Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
In a 1999 thread, Terry Reigel posted an AT for the (alleged) ancestry
of the emigrant Michael Bacon of Winston, Suffolk (d. 18 Apr 1648 in
Dedham, Massachusetts). I have replicated that post below [1].
Concerning the parentage of one Richard Bacon, Terry gives the
following for his parents:
" 1152. Reginald Bacon
1153. ? de Meschine She is supposed to be the daughter of Hugh De
Meschine and Berta d'Evereux, according to one source I found.
However, this seems doubtful, since most sources showing that
couple identify the husbands of all their daughters, none of
which is Reginald Bacon. "
There is an element of truth to the supposition of this connection to
the Earls of Chester, but the placement is erroneous. As Terry states,
the daughters of Hugh 'Kevelioc', Earl of Chester (d. 1181) and his wife
Bertrada de Montfort are known, including one accepted bastard (Amicia,
wife of Ralph de Mainwaring).
A charter exists for gifts to the priory of Roucester (Staffordshire)
which support a different connection between the Bacon family and that of
the Earls of Chester. The gift to the canons of Roucestre (for the
foundation of the priory) of the vills of Roucestre, Combrigg & c. was
made by one Richard Bacon ('Ricardus Bacun'),
' ... pro salute animee meae, pro salute etiam Ranulphi
comitis Cestriae avunculi mei, et antecessorum et
successorum meorum,... ' [2]
:translation '..for the salvation of my soul, for the
salvation of that of Ranulf, Earl of Chester, my
[maternal] uncle, and of my ancestors and
successors... '
There were a number of individuals named Ranulf who might
theoretically qualify - the placement Terry refers to would identify
Richard Bacon's uncle as Ranulf 'de Gernons', Earl of Chester who d.s.p.
28 Oct 1232. However, the list of witnesses to this charter provide a
sound chronological basis for identifying the parentage of Richard
Bacon's mother. The full list of witnesses:
' Hugone Wac, Willelmo constabulario de Donington, Thurstano
Banastre, Willielmo Bacoun, Roberto Bacoun, Willielmo
de Colevile, Ricardo Pincerna, Willielmo de Binville,
Galfrido Dispensario, Willielmo capellano, Johanne
capellano, et aliis. ' [3]
Of these individuals, two (William Bacon and Robert Bacon, evidently
#288 in the AT below) were likely sons of Richard Bacon. We can fix the
appropriate time-frame for three of the others:
1. Hugh Wake, lord of Bourne, co. Lincs. [de jure uxoris] 1154-
1176, husband of Emma de Clare [a great-niece of Ermentrude
de Clermont, wife of Hugh, Earl of Chester - uncle of
Earl Ranulf, d. ca. 1129]. He was a contemporary of Ranulf,
Earl of Chester 1129-1153, and of his son Hugh (Earl of
Chester, 1153-1181) [4].
2. Thurstan Banaster, of Munslow and Aston, co. Salop and Little
Appleby, co. Leics., was a witness to charters of Ranulf, Earl of
Chester ca. 1150 [5]. A supporter of Earl Ranulf (1129-1153), he
fought with him against the forces of King Stephen at Coventry
and elsewhere, re: which there is a noted charter from the Bishop
of Coventry to the monks of the priory of Coventry dated ca. 1183,
which confirmed grants of land and other rights to the priory,
which provided in part that
'.. No body was to be buried in the churchyards of Anesti, Sulft',
Wica and Alleslea [Allesley], which had been dedicated during the
civil war for the refuge of the poor at the request of Ranulph
Earl of Chester and Thurstan Banaster, and by allowance of
Richard the bishop and his chapter, but all bodies with the usual
benefits were to be borne to the mother church of Coventry,
according to the charters of bishop Roger [de Clinton], the Earl
of Chester and Thurstan Banaster. ' [6]
Thurstan Banaster was a close adherent of the Ranulf who
was Earl of Chester 1129-1153.
3. Geoffrey le Despenser was dispensator ('dispensarius') to the
Earl of Chester ca. 1135-1153. He was witness to charters of the
Earl of Chester, together with others [once with his brother Ivo
de Alspath] ca. 1135-1153 [7]. Also, as 'Gaufrido dispensatore',
he was a witness together with brother Ivo de Alspath to the
charter in which the Earl recognized Eustace fitz John as
constable of Chester, ca. 1144-45 [8].
Given that the above witnesses were associated (the last two quite
closely) with Ranulf, Earl of Chester 1129-1153, we can fix the time frame
for this charter as most likely between say 1130-1160. Richard Bacon was
then most likely born no later than say 1145: if the Robert Bacon who was
a witness to the above charter was his son, Richard Bacon could not have
reasonably been born later than say 1130. A likely range (quite wide) of
say 1090-1130 for the birth of Richard Bacon seems as close as we can
estimate, and his contemporary placement with Thurstan Banaster and
Geoffrey le Despenser makes him contemporary with Ranulf, Earl of Chester
1129-1153. The most likely placement would show Richard Bacon as a first
cousin of this Earl Ranulf, and a nephew of his father Ranulf, Earl of
Chester (d. ca. 1129).
[Conjectured chart for illustration]
____________________
I I
Ranulf = Maud Hugh 'the Wolf'
vicomte of the Bessin I Earl of Chester
d. aft Mar 1089 I d.s.p.l. 1101
I_______________
___________________________________________I_ _ _ _ _ _ _
I I I I I
NN Agnes Ranulf William NN
= Robert = Robert de E of Chester 'de Bayeux' = NN Bacun
de Trevers Grandmesnil 1121-1129 <crusader> I
of Burgh I I
I I
________________________I___________________ I
I I I I I
Ranulf Adeliza William Maud Richard
E of Chester = 1)Richard de of Skipton = Hugh Bacun
1129-1153 Clare fitz
2) Robert de Ranulf
Condet/Cundy
Now, whether the descents given for subsequent generations of the
family (families) surnamed Bacon can be connected to the above would be
most interesting. Should anyone have relevant documentation, comment or
criticism, that would be appreciated.
Cheers,
John *
-------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Terry Reigel, <BACON, THORPE, de MESCHINE, de BACUNSTHORPE>, SGM,
12 Feb 1999 :
I am descended from Michael Bacon of Winston, Suffolk, b. 6 Dec 1579, d. 18
Apr 1648 in Dedham, Massachusetts, m Alice, b. Abt. 1581, d. 2 Apr 1648. I
have assembled the following ancestory for him from a number of sources.
Can anyone can confirm or correct what I have found? I also have several
specific questions which I have inserted at the appropriate places in the
list.
1. Michael Bacon b. 6 Dec 1579 d. 18 Apr 1648.
2. Michael Bacon b. Abt. 1544 d. 25 Mar 1615
3. Elizabeth Wylie.
4. John Bacon b. Bet. 1507 - 1509 d. 19 Mar 1556/57
5. Margaret b. Abt. 1512 d. 1558.
8. Thomas Bacon b. Abt. 1480 d. 28 Feb 1539/40
9. Joan Wade b. Abt. 1484 d. 1540.
16. John Bacon b. Abt. 1430 d. 1500
17. Agnes Cockfield b. Abt. 1457.
32. Edmund Bacon b. Abt. 1400 d. 1453
33. Elizabeth Crofts b. Abt. 1405.
34. Sir Thomas Cockfield b. Abt. 1415
64. John Bacon b. 1390 d. 1453
65. Margery Thorpe b. Abt. 1392.
Both this John Bacon and Margery Thorpe seem to have interesting ancestorys
according to what I've found. I have John's continuing:
1. John Bacon b. 1390 d. 1453
2. John Bacon b. 1360
3. Helena Tillot b. Abt. 1364
4. John Bacon b. 1330
5. Helena Gedding b. 1333.
6. George Tillot b. Abt. 1344.
8. John Bacon b. 1300
9. Cicily Hoo b. 1305
Is Cicily linked to the other Hoos of around the same time period that have
been discussed recently in the ng?
16. John Bacon b. 1272
17. Alice b. Abt. 1275
32. Robert Bacon b. 1245
33. Alice Burgate b. 1250.
64. Robert Kimber Bacon b. 1214 d. 11 Jun 1294
128. Ralph Reynolds de Bacon b. 1190
256. Ranauf de Bacon b. 1160.
I have Margery Thorpe's ancestory continuing:
1. Margery Thorpe b. Abt. 1392.
2. John Thorpe b. Abt. 1372
4. William Thorpe.
5. Margery Quadladdle
8. Sir William Thorpe
9. Beatrice Bacon
10. John Quadladdle.
18. Sir Rodger Bacon
19. Felicia Kirton.
36. Sir Henry Bacon
37. Margaret Ludlam.
72. Sir Henry Bacon b. 1270
144. Thomas Bacon
145. Elizabeth
288. Robert Bacon
289. ? d'Ingram
576. Richard Bacon
577. Alice de Moulton.
578. Richard d'Ingram.
1152. Reginald Bacon
1153. ? de Meschine She is supposed to be the daughter of Hugh De
Meschine and Berta d'Evereux, according to one source I found. However,
this seems doubtful, since most sources showing that couple identify the
husbands of all their daughters, none of which is Reginald Bacon.
