Wm's Companions
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
of Wm the Conqueror, said to be from the Dives list; the archives say that
his Dives list is fallacieux, including both omissions & additions, & being revised in
a first name order rather than the original list by surnames...
"Je me suis de nouveau reportée à la liste des chevaliers
normands ayant accompagné le duc Guillaume à Hastings,
il semble qu’elle diffère sensiblement de la liste de Dives
que vous m’avez adressée, à la fois par le nombre, (50 noms environ)
et par d’autres noms qui n’y figurent pas ; mais la liste que vous
m’avez fait parvenir obéit à un classement par prénoms, ce qui en
rend la lecture difficile."
The archivist included the reference list used for the Dives list, not at
all like what was said on the list, & states that unlike DSH's version, the
Dives list is not in order by first name, but by name (often there is only one,
but when there is a surname, it's used) & points out that DSH's list is
much too short...
This is interesting news, for all the list...I repost the DSH list for ref,
beneath the official Dives list refs:
Monsieur de Magny, dans son Nobiliaire de Normandie pour 1862,
nous fournit une liste des compagnons de Guillaume le Conquérant,
ayant pris part à la conquête de l'Angleterre en 1066.
Elle paraît honnête dans son effort d'authenticité. M. de Magny
indique que l'année de la parution de son ouvrage, c'est-à-dire
1862, une liste, dressée par la Société française d'Archéologie,
fut inaugurée dans l'église de Dives-sur-Mer, lieu de départ de
l'expédition pour la conquête de l'Angleterre. Peut-être serait-il
utile que vous consultiez cette liste, en effet, m'étant reportée
à celle de M. de Magny,
... j'y ai relevé celui de Guillaume de Briouse, ainsi que celui de
Robert de Brix, ce qui nous ramène aux familles que vous évoquez,
Bruis, Brix, Bruce, Broose etc... M. de Magny, dans son avant-propos,
cite les ouvrages qui lui ont servi de référence pour établir cette liste. Les voici :
1 Musorum britannicum, Bibliothèque Harleienne, n° 293, p. 35
2 Le Livre Pelut
3 DUMOULIN, Histoire et chronique de Normandie
4 HOLINGSHEARD, Histoire d'Angleterre
5 THIERRY (Augustin),Histoire de la Conquête
6 DU CHESNE André
7 BROMPTON
8 Le Domesday-Book
9 HEARNE,Collectionnae de rebus Britannicis
10 DEPPING, Histoire de Normandie
11 Rotuli Normaniae in turri londinensi.
DSH list :
Achard d'Ivri
Alevi
Altard de Vaux
Alain le Roux
Ansure de Dreux
Anquetil de Cherbourg
Anquetil de Grai
Anquetil de Ros
Anscoul de Picvini
Ansfroi de Cormeilles
Ansfroi de Vaubadon
Ansger de Montaigu
Ansger de Senarpont
Ansgot
Ansgot de Ros
Arnould de Perci
Arnould d'Andre (Arnould d'Andri)
Arnould de Nesdin
Aubert Greslet
Aubri de Couci
Aubri de Ver
Auvrai le Breton
Auvrai d'Espagne
Auvrai Merteberge
Auvrai de Tanie
Azor
Bavent
Beaudouin de Colombieres (Beaudouin de Colombihres)
Beaudoin le Flamand
Beaudoin de Meules
Berenger Giffard
Berenger de Toeni
Bernard d'Alencon (Bernard d'Alengon)
Bernard de Neufmarche
Bernard Pancevolt
Bernard de Saint-Ouen
Bertran de Verdun
Beugelin de Dive
Bigot de Loges
Carbonnel
Daniel
Danneville
David d'Argentan
D'Argouges
D'Auvay
D'Auvrecher d'Angerville
de Bailleul
de Briqueville (*)
de Canouville
De Clinchamps
De Courcy
de Cugey
de Fribois
d'Hericy
d'Houdetot
de Mathan
de Montfiquet
d'Orglande
du Merle
(* This name is duplicated - not clear whether there were two)
de Saint-Germain
de Sainte-d'Aignaux
de Tilly
de Touchet
de Tournebut
de Venois
Drew de la Berviere (Drew de la Bervihre)
Drew de Montaigu
Durand Malet
Ecouland
Engenouf de l'Aigle
Engerrand de Rainbeaucourt
Erneis de Buron
Etienne de Fontemai
Eude Comte de Champagne
Eude Eveque de Bayeux (Eude Evjque de Bayeux)
Eude Cul de Louf
Eude le Flamand
Eude de Fourneaux
Eude le Senechal (Eude le Sinichal)
Eustache Comte de Boulogne
Foucher de Paris
Fouque de Libourg
Gautier de l'Appeville
Gautier le Bouguignon
Gautier de Caen
Gautier de Claville
Gautier de Douai
Gautier Giffard
Gautier de Grancourt
Gautier Hachet
Gautier Hewse
Gautier d'Incourt
Gautier de Laci
Gautier de Mucedent
Gautier d'Ornontville
Gautier de Riebou
Gautier de Saint-Valeri (Gautier de Saint-Valiri)
Gautier Tirel
Gautier de Vernon
Geoffroi Albelin
Geoffroi Bainard
Geoffroi du Bec
Geoffroi de Cambrai
Geoffroi de la Guierche
Geoffroi le Marechal
Geoffroi de Mandeville
Geoffroi Martel
Geoffroi Maurouard
Geoffroi de Montbrai
Geoffroi Comte du Perche
Geoffroi de Pierrepont
Geoffroi de Ros
Geoffroi de Runeville
Geoffroi Talbot
Geoffroi de Tournai
Geoffroi de Trelli
Gerboud le Flamand
Gilbert le Blond
Gilbert de Blosbeville
Gilbert de Bretteville
Gilbert de Budi
Gilbert de Colleville
Gilbert de Gand
Gilbert de Gibard
Gilbert Malet
Gilbert Maminot
Gilbert Tibon
Gilbert de Werables
Gilbert de Wissant
Gonfroi de Cioches
Gonfroi Mauduit
Goscelin de Corneilles
Goscelin de Douai
Goscelin de la Riviere (Goscelin de la Rivihre)
