King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

[John P. Ravilious]

Sunday, 5 August, 2012



Hello All,

In 2002 there was discussion on the newsgroup concerning
evidence that William, son of Walter d'Ayncourt (aka Deincourt) was
'of royal race' ["regia styrpe progenitus "]. Rosie Bevan queried
concerning a possible relationship to the counts of Brittany,
considering certain lands that William d'Ayncourt's mother Matilda
granted to St. Mary's York were held by Count Alan 'the Red' [2].

I only noted this week the article by Richard Sharpe in the
Haskins Soc. Journal (2008) which provides a most interesting
proposal. In brief, this article sets forth a solution as to both the
royal ascent of William d'Ayncourt, and the basis for the grant of
lands by his mother Matilda out of the fee of Count Alan 'Rufus':

" Let us suppose that Gunnhild had been taken to Wilton for
safety as a child of maybe ten or twelve yars in 1066, staying until
maybe 1072, and had then thrown off the habit to live with Count Alan
on her mother's estates in Cambridgeshire and East Anglia; a daughter
Matilda, born to her and Alan, might well have been married to Walter
d'Aincourt.

This would explain why Matilda d'Aincourt appears as the giver
of tithes from Count Alan's fee to his abbey of St. Mary in York and
why her husband would also favour that foundation. Since their son
William was fostered at court in William II's time, tney were probably
married within a year or two either side of 1090. A joint gift to St.
Mary's, after their marriage, might well have been made while Count
Alan Rufus was still alive. " [3]

The suggestion by Sharpe then is that William d'Ayncourt was a
great-grandson of Harold II Godwinsson, king of England (slain at
Hastings, 1066). The reasoning is sound; if correct, it appears to
provide a most interesting ascent for the Deincourts of Blankney,
Lincs. (later Lord Deincourt), assuming Walter d'Eyncourt's son and
eventual heir was also a son of Matilda "of Brittany" as shown below:





Harold II = Edith "Swan-neck"

K of England 1066 :
........:
:

Gunhild = Count Alan 'Rufus'
: d. 1093
:
Matilda = Walter d'Eyncourt
____________________I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I I I
William Ralph Walter
I
V
a quo Deincourt
of Blankney &c.


...... denotes illegitimate connection
_ _ _ _ denotes conjectured connection



I would be interested to hear of relevant opinions and/or
documentation from others who have read the article. Snippets are
available via Googlebooks [4], but the paper version [intact] is
preferable.

Cheers,


John



Notes

[1] J. Ravilious et al., <Walter Deincourt of Blankney, co. Lincoln:
a Royal Kinsman>, SGM, 2 Oct 2002 et seq.

[2] Rosie Bevan, ibid.

[3] Richard Sharpe, King Harold's Daughter, Haskins Society Journal
19 (2008):1-27.

[4]
http://books.google.com/books?id=aanyQYG7YLkC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Sharpe+King+Harold's+Daughter&source=bl&ots=eLMuJkrYy2&sig=9BeDRQh98Bp1HjKNwqwj-VKiWXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nZYZUKD_D8Po6wHBnYH4CA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Sharpe%20King%20Harold's%20Daughter&f=false

[TJ Booth]

John,

Glad you noted this. The suggestion was also noted and favorably described
by Keats-Rohan in an October 2011 address to the Foundation of Medieval
Genealogy. Her conclusion was that Sharpe's paper "came to some startling
but to my mind convincing conclusions." Also from her Foundations article,
which notes several associated dates :

"It is known from letters of Archbishop Anselm that Harold's daughter
Gunnilda, who had taken refuge in Wilton abbey in 1066, was later the wife
or concubine of Alan Rufus, and had sought the protection of Alan's brother
and successor on his death in August 1093. Sharpe argues that, as was not
uncommon at that time, Gunnilda had first entered the abbey to escape the
turmoil of 1066, and had subsequently left the abbey in order to legitimize
the succession of one of the newcomers to an English inheritance by
marriage; in this case by her marriage to Count Alan, who now held the land
her mother Edgiva had been given by Harold. Alan and Gunnilda's daughter
Matilda was probably born about 1073, according to Sharpe; she married
Walter around 1089 and was mother of both his sons. She was not, of course,
treated as her father's heiress, and disposed of only a few of her
grandmother's manors" [Katharine Keats-Rohan; 'Domesday People Revisited';
Foundations; Vol 4 (2012), pages 5-6]

It seems a quite convincing theory since the chronology seems reasonable,
and it explains Matilda's land donations.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Wjhonson]

For your Google Books link, you don't need all that Rumplestiltsken. Just

http://books.google.com/books?id=aanyQYG7YLkC&pg=PA1

-----Original Message-----
From: John P. Ravilious <the...@aol.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 5:21 am
Subject: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

[Wjhonson]

Oliver d'Ayncourt supposed son of Walter the 3rd Baron
"fought at the Battle of Lincoln" 1141

which makes the rest of the placement problematic chronologically

-----Original Message-----
From: John P. Ravilious <the...@aol.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 5:21 am
Subject: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

[TJ Booth]

Will,

You are correct in noting a chronology problem with Sharpe's proposal -
thanks for noting it. While his dates raise the question about Matilda's
being mother of the Deincourt heirs, they also reopen Rosie Bevans' question
about why her son William Deyncourt was described as 'of royal descent', and
should be educated in the court of King William Rufus.

There is no proof of Sharpe's proposal, only whether a preponderance of the
evidence supports it. The problem you note suggests a fatal flaw. However,
if earlier dates than Sharpe proposed are used, the chronology seems less
problematic. Sharpe acknowledges uncertainty about Gunhilda's birth date,
and also when her relationship with Alan Rufus was consumated. One can
certainly see policial advantage in Alan Rufus having an early relationship
with King Harold's daughter, whose lands he received.

If one assumes all later mothers were at least age 16 years when they
married, and age 17 when the first son was born, here is an alternate
chronology :

Gen 1. Harold Godwinsson (b. say 1020, d. 14 Oct 1066) had a relationship
perhaps 1050 with Ealdyth Swannesha (a somewhat earlier date also seems
feasible).

Gen 2. Their proposed dau, Gunnhilda, was b. say 1051. By 1066 she had
entered a convent, but shortly thereafter she left it to have a relationship
with Alan Rufus. William I later gave the lands of her mother to Alan.

Gen 3. Their proposed dau, Matilda, b. say 1068, m. say 1084, Walter I
Deyncourt of Blankney, 1st Lord Deyncourt. She, as Deyncourt's wife, donated
some lands earlier held by Ealdgyth and Alan.

Gen 4. [.1] Their eldest son, William (b. say 1085, d.s.p. bef 2 Aug 1100)
was memorialized in a lead plaque cited in Sharpe's article, translated by
others as "Here Lyeth William, son of Walter de Aincourt, Cousin of
Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln, who built this Church. The aforesaid William,
being of Royal descent, died, while receiving his education in the Court of
King William, son of the Great King William who conquered England, on the
3rd of the Kalends of November [year missing, but bef 2 Aug 1100]."

Gen 4. [2.] Their second son, Ralph, 2nd Lord Deyncourt (b. say 1086, d. abt
1140) m. say 1102, Basilie.

Gen 5. Their eldest son, Walter II (b. say 1103), 3rd Lord Deyncourt, m. say
1119 NN. He gave lands to the Abbey of Kirkstead in 1140 with the consent of
his sons Oliver and John. [Sons Oliver and John were thus both then of the
age of consent - I assume this is less than age 21, but if not, a marriage
by say 1116 would be required]. If Oliver were b. say 1120 and John b. say
1122, this would allow older son Oliver to accompany his father at the
Battle of Lincoln in 1041. Oliver d.s.p. before his father, thus John was
his father's heir.

The critical date is when Matilda was born - it had to be after 1066, given
that Alan Rufus was in France prior to accompanying William I in 1066, but
shortly thereafter to fit in the Oliver chronology you note. There does not
appear to be any other certain dates until the 1041 Battle of Lincoln you
note, but others may have different views.

Does this meet a preponderance of the evidence test, or is the timeline
still too constrained?

