CP and Countess Lucy
G . EDWARD ALLEN
"The only direct statements about it [Lucy's parentage] are in the
Peterborough Chronicle [Printed by the Caxton Soc. The original was
written circa 1370, and is probably a copy of an older compilation. The
story of Spalding, in which Lucy is mentioned, is obviously the same as
that of the pseudo-Ingulf, and derived from Crowland. The writer seems
to have had access to the Spalding chartulary (Add. MS. 352396 and Harl.
MS. 742), which was compiled about 1330. "
Even if there weren't a great deal of doubt about the Crowland and
Peterborough materials, they are hardly contemporaneous.
Ivo on 1091 was granted the lordship of Kendal. For those of you who
are interested in the descent of this property, CP refers to Farrer,
*Records of Kendal*.
The link between Aelfgar and Lucy is Spalding. The link from Aelgar
could well have been broken by Hastings. It could have been granted
to someone between Aelfgar and lucy and not related to Aelfgar. It
could have been a Thorold, but that does not prove it was Thorold the
Sheriff, just a Thorold, who may have been a kinsman of Lucy's.
"No close family connection between Aelfgar and Lucy is mentioned in any
contemporary document, and chronology is opposed to the relationship of
father and daughter. Moreover, the only known children of Aelfgar are
Edwin, Morcar, and Aeldgitha, wife of Harold, and consequently the
passing of the manor of Spalding cannot be held to justify the inference
that Aelfgar was father of Lucy."
Thorold, whom J. H. Round indentifies with the Lincoliensis Turoldus
mentioned in "De miraculis sancti Eadmundi' of Herman,[Feudal England,
p. 329. Does anyone have this passage handy? K.] appears to have founded
a cell at Spalding subject to Crowland. [Dugdale, Mon. 111:215] Kirk
avers that there are no Thorold charters at Crowland, which abbey burned
in 1091. (Thorold the Sheriff died about 1085.) Farrer mentions a date
of about 1092, which is also after Thorold the Sheriff died. Can anybody
come up with a fairly good date for this document?
Ivo Taillebois gave lands in Spalding to the Abbey of St. Nicholas,
Angers," for the souls of himself and Lucy his wife, and of their
ancestors, 'to wit, Thorold [not denominated as The Sheriff] and his
wife.' [Add. MS. 35296, f. 8.]" It does not seem to specify of whom
Thorold and his wife were ancestors, Ivo or Lucy. It also does not
specify the relationship. In 1135, Lucy gives Spalding to the church and
monks of St. Nicholas, Spalding "as she held it 'in times of Ivo de
Thallebos [sic] and Roger FitzGerold and Earl Ranulph, in alms for my
soul and for the redemption of the soul of my father and of my mother
and of my husbands and kinsmen.' [Farrer, Yorks Charters, iii:184]."
No names appear to be specified. Add. MS 35296, f. 388b, which is
acharter of Hugh II, Earl of Chester, confirming to Spalding the tithes
given by his predecessors. CP mentions Thorold the Sheriff. I would like
to know if the charter actually says that or if the CP infered it and
stated it as fact, which it might not be.
Some of Lucy's lands had been forceably surrendered to the King. Part
was given to Lucy and part was eventually given to Wm de Roumare. But
the terms and lands are not specified. So we cannot be sure if the lands
of Thorold the Sheriff were acquired through Lucy or through another
avenue, even if CP sees it as evidence that Thorold was father of Lucy.
Next time, I will return to Kirk's articles.
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris Justificatio
Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <361BB9...@pacbell.net>...
>CP VI: 743-6, Brownbill, J., "The Countess Lucy."
>
>"The only direct statements about it [Lucy's parentage] are in the
>Peterborough Chronicle [Printed by the Caxton Soc. The original was
>written circa 1370, and is probably a copy of an older compilation. The
>story of Spalding, in which Lucy is mentioned, is obviously the same as
>that of the pseudo-Ingulf, and derived from Crowland. The writer seems
>to have had access to the Spalding chartulary (Add. MS. 352396 and Harl.
>MS. 742), which was compiled about 1330. "
>
>Even if there weren't a great deal of doubt about the Crowland and
>Peterborough materials, they are hardly contemporaneous.
Excellent point.
Just as the Bradenstoke Cartulary is not contemporaneous with "Countess Ida"
or William Longespee --- although Todd A. Farmerie keeps telling us that it
is and then crawls back in his bunker and refuses to listen to alternate
opinions.
Nat Taylor made similar claims previously --- and has been quiet as a church
mouse on this issue since his false alarm.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Illegitimis Non Carborundum
Reedpcgen
Spencer,
I won't argue this beyond reason, but as you still seem very interested, I'd
like to explain what I see as the difference between the evidence given in the
Crowland[et al] cartulary[-ies] concerning Lady Godiva and Lucy and that
concerning Countess Ida appearing in the Bradenstoke cartulary.
(1) The fundationis historia, or history of the foundation (or likewise the
genealogy or stem or patris of the founders) is a part of most cartularies that
is notoriously fabulous(at least in part) in most cases (this is what gave us
the fictitious parentage of William FitzNigel/Neel, if you remember that recent
thread).