Goubert d'Aufai
Goubert de Beauvais
Guernon de Peis
Gui de Craon
Gui de Raimbeaucourt
Gui de Rainecourt
Guillaume Alis
Guillaume d'Angleville
Guillaume l'Archer
Guillaume d'Argues
Guillaume d'Audrieu
Guillaume de l'Aune
Guillaume Basset
Guillaume Belet
Guillaume de Beaufou
Guillaume Bertran
Guillaume de Biville
Guillaume le Blond
Guillaume Bonvalet
Guillaume de Bosc
Guillaume du Bosc-Roard
Guillaume de Bourneville
Guillaume de Brai
Guillaume de Briouse
Guillaume de Bursigni
Guillaume de Canaigres
Guillaume de Cailli
Guillaume de Cairon
Guillaume Cardon
Guillaume de Carnet
Guillaume de Castillon
Guillaume de Ceauce
Guillaume la Cleve
Guillaume de Colleville
Guillaume de Paumera
Guillaume le Despensier
Guillaume de Durville
Guillaume d'Ecouis
Guillaume Espec
Guillaume d'Eu
Guillaume Comte d'Evreux
Guillaume de Falaise
Guillaume de Fecamp (Guillaume de Ficamp)
Guillaume Folet
Guillaume de la Foret
Guillaume de Fougeres (Guillaume de Foughres)
Guillaume Froissart
Guillaume Goulaffre
Guillaume de Letre
Guillaume de Loucelles
Guillaume Louvet
Guillaume Malet
Guillaume de Malleville
Guillaume de la Mare
Guillaume Maubenc
Guillaume Mauduit
Guillaume de Moion
Guillaume de Monceaux
Guillaume de Noyers
Guillaume fils d'Olgeanc
Guillaume Pantoul
Guillaume de Parthenai
Guillaume Peche
Guillaume de Perci
Guillaume Pevrel
Guillaume de Piquiri
Guillaume Poignant
Guillaume de Poillei
Guillaume le Poitevin
Guillaume de Pont de l'Arche
Guillaume Quesnel
Guillaume de Reviers
Guillaume de Sept-Meules
Guillaume Taillebois
Guillaume de Tocni
Guillaume de Vatteville
Guillaume de Vauville
Guillaume de Ver
Guillaume de Vesli
Guillaume de Warenne
Guimond de Blangi
Guimond de Tessel
Guineboud de Balon
Guinemar le Flamand
Hamelin de balon
Hamon le Senechal (Hamon le Sinichal)
Hardouin d'Escalles
Hascouf Musard
Henri de Beaumont
Henri de Ferrieres (Henri de Ferrihres)
Herman de Dreux
Herve le Berruier (Hervi le Birruier)
Herve d'Espagne (Hervi d'Espagne)
Herve d'Helion (Hervi d'Hilion)
Honfroi d'Ansleville
Honfroi de Biville
Honfroi de Bohon
Honfroi de Carteret
Honfroi de Culai
Honfroi de l'ile
Honfroi du Tilleul
Honfroi Vis-de-Louf
Huard de Vernon
Hubert de Mont-Canisi
Hubert de Pont
Hugue l'Ane
Hugue d'Avranches
Hugue de Beauchamp
Hugue de Bernieres (Hugue de Bernihres)
Hugue du Bois-Hebert (Hugue du Bois-Hibert)
Hugue de Bolbec
Hugue Bourdet
Hugue de Brebeuf
Hugue de Corbon
Hugue de Dol
Hugue le Flamand
Hugue de Gournai
Hugue de Grentemesnil
Hugue de Guideville
Hugue de Hodenc
Hugue de Hotot
Hugue d'Ivri
Hugue de Laci
Hugue de Maci
Hugue Maminot
Hugue de Manneville
Hugue de la Mare
Hugue Mautravers
Hugue de Mobec
Hugue de Montfort
Hugue de Montgommeri
Hugue Musart
Hugue de Port
Hugue de Rennes
Hugue de Saint-Quentin
Hugue Silvestre
Hugue de Vesli
Hugue de Viville
Ilbert de Laci
Ilbert de Toeni
Ive Taillebois
Ive de Vesci
Jasce le Flamand
Jumel de Toeni
Lanfranc
le Vicomte
Mathieu de Mortagne
Mauger de Carteret
Maurin de Caen
Mile Crespin
Murdac
Niel d'Aubigni (Niel d'Aubigni)
Niel de Berville (Niel de Berville)
Niel Fossard (Niel Fossard)
Niel de Gournai (Niel de Gournai)
Niel de Munneville (Niel de Munneville)
Normand d'Adreci
Osberne d'Arques
Osberne du Breuil
Osberne d'Eu
Osberne Giffard
Osberne Pastforeire
Osberne du Quesnai
Osberne du Saussai
Osberne de Warci
Osmond
Osmont de Vaubadon
Oure d'Addetot
Oure de Bercheres
Picot
Pierre de Valognes
Rahier d'Avre
Raoul d'Aunon
Raoul Baignard
Raoul de Bans
Raoul de Bapaumes
Raoul Basset
Raoul de Beaufou
Raoul de Bernai
Raoul Blouet
Raoul Botin
Raoul de la Bruiere (Raoul de la Bruihre)
Raoul de Chartres
Raoul de Colombieres (Raoul de Colombihres)
Raoul de Conteville
Raoul de Courseume
Raoul de l'Estourmi
Raoul de Fougeres (Raoul de Foughres)
Raoul de Framan
Raoul de Gael
Raoul de Hauville
Raoul L'ile
Raoul de Lanquetot
Raoul de Linesi
Raoul de Marci
Raoul de Mortemer
Raoul de Moron
Raoul d'Ouilli
Raoul Painel
Raoul Pinel
Raoul Pipin
Raoul de la Pommeraie
Raoul du Quesnai
Raoul de Saint-Sanson
Raoul du Saussai
Raoul de Sauvigni
Raoul Taillebois
Raoul du Theil
Raoul de Toeni
Raoul de Tourlaville
Raoul de Tourneville
Raoul Tranchant
Raoul fils d'Unepac
Raoul Vis-de-Loup
Ravenot
Renaud de Bailleul
Renaud Croc
Renaud de Pierrepont
Renaud de Saint-Helene (Renaud de Saint-Hilhne)
Renaud de Torteval
Renier de Brimou
Renouf de Colombelles
Renouf Flambard
Renouf Pevrel
Renouf de Saint-Waleri
Renouf Vaubadon
Richard Basset
Richard de Beaumais
Richard de Bienfaite
Richard de Bondeville
Richard de Courci
Richard d'Engagne
Richard L'Estourmi
Richard Fresle
Richard de Meri
Richard de Neuville
Richard Poignant
Richard de Reviers
Richard de Sacquerville
Richard de Saint-Clair
Richard de Sourdeval
Richard Talbot
Richard de Vatteville
Richard de Vernon
Richer d'Andeli
Robert d'Armentieres (Robert d'Armentihres)
Robert d'Auberville
Robert d'Aumale
Robert de Barbes
Robert Le Bastard
Robert de Beaumont
Robert Le Blond