Terry Booth
Chicago IL



----- Original Message -----

From: "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <the...@aol.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)


> Oliver d'Ayncourt supposed son of Walter the 3rd Baron
> "fought at the Battle of Lincoln" 1141
>
> which makes the rest of the placement problematic chronologically
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John P. Ravilious <the...@aol.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 5:21 am
> Subject: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)
>
>

> Sunday, 5 August, 2012
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> In 2002 there was discussion on the newsgroup concerning
> evidence that William, son of Walter d'Ayncourt (aka Deincourt) was
> 'of royal race' ["regia styrpe progenitus "]. Rosie Bevan queried
> concerning a possible relationship to the counts of Brittany,
> considering certain lands that William d'Ayncourt's mother Matilda
> granted to St. Mary's York were held by Count Alan 'the Red' [2].
>
> I only noted this week the article by Richard Sharpe in the
> Haskins Soc. Journal (2008) which provides a most interesting
> proposal. In brief, this article sets forth a solution as to both the
> royal ascent of William d'Ayncourt, and the basis for the grant of
> lands by his mother Matilda out of the fee of Count Alan 'Rufus':

<Snip>

[Wjhonson]

Harold was not born so early as 1020
His *elder* brother Swegn was born "in the mid 1020s"
Even if we are generous and say 1022, that means Harold could not be born until 1023

> Sunday, 5 August, 2012
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> In 2002 there was discussion on the newsgroup concerning
> evidence that William, son of Walter d'Ayncourt (aka Deincourt) was
> 'of royal race' ["regia styrpe progenitus "]. Rosie Bevan queried
> concerning a possible relationship to the counts of Brittany,
> considering certain lands that William d'Ayncourt's mother Matilda
> granted to St. Mary's York were held by Count Alan 'the Red' [2].
>
> I only noted this week the article by Richard Sharpe in the
> Haskins Soc. Journal (2008) which provides a most interesting
> proposal. In brief, this article sets forth a solution as to both the
> royal ascent of William d'Ayncourt, and the basis for the grant of
> lands by his mother Matilda out of the fee of Count Alan 'Rufus':

<Snip>

[Wjhonson]

Your date for his relationship with Swan neck is too late.
We know that they had six children of whom presumably the eldest son was Godwine *who* was already holding two manors in 1066

> Sunday, 5 August, 2012
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> In 2002 there was discussion on the newsgroup concerning
> evidence that William, son of Walter d'Ayncourt (aka Deincourt) was
> 'of royal race' ["regia styrpe progenitus "]. Rosie Bevan queried
> concerning a possible relationship to the counts of Brittany,
> considering certain lands that William d'Ayncourt's mother Matilda
> granted to St. Mary's York were held by Count Alan 'the Red' [2].
>
> I only noted this week the article by Richard Sharpe in the
> Haskins Soc. Journal (2008) which provides a most interesting
> proposal. In brief, this article sets forth a solution as to both the
> royal ascent of William d'Ayncourt, and the basis for the grant of
> lands by his mother Matilda out of the fee of Count Alan 'Rufus':

[Volucris]

Op zondag 5 augustus 2012 23:54:14 UTC+2 schreef TJ Booth het volgende:
<snip>

> Gen 5. Their eldest son, Walter II (b. say 1103), 3rd Lord Deyncourt, m. say
> 1119 NN. He gave lands to the Abbey of Kirkstead in 1140 with the consent of
> his sons Oliver and John. [Sons Oliver and John were thus both then of the
> age of consent - I assume this is less than age 21,

But on the side minimal 7 years of older. Seven being the age of understanding. That is on the Germanic side of the Continent.

> but if not, a marriage by say 1116 would be required]. If Oliver were b. say
> 1120 and John b. say 1122, this would allow older son Oliver to accompany his

> father at the Battle of Lincoln in 1141.

I would say Oliver was probably minimal 14 years of age. That being the minimal marriage age according Medieval Canonical Law. If a lad was old enough to procreate then he was old enough to fight (my interpretation on the Germanic side of the Continent). That seems to have been the reality as I have seen noble sons being knighted at 14 and 15 years. Before being knighted one had to be a squire (schildknaap) to learn the art of warfare. Some persons stayed a squire all their lives.

Hans Vogels
Helmond

<snip>

[Wjhonson]

While I'm not adverse to having "witness" of this age, I would be quite surprised were it stated that a boy could "consent" to parting with his patrimony at this age.

Now if the "consent" were not really required, just "pro forma" that might be another matter.

-----Original Message-----
From: Volucris <volu...@upcmail.nl>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: GenMedieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Aug 9, 2012 10:10 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

[Volucris]

From the archives: string Otgiva of Luxemburg

Seven being the minimal age when children could confirm actions
when their father, mother or gardian made deeds and gifts or made other
decisions important for them. Drs. T. Klaversma points out that this
fase started when the children were no longer "infans", so minimaly
seven years of age, the time when they came to the years of
distinction/discretion.

The Dutchman Klaversma - in a dicussion with the German Severin Corsten
> - points to a charter of 1173 in which duke Godfried III of Brabant and
> his sons Hendrik and Albert made a memorial donation for their wife and
> mother. As it is known that Hendrik was born in 1165 he could have been

> eight and his brother seven years at most. This and more can be read in
> his paper "Wassenberg en de hertogen van Limburg in de twaalfde eeuw",
> in: De Maasgouw jrg. CVII (1988), 41-47.

Hans Vogels
Helmond

[J Cook]

On Sep 8, 10:02 am, kmckenzie.co...@gmail.com wrote:
>

That would of course fit nicely with the fact that Gospatrick had a
daughter and grandchild named Gunnhild.

If this is true, it provides a first knwon descent from Harold
Godwinson from 17th Century American immigrants Lawrence Washington,
William Sargent, Edward Carleton, Thomas Dudley and many others.

Did Harold Godwinson have previous early colonial immigrants already
known?

[Wjhonson]

How about some sources.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 8, 2012 7:00 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

If anyone is interested I can give much further detail and supporting evidence,
but I think I can resolve this debate and the problems over chronology. I have
recently been analysing in some considerable detail the identity of the mistress
of Gospatrick I of Northumbria (and mother of Gospatrick II, Dolfin and
daughters Gunnhild and Matilda) and have come to the firm conclusion based on a
whole welter of evidence that this was Harold II's daughter Gunnhild in the
period c1066 to c1072 (when Gospatrick was expelled from his Northumbrian and
Yorkshire estates and fled to the court of Malcolm III in Scotland). Gospstrick
by his mistress (who was the brother of an Edmund - the name of a known son of
Harold II by Edith Swan-neck) had recorded daughters called Gunnhild and Matilda
and I believe this is the Matilda who was the ancestress of the Daincourts.

The debate which I see posted here assumes Matilda was a daughter of Gunnhild by
Alan the Red and born c1072 but can't fit this with Gunnhild's likely abduction
date from Wilton Abbey and commencement of her association with Alan of 1093
without shifting that date a couple of decades backwards, which creates a
problem because to do so flies in the face of Anselm's correspondence and
meeting with Gunnhild and his only becoming Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093.
However, if this Matilda was the known daughter of Gospatrick I called
Matilda,and his likely mistress Gunnhild daughter of Harold II, then there is no
problem with the chronology at all. The debate has I think simply wrongly
assumed that Alan the Red (whose mistress Gunnhild became only very briefly in
1093) was this Matilda's father when it was in fact, it seems, Gospatrick I.

So we are looking at Gunnhild being Gospatrick's mistress between c1066 and
c1072 when he was stripped of his earldom and fled to the court of Malcolm III
of Scotland - who was to give Gospatrick his landholdings in Dunbar. It was no
doubt at this point that Gunnhild fled to Wilton Abbey (which is where King
Malcolm's daughter Edith/Matilda also was in 1093, having been previously it
seems at nearby Romsey where the Abbess was Christina the sister of Queen
Margaret) to seek protection. Malcolm III was Gospatrick I's first cousin.

This also fits very well with Gospatrick II being the successor to Arnketil's
estates in Yorkshire and holding them in as Domesday records in 1086, as he
would have been born c1066 to 1072, making him aged between about 14 and 20 in
1086.

I believe this Arnketil to be Edith Swan-neck's likely brother Aelfketel. Ketel
is a name which also appears in Gospatrick's dynasty at this time.

What I have deduced here also fits extremely well with Harold II's known birth
date of c1023. If Gunnhild was born about 1040, she would then have been about
the same time as her later lover Alan the Red (born c1040) and aged about 26 to
32 when she had her association with Gospatrick I and became the mother of
Gospatrick II, the Daincourt ancestress Matilda, and another daughter also
called Gunnhild. Matilda's descendants would thus have indeed been of "royal
race", being thereby descended from Harold II.

I am very happy to provide an email address and give much further details of all
of this if anyone is interested.

