In the course of doing research for my upcoming third book, Royal
Ancestry, scheduled for publication later this year, I've come across
a strange error in various secondary sources, as well as online
databases including Charles Cawley and Leo van de Pas.

According to Cawley and van de Pas, Amaury I, seigneur of Craon,
Seneschal of Anjou (died 1226) married his great-niece, Jeanne des
Roches, daughter of Guillaume des Roches.  Such a marriage, of course,
is impossible.

For the Charles Cawley database, see the following weblink:

   http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ANJOU,%20MAINE.htm#MauriceIICraondied...

For the Leo van de Pas database, see the following weblink:

   http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00124693&tree=LEO

A close examination of the pedigrees and chronology of the families
reveals the nature of the problem.  Jeanne des Roches was as stated
the wife of Amaury I, seigneur of Craon.  It is also known that her
mother, Marguerite de Sablé, was the daughter of Robert IV, seigneur
of Sablé, and his wife, Clémence de Mayenne.  So far, so good.

Here is where the problem comes in.   Cawley and van de Pas both
identify Clémence de Mayenne as the daughter of Geoffrey II, seigneur
of Mayenne (died 1169), by his 2nd wife, Isabel of Meulen.  If
correct, then Clémence de Mayenne would be the half-sister of Amaury
I, seigneur of Mayenne, who married her granddaughter.  Again this is
impossible.

There is no question that Clémence, wife of Robert IV de Sablé, was a
Mayenne, as Cawley shows that in 1205 Clémence's daughter, Marguerite
de Sablé, confirmed earlier donations made to Fontaine-Daniel by
Marguerite's uncle [avunculi], Juhel de Mayenne.

So Marguerite de Sablé's mother, Clemence, was definitely the sister
of Juhel de Mayenne.  But which Juhel de Mayenne?

The book, Historie des Seigneur de Meyenne (1850), pg. 21 identifies
that Clémence de Mayenne as the daughter of Gaultier de Mayenne, died
about 1124, by his wife, Alix.  Gaultier de Mayenne had a son, Juhel,
alright.  See the following weblink for that identification:

   http://books.google.com/books?id=0z0oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA21

However, the chronology does not permit Clémence de Mayenne to be
placed in that generation of the Mayenne family.  Rather, it appears
Clémence was actually the daughter of Geoffrey II de Mayenne (died
1169) (as stated by Cawley and van de Pas).  But she must have been
the child of his 1st wife, Constance of Brittany, rather than his 2nd
wife, Isabel of Meulan.

By changing the mother of Clémence de Mayenne, she is no longer the
half-sister of Amaury I, seigneur of Craon.  And thus the problem of
Amaury I de Craon marrying her grand-daughter is no longer exists.

Interestingly, this change in maternity gives the descendants of
Clémence de Mayenne a new descent from King William the Conqueror, and
thus it revises the ancestry of her numerous descendants.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Jeanne de Geneville (died 1356),
wife of Roger de Mortimer, Knt., 1st Earl of March, which Jeanne is a
lineal descendant of Clémence de Mayenne above.

Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey,
Charles Barnes, Anne Baynton, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William
Bernard, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah
Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George,
Giles & Robert Brent, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton,
Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, St. Leger Codd, James Cudworth, Francis
Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward
Digges, Rowland Ellis, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher,
Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John
Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund, Edward, Matthew &
Richard Kempe, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe,
Percival Lowell, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth &
John Mansfield, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need,
John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, Henry & William Randolph,
George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger,
Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary
Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret
Touteville, John & Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy
Wyllys.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S.  Since Leo van de Pas cites Europaische Stammtafeln as his source
for Clemence de Mayenne, perhaps someone can check the relevant
Mayenne pedigree in ES to see if Mr. Schwennicke also errs in making
Clémence de Mayenne the daughter of Isabel of Meulan [2nd wife of
Geoffrey II de Mayenne]?

I note that Clémence de Mayenne is elsewhere identified as the
daughter of Isabel of Meulan in Power, Norman Frontier in the 12th &
Early 13th Cents. (2004): 508 (Mayenne ped.).

