Unidentified subject!
Michelle.Mu...@ccmail.team400.ie
> Ralph de Mainwaring,
> this daughter would be illegitimate.
>
> taf
I realise that Llywelyn's wife, and the mother of his designated heir, was
illegitimate - but surely there's a huge difference
between the illegitimate daughter of the King of England, and that of an Earl?
Would the bastard daughter of the Earl of
Chester really have been a fitting consort for the Prince of Wales? I know that
illegitimacy carried little sting in Wales, but even so -
Llywelyn was far more important than the husbands chosen for Chester's
_legitimate_ daughters, so why give the most
prestigious and powerful husband, and risk the most crucial alliance, on a
bastard?
That said, the most telling evidence for the betrothal/marriage being with a
bastard is the fact that all four of Hugh de
Kevelioc's legitimate daughters seem to be accounted for.
regards
Michelle Murphy
michell...@life.friendsfirst.ie
Reedpcgen
>That said, the most telling evidence for the betrothal/marriage being with a
bastard is the fact that all four of Hugh de
>Kevelioc's legitimate daughters seem to be accounted for.regards
>
>Michelle Murphy
>
But, as Llywelyn was cleared in the negotiations to take the daughter of the
'Prince of the Isle' in marriage in 1203, but then married the daughter of the
Earl of Chester, she may have died before the Spring of 1205, as that is when
Llywelyn was supposed to have married Joan. A young dead girl might not figure
in surviving records, though I am a bit surprised that none of the chronicles
mention it.
What is Lloyd's source for the marriage to Joan in Spring 1205? Anyone know?
If Joan were born about 1192 [her son was of age in Oct. 1229), it would mean
she was rather young at the time of her marriage to Llywelyn. Bill
Reitwiesner's article [The Genealogist 1, no. 1, p. 80] states that Joan was
betrothed to Llywelyn before October 1204 [or 1205], and that she married him
on Ascenciontide 1206. The only references given for this are "paratowyd dan
nawdd Anrhydeddus Gymdeithas Y Cymmrodorion" (London, 1953) and DWB. What are
the original sources?
Also, as Gruffudd ap Llywelyn married Rhanullt, daughter of the King of the
Isle of Man, wouldn't any carnal knowledge by Llywelyn of one of her family
thrown up an impediment [though I admit that Gruffudd was technically
illegitimate]?
pcr
Reedpcgen
Llywelyn consummated his betrothal to the sister of the Earl of Chester.
If Llywelyn were born about 1173, we would expect that his wife was not sister
of Hugh 'de Kevelioc' (b. 1147, m. 1169, d. 1181), but of Hugh's son Ranulph
'de Blundeville' (b. about 1172, d. 1232). But at Ranulph's death he only left
four sisters as his coheirs, (1) Maud (b. 1171) who married David, Earl of
Huntingdon, (2) Mabel, who married William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel/Sussex,
(3) Alice/Agnes, wife of William de Ferrers, and (4) Hawise, Countess of
Lincoln, who married Robert de Quincy.
Either the sister of the Earl of Chester who was betrothed to Llywelyn died
without issue before Ranulph 'de Blundeville' died [as Llywelyn was married to
Joan by 1206, the sister would actually have had to die by then--but still
without issue], OR she was illegitimate, as was Amicia, who married Sir Ralph
Mainwaring.
Elen/Ellen/Helen, legitimate daughter of Llywelyn by his wife Joan [see CCR
Henry III, 3:538-9, and Andrew B. W. MacEwen, "Elen, Countess of Chester: a
daughter of Joan, Princess of North Wales, _The Genealogist 4:137-8], married
John 'le Scot', Earl of Huntingdon, Cambridge and Chester, son of David, Earl
of Huntingdon and his wife Maud [of Chester]. Helen is suspected of poisoning
her first husband (she afterwards married Robert de Quincy, who died s.p.). At
John 'le Scot''s death, his heirs were the two daughters of his eldest sister
and his three surviving other sisters.
If Llywelyn had indeed consummated his marriage with the sister of Maud, would
not an impediment to his daughter's marriage have arisen based on too close an
affinity? Llywelyn's first wife would be aunt of Llywelyn's daughter's
husband. A Papal dispensation would have been required.
Now to a different matter. How do we calculate the birth date of Llywelyn's
daughter Margred/Margaret, who Doug says must be a daughter of the Princess of
Man based on chronology? Margred married (1) John de Braose, lord of Bramber,
b. c. 1198, d. there shortly before 16 July 1232. She then married (2) by 2
Nov. 1232, Walter de Clifford, Lord Clifford.
Margred had three sons by John de Braose:
i. William de Braose, who succeeded as lord of Bramber, of full age 15 July
1245 [thus born by 1224]. He is held to have become 1st Lord
Breuse/Brewes/Brewose. Though he was allowed to succeed his father in 1232,
before 18 July, he is not stated to have been of full age in the Fine Rolls
until 15 July 1245.
ii. Richard de Braose, lord of Stinton by his wife.
iii. [probably] John de Braose, who was dead without issue by Dec. 1295 [though
he left a widow, Margery, living 1305].
Margred had one daughter by Walter de Clifford:
iv. Maud de Clifford, who married (1) William Longespee (d. 1257), and (2) John
Giffard [John had abducted her].
The birth date of 1224 for William de Breuse/Braose would make sense if we
count back from his father's death in 1232 [as his mother was still fertile and
then had a daughter with her second husband].
Doug, is there evidence that William was of age before 1245? If there is not,
Margred/Margaret could easily have been born after 1206. Granted that it would
seem unusual for a boy of eight to be allowed to succeed to his father's lands,
but there are instances where minors are allowed to succeed before the
technical age of majority.
If Margred/Margaret were older, would it not be more logical to conclude she
was a daughter of a concubine, such as Tangwystl ferch Llywarch Goch [mother of
Llywelyn's eldest son Gruffudd], rather than a child of this daughter of the
King of Man?
pcr
Reedpcgen
things concerning the Braose family.
John de Braose, lord of Gower, son of William and nephew of Reginald de Braose,
was in royal custody until he came of age in January 1218, indicating a birth
year about 1197 [see CPR1216-25, p. 134].
John de Braose married Llywelyn's daughter Margaret in 1219
[see _Brut y Tywysogyon or The Chronicle of the Princes ..._ (Roll Series, v.
17: ed. Rev. John Williams ab Ithel [London, 1860], pp. 304-5) (_Brut y
Tywysogyon or The Chronicle of the Princes: Peniarth MS. 20 version_, ed.
Thomas Jones [Cardiff, 1952], p. 97) (_Brut y Tywysogyon or The Chronicle of
the Princes: Red Book of Hergest version_ [Cardiff, 1955], p. 219)].