Kevin McKenzie,
Regent's Park,
London

[John P. Ravilious]

On Sep 8, 10:02 am, kmckenzie.co...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, August 9, 2012 6:17:03 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> > While I'm not adverse to having "witness" of this age, I would be quite surprised were it stated that a boy could "consent" to parting with his patrimony at this age.
>
> > Now if the "consent" were not really required, just "pro forma" that might be another matter.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>

> > From: Volucris <voluc...@upcmail.nl>
>
> > To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
>
> > Cc: GenMedieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>

>
> > Sent: Thu, Aug 9, 2012 10:10 am
>
> > Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)
>
> > Op zondag 5 augustus 2012 23:54:14 UTC+2 schreef TJ Booth het volgende:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Gen 5. Their eldest son, Walter II (b. say 1103), 3rd Lord Deyncourt, m. say
>
> > > 1119 NN. He gave lands to the Abbey of Kirkstead in 1140 with the consent of
>
> > > his sons Oliver and John. [Sons Oliver and John were thus both then of the
>
> > > age of consent - I assume this is less than age 21,
>
> > But on the side minimal 7 years of older. Seven being the age of understanding.
>
> > That is on the Germanic side of the Continent.
>
> > > but if not, a marriage by say 1116 would be required]. If Oliver were b. say
>
> > > 1120 and John b. say 1122, this would allow older son Oliver to accompany his
>
> > > father at the Battle of Lincoln in 1141.
>
> > I would say Oliver was probably minimal 14 years of age. That being the minimal
>
> > marriage age according Medieval Canonical Law. If a lad was old enough to
>
> > procreate then he was old enough to fight (my interpretation on the Germanic
>
> > side of the Continent). That seems to have been the reality as I have seen noble
>
> > sons being knighted at 14 and 15 years. Before being knighted one had to be a
>
> > squire (schildknaap) to learn the art of warfare. Some persons stayed a squire
>
> > all their lives.
>
> > Hans Vogels
>
> > Helmond
>
> > <snip>
>
> > -------------------------------
>

> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

>
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
>
> > the message
>

> If anyone is interested I can give much further detail and supporting evidence, but I think I can resolve this debate and the problems over chronology.  I have recently been analysing in some considerable detail the identity of the mistress of Gospatrick I of Northumbria (and mother of Gospatrick II, Dolfin and daughters Gunnhild and Matilda) and have come to the firm conclusion based on a whole welter of evidence that this was Harold II's daughter Gunnhild in the period c1066 to c1072 (when Gospatrick was expelled from his Northumbrian and Yorkshire estates and fled to the court of Malcolm III in Scotland).  Gospstrick by his mistress (who was the brother of an Edmund - the name of a known son of Harold II by Edith Swan-neck) had recorded daughters called Gunnhild and Matilda and I believe this is the Matilda who was the ancestress of the Daincourts.
>
> The debate which I see posted here assumes Matilda was a daughter of Gunnhild by Alan the Red and born c1072 but can't fit this with Gunnhild's likely abduction date from Wilton Abbey and commencement of her association with Alan of 1093 without shifting that date a couple of decades backwards, which creates a problem because to do so flies in the face of Anselm's correspondence and meeting with Gunnhild and his only becoming Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093.  However, if this Matilda was the known daughter of Gospatrick I called Matilda,and his likely mistress Gunnhild daughter of Harold II, then there is no problem with the chronology at all.  The debate has I think simply wrongly assumed that Alan the Red (whose mistress Gunnhild became only very briefly in 1093) was this Matilda's father when it was in fact, it seems, Gospatrick I.
>
> So we are looking at Gunnhild being Gospatrick's mistress between c1066 and c1072 when he was stripped of his earldom and fled to the court of Malcolm III of Scotland - who was to give Gospatrick his landholdings in Dunbar.  It was no doubt at this point that Gunnhild fled to Wilton Abbey (which is where King Malcolm's daughter Edith/Matilda also was in 1093, having been previously it seems at nearby Romsey where the Abbess was Christina the sister of Queen Margaret) to seek protection.  Malcolm III was Gospatrick I's first cousin.
>
> This also fits very well with Gospatrick II being the successor to Arnketil's estates in Yorkshire and holding them in as Domesday records in 1086, as he would have been born c1066 to 1072, making him aged between about 14 and 20 in 1086.
>
> I believe this Arnketil to be Edith Swan-neck's likely brother Aelfketel.  Ketel is a name which also appears in Gospatrick's dynasty at this time.
>
> What I have deduced here also fits extremely well with Harold II's known birth date of c1023.  If Gunnhild was born about 1040, she would then have been about the same time as her later lover Alan the Red (born c1040) and aged about 26 to 32 when she had her association with Gospatrick I and became the mother of Gospatrick II, the Daincourt ancestress Matilda, and another daughter also called Gunnhild.  Matilda's descendants would thus have indeed been of "royal race", being thereby descended from Harold II.
>
> I am very happy to provide an email address and give much further details of all of this if anyone is interested.
>
> Kevin McKenzie,
> Regent's Park,
> London

Dear Kevin,

A very interesting proposal. There is a significant wrinkle,
however.

My notes indicate that Waldeve (or Waltheof), lord of Allerdale
and an older son of Gospatric, granted Applethwaite and other lands to
Dolfin fitz Aylward with his sister Matilda [ "dedit Dolphino filio
Ayleward cum Matella sorore sua Aplewhayt et parvam Crosby Langrigg et
Brigham, cum advocatione ejusdem Ecclesiae ": Reg. Priory of Wetherhal
(1897), p. 386. This also formed part of the basis for the SP account
of the Earls of Dunbar: cf. Scots Peerage III:245].

If the descent of Applethwaite &c. has been resolved in some
fashion, and Matilda has been found to have married (2ndly ?) Walter
d'Eyncourt, I would be most interested in hearing more.

Cheers,

John

[TJ Booth]

On Saturday, September 08, 2012 9:00 AM, Kevin McKenzie @
kmckenz...@gmail.com wrote :

<Snip>

Kevin,

Your post today is very interesting. It would be most useful to know if you
have new contemporary evidence to share that has escaped Richard Sharpe's
and other's attention (see Richard Sharpe, King Harold's Daughter, Haskins
Society Journal 19 (2008):1-27.). My impression is the suggestion is more
likely an alternate interpretation of some portion of the existing evidence.

One critical point is your statement that Alan Rufus' affair with Harold
II's daughter did not occur until 1093 ("Gunnhild's likely abduction date
from Wilton Abbey and commencement of her association with Alan of 1093").
This suggests you may have not seen Mr. Sharpe's article (portions online @
http://books.google.com/books?id=aanyQYG7YLkC&pg=PA1), since he disproved
both the suggestion of an abduction by Alan Rufus, and a 1093 initiation for
the affair. Sharpe noted that although the Gunnhild / Alan affair was
mentioned in correspondence dated to 1093 [at least the 2nd letter], there
is no statement the affair began that year, and that at least the second
letter is dated to after Alan Rufus' death on 23 Aug 1093. He further notes
neither letter states Alan abducted Gunnhild from Wilton Abbey. Instead,
that was one of Richard Southern's 'notions' unsupported by Anselm's
letters. IF the affair with Alan Rufus had only started in 1093, Sharpe's
entire paper is flawed, but my reading is that he adequately addressed the
distinction between the date of Anselm's letters (in which Anselm was trying
to convince Gunnhild return to her habit), and the unstated earlier date she
had herself 'cast off' her habit (inconsistent with an abduction). Sharpe
also noted Southern's clear confusion between Malcolm of Scotland's daughter
Matilda, and Southern's suggestion of a Wilton Abbey abduction by Alan
Rufus, since the date and related scenario of the alleged abduction occurred
after Alan Rufus' death (page 19).

A second key point is that Sharpe [as did Rosie Bevans of SGM in 2002]
offers property evidence that Matilda's father was likely Alan Rufus, since
some of the property Dufus held was later donated by her and her husband to
St. Mary's Abbey in York [one of whose founder's was Alan Rufus]. If
Gunnhild's relationship was limited to 1093 and thus both brief and
childless, why give Matilda any property? Equally perplexing if one adopts
the Gospatrick hypothesis, why then would only one alleged child of
Gospatrick - Matilda - receive substantial lands traceable to Alan Rufus?
Lastly, as John Ravilious just posted (who had many excellent earlier posts
on the Dunbar family - see
listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-08/1156037644 - and on
the Daincourts, along with other posts by Rosie Bevans, in 2002), why did
Daincourt's wife and sons then not possess the Applethwaite property held by
Matilda (full sister of Dolfin) of Dunbar ? Moreover, if the mother of
Gospatrick's children was not his wife but his mistress, would that also not
affect their ability to inherit?

Finally, it should be made clear that the Gospatrick I of Northumbria
hypothesis does not reduce "the problems over chronology", but also requires
the same somewhat tight chronology. That is, in either case it would appear
that Matilda wife of Walter I Daincourt could not be born before 1067. Alan
Rufus was not in England until 1066, while the Gospatrick hypothesis
states - on evidence not presented - the Gunnhild / Gospatrick relationship
was 1066-1072. A somewhat tight chronology is thus present in either case.
A revised but 'feasible chronology' will be found in the footnote below,
which reflects both Will Johnson's and Hans Vogel's prior comments.
Consistent with both interpretations, Will noted Gunnhild could well have
been of child-bearing age in 1066, and Hans Vogel noted Harold II's son John
need only have been age 16 to be in the 1141 Battle of Lincoln (an age that
also permitted him to consent to his father's Abbey of Kirkstead gift the
prior year).