2304. Robert de Bacunsthorpe
4608. Roger de Bacunsthorpe
9216. George de Bacunsthorpe
Assuming any of this is factual, is there any link between the Bacon
ancestors of John Bacon (b. 1390) and the Bacon/de Bacunsthorpe ancestors
of his wife, Margery Thorpe?
Terry Reigel
---------------------------------------
[2] Monasticon Anglicanum VI/1:410-411, Num. I.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Sanders, English Baronies, barony of Bourne [pp. 107 et seq].
[5] K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants.
[6] A2A, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Gregory of
Stivichall [DR10/1 - DR10/467], DOCUMENTS OF TITLE, DEEDS AND PAPERS:
Warwickshire, Coventry, DR10/258.
[7] Geoffrey Barraclough, The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of
Chester, charters #82; Ibid., #25, 35-37, 50, 55-59, 64, 73, 85, 99
[‘ Gaufrido dispensatore..’; also, ‘ Gaufrido dispensario...’ and
‘ Galfrido dispensatore' ]
[8] Ibid., charter #73, cites B. L. Cott. Charter xvi, 36; collated,
where mutilated, with Bodleian Library, Dugdale MS. 17, p. 82 and
P.R.O., D.L. 42/1.
See also A2A, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Gregory
of Stivichall [DR10/1 - DR10/467] , DEEDS AND PAPERS: Warwickshire:
Combe alias Smite, [ DR10/192 ] where as Geoffrey 'dispensario',
he was witness to a charter ca. 1155-67 with his brother Ivo de
Alspath ("Ivo de Hallespad' ").
* John P. Ravilious
Peter Stewart
There is a reference from the other side of the relationship in a
charter of Ranulf (II) de Gernon, earl of Chester from 1143/44,
"Ricardus Bacun, cognatus meus et familiaris" {Richard Bacon, my kinsman
and retainer) [see _The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,
c. 1071–1237_, edited by Geoffrey Barraclough, Record Society of
Lancashire and Cheshire 126 (1988) p. 81 no. 68].
William Farrer in _Honors and Knights’ Fees_ suggested that Ranulf (I)
de Briquessart, earl of Chester (died January 1129) had an illegitimate
daughter who married Richard Bacon.
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
Many thanks for those two added sources, esp. the additional Chester
charter. The reference by Earl Ranulf (d. 1153) to Richard Bacun as
<cognatus meus> validates the reference in the Roucestre charter (cf.
first post in this thread). These, together with the known chronology
re: Earl Ranulf, Richard Bacun and the witnesses of the Roucestre
charter support the placement of Richard Bacun as nephew of Ranulf,
Earl of Chester (d. 1129) and 1st cousin of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153).
Much as I respect the work of Wm. Farrer, I don't quite see where
the 'illeg. daughter of Ranulf' theory came in. That certainly doesn't
work with the relationships stated by Earl Ranulf and Richard Bacun in
their respective charters.....
Cheers,
John
------------------------
Peter Stewart
> Saturday, 16 October, 2004
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Many thanks for those two added sources, esp. the additional Chester
> charter. The reference by Earl Ranulf (d. 1153) to Richard Bacun as
> <cognatus meus> validates the reference in the Roucestre charter (cf.
> first post in this thread). These, together with the known chronology
> re: Earl Ranulf, Richard Bacun and the witnesses of the Roucestre
> charter support the placement of Richard Bacun as nephew of Ranulf,
> Earl of Chester (d. 1129) and 1st cousin of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153).
>
> Much as I respect the work of Wm. Farrer, I don't quite see where
> the 'illeg. daughter of Ranulf' theory came in. That certainly doesn't
> work with the relationships stated by Earl Ranulf and Richard Bacun in
> their respective charters.....
Farrer certainly knew the evidence, and remarked that the charter quoted
from _Monasticon_ "in its present form is open to suspicion" [HKF vol.
II p. 258].
The use of "avunculus" may be one of the problems with the document
rather than conclusive proof that Richard actually was a nephew,
legitimate or not, of an earl of Chester. Even if genuine, this word is
by no means always used in its strict sense of "maternal uncle".
If Richard Bacun was other than a brother-in-law or distant relative of
Ranulf II, it's harder to explain "cognatus" in his more satisfactory
record, when "nepos" or "consanguineus" might have been expected for an
acknowledged - and closer - blood link.
Given that Bacun was also a mere "familiaris" in the earl's reckoning,
an illegitimate connection makes sense to me either way.
Do you know where his name Richard came from? Maybe he was a kinsman
through Ranulf I's cousin Richard of Avranches, earl of Chester (drowned
in 1120).
Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
to 1153, the year William Fitzherbert was appointed archbishop of York, to
16 Dec 1153 when Ranulf II died ("WILL. Dei gratia Eboracensi archiepiscopo,
et R.eadem gratia Cestriae episcopo, et R comiti Cestriae..."). I'm not sure
who R. bishop of Chester might be because according to the Fasti Anglicanae
there was no such bishopric at the time.
Peter is correct in saying that the term 'avunculus' needs to be interpreted
more loosely as it can also include an uncle on the paternal side (and there
are other examples in the Monasticon Anglicanum of this), but I'm not
familiar with a wider meaning. Keats-Rohan [DD 159, 160] comments that
Richard Bacon was of the family of Bacon du Molay, seigneurs of Le
Molay-Liffry (William Bacon du Molay was a vassal of the vicomtes of Bayeux
in the eleventh century), and mentions Farrer's suggestion that Richard's
mother was a natural daughter of Ranulph I. If the relationship were
illegitimate, it would not necessarily be explicitly stated (cf the charters
of Geva, daughter of Hugh Lupus). If the relationship were legitimate one
could speculate that a daughter of Ranulph I and Countess Lucy may have
married a seigneur of Le Molay-Liffry, and that Richard Bacon was a younger
son. There is no indication from Richard's charter that the foundation grant
came from a maritagium from an earl of Chester, but in fact the land in
Rocester, Combridge and Wootton had been granted to Richard by Ranulf for
his service ("...pro servitio meo mihi dedit...").
Cheers
Rosie
The...@aol.com
Dear Rosie, Peter, et al.,
Thanks for your posts of yesterday.
While the use of the terms <avunculus> and <cognatus> cannot be
assumed to have their classical meaning, I wonder when the term
<cognatus> came to be used as encompassing other relationships
(e.g. brother in law) besides the conventional meaning of 'kinsman',
particularly in the Anglo-Norman arena? There is evidence of the
meaning of kinsman/cousin in charters contemporaneous with the
Roucestre/Chester charters in question.
The following is an example (taken from a later inspeximus dated
Michaelmas term, 1334) of a confirmation by Henry II of England:
Final concord; plus copy of confirmation by King Henry [II]
[Dorse; contemporary?] Confirmation by King Henry [II] of the
grant of Conerton manor to Richard Pincerna:
' Henry' RexAngl' DuxNorman' & Acquietan' & Comes Androg' Ep'o Exon
& Iustic' & Baronibus & Vic' & ministris & fidelibus suis Franc' &
Angl' & Wallens' & Cornub' & Devon' salutem: sciatis me concessisse
& confirmasse Ric' Pincerne & her' suis manerium de Conerton quod
Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr' cognatus meus ei dedit pro
servicio suo; quare volo & firmiter precipio quod ipse Ricardus
& her' sui illud manerium habeant & teneant per servic' unius
militis de predicto Roberto fil' Comitis & de her' suis cum omnibus
libertatibus & liberis cons' suis & acquiet' eidem manerio
pertinent', in bosco in planis in pratis & pastur' in aquis &
molend' in viis & semitis in hundr' & in omnibus rebus & in omnibus
locis, ita bene & in pace & libere & quiete & honore sicut unquam
Robertus filius Edmundi vel Comes Robertus avunculus meus manerium
illud melius libere quiete & honorificemus [sic] tenuit tempore
Regis Henr' avi mei, et sicut carta predicti Roberti fil' comitis
Glocestr' testatur; preterea concedo eidem Ricardo her' suis omnes
alias terras & tenuras suas de quacunque eas rationabiliter habeant,
ita libere sicut ego unquam habui & tenui. Hiis testibus &c. ' [1]
Aside from the reference to King Henry's maternal uncle [avunculus]
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, the charter specifically calls Earl
Robert's illegitimate son ' Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr' cognatus
meus '. The meanings here are unequivocal, as are the identifications
of the individuals involved. This charter obviously was issued ca.
1154 or later, but no later than A.D. 1189 (the date of Henry II's
death) - it therefore indicates a contemporaneous, or later, use of
both <avunculus> and <cognatus> in the "classical" sense of maternal
uncle and kinsman/cousin, respectively.
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] A2A, Cornwall Record Office: Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
[AR/17 - AR/50], FAMILY TRUSTS: AR/20/1
Peter Stewart
> Sunday, 17 October, 2004
>
>
> Dear Rosie, Peter, et al.,
>
> Thanks for your posts of yesterday.