John de Braose was killed at Bramber 16 July 1232, having been bruised in a
fall from his horse [Curia Regis Rolls, 490-1; CCR 1231-4, Hen. III, 2:86; Brut
(1860), p. 320-1; Brut (1952), p. 102; Brut (1955), p. 231].
The lands, wardship and marriage of William de Braose, son and heir of John,
was in the hands of various nobles until he came of age in 1241, indicating a
birth year of about 1220:
Peter des Riveaux was first custodian [see CCR 1231-4, Hen. III, 2:86; CPR
1225-32, Hen. III, 2:490].
Henry de Turberville was granted the lands and marriage in March 1234 [CPR
1232-47, Hen. III, 3:41, 45].
Richard Siward was granted the same in July 1234 [CPR 1232-47, Hen. III, 3:61].
Richard, Earl of Cornwall, the King's brother, was granted the custody, lands
and marriage of William de Braose in January 1234/5 until 1241, when William
came of age [CPR 1232-47, Hen. III, 3:89; CCR 1234-7, Hen. III, 3:41; CChR
1:192].
So if William de Braose, the eldest known child of Margaret verch Llywelyn, was
born about 1220, and she married John de Braose in 1219, it would seem unlikely
that she would be daughter of Joan, as she would have to be born after 1206.
But I see no reason to think Margaret was not a daughter of a concubine like
Tangwystl, mother of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn.
pcr
Douglas Richardson
of Llywelyn's lawful marriage to a daughter of the lord of
the Isles. In fact, it stands to reason that she was a
product of that union as English barons were averse to
marrying bastard women. If Margaret was the daughter of
Llywelyn's second marriage, she would have originally been
born in a legitimatized union. When her parents marriage
was declared unlawful, technically she would be declared a
bastard. But, as with Richard Fitz Alan's son, Edmund, who
was bastardized by divorce, that presumably would be no bar
to Margaret contracting a good marriage. Moreover, if
Margaret's mother was an Isles woman, Margaret would have
had some high born kinfolk on her mother's side which would
make her a desirable match for the Braose family.
Chronologically it also fits for Margaret to be a child of
Llywelyn's Isles wife. It works for me.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Doug Thompson
However, it still doesn't convince me that Margaret could not have been Joan's
child. A birthdate in 1207 would make her 12 in 1219, a legal and commonplace
age for full marriage at the time. (King John's second wife,Isabelle, was also
12.) Only ten years younger than her husband she could well have produced her
son William after a year. This still has to rate as one of the possibilities.
Doug Thompson
--------------
History and Genealogy of the Braose Family
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/index1.htm (Genealogy)
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thompson/BraoseWeb/stage.htm (History)
----------
In article <19991002230521...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, reed...@aol.com
Douglas Richardson
Paul showed that John de Braose was born about 1197. That
would make him a minimum of at least 10 years older than
Margaret if she was Joan's daughter, which is not likely.
Also, Joan's first child appears to have been her son
David. So the earliest Margaret could have been born by
Joan would be 1208/9, which makes it even less likely that
she was Joan's daughter.
Chronology in medieval genealogy is everything. If
something doesn't fit the normal patterns, there's
generally something you missed. As for Margaret, a birth
of 1203/5 fits the evidence much better than 1208/9. Also,
it is not typical for a man at his first marriage to marry
a woman 10 or more years younger than him.
As I understand it, in medieval times, couples of a
baronial rank were engaged young. The girl often went to
live with her future husband's family. The marriage was
usually consumated at age 14. Margaret's first known
child was born about 1219. If correct, then that would
indicate a birth for Margaret of about 1204, assuming she
was age 14 at the time her marriage was consumated and age
15 at the time her first known child was born. A birth
date of 1204 for Margaret renders it impossible for her to
be Joan's daughter.
My research indicates that Llewellyn and Joan had four
children: David, Gladys, Ellen and Susanna. In my
opinion, Margaret is simply too old to have been Joan's
daughter. As such, I assume she was the daughter of
Llewelyn's marriage to the Isles girl for the reasons I
stated in my earlier post above.
Stewart Baldwin
>Elen/Ellen/Helen, legitimate daughter of Llywelyn by his wife Joan [see CCR
>Henry III, 3:538-9, and Andrew B. W. MacEwen, "Elen, Countess of Chester: a
>daughter of Joan, Princess of North Wales, _The Genealogist 4:137-8], married
>John 'le Scot', Earl of Huntingdon, Cambridge and Chester, son of David, Earl
>of Huntingdon and his wife Maud [of Chester]. Helen is suspected of poisoning
>her first husband (she afterwards married Robert de Quincy, who died s.p.). At
>John 'le Scot''s death, his heirs were the two daughters of his eldest sister
>and his three surviving other sisters.
>
>If Llywelyn had indeed consummated his marriage with the sister of Maud, would
>not an impediment to his daughter's marriage have arisen based on too close an
>affinity? Llywelyn's first wife would be aunt of Llywelyn's daughter's
>husband. A Papal dispensation would have been required.
I don't see why. Parites A and B would require a dispensation to get
married if (1) A and B were too closely related or (2) A previous
spouse of A was too closely related to B (or the same with the roles
of A and B reversed), where "related" here means "by blood". The
situation above (a previous marriage of a relative of A to a relative
of B) does not fit into either of these cases, so it would seem to me
that a dispensation would not be required. Or were the impediments
wider than I thought?
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>I see no reason to think that Margaret was not a daughter
>of Llywelyn's lawful marriage to a daughter of the lord of
>the Isles.
The problem is that no evidence has been presented that Margaret WAS a
daughter by Llywelyn's "marriage" to a daughter of a "lord" of the
Isles (if in fact it was a marriage and not just a betrothal). Even
if we accept your argument that she must have been legitimate (and I
see no reason why we should accept it without further evidence), there
still seems to be no good reason why she couldn't be a daughter of the
Chester marriage.
Also, you still have not provided any justification why this
betrothal/marriage was to a daughter of a "lord" of the Isles (i.e., a
member of Somerled's family) as opposed to being a daughter of a
"king" of the Isles (i.e., a king of the Isle of Man). The difference
IS important, because they were two different families, and it is not
appropriate to use the term "Lord of the Isles" to refer to the king
of Man.
>In fact, it stands to reason that she was a
>product of that union as English barons were averse to
>marrying bastard women. If Margaret was the daughter of
>Llywelyn's second marriage, she would have originally been
>born in a legitimatized union. When her parents marriage
>was declared unlawful, technically she would be declared a
>bastard. But, as with Richard Fitz Alan's son, Edmund, who
>was bastardized by divorce, that presumably would be no bar
>to Margaret contracting a good marriage. Moreover, if
>Margaret's mother was an Isles woman, Margaret would have
>had some high born kinfolk on her mother's side which would
>make her a desirable match for the Braose family.