This is mainly for three reasons: (a) there was strong motivation to give some
legal rationale for the abbey/monastery to hold important lands, lands which
provided important income for the survival and comfort of that institution; (b)
the foundation of many of these institutions was frequently pre-Conquest, hence
documents accounting for the donations rarely survived because records were
created for different purposes or handled differently at the time of the
donation than they were after the Conquest; (c) the distance of time from the
fact was also a problem, as in the case of the Countess Lucy or Godiva,
centuries after the fact--well beyond memory.
(2) The two mentions of Countess Ida in the Bradenstoke cartulary were in two
small obscure grants of land. These were relatively unimportant grants, buried
in the text of other grants, not in the fundationis historia, etc. So the
motivation for fraudulent entries in those cases would be negligible. (a) The
effort of making up such small donations would be more trouble than they were
worth, if you get my drift, and (b) would likely be based on real and credible
evidence [so as to be a believable fraud] as it was not that far removed in
time from William Longespee or Countess Ida. And there is no reason to believe
there was widespread fraud in the Bradenstoke cartulary. One has to have some
type of evidence or good reasoning for such a rationale.
The grants made by Earl William de Longespee were made during his adult
lifetime, or roughly about 1196-1225/6. So that is not that far removed from
the time our surviving copy of the Bradenstoke cartulary was recorded.
If you are going to compare these older cartularies and their contents with the
Countess Ida matter appearing in the Bradenstoke cartulary, and argue the
points further, I think presenting specific points for historical criticism
(motivation for fraud, chronology, etc.) would be of a benefit to members of
the group. Ad hominem or 'straw man' attacks would not.
pcr
P. S. For all those new to this group, there was a very interesting line of
posts about Countess Ida, William Longespee, etc., last January. You can
search them quickly by going to www.dejanews.com and either searching back
through my author profile until you hit the threads or doing a power search for
Ida or Longespee/Longspee.
G . EDWARD ALLEN
The matter actually goes back to March of 1997. Try Countess Ida,
William Longespee, and Bradenstoke Cartulary as search words.
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris Justificatio
Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <361BD3...@pacbell.net>...
>Reedpcgen wrote:
>>
>> Spencer,
>>
>> I won't argue this beyond reason, but as you still seem very interested,
I'd
>> like to explain what I see as the difference between the evidence given
in the
>> Crowland[et al] cartulary[-ies] concerning Lady Godiva and Lucy and that
>> concerning Countess Ida appearing in the Bradenstoke cartulary.
OK.
>>
>> (1) The fundationis historia, or history of the foundation (or likewise
the
>> genealogy or stem or patris of the founders) is a part of most
cartularies that
>> is notoriously fabulous(at least in part) in most cases (this is what
gave us
>> the fictitious parentage of William FitzNigel/Neel, if you remember that
recent
>> thread).
You may be starting off from a false premise. Hines has never taken the
position that the Bradenstoke Priory Cartular[y](ies) is/are fraudulent.
So, this may be a *non sequitur.*
>>
>> This is mainly for three reasons: (a) there was strong motivation to give
some
>> legal rationale for the abbey/monastery to hold important lands, lands
which
>> provided important income for the survival and comfort of that
institution; (b)
>> the foundation of many of these institutions was frequently pre-Conquest,
hence
>> documents accounting for the donations rarely survived because records
were
>> created for different purposes or handled differently at the time of the
>> donation than they were after the Conquest; (c) the distance of time from
the
>> fact was also a problem, as in the case of the Countess Lucy or Godiva,
>> centuries after the fact--well beyond memory.
Fine.
>>
>> (2) The two mentions of Countess Ida in the Bradenstoke cartulary were in
two
>> small obscure grants of land. These were relatively unimportant grants,
buried
>> in the text of other grants, not in the fundationis historia, etc. So
the
>> motivation for fraudulent entries in those cases would be negligible.
Please see my clear statement, supra.
>> (a) The
>> effort of making up such small donations would be more trouble than they
were
>> worth, if you get my drift, and (b) would likely be based on real and
credible
>> evidence [so as to be a believable fraud] as it was not that far removed
in
>> time from William Longespee or Countess Ida.
We have previously been told that the Bradenstoke Cartulary is probably
mid-14th Century, at the earliest --- say 1350.
Are you disputing that judgment? If so, please tell us about your evidence
and proof.
William Longespee died in 1226. So the Bradenstoke Cartulary was hardly
"contemporaneous." "Not that far removed..." is a weasel phrase.
Charlemagne died in 814. Would you say that a document dated 940 was
"contemporaneous" with Charlemagne? Be honest now. :)
"It depends on what you mean by 'alone' ? ... We were never really alone
were we Betty? ... You were always there."
>> And there is no reason to believe
>> there was widespread fraud in the Bradenstoke cartulary. One has to have
some
>> type of evidence or good reasoning for such a rationale.
You seem to have this harebrained idea that someone has said it is
fraudulent. Where did you get that idea?
>>
>> The grants made by Earl William de Longespee were made during his adult
>> lifetime, or roughly about 1196-1225/6. So that is not that far removed
from
>> the time our surviving copy of the Bradenstoke cartulary was recorded.