>
> While the use of the terms <avunculus> and <cognatus> cannot be
> assumed to have their classical meaning, I wonder when the term
> <cognatus> came to be used as encompassing other relationships
> (e.g. brother in law) besides the conventional meaning of 'kinsman',
> particularly in the Anglo-Norman arena? There is evidence of the
> meaning of kinsman/cousin in charters contemporaneous with the
> Roucestre/Chester charters in question.
Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.
The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
scribing, copying or even forging their documents.
If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.
"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.
Various meanings of Latin words in medieval writing can exist at the
same time. The contents of most charters would have been worked out and
communicated in the vernacular first, and then translated into Latin
following the locally preferred forms. The choice of words for specific
details can be idiocyncratic.
Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
who 'R, bishop of Chester' is. The bishops of Chester at this time were the
bishops of Coventry and Lichfield, the seat being at Coventry, so the bishop
in question was Roger de Clinton who was consecrated on 22 Dec 1129 and died
in April 1148. This poses a problem for the timing of William archbishop of
York, whose election actually took place in September 1144 but the
archbishop of Canterbury refused to confirm the election, and he was
deprived of the office by the pope on account that his appointment was a
royal intrusion, and replaced by Henry Murdac in 1147 until his death in
1153. This might be a factor in suspecting the charter might be a forgery.
Another thing which is a little unusual about the founding charter is the
absence of wife and sons.
Another interpretation of 'avunculus' which I'd forgotten about when I made
my post yesterday, is uncle-in-law. In a charter to Montebourg dated 1163 by
William de Soliers husband of Mabel de Redvers, Richard de Redvers, Earl of
Devon, is referred to as "avunculi sui" [Bearman, Robert (ed). Charters of
the Redvers Family and of the Earldom of Devon 1090-1217. (Devon and
Cornwall Record Society, 1994) p.187].
Going off on a tangent, I notice that you refer to Robert fitz Robert as
illegitimate. I don't believe this to be the case as nothing about his life
indicates he was ever anything but legitimate. Mabel the dowager countess of
Gloucester had a son called Robert, as she refers to her sons William and
Robert in charters [Paterson, Robert B (ed.). Earldom of Gloucester Charters
(Clarendon Press, 1973), nos. 48, 96 and 171], Robert called his daughter
and heir Mabel after his mother, William, earl of Gloucester, his brother
gave him a large estate in Cornwall (of which Connerton the subject of the
charter you quote was a part), and his marriage to Hawise de Redvers would
have been considered disparaging for her had he been illegitimate. The
notion that Robert fitz Robert was illegitimate appears to stem from a query
in note (b) CP V 686, "Another son, Robert, (query legit.), is named circa
1160 in Sarum Charters (Rolls Ser.), 33, and addressed in a writ from Henry
II as Castellan of Gloucester (Cart. S. Petri Glos., vol. I, p.241)."
Robert Bearman kindly sent me a useful paper which discusses the life of
Robert fitz Robert, entitled 'The descent of the Devonshire family of
Willington from Robert, earl of Gloucester' from W.M.M Picken, A Medieval
Cornish Miscellany (Phillimore, 2000), from which some of the above
information is derived.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: <The...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester
Douglas Richardson
Mr. Stewart claims it is hard to accept that an earl would address his
nephew as "cognatus," when a more preferable term in Latin, namely
"nepos," would suffice. He is, of course, quite wrong.
A good example of the combined use of avunculus/cognatus in the
original records can be found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004),
pg. 118. I include mention of a charter issued by Alice, Countess of
Eu (died 1246), which is charter is witnessed by her maternal uncle,
William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1240), who is there styled
her "avunculus."
Elsewhere, the same Earl William de Warenne refers to the same Alice,
Countess of Eu, as his kinswoman, she being styled "cognatć" by the
earl [Reference: Shirley, Royal & Other Hist. Letters Ill. of the
Reign of King Henry III 1 (Rolls Ser. 27) (1862): 42].
Alice, Countess of Eu, is, of course, the well known legitimate
daughter of Earl William's sister, Maud de Warenne, wife of Henri (or
Henry), 6th Count of Eu. So, one can not use the claim of
illegitimacy to explain Alice being called "cognatć," as Mr. Stewart
has tried to do with Earl Ranulph's reference to Richard Bacon as his
"cognatus."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<izkcd.28722$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. It is most illuminating. As a blood
descendant of Michael Bacon of Dedham, Massachusetts, I'm keenly
interested in this matter. By all means, please keep up the good
work!
Most sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<1db.2ce987...@aol.com>...
> [‘ Gaufrido dispensatore..’; also, ‘ Gaufrido dispensario...’ and
> ‘ Galfrido dispensatore' ]
Peter Stewart
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Mr. Stewart claims it is hard to accept that an earl would address his
> nephew as "cognatus," when a more preferable term in Latin, namely
> "nepos," would suffice. He is, of course, quite wrong.
>
> A good example of the combined use of avunculus/cognatus in the
> original records can be found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004),
> pg. 118. I include mention of a charter issued by Alice, Countess of
> Eu (died 1246), which is charter is witnessed by her maternal uncle,
> William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1240), who is there styled
> her "avunculus."
>
> Elsewhere, the same Earl William de Warenne refers to the same Alice,
> earl [Reference: Shirley, Royal & Other Hist. Letters Ill. of the
> Reign of King Henry III 1 (Rolls Ser. 27) (1862): 42].
>
> Alice, Countess of Eu, is, of course, the well known legitimate
> daughter of Earl William's sister, Maud de Warenne, wife of Henri (or
> Henry), 6th Count of Eu. So, one can not use the claim of
> has tried to do with Earl Ranulph's reference to Richard Bacon as his
> "cognatus."
No, Mr Stewart hasn't "tried to do" this at all - he has pointed out
William Farrer's suggestion, and added that "cognatus" together with
"familiaris" doesn't seem a likely way for a son of the earl of
Chester's legitimate sister to be described.
No doubt your acknowledged keen interest in this question has got in the
way of comprehension and accurate reporting. If you want to seem expert
and relevant, neither of which is in your power to achieve for real, one
example of "cognata" missing "familiaris" doesn't prove anything.
The known legitimate daughters of the earls of Chester, and those of
their cadet brothers for that matter, did notably and demonstrably
better in th marriage market than to fetch up with a member of the
comital retinue.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Peter Stewart <p m ste...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<yqIcd.30146$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> No, Mr Stewart hasn't "tried to do" this at all -
Yes, you have.
> He has pointed out William Farrer's suggestion, and added that "cognatus"
> together with "familiaris" doesn't seem a likely way for a son of the earl
> of Chester's legitimate sister to be described.
We know what you said. You were wrong.
> No doubt your acknowledged keen interest in this question has got in the
> way of comprehension and accurate reporting.
Oh, please.
> If you want to seem expert and relevant, neither of which is in your power
> to achieve for real, one example of "cognata" missing "familiaris" doesn't
> prove anything.
There is no need to insult me OR sidestep the evidence I provided. I
simply said you were wrong and provided a case to prove it. If you
have a problem with that, then you are the one lacking expertise and
relevance, not me. You're also lacking in manners. Beyond that,
you're a fine fellow.
> The known legitimate daughters of the earls of Chester, and those of
> their cadet brothers for that matter, did notably and demonstrably
> better in the marriage market than to fetch up with a member of the
> comital retinue.
Except for the Bacon family. Or, did you forget that Richard Bacon
called Earl Ranulph his uncle?
> Peter Stewart
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
> >
> > Mr. Stewart claims it is hard to accept that an earl would address his
> > nephew as "cognatus," when a more preferable term in Latin, namely
> > "nepos," would suffice. He is, of course, quite wrong.
> >
> > A good example of the combined use of avunculus/cognatus in the
> > original records can be found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004),
> > pg. 118. I include mention of a charter issued by Alice, Countess of
> > Eu (died 1246), which is charter is witnessed by her maternal uncle,
> > William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1240), who is there styled
> > her "avunculus."
> >
> > Elsewhere, the same Earl William de Warenne refers to the same Alice,
> > Countess of Eu, as his kinswoman, she being styled "cognat " by the
> > earl [Reference: Shirley, Royal & Other Hist. Letters Ill. of the
> > Reign of King Henry III 1 (Rolls Ser. 27) (1862): 42].
> >
> > Alice, Countess of Eu, is, of course, the well known legitimate
> > daughter of Earl William's sister, Maud de Warenne, wife of Henri (or
> > Henry), 6th Count of Eu. So, one can not use the claim of
> > illegitimacy to explain Alice being called "cognat ," as Mr. Stewart
The...@aol.com
Dear Rosie, Peter, Douglas, et al.,
Many thanks for your responses, insight and documentation.
Actually, one 'narrowing' possibility (slight as it may seem)
is that, prior to the refusal of the Archbp. of Canterbury to
confirm William's election as Archbishop of York, there is a
narrow window when he was considered (in York) to be the
Archbishop; perhaps the charter in question was attested in
September (maybe October) 1144?