>Chronologically it also fits for Margaret to be a child of
>Llywelyn's Isles wife. It works for me.
But you still seem to be jumping to conclusions. In the absense of
supporting evidence, why should this scenario be accepted over the
other possibilities?
Stewart Baldwin
Reedpcgen
defined by the Lateran council of 1215, and Pope Innocent III [the marriage of
John le Scot to Helen/Ellen did not occur until 1222].
Affinity was the term used in defining degrees of relationship to relatives of
persons with whom one had sexual relations. "[W]e have to remember that the
efficient cause of affinity is not marriage but sexual intercourse." [Maitland
2:389; the following passages appear on pp. 388-9.]
In other words, if the physical union made a man and woman one flesh, then I
cannot marry any of my wife's blood kinswomen who fall within the prohibited
degree. This is the first genus of affinity. There are three.
In the first genus of affinity, I am related to my wife's sister in the first
degree. I am related to her first cousin in the second degree, etc. "[T]he
doctrine of the twelfth century is that I may not marry in the seventh degree
of this affinity."
The second genus of affinity takes into account those who marry my spouse's
blood relatives. Ralph is related to his wife Joan's brother Henry's wife Maud
in the first degree of the second genus of affinity.
The third genus of affinity takes into account the spouses of the spouses of
the blood relatives of the spouse. "I may not marry my wife's sister's
husband's wife, for we stand to each other in the first degree of this third
genus of affinity." In other words, If Adam marries Beatrice, whose sister
Cecily had married David, and David marries Emma after his first wife's death,
Adam cannot marry Emma after David and Beatrice's death because of this third
genus of affinity.
"The general opinion of the twelfth century seems to have been that while the
prohibition of marriage extended to the seventh degree of the first genus, it
extended to only the fourth degree of the second genus, and only the second
degree of the third genus [here Maitland cites to: Friesen, _Geschichte des
canonischen Eherechts_, pp. 474-89; Esmein, _Le mariage en droit canonique_, v.
1, pp. 374-83; and Friedberg, _Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts_, ed. 4, p. 386
"where some diagrams will be found."].
"The council of 1215, which confined the impediment of consanguinity within the
first four degrees, put the same boundary to the impediment of affinity of the
first genus, while it decreed that affinity of the second or third genus might
for the future be disregarded [c. 8. X. 4. 14.]."
"Baptism is a new birth; the godson may marry neither his godmother nor his
godmother's daughter."
Sound like a confusing mess? I think Maitland did a good job in summarizing:
"Behind these intricate rules there is no deep policy, there is no strong
religious feeling; they are the idle ingenuities of men who are amusing
themselves by inventing a game of skill which is to be played with neatly drawn
tables of affinity and doggerel hexameters." I guess if clerics are not to
marry, they might as well make it difficult for those who do. ; )
"The men and women who are the pawns in this game may, if they be rich enough,
evade some of the forfeits by obtaining papal dispensations; but then there
must be another set of rules marking off the dispensable from the indispensable
impediments." I guess that would raise the revenue of the papacy. Maitland
concludes by mentioning "the incalculable harm done by a marriage law which was
a maze of flighty fancies and misapplied logic."
So, prior to 1215, we have to take all this into account when interpreting
hypothetical unions and marriages. But in looking at this afresh, I see that
there would have been no impediment to the 1222 marriage of Helen to John 'le
Scot.'
pcr
William Addams Reitwiesner
>>
>>That said, the most telling evidence for the betrothal/marriage being with a
>bastard is the fact that all four of Hugh de
>>Kevelioc's legitimate daughters seem to be accounted for.regards
>>
>>Michelle Murphy
>>
>
>But, as Llywelyn was cleared in the negotiations to take the daughter of the
>'Prince of the Isle' in marriage in 1203, but then married the daughter of the
>Earl of Chester, she may have died before the Spring of 1205, as that is when
>Llywelyn was supposed to have married Joan. A young dead girl might not figure
>in surviving records, though I am a bit surprised that none of the chronicles
>mention it.
>
>What is Lloyd's source for the marriage to Joan in Spring 1205? Anyone know?
>
>If Joan were born about 1192 [her son was of age in Oct. 1229), it would mean
>she was rather young at the time of her marriage to Llywelyn. Bill
>Reitwiesner's article [The Genealogist 1, no. 1, p. 80] states that Joan was
>betrothed to Llywelyn before October 1204 [or 1205], and that she married him
>on Ascenciontide 1206. The only references given for this are "paratowyd dan
>nawdd Anrhydeddus Gymdeithas Y Cymmrodorion" (London, 1953) and DWB. What are
>the original sources?
That bit of gibberish immediately above is actually how you say
"[published] under the auspices of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion"
in Welsh. It's part of the title page statement of the Welsh language
version of the DWB.
Neither the DWB nor its Welsh equivalent cite any sources for the marriage
date, but the DNB, under Llywelyn, states "At Ascensiontide 1206 the
marriage was celebrated (Worcester Annals, p. 394)." Under Joan, the DNB
gives a bit more detail: " ... seems to have been betrothed to Llywelyn ap
Iorwerth, prince of North Wales, early in 1205; part of her dowry, the
castle of Ellesmere, was given by John to Llywelyn on 16 April (Rot. Chart.
i. 147). The marriage is said to have taken place rather more than a year
later (Ann. Wigorn. a. 1206) ... ".
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/3/1999 12:51:21 PM, royala...@msn.com writes:
<< My research indicates that Llewellyn and Joan had four
children: David, Gladys, Ellen and Susanna. In my
opinion, Margaret is simply too old to have been Joan's
daughter. >>
An intertesting argument with lots of opinions. However, I am drawn to
Douglas Richardson's interpretation. Margaret does seem too old to have been
the daughter of Joan.
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Associated with: Thompson Starr International
[Films ... Representation ... Publishing ... Marketing]
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 10/3/1999 12:51:21 PM, royala...@msn.com writes:
>
> << My research indicates that Llewellyn and Joan had four
> children: David, Gladys, Ellen and Susanna. In my
> opinion, Margaret is simply too old to have been Joan's
> daughter. >>
>
> An intertesting argument with lots of opinions. However, I am drawn to
> Douglas Richardson's interpretation. Margaret does seem too old to have been
> the daughter of Joan.