"Not far removed from the time...." Circa 125 years? There we go with the
weasel phrases again. Stop that pcr!
>>
>> If you are going to compare these older cartularies and their contents
with the
>> Countess Ida matter appearing in the Bradenstoke cartulary, and argue the
>> points further, I think presenting specific points for historical
criticism
>> (motivation for fraud, chronology, etc.) would be of a benefit to members
of
>> the group. Ad hominem or 'straw man' attacks would not.
Cheap shot. You were not here on SGM at the time. Further, you do not
appear to have read all the posts.
Please go back and read "Nat's Surprise" and you will see why the well has
been pretty well poisoned on this "Countess Ida" folderol. Hines caught the
fox in the chicken coop on that one.
Now the issue here is who was the Mother of William Longespee, not just some
narrow hair-splitting perorations about the Bradenstoke Cartulary. If
someone wants to lay out a coherent argument on the maternity issue, as
Douglas Richardson supposedly said he would do, at some point, that is fine.
DR said that circa 1993.
But don't waste our time with all this window dressing and trumpet voluntary
jazz on "Countess Ida" the mystery woman.
Bring on the Goose --- the main course [argument] --- or retire to the
kitchen and cook up another meal!
>>
>> pcr
>>
>> P. S. For all those new to this group, there was a very interesting line
of
>> posts about Countess Ida, William Longespee, etc., last January. You can
>> search them quickly by going to www.dejanews.com and either searching
back
>> through my author profile until you hit the threads or doing a power
search for
>> Ida or Longespee/Longspee.
>
>The matter actually goes back to March of 1997. Try Countess Ida,
>William Longespee, and Bradenstoke Cartulary as search words.
>
>Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
Yes, this is quite true.
pcr reveals that he has not done his homework and read the previous posts on
this important "Countess Ida" issue. For shame.
Until he does so, we are really not singing from the same sheet of music,
working from the same data package --- and further discussion is
fragmentary, futile and a colossal time-waster.
The previous posts, when read carefully reveal the critical points at issue.
Kay Allen is correct --- the trail starts in March 1997.
Work your way through the wickets. See you after you finish. I Look
Forward to it.
Good Hunting and Happy Reading!
D. Spencer Hines
Fortem Posce Animum
Exitus Acta Probat
Reedpcgen
>
>William Longespee died in 1226. So the Bradenstoke Cartulary was hardly
>"contemporaneous." "Not that far removed..." is a weasel phrase.
Not necessarily. For prominent individuals interested in inheritance, five or
six generations is not that far removed. I could cite five to six generations
of my ancestry when I was six--not because I studied it, but because it was
talked about so much and the stories related when I was young.
Further this with the BELIEF that one had to provide for the souls of one's
ancestors (which was the whole point of the donations). So one would clearly
remember antessessors and patrons. So would the institution. The Earls of
Salisbury were the patrons of Bradenstoke, so to create an utter fiction
(completely making up the name 'Countess Ida') would be brazen, considering
members of the family may well have had private documents which proved her
identity at the time our copy of the cartulary was recorded. (An Earl's
household would have had private documents and muniments in a chest, including
seals, charters, etc. Even minor gentry family cartularies preserved great
detail about predecessors.)
To quote Dr. Katherine Keats-Rohan (Linacre College, Oxford), from _Family
Trees and the Roots of Politics: The Prosopography of Britain and France from
the Tenth to the Twelfth Century_[1997], p. 208:
"None of the disparate texts we have examined here tells a complete or
comprehensible story on its own. Most easily lend themselves to the charge of
falsification. Yet fantastical chronicles, like forged charters, are never
complete fabrications [J. Horace Round said this too]. There is not, and never
was, any point in the complete fabrication of documents. Although they cannot
be used in the same way as 'genuine' texts, we ignore their evidence at our
peril."
But I have yet to see anyone state that the Bradenstoke cartulary has been
fabricated in any way (at least as far as the donations are concerned). So,
QUESTION ONE: Are you disputing that the given name of the mother of William de
Longespee was Ida, and that her rank was that of countess?
QUESTION TWO: If you are not stating that the relevant part of the Bradenstoke
cartulary was fabricated or fraudulent, what are you disputing?
>Cheap shot. You were not here on SGM at the time. Further, you do not
>appear to have read all the posts.
>
I did not mean to make any cheap shot. But, I HAD ALREADY read ALL posts on
the matter. My point in making reference to that period (ca. January 1998) was
because it was at that time the matter was resurrected and people made definite
headway towards resolving the open disputes that had not been resolved the
first time the matter surfaced.
So, QUESTION THREE: are you at least resolved that William de Longespee's
mother was the mysterious "Countess Ida" and is your remaining objection that
we do not know who she is? (Even though there is the suspicion or supposition
that she might have been the Ida who was wife of the Earl of Norfolk, we have
no direct evidence of that.)
>
>Until he does so, we are really not singing from the same sheet of music,
>working from the same data package --- and further discussion is
>fragmentary, futile and a colossal time-waster.
>
As I said before, I have read all previous posts, including searching author
profiles, various threads, etc. You can trust that I am a very thorough
researcher given time to do so.
I am simply trying to determine what specific objections are still left.
Thanks,
pcr
Reedpcgen
One further specific note.
