"Domesday People" corrections
Chris Phillips
People/Descendants", maybe people will find useful the following corrections
to "Domesday People", listed on p.4 of "Domesday Descendants".
KR begins:
"Although this book will doubtless contain even more typographical errors
than the first, it is at least true that very few errors of fact have been
identified in the first volume."
Then she lists the following (summarised in my own words except when in ""):
(1) A revised and corrected version of the table of Continental origins by
departement (pp.66-73) has been printed in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, "Portrait of
a people...", in "Domesday Book", ed. E. Hallam and D. Bates (2001).
(2) p.245: Harold de Ewias: the second sentence should be replaced by "Minor
in 1066 in the ward of Queen Edith. Some of the land he held shortly after
1086 was entered in Domesday Book under Alfred of Marlborough, possibly
indicating that he married a daughter of Alfred (Williams, The English,
98)."
(3) p.256: Hubert de Montcanisy: origin should be Mont-Canisy, hamlet of
comm. Tourgeville, cant. Deauville [not Mont-Canisy, Calvados, cant.
Douvres-la-Délivrande].
(4) p.283: Ivo Taillebois: rather than indicating his daughter Beatrice
could have been the daughter of his wife Lucy, should indicate Beatrice must
have been the product of an earlier marriage of Ivo, as she and Lucy were
contemporaries.
(5) p.336: Radulf de Pomerei: origin should be La Pommeraye, Calvados, arr.
Caen [not arr. Falaise]. The entry on p.345 on Radulf, Domesday tenant of
Judhael of Totnes, said originally "To be distinguished from Ralph de
Pomerai, another of Judhael's tenants", is now to be identified with Radulf
de Pomerei. Consequently on p.336, an insertion should be made after the
second sentence, "Also a major tenant of Juhel of Totnes, as well as of
Baldwin the Sheriff. His Okehampton and Totnes fees seem to have descended
in two parts, perhaps by marriage, to Richard fitz William Despencer and to
the daughter of William de Lingèvres respectively, the tenants in 1166."
(6) p.400: Roger de Bellomonte: married Adelina, _sister_ [not daughter] and
heiress of Hugh, count of Meulan
(7) [p.420; not p.460 as stated in list of corrections]: Sigar de Cioches:
D.C. Douglas's paper "The Domesday tenant of Hawling" was published in
"Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society".
To put that into perspective, it's worth noting that the first volume
contained 563 pages, and the second runs to 1169.
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
>While we're on the subject of corrections to Keats-Rohan's "Domesday
>People/Descendants", maybe people will find useful the following corrections
>to "Domesday People", listed on p.4 of "Domesday Descendants".
>
>KR begins:
>"Although this book will doubtless contain even more typographical errors
>than the first, it is at least true that very few errors of fact have been
>identified in the first volume."
>
>Then she lists the following (summarised in my own words except when in ""):
Chris, this is extremely helpful. While I've been posting
worries/caveats here about the book's typos for a couple of years,
I'd like to add that as she says these may not affect matters of fact
as often as they suggest. Though in the first day of looking at it I
found more than a dozen errors, only 2 might count in this way, viz.
--
451 - [Walter De Gloecestria] "At his death in 1129 he left issue by
his wife Bertha of Miles of Gloucester..." [where no doubt 'Bertha
Miles of Gloucester' is what's intended, though still pretty nasty.
It's prob. worth making this clear, since there are questions about
_Milo's_ apparent daughter Bertha which it'd be helpful to keep
distinct.]
--
476 - [Willelm de Moion] "A charter in the Bath Cartulary (no. 34)
gives...his sons as Geoffrey and Robert and his brothers as Wimund;".
[The plural 'brothers' raise a wonder as to whether other names have
been omitted.]
I imagine no problems arise from the spelling, p. 338, of Fontevrault
as "Fontevrailt".
But I do need to say that I've used the book only sporadically, in ad
hoc cases, have _not_ so far checked statements for fact, and think
a watch like yours is very valuable - if only because the book, too,
otherwise is.