Robert Blouet
Robert Bourdet
Robert de Brix
Robert de Buci
Robert de Chandos
Robert Corbet
Robert de Courcon (Robert de Courgon)
Robert Cruel
Robert le Despensier
Robert Comte d'Eu
Robert Fromentin
Robert fils de Gerould
Robert de Glanville
Robert Guernon
Robert de Harcourt
Robert de Lorz
Robert Malet
Robert Comte de Meulan
Robert de Montbrai
Robert de Montfort
Robert Comte de Mortain
Robert des Moutiers
Robert Murdac
Robert d'Ouilli
Robert de Pierrepont
Robert de Pontchardon
Robert de Rhuddlan
Robert de Romenel
Robert de Saint-Leger
Robert de Thaon
Robert de Toeni
Robert de Vatteville
Robert des Vaux
Robert de Veci
Robert de Vesli
Robert de Villon
Roger d'Aubernon
Roger Arundel
Roger d'Auberville
Roger de Beaumont
Roger Bigot
Roger Boissel
Roger de Bosc-Normand
Roger de Bosc-Roard
Roger de Breteuil
Roger de Bulli
Roger de Carteret
Roger de Chandos
Roger Corbet
Roger de Courcelles
Roger d'Evreux
Roger d'Ivri
Roger de Laci
Roger de Lisieux
Roger de Meules
Roger de Montgommeri
Roger de Moyaux
Roger de Mussegros
Roger de Ouistreham
Roger d'Orbec
Roger Picot
Roger de Pistres
Roger le Poitevin
Roger de Rames
Roger de Saint-Germain
Roger de Somneri
Ruaud l'Adoube
Seri d'Auberville
Serlon de Burci
Serlon de Ros
Sigan de Cioches
Simon de Senlis
Thierri Pointel
Toustain
Turold
Turold de Grenteville
Turold de Papelion
Turstin de Gueron
Turstin Mantel
Turstin de Saint-Helene (Turstin de Saint-Hilhne)
Turstin fils de Rou
Turstin Tinel
Vauquelin de Rosai
Vital
Wadard"
D. Spencer Hines
infra.
Post my original posts VERBATIM ---- or leave my name out of it.
I never said the Dives-sur-Mer List, ANY "Dives List" ---- was an
accurate list for the "Companions of the Conqueror".
There IS no "DSH list" of "Companions of the Conqueror."
Annie seems to be drinking or smoking weed and posting again.
There IS an excellent list by Geoffrey H. White in CP:XII/1 ---- limited
to JUST TWENTY, as follows.
From George Edward Cokayne's _The Complete Peerage_ Vol. XII/1,
postscript to Appendix L (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings),
_Companions of the Conqueror_, pp. 47-48:
---------Begin Quotation-------------------
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(# 1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, # 13 portrayed in the
battle scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, # 14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost
certainly at the battle:
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(# 16 named by William of Poitiers, # 17-19 portrayed in the
Bayeux Tapestry, # 20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English
War before William became King of England.)
---------------End Quotation--------------------
Now, let's see if she can screw THAT up.
Read, Mark, Learn and Inwardly Digest.
Loose Cannon On A Rolling Deck ---- That's Annie.
Appalling!
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" <Xan...@Wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:01c18605$ce2e8c00$LocalHost@fti/62hzcyc...
Renia
Renia
Renia
companions, both on and offline. People have been fascinated by this for centuries, so
all sorts of lists have grown up from all sorts of sources. I refer you, again, to "My
Ancestors Came With The Conqueror - Those who did, and some of those who probably did
not" by Anthony J Camp, Society of Genealogists, London, 1990. This little book costs less
than £4 and can be ordered online from the Society's web site.
In it, Anthony Camp assimilates some of the research which has been done on these lists
during the 20th century, and includes all the names with reference to the list on which
they appear and clarifies which ones are known to have accompanied the Conqueror. For the
rest, there is no proof whatsoever that they actually accompanied Duke William in his
campaign.
In previous postings on this newsgroup and to soc.history.medieval, I have given the names
of those KNOWN to have accompanied William, and have commented on the problems with some
of the sources used for these lists that Anthony Camp has outlined.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
Twenty ---- Only 20, With Good Reason:
---------Begin Quotation-------------------
---------------End Quotation--------------------
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Now, I realise that all these little lesser breeds of pogue and poguette
without the law, DESPERATELY want to find a Companion of the Conqueror,
SOMEWHERE, to descend from.
"But if you ain't descended from one of those supra, [or descend from
several, as do many on this newsgroup] you have NO assurance that your
ancestor was present at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066. So
give it up and quit fabricating evidence!"
Deus Vult.
Dies Irae.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C1C9FA7...@btinternet.com...
Balderdash and Codswallop Follows ---- Let The Reader Beware.