>We have previously been told that the Bradenstoke Cartulary is probably
>mid-14th Century, at the earliest --- say 1350.
>
>Are you disputing that judgment?
I dispute any supposition that it was "created"[not your word] say 1350. What
we have is a copy of earlier records. As is frequently the case, the original
or much earlier copy no longer survives, or at least has not been discovered
yet. As monks had no xerox machines, they made copies of valuable records to
preserve them. What we have is a copy of the origina, or earlier copy. So
even if ours only dates to say 1350, the record that clerk was copying from was
indeed likely original, given it was hardly a century after the fact. Do you
find this a reasonable conclusion?
We can thank Henry VIII that so many original records were lost or destroyed
due to the dissolution of monasteries.
pcr
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris Justificatio
Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
Reedpcgen wrote in message <19981008035717...@ng27.aol.com>...
>
>One further specific note.
>>
>>We have previously been told that the Bradenstoke Cartulary is probably
>>mid-14th Century, at the earliest --- say 1350.
>>
>>Are you disputing that judgment?
>
>I dispute any supposition that it was "created"[not your word] say 1350.
What
>we have is a copy of earlier records. As is frequently the case, the
original
>or much earlier copy no longer survives, or at least has not been
discovered
>yet. As monks had no xerox machines, they made copies of valuable records
to
>preserve them. What we have is a copy of the origina, or earlier copy. So
>even if ours only dates to say 1350, the record that clerk was copying from
was
>indeed likely original, given it was hardly a century after the fact. Do
you
>find this a reasonable conclusion?
>
>We can thank Henry VIII that so many original records were lost or
destroyed
>due to the dissolution of monasteries.
>
>pcr
>
You need to prove all this when you write your article, including the
provenance of the documents. Errors are frequently introduced during any
hand-copying process. So, obviously, a copy is far less impressive than is
an original.
DSH
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris Justificatio
Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
Reedpcgen wrote in message <19981008034736...@ng27.aol.com>...
>
>>
>>William Longespee died in 1226. So the Bradenstoke Cartulary was hardly
>>"contemporaneous." "Not that far removed..." is a weasel phrase.
>
>
>Not necessarily.
Another weasel phrase.
>For prominent individuals interested in inheritance, five or
>six generations is not that far removed. I could cite five to six
generations
>of my ancestry when I was six--not because I studied it, but because it was
>talked about so much and the stories related when I was young.
Are you *contemporaneous* with your 3rd and 4th Great-Grandparents? Of
course not. What is the meaning of 'is'? You are treading water on this
one.
>
>Further this [sic] with the BELIEF that one had to provide for the souls of
one's
>ancestors (which was the whole point of the donations). So one would
clearly
The "Argument From Historical Necessity" is rarely a legitimate one. Prove
the discrete facts, don't say "it must have happened that way."
>remember antessessors and patrons. So would the institution. The Earls of
>Salisbury were the patrons of Bradenstoke, so to create an utter fiction
>(completely making up the name 'Countess Ida') would be brazen, considering
>members of the family may well have had private documents which proved her
>identity at the time our copy of the cartulary was recorded.
No one has said there was a "forgery."
>(An Earl's
>household would have had private documents and muniments in a chest,
including
>seals, charters, etc. Even minor gentry family cartularies preserved
great
>detail about predecessors.)
"Woulda, shoulda, coulda" do not make good historical or genealogical
arguments. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton understands that.
>
>To quote Dr. Katherine Keats-Rohan (Linacre College, Oxford), from _Family
>Trees and the Roots of Politics: The Prosopography of Britain and France
from
>the Tenth to the Twelfth Century_[1997], p. 208:
>
>"None of the disparate texts we have examined here tells a complete or
>comprehensible story on its own. Most easily lend themselves to the charge
of
>falsification. Yet fantastical chronicles, like forged charters, are never
>complete fabrications [J. Horace Round said this too]. There is not, and
never
>was, any point in the complete fabrication of documents. Although they
cannot
>be used in the same way as 'genuine' texts, we ignore their evidence at our
>peril."
Hmmm, irrelevant authority rattling.
>
>But I have yet to see anyone state that the Bradenstoke cartulary has been
>fabricated in any way (at least as far as the donations are concerned).
So,
>
>QUESTION ONE: Are you disputing that the given name of the mother of
William de
>Longespee was Ida, and that her rank was that of countess?
>
>QUESTION TWO: If you are not stating that the relevant part of the
Bradenstoke
>cartulary was fabricated or fraudulent, what are you disputing?
>
>>Cheap shot. You were not here on SGM at the time. Further, you do not
>>appear to have read all the posts.
>>
>I did not mean to make any cheap shot. But, I HAD ALREADY read ALL posts
on
>the matter.
No, not with understanding, for you have demonstrated a misreading of what
transpired. Actually, you should go back into February 1997, for the roots
of the discussion.
>My point in making reference to that period (ca. January 1998) was
>because it was at that time the matter was resurrected and people made
definite
>headway towards resolving the open disputes that had not been resolved the
>first time the matter surfaced.
Start with January 1997. Nothing has been "resolved" to date.
