Additional sources for Ida de Tosny

120 views
Skip to first unread message

linda...@earthlink.net

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 5:05:26 PM9/3/05
to
On May 22 Chris Phillips posted a notice about Marc Morris's new book, "The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the Thirteenth Century" (Boydell, 2005). The book is now available and does provide sources to document that Ida, countess of Norfolk, wife of Roger Bigod I, and mother of William Longespee, was Ida de Tosny. On page 2 Morris says "Around Christmas 1181, at the start of his (Roger's) long road to (political) recovery, Roger married Ida de Tosny, a royal ward." The records that he cites concern the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South Walsham, which the king had confiscated after the death of Hugh Bigod I, and which went to Roger at the time of his marriage. Morris cites the following publications: "Rotuli Hundredorum (2 vols.), Record Commission, 1812-18, I, 504 (in which she is named as Ide le Tauny), 537 (in which she is named as Ida de Thoney); Pipe Rolls for Henry II, 23rd year, 125, 137; 24th year, 26-7; 28th year, 64. I have not had a chance to look at the Pipe Rolls.!
Nice to have additional sources on this familiar topic.

The book focuses primarily on Roger III and IV and includes a calendar of the Bigod charters. It should be a useful source for anyone interested in this family.

Best, Linda

gryph...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 6:10:07 PM9/3/05
to
I have also purchased this book and highly recommend it to all who can
afford Boydell's outrageous price. It is available through Amazon.com.

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 6:33:44 PM9/3/05
to
Thank you for the good post. Much appreciated. Nice to know that my
long time theory regarding Ida, mother of William Longespee, being a
Tony has finally been proven correct. Hats off to Mr. Morris for his
great research.

By any chance, does Marc Morris' book contain any references to the
Bassets of Drayton or the Staffords of Stafford? If my latest theory
is correct that Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset, 1st Lord Basset, was a
Despenser, then Hawise's two children, Ralph Basset, Jr., and Margaret
Basset (wife of Edmund de Stafford) would have been step-grandchildren
fo Roger le Bigod, 5th Earl of Norfolk (died 1306). As I recall from
my recent search on the Basset family, Ralph Basset, Jr., was in the
retinue of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, about 1300. Inasmuch as
Ralph Basset hailed from Staffordshire, it would be difficult to
explain his placement in Earl Roger le Bigod's retinue, unless there
was some kinship between the two men.

Again, thanks Linda for the good post.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.com

Peter Stewart

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 9:32:18 PM9/3/05
to

<linda...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:26614011.112578152...@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net...

> On May 22 Chris Phillips posted a notice about Marc Morris's new book,
> "The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the Thirteenth Century" (Boydell, 2005).
> The book is now available and does provide sources to document that Ida,
> countess of Norfolk, wife of Roger Bigod I, and mother of William
> Longespee, was Ida de Tosny. On page 2 Morris says "Around Christmas 1181,
> at the start of his (Roger's) long road to (political) recovery, Roger
> married Ida de Tosny, a royal ward." The records that he cites concern the
> manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South Walsham, which the king had
> confiscated after the death of Hugh Bigod I, and which went to Roger at
> the time of his marriage. Morris cites the following publications: "Rotuli
> Hundredorum (2 vols.), Record Commission, 1812-18, I, 504 (in which she is
> named as Ide le Tauny), 537 (in which she is named as Ida de Thoney); Pipe
> Rolls for Henry II, 23rd year, 125, 137; 24th year, 26-7; 28th year, 64. I
> have not had a chance to look at the Pipe Rolls.!
> Nice to have additional sources on this familiar topic.

Does Morris specify a descent of the royal ward Ida from Roger II de Tosny
and Ida of Hainaut, and if so what details & evidence does he provide?

The crucial point from your post would seem to be what exactly the 'Rotuli
hundredorum' references indicate. Are these occurrences of Ida quoted beyond
her name?

Peter Stewart


John P. Ravilious

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 1:08:46 PM9/4/05
to
Dear Linda,

Many thanks for this extremely interesting post. I know many of
the list await with bated breath any further details and documentation
provided by Dr. Morris.