Dolly Ziegler
who probably did not" by Anthony J. Camp. The corrected reprint, 1990,
also was published by Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore MD, USA.
ISBN 0-8063-1390-0.
Pp. 10-11, it's stated that Wace "included Roger de Montgomery and Roger
de Beaumont...although we know on the best authority, that both these
great barons stayed behind in Normandy."
Thanks for your post, Renia.
Cheers, Dolly in Maryland
=========================================================================
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Renia wrote:
> As we have said many times on this newsgroup, there are all sorts of
> lists of William's companions, both on and offline. People have been
> fascinated by this for centuries, so all sorts of lists have grown up
> from all sorts of sources. I refer you, again, to "My Ancestors Came
> With The Conqueror - Those who did, and some of those who probably did
> not" by Anthony J Camp, Society of Genealogists, London, 1990. This
> little book costs less than £4 and can be ordered online from the
> Society's web site.
>
> In it, Anthony Camp assimilates some of the research which has been
> done on these lists during the 20th century, and includes all the
> names with reference to the list on which they appear and clarifies
> which ones are known to have accompanied the Conqueror. For the rest,
> there is no proof whatsoever that they actually accompanied Duke
> William in his campaign.
>
> In previous postings on this newsgroup and to soc.history.medieval, I
> have given the names of those KNOWN to have accompanied William, and
> have commented on the problems with some of the sources used for these
> lists that Anthony Camp has outlined.
>
> Renia
(previous posts snipped)
Sam Sloan
And such a nice guy! Why would anybody do a thing like that?
Mary Fisher
> Not nice, is it?
>
> Renia that was uncalled for.
It made my eyes go all moist <sob>
M
Renia
was, until recently, Director of the Society of Genealogists in London.
Renia
Renia
I know. He should quit whining. We don't like whining on here.
Renia of the hundred eyes
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
Wait a minute; who's talking about Wace?
With posts, as with books, there's no point to arguing with them, if you haven't read them...
The references used to support the list of Dives are given in the post, & include such uncontested, & relatively uncontestable
sources as Domesday Book & Andre de Chesney...
according to Weiss, unless I misread, Roger may well have stayed
behind, but his son Sir Robert, WENT with Wm to Hastings... Does anybody contest Sir
Robert's presence?
I said Sir Rbt was there, & you respond, but Roger stayed behind! so what's the problem?
The Archives of the Seine Maritime (Duke Wm's turf -- he got Normandy in exchange for guarding the entrance to the Seine so the
vikings wouldn't keep sacking Paris...)
-- are about as authoritative as they come... The letter cited is from the Director...
The other sources you may cite, are all working from sources derived from there...
You make it hard to respect august sources when you pretend to be them, while refuting those most authoritative, merely based on
the fact that you hate to be wrong...
You're not arguing with Annie, here, you're arguing with the professional researchers and scholars of the French government's
history department... you can do as you like; I'm well placed to know that they probably cheat, lie & manipulate as much as you or
Yale... & I know for a fact that they LOVE to trash american universities as being incompetent trash-heaps of hoaxing frauds (à la
nuclear fusion of heavy water in a washtub...) which I find just as insulting, unfair, & basically undermining of whatever
residual faith in authority I may have harbored, as the crap that gets tossed at me on the list...
So you just go at it with the french Archives... I'm sure they know better than me how to defend themselves against amateurs like
you...
I'll just sit back and enjoy the bloodfight, bandage the wounds of friends, if I can imagine having any... but if I were you, I'd
stop my knee-jerk assumption that you can trash anything I say, offhand, as scholastically untenable, just because some 8th grade
history teacher said
that the War of the Roses was Mary the White Rose (pure & catholic) against Elizabeth
the Red rose (vaguely adulterin, once the marraige of her mother had been annulled)...& because I had the malheur to remember my
gradeschool lessons, not yet having studied the period independantly...
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Renia <ren...@btinternet.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : dimanche 16 décembre 2001 23:37
Objet : Re: U.S. publisher Re: Wm's Companions
Renia
companions. Some were likely the sons or heirs of companions, others may have been in his debt in some other way. Hastings wasn't the
only action that warranted such reward as land.
As to Wace, he wrote a century after the Conquest, so was not contemporaneous with it. As one of the sources closest to the Conquest,
it is of value, but must be used with care.
Roger de Montgomery married sometime between 1050-1054 (CP) or around 1048 (Keats-Rohan). Son Robert de Belleme was probably too young
to have fought at Hastings. I can't find him in Keats-Rohan, as a tenant or otherwise.
Renia
Ian Buckley
Violet Elizabeth Bott. (And how I pity anyone unfamiliar with the
reference!)
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
For one thing, Domesday isnt the only book on that list of sources, &
I'd chance to say it's used as correctly, by competent people with a
care for honesty, as are the sources used by members of this list...
Domesday lists a number of knights fees mainly given to folks
who rendered him service at Hastings or soon after...&
if the fellows showing up in Domesday are french, formerly
present only in France & suddenly appearing in England abt 1066,
chances are good that they were companions.
If they appear or receive lands somewhat later, that's mentioned, &
one can presumably conclude sons & heirs or other services...
IIRC your final list of known companions included about 11 people...
yet Hastings was won by an army in the tens of thousands... apparently
not all of them received lands or mention in accounts given, but those
who did can be verified to some extent, & the works listed are good
starting points that I suppose any serious researcher would have to start with...
20 years is withing memorable time of a person's lifetime,
not so late that their origins & exploits would be forgotten,
especially by a greatful king (as opposed to these ungrateful times)
why are you bringing up Wace? I'm not referring to Wace for the
Dives list, & neither are the French Archives. Same goes for Roger
Montgomery... why'd you bring him up? I didnt...
If your manner of making an argument is to throw in & refute a bunch
of red-herrings not even under question, you're credibility
is gonna end up considerably worse than mine, no matter what the
bias of the group honchos... this would be a pity because
personally, I counted on you for a lot better than that...
aside from regretting the satisfaction of counting a female rep &
occasional friend among the more reliable sources on the list,
I dont want to have to do all the work myself, y'know...