This is fine, in and of itself, but that is only half of the argument
(and the half which most of us are probably willing to accept). It is
the other half of his interpretation that seems to be drawing the most
debate - that her mother was daughter of the 'Lord' of the Isles, rather
than the daughter of the Earl of Chester, or one of Llywelyn's known or
unknown mistresses.
taf
Douglas Richardson
I haven't jumped to any conclusions. It is impossible for
Llywellyn's daughter to be the child of his marriage to the
sister of the Earl of Chester, otherwise Margaret would
have been one of the Earl's co-heirs when he died without
issue. So scratch that idea.
As for Margaret being the child of Llywelyn's second
marriage to the Isles girl, a review of the chronology
indicates that it would be a good fit. Likewise,
chronology rules out that Margaret was the child of
Llywelyn's third marriage to Joan.
English barons were somewhat loath to marry bastard women.
If Margaret was the daughter of Llywelyn's Isles marriage,
she would necessarily have been bastardized on her parents'
divorce. However, Margaret would still have retained all
of her mother's Isles connections which probably were quite
extensive. That doubtless would have been a major
consideration when the match with the baronial Braose
family was proposed for Margaret. Bloodlines were
extremely important to Norman barons.
All the same, I still have an open mind about Margaret's
maternity. My "opinion" (not conclusion) is that Margaret
is probably the daughter of Prince Llywelyn's marriage to
the Isles girl. As for whether Llywelyn was bethrothed or
married to the Isles girl, I can only quote the Papal
documents which state that Llywelyn was granted permission
to marry the Isles girl in 1203 and that two years later,
in 1205, the marriage (not betrothal) was declared invalid.
I assume therefore it was no longer a betrothal but rather
a marriage by 1205. The argument that Llywelyn did not
marry the Isles girl seems spurious to me. The abstract of
the third Papal letter which I posted seems clear on that
point.
I don't know anything about the difference in terms between
"prince" and "lord" of the Isles. As best as I can see,
the terms prince and lord were used interchangeably in that
time period. An example is the Galloway family who
eventually adopted the style "lord" but who earlier I think
were known as "prince." However, I'll leave that
particular problem to your consumate expertise to figure
out.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Reedpcgen
>Llywellyn's daughter to be the child of his marriage to the
>sister of the Earl of Chester,
NOT if she were illegitimate as was Amicia. Doug, you seem to think English
barons would distain a match with a bastard, ignoring the fact that it did not
have such a taint in Wales at that period. But John de Braose was a Marcher
lord, and a match with the daughter of Prince Llywelyn would not have been
sneezed at, especially because of the great turmoil the various factions had
been experiencing in previous years. It would at any rate have been a very
politically advantageous match, especially as John was lord of Gower, a
thoroughly Welsh possession.
I agree the chronology with Joan seems to be too tight.
We know Margaret's husband John de Braose was born about 1197. If she were his
age, she'd be a bit old to fit into your hypothesis that she was a daughter of
the Prince of the Isles, as marriage negotiations were still proceeding in
1203. According to your scenario, she would have HAD TO BE BORN between 1203
and 1205, and given nine months for the birth cycle, 1204-5. That's a very
narrow time frame, without any evidence to support it. Didn't you say
chronology is everything?
I'd say that the chance that Margaret was born BEFORE 1204 (she was married in
1219 and had a son in 1220 [at age 16 or 15?]) is MUCH greater, thus nixing any
connections to the daughter of the Prince of the Isles. Doug, does in not seem
most logical, given NO evidence to the contrary, that Margaret was born before
1204?
pcr
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I haven't jumped to any conclusions. It is impossible for
> Llywellyn's daughter to be the child of his marriage to the
> have been one of the Earl's co-heirs when he died without
> issue. So scratch that idea.
. . . assuming she was legitimate, but we know that the Earl had at
least one other illegitimate sister.
taf
Douglas Richardson
I think it is a fair assumption that Llywellyn's daughter,
Margaret, was born right about 1205, as she had her first
known Braose child in 1220. That's providing Margaret was
14 when her marriage was consumated and 15 when she gave
birth to her first known child. If correct, then Margaret
would have been born right in the time period Llywellyn was
married to the Isles girl.
As for as the Earl of Chester's half sister, Amice de
Mainwaring, is concerned, I've always maintained a neutral
position about Amice's legitimacy. I've reviewed the
evidence and it shows that Amice was the daughter of Hugh,
Earl of Chester alright but it doesn't indicate whether or
not she was born to a legitimate marriage. As I understand
it, Earl Hugh was old enough have had an earlier marriage
before his marriage to his known wife, Bertrade.
By the laws of then prevalent in England, at the death of
Earl Hugh's son, Ranulph, Earl of Chester, wihout issue,
Ranulph's FULL sisters inherited ahead of any sister or
sisters of the half blood. As such, if Earl Hugh had any
daughters by an unknown first marriage, they would
necessarily have been excluded from sharing in the Chester
inheritance. As such, one can't use Amice's exclusion as
one of the Earl's heirs as grounds for determining her
legitimacy. All we can say for sure is that Amice was not
one of Earl Ranulph's full sisters. That's all.
I haven't examined the chronology to see how Llywellyn's
first wife might fit into the family of the Earls of
Chester. However, this is certainly worth examining.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
Reedpcgen
>
>Since women generally consumated their marriages at age 14,>>
Huh? We've already had studies posted to this group which show that an average
age between generations was in the range of 21-33. Isn't conceiving at age 14
or 15 rather the exception, and something one would need proof of before
assuming it is correct?
Would you in an unbiased manner randomly select examples of this from that time
period to prove your assumption?
pcr
Douglas Richardson
almost certainly was 14 when her first marriage to Braose
was consumated. Thus it is highly likely she was 15 when
her eldest known child was born.
I'm told there is a case of a succession of five
generations which has an average of 16 years between
generations. Averages are definitely helpful but not in
all cases.
D. Spencer Hines
Really! Did you have the bedroom wired for sound and video?
1. How could you possibly know precisely when a first act of coitus
between a married couple took place over 700 years ago?
2. How could you possibly say that the wife was certainly 14 when the
act took place?
3. Are you working for Larry Flynt on these matters?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:08539644...@usw-ex0108-059.remarq.com...
Douglas Richardson
opinion, not a conclusion or a fact. One board member
wants to prove Margaret is Joan's daughter. Another wants
to prove she isn't the daughter of the Isles wife. With
all due respect, I frankly don't care whose daughter she
was.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
D. Spencer Hines
'The Children of Joan, Princess of Wales' --- William Addams
Reitwiesner, The Genealogist, 1980, vol. 1, No.1, p. 83.
As authority for placing Margaret as the daughter of Joan of England.
Does Reitwiesner still take that position today --- if Tompsett is
correct that he did so in 1980?
If so, what's _his_ rationale?
Here's the University of Hull URL:
http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal26566
Vide infra.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
Yes, and what's the succession? This is cherry-picking, of course.