For Daniel Power, see the following weblink:

   http://books.google.com/books?id=Vlts5rwsNosC&pg=PA508

DR would be well advised to check out Schwennicke's work for himself
at this location which is certainly convenient for him:
http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset....

So far we've seen that Charles Cawley, Leo van de Pas, Europaische
Stammtafeln, and Daniel Power have all erroneously assigned Clémence
de Mayenne as the daughter of Geoffrey II de Mayenne, by his 2nd wife,
Isabel of Meulan.  Such a parentage is impossble, as Clémence de
Mayenne's granddaughter was the wife of Isabel of Meulan's younger
son, Amaury I de Craon.  We also saw that Guyard de la Fosse, Histoire
des Seigneur de Meyenne (1850) put Clémence two generations back in
the Mayenne family tree.  That is equally impossible.

It goes downhill from there.   Andrew Lewis, Royal Succession in
Capetian France (1981): 102 states that that Clémence de Mayenne was
the aunt of Juhel de Mayenne.   For Lewis, see the following weblink:

   http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ypc5T_m5AsKhiQKQ6MT9BQ&id=I6GIAAAAMA...

We know from her daughter's charter cited by Cawley that Clémence was
actually Juhel de Mayenne's sister.  So far every source I have
checked has the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne stated in error.
This is why you have to be cautious of all secondary sources,
especially Europaische Stammtafeln.

As I indicated in my first post, it appears that Clémence de Mayenne
was the daughter of Geoffrey II de Mayenne [died 1169], by his first
wife, Constance of Brittany.  So far I'm unable to find an approximate
date in print for the marriage of Geoffrey and Constance.  Geoffrey II
and his wife, Constance, appear to have had one son, Hamon, living in
1158, and two daughters, Maud (or Mathilde) (wife of wife of Andre de
Vitré and Thibault de Mathefelon) and Clémence (wife of Robert de
Sablé).

Constance of Brittany is mentioned in the literature as early as 1871
(and doubtless earlier).  For example, Bibliothèque de l'École des
Chartes 32 (1871): 417 states the following:

"André de Vitré épousa en premières noces Mathilde, fille de Geoffroi
IV de Mayenne et de Constance de Bretagne, sa première femme, fille de
Conan-le-Gros, duc de Bretagne; il s'en sépara en 1189, pour cause de
parenté, sans en avoir eu d’enfants.”  END OF QUOTE.

The marriage date of Geoffrey II de Mayenne and Constance of Brittany
must be close to 1140, as their son, Hamon, was already a knight in
1158, when he joined his father on crusade.  Hamon apparently died
while on crusade.  For further particulars of Geoffrey II de Mayenne's
time on crusade, see Pointeau, Les Croisés de Mayenne en 1158 in Revue
Historique et Archéologique du Maine, t. IV 1878.  Pointeau's material
may also be viewed at the weblink below.  If you read French, it's an
interesting article.

   http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?seq=3&view=image&size=100&id=njp.3...

As indicated above, Constance of Brittany is stated to be a daughter
of Conan III, Duke of Brittany.  Duke Conan's III' wife was Maud,
illegitimate daughter of King Henry I of England (died 1135).  This is
how Constance of Brittany connects to the English royal family.

If you have a Mortimer line in England, you likely descend from
Clémence de Mayenne.  If so, I'd enjoy hearing from you here on the
newsgroup.  I hope that others can contribute additional material to
this ongoing thread.  All I ask is that you cite your sources and
provide weblinks if you have them.  Thanks!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Joe C

Below is a transcript of the charter dated 1205 which Marguerite [des
Roches], lady of Sablé, states she has made a grant at the request of
her uncle [avunculi], Juhel de Mayenne.  This is the charter cited by
Charles Cawley which proves that Marguerite's mother, Clémence de
Mayenne, was the sister of Juhel de Mayenne.  The charter below is
given first in the original Latin, then followed by a modern French
translation.