Among particular issues, if the documentation makes it clear that
Ida de Tosny was 'a royal ward' ca. Christmas 1181, that would
certainly make her most likely a child of Ralph de Tosny (d. 1162) and
Margaret de Beaumont. Ralph's mother Ida of Hainaut was born say 1120
or before (her father Baldwin III of Hainaut d. in 1120). Ida de Tosny
herself was likely born say 1160 at the latest, depending on whether or
not the King could have kept her in wardship to age 21. This would
also work with her being the mother of William Longespee (born say,
1175 or slightly later).

Any further details will be much appreciated.

Cheers,

John

John P. Ravilious

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 1:11:15 PM9/4/05
to
Recte:
for " Ida de Tosny
herself was likely born say 1160 at the latest,... "

read " Ida de Tosny
herself was likely born say 1160 at the EARLIEST,..."

linda...@earthlink.net

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 1:34:50 PM9/4/05
to
Dear Douglas,
Sorry, but there are no index listings for Ralph Basset, Drayton, or
Stafford. If I come across anything in my reading, I'll pass it along.
Best, Linda

linda...@earthlink.net

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 2:34:36 PM9/4/05
to
Dear Peter,
Sorry to say, Morris says nothing about Ida's descent, at least as far
as I have read. She is only mentioned once in the index, the reference
to page 2 that I posted earlier. Regarding the Hundred Rolls entries, I
am not qualified to translate them myself and I don't think I could do
justice to transcribing the characters. When I get back to my office on
Tuesday, I will scan the photocopies to produce PDF files, which I will
be happy to email to anyone who would like to do a translation. Please
email me directly. Regarding the Tosney family, there is the curious
business that Morris shows Roger Bigod I(d. 1107) married to an Alice
de Tosney, who would have been Roger Bigod II's (d. 1221)grandmother.
In a footnote on p. 36, Morris describes Alice as the daughter of
Robert de Tosney. Morris suggests the following references for
untangling the "tortuous descent" of the Tosney lands: K.S.B.
Keats-Rohan, 'Belvoir: The Heirs of Robert and Berengar de Tosny',
Prosopon, 9 (1998); J.A. Green, 'The Descent of Belvoir', Prosopon, 10
(1999); Wareham, A., 'The Motives and Politics of the Bigod Family, c.
1066-1177', ANS, xvii (Woodbridge, 1994), 223-42. Paul Reed has also
posted on this inheritance in the past.
Best, Linda

Jwc...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 4:17:07 PM9/4/05
to
Dear Linda, Douglas, John, Peter and Others,
I`d
always heard that William Longespee was King Henry II`s son by his mistress, yet I
wouldn`t classify a girl aged probably between 13 - 15 as a likely mistress.
If Ralph V de Toeni was Ida`s father, He died in 1162 , leaving a son and
heir Roger IV aged about 2 years.if her mother was Margaret She survived to at
least 1185, 4 years after the marriage of Ida to Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk.
Sincerely,
Dixmont, Maine USA

Nichol...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 8:01:01 PM9/4/05
to
What, pray tell, is so unlikely about Henry taking a 15-year-old girl
as his mistress? Princess Alais of France was probably not much older
than that when she became Henry's mistress, and she was alleged to have
had a child by him as well [1].

Ida went on to have eight children [2] with Roger Bigod, aside from
William de Longespee, her son by Henry II. If she and Roger married at
Christmas 1181, then their first child couldn't have been born until
late the next year. Assuming one birth every year, Ida was still
bearing children at least until 1191. If she were born c. 1160,
produced William de Longespee around 1175, then she'd only be in her
mid-thirties or thereabouts for the birth of her youngest Bigod child.

[1] See Roger of Hoveden for the alleged child of Alais and Henry II.
[2] See "Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis" for Hugh, William, Roger,
John, Ralph, Margaret, Mary, and Ida.

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 8:58:44 PM9/4/05
to
Dear Nichol ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

Your estimated timeline for Ida de Tony seems quite reasonable to me.

Back in 2003, I expressed an opinion that a birthdate of 1175/80 for
her bastard son, William Longespee, fit the then known evidence. More
specifically, I said that William Longespee was likely born in 1178/80,
assuming his oldest legitimate sister, Mary le Bigod, was born in
1182/3 (see copy of my post below). I subsequently published an
estimated birthdate of 1175/80 for William Longespee in my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

< "A birthdate of 1175/80 for William Longespee would certainly fit the
< other known evidence we have for William Longespee. As best I can
< determine, he first shows up acting as an adult in 1196, when he was
< with his brother, King Richard, in Normandy. For people of this
rank,
< this usually occurred when they were about 16-18 years old. This
< compares with King Henry II sending his son, John, to rule Ireland in
< 1185, when John was 17. If we assume William Longespee was 16-18 in
< 1196, that would place his birth as 1178/80.