DSH
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> As for as the Earl of Chester's half sister, Amice de
> Mainwaring, is concerned, I've always maintained a neutral
> position about Amice's legitimacy. I've reviewed the
> evidence and it shows that Amice was the daughter of Hugh,
> Earl of Chester alright but it doesn't indicate whether or
> not she was born to a legitimate marriage. As I understand
> it, Earl Hugh was old enough have had an earlier marriage
> before his marriage to his known wife, Bertrade.
>
> By the laws of then prevalent in England, at the death of
> Earl Hugh's son, Ranulph, Earl of Chester, wihout issue,
> Ranulph's FULL sisters inherited ahead of any sister or
> sisters of the half blood. As such, if Earl Hugh had any
> daughters by an unknown first marriage, they would
> necessarily have been excluded from sharing in the Chester
> inheritance. As such, one can't use Amice's exclusion as
> one of the Earl's heirs as grounds for determining her
> legitimacy. All we can say for sure is that Amice was not
> one of Earl Ranulph's full sisters. That's all.
Claim: Margaret's mother, if daughter of Hugh, should have been an
heiress.
Response: Not if, like Amicia, she was illegitimate.
Counter response: Amicia might not have been illegitimate - she might
have not been an heiress for other reasons.
To me, this in no way counters the central point of the comparison to
Amicia - if Hugh had another daughter who didn't inherit, then the lack
of an inheritance cannot be used to argue that the daughter of Hugh
allied with Llywelyn must have d.s.p. "Not if, like Amicia, she wasn't
a co-heiress to her brother."
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I am well aware of the averages, but in this case, Margaret
> almost certainly was 14 when her first marriage to Braose
> was consumated. Thus it is highly likely she was 15 when
> her eldest known child was born.
Maybe I missed this. What is the basis for the near certainty?
taf
Vickie Elam White
> I am well aware of the averages, but in this case, Margaret
> almost certainly was 14 when her first marriage to Braose
> was consumated. Thus it is highly likely she was 15 when
> her eldest known child was born.
Todd Farmarie responded --
> Maybe I missed this. What is the basis for the near certainty?
Wasn't there an actual law that a marriage consumated before
age 14 was invalid so that most actual marriages didn't take
place until the bride was 14 (or, if the couple was married
before then, they lived apart until the bride was 14)? I vaguely
remember reading something like this on GEN-MEDIEVAL
but searching for it in the archives is like searching for the
proverbial needle in the haystack. Maybe I'm imagining things,
but I thought I'd ask...
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Douglas Richardson
certainly "about" 14 when her first Braose marriage was consumated. My
impression is that most arranged marriages at the baronial level were
consumated when the women was "about" 14.
All for now. DR
Douglas Richardson
your statement that Amice was illegitimate. The evidence about
Amice's legitimacy is inconclusive. As such, all we can say is that
Amice was Earl Hugh's daughter.
As for your point that Llywelyn's Chester wife may have been the mother
of Margaret, it would only be possible if the wife was a half-sister of
Earl Ranulph. I haven't examined the chronology of the Earls of
Chester to see if Llewelyn's wife would have been Earl Ranulph's full
sister or half sister. Please check it out and post your findings.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Reedpcgen
>age 14 was invalid so that most actual marriages didn't take
>place until the bride was 14 (or, if the couple was married
>before then, they lived apart until the bride was 14)?
A child was capable of consent at age 7. The ages at which it could be
consumated, as I posted a few days ago, was "fourteen years for boys and twelve
for girls" [Maitland 2:390]. A wife could claim dower if she were 9 at her
husband's death.
So if Doug was using his impression that one should have been fourteen before
consumation in arguing that Margaret (married in 1219, son born 1220) would
therefore be born fourteen years before 1219 [1219 - 14 = 1205], he was wrong.
FURTHER, if we are going to follow this rationale to its end, one could be
betrothed years before the marriage was consumated. If it were consumated in
1220, at the first possible legal moment, she would be twelve. 1220-12=1208.
This would make Margaret a daughter of Joan. Even giving another year--for the
marriage in 1219--it would mean a birth of 1207. We know Llywelyn was married
to Joan by 1206 (betrothed in 1205).
According to Doug's other argument, Margaret would by this theory be a
legitimate daughter (by Joan), and thus acceptable for a marriage to Joan de
Braose, who though partly English, 'must have loathed a marriage to a bastard'
[my summary of Doug's words, though I think loath was his word].
And by no means was the average age of consummation marriages of gentry in
England at ages 12 and 14!
pcr
Vickie Elam White
> A child was capable of consent at age 7. The ages at which it could be
> consumated, as I posted a few days ago, was "fourteen years for boys and
twelve
> for girls" [Maitland 2:390]. A wife could claim dower if she were 9 at
her
> husband's death.
Thanks. Either I didn't get that message on the list or I didn't notice
it.
The message I had been remembering was not from this year.
> So if Doug was using his impression that one should have been fourteen
before
> consumation in arguing that Margaret (married in 1219, son born 1220)
would
> therefore be born fourteen years before 1219 [1219 - 14 = 1205], he was
wrong.
I don't know what rationale he was using. I was just trying to clarify
something
for my own peace of mind. <G>
Take care.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Douglas Richardson
doubtless occupy many posts here on the board. As best I understand
the evidence, Margaret was a bit older than Llywelyn's two daughters by
Joan, Gladys and Ellen. If we accept the possibility that Margaret
might be Joan's daughter, it makes things EXTREMELY crowded in the
nursery at the beginning of Llywelyn's marriage to Joan. Besides
Gladys and Ellen, Llywelyn and Joan also had their son and heir, David,
at the first part of their marriage. I frankly can't possibly see how
Margaret would fit chronologically to be Joan's daughter. Margaret
either has to be the child of one of Llywelyn's earlier two marriages
or else illegitimate. My opinion (not conclusion) is that Margaret
fits best as a child of her father's marriage to the Isles woman.
That's my opinion. Not a conclusion. I'm certainly open to further
discussion and hopefully new evidence.
If Margaret consumated her marriage at 13 or 14 (which age seems
customary to me) and she had her first known child the next year, she
would be born in 1204 or 1205. That's right in the time period
(1203-1205) that her father was probably married to the Isles woman.