On the Gloucester issue, thanks to Rosie for clearing up the
alleged illegitimacy of 'Robert fitz Robert'. CP was the (or my)
source for this statement, and I'm sure Chris will be thrilled to
add another "CP Correction" to his site. Not to mention the many
Champernoun, Botreaux, Dinham and other descendants who receive
this minor 'upgrade' in their royal descent (via Robert) from
Henry I, King of England &c.
Cheers,
John
The...@aol.com
Dear Douglas,
Thanks for your reply to my post.
Beyond what Terry Reigel provided previously, and the charter evidence
currently under discussion, I don't have other evidence in hand as yet to
firm up this alleged descent as yet.
Hopefully one outgrowth of the review now under way will be the proof
(or disproof) of the Chester connection, after which as to claims to
illustrious ancestry, no one will question the Bacon.
Cheers,
John
------------------
douglasr...@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
Dear John ~
Thank you for your good post. It is most illuminating. As a blood
descendant of Michael Bacon of Dedham, Massachusetts, I'm keenly
interested in this matter. By all means, please keep up the good
work!
Most sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<1db.2ce987...@aol.com>...
> Saturday, 16 October, 2004
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> In a 1999 thread, Terry Reigel posted an AT for the (alleged) ancestry
> of the emigrant Michael Bacon of Winston, Suffolk (d. 18 Apr 1648 in
> Dedham, Massachusetts). I have replicated that post below [1].
<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>
Peter Stewart
be incapable of learning caution from his past imbecilities:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> Peter Stewart <p m ste...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<yqIcd.30146$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
>
>>No, Mr Stewart hasn't "tried to do" this at all -
>
>
> Yes, you have.
I have NOT - read again. I have nothing to retract in the light of
further checking. You have.
>>He has pointed out William Farrer's suggestion, and added that "cognatus"
>>together with "familiaris" doesn't seem a likely way for a son of the earl
>>of Chester's legitimate sister to be described.
>
>
> We know what you said. You were wrong.
I urged caution about "avunculus" in a suspect document, not ruling
anything out.
>
>>No doubt your acknowledged keen interest in this question has got in the
>>way of comprehension and accurate reporting.
>
>
> Oh, please.
Well then, your habitual idiocy has got in the way....
>>If you want to seem expert and relevant, neither of which is in your power
>>to achieve for real, one example of "cognata" missing "familiaris" doesn't
>>prove anything.
>
>
> There is no need to insult me OR sidestep the evidence I provided. I
> simply said you were wrong and provided a case to prove it. If you
> have a problem with that, then you are the one lacking expertise and
> relevance, not me. You're also lacking in manners. Beyond that,
> you're a fine fellow.
But you haven't provided evidence, and the only side-step in view is
yours regarding both "famiiaris" and the suspicion of Farrer about the
Rocester foundation charter as printed in _Monasticon_.
>>The known legitimate daughters of the earls of Chester, and those of
>>their cadet brothers for that matter, did notably and demonstrably
>>better in the marriage market than to fetch up with a member of the
>>comital retinue.
>
>
> Except for the Bacon family. Or, did you forget that Richard Bacon
> called Earl Ranulph his uncle?
No, you forgot that an unsatisfactory document, that is not witnessed or
confirmed by any of his family, used the tem "avunculus" even though
this seems to go against other & better evidence.
Now see if you can follow it - here are all the occurrences of Richard
Bacon in _The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c.
1071–1237_, edited by Geoffrey Barraclough, Record Society of Lancashire
and Cheshire 126 (Chester or Gloucester, 1988). Note particularly the
editor's confusion, which has evidently bedevilled this question since
and apparently led Katherine Keats-Rohan into a misundestanding:
#43 p. 58, charter of Earl Ranulf II, 1136-45, witnessed by "Ricardo
Bacone", no relationship stated (the editor's note says "his mother was
apparently a natural daughter of Ranulf I, and he referred to Ranulf II
as his uncle" citing Farrer in _Honors and Knights' Fees_)
#52 p. 65, notification by Earl Ranulf II, 1141-47, witnessed by
"Ricardo Bacun", no relationship stated
#55 p. 67, witnessed by "Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote comitis" - this
means witnessed "by the earl's nephew/great-nephew/grandson Roger fitz
Richard". IF Richard was himself the earl's nephew as stated in the
Rocester charter, his son Roger must have been either a grandson or
great-nephew of the same earl. However, plain "nephew" must be
preferred, which obviates the same relationship for his father Richard.
The earl in 1141-43 when Barraclough's charter #55 was given, and who
must be meant as the "comes" in question, was Ranulph II, who could
barely have had a second-generation descendant or collateral by the
early 1140s - his son and heir Hugo de Kyvelioc wasn't born until 1147.
On this basis, I suspect the relationship was just as Farrer (who, as I
said earlier, knew the evidence) conjectured: that Richard Bacun was a
brother-in-law and retainer of Ranulf II, most likely husband of the
earl's illegitimate sister, and that his son Roger was consequently the
earl's nephew. This connection was perhaps muddled by the Rocester
copyist/forger in or after Roger's time into making the father instead
of the son into a nephew. Barraclough pointed out a confirmation by Pope
Eugenius III that "seems to vouch for the authenticity of the original
grant of Rocester and its appurtenances", and this was dated 27
September 1147. However, Rosie Bevan has suggested that the surviving
Rocester document might have been concocted around 1204 if the Bacon
lands were Norman escheats. The foundation grants in September 1147 may
not have been all that were mentioned in this later confirmation for all
I know - I don't have access to check, and the papal confirmation may
not have gone into that level of detail anyway.
#68 p. 81, confirmation by Earl Ranulf II, 1143-44, of the gift of
Richar Bacon, "cognatus meus et familiaris" to Rocester, witnessed by
"Willelmo Bacun" (the editor's note contradicts the one for #43 above,
stating "Rocester abbey...was founded in or shortly after 1143 by
Richard Bacon, who probably married an illegitimate daughter of Ranulf
I". I think this makes more sense than his first go at it making Richard
a grandson of Ranulf I).
#262 pp. 260-261, confirmation by Earl Ranulf III, dated (NB by
Baraclough) to 1191-94, of the gift to Rocester, naming "Ricardus
Bacoun" without mentioning any relationship, no Bacons amongst the witnesses
#332 p. 333, charter of Earl Ranulf III, explicitly dated 1201,
witnesses "Willelmo Bacon" and "Ricardo Bacon", no relationship stated
I can't be sure this covers all mentions of Richard & Roger by the earls
of Chester - #55 is omitted from the index entry for Richard while Roger
doesn't appear there at all.
It seems clear enough to me that the Bacon father and son were not
long-recognised kinsmen of the earls, and an illegitimate link through
Richard's wife (Roger's mother) being a bastard daughter of Earl Ranulf
I fits well enough as I see this slender evidence. Certainly "avunculus"
in the Rocester document is not supported, but is indeed cast further
into doubt.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
I posted the same exact item regarding Robert, son of Robert Fitz Roy,
Earl of Gloucester, back in May 2004 (see the copy of my post below).
So, Chris Phillips is already appraised of this record and of Robert's
existence as a hitherto overlooked son of the Earl of Gloucester.
I might note that the younger Robert is styled "Robertus filius
Comitis Glocestr'" in the record relating to the manor of Conerton,
Cornwall. By parlance used by modern historians, this man would be
correctly styled "Robert Fitz Count," not Robert Fitz Robert, or
Robert Fitz Earl. He is ancestral to the Champernoun and Basset
families. So, he has many living descendants.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: douglasr...@royalancestry.net
Website: www.royalancestry.net
> From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> Subject: Re: CP Addition: Ancestry of the Lords Botreaux
> Date: 1 May 2004 16:00:12 -0700
>
> Dear John ~
>
> As a followup to my earlier post, I've a found a record in the A2A
> Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp) which indicates
> that Sir John Arundell was holding the manor of Conerton, Cornwall of
> the Basset family of Umberleigh, Devon in the 1500's. As I recall,
> the Basset family of Umberleigh were the heirs through their Beaumont
> and Wilington ancestry of the senior Champernoun family. The
> Champernoun family held the manor of Umberleigh in ancient times. My
> guess is that Basset family inherited the overlordship of the manor of
> Conerton along with the manor of Umberleigh by direct descent from
> Robert Fitz Count (living c. 1154). This matter deserves further
> study.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
- - - - - - -
> Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
>
> Catalogue Ref. AR
> Creator(s):
> Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall
>
> GENERAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT PAPERS
>
> Cornwall
>
> Connerton Manor - ref. AR/3/77 - 114
>
> FILE [no title] - ref. AR/3/87 - date: [late 17th century or
c.1700]
> [from Scope and Content] Cites that in 1370-71 (44 Edw III) the
> lord of the manor of Wamberlegh claimed homage of Sir John Arundell in
> regard of Comerton; that an Inquisition Post Mortem of Sir John
> Arundell in 1509 x 1547 (temp. Hen VIII) found that Conerton was held
> of the heirs of Bassett of their manor of Umberley (service unknown).
