Fw: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
canberra
------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C17003.82134BC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----- Original Message -----
From: +ACI-canberra+ACI- +ADw-leovdpas+AEA-bigpond.com+AD4-
To: +ADw-GEN-MEDIEVAL-L+AEA-rootsweb.com+AD4-
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 7:19 AM
Subject: Fw: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
+AD4-
+AD4- ----- Original Message -----
+AD4- From: +ADw-postmaster+AEA-msn.com+AD4-
+AD4- To: +ADw-leovdpas+AEA-bigpond.com+AD4-
+AD4- Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 6:59 AM
+AD4- Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Delivery to the following recipients failed.
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- royalancestry+AEA-hotmail.msn.com
+AD4- +AD4-
Does this mean that Douglas Richardson is cutting off all communications?
This would be sad for him and at the same time, perhaps, the only thing to
do if he is working towards a deadline. But wouldn't it be better to delay
slightly and produce a better and more reliable book?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
+AD4-
------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C17003.82134BC0
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="Re+AF8- Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Re+AF8- Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales.eml"
Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.86]) by cpimssmtpa17.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779);
Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:59:50 -0800
Received: from leo ([144.135.24.78]) by mailin9.bigpond.com
(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GMYW8300.8WD; Sun,
18 Nov 2001 09:07:15 +1000
Received: from PIPP-p-203-54-231-170.prem.tmns.net.au ([203.54.231.170]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8329/13998378); 18 Nov 2001 09:00:36
Message-ID: <003101c16fbb$f2bc9fe0$aae736cb@leo>
From: "canberra" <leov...@bigpond.com>
To: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>,
<GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
References: <Pine.A41.4.33.011114...@dante04.u.washington.edu>, <5cf47a19.01111...@posting.google.com>, <3BF5EE6A...@uswest.net> <5cf47a19.01111...@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 07:02:34 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Return-Path: leov...@bigpond.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2001 22:59:50.0749 (UTC) FILETIME=[8FEF80D0:01C16FBB]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales
> "Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:<3BF5EE6A...@uswest.net>...
> > Dear group,
> >
> > It bothers me that Doug has completely ignored my posts on this subject,
including giving him a fair chance to reply about the
> > chronology of Clemence de Dauntsey, wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
>
> Dear Paul ~
>
> As I explained to the newsgroup yesterday, I'm busy right now
> finishing up the new Plantagenet Ancestry book. As such, I must beg
> off answering anyone's questions, including your's, until the book is
> finished. Once the book is out, I'll be more than happy to take up
> the subject of Clemence de Verdun with you.
Dear Douglas,
In this case I think you are a little ungracious. I understand that the
mother of Joan of Wales is to be mentioned in your new Plantagenet Ancestry
Book and Paul Reed kindly is trying to let you "prevent instead of curing
later". The least you could have said was what your position is, say, "under
the circumstances, nothing 'new' or 'definite' will be said about Joan's
mother." In which case you would have shown that you appreciated and made
use of Paul's concern.
Really, disappointing.
Leo van de Pas
>
> Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
> Telephone: (801) 680-5811
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C17003.82134BC0--
Douglas Richardson
I'm still here. My e-mail inbox got full again. Sorry about that.
I've been getting a heavier volume of e-mail than usual. Today two
well meaning people sent me rather large attachments which put me over
my inbox space limitations. I've since deleted a bunch of older
e-mails and now have free space again. I apologize for any
inconvenience. I'll try to moniter my inbox more closely, so this
doesn't happen again.
If someone has a book order or a question about the content of the
Plantagenet book, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address
below. If someone has a question about Clemence de Verdun or another
newsgroup topic, however, please hold off asking the question until I
finish the book. As I indicated in my post earlier this week, as soon
as I have some time, I'll post a list of the colonial immigrants who
will be included in the book.
In the meantime, I'm reading all the posts on Clemence de Verdun with
great interest. You all are doing a fine job of ferreting out the
facts. Keep up the good work!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
P.S. For what it is worth, I seem to recall seeing a reference to a
charter in which Rohese de Verdun allegedly mentioned her husbands
(plural). The citation didn't give the names of Rohese's husbands,
however, and they may not have been named in the charter. I naturally
assumed this meant Rohese remarried after her Boteler husband died.
However, I suppose it's possible that Rohese had a marriage before her
Boteler match, rather than afterwards. In fact, she might have had a
husband before AND after her Boteler marriage. If so, Rohese may be
closer in age to Joan of Wales than what appears on the surface.
Just a thought. If Rohese married again after her Boteler husband
died, she can probably be located in the records. Rohese was a major
heiress. As such, if she survived any period of time at all after her
Boteler husband died, she would almost certainly have appeared in
later records, albeit under her second husband's name.
As for my spin on the chronology, I've guesstimated that Princess Joan
was born about 1190. If Clemence de Dauntsey was her mother, Clemence
could easily have married Nicholas de Verdun by 1195/1200. Nicholas
was evidently of age by 1199, and presumably married by that date. I
estimate Rohese was born about 1210, assuming Rohese's Boteler
marriage was her first match. This would make Joan and Rohese about
20 years difference in age. But, inasmuch as women in this period
starting giving birth to children by age 15 and continued producing
children until they were 40 to 45, a wide span in ages between
surviving children is not particularly a problem.
It is a fact that some medieval women gave birth to huge numbers of
children, sometimes by multiple marriages. Sometimes only one or two
of a large brood survived. Sometimes none of the children survived.
We have a good indication of the high infant mortality rate when we
see a man die without issue and he being survived by one to three
sisters. This occured rather frequently. Since some of the mothers
of these families gave birth to upwards of 15 children, clearly the
infant death rate must have been excessively high, if only two to four
children survived to adulthood. In fact, a modern historian reviewed
the London wills of the medieval period and concluded that only two
children per family survived infancy in that city. In a similar vein,
surviving records indicate that the population of England as a whole
grew at a rather slow rate over a long period of time. This again
presupposes a shockingly high infant mortality rate. DR
leov...@bigpond.com (canberra) wrote in message news:<007401c16fc0$74a8ad60$aae736cb@leo>...
Paul C. Reed
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Leo ~
>
[snip]
> If someone has a book order or a question about the content of the
> Plantagenet book, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address
> below.
[snip].
Paul C. Reed
> P.S. For what it is worth, I seem to recall seeing a reference to a
> charter in which Rohese de Verdun allegedly mentioned her husbands
> (plural). The citation didn't give the names of Rohese's husbands,
> however, and they may not have been named in the charter. I naturally
> assumed this meant Rohese remarried after her Boteler husband died.
> However, I suppose it's possible that Rohese had a marriage before her
> Boteler match, rather than afterwards. In fact,
[snip]
Since you will put the information in PA3, when you get around to that part (if it is not already
in your draft, handy at hand), could you give us a source?
Douglas Richardson
I have a partial answer to your question. Last year I surveyed all
the Irish materials for the medieval time period on the shelf at the
University of Arizona in Tempe. While checking through those
sources, I believe I saw a reference to a charter in which Rohese de
Verdun mentioned her husbands (plural). I didn't retain a copy of the
citation in question. However, I believe it came from a book
authored by a Mr. Frame published in 1982.
If you're interested in locating the item, you might try checking the
Irish sources in the History section here at the University of Utah.
If they have the right book, the information should be easy to locate
as these kinds of books are usually fully indexed.
I trust that answers your question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:<3BF78AAF...@uswest.net>...