>
>So, QUESTION THREE: are you at least resolved that William de Longespee's
>mother was the mysterious "Countess Ida" and is your remaining objection
that
>we do not know who she is? (Even though there is the suspicion or
supposition
>that she might have been the Ida who was wife of the Earl of Norfolk, we
have
>no direct evidence of that.)
>
>>
>>Until he does so, we are really not singing from the same sheet of music,
>>working from the same data package --- and further discussion is
>>fragmentary, futile and a colossal time-waster.
>>
>
>As I said before, I have read all previous posts, including searching
author
>profiles, various threads, etc. You can trust that I am a very thorough
>researcher given time to do so.
Tell me about "Nat's Surprise."
>
>I am simply trying to determine what specific objections are still left.
>
>Thanks,
>
>pcr
Dear pcr,
1. I am not about to write your article on "Countess Ida" for you.
2. You are intelligent and do not need a kick start.
3. If you write up your conclusions in a finely crafted, thoughtful and
complete way --- then you should publish them.
4. You could publish in a journal --- or here.
5. In any case, the work product will be fairly judged on its merits by us.
6. I don't want to look at this matter piecemeal. --- Show me the whole
ball of wax --- with the holes plugged and a convincing line of
argumentation based on reason and fact --- and I'll judge the finished
product according to its merits and stature.
All Best Wishes,
KHF...@aol.com
It is likely true, but has an additional problem: "how do you trust a liar?"
The same holds true with the Countess Lucy problems. Ignoring evidence is done
at your own peril. Dr. Keats-Rohan has done quite a bit of work on the Lucy
problem, yet her work is drowned in hard-to-understand imagery and the
conclusions reached seem most tentative. I have read and reread her article as
posted in the Internet which I included in whole in the very first part of
this Lucy thread. Her words confused me the first time I read them and they
confuse me now. Her logic does not seem clear and her assumptions of the
falsity of the documents cloud the picture. Would that we could rise above
these earthly barriers and see the past in its whole form, but that is
unlikely as diamond soup is inedible.
D. Spencer Hines
Please tell us more about your reservations about the Keats-Rohan article
and give us the URL for it.
Thank you.
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris Justificatio
Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
KHF...@aol.com wrote in message <50dca60e...@aol.com>...
Adrian Channing
England to use the name Ida that I have come across are descendants of
William Longespee, eg
William I > William II >Ida m Walter Fitzroberts > Ela m William de
Oddingsells > Ida m John de Clinton
and
William I > Ida/Idonea m2 William Beauchamp > Ela m Baldwin Wake > Ida m
John Stonegrave
There was an Ida who m Robert son of Geoffrey Nevill (c1197-1242) of Raby,
but I do not know who her parents were.
Has anybody come across examples of other contemporary Ida christian name
use in England?
regards Adrian
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com
G . EDWARD ALLEN
The Tony/Toeni/Tosny family had an Ida connection. But I do not know if
the name carried on as it did in the Longespee family.
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
Reedpcgen
The article by Keats-Rohan can be found among the issues of Prosopon at:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/home.stm
Dr. Keats-Rohan was just awarded the Prix Brant IV de Koskull from the
Confederation Internatione de Genealogie et d'Heraldique. Her work is very
good and well thought out, if difficult to follow at times. And it tends to
be thoroughly reviewed by other experts of the period.
pcr
D. Spencer Hines
The precise URL and the citation for this particular Keats-Rohan article
would be invaluable.
There is a whole clutter of trash at the prosopographical Oxford site. They
don't seem to clean it out regularly.
So, the precise URL for this exact Keats-Rohan article you are critiquing
would be appreciated.
Thank you.
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris Justificatio
Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message ...
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/9/98 8:58:45 AM, shi...@worldnet.att.net writes:
<<the precise URL for this exact Keats-Rohan article you are critiquing
would be appreciated.>>
The precise URL is:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/PRSPN2.stm.
The article is reprinted below for those without Internet access or have
trouble getting through these often contrary connections. The footnotes were
in the original and are now appended and seem to have lost their place in the
text. If that URL still works, one can append the footnotes back in the text.
Lovely problems we have with this kind of thing.
PERSONAL NOTES: Certainly there is some merit to the Latin phrases which has
only recently come to our attention. However, this article does not address
all the issues and the Malet connection still needs much research. Please
note: "In 1153, a charter [RRAN, III, 180] of the future Henry II for Lucy's
son Ranulf II of Chester referred to her uncles Robert Malet and Alan of
Lincoln."
There seems to be a problem finding the primary source for the information
that Algar was married a second time to a daughter of William Malet. This
equation could change the picture if it is not a spurious source. At the
moment, I believe that this marriage (if it occurred) would be the key to the
entire puzzle.
So far as THE ANCESTRY OF ELIZABETH OF YORK is concerned, my ideas have been
overruled by Marlyn Lewis, the compiler, and the ancestry will be stopped with
Countess Lucy. We will note that the information is still in dispute and any
further investigations will take place in THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION and other
such journals.