> Queries where Umberley is, and whether any payments or
> acknowledgements have been made since 1660-61 (12 Car II); notes that
> all homages and knight's services were abolished by an act of 1660-61.
> [1 p.; English]
>
>
> royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message
> news:<5cf47a19.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> Dear John ~
>
> In your post below on the ancestry of the Botreaux family, you refer
> to Robert, son of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, who was living 1141/7.
> The charter below dated 1334 [sic] is taken from the helpful online
> A2A catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). This charter
> was issued by King Henry II of England. It names the king's
> grandfather, King Henry I of England (died 1135); Robert Fitz Roy,
> Earl of Gloucester, his uncle; as well as Robert son of the Earl of
> Gloucester (or if you prefer Robert Fitz Count), who the king styles
> "my kinsman" [cognatus meus]. If I read the charter correctly, Robert
> Fitz Count was living at the date of this charter, which must have
> been issued in or after 1154, when King Henry II ascended to the
> throne.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
> Cornwall Record Office: Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice [AR/17 -
> AR/50]
>
> Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
>
> Catalogue Ref. AR
> Creator(s):
> Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall
>
>
> FAMILY PAPERS
>
> FAMILY TRUSTS
>
> FILE [no title] - ref. AR/20/1 - date: 1334, Michaelmas term
> [from Scope and Content] Henry' Rex Angl' Dux Norman' &
> Acquietan' & Comes Androg' Ep'o Exon & Iustic' & Baronibus & Vic' &
> ministris & fidelibus suis Franc' & Angl' & Wallens' & Cornub' &
> Devon' salutem: sciatis me concessisse & confirmasse Ric' Pincerne &
> her' suis manerium de Conerton quod Robertus filius Comitis Glocestr'
> cognatus meus ei dedit pro servicio suo; quare volo & firmiter
> precipio quod ipse Ricardus & her' sui illud manerium habeant &
> teneant per servic' unius militis de predicto Roberto fil' Comitis &
> de her' suis cum omnibus libertatibus & liberis cons' suis & acquiet'
> eidem manerio pertinent', in bosco in planis in pratis & pastur' in
> aquis & molend' in viis & semitis in hundr' & in omnibus rebus & in
> omnibus locis, ita bene & in pace & libere & quiete & honore sicut
> unquam Robertus filius Edmundi vel Comes Robertus avunculus meus
> manerium illud melius libere quiete & honorificemus [sic] tenuit
> tempore Regis Henr' avi mei, et sicut carta predicti Roberti fil'
> comitis Glocestr' testatur; preterea concedo eidem Ricardo her' suis
> omnes alias terras & tenuras suas de quacunque eas rationabiliter
> habeant, ita libere sicut ego unquam habui & tenui. Hiis testibus &c.
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<f6.42fd36d...@aol.com>...
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
The relationships stated in the charters, as you have indicated
before, need to be looked at carefully. However, some relationships
are not as 'unknown' as they might otherwise seem.
You noted in the most recent post in this thread that Barraclough
included in his work a charter (#55) witnessed by "Rogero filio
Ricardi, nepote comitis" [1], whom you identified as a son of Richard
Bacun, and thereby nephew [<nepos>] of Earl Ranulf (d. 1153). This
would support the interpretation of <cognatus> meaning "brother-in-law"
which you stated earlier as being more likely correct, but
unfortunately this identification is erroneous.
This individual was Roger fitz Richard, son of Richard de Clare
(slain 1136) by Adeliza, legitimate sister of Earl Ranulf. His elder
brother, Gilbert de Clare, was then Earl of Hertford (Roger succeeded
him in 1152).
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Barraclough, The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,
c. 1071-1237 (The Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1988),
p. 67.
Rosie Bevan
Yes, it is good to have Robert's maternity established. Mr Picken's article
is very well sourced and he gives a pedigree chart from Henry I through the
Champernouns to John de Willington d.1338.
Robert also occurs as Robert de Ilchester in two other charters, and far
from being "hitherto overlooked" (CP V was published in 1926), he has been
discussed by Robert Bearman in his 'Charters of the Redvers Family'
published in 1994, as well as W.M.M Picken in 1998. Unfortunately Douglas
Richardson overlooked Robert when he prepared a line (124A) from Robert de
Caen to Sir John Bonville for AR7 published in 1999.
Robert's original (1154-55) and Henry II's confirmation (1156-57) charters
of the gift of Connerton to Richard Pincerna were published in Charles
Bowles, 'A Short Account of the Hundred of Penwith in the County of
Cornwall' (Shaftsbury, 1805) pp. 19-22. Both charters are reproduced in full
in Mr Picken's article. The reason for the appearance of the confirmation
charter with the fines in the Arundel muniments (A2A) was that the liberties
of the manor of Connerton infringed the Crown's prerogatives.
Charter no. 171 from Robert B. Patterson, 'Earldom of Gloucester Charters'
(Oxford, 1973) is by Countess Mabel and earl William her son, announcing
restorations made to Jocelin, bishop of Salisbury (c.1147-8). In it she
refers to William and Robert as her sons, "Hec autem omnia ego M(abilia)
comitissa et filii mei Will(elmu)s consul et Rob(ertus) nos per omnia
servaturos et firmam pacem tam episcopo quam hominibus suis suis et
corporibus [eorum] et de rebus eorum nos exhibituros et servaturos fide
interposita sine malo ingenio assecuravimus."
I hope this fills in the detail for anyone interested.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: <The...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Rosie Bevan
There are some interesting observations being made here. If Roger fitz
Richard is Ranulf's Clare nephew through his sister Adelise of Chester, then
the charter has also misled Keats-Rohan in her entry for Roger Bacon (DD
159), where she says he is son of Richard Bacon, who was a nephew of Ranulph
II earl of Chester, and married to a daughter of William fitz John de
Harptre. This cuts the tie between Roger and Richard Bacon.
Going through the references to Richard Bacon which Peter has kindly looked
up for us, it looks as if the only reliable charter information we have for
a relationship between Richard and Ranulf is "cognatus meus et familiaris",
in the light of the dubious foundation charter. This incidentally, as Peter
informed me offlist, Barraclough thinks may not be genuine, because in the
17th century it had a seal that was not authentic. If we add to this to the
conflict in dating, and the lack of any family members involved, I think it
needs to be treated with some scepticism.
Another early mention of a Richard Bacon is a gift to Bungay priory, Suffolk
which was confirmed by Henry III - 'De dono Ricardi Bacon de Lodnes decem
acras terrae in Osmundeshaye" [Mon Ang 4:338].
There were three other Bacons returned as holding land in England in 1166 -
Roger, Robert and William. There is no carta for Chester so Richard is not
mentioned, but no Bacons are recorded holding of the honour of Chester after
Richard.
William and Robert Bacon shared 4 knights' fees of William de Montefichet
in Essex with Alexander de Kerdenton. The Montfichet connection may suggest
a relationship through the Clares, as wife of William de Montfichet was
Margaret de Clare who was sister-in-law to Ranulf II of Chester. In which
case the "in-law" nuance of cognatus discussed by Peter would be apt. The
same or another William Bacon was holding a third of a fee in Bradwell,
Essex having married one of the three daughters and coheirs of Thomas
Bardolf. He forfeited his land as a Norman escheat in 1204.
In Devon, the carta returned by William fitz John de Harptre records that he
had given two parts of a fee with his daughter to Roger Bacoun. This was
presumably in Rewe which also became a Norman escheat. In 1172 a Roger
Bachon held 4 parts of a fee in "Campigneio" Normandy.
We are not looking at large fees here, all of which seem to have been
disparate and obtained by marriage, so it is probable that we are not
looking at a close or legitimate connection to the earls of Chester.
Perhaps someone has done some research into the early Bacon family and can
make sense of all this?
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: <The...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester
Peter Stewart
Please tell us what makes you so sure of this identification, John - I
see the index agrees with you, but that doesn't cite an authority. Roger
fitz Richard de Clare was certainly a nephew of Earl Ranulf II, and he
appears to have witnessed a charter of his uncle only once (unless #55
is counted a second). This is #45, witnessed also by Roge's elder
brother and some other important & official persons ("Et inde sunt
testes...[excluding the clerics] Gilbertus comes de Clara, Willelmus de
Ferreres, Ricardus pincerna, Rogerus nepos comitis, Robertus Basset,
Robertus pincerna de Hegglebi, et pluribus aliis" [who didn't rate naming]).
On the other hand, the witnesses to #55 were a quite different lot,
mostly "familiares" of the earl and named down to the last & least, a
mere cook ("Testibus Normannus de Verdun et Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote
comitis, et Robert Grevesac et Gaifrido Malebisse et Mainone capellano
et Ricardo pincerna et Gaufrido dispensario et Hugone osturcario et
Serlone venatore et Roberto filio Hugonis et Willelmo pincerna et
Waltero de Hambia et Willelmo de Costenciis et Philippo camerario et
Spileman et Willelmo de Bovilla et Roberto de Bovilla et Ranulfo
ostiario et Radulfo iusticia et Gaufrido nepote Bocardi et Gaufrido
nepote Ricardi Bacun et Turgerro Lincolniensi et Willelmo ac Ricardo
capellanis et Herberto coco").