Source: Grosse-Duperon & Gouvrion, Cartulaire de l'Abbaye cistercienne
de Fontaine-Daniel (1896): 36, which may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=47cDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA36

Confirmation par Marguerite de Sablé.  1205.  Universis fidelibus
praesentes litteras inspecturis, Margarita, domina Sabolii, salutem.
Sciatis quòd ego, ad petitionem dilecti avunculi mei, domini Juhelli
de Meduanâ, concessi et praesenti cartâ confirmavi Deo et Beatæ Mariæ
et abbatiæ de Saleto omnia dona et omnes elemosinas quas ipse dominus
Juhellus dedit eidem abbatiæ, quam ipse fundavit, sicut in cartis ejus
continetur.  Actum est hoc anno ab Incarnatione Domini 1205, mense
Aprilis.

A tous les fidèles qui prendront connasissance des présentes lettres,
Marguerite, dame de Sablé, salut.  Sachez qu'à la demande de mon cher
oncle, monseigneur Juhel de Mayenne, j'ai, pour Dieu et la
bienheureuse Marie, agréé et la présente charte confirmé, en faveur de
l'abbaye Salair, toutes les donations et toutes les aumônes qui ont
été faites précédemment à cette abbaye par ledit seigneur Juhel, son
fondateur, tel que le tout est consigné dans les titres du monastere.
Ceci a été fait l'an 1205 de l'Incarnation du Seigneur, au mois
d'avril.

Happy Valentine's Day.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

What will Royal Ancestry entail?  And when will it be published?

Look forward to hearing from you.

In this case you have apparently overlooked the foundation charter of
Bois-Renou (later Notre-Dame du Parray-Neuf) in which her husband Robert
IV of Sablé stated that Clementia had been given Agon in the Cotentin by
her brother Juhel, lord of Mayenne who was living in 1189.

Ménage was misled by the poor copy he had available, so that his wrong
presumption could not be definitely disproved by a charter of Marguerite
naming her "avunculus" Juhel without further identifying him.

If you are working from primary sources you should be able to sort this
out for yourself.

Peter Stewart

There is additional confirmation of the parentage of Clémence de
Mayenne found in Ménage, Histoire de Sablé 1 (1683): Preface, 8-9, and
169, which material may be consulted at the following weblinks cited
below:

Preface, pp. 8-9: http://books.google.com/books?id=p91E9EP4FHUC&pg=PR2#v=onepage&q&f=false

“Robert de Sablé, troisième du nom, Seigneur de Sablé, de la Suse, &
de Briolé, fîs aisné de Robert de Sablé, segond du nom, & d’Hersande,
epousa Clémance de Maïenne, fille de Gautier de Maïenne & d’Alix de
Beaugency, fille de Raoul de Beaugency & de la segonde fille de
Herbert Eveillechien Conte du Maine.  Clémance de Maïenne ut pout
frère Juhel de Maïenne, segond du nom, qui épousa Clémance de
Bellesme: dont it ut Geoffroi de Maïenne, quatrième du nom, qui se
croisa a Maienne en 1158. avec un grand nombre de Gentishommes des
provinces d’Anjou & du Maine.  Le cérémonie de cette Croisade & la
liste de ces Gentishommes sone tres-curieuses ... Il ut de son mariage
avec Clémance de Maïenne Geoffroi de Cornillé, mort du vivant de son
père, sans alliance: Marguerite de Sablé, femme de Guillaume Des-
Roches, Séneschal héréditaire d’Anjou, de Touraine, & du Maine; le
Seigneur le plus puissant & le plus considérable de ces trois
provinces: & une autre fille, dont le nom de batesme est ignoré :
laquelle épousa Geoffroi Marceau : dont la famille est aussi ignorée.
Guillaume Des-Roches estoit fîs de Baudouin Des-Roches, fîs de
Herbert.  Il fonda en 1209. avec Marguerite de Sablé, sa femme,
l’Abbayie de Perray-Neuf : & en 1219. celle de Bonlieu.”  END OF
QUOTE.

pg. 169: http://books.google.com/books?id=E6NFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA169

