Since you've asked for the exact page
> reference, here it is.
And what reference did this Mr. Richardson give? None. That is
because he had none. It was a wild guess based on nothing more
substantial than the old 'name's the same' fallacy. Certainly credit
needs to go to the person who proved it, not the person who just made
some random speculation that happened to resemble the historical
reality.
> G.B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American
> Colonies or the United States (1993): 347.
>
> If you need any other help, please let me know.
This entire post is nothing but an elaborate way of saying that, no,
contrary to your previous claims, Malo did not resolve this question.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Leo finally gets a glimmer of Truth -- although his sidekick and partner,
Peter Stewart, has yet to catch up and twig.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2854.1201808...@rootsweb.com...
> Adrian Burke, Norenxaq and John Foster, in my opinion, left the train of
> thought. It is not important whether it is Erik or Leif, nor how many
> other people got to America before Columbus.
>
> What is important, in the Countess Ida story, who was the Columbus?
> Richardson or Ray Phar?
>
> At the moment it looks like Richardson, who at last has identified when
> and where his name was linked with the establishing of Countess Ida as the
> mother of William Longespee. As he said, it is recorded in GBR's 500
> Immigrants published in 1993. In which case what Ray Phar [sic] did in
Leo van de Pas
Glad you recognised what I tried to do. For me genealogy comes first,
personal friendships or animosity comes second or even third. _If_
Richardson was treated wrongly that should be acknowledged. But it seems he
wasn';t.
I have said many times it is such a pity the way Richardson behaves. If he
had behaved slightly different he could have turned gen-med into a
power-house of co-operation. I think for most it is genealogy that counts,
to get information as correctly as possible.
But his grand-standing and at times deception has made many people wary of
him.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
James Hogg
in the creation, and an indignity TO HIM WHO placed him there."
Tom Paine
Thank God there are still people at Yale Law School who can enter
Paine's words into The Avalon Project without feeling the need to
stick an incorrect [sic] after the correct declension of "him".
t...@clearwire.net
wrote:
> What is important, in the Countess Ida story, who was the Columbus?
> Richardson or Ray Phar?
>
> At the moment it looks like Richardson, who at last has identified when and
> where his name was linked with the establishing of Countess Ida as the
> mother of William Longespee. As he said, it is recorded in GBR's 500
> Immigrants published in 1993. In which case what Ray Phar did in 2000 is
> just an addition, to give wider knowledge.
Mr. Richardson made a guess, from what he has posted apparently based
on nothing more substantial than the name being the same. He had no
documentary evidence to support this, and knew nothing of the Bouvines
account or Malo's interpretation of it (of course, it was presented as
fact, but that is the case with most of Mr. Richardson's
speculations), and no indication was given that not a shred of solid
evidence that supported the connection had been found. Finally, he
published this, not by passing any kind of peer review, but by
slipping it into a friend's book.
Mr. Phair found the critical Bouvines reference and recognized its
significance in proving the connection, and was rightly regarded as
having made the critical discovery in demonstrating (not just
suggesting) this relationship. He published this in a top
genealogical journal, where it went throught he standard editorial
process.
Since that time, Mr. Richardson has found Malo, and has been citing it
(in spite of the fact that it added not a single forward movement to
the question over the original Bouvines document), simply to avoid
giving credit for proving the line to the person to whom it is due -
the person who recognized in the Bouvines document the proof of the
Ida question. That he knows that Phair's application of the Bouvines
document to the question was critical to its resolution is
demonstrated by the fact that he chooses to cite another author who
was aware of the Bouvines statement but misinterpreted it and knew
nothing of 'Countess Ida', rather than claiming precedence himself
(well until now).
Basically, Mr. Richardson's standard enables a researcher to spew
speculation in all direction, and just by random chance some of it is
bound to be correct. Then he claims priority for those that happen to
find their mark, and pretends the others don't exist. That is a
standard for assigning priority, but not a good one. It awards
incaution, and floods the literature and the web with a range of
unsupported guesswork, only a small amount of which will prove right.
(As has been pointed out, you don't see him claiming priority for
being the first to guess that Ida was identical to Ada de Chaumont, do
you?) Further, it misuses such speculation - theorizing based on
nothing but name is best used to direct one toward appropriate primary
sources in order to find actual proof, not as an end to itself.
taf
AdrianBnjmBurke
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1251 - Release Date: 1/30/2008
>
> - Show quoted text -
ACTUALLY THE "TRAIN OF THOUGHT" AS YOU PUT IT WAS "LEFT" A LONG TIME
AGO WHEN MY ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT THE ANCESTRY OF IDA - DEVOLVED
INTO A TIT FOR TAT SCHOOL YARD HISSY FIT ABOUT WHO GETS CREDIT FOR
WHAT. AS THAT WAS NOT STUPID ENOUGH THE CONVERSATION THEN MORPHED INTO
AN ANALOGY TO GREAT EUROPEAN EXPLORERS.....WOW!!!