I have never been able to reach Keats-Rohan to discuss anything
with her, as the only email addy she gives online is a false one -- not
a great start for reliability, I'd say, but that of course is just friendly
provocation, as I suppose I must assume your posts are...
Annie
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Renia <ren...@btinternet.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : lundi 17 décembre 2001 10:37
Objet : Re: U.S. publisher Re: Wm's Companions
Michael Farthing
<IanBu...@newport.dialnet.com> writes
>I always thought William's companions were Ginger, Douglas, Jumble and
What about HENRY????
>Violet Elizabeth Bott.
Non scribatur.
--
Michael Farthing
cyclades
Software House
Against the war
Lyn Wolf
regards
Lyn Wolf
Janet Ariciu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: U.S. publisher Re: Wm's Companions
> Domesday Book is a list of tenants in England in 1086, 20 years after the
Battle of Hastings. It is not a list of William's
> companions. Some were likely the sons or heirs of companions, others may
have been in his debt in some other way. Hastings wasn't the
> only action that warranted such reward as land.
>
> As to Wace, he wrote a century after the Conquest, so was not
contemporaneous with it. As one of the sources closest to the Conquest,
> it is of value, but must be used with care.
>
> Roger de Montgomery married sometime between 1050-1054 (CP) or around 1048
(Keats-Rohan). Son Robert de Belleme was probably too young
> to have fought at Hastings. I can't find him in Keats-Rohan, as a tenant
or otherwise.
>
> Renia
>
> Annie Natalelli-Waloszek wrote:
>
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
archives of his writings & knows full well that my quotes are accurate.
I repost a reminder of the letter & sources given for the Dives list, which does
not mention Wace at all...
Matter treated by Professor Priol
Madam,
Mr de Magny, in his Nobles of Normandy for 1862, gives a list of
companions who took part in the conquest of Duke Wm, in 1066.
& which seems honest in it's effort to be authentic.
M. de Magny indicates that in the year in which his work was published,
1862, a list, made by la Société française d'Archéologie, was published
in the church of Dives-sur-Mer, whence départed the expédition for the
conquête of l'Angleterre...
M. de Magny, in his introduction, cites the works of référence for this list (Dives):
1 Musorum britannicum, Bibliothèque Harleienne, n° 293, p. 35
2 Le Livre Pelut
3 DUMOULIN, Histoire et chronique de Normandie
4 HOLINGSHEARD, Histoire d'Angleterre
5 THIERRY (Augustin),Histoire de la Conquête
6 DU CHESNE André
7 BROMPTON
8 Le Domesday-Book
9 HEARNE,Collectionnae de rebus Britannicis
10 DEPPING, Histoire de Normandie
11 Rotuli Normaniae in turri londinensi.
Directeur adjoint aux Archives départementales
de la Seine-Maritime
ROUEN, Le 12 novembre 2001
Dolly Ziegler
Annie, you are correct, I was wrong. I apologize.
Robert de Beaumont, afterwards Earl of Leicester, is indeed one of the 12
Companions listed by William of Poitiers.
As there seems to be substantial interest in William's Companions, may I
quote two sentences from Camp's "My Ancestors came with the Conqueror..."
[page 10]:
"As to the men who fought at Hastings, William certainly had some
thousands under his command, but the names of less than twenty were
recorded. The only authorities which could be regarded as trustworthy were
the histories of William of Poitiers and of Orderic and the Bayeux
tapestry."
Cheers, Dolly in Maryland USA
=========================================================================
Renia
was worth. So in 1987 he commissioned the survey which has since become known as
Domesday Book, which, for most of the country (a few areas were left out)
itemised every village, with every church, farm, slave and pig, its size, its
value before the conquest, and its value since the conquest, and the names of
the main tenants.
Renia
Renia
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek wrote:
> C'mon Renia, try that on someone else...
If you look on the Google archives (you can still get them throu deja.com), got to soc.genealogy.medieval and soc.history.medieval and
search for "companions", you will see streams of posts over the years saying much the same thing as I have said. William Addams
Reitwiesner gave the list from the Complete Peerage of known companions on 2nd Feb 1997, the same list which DSH has kindly been
supplying ever since.
On 18th Jun 1996 [1996], Richard Carruthers wrote:
QUOTE
I believe that the late eminent genealogist J. Horace Round had some pithy remarks about the alleged 'Companions of the Conqueror',
who appeared at the tops of so many British pedigrees at the time he was working on mediaeval genealogy. There has been much said
about the 'Roll of Battle Abbey', which purported to include the names of Bill the Conk's followers. Modern scholars are of the
opinion, by and large, that this is really more accurately a list of those who paid the monks who made the list a bit to get their
names on the roll, rather like taking out a subscription to the 'Social Register' or 'Blue Book', if you haven't been put there
because of your high status already.
The Director of the Society of Genealogists in London (U.K.), Anthony J. Camp, has produced a book that summarises the arguments to
date, which also contains a list of many of those who have claimed that they 'came in with the Conqueror' (or at least had
descendants, fictitious or bona fide, who made the claim on their behalf). Its title is "My Ancestors Came with the Conqueror", and
bears the apt subtitle "Those who did, and some who probably did not". I got my copy for $8 CDN a number of years ago, but I believe
that it is still available from the Soc. at 14, Charterhouse Bldgs, Goswell Rd, London EC1M 7BA, England.
UNQUOTE
So, you see, this debate has been going on for years on sgh, let alone in the world at large. Many, many people before you have looked
into this.
> For one thing, Domesday isnt the only book on that list of sources, &
> I'd chance to say it's used as correctly, by competent people with a
> care for honesty, as are the sources used by members of this list...