"Le Titre que nous venons de produire, prouve, non seulement que
Robert de Sablé III. du nom avoit épousé Clémance, mais qu’Hersendis
estoit sa mère.  Sa femme est aussi appelée Clémance, & sa femme
[recte mère] Hersendis, dans la Fondation qu’il fit en 1189. d’une
Abbayie de Religieux de Prémontré, au lieu appelé le Bois-Renou;
autrement, le Gaut; proche Sablé : duquel lieu cette Abbayie fut
ensuite transférée en 1209. au Perray-Neuf, par Guillaume des Roches,
son gendre : Quapropter universitati Fidelium, per præsens scriptum,
notum fiat : quod ROBERTUS DE SABOLIO, & HERSENT, mater ejus; &
CLEMENTIA, uxor ejus; & PETRUS DE BRION, fundaverunt Abbatium in
honore Beatæ Virginis Mariæ, pro animabus suis, & animabus
antecessorum suorum, in loco qui dicebatur Boscus Ranulfi ... Dans le
mesme Titre, il est dit que cette Clémance estoit sœur de Juhel de
Maïenne.  Dedit etiam supradictus Robertus de Sabolio praedicta
Abbatiæ, pro anima Clementiæ, uxoris suæ, decem libras Andegavenses,
annuatim, in determinato redditu : in ville quæ dicitur Agon : quæ
sita est in Constantino, prope Constantias, quam dedit ei Juellus,
Dominus Meduanæ, vice maritagii Clementiæ, sororis suæ.”  END OF
QUOTE.

As indicated above, Ménage cites a charter dated 1189 in which
Clémence de Mayenne, wife of Robert de Sablé, is specifically called
sister [sororis] of Juhel, seigneur of Mayenne ["Juellus, Dominus
Meduanæ"].  However, as with other authors, Ménage gets the parentage
of Clémence de Mayenne wrong.  He places her two generations too early
in the Mayenne family tree.

I'm not at all sure how Ménage made this error.  He includes a full
transcript of the 1189 charter on pages 356-357, and an account of the
Mayenne family starting on page 178, so it can't have been for lack of
knowledge.   Simply put, Ménage assigns Clémence de Mayenne, living in
1189, as the daughter of Gautier de Mayenne, who he shows was living
in 1115.  The aforesaid Gautier de Mayenne was actually her great-
grandfather!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

He realised that Juhel of Mayenne's sister Clementia was NOT living in
1189, or at least not beyond 1 January. He knew that her part in the
foundation of Bois-Renou had taken place some time before the partly
retrospective charter of 4 October 1189, in which her husband also
provided for her anniversary to be kept there on the feat of the
Circumcision. This charter was subscribed by himself and his mother, and
by their co-founder Petrus de Briun, but not by Clementia who was
obviously deceased. And probably Ménage did not trust the date anyway,
since the charter of Guillaume des Roches dated 1209 transferring
Bois-Renou to Le Perray-Neuf, referred to above, was very clearly
inauthentic with copied preamble and anachronistic regnal details.

You can find better editions of the 1189 charter in *Inventaire-sommaire
des Archives départementales antérieures à 1790: Sarthe*, vol. 4 part 1
(Le Mans, 1883) pp. 1-2 and of the inauthentic 1209 charter in *Archives
du Cogner* vol. 1 (1903)p. 241 article 63 no. 5.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

My statement above stands as written.  Ménage's error was not due to a
faulty copy of the 1189 charter.  He was just being a bit careless.

I appreciate Mr. Stewart posting a later transcript of the 1189
charter published in 1883.  The weblink for that version is:

   http://books.google.com/books?id=1TkjAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA1

Yet another [partial] copy of the same may be found at the following
weblink:

http://www.geneanet.org/archives/ouvrages/index.php?action=showdoc&li...

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Having goofed by asserting that Clementia was living in 1189 it is
hardly for you to call someone else careless in the same context.

As I pointed out when you failed to notice, the charter dated 4 October
1189 is not an integral transaction founding the abbey at that time but
a record covering over an unknown period beforehand. The charter
suspiciously dated 4 October 1209, from the same establishment, is
clearly inauthentic and its impossible dating elements reasonably cast
doubt on the earlier notice (that in its surviving form may be a
conflation of two or more documents, like many another foundation
charters).

Ménage realised that Clementia's brother Juhel was the seigneur of
Mayenne at the time a part of the 1189 text was initially written, and
he wrongly supposed that this was before the death of Juhel I in 1161
rather than referring to Juhel II in or after 1169. He was not sure of
the chronology of Robert IV, whom he called Robert III - he did not
know, for instance, whether Robert had left for Palestine in 1189 or
1190, and thought he became master of the Temple in 1190 rather than
1191: these mistakes obviously caused uncertainty as to his whereabouts
in October 1189 that might have been resolved from studying the original
of the charter.