< In a related vein, we now know that William Longespee's eldest
< legitimate sister, Mary Bigod, was married before 1198/9 to Robert
< Fitz Ranulph and that Mary's husband was still a minor in 1198/9. As
< such, we know that Robert Fitz Ranulph was born no early than 1177/8
< and probably a bit later. If we roughly guesstimated that Mary Bigod
< was age 16 in 1198/9, that would place her birth as 1182/3. That
< would fit well with her older brother, William Longespee's
approximate
< birth of 1178/80. This chronology fits the facts.

< I wish to thank Chris Phillips, John Ravilious, and Michael Welch for
< being a sounding board for the above post. The conclusions drawn are
< my own." END OF QUOTE.

Nichol...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 9:45:14 PM9/4/05
to
Douglas,

If, as you suggest, Mary was born 1082/1083, then she was either the
eldest or the second-born child of Roger Bigod and Ida. She's also the
first daughter named in the "Liber Vitae", if that means anything. Mary
wasn't a very common name at this time [1] but perhaps Roger and Ida
had some unknown family member with this name, or they were especially
devoted to the cult of the Virgin Mary, or their daughter Mary was born
on one of the Virgin's feast days. Her sisters Ida and Margaret had
more conventional names. I do find it odd there was no daughter named
Juliane, for Roger Bigod's mother [2], but perhaps there was a Juliane
who died young.

[1] Though Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII's eldest daughter was
Marie, and Geoffrey Plantagenet had an illegitimate daughter, Marie, as
well. So there were a couple of aristocratic women bearing this name
during this time period.
[2] Complete Peerage, 1936

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 10:52:51 PM9/4/05
to
Dear Nichol ~

One quick correction to your post. I suggested that Mary le Bigod was
born 1182/83, not 1082/83.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

Nichol...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 12:07:31 AM9/5/05
to
Quite right, Douglas, thanks for pointing that out. Typos happen to the
best of us, alas.

Todd A. Farmerie

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 3:54:39 AM9/5/05
to
Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
> Thank you for the good post. Much appreciated. Nice to know that my
> long time theory regarding Ida, mother of William Longespee, being a
> Tony has finally been proven correct.

I am also pleased it proved correct - in spite of being based on the
slimmest of evidence, you made so much of your guess that it would have
contaminated databases and books for years had it proved wrong. A bullet
has been dodged.

taf

Peter Stewart

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 4:52:54 AM9/5/05
to

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:431b...@news.ColoState.EDU...

But it hasn't yet been conclusively proved right, at least not in evidence
posted to the newsgroup. Unless I have missed something, all we know so far
is that someone twice identified as Ida de Tosny was said by jurors in a
late-13th century Hundred Roll to have been given by the king to Roger Bigod
along with three manors, and that she has been linked by Morris to a royal
ward named Ida living 1181 who he concludes married Roger Bigod, later earl
of Norfolk, at that time on the strength of his regaining by 1182 the three
manors that had been confiscated from his father.

Even if this is watertight - as I have at present no reason to doubt - it
doesn't tell us who the parents of Ida de Tosny were. The chronology is
equally possible for her to have been the child of either Ralph & Margaret
de Beaumont or of Roger & Ida of Hainaut. The only reason I can see for
preferring the former, younger pair is that Countess Ida had a daughter
called Margaret, but since the name was very common at the time this is
hardly compelling.

Peter Stewart


Paul

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 5:50:04 AM9/5/05
to
After some brief exchanges off-list, I thought I should post both the
material from the book and from the Pipe Roll entries so that all listers
would have the benefit of this information in the discussion. Those not
around for the last few years should understand that we had carried on
extensive discussions about William Longespee, his birth, mother, Ida, the
Toeni family, etc., including red herrings such as Auda de Chaumont.

I think it should be pointed out that Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk,
rebelled against Henry II in 1174 (CP 9:584-5: "On 24 July Henry encamped at
Sileham, and next day Hugh surrendered and did homage...in 1176 the King
destroyed Hugh's castles of Framlingham and Bungay, Hugh himself seems to
have remained quiescent until his death in the following year.), so suffered
the consequences of failure (he died in 1177), and it was not until 1189
that his son Roger was restored as Earl of Norfolk in 1189.