There has been earlier discussions in this newsgroup concerning the identity
of Gospatrick of Northumbria's wife. CP iv:504 simply states "He married
(----), sister of Edmund". There would of course be many other colonial
descendants of Harold II d. 1066 than just those from Daincourt, if
Gospatrick's wife/mistress was Harold II's daughter Gunnhild. Hopefully you
can provide additional contemporary evidence to strengthen that view.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

Footnote
_______

[Note. The following chronology is intended to demonstrate that Sharpe's
proposed relationships are chronologically feasible, if one assumes that all
descendants were at least age 16 when they married. These dates are roughly
5 years earlier than proposed by Sharpe, who was apparently unaware that
Walter II Daincourt's son was in the 1041 Battle of Lincoln, a date
requiring the likelier earlier dates.]

Gen 1. Harold Godwinsson (b. aft 1022, d. 14 Oct 1066) had a relationship
with Ealdyth Swannesha that began by 1045 (per Will, their son Godwin held
two manors in 1066 so born bef 1046).

Gen 2. Sharpe, citing Anselm's letters, noted they had a dau, Gunnhild. She
could easily have been b. by or before 1050. Sharpe documents she entered a
convent by 1066, but shortly thereafter she left it to have a relationship
with Alan Rufus. William I the Conqueror gave the lands of her mother,
Ealdyth, to Alan. [the alternate hypothesis would change the name of the
Gunnhild's partner to Gospatrick.]

Gen 3. Their proposed dau, Matilda, b. say 1068, m. say 1084, Walter I
Deyncourt of Blankney, 1st Lord Deyncourt. She, as Deyncourt's wife, donated
some lands earlier held by Ealdgyth and Alan.

Gen 4. [.1] Their eldest son, William (b. say 1085, d.s.p. bef 2 Aug 1100)
was memorialized in a lead plaque cited in Sharpe's article, translated by
others as "Here Lyeth William, son of Walter de Aincourt, Cousin of
Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln, who built this Church. The aforesaid William,
being of Royal descent, died, while receiving his education in the Court of
King William, son of the Great King William who conquered England, on the
3rd of the Kalends of November [year missing, but bef 2 Aug 1100]."

Gen 4. [2.] Their second son but heir, Ralph, 2nd Lord Deyncourt (b. say
1088, d. abt 1140) m. say 1104, Basilie.

Gen 5. Their eldest son, Walter II (b. say 1105), 3rd Lord Deyncourt, m. say
1121 NN. He gave lands to the Abbey of Kirkstead in 1140 with the consent of

his sons Oliver and John. [Sons Oliver and John were thus both then of the

age of consent - Hans indicated the likely minimum age of consent for church
donations was age 7, thus the donation date causes no problems). In 1141 his
son Oliver accompanied him to the Battle of Lincoln. Oliver's participation
indicates he was at least 16. Even assuming age 18, Oliver was born by 1122,
John say by 1125, this would satisfy both the consent and
combat conditions. Oliver d.s.p. before his father, thus John was his
father's heir.

[t...@clearwire.net]

On Saturday, September 8, 2012 8:26:43 AM UTC-7, J Cook wrote:
>
> Did Harold Godwinson have previous early colonial immigrants already
>
> known?

Many - any of them descended from Edward III.

taf

[TJ Booth]

Good catch.

I was focusing only on those descendants via his daughter Gunnhild. There
are many colonial immigrants via other lines. The sentence should read

"There would of course be many other colonial

descendants of Harold II d. 1066 [Add: "via daughter Gunnhild"] than just
those from Daincourt,

I think its called myopia - focusing too much on one topic and overlooking
related ones.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL


----- Original Message -----

From: <t...@clearwire.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

[Wjhonson]

I just want to point out that "sister of Edmund", who I take to mean the King, seems chronologically out of place given Gospatric's militant activity occurred in the 1060s, 1070s. I would suggest rather that this woman if we can believe her royal blood, would be *niece* of Edmund.

Unless I have misunderstood the claim.

-----Original Message-----
From: TJ Booth <tjb...@aol.com>

To: GenMedieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 8, 2012 3:13 pm
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

Gen 3. Their proposed dau, Matilda, b. say 1068, m. say 1084, Walter I
Deyncourt of Blankney, 1st Lord Deyncourt. She, as Deyncourt's wife, donated
some lands earlier held by Ealdgyth and Alan.

Gen 4. [.1] Their eldest son, William (b. say 1085, d.s.p. bef 2 Aug 1100)
was memorialized in a lead plaque cited in Sharpe's article, translated by
others as "Here Lyeth William, son of Walter de Aincourt, Cousin of
Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln, who built this Church. The aforesaid William,
being of Royal descent, died, while receiving his education in the Court of
King William, son of the Great King William who conquered England, on the
3rd of the Kalends of November [year missing, but bef 2 Aug 1100]."

Gen 4. [2.] Their second son but heir, Ralph, 2nd Lord Deyncourt (b. say
1088, d. abt 1140) m. say 1104, Basilie.

Gen 5. Their eldest son, Walter II (b. say 1105), 3rd Lord Deyncourt, m. say
1121 NN. He gave lands to the Abbey of Kirkstead in 1140 with the consent of

his sons Oliver and John. [Sons Oliver and John were thus both then of the

age of consent - Hans indicated the likely minimum age of consent for church
donations was age 7, thus the donation date causes no problems). In 1141 his
son Oliver accompanied him to the Battle of Lincoln. Oliver's participation
indicates he was at least 16. Even assuming age 18, Oliver was born by 1122,
John say by 1125, this would satisfy both the consent and

combat conditions. Oliver d.s.p. before his father, thus John was his
father's heir.

[Wjhonson]

I dispute that we *know* that she *shortly* left it to begin a relationship with Alan Rufus
This is circular reasoning.

We know from Anselm's letters that she did "throw off her veil" I dispute that we know *when* that occurred, or that we know *when* in relation to when she entered.

It's just more trying to force the foot into the shoe :)

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 8, 2012 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 2:12:16 AM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> I just want to point out that "sister of Edmund", who I take to mean the King,
seems chronologically out of place given Gospatric's militant activity occurred
in the 1060s, 1070s. I would suggest rather that this woman if we can believe
her royal blood, would be *niece* of Edmund.
>
>
>
> Unless I have misunderstood the claim.
>

> Gospatrick I was born c 1040 to 1048. Harold was born c 1023. So any
daughter of Harold II would have been born about the same time as Gospatrick I.
Hence there is no chronological mismatch here.

[Wjhonson]

Harold II was not born "c1023"

Rather he was born *precisely and exactly* between 1023 and 1028
No earlier and no later.
Not c.

[joe...@gmail.com]

"Incidentally, beware of this site"
--- and i had missed Peter Stewart these past few months.:

[John Watson]

On Sep 9, 5:16 pm, kmckenzie.co...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry I should have said here Gunnhild, not Matilda. But of course the same point would also apply to the question of ownership of estates by Matilda's children.
>
> One also has to take into account that Gospatrick I had his lands confiscated c1072.
>
> Yet if you look at Domesday Gospatrick II had a vast swathe of landholdings in Yorkshire. Some of these may have been lands retained by his father, some may have been re-grants, and some may have been fresh grants by William I.
>
> It is impossible to say with any degree of precision who inherits what and from whom and how.

You appear to be confusing two different people called Gospatric.
Gospatric, Earl of Northumberland who fled to Scotland in 1073, had a
son called Gospatric, "leader of the men of Lothian" who is said to
have died at the Battle of the Standard in 1138.

The Gospatric holding lands in Yorkshire at the time of the Domesday
survey in 1086, was nether of these two Gospatrics. This Gospatric was
the son of Arkil, son of Ecfrid and Sigrida, daughter of Kilvert, He
may well have been related to the other two Gospatrics, but he was a
different person.

See: Simeon of Durham's account of the Siege of Durham: Joseph
Stevenson, The Historical Works of Simeon of Durham (London: 1855) pp.
766-768
Charles Clay, Early Yorkshire Families, Yorkshire Archaeological
Society Record Series, Vol. 135, p. 86

Regards,
John

[Wjhonson]

Based on nonsense, he could not have been born in 1022.
He could have been born as late as 1028.
No "c" is required or wanted.
Saying "c 1023" sounds like he could have been born as early as 1020 which is nonsense :)

When we can be exact, we should be exact.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 9, 2012 2:35 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

The Foundation for Mediaeval Genealogy gives Harold's likely birth date as 1022
to 1025. That is why I gave c1023. I am not aware that stretching his birth
date to 1028 would affect the chronology since as I say there is sufficient
timescale for a daughter Gunnhild to have been born and had associations with
both Gospatrick and Alan Rufus and for her to have a daughter Matilda by
Gospatrick which fits the Matilda of the D'Aincourt chronology. As I say none
of this requires Sharpe's reasoning (which I have not examined in detail yet) to
be flawed, since Gunnhild could have been born early enough to have had an
association with Alan Rufus well before 1093.

[Wjhonson]

Sorry that you're a newcomer but it does *not* fit the chronology.
That's the whole point.