Ménage was an outstanding historian for his era, far too careful to be
fairly disparaged by someone who needs to be coached in the 21st century
into getting basic facts straight and appropriate modern references cited.

Peter Stewart

Ménage cites a charter dated 1189 in which Clémence de Mayenne, wife
of Robert de Sablé, is specifically called sister ["sororis"] of
Juhel, seigneur of Mayenne ["Juellus, Dominus Meduanæ"].  However, as
with other authors, Ménage gets the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne
wrong.  He places her two generations too early in the Mayenne family
tree.

In my next post, I'll address the issue of Clémence's mother, which
highlights yet another chronology problem.
'
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

In the charter dated 1189 Clementia was called sister of the Juhel of
Mayenne who was seigneur at the time of her marriage. Ménage was
mistaken - not careless - about this chronology, but you have yet to
show us your primary source proving that her marriage took place in or
after 1169 rather than in or before 1161 that is the critical point
behind the error.

Repeating a superficial certitude doesn't make for scholarship. Nor does
taking citations from Medieval Lands and presenting Cawley's
approximations as probative, and/or as arising from your own work - if
you risk that in print you will make an even more spectacular fool of
yourself than hitherto.

Peter Stewart

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

For those descending from the Mortimer family of England and Jacquette
de Luxembourg, I should direct your attention to an interesting
account of Robert de Sablé, the husband of Clémence de Mayenne, at the
following weblink:

  http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_IV_de_Sabl%C3%A9

As with Ménage and everyone else, this weblink gets the parentage of
Clémence de Mayenne wrong.  In this case, this account assigns
Clémence de Mayenne as the daughter of her great-great-grandfather.
Wow!

Next, here is an online database which places Clémence de Mayenne is
yet another wrong generation on the Mayenne family.  In this case,
Clémance is placed as a daughter of her grandparents.  That's better
but it's still wrong.

    http://genealogiequebec.info/testphp/info.php?no=40762

Next, the following weblink displays the ancestry of Mahaut de
Mayenne, the actual sister of Clemence de Mayenne.  It shows the
ancestry of Mahaut de Mayenne going back to King Henry I of England.
However, it errs in identifying Mahaut and Clémence's grandmother,
Constance of England, as a legitimate daughter of King Henry I.  There
are doubtless other errors in this database.  Reader beware.

   http://genealogiequebec.info/testphp/info.php?no=171132

As we can see, Ménage's grotesque error has caused a veritable
cavalcade of mistakes regarding the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne.
Every source I have checked so far has her parentage wrong.  It all
started with Ménage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

You must have a lot of time to spare if you can waste it rummaging
around the internet for errors - I trust the new edition of PA is not
going to be delayed while you indulge yourself in this juvenile pursuit.

Surely not even you could be foolish enough to imagine that no-one has
ever gotten this right - try 'Sablé' by Alphonse Angot in *Bulletin de
la Commission historique et archéologique de la Mayenne*, second series
35 (1919), p. 276.

Peter Stewart

The page cited by Peter is at
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k441178s/f277

Derek Howard

On 17/02/2012 3:54 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote:

of the more reliable secondary works that give the correct parentage for

Clementia.

You must have a lot of time to spare if you can waste it rummaging

around the internet for errors - I trust the new edition of PA is not

going to be delayed while you indulge yourself in this juvenile pursuit.

Surely not even you could be foolish enough to imagine that no-one has

ever gotten this right - try 'Sablé' by Alphonse Angot in *Bulletin de

la Commission historique et archéologique de la Mayenne*, second series

35 (1919), p. 276.

