Ray Phair discovers proof of Countess Ida
Reedpcgen
of the identity of Countess Ida.
Go to:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-07/1025715976
Bravo!
Paul
Gryphon801
of Countess Ida were...
Todd A. Farmerie
If possible, could Ray post the original text of the probative
document?
taf
Peter Stewart
Without going far out of my way, I'm unable to get hold of Ray's immediate
source, _Les registres de Philippe Auguste_ vol 1, Recueil des Historiens de
la France, Documents Financiers et Administratifs 7 (Paris, 1992).
However, the same list of captives from the battle of Bouvines, edited by A
Molinier, was printed in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 26
(Hanover, 1882, reprinted Stuttgart & New York, 1964), pp 392-3.
This was presumably drawn up soon after the battle (27 July 1214). The
original is stated (in 1882) to be catalogued in the (National) Archives,
Paris, as JJ VII, folio 110 et sec. The list of five prisoners sent to Paris
from the commune of Compiègne is headed by
"Rad[ulfus] Bigot, frater comitis Salesbir[iensis]"
(A note refers to "Winkelmann II, p 207 n" - I don't have time to go back to
the library & track this, which means little to me, but I suppose it may be
_Acta Imperii inedita seculi XIII_ edited by Eduard Winkelmann, 2 vols
(Innsbruck, 1880). Perhaps the note merely points out that Ralph Bigod was
related to the earl of Norfolk rather than Salisbury, as understood in the
19th century.)
In another list of 34 captives the same man is given again, as "Rad[ulfus]
le Bigot", but without mention of the earl of Salisbury.
Some confirmation of this can be found in the chronicle of Saint-Martin de
Tours written in 1225, although Ralph is not named: in the account of
Bouvines under 1214 this states:
"....Guillelmus comes Salesburiensis et frater eius....et multi magni
nominis tam barones quam alii victi capiuntur vintique in Franciam
adducuntur" [see MGH, SS 26, p 465]
It must have been well-known to the French, counting their captives' value,
that William Longespée had a brother who was taken prisoner along with him.
Peter Stewart
Reedpcgen
>Some confirmation of this can be found in the chronicle of Saint-Martin de
>Tours written in 1225, although Ralph is not named: in the account of
>Bouvines under 1214 this states:
>
>"....Guillelmus comes Salesburiensis et frater eius....et multi magni >nominis
tam barones quam alii victi capiuntur vintique in Franciam >adducuntur" [see
MGH, SS 26, p 465]
>
>It must have been well-known to the French, counting their captives' value,
>that William Longespée had a brother who was taken prisoner along with him.
>
>Peter Stewart
>
Peter,
I think this confirmation is extremely important. One might indeed argue that
the French got the title of Ralph's brother wrong, and that they should have
said Norfolk instead of Salisbury, but this entry confirms the statement given
in the list of prisoners. By stating it the other way around (i.e., that the
brother of William, Earl of Salisbury, was captured), means they did definitely
know his identity and their relationship. As William was illegitimate, and as
we know his father was the King of England, any brother who was not royal must
be his mother's child.
Paul
Peter Stewart
Indeed, Paul - William is stated by the same source to be King John's
brother, while Ralph Bigod is specified only as William's & therefore
one can assume their relationship must have been known as uterine.
I suppose there's a _remote_ possibility that Winkelmann had found
more on this, and that its import has been overlooked for the past 100
years, but unfortunately I don't have access to his work to check.
Peter