Like I said earlier, it works for me. Likewise, having an Isles mother
would have afforded her the kinds of connections which would have made
her a desirable match for the Braose family.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/6/1999 10:35:34 AM, ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
<< To me, this in no way counters the central point of the comparison to
Amicia - if Hugh had another daughter who didn't inherit, then the lack
of an inheritance cannot be used to argue that the daughter of Hugh
allied with Llywelyn must have d.s.p. "Not if, like Amicia, she wasn't
a co-heiress to her brother." >>
Ahem. (Throat clearing done.) This logic truly escapes me. I have heard
arguments based on substantially less.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/6/1999 2:02:32 PM, royala...@msn.com writes:
<< My impression is that most arranged marriages at the baronial level were
consumated when the women was "about" 14. >>
Certainly between 14 and 16 is the most sensual time for those attracted to
'sweet young things' ... and that probably includes most males of mating age
even today, though some would argue otherwise amd hide the truth of their own
adolescent longings. Males, look into your own uninhibited and secret
libido. Females, remember yourself at that age.
Malinda Jones
Todd A. Farmerie
Which part escapes you? Amicia was Hugh's daughter, and her documented
children didn't inherit. Llywelyn's wife has Hugh's daughter. The fact
that Llywelyn's daughter didn't inherit a share of Hugh's (or more
appropriately his son Ranulf's) estate cannot be used to prove that her
mother wasn't Hugh's daughter, since the analogy with Amicia is sound
whether she was illegitimate or simply a legitimate child by a different
wife. What works for Amicia can just as well work for Llywelyn's wife.
taf
Reedpcgen
>As best I understand
>the evidence, Margaret was a bit older than Llywelyn's two daughters by
>Joan, Gladys and Ellen.
WHY? And why "a bit"? Why not a few years? GET SPECIFIC.
>Besides
>Gladys and Ellen, Llywelyn and Joan also had their son and heir, David,
>at the first part of their marriage. I frankly can't possibly see how
>Margaret would fit chronologically to be Joan's daughter.
Dafyd/David was born ca. 1208/9.
Gwladus Ddu married Reginald de Braose in 1215 (he died 9 June 1228), so when
was she born?
And what evidence of chronology do you have to show that Ellen would crowd out
Margred, so that Margred could not be born in 1207? [I'm not stating that
Margred was a daughter of Joan, just asking you to give SOME type of valid
rationale for your claims and statements.]
>If Margaret consumated her marriage at 13 or 14 (which age seems
>customary to me) and she had her first known child the next year, she
>would be born in 1204 or 1205.
WHY should we think she was 13 or 14? WHAT evidence [SPECIFICALLY] do you have
that this was the 'customary' age for women of nobility to conceive?
We know that John de Braose attained majority in 1218 (he was therefore born
about 1197). He married the next year, in 1219, and his eldest son was born
in1220.
If John was NOT FOURTEEN at the time of his marriage in 1219--even though he
had been a ward for years--WHY should we assume Margaret was?
Doug, PLEASE give us SPECIFIC evidence or logical reasoning for this assumption
of 'customary' age. Where did you get this from?
pcr
Douglas Richardson
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: The fact
> that Llywelyn's daughter didn't inherit a share of Hugh's (or more
> appropriately his son Ranulf's) estate cannot be used to prove
> that her
> mother wasn't Hugh's daughter, since the analogy with Amicia is
> sound
> whether she was illegitimate or simply a legitimate child by a
> different
> wife. What works for Amicia can just as well work for Llywelyn's
> wife.
> taf
Todd: I completely concur. However, as I noted, people for
generations have assumed that Amice was illegitimate because neither
she or her issue were included among the heirs of her brother, Earl
Ranulph. It seems to escaped everyone attention that this was beside
the point. If Amice was born to an earlier marriage of Earl Hugh's,
she and her issue would automatically have been excluded as Earl
Ranulph's heirs, as Amice would be sister of the half-blood.
When you have a moment, Todd, perhaps you be so kind to post the
chronology of Earl Hugh and his other known children to see how it
compares to the known chronology for Prince Llewelyn. My guess is
that Prince Llewelyn likely married a full sister of Earl Ranulph and
that she died childless before 1203.
By the way, does anyone have any information on Llewelyn's mother's
second marriage? I believe that marriage has been overlooked in the
secondary literature as well.
William Addams Reitwiesner
>The subject of the maternity of Llywelyn's daughter, Margaret, could
>doubtless occupy many posts here on the board. As best I understand
>the evidence, Margaret was a bit older than Llywelyn's two daughters by
>Joan, Gladys and Ellen.
Hold it right there.
The purpose of my Joan article was to disconnect Llywelyn's daughters from
Joan, and then to connect to Joan only those who could be documented to be
Joan's. I found some documents which suggested that Elen was Joan's, and
then Andrew MacEwen found (and published in *The Genealogist* [APSG]) the
documents which proved that Elen was Joan's. Which means that, as far as
I'm aware, Joan's only documented children were Dafydd and Elen.
Now you say Gwladus was a child of Joan. That means you must have seen
documents I haven't. I hope I can see those documents some day.
I'm not saying Gwladus was NOT Joan's, I'm just saying that I haven't seen
anything which shows, conclusively, that Gwladus WAS Joan's.
> If we accept the possibility that Margaret
>might be Joan's daughter, it makes things EXTREMELY crowded in the
>nursery at the beginning of Llywelyn's marriage to Joan. Besides
>Gladys and Ellen, Llywelyn and Joan also had their son and heir, David,
>at the first part of their marriage. I frankly can't possibly see how
>Margaret would fit chronologically to be Joan's daughter. Margaret
>either has to be the child of one of Llywelyn's earlier two marriages
>or else illegitimate. My opinion (not conclusion) is that Margaret
>fits best as a child of her father's marriage to the Isles woman.
>That's my opinion. Not a conclusion. I'm certainly open to further
>discussion and hopefully new evidence.
My opinion (not conclusion) is that Gwladus was a daughter of Tangwstl
(which would free up the chronology), but I'm likewise open to further
discussion and hopefully new evidence.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> When you have a moment, Todd, perhaps you be so kind to post the
> chronology of Earl Hugh and his other known children to see how it
> compares to the known chronology for Prince Llewelyn. My guess is
> that Prince Llewelyn likely married a full sister of Earl Ranulph and
> that she died childless before 1203.
pcr has given this a shot (as much as I would have time for) relating to
Hugh's children, but I haven't given it a close look to see how it
aligns with Llywelyn's. His status-of-husband argument at least
presents a specific distinction between Amicia and Llywelyn's wife as
potential heiresses.
> By the way, does anyone have any information on Llewelyn's mother's
> second marriage? I believe that marriage has been overlooked in the
> secondary literature as well.
Refresh my memory. Is this the Corbet marriage that was discussed here
a year or so ago? If so, we never quite were able to trace it down to a
source.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>I don't know anything about the difference in terms between
>"prince" and "lord" of the Isles. As best as I can see,
>the terms prince and lord were used interchangeably in that
>time period. An example is the Galloway family who
>eventually adopted the style "lord" but who earlier I think
>were known as "prince." However, I'll leave that
>particular problem to your consumate expertise to figure
>out.