As to the Dives Roll, which you cited, Anthony Camp has this to say in his little book referred to:
Q
The Dives Roll of Leopold Delisle; a list of "Companions of William the Conqueror at the Conquest of England in 1066" compiled by
Leopold Delisle for the eight centenary of the Battle in 1866 and inscribed on a marble memorial erected in the church at Dives, where
William prayed before embarkation. It was publishe dby de Magny in his "Nobiliare de Normandie" [with a few additional names not
indexed here] and was probably first published in England as an Appendix to the second edition of Sir Bernard Burke's "Vicissitudes of
Families", 3rd Series, 1863. It was reprinted in Cleveland, I, xxxi-xxxv, and in "Falaise Roll", pp. 216-219. In many instances the
list seems to be taken from Domesday Book, but as the Duchess of Cleveland said "it is to be regretted that he has in no case cited an
authority or given a reference".
UNQUOTE
Without an earlier, or contemporary source for us to check against, there is nothing we can do. We still don't know the names of most
of William's companions. Guessing isn't good enough.
> Domesday lists a number of knights fees mainly given to folks
> who rendered him service at Hastings or soon after...&
> if the fellows showing up in Domesday are french, formerly
> present only in France & suddenly appearing in England abt 1066,
> chances are good that they were companions.
The Domesday Book is not a list of William's companions, so it cannot be used as a source. It is a survey of the country, the land,
the livestock, the tenants, some 20 years after the Conquest. Just because someone held land in England 20 years after the Conquest,
is no guarantee that either he, or his father accompanied the Conqueror at Hastings. It's quite true that the "chances are good that
they were companions", but we don't know which ones. We know that many were given land after Hastings. But we don't know which ones.
Guessing is not good enough.
> If they appear or receive lands somewhat later, that's mentioned, &
> one can presumably conclude sons & heirs or other services...
>
> IIRC your final list of known companions included about 11 people...
> yet Hastings was won by an army in the tens of thousands... apparently
> not all of them received lands or mention in accounts given, but those
> who did can be verified to some extent, & the works listed are good
> starting points that I suppose any serious researcher would have to start with...
This was what I posted on 23rd March 2000:
QUOTE
>From "My Ancestors Came With The Conqueror - Those who did, and some of those who probably did not" by Anthony J Camp, Society of
Genealogists, London, 1990, has some information on this. (Anthony Camp was the Director of the Society of Genealogists in London
until his recent retirement.) -
He has analysed several articles and writings regarding those who were supposed to have been at the Battle of Hastings, and includes a
long list of them, from the various sources (bogus or otherwise). Of this long list, only the following "were or most certainly [were]
at the Battle of Hastings" as accepted by Mr GH White, in his analysis in 1932.
Eustache, Comte de Boulogne
William of Evreux
William FitzOsbern
Turstin FitzRou
Walter Giffard
Hugh de Grandmesnil
Endgenulf de Laigle
William Malet
Hugh de Montfort
Geoffrey of Mortagne
Robert, Count of Mortain
Geoffrey de Mowbray
Gerelm de Panilleuse
Roger son of Turold
Aimery IV Vicomte de Thouars
Ralf de Tosni
Vital
Robert de Vitot
Wadard
William de Warenne
There are others, not cited by GH White, but to whom the added notes are given:
Goubert d'Auffray - Orderic relates that he took parts in fights in the English War, but after the kingdom had been pacified. The King
offered him possessions in England, but he returned to Normandy. This may be regarded as proof that he participated in the Expedition
of 1066; and it cannot be doubted that his fights included the Battle of Hastings.
Odo, Bishop of Bayeux - mentioned by William of Poitiers as being in the expeditionary force to pray, but he is named and shown on the
Bayeux Tapestry, baton in hand. Whether he fought against the English army, or only stopped the Normans in flight remains doubtful.
Robert de Beaumont - mentioned by William of Poitiers and Orderic was undoubtedly at the Battle.
Erchembald - a charter dated between Feb-Dec 1067 when he was setting out overseas. It is possible that his journey overseas had
taken place in the Duke's army the previous year, but it is more likely that it took place when the Conqueror was about to re-visit
England in December 1067, and that the charter refers to Erchembald accompanying him then.
Robert fitz Erneis - Wace asserts that he fought and died at the Battle, but GH White produced evidence to show that he may still have
been alive in 1091.
Roger de Montgomery - cousin to Duke William, was not present at the Battle, and first came to England in with the Conqueror at the
end of 1067.
UNQUOTE
We know William's army was huge, but we don't know the names of those who were with him, bar those listed above. We can guess at many
others, but guessing is not good enough.
> 20 years is withing memorable time of a person's lifetime,
> not so late that their origins & exploits would be forgotten,
> especially by a greatful king (as opposed to these ungrateful times)
He was't grateful. He was an opportunist who so scattered his lords' landholdings, that they would be so busy running up and down the
country supervising them, that they would have little time to oppose him.
> why are you bringing up Wace?
I didn't bring up Wace. You responded to someone else who brought that up.
> I'm not referring to Wace for the
> Dives list, & neither are the French Archives. Same goes for Roger
> Montgomery... why'd you bring him up? I didnt...
You said (which is still apparent at the bottom of this post):
Q
according to Weiss, unless I misread, Roger may well have stayed
behind, but his son Sir Robert, WENT with Wm to Hastings... Does anybody contest Sir
Robert's presence?
UNQ
which was in response to Dolly Ziegler who said:
Q
Pp. 10-11, it's stated that Wace "included Roger de Montgomery and Roger
de Beaumont...although we know on the best authority, that both these
great barons stayed behind in Normandy."
UNQ
> If your manner of making an argument is to throw in & refute a bunch
> of red-herrings not even under question,
You questioned them. I responded.
> you're credibility
> is gonna end up considerably worse than mine, no matter what the
> bias of the group honchos... this would be a pity because
> personally, I counted on you for a lot better than that...
>
> aside from regretting the satisfaction of counting a female rep &
> occasional friend among the more reliable sources on the list,
> I dont want to have to do all the work myself, y'know...
>
> I have never been able to reach Keats-Rohan to discuss anything
> with her, as the only email addy she gives online is a false one -- not
> a great start for reliability, I'd say, but that of course is just friendly
> provocation, as I suppose I must assume your posts are...
It would be fascinating if you could get hold of her.
> Annie
Renia
Chris Phillips
> Does anyone know when did the "de Clare" family came across from Normandy?