It's not about Harold's birthyear anyway
Oliver d'Ayncourt "fought in the Battle of Lincoln 1141" with his own father
To make matilda his great-great-grandmother is not feasible.
so something has to give.

[Wjhonson]

We know when Gospatrick died approximately at least.
Roger of Hovedon, he was deprived in 1072, he fled to Scotland, was given Dunbar, died "not long after"

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: GenMedieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 9, 2012 4:15 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

Terry

Some interesting points worth considering here are it seems to me as follows.

As I say what I have proposed does not necessarily involve rejecting Sharpe's
chronology for the date of Gunnhild's association with Alan the Redd, nor are we
confined to c1066 to c1072 as the necessary date of any association between
Gunnhild and Gospatrick I. (That range was just a calculated guess by me). And
the association with Alan could have occurred at any point it seems to me up to
1093 when he died.

The Gospatrick who is shown in Domesday as owning vast lands in Yorkshire
appears to be Gospatrick II, as Gospatrick I was most probably dead by the date
when the Domesday survey was taken. If Sharpe is right in his chronology for the
date of Gunnhild's association with Alan the Red, it may have been the death of
Gospatrick I which led Gunnhild to form an association with him (well before
1093 on that scenario). As far as I can see there was no "Gospatrick son of
Arnketil", the name as given in the www.domesdaymap.co.uk website as the owner
of the above lands. If you look at a decent translation of Domesday itself in
hard copy form, the owner's name is merely given as Gospatrick, and the owner of
many of Gospatrick's estates TRE (in the reign of King Edward) as Arnketil.
This name looks to me very much like the name of Edith Swan-neck's brother
Aelfketel, or possibly another brother bearing a permutation of the name.
Recent academic studies have shown that William I, in !
order to procure stability, tended to grant or confirm in ownership lands to
individuals who had married into the families of the Saxon (or Anglo-Danish)
owners of those lands prior to the Conquest. So coupled with the indisputable
fact of the name in contemporary sources of Gospatrick II's sister Gunnhild, the
indisputable fact that his mother is recorded in contemporary sources as having
had a brother called Edmund, the indisputable fact that Gospatrick succeeded to
or was granted many of the estates which TRE had been held by Arnketil, the
known close association in the early 1060s of Gospatrick I with Harold's brother
Tostig (who incidentally was some time Earl of Northumbria), and the known fact
of there being a sister of Gospatrick II named Matilda who would fit
chronologically as the Matilda who had descendants "of royal race" in the
D'Aincourt family and who was associated with a specific Yorkshire landholding
of Gunnhild's lover(with whom Gunnhild had formed an as!
sociation by 1093 - or well before) Alan the Red, is it seems to me go
od support for the suggestion that Gospatrick's mother was Harold's daughter
Gunnhild. The name Alan also appears in the family of the brother Waldeve of
the Gospatrick line, and the name Ketel in Dolfin's line. There seem to be too
many coincidences here which defy the realms of probability if Harold's daughter
Gunnhild was not the mother of Gospatrick II and his sister Matilda, and if that
Matilda was not the same Matilda as the Matilda who was associated with a
landholding of Alan the Red and had the D'Aincourt family descendants "of royal
race".

With best wishes

Kevin

[MILLARD A.R.]

> From: kmckenz...@gmail.com [mailto:kmckenz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 September 2012 10:47
>
> A recent academic study has shown that there is a probability that more
> than 99% of the indigenous English (and a large proportion of the Scots,
> Welsh and Irish too) descend from Edward III.

Can you point us to this study? I've made an estimate like that here:
http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php
but if some else has come to the same conclusion I'd be very interested to see it.


Best wishes

Andrew
--
Andrew Millard - A.R.M...@durham.ac.uk
Bodimeade genealogy:�� http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/
My family history:���� http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/
GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

[Wjhonson]

Let me understand that when you say the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy" you are ascribing false authority since the Foundation itself *has never published a thing* :)

Each thing is authored by a particular person, not a collective mentality.
In this particular case, that author has been both praised and excoriated on this very newsgroup as you can see in the archives. I wouldn't put any credence on his *guess* of "c 1023" whatsoever.

And "c 1023" belies the point that he *could not have been* born before 1023. "C" makes it seem like he could have been born in 1021 for example and the sources make it crystal clear that he could not.

So why use "c". It's lazy and not exact.
We do know the range in which he was born, this is not a guess. It's based on primary sources.
Don't use a lazy site.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 9, 2012 3:50 pm
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

The trouble is however unless you have some evidence which the Foundation for
Mediaeval Genealogy has not seen, we can't be exact. That was why I said c
1023. Further, if Harold's birth date was five years after this approximate
date, I am not sure that a mere five years is material to any aspect of what I
have been proposing here.

[Wjhonson]

No he has not. And you've not been paying attention :)
Pay attention to the point of WHEN the battle of lincoln was fought and then try to ascribe years to each generation. Of course we can SPECULATE that Oliver is in the wrong position, but that's really an attempt to force the shoe on the ugly sisters foot.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 9, 2012 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

Hasn't Terry Booth adequately dealt with your objection here in the footnote
containing a possible chronology which he constructed and posted to me? And was
not Matilda the great grandmother rather than the great great grandmother of
Oliver? Or am I missing something? Personally I fail to see any possible
problem whatever with the necessary number of generations fitting in here.

[David Teague]

On the subject of the statistical probability of descents from Edward III among modern English people, I would like to call your attention to the following, recently posted to this group by Renia:
<snip>
On 23/08/2012 07:44, melanie chesnel wrote:
> Terry Wells posted this on soc.genealogy.britain but I think it applies here too
>
> regards melanie


The link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938
<snip>I realize that this is not an academic study of the question, but the presenter, Yan Wong, can be searched for online. Perhaps he has published on the subject.David Teague> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 16:33:01 -0700

> Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

> From: kmckenz...@gmail.com
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> CC: kmckenz...@gmail.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com

> Yours was the very analysis which I remember seeing! I had assumed it was academic because it was very well reasoned (contrary to a lot of rubbish which appears to be posted on the internet concerning family history). So I am so sorry that I cannot provide you with a supporting study in addition to your own.

[Wjhonson]

Stop Quoting Enormous Messsages.
Do you not understand that by doing this you're clogging mailboxes with huge messages?

[Wjhonson]

There is a particular reason why Gunhild fled and there is a particular argument about what her *age* could have been.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
To: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 9, 2012 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

No he has not. And you've not been paying attention :)
Pay attention to the point of WHEN the battle of lincoln was fought and then try
to ascribe years to each generation. Of course we can SPECULATE that Oliver is
in the wrong position, but that's really an attempt to force the shoe on the
ugly sisters foot.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval
<gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Sep 9, 2012 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 7:25:57 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:

Hasn't Terry Booth adequately dealt with your objection here in the footnote
containing a possible chronology which he constructed and posted to me? And was

not Matilda the great grandmother rather than the great great grandmother of
Oliver? Or am I missing something? Personally I fail to see any possible
problem whatever with the necessary number of generations fitting in here.

[John Watson]

On Sep 9, 6:20 pm, kmckenzie.co...@gmail.com wrote:

> Domesday merely gives the name of this landowner as "Gospatrick" and he must have been very closely associated with Gospatrick I in order to have had the vast swathe of Yorkshire landholdings which he held.  I have not read those works, but given that Domesday merely calls him "Gospatrick", anyone's speculation on the question of whom this Gospatrick may have been can of course be no more than that.

Kevin,
You apparently don't know who Simeon of Durham was - he was not some
modern genealogist who is guessing about people's relationships - he
was an almost contemporary chronicler writing between 1119 to 1129. As
precentor of Durham priory, he probably knew many of the people he
wrote about personally. He gives details of the three marriages of
Sigrida, mother of the Yorkshire Gospatric. Sigrida, daughter of
Kilvert, a Yorkshire thegn, and Ecgfrida, the daughter of bishop
Aeldun.; married firstly Arkil, son of Fridegist (divorced), secondly
Eadwulf 'comes, her cousin german' the son of earl Uhtred, by who she
had Oswulf and thirdly Arkil son of Ecgfrid, by whom she had
Gospatric. Simeon of Durham says "Arkil the son of Fridegist, and earl
Eadulf, and Arkil the son of Ecgfrith, these three had Sigrida [to
wife]" .

Regards,

John

[Wjhonson]

As I mentioned, the FMG did not write this page, as *they* write nothing.
Each page is authored by a particular person.
Can you cite the specific author and page exactly?

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 2:52 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

If you can offer something to show why Terry Booth's postulated chronology for
Oliver back to Harold cannot work, then I may be able to contribute further.
Similarly as to why you think the FMG may be wrong about Harold's birth date. I
think they are a very useful site even if not always correct (which is something
which you will see I did say in an earlier post) and the Society of Genealogists
here in London has praised their work. I don't think anyone can speak with
infallibility on historical matters - it is a moving feast. Also I still do not
understand why Harold possibly being born as late as 1028 may affect this whole
issue as that late date still works for the chronology postulated.