I can't, by the way, understand how the Quency problems you raise
under <Another "Domesday Descendants" error: Robert de Quency> can
possibly have been missed by K-R, though it's easy to glimpse how the
procedure she uses can have _produced_ them. It's likely
increasingly to produce ones of this kind for genealogy (where the
computer is incapable of discerning exactly the crucial differences
you raise and actually inherently encourages the instant transparent
-- i.e. invisible -- conflation of different individuals' names).
Here's a kind of 'IT productivity' we're all going to have to watch
more and more rigorously for, and your point's a sharp illustration
of it. Thanks again.
Cris
Vickie Elam White
>I can't, by the way, understand how the Quency problems you raise
>under <Another "Domesday Descendants" error: Robert de Quency> can
>possibly have been missed by K-R, though it's easy to glimpse how the
>procedure she uses can have _produced_ them. It's likely
>increasingly to produce ones of this kind for genealogy (where the
>computer is incapable of discerning exactly the crucial differences
>you raise and actually inherently encourages the instant transparent
>-- i.e. invisible -- conflation of different individuals' names).
I agree. As an aside, I can't for the life of me understand why, with
the capabilities of even the most basic of computers, that there is no
index in her new book!
Vickie Elam White
Renia
of places, though.
Renia
Vickie Elam White
>The whole thing is an index, arranged alphabetically by surname. No index
>of places, though.
But there are names within each surname group. An index for that would
be most helpful. And you're right, a place index would be helpful as well.
Vickie Elam White
Cristopher Nash
Crepon: Keats-Rohan, 486-7, calls her "a descendant of William
Longsword of Normandy". In fact, her fa. Raoul/Rudolf/Ralph, count of
Ivry, is the uterine brother of Richard I of Normandy, son of
William. ("This was given by Dudo based on information supplied to
him by Raoul himself, so is perfectly reliable", as Todd's
mentioned.) But my understanding has always been that Raoul was the
son of Sprota/Esporta de Bretagne/Senlis not by William Longsword but
by Asperling/Esperlingus /Eperling.
I may have been wrong. But if not, is this another case of K-R's
(computer's) erroneous conflation of two individuals into one?
Cris
--
Todd A. Farmerie
I have not seen the newer book yet, but the lack of an index was
one of the major criticisms mentioned in several reviews of
Domesday People. That the entries are arranged alphabetically
either by given name (as in the first) or by surname (as
apparently in the second) does not help locating those discussed
within entries other than their own, nor in cases (like
Pomeroy/Capra) where alternative surnames or given names might
apply (in the first book, Geoffrey de Mandeville was practically
unrecognizable to the novice). As far as I am concerned, a name
index is simply a must, while a place index would have proved
helpful.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> About Emma, mother of William fitz Osbern by Osbern 'the Steward' de
> Crepon: Keats-Rohan, 486-7, calls her "a descendant of William
> Longsword of Normandy". In fact, her fa. Raoul/Rudolf/Ralph, count of
> Ivry, is the uterine brother of Richard I of Normandy, son of William.
> ("This was given by Dudo based on information supplied to him by Raoul
> himself, so is perfectly reliable", as Todd's mentioned.) But my
> understanding has always been that Raoul was the son of Sprota/Esporta
> de Bretagne/Senlis not by William Longsword but by Asperling/Esperlingus
> /Eperling.
This is correct, so he and Richard shared the same mother, but
had different fathers, as he himself told Dudo.
> I may have been wrong. But if not, is this another case of K-R's
> (computer's) erroneous conflation of two individuals into one?
I don't think this is conflation of the kind we have been
discussing, but simply the classic kind of misstatement (due to
uncareful or uncritical summarizing of events outside of the
specific focus of the study) found at a low level in most such works.
taf
Cristopher Nash
I agree. I've been wanting just to alert sportsfans that IT doesn't
invariably and with some special cachet take us out of the woods, but
may in fact peculiarly (unexpectedly) reproduce in a potent --
because seemingly more reassuringly 'efficient' -- way a perennial
genealogical bête-noire lurking there. (It's easier, after all, to
blame flaws on IT when the responsibility finally comes down, as it
always has to, to its user, and we can _want_ so warmly to support
the responsible work of people like K-R.)
Cris
--