______________________________
A lot of ink has flowed on this subject, but there can be no doubt that the
'mysterious' Countess Lucy of Chester was William Malet's thrice-married
granddaughter, the daughter of Robert Malet's sister and Turold the Sheriff of
Lincoln (dead by 1079). The suggestion was first made by R. Kirk in 1888. As
N. Sumner has more recently observed: 'This account has the merit of
explaining why the lordship of Spalding and other places in Lincolnshire were
held after Ivo's death not by Beatrice, his direct heir and the daughter of
his marriage to Lucy, but by the later husbands of Lucy, Roger fitz Gerold and
Ranulph Meschines.' It is clear from her charters that Lucy was an heiress; as
was to be expected, her estates passed to the sons of her second and third
marriages. Kirk's work was based upon conjecture, and contained a number of
errors. The question of Lucy's parentage has therefore remained open.
Nevertheless, there is proof that Kirk was right.
A spurious charter of Crowland Abbey made Turold of Bucknall (the Sheriff)
the founder of the priory of Spalding as a cell of Crowland. It also called
Turold brother of Godiva countess of Mercia, but subsequently described
Godiva's son Earl Algar as Turold's cognatus (cousin). A genealogia fundatoris
of Coventry Abbey made Lucy a daughter of Earl Algar and sister and heiress of
earls Edwin and Morcar. The Peterborough Chronicle and the Pseudo-Ingulf's
Chronicle of Crowland both made Lucy the daughter of Algar and niece or great-
niece of Turold. We know that William Malet was half-English, so these
traditions probably boil down to a relationship between Countess Godiva and
William's English mother.
In 1153, a charter [RRAN, III, 180] of the future Henry II for Lucy's son
Ranulf II of Chester referred to her uncles Robert Malet and Alan of Lincoln.
Alan of Lincoln was the successor, and almost certainly the son, of Domesday's
Alfred of Lincoln. Chronologically, it is most unlikely that Alan was Lucy's
uncle. It was probably another of Alfred's sons whom Domesday described as
Alfred nepos [nephew or grandson] of Turold, then holding a fee which was
certainly thereafter held with the rest of the senior Alfred's fee by his heir
Alan. Domesday provides a further indication that Alfred senior married
another of William Malet's daughters when it names a William as Alfred's
predecessor in two of his manors. Other parts of each of these manors (Linwood
and Rothwell) were held in 1086 by Durand Malet, who was probably William's
son. It seems that Henry's charter can be explained by seeing a scribe,
perhaps in search of rhetorical balance, commit the error of ascribing two
uncles to Lucy, instead of a niece (Lucy) and a nephew (Alan of Lincoln) to
Robert Malet, who was uncle to both.
Turold is evidenced in Domesday Book as a benefactor of Crowland Abbey, to
which he gave a parcel of land at Bucknall. The abbey also held land at
Spalding that had probably been granted to it by Earl Algar and there is
evidence to suggest that Turold the Sheriff gave further land there to the
abbey of St Nicholas, Angers, before 1079. Lucy and her first husband Ivo
Taillebois subsequently founded, or perhaps re-founded, a priory at Spalding
subject to St Nicholas, Angers. A revealing phrase from the Register of
Spalding Priory reads: 'mortuo quia dicto Thoraldo relicta sibi herede Lucia
predicta' [at his death Turold left an heir, the aforesaid Lucy]. The word
heres, 'heir', was often used of the child who was to inherit his/her father's
property. Lucy later confirmed the gifts of all three of her husbands: 'pro
redempcione anime patris mei et matris mee et dominorum meorum et parentum
meorum' [for the souls of my father and mother, my husbands and my (other)
relatives]. The association of the priory with such a small group of people
and the description of Lucy as heres of Turold strongly hint at Lucy's
parentage. But we can go further still.
In their initial benefaction Ivo and Lucy referred to 'antecessorum suorum
Turoldi scilicet uxorisque eius regine' [our 'ancestors' Turold and his wife].
The reference to Turold's wife indicates that some part of his landholding had
come to him through his wife, something also indicated by the occurrence of
William Malet amongst those who had held the Domesday lands of Lucy's first
husband Ivo Taillebois before him. The apparently vague Latin words antecessor
and predecessor can both be used to mean something like 'predecessor'. Each of
them conveys a range of very precise meanings in different circumstances. The
description of Turold and his wife as antecessores of Ivo and Lucy may be
compared to the usage in a charter in the cartulary of Mont-Saint-Michel by
which the Angevins Hugh Chalibot and his wife confirmed the grants of her
father, who was described as antecessor noster. Other examples of this phrase
show clearly that it was used by a married man to describe the parent from
whom his wife had inherited the property she brought to the marriage. Acting
on her own account (normally after her husband's death), the heiress will
often describe herself as the daughter of the parent her husband described as
antecessor noster. A rare use of the phrase was to indicate the couple's
immediate predecessor, not her father but her brother. In Lucy and Ivo's case
the plurality of their antecessores, Turold and his wife, puts the matter
beyond doubt. Lucy's parents were indeed Turold the Sheriff and a daughter of
William Malet.
NOTES:
1 See Round, Feudal England, pp. 255-6; Complete Peerage, ed. G. E.
C[ockayne], 13 vols (1910-59), VII, App. J, pp. 743-46.
2 R. E. G. Kirk, 'The Countess Lucy: Singular or Plural?', The Genealogist,
n.s. 5 (1888), 60-75, 131-44, 153-73.