I think you are missing the point. The "King of the Isles" (i.e., the
King of the Isle of Man) and the "Lord of the Isles" (a title held by
descendants of Somerled) were two different individuals. I agree that
the term "prince" of the Isles which appears in the primary records is
ambiguous. However, if you are calling the girl to whom Llywelyn was
married/betrothed a daughter of the "Lord" of the Isles, then you are
necessarily suggesting that she was not the daughter of the King of
Man (the attribution generally given by others), but was instead a
descendant of Somerled. While the terms "lord" and "prince" may be
interchangeable in certain other cases, it is not appropriate to
interchange them in this specific case.
Stewart Baldwin
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/7/1999 6:23:19 AM, wr...@EROLS.COM writes:
<< My opinion (not conclusion) is that Gwladus was a daughter of Tangwstl
(which would free up the chronology), but I'm likewise open to further
discussion and hopefully new evidence. >>
Then we are much closer to an agreement here than before. I am looking
forward to any more data.
- Ken
Stewart Baldwin
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>By the way, does anyone have any information on Llewelyn's mother's
>second marriage? I believe that marriage has been overlooked in the
>secondary literature as well.
I do not recall a possible second marriage of Llywelyn's mother ever
being discussed on this newsgroup, nor have I seen mention of it
anywhere else. It reminds me of the "Llewelyn ap Iorwerth's mother a
Corbet" thread (July 1998 in this newsgroup - see the archives) which
Todd already mentioned. In that thread, a document was mentioned in
which Llywelyn referred to a certain William Corbet as his
"avunculus", and we discussed what the possibilities might be in light
of the pretty good Welsh evidence that Llywelyn's mother was a
daughter of the Powys prince Madog ap Maredudd (and therefore
apparently not a Corbet). However, of the several scenarios which
were discussed to try and explain this evidence, I do not recall one
which gave a later marriage for Llywelyn's mother.
Is this Corbet reference what you were referring to, or did you have
some other evidence in mind which suggests a second marriage of
Llywelyn's mother?
Stewart Baldwin
AJones9446
(she uses that spelling), aged 10, being brought up by his mother Marared and
stepfather Sir Hugh Corbet, in Caus Castle, Shropshire following his mother's
marriage to Sir Hugh in June/July 1187. In her author's note she says "Little
is known of Llewelyn's early years. It is believed he passed his childhood in
Powys and England; by his fifteenth year he was challenging his uncles for
control of Gwynedd. Historians have long been cognizant of his kinship to the
Corbet family; he often stayed his hand, spared Corbet lands, and a letter of
his addresses William Corbet as "uncle". In the nineteenth century historians
speculated that Llewelyn's mother might be a hitherto unknown Corbet daughter,
but Marared ferch Meredydd's identity has since been established beyond any
doubt. Marared must therefore have made a second marriage after Iorwerth's
death in 1174. In researching the Corbet family, I was able to eliminate Robert
Corbet without difficulty. His brother William was the "uncle" of Llewelyn's
letter. Walter Corbet was a monk. By the process of elimination, Hugh Corbet
had to be Marared's second husband, Llewelyn's stepfather."
Stewart Baldwin
What evidence is there for this interpretation, as opposed to other
ways in which the term "avunculus" (maternal uncle) could be
interpreted? To my knowledge, no early source identifies Marared's
mother, so how can we rule out the possibility that William Corbet was
a son of Marared's mother (by a different marriage), which would make
William Corbet a half-brother of Marared and therefore "avunculus" of
Llywelyn? That Llywelyn had some kind of relationship to the Corbets
is clear, but it seems to me that additional evidence (beyond the
statement that William was "avunculus" to Llywelyn) would be needed to
nail down the exact relationship. Do you know of such evidence?
Stewart Baldwin
Douglas Richardson
Prince Llewelyn's mother had a hitherto unknown second husband but he
wasn't a Corbet. During my research several years ago, I located the
second husband's name. He wasn't a Corbet. Good guess, though.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
In article <38036f89...@news.mindspring.com>,
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Stewart Baldwin
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>Hi Stewart:
>
>Prince Llewelyn's mother had a hitherto unknown second husband but he
>wasn't a Corbet. During my research several years ago, I located the
>second husband's name. He wasn't a Corbet. Good guess, though.
Do you have any plans to reveal some actual information about who you
think that this alleged second husband was, and why? I suspect that
some of the participants of this group are getting pretty fed up with
playing these silly guessing games.
Stewart Baldwin
D. Spencer Hines
You have to buy the book.
On TV, they call these "teasers."
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3804c7b9...@news.mindspring.com...
Douglas Richardson
You need to do your own original research and not be dependant on
secondary sources or me to provide your answers. If you look at the
original source documents available for this period already in print,
you should easily find Llywelyn's mother's second marriage. You
previously did well in finding Llywelyn's two new marriages. I have
faith that you can find the mother's second marriage as well.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
In article <3804c7b9...@news.mindspring.com>,
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:28:20 -0700, Douglas Richardson
> <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> >Hi Stewart:
> >
> >Prince Llewelyn's mother had a hitherto unknown second husband
> but he
> >wasn't a Corbet. During my research several years ago, I
> located the
> >second husband's name. He wasn't a Corbet. Good guess, though.
> Do you have any plans to reveal some actual information about who
> you
> think that this alleged second husband was, and why? I suspect
> that
> some of the participants of this group are getting pretty fed up
> with
> playing these silly guessing games.
> Stewart Baldwin
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
D. Spencer Hines
puzzle for you and be of good cheer.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:000b8d9b...@usw-ex0101-003.remarq.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Hi Stewart:
>
> You need to do your own original research and not be dependant on
> secondary sources or me to provide your answers. If you look at the
> original source documents available for this period already in print,
> you should easily find Llywelyn's mother's second marriage. You
> previously did well in finding Llywelyn's two new marriages. I have
> faith that you can find the mother's second marriage as well.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson
Yet earlier, this whole line of inquiry started when . . . .
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> By the way, does anyone have any information on Llewelyn's mother's
> second marriage?
<parody>
Hi Douglas:
You need to do your own original research and not be dependant on
this newsgroup to provide your answers. If you look at the
original source documents available for this period already in print,
you should easily find additional information Llywelyn's mother's
second marriage. You previously did well in finding Llywelyn's two
new marriages. I have faith that you can find additional information
on the mother's second marriage as well.
Best always,
</parody>
(goose . . . gander . . .)
What? Did you forget that you were the one who was doing the asking on
this?
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Hmmmmm, hoist on his own petard.
Douglas, I wouldn't hold out too much hope for election to the FASG
anytime soon, if I were you.
No, you'd better just forget about that.