Unless you have a particular reason to place Roger fitz Richard de Clare
in this company, and to explain why the brother & heir to the earl of
Hertford rated after Norman de Verdun in 1141/3, I think the question of
who was the earl's nephew Roger in this instance must be left open,
especially in light of the equally known facts that Earl Ranulf II
called Richard Bacun his "cognatus" (probably brother-in-law) and
"familiaris", and that he in turn had a son named Roger. Medieval earls
could have two namesake nephews with namesake fathers, as this one of
Chester evidently did.
Peter Stewart
Rosie Bevan
Thanks for posting the charter to give us some context regarding Roger fitz
Richard. It is clear that this is not an earl witnessing amongst members of
Ranulf's household. In which case scrub what I said about K-R's entry for
Roger Bacon. Interesting to see a Geoffrey "nepote Ricardi Bacun".
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
There's actually no significant difference as to the placement of
'Roger fitz Richard' in these two charters on which to conclude that
we're speaking (likely or otherwise) of two different individuals, in
terms of social standing or otherwise.
Charter #45 has a limited number of individuals named (an
abbreviated list, ending in "et pluribus aliis" [who didn't rate
naming])" as you stated. This could, and most likely was, a similar
grouping of those 'familiares' and others, such as you characterized
those who 'came in last' on charter #55. No reason to conclude this
was 'quite a different lot' when no names/occupations are given to
compare.
Note, however, that in Charter #45, 'Rogerus nepos comitis'
[identified by Barraclough as Roger, son of Richard de Clare] is
listed AFTER 'Ricardus pincerna' - whom we might presume to have been
a 'botiller' or butler ['pincerna'] to the Earl of Chester. Charter
#55 places Roger fitz Richard ['Rogero filio Ricardi'] BEFORE Richard
'Pincerna', re: whom there's no reason to conclude (esp. given the
occupation/epithet provided] that this was a different individual from
the Richard 'Pincerna' of charter #55. If we were to hang our hats on
comparative placements of individuals, it would be necessary to explain
this 'higher ranking' of Roger fitz Richard in #55 [whom you believe to
have been of a 'lower' rank than Roger son of Richard de Clare] as
opposed to the Roger fitz Richard [accepted as the son of Richard de
Clare] in charter #45.
In fact, there's no reason to 'demote' the Roger in #55 and claim
he was a different, lower-ranking individual - he is listed after
Norman de Verdun, a tenant in chief (of Farnham Royal) and son-in-law
of Geoffrey de Clinton, former royal treasurer to Henry I [<camerarius
consilio Regis>]. His brother-in-law, Geoffrey 'II' de Clinton, was
married into the family of the Earls of Warwick, so we're not talking
about someone (i.e. Norman) outside the baronial class who would have
ranked below Roger fitz Richard de Clare (again, not yet an Earl
himself) prior to his elevation in 1152.
In comparing these two charters, the only comparison one might
readily draw is that Roger fitz Richard was most likely the same
individual in #45 and #55; that he had aged slightly; that he
had acquired a little more status in the service of his uncle the
Earl of Chester; and that he was therefore in fact 'promoted' in his
positioning as a witness (in the witness list of #55) as compared
to that given in #45.
I hope this satisfies those concerns as to the identification
of 'Rogerus filius Ricardus', at least with regard to these two
charters.
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart
Clare and not Roger Bacon - why?
This too is open (or rather ajar) to question - William Ferrers, heir to
the earl of Derby, was placed next after Gilbert, earl of Clare (who is
not described as nephew to the earl of Chester) with Richard pincerna
between Ferrers and the Roger fitz Richard (who is called the earl of
Chester's nephew but not the earl of Clare's brother).
As for the unnamed witnesses to this charter, I doubt very much that the
earl's hunstman and cook were present with his fellow-magnate, but in
any case they weren't worth recording as bystanders to the business
being transacted.
In charter #55 they were. Roger fitz Richard de Clare belonged securely
to the class of magnates, as heir to his brother the earl and nephew to
a comital colleague, rather more imposing a figure than the baronial
Norman de Verdun with his connections by marriage. Whoever the earl of
Chester's nephew Roger was in this document, tt is possible that the men
headed two separate lists that have been read horizontally by the editor
instead of vertically.
The order of witnesses in the Chester charters around this time is not
consistent enough to draw definite conclusions, but only good for
general observatinos about the company in which any witness is found. In
particular, the pincerna appears all over the place in lists. Witnessing
as "nepos" at the head of a company of lesser familiares is just what
one might expect for the son of a known "cognatus" and "familiaris" of
the earl.
Nevertheless, I don't know what evidence you have to make a "ready"
assessment that the same Roger was necessarily involved in both
transactions, much less that he was advancing in seniority with age in
the service of his uncle - for one thing, we don't know for sure the
chronological order of these two documents, and we don't have any reason
I'm aware of to suppose that Roger de Clare was resident in the earl of
Chester's household from the late 1130s to the mid-1140s or so. I would
expect many more occurrences in the charters if that were the case.
Given that his own elder brother became an earl ca 1138 I think it much
more likely that he was kept busy elsewhere.
The question doesn't appear to be answerable on the evidence reviewed in
this thread.
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
Whoa there! Time to rein it in, the road's all downhill already..
Peter, you're alleging support in these charters for relationships of
a Roger Bacon for which there's no visible means of support. Several
posts ago in this same thread, you wrote:
___________________________
#55 p. 67, witnessed by "Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote comitis" - this
means witnessed "by the earl's nephew/great-nephew/grandson Roger fitz
Richard". IF Richard was himself the earl's nephew as stated in the
Rocester charter, his son Roger must have been either a grandson or
great-nephew of the same earl. However, plain "nephew" must be
preferred, which obviates the same relationship for his father Richard.
The earl in 1141-43 when Barraclough's charter #55 was given, and who
must be meant as the "comes" in question, was Ranulph II, who could
barely have had a second-generation descendant or collateral by the
early 1140s - his son and heir Hugo de Kyvelioc wasn't born until 1147.
On this basis, I suspect the relationship was just as Farrer (who, as I
said earlier, knew the evidence) conjectured: that Richard Bacun was a
brother-in-law and retainer of Ranulf II, most likely husband of the
earl's illegitimate sister, and that his son Roger was consequently the
earl's nephew. This connection was perhaps muddled by the Rocester
copyist/forger in or after Roger's time into making the father instead
of the son into a nephew. Barraclough pointed out a confirmation by Pope
Eugenius III that "seems to vouch for the authenticity of the original
grant of Rocester and its appurtenances", and this was dated 27
September 1147. However, Rosie Bevan has suggested that the surviving
Rocester document might have been concocted around 1204 if the Bacon
lands were Norman escheats.
<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>
________________________________________
Now, the charters indicate the existence of Richard Bacon the donor,
and of William and Robert Bacon (relationship, if any, not stated). From
whence does Roger Bacon come from? There is no Roger Bacon, or Rogerus
nepos comitis, in the Roucestre cartulary (Monasticon Anglicanum). It
appears that the Roger Bacon of Domesday Descendants has been identified,
without a sound basis, as being the same as "Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote
comitis" of the Chester charters, an outgrowth of trying to explain the
relationship of Richard Bacon to Earl Ranulf of Chester.
We know there was an individual, "Rogero filio Ricardi, nepote
comitis", well documented as the brother of Earl Gilbert of Hertford and
later Earl of Hertford himself.
You wrote in your last post:
_____________
John, you are presuming that the Roger fitz Richard of #45 was Roger de
Clare and not Roger Bacon - why?
This too is open (or rather ajar) to question - William Ferrers, heir to
the earl of Derby, was placed next after Gilbert, earl of Clare (who is
not described as nephew to the earl of Chester) with Richard pincerna
between Ferrers and the Roger fitz Richard (who is called the earl of
Chester's nephew but not the earl of Clare's brother).
__________________________
The identification of Roger fitz Richard (charter #45) was
Barraclough's act, not mine. You yourself noted this earlier in stating,
"I see the index agrees with you, but that doesn't cite an authority".
You later in the same paragraph stated, "This is #45, witnessed also by
Roge's elder brother and some other important & official persons ("Et
inde sunt testes...[excluding the clerics] Gilbertus comes de Clara,
Willelmus de Ferreres, Ricardus pincerna, Rogerus nepos comitis,.." If
you see a significant problem here, with the heir of the Earldom of Derby
and an important adult functionary of the Earl of Chester taking place in
the charter witness parade before a young nephew of the Earl (as a
younger brother of Gilbert, not himself likely to be in line to become
Earl as of that time) looking to make a name and place for himself,
that's certainly your right. You may also want to explain why you stated
at that time that Earl Gilbert of Hertford was "Roge's [sic] elder
brother" and now contend that he was not.