MY NEXT QUESTION TO THIS GROUP WILL BE: ARE THERE ANY REAL
GENEALOGISTS OUT THERE??????!!!!!!!!!
AND IF SO IS HE OR SHE DOING ANY WORK ON THE QUESTION OF
IDA???????????????????????????????
D. Spencer Hines
This is turning into a Keystone Cops routine.
DSH
"AdrianBnjmBurke" <adrianben...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:217ffdf9-323a-4fb8...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
t...@clearwire.net
wrote:
> MY NEXT QUESTION TO THIS GROUP WILL BE: ARE THERE ANY REAL
> GENEALOGISTS OUT THERE??????!!!!!!!!!
>
> AND IF SO IS HE OR SHE DOING ANY WORK ON THE QUESTION OF
> IDA???????????????????????????????
Are you 'doing any work on the Ida question'?
Actually, with a question that has been discussed in such detail,
while occasionally one can study the question, identify specific
documents or archives that may contain critical information and
consult these sources to reveal a solution, or else reconstruct the
existing evidence in a novel an persuasive manner, 'working on' such
well-trod problems rarely results in definitive resolution. It is much
more likely that progress will come (if it comes at all) from a
prepared mind stumbling across a critical primary document and
recognizing its significance.
taf
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:803f3c31-399d-4133...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> But, just to play Devil's advocate, didn't Doug himself pick up a hint
>> about the Ida Tony marriage from a very obscure and poorly sourced
>> article in NEHGR (1870s-1880s)?
You have taken hold of the wrong end of the stick - the question at stake in
the William Longespee matter was not over Ida de Tosny's marriage to Roger
Bigod, earl of Norfolk, but rather if this particular Countess Ida or
another was the mother of Henry II's famous bastard son.
Peter Stewart
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
><G>
>
>This is turning into a Keystone Cops routine.
"Every opinion reacts on HIM who utters it."
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays
AdrianBnjmBurke
I agree yes - and if Ida was a Toeni then hopefully there are some
real documents deeds, wills, etc. that are out there awaiting
discovery!! it would be wonderful if someone actually found them and
integrated the information contained within to the overall ancestry of
william of longespee!!
Peter Stewart
news:odqoj.195$9l1....@eagle.america.net...
Hines is caught twisting in the middle of yet another about-face.
In December 2002 he was adamant that Richardson owed full citations
acnowledging the work of Ray Phair, Rosie Bevan and Paul Reed on this very
same subject - see below.
Now that Richardson has indecently wormed out of his plain obligations in
this respect, and has done so with deliberate deceit, Hines can't seem to
remember his last recorded opinion on the matter.
Peter Stewart
On Dec 7 2002, 7:30 am, "D. Spencer Hines"
<D._Spencer_Hi...@usa.aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> D'accord.
>
> All those specific citations need to be in PA3 ---- full citations ----
> not just nodding, off-the-cuff references to individuals.
>
> Deus Vult
>
> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
> nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
>
> Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
> Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
>
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
> in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
> Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
>
> All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
> material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
> may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
> to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
> writing.
> ------------------
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> Vires et Honor.
>
> "Reedpcgen" <reedpc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20021206160258...@mb-ch.aol.com...
>
> | Doug wrote:
>
> | [snip]
>
> | <Special thanks go to Rosie Bevan, Ray Phair, and Paul C. Reed, all of
> | whom made material contributions to this discussion.>
> |
> | You might, then, make specific mention of the article I wrote on this
> | specific matter in the last issue of TAG, you should watch for another
> | article on Ida by Ray Phair in the issue about to come out, and make
> | reference to it, and you should make specific reference to Rosie's
> | pertinent posts, as well as reference to Charles Evans in TG, who
> | brought forth to the American genealoical public the information in
> | the Bradenstoke Cartulary in the first place.
> |
> | By not doing so, it not only deprives your readers of this knowledge
> | which you undoubtedly have, and which they should have, but it
> | lessens the import of those persons' efforts and discoveries in this
> | matter.
> |
> | Paul
t...@clearwire.net
wrote:
> I agree yes - and if Ida was a Toeni then hopefully there are some
> real documents deeds, wills, etc. that are out there awaiting
> discovery!! it would be wonderful if someone actually found them and
> integrated the information contained within to the overall ancestry of
> william of longespee!!