3 Beatrice (who bore the name of Robert Malet's sister) married Ribald, half-
brother of Count Alan; Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. W. Dugdale, 6 vols (new
edn, 1817-30), III, 553, no. xx. For their descendants see H. C.
FitzHerbert, 'An original pedigree of Tailbois and Neville', The
Genealogist, n.s. 3 (1886), 31–35, 107–111 (p. 31). Clay thought Beatrice
was probably illegitimate (see Early Yorkshire Charters, V, 291).
4 N. Sumner, 'The Countess Lucy's Priory? The Early History of Spalding
Priory and its Estates', Reading Medieval Studies, 13 (1988), 81-103 (p.
84).
5 Monasticon Anglicanum, II, 118-19.
6 Ibid., II, 192.
7 See Complete Peerage, VII, App. J, 743-6 (p. 745 and n).
8 Domesday Book, fol. 357d.
9 DB, fol. 346d.
10 DB, fol. 346d; see N. Sumner, 'The Countess Lucy's priory?', pp. 83-84 and
n. 12.
11 B.M. Add. 35296, fol. 2r.
12 B.M. Add. 35296, fol. 9r.
13 suorum, 'their' in the Register would have been nostrorum, 'our', in the
original charter.
14B.N. Coll. Anjou-Touraine 3, no. 876 (Saint-Nicholas d'Angers), and B.M.
Add. 35296 (Spalding), though both later copies, agree upon this wording.
15 Monasticon Anglicanum, II, 220, nos v and viii.
16 Bibliothèque de la Ville d'Avranches, ms 210, fol. 104r-v. I am preparing
an edition of this cartulary.
17 Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall, 3 vols, Rolls Series 99 (1896), I,
368.
Adrian Channing
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
>
> The Tony/Toeni/Tosny family had an Ida connection. But I do not know if
> the name carried on as it did in the Longespee family.
>
Yes, thanks v much for pointing this out, however the reason for using the
name Ida here can be traced back to her being a descendant of the
"extended" Countess Boulogne family. If you are interested I gave full
details below, much of my sources are from past n.g. messages, in
particular one from Mr Reed. No doubt my work is not without errors.
From CP Roger de Toeni III, styled also De Conches b. probably 1104, suc
1126 m Ida (possibly she was christened Gertrude, but changed her name on
marriage to one less unfamiliar to Anglo-Norman ears) d of Baldwin III,
Count of Hainault by Yolande d of Gerard, Count of GUELDERS. Roger died
after Mich. 1157 and probably before 1162.
So with all these connections, I wonder if she was ever referred to as
"Countess Ida"?
Regards Adrian
=======================================================================
GOTTFRIED/GODFREY (->995) Ct; of Lorraine; m Mathilde of
Sachsen, Saxony (sometime wife of BALDWIN III of Flanders)
GOZELO I (-1044); Dk of Upper & Lower Loth; Margrave of
Antwerp
left
A)Uda/Oda m LAMBERT II (-1054 or c1063); Ct Louvain/Lowen;
The Belted; Founded Brussels; s of LAMBERT I; the bearded;
Ct of Louvain (-1013)
Uda/Oda and LAMBERT I left
HENRY/HEINRICH II; (Fr-1077) Ct Louvaine and Lorrainem
Adela/Adelaide (c1045->1086) of Daringia/Thuringia and/or
Orlanunda d of EBERHARD von der BETUWE of Tristerbaut
and left
1)GODFREY/GOTTFRIED I (c1060-1140); Ct of Brabant and
Louvain m Ida of Chiny; Or GODFREY II (-1142) Dk of Lower
Lorrain and Brabant
who left
i)Ida m ARNOLD II of Cleve
ii)Adela/Adeliza (c1105-1151) m1 1121 k HENRY I (1068-1135)
r 1100-35, his m2; m2 1138 WILLIAM D'AUBIGNY (-1176) Er
ARUNDEL s of WILLIAM d'AUBIGNY by Maud d of ROGER le BIGOD
or s of Wm by wdw of ROGER BIGOD
and
2)Ida (1065-1139); of Louvain; m(1?) 1084 BALDWIN/BAUDOUIN
II (c1056-1099) Ct Hainault s of BALDWIN (1030-1070) I Ct
Hainault and VI of Flanders by (m c1053) Richilde of
Hainault or von Egisheim (-c1080)
This Ida left
a)Ida of Hainault m c1100 THOMAS de COUCY (-1130) THOMAS m3
Melisende (left ENGUERRAND de COUCY, and a dau m HUGUES de
GOURNAY) (Who by m1 left Ide de Coucy m1 ALARD de Chimoy;
m2 BERNARD d'ORBAIS)
b) BALDWIN III (1087-1120) Ct Hainault m c1107 Yolande de
Guelders (1090-)
who left