As to Roger being called nephew of the Earl (of Chester) but not of
the Earl Gilbert in the text, witnesses were usually given a relatively
brief identification, and to the scribe it was clearly of more
significance that Roger was a nephew of Earl Ranulf than that he was
related to anyone else. Can you provide an example of a more extended
description of a witness to such a charter?
~ As you pointed out, Earl Gilbert is not called nephew of Earl
Ranulf in the charter; there was no mystery as to his
identification, so why would this have been done? An individual
called Roger (or Roger fitz Richard) was another matter: in this
instance, identifying that individual as a relation to the Earl
of Chester was appropriate, and typical.
An approach from the evidence, and the knowledge that there was a
known Roger (fitz Richard, and nephew of Earl of Ranulf) would indicate
that an identification of this individual as Roger de Clare is called
for, until some other evidence is produced. Rosie wrote concerning
an entry in Domesday Descendants,
" If Roger fitz Richard is Ranulf's Clare nephew through his sister
Adelise of Chester, then the charter has also misled Keats-Rohan in
her entry for Roger Bacon (DD 159), where she says he is son of
Richard Bacon, who was a nephew of Ranulph II earl of Chester, and
married to a daughter of William fitz John de Harptre. This cuts the
tie between Roger and Richard Bacon. "
Rosie noted that there was a Roger Bacon who was a landholder in
1166 (possibly the same Roger Bacon of Domesday Descendants), but we
apparently have no evidence that (A) he was a son of Richard Bacon,
benefactor of Roucester, or (B) that he was a relation of the Earl
of Chester. Short of such evidence, I see no basis (outside of
enjoying the exercise in theorizing an alternate explanation that MIGHT
be true) to assume such a relationship.
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart
able to read from the screen with difficulty & having no printer to help:
The...@aol.com wrote:
> Tuesday, 19 October, 2004
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Whoa there! Time to rein it in, the road's all downhill already..
>
> Peter, you're alleging support in these charters for relationships of
> a Roger Bacon for which there's no visible means of support.
I am engaging in a discussion of possibilities, not contending for
certainties. Richard Bacon was called "cognatus" (likeliest to mean
brother-in-law, with "[blood] kinsman" the obvious alternative, but
neither of these is supported by other definite evidence) and
"familiaris" (not contentious, but too much ignored) of Earl Ranulf II
of Chester.
We know the same earl had another "cognatus" named Richard, that is
Richard de Clare the husband of his sister Adeliza.
We know that Richard de Clare had a son named Roger, who as far as we
can tell was the next brother after Earl Gilbert and the only heir the
latter ever had, quite probably only a year or so younger. Gilbert was
an earl from ca 1138 and his next brother was most probably not
consigned to an uncle's household for up to a decade after this.
We know there was a contemporary Roger Bacon.
We know that Gilbert de Clare witnessed four charters of his uncle the
earl of Chester, one before and three after he became an earl himself.
In none of these is he called "nepos comitis".
We know that his brother Roger de Clare witnessed one charter of his
uncle (Barraclough #109), in which he is called "Ricardo de Clara" with
no relationship stated to Earl Ranulf.
We do not know that he was resident in the earl of Chester's household
at any stage. We do not know that "Rogerus nepos comitis", who evidently
was more familiar by the stated relationship than by his own family
name, was this man. The assumption that he was the same relies on the
knowledge that someone existed who could be so described, and from a
Roger nephew to Earl Ranulf appearing along with Earl Gilbert on one
occasion. Short of perfect proof.
To suggest that any questioning of this meagre conventional wisdom or
surmise of alternatives in the course of discussion is galloping
downhill doesn't accord with my understanding of genealogical
investigation or the purpose of SGM.
Apart from the accord between "cognatus" for Richard Bacon and "nepos"
for Roger fitz Richard (obviously IF he was Roger Bacon), the fact that
Richard Bacon was a "familiaris" in the earl's retinue and that a Roger
fitz Richard occurs to all appearances in a similar capacity at a time
when Richard de Clare was clearly more important, had he been in
attendance, than the preceding witness, should not be blithely
overlooked just because Barraclough and others haven't considered it in
print.
Neither of us should assume a particular person or relationship to be
proved in this instance - there are problems with both identifications.
I am not denying your opinion, just pointing out issues to be
considered. If you would consider these rather than just characterising
them, we _might_ go forward, though I don't think much progress can be
made on the evidence currently before the newsgroup.
Equally, I have not denied the possibility that the term "avunculus" in
the Rocester document _might_ be true and genuine. But I can't see any
supporting evidence, where the opportunity for this clearly & repeatedly
existed, or other circumstantial indications of how this would work.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Some comments interspersed
Well, I started out to intersperse them, but quickly lost track of who
wrote what....
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> We know that his brother Roger de Clare witnessed one charter of his
> uncle (Barraclough #109), in which he is called "Ricardo de Clara" with
> no relationship stated to Earl Ranulf.
>
> We do not know that he was resident in the earl of Chester's household
> at any stage.
Apologies, this should read "We know that his [Earl Gilbert's] younger
brother Richard witnessed one charter of his uncle...We do not know that
their brother Roger was resident in the earl of Chester's household at
any stage."
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
>
> We know that his brother Roger de Clare witnessed one charter of his
> uncle (Barraclough #109), in which he is called "Ricardo de Clara" with
> no relationship stated to Earl Ranulf.
>
Dear Newsgroup ~
Peter Stewart says "we know" that Roger de Clare witnessed a charter
as "Ricardo de Clara?" Actually, "Ricardo de Clara" is Latin for
Richard de Clare, not Roger de Clare.
Douglas Richardson
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<RnBcd.29830$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
> uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
> instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.
> The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
> illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
> link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
> scribing, copying or even forging their documents.
My files indicate that the Latin word "avunculus" in this time period
in England was used for maternal uncle. By 1400, it was used for
either maternal or paternal uncle. If Richard Bacon referred to
Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
Ranulph as his maternal uncle. Moreover, if Barraclough is correct
that this charter was inspected and confirmed by Pope Eugenius III in
1147, then this charter is almost certainly genuine.
> If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
> unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.
I disagree.
> "Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
> quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
> rule it out.
I've never seen the word "cognatus" used for brother-in-law in English
records. My files indicate "cognatus/cognata" in this period was
strictly used for a blood kinsman/kinswoman, even as close as niece or
nephew. I've already provided Mr. Stewart with an example of the
latter.
The only Latin term I've seen used for a relation by marriage in
English medieval records is "affini" or "affinis." Please see a copy
of my earlier post below which deals with this word. I should add
that on rare occasions, usually in private correspondence, I find that
a relation by marriage such as a niece's husband was addressed as
"nephew." I find this occurs after 1300. I only know of one such
instance before 1300. In public charters and crown records, when
kinship is acknowledged, invariably kinship by blood is intended, not
by marriage. This is true for all periods.
> Various meanings of Latin words in medieval writing can exist at the
> same time. The contents of most charters would have been worked out and
> communicated in the vernacular first, and then translated into Latin
> following the locally preferred forms. The choice of words for specific
> details can be idiocyncratic.
Mr. Stewart seems to be all over the place with his alleged "meanings"
of Latin words. I'm not able to trust his renderings, unless he can
provide the newsgroup contemporary examples from English records as I
have done. If he is unable to provide examples, then he should
withdraw his claims. Simple as that.
> Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Examples of "affini" [kinsman/kinswoman]
Date: 10 Aug 2003 15:54:14 -0700
Dear Newsgroup ~
Reviewing my notes, I find that King Edward I of England was called
"affini" [kinsman by marriage] by Rudolf I, King of the Romans
[Reference: Thomas Rymer, Foedera 1 Pt. 1 (1816): 556]. The term
"affini" means that Edward I was married to a kinswoman of Rudolf, or
vice versa. As best I can determine, King Edward I was related to
Rudolf's 2nd wife, Isabelle of Burgundy, in the 4th and 5th degrees of
kindred by common descent from Eleanor of Aquitaine. King Edward I
was not closely related to King Rudolf himself. Below is a chart of
the kinship between King Edward I and Isabelle of Burgundy:
Eleanor of Aquitaine
__________________/___________________
/ /
John King of England Marie of France
/ /
Henry III, King of England Thibaut III, Count Champagne
/ /
Edward I, King of England Thibaut I, King of Navarre
/
Beatrix of Champagne
= Hugues IV, Duke of Burgundy
/
Isabelle of Burgundy
I also find that Ela, Countess of Salisbury, was styled "affini"
[kinswoman] by King Henry III [Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2
(1898): 25]. King Henry was the nephew of Countess Ela's husband,
William Longespee.
Elsewhere I find that Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, was styled
"affinis" by King Henry IV of England [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1399-1401 (1903): 28]. Earl Ralph was married to King Henry
IV's half-sister, Joan Beaufort.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Todd A. Farmerie
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<RnBcd.29830$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
>
>>Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
>>uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
>>instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.
>
>
>>The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
>>illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
>>link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
>>scribing, copying or even forging their documents.
>
>
> My files indicate that the Latin word "avunculus" in this time period
> in England was used for maternal uncle. By 1400, it was used for
> either maternal or paternal uncle.