Peter Stewart

Peter, and others (you know who you are),

I don't know why you insist on personally attacking someone who has
presented to the group for discussion, a reasonable discovery.  If you have
PROOF to the contrary, or something to ADD to the discussion, then please do
so as we would all learn from what you have to say.  Your slanderous remarks
are distractive and add nothing to your position.  There are already too
many people on this newsgroup that feel (incorrectly) that their
contribution's are OBVIOUSLY above reproach.  One does not have to become a
bully' to get their ideas across, as Mr. Richardson (and others) have shown
each and every time they present information to the group.  I feel nothing
but embarrassment from you (and others) when you sling your UNNECESSARY and
INSULTING remarks around.

I don't know how the rest of you feel about these tirades made against
members of this newsgroup, but there are several of you that seem to think
that THEY alone have Carte Blanch to act in this manner whenever they feel
the urge to 'flex their supposed muscle'.  To me, I find it childish and
distracting from very interesting discussions.  The problem is that it keeps
other members, who may very well have something interesting to add, from
participating in discussions for fear of becoming a target of these
intellectual 'bullys'.  I, for one, am weary of reading their bleatings and
leakage from their overinflated egos.

David Michaelson

Peter Stewart

Peter, and others (you know who you are),

I don't know why you insist on personally attacking someone who has
presented to the group for discussion, a reasonable discovery.  If you have
PROOF to the contrary, or something to ADD to the discussion, then please do
so as we would all learn from what you have to say.  Your slanderous remarks
are distractive and add nothing to your position.  There are already too
many people on this newsgroup that feel (incorrectly) that their
contribution's are OBVIOUSLY above reproach.  One does not have to become a
bully' to get their ideas across, as Mr. Richardson (and others) have shown
each and every time they present information to the group.  I feel nothing
but embarrassment from you (and others) when you sling your UNNECESSARY and
INSULTING remarks around.

I don't know how the rest of you feel about these tirades made against
members of this newsgroup, but there are several of you that seem to think
that THEY alone have Carte Blanch to act in this manner whenever they feel
the urge to 'flex their supposed muscle'.  To me, I find it childish and
distracting from very interesting discussions.  The problem is that it keeps
other members, who may very well have something interesting to add, from
participating in discussions for fear of becoming a target of these
intellectual 'bullys'.  I, for one, am weary of reading their bleatings and
leakage from their overinflated egos.

David Michaelson

-------------------------------
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

< Surely not even you could be foolish enough to imagine that no-one
has
< ever gotten this right - try 'Sablé' by Alphonse Angot in *Bulletin
de
< la Commission historique et archéologique de la Mayenne*, second
series
< 35 (1919), p. 276.
<
< Peter Stewart

Good genealogists and historians know that the facts always speak for
themselves.  As such, I'm glad to see that Mr. Stewart has admitted
that I'm right.  But he could have saved himself a lot of name
calling, lying, and rude behavior by simply reading the pieces of
evidence that I presented in a civil manner.

Alphonse Angot (whom I respect a great deal) does not fully identity
the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne.  He only identifies her father.
Her mother's name is not given.  This is specifically what he says:

"Robert IV de Sable épousa Clémence, fille de Geoffroi III de
Mayenne.  Juhel II, son frère, lui donna pour dot la seigneurie
d'Angon dans la Cotentin, près de Coutances."  END OF QUOTE.

Europaische Stammtafeln, Charles Cawley, Leo van de Pas, Daniel Power,
etc. all have the right father for Clémence de Mayenne, namely
Geoffroi III de Mayenne.  I stated that in my first post.  Where they
erred was identifying her as the daughter of his second wife, Isabel
de Meulan, which is impossible.   Angot doesn't identify her mother at
all.  So he gets a pass.

My thanks go to Derek Howard for providing the weblink for Angot's
comments.  I always enjoy reading Angot.  Thanks also for Jan's
helpful comments.  Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Example #1:.

I don't understand the need to establish credit for discoveries by
smashing and impugning those who did amazing work in much more
difficult circumstances.  As you like, i will show my sources:

Source:

The part I really don't understand is that you seem to have no want or
need of Peter Stewart's opinions on these matters on which he is
obviously well experienced and familiar with a wide range of relevant
sources that you have never even heard of until he mentions them.

I appreciate your books and your scholarship as well; but I don't
understand why 50% of your posts have to have a back-handed insult in
them or make claims that are prima facie false.  It does not help your
reputation, and therefore not your wallet when you are selling
books.
Joe C