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.
> 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.
Thank you Mr R - hopefully this will spur further research to prove conclusively her ancestry. Thanks!!
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.
> 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
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):
>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.
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.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:11:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@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
> 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):
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.
>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. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:34 PM Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
> 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.
> ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> 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.
> 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):
If I understand he simply wrote words, not comprehending what he had. It is like someone copying hieroglyps and then needed is someone else who interpreted them.
----- Original Message ----- From: <mills.jennifer...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:59 AM Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
On Jan 30, 4:51 pm, u...@domain.invalid wrote: > t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> > 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
Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in 1898.
Jennifer Mills
------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@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
<mills.jennifer...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 4:51 pm, u...@domain.invalid wrote:> t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> > > 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
> Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in > 1898.
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.
> > 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.
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.
> On Jan 30, 2:42 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote: >> On Jan 31, 6:36 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>> > 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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].
<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?
> > 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.
On Jan 31, 7:54 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> < Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in > < 1898.
> You're entirely correct.
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.
< 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.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