BALDWIN IV (1100-1171) of Hainaut m Alix of Namur Ż
and
Ida/Gertrude (c1108-) of Hainault m ROGER III de TOENI
(c1104-c1161) of Conches, Normandy s of RALPH de TOENI
(c1076-1126) by Alice Huntingdon & sis of Margaret the wife
of WALTER CLIFFORD and left issue
c)JOSCELYN of Louvain m heir of WILLIAM Ld PERCY; their
descendants Er N'umberland
d)GODFREY III (-1190) The Bube; Dk of Lower Lorrain m
Margaret d of HENRY II of Limbugh
e)Adelaide de Lorraine (-c1158) m Duke SIMON I de Alsace
(c1076-1138) and left issue
back to GOZELO I's issue
B)GODFREY/GEOFFREY/GOTTFRIED II (-1069 or -1065) Ct
Ardenne; the bearded; Dk of Lower Lorraine; m1 Dada; m2
Beatrix of Lorrain
who by m1 left, with GODFREY III
IDA (-1113); Of Bouillion; ?niece to pope STEPHEN/ETIENNE
IX (-1058); m EUSTACE II (-1093 or -c1080) Ct Boulogne [He
m1 Goda (-1056) sis of Ed the Confessor (1005-1066); Goda
had m1 DROGO of Mantes] s of EUSTACE I (-1049) Ct of
Boulogne; EUSTACE II may have had a sister Ida, but
Runciman is probably wrong in stating she was the wife of
BALDWIN I de Rethel
and left (probably as well as Ida of Boulogne m1 c1070
HERMAN (1057-c1080) van Malsen; van Kuijc; m2 c1080 Cono
graaf de Montaigu (a wdw); By m1 left HENDRIK I van
Kuijc and ANDREAS van Kuijc bp of Utect)
a)GODFREY (c1060-1100 Jerusalem); fair and tall); 2s; of
Bouillon, Ardennes; of Antwerp; In 1082- Dk Lower Lorraine
(non hereditary); In 1096 in 1st Crusade; ruler of J
b)BALDWIN I (-1118 Egypt without an heir) (dark hair but
white skin, v tall, so different from his br GODFREY may
suggest an error here); 3rd s; In 1096-in 1st Crusde; ruler
of J; m1 Godvere of Tosni (Norman) m2 d of THATOUL m3
Adelaide of Saona Cts Dowger of Sicily
c)EUSTACE III (-1125) Ct Boulgne m 1102 Mary of Scotland
(-31 May 1116 bur Bermondsy Abbey) d of MALCOLM III (-13
Nov 1093) king of Scotland
EUSTACE III left (with GODFREY de BOULLION, BALDWIN and
EUSTACE)
Matilda (c1105-3 May 1151 bur Faversham) m STEPHEN (c1096
Blois-25 Oct 1154 Heart attack; St Martin's Priory, Dover;
bur Faversham) k of Eng 1135-54 s of (m c1081 Chartes)
STEPHEN HENRY (-19 Jul 1102) Ct Champagne by Adela (c1062
Normandy-8 Mar 1137 d&bur Clunlac Priory) d of WILLIAM I
Matilda left (with WILLIAM (-1159) and EUSTACE IV (-1153
killed whilst plundering abbey nr Bury St Edmonds) Ct
Boulogne (from 1150); m Constance d of LOUIS VII of Fr)
Mary/Maud (c1136-c1182 St Austrebert) Cts Boulogne &
Mortagne; m 1160 (dis 1169) MATHEW d'ALSACE (-25 Jul 1173)
s of THEODORE/THIERRY d'ALSACE Ct Flanders
who left (with Maud/Matilda m HENRY Dk Brabant)
Ida (c1162-1216); Of Flander; In 1173-1214 Cts Boulogne;
m1? m2? m3 BERTHOLD (-1186) m4 1190 REYNOLD de DAMMARTIN;
Ct BOULOGNE in right of his wife, but despoiled of that
county; He came to Eng in 1212; He was gr Ryhall manor
Ruts; On 29 Oct 1198 (at La Roche, d'Andelly) k Rd gr
REYNOLD the forest of Lillebonne and the Iht of his wife
Ida in Eng & Normandy held by Ct MATTHEW and all the Iht of
his father Ct AUBREY de DAMMARTIN
GOZELO I also left
C)Regelindis of Lorraine m ALBERT II (-1063/4) Ct of Namur;
His maternal father was KARL who was g-s of HEINRICH I the
Fowler who was s of OTTO (-912)
who left
ALBERT (-1102) III; Ct Namur; m 1065/6 Ida (-1102) d of
BERNARD II Duke of Saxony of Sachesen probably by Elicia
von Schweinfurt (->1055); BERANRD may have also m Bertrade
d of HAROLD II k of Norway
and left
Alix/Adelaide (1068-1124) of Namur m OTTO II (c1055-1125 a
monk) Ct of Chiny; Ct of Namur (his m2)
and left
i)Oda m GISELBERT Ct Duras
ii)ALBERT Ct Chiny who left Ida of Chiny m GOBERT IV
(-1191) d'Apremont
iii) Ida (1083-1125 or -1117/1122) de Chiny; de Namur m
GOTTFRIED/GODFREY I; the bearded (c1060-1139) Dk Brabant
who left
Adeliza (c1103 -1151); de Louvaine; m WILLIAM d'AUBIGNY
(1109-1176 Waverly Abbey) and left issue
and
Ida (-1162) Of Brabant m ARNOLDII Ct Cleve
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com