Flimflammers Not Welcome.
And you seemed to be doing somewhat better a week or so ago.
Sad indeed.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:3804EE...@po.cwru.edu...
Susan Swann
I have read your many inquiries to this list, looking for information on any
number of lineages and periods of history. People have answered you
whenever they could - for the most part with kindness, generosity, and
usually without being terribly superior about being able to provide the
answers for you.
You post an inquiry - probably to test yet another pet theory of your own,
or to fish for information which you would like to have - and then have the
gall to make such a superior, arrogant, patronizing reply to Mr. Baldwin,
someone who DOES check original sources and who has unselfishly shared
results of what must have been hours of work with everyone who might be
interested. Mr. Baldwin has, in my experience, always treated honest
inquiries with fairness, tack and generosity.
For you to make such a reply has left me gobsmacked, incredulous, and
astounded...
To add insult to injury, it wasn't Mr. Baldwin who even wrote the
information that you attributed to him. It was a quote, posted by someone
else entirely as a matter of interest, not even presented as fact but simply
as material for discussion.
I feel that Mr. Baldwin deserves an apology.
Susan Swann
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Richardson [SMTP:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 1:51 PM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Llywelyn's mother md. a Corbet??
>
> Hi Stewart:
>
> You need to do your own original research and not be dependant on
> secondary sources or me to provide your answers. If you look at the
> original source documents available for this period already in print,
> you should easily find Llywelyn's mother's second marriage. You
> previously did well in finding Llywelyn's two new marriages. I have
> faith that you can find the mother's second marriage as well.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson
>
>
Reedpcgen
<<>Hi Stewart:
>
>You need to do your own original research and not be dependant [sic] on
>secondary sources or me to provide your answers. >>
OK, Doug. Now you've riled me. You ask questions about research, make a claim
or statement, and then do not provide the information you have dangled behind
the cloth.
Time and again [such as with the Amicia problem] you have told me to check the
sources for you--to prove your point for you! Now you tell Stewart that you
have the answer, but that you aren't going to give it to him [sounds like a
child's playground].
To make a statement like this to Stewart, an active and helpful member of this
group who is very careful with his research and conclusions, sounds like you
are attempting to publicly snub him. [I'm sorry, but that's the way it came
across to me, and what irritated me into making this post.]
We might believe you had it not been for previous interactions such as your
singular belief that the author of the Life of Waltheof [Vita et passio
venerabilis viri Gualdevi] was Oderic [!], or what you still hold onto
concerning Margaret de Clare, Beauchamp/Biddlesgate, or the Lacy/Clere matter.
We have learned that even when you assert something, we have to see the actual
records and reasoning before we can accept it.
What has also fermented my ire is that time and again you have asked for
information about descendants of Plantagenet and Magna Charta forebears. I
ASSUME you are going to use any such information you receive from our group in
'your' books, for PROFIT (and then you refuse to answer our questions, stating,
'buy my book'!).
If I have misconstrued any of this, I will be happy to make a public apology.
As an interested member of this group, I felt personally insulted by the tone
of your rebut to Stewart.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
At one point Richardson told me bluntly that I had an obligation to
forward some information I had on a GARD from the "Plantagenets" to
David Faris right away.
This man's gall is amazing. How has he managed to get away with it for
so long? What surprises me is that he seems to think we are all very
stupid and can be easily manipulated.
I should think that someone within the fraternity/sorority of
professional genealogists would have brought him up short, with a round
turn, long before now.
Why is it only happening on SGM. Don't you folks police your own ranks
and expel charlatans and frauds such as this fellow? If you do not, you
should.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991013172931...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
Stewart Baldwin
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>Hi Stewart:
>
>You need to do your own original research and not be dependant on
>secondary sources or me to provide your answers. If you look at the
>original source documents available for this period already in print,
>you should easily find Llywelyn's mother's second marriage. You
>previously did well in finding Llywelyn's two new marriages. I have
>faith that you can find the mother's second marriage as well.
>
>Best always, Douglas Richardson
Doug,
It seems that there are some facts about which you ought to be made
aware.
1. I made no attempt to find Llywelyn's other marriages after you
offered that teaser back in February. In fact, I was not even a
participant in the relevant threads. I happened to stumble across the
information while looking for something else, recognized it as being
relevant to the discussion I had seen, and posted it to the newsgroup.
2. If I had invested the time to check out your information, I would
not have been pleased after I found out about that "Lord of the Isles"
wild goose chase that you had included, since it turned out that the
woman in question was not a daughter of the Lord of the Isles, but of
the King of Man.
3. As my current research involves other matters, I have no plans to
make a search for the additional information you desire regarding a
possible second marriage of Llywelyn's mother. However, please be
assured that if I am again lucky enough to accidently stumble upon
something relevant, I will be happy to share the information with you
and the other members of this newsgroup.
Stewart Baldwin
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 3:50 AM
Subject: Re: Llywelyn's mother md. a Corbet??
> Hi Stewart:
>
> You need to do your own original research and not be dependant on
> secondary sources or me to provide your answers.
I would guess Stewart Baldwin is one of the those who ask the least
questions but gives more answers than many, including Douglas Richardson.
Douglas Richardson frequently asks questions and expects answers,
why should he deny Stewart Baldwin what he himself wants, almost demands?
Stewart Baldwin does not do it for financial gain, something
Richardson does----
Leo van de Pas
If you look at the
> original source documents available for this period already in print,
> you should easily find Llywelyn's mother's second marriage. You
> previously did well in finding Llywelyn's two new marriages. I have
> faith that you can find the mother's second marriage as well.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <3804c7b9...@news.mindspring.com>,
> sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:28:20 -0700, Douglas Richardson
> > <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> > >Hi Stewart:
> > >
Leo van de Pas
Asking Douglas Richardson for an apology is quite justified but also a waste
of time as we have seen in the past. I for one, am still waiting. He is an
ill-mannered buffoon who is only on this list for his own benefit. Sadly he
gives the people he is associated with also a bad name by his behaviour.
"I expect answers, but you will have to buy my book", how dare he even use
gen-medieval?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: Llywelyn's mother md. a Corbet??
> [Doug wrote:]
>
> <<>Hi Stewart:
> >
> >You need to do your own original research and not be dependant [sic] on
> >secondary sources or me to provide your answers. >>
>
BWG...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/13/99 4:14:48 PM, royala...@msn.com writes:
>You need to do your own original research and not be dependant on
>secondary sources or me to provide your answers. If you look at the
>
I thought these lists were for sharing information so that everyone did not
have to do "original research" on every single item. Not that we believe
everything that is posted without researching it for ourselves, but at least
we can offer substantial leads. If this list is not here to share, I will
take myself elsewhere.
Barbara Good