FWIW, in one of the Kendall muniments a son of Nicholas Kendall refers
to Lawrence Kendall as "avunculus", but this is much later than the
period in question.
> If Richard Bacon referred to
> Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
> almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
> Ranulph as his maternal uncle.
Is this date (1150) the first example you have of it being otherwise
used, or was its use arbitrary? What is the earliest date you have for
a contrary use?
>>If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
>>unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.
>
>
> I disagree.
I am not sure I follow you here - if the charter is spurious, then it is
wise to set too much store by its text?
>>"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
>>quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
>>rule it out.
>
>
> I've never seen the word "cognatus" used for brother-in-law in English
> records. My files indicate "cognatus/cognata" in this period was
> strictly used for a blood kinsman/kinswoman, even as close as niece or
> nephew. I've already provided Mr. Stewart with an example of the
> latter.
As has been pointed out, AN example does not prove, or even indicate, a
particular strict usage of a word (sort of like saying - "see, I'm not
dead right now, so therefor I must be immortal.") Only a detailed
analysis, giving the number of times it is used for each type of
relationship, (known relationship, as if you conclude "it is always used
this way" to interpret a relationship, then you cannot count that
instance as a known case, as it would be circular), preferentially
broken down by time period.
taf
Rosie Bevan
but I'm sure he will when able.
In a previous post I gave an example from 1163 how 'avunculus' was used in
the sense of uncle-in-law (William de Soliers to Richard, Earl of Devon).
The following is a example where it is used as paternal uncle. In a
confirmation charter to Castleacre priory, Nicola de la Haie, after the
death of her second husband in 1214, referred to "Robert de Haia avus meus,
et Richard de Haia pater meus, et Radulf de Haia avunculus meus." [Mon.Ang.
5:53]. So it would be a mistake to insist that 'avunculus' was used
exclusively to mean maternal uncle until 1400.
While Pope Eugenius confirmed a foundation charter for Rocester, it was not
necessarily this particular charter in question, and there are certainly
enough anomolies about it to suspect a monastic forgery.
The main problem in this thread is documenting a link between Richard Bacon
to the AT, in the light that there are no verifiable descendants. I would be
interested to know far the line itself been documented.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Richard 'Bacun', nephew of Ranulf, Earl of Chester
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<RnBcd.29830$5O5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
>
>>Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
>>uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
>>instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.
>
>
>>The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
>>illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
>>link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
>>scribing, copying or even forging their documents.
>
>
> My files indicate that the Latin word "avunculus" in this time period
> in England was used for maternal uncle. By 1400, it was used for
> either maternal or paternal uncle. If Richard Bacon referred to
> Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
> almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
> Ranulph as his maternal uncle. Moreover, if Barraclough is correct
> that this charter was inspected and confirmed by Pope Eugenius III in
> 1147, then this charter is almost certainly genuine.
Well, you need to do some urgent work on your "files" - a bit of
scratching around in _Foedera_ is not remotely enough to make you an
expert in medieval Latin usage.
Since you think one partial example is sufficient to establish a firm
rule about "cognatus", you are bound to admit that one exception to your
pretended rule about "avunculus" will be plenty to prove that it is
bogus. Just at random, here are two - both 12th-century examples from
English documents where the word plainly refers to paternal uncles:
1. _Early Yorkshire Charters_, vol 4, Honour of Richmond part 1, edited
by Charles Travis Clay (Leeds, 1935), confirmation in 1156-58 by Conan
IV, duke of Brittany & earl of Richmond of gifts to St Mary's, York by
two brothers of his paternal grandfather:
"ego Conanus dux Britannie et comes Richmundie Alani comitis filius
concessi et dedi et presenti carta confirmavi ecclesie sancte Marie
Eboraci et monachis ibidem Deo servientibus in puram et perpetuam
elemosinam pro me ipso et pro salute patris et matris mee et pro
animabus avunculorum patris mei comitum videlicet Alani Rufi et Alani
Nigri quicquid ipsi avunculi patris mei comites...dederunt"
2. _Historia et cartularium monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriæ_, edited
by William Henry Hart, 3 vols, Rolls Series 33 (London, 1863-1867),
dated at Bristol 1192:
"Haec est finalis concordia...inter Thomam abbatem et conventum
Gloucestriae et Ricardum Cofin juniorem de omnibus terris quas Ricardus
Cofin senior avunculus praedicti Ricardi dedit praedictis abbati".
Examples of this usage for paternal rather than maternal uncle abound
throughout the surviving records.
Richardson's arbitrary dating to "by 1400" for this usage is imaginary -
I can only assume that he was once again prepared to make a fool of
himself in order to take advantage of someone else's research, but since
my point is clear I am not going to oblige him any further.
>
>>If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
>>unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.
>
>
> I disagree.
But you have no authority to place on the table along with this flat &
useless statement. Farrer on the other hand was a great expert on these
matters.
>>"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
>>quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
>>rule it out.
>
>
> I've never seen the word "cognatus" used for brother-in-law in English
> records. My files indicate "cognatus/cognata" in this period was
> strictly used for a blood kinsman/kinswoman, even as close as niece or
> nephew. I've already provided Mr. Stewart with an example of the
> latter.
>
> The only Latin term I've seen used for a relation by marriage in
> English medieval records is "affini" or "affinis." Please see a copy
> of my earlier post below which deals with this word. I should add
> that on rare occasions, usually in private correspondence, I find that
> a relation by marriage such as a niece's husband was addressed as
> "nephew." I find this occurs after 1300. I only know of one such
> instance before 1300. In public charters and crown records, when
> kinship is acknowledged, invariably kinship by blood is intended, not
> by marriage. This is true for all periods.
Well, you can't have looked very far if you have never come across
"cognatus" for a brother-in-law in any English record - though it's a
furphy to restrict it in this way, as if Latin vocabulary might well be
open slather elsewhere but nevertheless Anglo-Norman writers always
practised strict discipline when on the British side of the Channel.
"Brother-in-law" is the primary definition of "cognatus" given by Albert
Blaise in _Lexicon latinitatis medii aevi_, Corpus Christianorum,
Continuatio Mediaeualis (Turnhout, 1975). This meaning is found
throughout the medieval period, throughout Europe.
>>Various meanings of Latin words in medieval writing can exist at the
>>same time. The contents of most charters would have been worked out and
>>communicated in the vernacular first, and then translated into Latin
>>following the locally preferred forms. The choice of words for specific
>>details can be idiocyncratic.
>
>
> Mr. Stewart seems to be all over the place with his alleged "meanings"
> of Latin words. I'm not able to trust his renderings, unless he can
> provide the newsgroup contemporary examples from English records as I
> have done. If he is unable to provide examples, then he should
> withdraw his claims. Simple as that.
No, it's not my opinion that needs to be revised. I am pointing out that
an exact equivalence between medieval Latin and modern English terms is
not to be regarded as absolute. The idea that a cut-off point can be
fixed beyond which certainty about the classical meaning of "avunculus"
breaks down is mere bunkum - as low in the scheme of things as posting a
fearless "correction" of a starkly nonsensical slip on my part that I
had already rectified, and then adding a further example of your own
ignorance:
> Actually, "Ricardo de Clara" is Latin for Richard de Clare, not Roger
> de Clare
Actually, any schoolchild could pick that up, but then any schoolchild
might also know the ablative case and how to translate it properly.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> If Richard Bacon referred to
> Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
> almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
> Ranulph as his maternal uncle. Moreover, if Barraclough is correct
> that this charter was inspected and confirmed by Pope Eugenius III in
> 1147, then this charter is almost certainly genuine.
Two points I neglected to comment on before:
The purported foundation charter of Rocester printed in _Monasticon_
reads "pro salute animae meae, pro salute etiam Ranulphi comitis
Cestriae avunculi mei...". The transaction took place probably in the
early 1140s, and definitely before September 1147 when the pope
confirmed it. Nothing here indicates that Bacon was referring as his
uncle to Earl Ranulf I, who had died in January 1129, rather than to
Ranulf II who lived until December 1153.
It was quite usual to dedicate gifts for the benefit of living souls
(as, obviously, of the donor himself); if Bacon originated this mention
of an Earl Ranulf of Chester, with or without "avunculus" in the
original version, it makes more sense to me that he was buttering up his
most important living connection rather than choosing to name just one
particular dead relative and no others. This was the assumption made by
Farrer in suggesting that Bacon's mother might have been an illegitimate
daughter of Earl Ranulf I, so that Ranulf II could actually have been
her son's "avunculus".
However, we can't be sure that Bacon did include such a phrase in making
his gift. The confirmation by Pope Eugenius III was of the foundation
grant but NOT necessarily of the charter as printed in _Monasticon_.
Barraclough wrote that the confirmation "seems to vouch for the
authenticity of the original grant of Rocester and its appurtenances".
In other words, it confirms the foundation to this extent but does NOT
go any way to proving that the charter in _Monasticon_ is "almost
certainly genuine" despite the suspicion to the contrary noted by Farrer.
Peter Stewart