Marc Morris apparently concludes that the marriage of the royal ward Ida to
one of the barons, Roger Bigod, about Christmas 1181 because the Pipe Roll
at Michaelmas 1182 said he was holding the manors then for three-quarters of
the year. It was the jurors of the Hundred Rolls who testified in 1275
(about 100 years after the fact) that Henry II gave Ida to Roger with the
manors of Acle, Halvergate and South Walsham. Actually, there is no clear
indication that Ida was in wardship, but that her marriage was definitely in
the King's gift. Also remember that it was not until the Statute of
Westminster I (1275) that abuses of keeping wardships of females and their
marriages was curtailed. Therefore at this relatively early stage in
English legal history we cannot be certain there is any actual indication
that Ida was a minor when given in marriage by Henry to his baron Roger.
This means that if Ida were a little older, she could have been a younger
child of Ida of Hainault, born near the end of her child bearing years, or a
granddaughter, daughter of Margaret de Beaumont (Ray Phair discovered that
the marriage date given in CP for her was in error, and this she could still
chronologically be mother of Ida, in spite of her son and heir being a
'little boy' in 1162).

From Morris's book, page 2:
"They were also a family worth marrying into. Around Christmas 1181, at the
start of his long road to recovery, Roger had just married Ida de Tosny, a
royal ward.[8] In the years that followed, the couple had at least eight
children - a resources which they used to good effect."
[8] "In 1275, jurors in Norfolk stated that when Henry II gave Ida to Roger,
he also gave him the manors of Acle, Halvergate and South Walsham. The king
had confiscated these manors after the death of Hugh I Bigod. At Michaelmas
1182, however, Roger had been holding them for three-quarters of the year.
Rot. Hund., i, 504, 537; PR 23 Henry II, pp. 125, 137; PR 24 Henry II, pp.
26-7; PR 28 Henry II, p. 64."
On page 3, he says that when their son Hugh II Bigod died shortly before 18
February 1225, "he was only in his early forties, and his death looks to
have been sudden...." Calculating back from 1225, early 40s would place his
birth about 1182-4.

PR 23 Henry II, 1176-77 (London, 1905), PRS 26:125 [Norfolk and Suffolk]:
[De propresturis et excaetis.]
"Idem vicecomes redd. comp. de Eresham [Erisham, C.R.] cum pertinentiis. In
thesauro .xlj. l. et ij. d. blancorum. Et comiti Hugoni .xviij. l. et .v.
s. blancorum de quarta parte anni. Et in liberatione vinitoris postquam
manerium rediit in manum regis .xxiiij. s. et .iiij. d. Et in custamento
vinee .xvij. s. Et in defalta instauramenti ejusdem manerii .xij. l. et
.viij. s.
Idem vicecomes redd. comp. de .xxj. l. et .xiij. s. et .iiij. d. numero de
firma de Achelai [Akelay, C.R.]. Et de .xvj. l. numero de Berkeria
[Bercheria, C.R.]. Summa .xxxvij. l. et .xiij. s. et .iiij. d. In
thesauro .c. et .viij. s. numero. Et comiti Hugoni .c. et .viij. s. numero
de quarta parte anni. Et widoni Ruffo .xxvj. l. et .xvij. s. et .iiij. d.
numero in eodem manerio per breve regis. Et Quietus est."

Earlier on the same page, in talking about other manors (Burgholt, etc.) it
relates: "De his debitis summonendus est Rogerus le Bigot de quibus
summonitus fuit comes Hugo pater ejus pro wasto quod fecit tempore werre."

Page 136: "De placitis Walteri filii Roberti et sociorum ejus.
"Idem vicecomes redd. comp. de .xix. l. et .x. s de exitu de Holeslea que
fuit comitis Hugonis, de tribus partibus anni. In thesauro .xv. l. et
.xiiij. s. et .vj. d. Et in liberatione servientum qui custodiunt domos que
fuerunt ejusdem comitis et warennam .xlv. s. et .vj. d. Et debet .xxx. s.
Page 137:
Idem vicecomes redd. comp. de .viij. l. et .x. s. de exitu de Walesham hoc
anno, quam idem comes tenuit. In thesauro liberavit. Et quietus est.
Idem vicecomes redd. comp. de .viij. l. et .xv. s. de exitu de Haluergata
hoc anno, que fuit ejusdem comitis. In thesauro liberavit. Et quietus
est.
[other manors are also mentioned here].