Well, without putting too fine a point on it, those documents are
there waiting for you . . . .
taf
jhigg...@yahoo.com
I believe Todd's question was in regard to who first PUBLISHED the
presently accepted identification of Countess Ida. GBR in RD500
cites, inter alia, "a forthcoming Countess Ida monograph by Douglas
Richardson" - which was never published, it seems. DR's
identification of Countess Ida was apparently first published in his
Plantagenet Ancestry in 2004 - two years after Ray Phair's TAG article
on the subject. And the RD500 reference simply calls Ida the wife of
Roger Bigod, not identifying Ida's own parentage, as others
subsequently did. The only support for DR's claim to a 1993
identification is GBR's (inadequately unsupported) statement that DR
had made that claim. Are these the standards of a professional
genealogist?
For an interesting comment on the history of this particular
"identification", see the following - and (for a chuckle) note the
author of the comment:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/gen-medieval/1999-03/0921633937
Some things never change.....
Michael Andrews-Reading got it right: "How exactly do you think these
Peter Stewart
> < Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in
> < 1898.
> <
> < Jennifer Mills
>
> Dear Jennifer ~
>
> You're entirely correct.
>
> Mr. Malo definitely deserves the credit for discovering that Ralph le
> Bigod was William Longespée's brother. He published first. That's
> crystal clear.
Oh? How exactly is it clear to you that no-one before Malo had ever
published as much as he did bearing on this question?
Where else did you look?
A search on Google Books for "Longespee" and "Bigod" together that happened
to turn up his 1898 work is not a scholarly way to establish priority in the
literature, even if you had not also tried to deceive readers as to what
Malo actually published in the first place.
A scholar of any integrity could simply give us a list of works bearing on
Bouvines and issued before 1898 that were consulted to verify such a claim.
Peter Stewart
t...@clearwire.net
> A search on Google Books for "Longespee" and "Bigod" together that happened
> to turn up his 1898 work is not a scholarly way to establish priority in the
> literature, even if you had not also tried to deceive readers as to what
> Malo actually published in the first place.
To remove this from the current topic to the more general, Jette is
largely credited with the hypothesis that Agatha was daughter of
Jaroslav of Kiev. The curious thing is that the solution had, in
fact, been around for at least a century, and perhaps a century before
that (the citation I have is to an edition of a work that does not
contain the information, but it may appear in other editions). the
more recent of these cites the identical primary sources, and
effectively makes the identical central arguments. Reading Jette's
article, it is not clear whether he never looked, simply assuming that
if it had been suggested it would have been mentioned in the other
more modern discussions of the issue, or if he just failed to find the
several distinct instances (and let me give credit where it is due -
for all of its problems with missing pages, inappropriate access
restrictions, poor OCR and sloppy bibliographic indexing, Google Books
has expanded exponentially the access of the average researcher to
such obscure resources).
That being said, where does true priority lie? With the first person
to publish the suggestion? This may have been done in a collection of
genealogical tables without references, and using who-knows-what
basis. Or should it go to the person who published the full
discussion, with citations? How about 'credit' which is distinct from
priority. Either of those? Given that the full discussion was in a
general-interest journal and not a genealogical of historical one, and
quickly passed into obscurity, what credit does it deserve is shaping
modern opinion on the question, and how much does Jette deserve? (And
here is where there is another monkey wrench. Were Jette to have
failed to look, vs. looked and failed to find, vs. found and failed to
report [and I am in no way suggesting that this is the case], vs.
found and reported this previous instance, this would affect the
credit due, but there is no way to distinguish the first three,
barring a paper trail approaching the bit trail we have in the Ida
case.)
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> But, just to play Devil's advocate, didn't Doug himself pick up a hint
> about the Ida Tony marriage from a very obscure and poorly sourced
> article in NEHGR (1870s-1880s)?
The article was published in 1856:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GMMMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA262&dq=ida+bigod#PPA262,M1
Mr. Richardson first posted on this item three and a half years after
Paul Reed, John C. Parsons, Kay Allen, Vickie Elam (all sorely missed)
and others discussed the same hint, with Paul and John both offering
independently the speculation that the "de Thouy" of the NEHGR article
was, in fact, "de Thony", i.e. de Toeny. This was in 1998. (At which
time the 'correct' solution in Richardson's eyes was that she was Ada
de Chaumont.) In 2002 when Mr. Richardson announced the appearance of
this item in NEHGR he gave no indication that the earlier discussion
of this item had taken place or that this 'discovery' belonged to
anyone but himself, so if you just saw the later post you can be
excused for not knowing of the earlier discussion.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> Also, check this out ...