Richard FitzGilbert, ancestor of the de Clare Earls of Hertford etc, was a
Domesday tenant in 1086.
Chris Phillips
D. Spencer Hines
Damn, Great-Grandfather William was long-lived!
No, Renia.
You SEE why some of us Americans say we have to teach some of you Brits,
British History?
Also, you don't mention TAXES.
Important.
Very Important to Great-Grandfather William ---- Smart Man.
Now, pay attention, dear.
"The Domesday book was commissioned in December 1085 by William the
Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. The first draft was completed
in August 1086 and contained records for 13,418 settlements in the
English counties south of the rivers Ribble and Tees (the border with
Scotland at the time."
http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/
A UNITED KINGDOM cite ---- one you could EASILY have checked for
yourself.
Check your FACTS ---- BEFORE you post. Don't they teach you that at
'The Argus'?
No dessert for you tonight.
John 5:14
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C1E4B00...@btinternet.com...
Janet Ariciu
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
D. Spencer Hines
Richard FitzGilbert de Clare may have fought at Hastings in 1066, or
come over from Normandie very shortly thereafter. The folks who minded
the store for William in Normandy and kept his enemies at bay, while he
carried out the Invasion of England were richly rewarded too ---- as is
quite proper.
The Conqueror rewarded Richard FitzGilbert de Clare [et de Bienfaite et
de Tonbridge] with no less than 176 lordships, 95 of which were in
Suffolk.
Richard was Joint Chief Justiciar during the King's absence and
suppressed the revolt of the English rebels in 1075.
Nasty English Buggers! Ungrateful for all the benefits of French and
Norman Culture which Guillaume le Conquerant had brought them. <g>
Richard FitzGilbert de Clare [ante 1035-circa 1090] married Rohese,
daughter of Walter Giffard, whom we KNOW fought at Hastings. Vide my
previous post.
Walter, or his son, young Walter ---- may have been one of the four
knights who allegedly slew King Harold II at Hastings. Both were Dukes
of Buckingham.
And then there is an interesting story about all that...
So, yes ---- Richard FitzGilbert de Clare [ante 1035-circa 1090] was
well-connected ---- very well-connected indeed.
Great-Grandfather William favoured him.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Chris Phillips" <cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk> wrote in message
news:003b01c1873f$d8c40920$6b2786d9@oemcomputer...
D. Spencer Hines
yourself."
Yes, Renia ---- it's a cite to a site.
Now, don't get uppity, dear.
That's a girl.
Down!
Licking my hand will get you nowhere.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| Domesday Book commissioned in 1987 by William The Conqueror?
|
| Damn, Great-Grandfather William was long-lived!
|
| No, Renia.
|
| You SEE why some of us Americans say we have to teach some of you
Brits,
| British History?
|
| Also, you don't mention TAXES.
|
| Important.
|
| Very Important to Great-Grandfather William ---- Smart Man.
|
| Now, pay attention, dear.
|
| "The Domesday book was commissioned in December 1085 by William the
| Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. The first draft was completed
| in August 1086 and contained records for 13,418 settlements in the
| English counties south of the rivers Ribble and Tees (the border with
| Scotland at the time."
|
| http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/
|
| A UNITED KINGDOM cite ---- one you could EASILY have checked for
| yourself.
|
| Check your FACTS ---- BEFORE you post. Don't they teach you that at
| 'The Argus'?
|
| No dessert for you tonight.
|
| John 5:14
|
| Deus Vult.
Chris Phillips
Survey was undertaken, and when the Book was compiled - which still continue
as the subjects of academic debate, nine centuries on - these are available
online:
http://www.luc.edu/publications/medieval/vol9/kapelle.html
"The Purpose of Domesday Book: a Quandary", by William E. Kapelle (1992)
http://www.roffe.freeserve.co.uk/prolecture.htm
"Domesday: the Inquest and the Book", text of a lecture by David Roffe
(2000), whose book of the same name was published last year.
Chris Phillips
Pierre Aronax
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> a écrit dans le message
: 25uT7.797$ag1....@eagle.america.net...
<...>
> Walter, or his son, young Walter ---- may have been one of the four
> knights who allegedly slew King Harold II at Hastings. Both were Dukes
> of Buckingham.
<...>
Really, they were dukes ?
Pierre
D. Spencer Hines
sense of "leader".
CP has them both as Earls of Buckingham.
But the truth is far more complicated. J. H. Round wrote about it.
English terminology of this period is quite complex and
non-standardised ---- especially as it refers to these two men.
Vide CP II:386-388.
Even the "Giffard" ---- which is often taken as a surname ---- is not.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vlsbg$gad$1...@neon.noos.net...
Gryphon801
_Domesday: The Inquest and the Book_, published by Oxford University Press last
year. It is particularly valuable in placing Domesday in context.
Renia
Christmas Court and was compiled before the end of 1086. And, yes, it was used to
assess the taxes payable.
This is what comes from rushing your post while mother-in-law is walking through the
door.
My apologies.
Renia of the 99 eyes
D. Spencer Hines
Mothers-in-Law can indeed be problems to us all.
100th Eye Restored.
Deus Vult.
Sol Remedium Optimum Est.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C1E7E41...@btinternet.com...
Renia
In the Saxon period the word eorl was used for those of noble blood. In the
11th century, Canute set rulers over parts of the country, naming them
jarls, a Danish word which became earl in English. After the Conquest, most
of the counties had an earl as head of its administration, entitled to a
third part of the revenues. It was not an hereditary office at first, but
some earls managed to make it so. Gradually it became a mark of rank rather
than a mark of office. Earls who had no connection with the rule of a county
began to be created in the time of Edward III.
The word duke was applied to military commanders in the early Roman empire.
Later, in the Frankish empire, a duke was a civil and military officer.
There were also territorial dukes (eg Saxony) who ruled over large areas. In
Britain, the first English duke was Edward the Black Prince, created duke of
Cornwall in 1327.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
Duke ---- from the Latin _Dux_ ---- Leader.