[Wjhonson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldhun


Sigrida's grandfather

-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson <watso...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 3:35 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

[Wjhonson]

By the way I don't like that Wikipedia states that Aldhun was born "c 1059"

I'm very suspicious of exact birthyears without a primary source citation. I suspect them from coming from people's blind guesstimates to satisfy finicky genealogy programs.

[Wjhonson]

Just one more point on Sigrida, she is ancestral to Princess Diana.

[Wjhonson]

Except there's no point is being vague, when we can be exact.
No one is arguing that he was born in 1023 or 1028, no one knows what year he was born.
He was born no earlier than 1023, and no later than 1028.
That's not a choice of two years. It's a choice of six years.

At any rate, I regularly remove "birthyears" and even "c" years that are based on *nothing* from Wikipedia.
It's one of my pet peeves. Some crazy aunt makes a *guess* in her genealogy program, and suddenly it's repeated on thousands of web pages and picked up even by the ODNB based on ..... nothing.


<<Such as
whether Harold was born in 1023 or 1028 which appears to me to be neither here
nor there>>

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>

To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 8:00 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

Thanks - yes I do know who he was. The point I was making is that Domesday does
not say "Gospatric son of Arnketil". It says "Gospatric". Hence the suggestion
that the holder of some or all of these lands was the man whom Simeon of Durham
is referring to is not cast in stone. In any event (as I think I have already
said) the point I was making was not dependent upon the holder of these lands
being Gospatrick II. The point I was making was the linkage between
Gospatrick's family and Arnketil and the name Gunnhild. One needs to look at
the wider picture and bring all of the evidence together rather than focus on
small details which are always capable of being argued either way. (Such as
whether Harold was born in 1023 or 1028 which appears to me to be neither here
nor there). I am not making these posts as an exercise in one upmanship - rather
to contribute to the debate the possibility that Gospatrick was associated with
Gunnhild and that since he had a daughter named Matilda this may resolve the
potential problems which people have been exploring here. So far I have not
seen anything in anyone's replies to refute that as a possibility and as I say
it explains the known facts far better (for instance the fact that Alan left his
property to his brother) than if Matilda were a hypothetical postulated daughter
of Gunnhild by Alan the Red.

[Wjhonson]

Speaking of looking at the full picture, I don't think you are yet. Re your fixation on a name like Gunhild, which was probably carried by five hundred different unrelated women living in this area, at this time. It wasn't rare.

But rather, you should focus on the life of Harold, and his children and when and who they married and WHY. It wasn't random you know. It speaks to the AGE that this *girl* could have been, and what she was doing in a nunnery in the first place, where she "cast off" her veil. She didn't just flee there for a few days.

[Wjhonson]

FMG didn't author that page to which you refer.
I've told you this now five times :)

Why do you persist in this false authority rampage?

[Wjhonson]

No it was not exponentially much smaller because population has only exponentially increased in modern times because of science.

Population for hundreds of years before the modern period, was relatively stagnant, what with wars, disease and other issues. It at least was increasing only at an arithmetic pace, not exponential.

The mothers of Gospatricks children do *not* need to be of noble blood, from where did this idea come?
Men took mistresses from bars, brothels and neighbors, men are not necessarily picky.
It's the women who had to be picky, because you generally get only one shot (or two).

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:05 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

I am not just looking at the name Gunnhild - as I think my earlier postings do
show. What people tend to forget is that the population was exponentially much
smaller then and there was a very small pool of noble families indeed into which
a noble might marry or enter into a long-term relationship. The mothers of
Gospatrick's children would necessarily have been high-born and if someone can
suggest an alternative which would explain the same set of remarkable
coincidences here I should be very interested. Untl then I rest my case!

[Wjhonson]

So much force in language.
So little substance in sources.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 9:40 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)


On Monday, September 10, 2012 4:47:48 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:

Just to summarise:

1. Gospatrick had a known association with a woman who was the brother of an
Edmund, a name commonly seen in the royal house of Wessex;
2. Gospatrick held an important earldom and would necessarily have been
associated with a high born lady as the mother of his heirs;
3. Gospatrick had a daughter named Gunnhild;
4. The only KNOWN Edmund from this period who would fit the bill as
sufficiently high born and who could have had such a sister was Harold's son -
we rule out the other Edmund, from Aethelred II's line, on the grounds of
consanguinity. Someone associated with Gospatrick in this way was inherently
likely to have been reasonably prominent and left a trace in the records in some
way;
5. Gospatrick was closely associated with Harold's brother Tostig and went to
Rome with him, and saved his life there, around the very period where
Gospatrick's children would have been born;
6. Tostig was like Gospatrick some time Earl of Northumbria;
7. A lady named Matilda whose descendants were "of royal race" has plausibly
been shown by Sharpe as a possible daughter of Gunnhild on the basis of some
very detailed research;
8. Gospatrick had a daughter Matilda;
9. Sharpe makes out a good case for being Gunnhild's daughter but does not
adequately explain why Matilda did not inherit Alan the Red's lands;
10. Matilda being Alan's step-child would however adequately explain this;
10. Alan was also the name of the son of Gospatrick's brother Waldeve. Alan
was not a common name then, and this suggests an association between the two
families. Alan was a very distinctive name in the house of Brittany;
11. Alan the Red had landholdings in the same vicinity as Gospatrick's family;
12. The names Ketel and Alnketil appear in Gospatrick's family and there is
already a plausible case for believing Edith's Swan-neck's brothers to have been
an Aelfketel;
13. Gunnhild would have had a basis for entering a nunnery when Gospatrick fled
to Scotland in 1072;
14. Gunnhild's nunnery of Wilton was later associated with Malcolm III, whose
was Gospatrick's cousin and to whose court he fled;
15. there do not appear to be negativing chronological factors.

etc etc etc.

[Wjhonson]

Some of your points are subsidiary points *dependent* on other points in the same list. Start from primary points and CITE from where they come, each point, independently, and I think you'll see it's a small tissue holding up the castle wall.

[Wjhonson]

She wasn't the "mother of Gospatric's heirs" when he first boinked her was she.
Sorry it wasn't nobles vs. peasants, that's a 19th century smirk replacing actual research.

Look at the women of whom we know in this 1000-1100 period.
Many of them, wives of "noblemen" are utterly unknown.
Many of just first names of no particular known family.
Some are known or stated to have been of low birth.

Sigrida of whom we were just speaking was of known royal/noble blood and yet was a landed heiress
So that's one example of the "rise" of a family from nothing.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:15 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

I think if you examine whom people associated with in this period, the evidence
suggests that for a wife or mistress to have been low-born was a relatively rare
occurrence. Nobles of this status largely entered into associations for reasons
of landholdings and/or political considerations. And it should not be forgotten
that this lady was the mother of Gospatrick's heirs. It should also not be
forgotten that there was no real middle class as such during this period - the
population essentially comprised of nobles and peasants. The nobles were a
small group of closely inter-related families and it is inherently unlikely that
someone such as Gospatrick would have picked a peasant to be the mother of his
heirs.

[Wjhonson]

Sorry that should read that Sigrida... was of NO known royal / noble blood.....
The point being that she rose from nothing, or rather her grandfather did.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>

To: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:27 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

She wasn't the "mother of Gospatric's heirs" when he first boinked her was she.
Sorry it wasn't nobles vs. peasants, that's a 19th century smirk replacing
actual research.

Look at the women of whom we know in this 1000-1100 period.
Many of them, wives of "noblemen" are utterly unknown.
Many of just first names of no particular known family.
Some are known or stated to have been of low birth.

Sigrida of whom we were just speaking was of known royal/noble blood and yet was
a landed heiress
So that's one example of the "rise" of a family from nothing.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval
<gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:15 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

On Monday, September 10, 2012 5:58:53 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:

I think if you examine whom people associated with in this period, the evidence
suggests that for a wife or mistress to have been low-born was a relatively rare

occurrence. Nobles of this status largely entered into associations for reasons

of landholdings and/or political considerations. And it should not be forgotten

that this lady was the mother of Gospatrick's heirs. It should also not be
forgotten that there was no real middle class as such during this period - the
population essentially comprised of nobles and peasants. The nobles were a
small group of closely inter-related families and it is inherently unlikely that

someone such as Gospatrick would have picked a peasant to be the mother of his
heirs.

[Wjhonson]

It is not a collective effort.
The page to which you keep referring was written by one author.
That author has a name.

You err on both sides, ascribing false authority, and refusing to cite an article fully :)
Correct your citation error, don't be lazy.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 3:05 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

I would also add as an incidental aside that publishing a work does not give
someone "authority". A matter can be true or false regardless of whether it
appears in published print. In any event the FMG have chosen to use the Internet
as a form of publication, and this is no less publication than by means of any
other medium. Nor does the fact it is a collective effort detract. Surely if
anything it adds to its credibility? As I say, can show you show how you are
right in making Matilda great great grandmother of Oliver (rather than great
grandmother) and how Terry Booth's postulated chronology cannot fit with Oliver
fighting at the Battle of Lincoln and why a birth date later than 1023 by a mere
five years might materially affect matters?