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=RkwuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293&dq=%22ida+de+t...
This is a curious entry. It is from "an Essay Towards a Topographical
History of the County of Norfolk, 1808.
It reports that William the Conqueror made grant to of Eccles to Roger
Bigot, along with the marriage of Ida de Tony, and that Roger then
passed to land to his daughter Maud, who married William d'Aubigny
(Brito). Now, the curious thing is that Roger Bigod did marry a Toeny,
and their daughter Maud did marry William d'Aubigny, but this was not
Ida de Toeny, but Adelaide de Todeny of the Belvoir 'branch' of the
family. It was a century later that another king, Henry II,
presumably gave another Toeny, Ida, to another Roger Bigod.
Because of this confusion, it cannot be justified to say that this
source represents an authentic early indication that Ida was a Toeny -
it could be that the author never had her in mind at all and just got
confused as to the given name of the first Roger's wife, mixing it
with the latter. It could also represent an authentic tradition that
Ida was a Toeny, but we will never know.
taf
John Foster
what he thought he found anyway.
We in Texas don't celebrate Columbus Day anyway, because it was part of
France, Spain, Mexico, A Republic, the US, the Confederacy and the US again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson_Day
Hey, the United States issued a stamp for Leif Erikson. Doesn't that count
for anything? We still think he stomped on the continent first.
Hawaii doesn't like Columbus either. Captain Cook discovered it, before they
killed him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...
TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leov...@netspeed.com.au>
To: "John Foster" <ret...@austin.rr.com>; <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
> Adrian Burke, Norenxaq and John Foster, in my opinion, left the train of
> thought. It is not important whether it is Erik or Leif, nor how many
> other people got to America before Columbus.
>
> What is important, in the Countess Ida story, who was the Columbus?
> Richardson or Ray Phar?
>
> At the moment it looks like Richardson, who at last has identified when
> and where his name was linked with the establishing of Countess Ida as the
> mother of William Longespee. As he said, it is recorded in GBR's 500
> Immigrants published in 1993. In which case what Ray Phar did in 2000 is
> just an addition, to give wider knowledge.
>
> From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
> To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
>
>
> < Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in
> < 1898.
> <
> < Jennifer Mills
>
> Dear Jennifer ~
>
> You're entirely correct.
>
> Mr. Malo definitely deserves the credit for discovering that Ralph le
> Bigod was William Longespée's brother. He published first. That's
> crystal clear.
>
> Whether or not Mr. Phair knew about Mr. Malo's work is immaterial.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1251 - Release Date:
> 1/30/2008 9:29 AM
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database:
> 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date: 12/1/2007 12:05 PM
>
>
John Foster
"iron horse"?
John Foster
forward, from one of the few relevant bound cellulose documents in my
possession.
That's fine to note that DR mentions GBR 500. ("... I hate
quotations..." -Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Let's see what GBR 600 in the 2006 addendum on p. 825 says about DR's
quotation of GBR 500 p. 455. ("I have no opinion." -Tim "The Tool Man"
Taylor; Tool Time; Home Improvement)
"start limited quotation"
14. pp. 528-529, 463-68. An "improved" royal descent ...
p. 455
5. Ela FitzRobert = William de Odingsells (in PA, pp. 456-59, 553; her
mother, Ida Longespee [wife of Sir Walter FitzRobert, son of Robert
FitzWalter, leader of the Magna Charta barons, and Rohese ----] is indeed
given as a second Ida, daughter of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, and
Ela, Countess of Salisbury. Thus Douglas Richardson now believes Ela
FitzRobert should be in generation 4, not 5, from Henry II, and Ela,
Countess of Salisbury becomes a matrilineal ancestress of Elizabeth I, Queen
of England).
5/6 Ida de Odingsells = (1) Sir Roger de Herdeburgh; (2) John de Clinton,
1st Baron Clinton
"end limited quotation"
(and further...noting generation shifts)
I suppose one should also visit the previous generation on p. 824 of GBR 600
addendum of 2006. Y'all should investigate. I will not expound on it.
13. p. 448. "Brice proposes the following "improved" alternative line from
Edward I, King of England, to which I have added a cross-reference to a
second Savage line, proposed by Douglas Richardson in Magna Carta Ancestry.
All of these "pieces-parts" do little for me unless somebody is providing a
"master copy of the whole schmear", and can be safely ignored until GBR 800
comes out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...
TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: <t...@clearwire.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.