We call men _Dukes of Normandy_ too ---- who were not English Dukes ----
and who never held that title.
And my citation:
CP:II:386-388.
Will tell you even more ---- and refine some of what Renia has written
about generically, infra ---- with SPECIFIC reference to Walter
Giffard ---- Father, Son and Grandson.
Giffard is suspected to derive from the nickname "Gifart" =
"chubby-cheeks" ---- according to some excellent scholars.
Hmmmmmm. Let's see...
There are actually THREE Walter Giffards in a row ---- father, son,
grandson. Only the last two are designated as Earls in CP. The third
Walter died without issue in 1119. The eldest, who fought at Hastings
does not seem be an Earl, he died circa 1084 and is styled Lord of
Longueville. He, or his son, may have been one of the four knights who
reportedly killed King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings ---- probably
after he took the alleged arrow in the eye.
Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville, the elder, is my 27th
Great-Grandfather ---- and millions of other folks', no doubt. He
received grants from the Conqueror of 107 Lordships, of which 48 were in
Bucks. This Walter is a 1st Cousin, twice removed of William The
Conqueror.
No, I don't have chubby cheeks, Renia. <g>
What are you copying from, below?
| In Britain, the first English duke was
| Edward the Black Prince, created duke of
| Cornwall in 1327. [sic]
Nope.
Wrong.
That would have been VERY difficult, since Edward 'The Black Prince'
[Cousin Edward 'The Black', as we prefer to call him ---- or Edward of
Woodstock, on occasion] was not BORN until 15 June 1330, at Woodstock.
His creation as Duke of Cornwall was on 3 March 1336/7. Prince Charles
still draws very handsome revenues from Cornwall, which stem from grants
to his predecessor, Edward, as Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall made
on 17 March 1336/7.
Would you like for me to teach you some more English History, dear?
Fortem Posce Animum.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C1E9EFE...@btinternet.com...
Pierre Aronax
Renia <ren...@btinternet.com> a écrit dans le message :
3C1E9EFE...@btinternet.com...
<...>
> In
> Britain, the first English duke was Edward the Black Prince, created duke
of
> Cornwall in 1327.
<...>
That was also what I thought knowing, but I'm in no way a scholar in English
history.
So, was or wasn't the title of Duke used as a title of office in Anglo-Saxon
and early Norman Britain, as pointed by Mr Hines, quoting a note in CP ?
Pierre
The...@aol.com
Hello Pierre (and Renia, Spencer et al.),
The only Duke running about in Britain in the early Norman period would have been the monarch himself, who also (usually) from 1066 on was Duke of Normandy [1] . There was no 'Duchy' in England prior to the 14th century creations (and none in Scotland, prior to the creations of the first Duke of Rothesay (David Stewart) and the first Duke of Albany (Robert Stewart) in 1398).
There was a 'duke of Britain' in the late Roman period (late 4th-early 5th centuries), as well as a 'count of the Saxon shore', but we can presume any reality to such titles died [probably together with the title holders] with the Angle and Saxon advances westward ca. A.D. 450-550.
Hope this helps.
Good luck, good hunting, and Good Holidays.
John *
* John P. Ravilious
[1] Obviously a generalization. Exceptions did occur - for example, Henry, son of the Count of Anjou and Matilda (dau. of Henry I of England) was recognized as Duke of Normandy ca. 1151-1154 prior to coming to the English throne [as Henry II], thanks mainly to the exertions of Geoffrey 'Plantagenet', the Count of Anjou and his father.
Renia
No. Duke William of Normandy was a Duke from a foreign shore, which was a
different kettle of fish. I refer you to my previous post.
Renia
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> So, was or wasn't the title of Duke used as a title of office in Anglo-Saxon
> and early Norman Britain, as pointed by Mr Hines, quoting a note in CP ?
In late Anglo-Saxon England, the Latin term "dux" appears to be
used to render the uniquely Anglo-Saxon title of Ealdorman.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Another title that was often used was _Comes_ ---- as in _Comes
Bucchingehamensis_, which is the way Ordericus describes Walter Giffard
in 1097 and again at his death in 1102.
Folks here on SGM and SHM often fall into the sloppy habit of thinking
that these nobles were all being addressed with Old English or Norman
French titles [or even more amusing, with Modern English or French
titles].
It's just not so. Latin titles were often used by the chroniclers and
"historians" ---- who were writing in Latin.
Check out the Latin meanings of _Comes_ ---- both Classical and
Mediaeval. It's quite an interesting word.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3C1FFF41...@interfold.com...
Pierre Aronax
Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> a écrit dans le message :
3C1FFF41...@interfold.com...
Thank you, I didn't know that. So, "comes" was not a so evident translation
for "earl".
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
>
> No. Duke William of Normandy was a Duke from a foreign shore, which was a
> different kettle of fish.
It was clearly not to that title that Mr Hines alluded.
> I refer you to my previous post.
This post spoke of the use of "earl" in Anglo-Saxon Britain, of the title of
"duke" in Roman Empire and Frankish kingdom, and of the feudal titles of
earl and duke in the post-conquest kingdom of England, all things very well
known, but not of the use (if any) of duke in Anglo-Saxon Britain, which was
a new information for me. That's why I asked again.
Pierre
Todd A. Farmerie
Earl (modern usage) really isn't all that comparable to
Ealdorman. The latter were in charge of large regions,
equivalent to (although not exactly co-terminal with) the old
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms - not just the counties that Earls came to
control. For example, in 1066 under Edward, you could draw a
line from Portsmouth to Edinburgh, and only pass through the
lands of three Ealdormen, Harold (Wessex), Edwin (Mercia), and
Morcar (Northumbria). At this period, they are sometimes called
Earls and Earldoms, due, IIRC, to the replacement of the English
word "Ealdorman" by the Scandinavian "Jarl", but these Earldoms
are not the same as the Anglo-Norman ones, which are more
comparable to the shires of Anglo-Saxon times. "Comes" works
better for the Anglo-Norman Earls (and I have seen it used for
these), rather than the Anglo-Saxon Ealdormen/Earls.
taf