[Wjhonson]

All of your points, being completely unsourced, are poo poo ka ka.
Start over and source your points.
Then we'll see it's a tissue of spider webs trying to hold up an ear ring

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:49 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

On the contrary, I made well over a dozen independent points here which to be
factually correct do not depend in any way at all on any of the other numbered
points being factually correct too.

Even if you think one or two of the numbered points are speculative, I think you
will still find that a dozen or so are not - they are hard facts supported by
evidence from contemporary sources.

So if you examine the matter in terms of probability the probability is I think
on the high side.

[Wjhonson]

You're thinking of several centuries in the future.
In this period, we have no good indicators of why people took whatever spouses they took, esp. in this sort of grey landed class.

The mother does not need to be a "random peasant" in order to be the mother does she.
You're forcing a point, not conceded in the first place by any but yourself.
Do you really think that daughters of bishops were "Random peasants" ?
And yet they existed, and had land, and got married.
But they weren't "noble" in your sense.


<<I still think what you say defies probability in this period. There will always
be exceptions of course, but most marriages and associations were to do with
land or political considerations. This debate is now rather getting off the
point though - the numbered list of "coincidences" which I mention surely lends
credence to the strong possibility that the mother of some of Gospatrick's
children was Harold's daughter Gunnhild and not some random peasant.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:50 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

I still think what you say defies probability in this period. There will always
be exceptions of course, but most marriages and associations were to do with
land or political considerations. This debate is now rather getting off the
point though - the numbered list of "coincidences" which I mention surely lends
credence to the strong possibility that the mother of some of Gospatrick's
children was Harold's daughter Gunnhild and not some random peasant.

[Adrienne Boaz]

I feel that the link between Gunnilda and Gospatric is a bit
tenuous, but I do accept it. I have only found one real source which states, in
a roundabout fashion, that Gunnilda was the daughter of Gospatric, by stating
that she was the sister of Waltheof. I have not found any proof of the name of
Gunnilda’s mother. Here is what I have written thus far about the subject,
which will appear in a book that might be published in the next year or so:
 
When establishing the link between Gunnilda to her father,
Gospatric, the editors of Ancestral Roots cited both The Scots Peerage III (by
Balfour) and The Curwens of Workington Hall (by Jackson). Jackson did not cite his sources for his statement
that “Gunilda [was], the daughter of Gospatrick, Earl of Dunbar”. Sir James
Balfour Paul cited The Register of the Priory of Wetherhal (by Prescott). Prescott, writing about the Distributio
Cumberlandiæ ad Conquestum Angliæ, which was the chronicle used by Balfour in
his list of the names of Gospatric’s children, stated it “is one of those
common and inaccurate compilations found in so many of these old Registers and
Chartularies… All these copies have been very carelessly transcribed. It is
here printed as in the Harleian MS. except a few manifest errors; some of the
variations are noted”. Another copy of this chronicle, by Dugdale, was called Chronicon
Cumbriæ, and as it pertained to Gunnilda, Matilda, and Octreda/Ethreda, the
information stated accurately reflected that of the Distributio Cumberlandiæ.
The Distributio Cumberlandiæ and the Chronicon Cumbriæ listed the names of
these women as the sisters of Waldevus filius comitis Cospatricii/Gospatricij (Waltheof,
the son of Earl Gospatric). This indicates that it is possible, but not
certain, that Gunnilda was the daughter of Gospatric.
 
Dugdale, Sir William. Monasticon Anglicanum: A History of
the Abbies and Other Monasteries, Hospitals, Frieries, and Cathedral and
Collegiate Churches, with their Dependencies, in England
and Wales...
Volume the Third. Editors John Caley, Esq., F.R.S. and S.A., Henry Ellis, LL.B.
F.R.S. Sec. S.A., and Rev. Bulkeley Bandinel, M.A. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme,
& Brown. London.
1821. Page 584.
 
Jackson,
W., F.S.A. The Curwens of Workington Hall and Kindred Families. Printed by T.
Wilson. Kendal, Cumbria. 1880. Pages 3-8.
 
Paul, Sir James Balfour. The Scots Peerage Founded on Wood’s
Edition of Sir Robert Douglas’s Peerage of Scotland Containing an Historical
and Genealogical Account of the Nobility of That Kingdom. Volume III. David
Douglas. Edinburgh.
1906. Pages 239-243 and 245.
 
Prescott,
J.E., D.D. The Register of the Priory of Wetherhal. Elliot Stock. London. 1897. Pages 384-386.

[Wjhonson]

I'm sure the author sees the relevance in you constantly ignoring who he is.
And the rest of this newsgroup knows quite well who that person is, and would appreciate you figuring it out and stop being lazy and ignorant :)

It's not "FMG's published information on the point" you potato.
It's the entire work of *an* author and "FMG" didn't "Vet" it whatsoever.
Educate yourself. Stop being a stubborn cow.

Those of us who've worked on this, knows perfectly well to what I refer. It's time you did as well

<<I am not "refusing" to do anything. I just don't see the relevance to any of
this, as I think I have said many times. I see no point in pedantry for
pedantry's sake when it seems to me that Harold's EXACT birth year is neither
here nor there when we already have a very narrow range for it and when it makes
no difference to anything who the author of FMG's published information on the
point may or may not be.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:55 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

I am not "refusing" to do anything. I just don't see the relevance to any of
this, as I think I have said many times. I see no point in pedantry for
pedantry's sake when it seems to me that Harold's EXACT birth year is neither
here nor there when we already have a very narrow range for it and when it makes
no difference to anything who the author of FMG's published information on the
point may or may not be.

[Wjhonson]

Silly point.
Please point out for us, how many popes are *specifically indicated* to have risen from peasantry.
If you really think that all bishops were "of the noble class" then you simply haven't been paying attention.
In refutation of your "most historians" I can guarentee you that "all histories" agree with me.
In this universe and the fantasy one in which your research exists.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 11:00 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

I think you will find most reputable historians would disagree with you. Most
bishops were descended from noble families in the first place as their families
had to have the money to educate them.

[Wjhonson]

Prescott is online

http://archive.org/stream/cu31924028281883#page/n435/mode/2up/search/distributio

notice he calls this work "valueless" (ha!)

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrienne Boaz <adrien...@yahoo.com>
To: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; Gen <GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 10:58 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

[Wjhonson]

Repeating a point isn't "sourcing" the point.
Your first point has no source listed.

Don't say things like "as given by Roger of Hovedon" where you are *repeating the claim off another site uncited!*
If you have read Roger, then cite the edition and page exactly.
If you have not, then cite from where you are getting this exactly and credit the author.

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 11:54 am
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

On Monday, September 10, 2012 6:53:43 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> All of your points, being completely unsourced, are poo poo ka ka.
>
> Start over and source your points.
>
> Then we'll see it's a tissue of spider webs trying to hold up an ear ring
>

OK - here are the sources:

1. Gospatrick's wife's family connection is confirmed by the charter dated
February 1136 under which King Stephen confirmed the donation by "Gospatricio
fr[atr]I Dolfini" of "terram Edmundi avunculi sui" and "terram Liolfi filii
Uctredi";
2. Simeon of Durham names "Cospatric son of Maldred son of Crinan" when
recording that he was appointed Earl of Northumberland;
3. The Cronicon Cumbriæ records that “Waldevus filius comitis Cospatricii”
enfeoffed “Ormo Ketelli” with property and “Gurwelda sorore sua”;
4. We rule out the other Edmund, from Aethelred II's line, on the grounds of
consanguinity because Gospatrick's parentage (with his mother Ealdgyth being a
daughter of AethelRed II) is given by Roger of Hoveden;
5. See Professor Frank Barlow's "The Godwins" - primary source can be given in
due course if you dispute what he says regarding this;
6. Ditto;
7. Sharpe - I believe you will already have access to his primary sources for
this in the other postings here;
8. The Cronicon Cumbriæ records that “Waldevus filius comitis Cospatricii”
enfeoffed “Dolfino filio Alwardi” with property and “Matilda sorore sua”;
9. Sharpe - I believe you will already have access to his primary sources for
this in the other postings here;
10. That Matilda being Alan's step-child would however adequately explain
this. Source - logic;
10. That Alan was also the name of the son of Gospatrick's brother Waldeve.
Source -

A memorandum dated to 1275 records that "Earl Cospatryk formerly earl of Dunbar"
was succeeded by "his son and heir Alan…under age and in the ward of K. David of
Scotland…and on obtaining majority obtained all his father´s lands in
Allerdale". “Waldevus filius Cospatrici comitis” donated property to Gysburn
Priory, with the consent of “uxore mea Sigrida et filiis meis Cospatrico et
Alano”, by undated charter. "…Alano filio Waldeof et Gospatrico fratre suo…"
witnessed a charter dated 1139 under which "David Rex Scotie" confirmed the
grant of Coldingham by "Gospatricus comes frater Dolfini" to St Cuthbert.
“Alanus filius Walleovi, filii Cospatrici comitis” donated property to Gysburn
Priory by undated charter, witnessed by “matre mea Sigarith…”, which names
“Athelwardo clerico, filio Erlavi sacerdotis”. "Alanus filius Walthef et Sigrid
mater et Rogerus vir eius" donated land "in Aspatrick" to St Bees by undated
charter. "Alanus filius Waldevi" confirmed the donation of "unam plenariam
toftam apud Scadebuas" made to St Bees by "pater meus" by undated charter
witnessed by "…Gospatricio filio Horm, Uctredo filio Uctredi, Ailwardi filio
Dolf[ini], Gospatricio fratre suo…". A charter of King Henry II records
donations to York St Mary, including the donation of land “in Goseford…” by
“Alanus filius Waldevi". "Alanus filius Waldeui" donated land "in Goseford" to
St Bees, for the souls of "mea…et uxoris mee Emme", by undated charter,
witnessed by "Waltero priore Carl[eoensi], Gosp[atricio] fratre suo. Gospatricio
filio Horm, Radulfo de Lund, Uctredo filio Uct[redi], Chetello filio Ulfchil…"

That Alan was not a common name then, and this suggests an association between
the two
families. Alan was a very distinctive name in the house of Brittany. Source -
if you dispute this I can provide more information but do not have time to do so
presently;
11. Sharpe - I believe you will already have access to his primary sources for
this in the other postings here;
12. That the names Ketel and Alnketil appear in Gospatrick's family - Source:
Simeon of Durham plus Domesday Book for Alnketil; The Cronicon Cumbriæ records
that “Waldevus filius comitis Cospatricii” enfeoffed “Ormo Ketelli” with
property and “Gurwelda sorore sua”

That there is already a plausible case for believing Edith's Swan-neck's
brothers to have been an Aelfketel - source:

a mid-12th century manuscript concerning the foundation of Waltham abbey names
"Editham cognomento Swanneshals" as "cubicularia" of King Harold when recording
that she recovered the king´s body for burial after the battle of Hastings. The
later Vita Haroldi records that "a certain woman of a shrewd intelligence, Edith
by name" recovered the king´s body from the battlefield, chosen to do so
"because she loved him exceedingly…[and] had been frequently present in the
secret places of his chamber". The only source so far identified which refers to
an earlier document which names Eadgyth is the history of the abbey of St Benet,
Holme, written by John of Oxnead in 1292, which records donations to the abbey,
confirmed by King Edward in 1046, including the donation by "Edgyue Swanneshals"
of "Thurgertone" (Thurgarton, Norfolk). The fact of this donation is confirmed
by the corresponding charter of King Edward, reproduced in Dugdale´s Monasticon,
which refers to the donation of "ecclesiam de Thurgartun cum tota villa" but
omits the name of the donor. Barlow suggests that Eadgyth may have been
"Ealdgyth" named in the will of her mother "Wulfgyth", dated to 1042/53, who
bequeathed land "at Stisted, Essex to her sons Ælfketel and Ketel…at Saxlingham,
Norfolk and Somerton, Suffolk to her daughters Gode and Bote, at Chadacre,
Suffolk and Ashford to her daughter Ealdgyth, and at Fritton to Earl Godwin and
Earl Harold". The connection between Wulfgyth´s family and St Benet´s, Hulme is
confirmed by the testament of "Ketel" (named in his mother´s will quoted above),
dated to 1052/66, which includes bequests of land to the abbey.

13. That Gunnhild would have had a basis for entering a nunnery when Gospatrick
fled to Scotland in 1072 - source: logic;
14. Source for Gospatrick being Malcolm III's first cousin - Roger of Hoveden.
Source for Gunnhild's nunnery of Wilton being later associated with Malcolm III
- his daughter Edith (later known as Matilda) went there - source: Hollister,
Warren C. Henry I, 2001 for her attendance at Wilton; Florence of Worcester
records the marriage of King Henry and "regis Scottorum Malcolmi et Margaretæ
reginæ filiam Mahtildem" and her coronation as queen in a passage dealing with
events in late 1100.

Source for Gospatrick fleeing to Malcolm III's court in 1072 - Simeon of Durham
records that he fled to Malcolm King of Scotland who granted him "Dunbar with
the lands adjacent in Lothian". The year to be inferred from the context;
15. . Source - you have so far provided no such negativing chronological
factors and nor I see has anyone else here.

[Wjhonson]

That makes no sense whatsoever. None.
Some pope are quite specifically stated to be "of unknown parentage".
Unknown. Meaning, no one knows. Meaning, its much more highly likely that they were from a low stock, then a third son of some king or upper nobility.

My sources for which historians of the Roman see agree with me, is *all* of them.



<<That reply does not call for any response, save for the following: "Name your
sources for the parentage of every pope and bishop throughout history with proof
of their respective pedigrees accompanied by proof of their peasant origins,
with primary sources for each, and accompanied by the names of the specific
historians whom you allege agree with you, with sources :) :) :).">>

[Wjhonson]

FMG is not "giving" this information "on that question".
They are "hosting" the work of someone else, a work in which "FMG" as some kind of corporate personality had no input whatsoever. The site DOES specify the name of the author, stop being stubborn.

Who the author is, and exactly what he says there on certain points is *quite* relevant to this question, and if you would stop being stubborn you might see that. A don't have any personal vendetta against "the FMG website" because you got this off a particular page they "host" (without comment) and they (if there is even a "they") had no input on that page at all :)

Now source and cite the exact page. Stop calling it an FMG page when there are thousands.
If you're so enamored of those pages, surely you could figure out who the god blessed author was, holy mackerel....

Why don't you start by posting for us the FULL URL to the page in question and QUOTING what you think it says.




<<I am sorry but I still fail to see why you are again bringing this exchange back
to the quesiton of the specific date of Harold's birth or the relevance of the
identity of the FMG site's author of the information they give on that question.
I do note know this person from Adam, simply because their site does not specify
his name - no less, no more. If you think that I have some hidden agenda here,
then you are sadly mistaken. None of this is at all relevant to anything which
is being debated here. You still do not specify why in your opinion Terry
Booth's postulated chronology cannot hold up and nor did you answer my point
that (apparently erroneously) you have been proceeding on the assumption that
Matilda was the great great, rather than great, grandmother of Oliver
D'Eincourt. If you have some personal vendetta against the FMG website it is
not one that concerns me as I have no association with it or any of its authors
and never have done. Personally I think it is a !
very good site on the whole - and to be honest a lot better than the quality of
many of the postings which I see here.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

I am sorry but I still fail to see why you are again bringing this exchange back
to the quesiton of the specific date of Harold's birth or the relevance of the
identity of the FMG site's author of the information they give on that question.
I do note know this person from Adam, simply because their site does not specify
his name - no less, no more. If you think that I have some hidden agenda here,
then you are sadly mistaken. None of this is at all relevant to anything which
is being debated here. You still do not specify why in your opinion Terry
Booth's postulated chronology cannot hold up and nor did you answer my point
that (apparently erroneously) you have been proceeding on the assumption that
Matilda was the great great, rather than great, grandmother of Oliver
D'Eincourt. If you have some personal vendetta against the FMG website it is
not one that concerns me as I have no association with it or any of its authors
and never have done. Personally I think it is a !
very good site on the whole - and to be honest a lot better than the quality of
many of the postings which I see here.

[Wjhonson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
Anyone with two eyes can pick ten in a row and confirm for themselves that half or more or those, are without noble lineage





<<Sources? (for ALL of them, please).>>

-----Original Message-----
From: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: kmckenzie.co.uk <kmckenz...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 10, 2012 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: King Harold's Daughter (HSJ 2008)

Sources? (for ALL of them, please).

[Wjhonson]

Oh *they* don't cite any source, but *you* are going to speculate for us on what *they* *might* have done.
I can barely stop my eyes from rolling.

At any rate, there is again, no they. The page to which you again refer, without citing it which is quite naughty of you, was written by one person.



<<They do not cite a source in this particular instance but I suspect that they
based it on the following:

Harold witnessed several royal diplomas, dated to 1044 and 1045, as nobilis or
ministri but he first appears as earl at the head of the Norfolk witnesses in
the will of Thurstan, son of Wine, which has been dated to 1044. This apparent
confusion may arise from differing dates for the start of the year, but what is
clear is that from 1045 onwards, Harold is styled dux or earl in all surviving
royal diplomas.

If one deducts 21 years from 1044 one arrives at 1023. So FMG would have relied
on an earliest date of 1022. >>

[Wjhonson]

And stop citing the full content of *an entire thread* to make one silly point. Jesus wept.

CUT OUT THE CONTENT :)
We can all follow it without nineteen pages of quotations.