I guess that was just to demonstrate that Earl Hugh had held the manors
before his death.

PR 24 Henry II, 1177-1178 (London, 1906), PRS 27:26-7 [Norfolk and
Suffolk]:.
[other manors also mentioned here]
"Idem vicecomes redd. comp. de .xv. l. de exitu [Substituted for 'firma' in
P.R.] de Walesham que fuit ejusdem comitis [Hugonis]. In thesauro
liberavit. Et quietus est.
Idem vicecomes redd. comp. de .xv. l. de exitu de Haluergata que fuit
ejusdem comitis. In thesauro liberavit. Et quietus est.
Page 27: I can't see that Acle is mentioned, though other manors are. Under
the Honor of Eye, it says:
"Rogerus Bigot debet quarter .xx. et .xiiij. l. et .vj. d. qui remanserunt
de firma honoris Eye pro wasto quod pater ejus fecit. Sed reddidit inde
comp. supra post [For 'supra post', C.R. reads 'infra'.] summam comitatuum."

PR 28 Henry II, 1181-1182 (London, 1910), PRS, p. 64:
[Norfolk and Suffolk]
"et in terris datis Rogero de Toeni .c. s. numero in Holcham. ... Et Widoni
Ruffo qui fuit decanus de Waltham .c. et viij. s. et .iij. d. numero in
Akelay de quarta parte anni. ... Et in eadem Achelay quam Rogerus le Bigot
habet per Regem .xvj. l. et .v. s. numero de tribus partibus anni per breve
regis. Et in Bercheria quam idem Rogerus habet per Regem .xij. l. numero de
eodem termino per idem breve. Et in Haluergata quam idem Rogerus habet
.xvj. l. et .xvij. s. et .vj. d. numero de eodem termino per idem breve. Et
in Walesham quam idem Rogerus habet per Regam .xv. l. de eodem termino per
idem breve."

As we discussed long ago, there were overlapping holdings of the Toeni
family and Earls of Norfolk in Norfolk and Suffolk, so they had already been
associated simply because of feudal tenure. That Roger Bigod held it by the
King, and was given it by the King's writ would indicate that it was at the
King's gift, as the writ was the authority by which he held these manors
that had been at one time hereditary. I didn't check the years between 1178
and 1181 to see if the manors were mentions, but it does specifically state
here at the accounting done Michaelmas 1182 Roger Bigod held it for three
parts of the year.

Mr. Richardson should also not forget that he was going to publish that
William Longespee was born about 1166-69, information for which he had no
source, but which was derived from this group. His revision was also
directly derived from the discussions on this group. I hope he will be kind
enough to acknowledge all the help he received here, especially from the
ground breaking research done by Ray Phair, who deserved great credit. It
was Ray's discovery that the date CP had for the Beaumont marriage was in
error that allowed for a placement a generation later (Ida could not be
daughter of the second Toeni son, as his wife Auda was too young, as we had
reported from the Rot. Dom.).

The given name Ida was not common at taht period, and would indicate an
origin in this Toeni family. Ray had also discovered a mention that might
refer to William Longespee that would indicate he was older, rather than
younger, as had been assumed lately, but that was not published or discussed
here, so I am not at liberty to present his information. If William was a
few years older, his placement as grandson or great-grandson of Ida of
Hainault would be effected. Before everyone (or someone) begins slapping
himself on the back, I think Ray should weigh in, as he has possible
evidence that is not on the table.

For those with access to The American Genealogist, I had summarized things
concerning William Longespee and the Bigod and Toeni families in an article
published in April 2002, including much valuable information from members of
this list (noted specifically therein). Ray published his article on
William Longespee in TAG in October 2002 (this article, I don't think, was
acknowledged in the new Magna Charta Sureties).

One last note before signing off, there was the statement that Henry did not
begin his affairs before Eleanor had finished bearing his children. John
was born in 1167. Henry and Eleanor began their concentual separation in
March 1168. Henry was 36 in 1169 (Eleanor 45). I birth for William of
about 1168-70 would fit known facts, but Ida's marriage to Bigod was not
until 1181, after which she had eight children (until possibly about age
45). Richard I gave William income from land in Kirton in Lindsey in 1191.
If he had achieved majority by 1196, when Richard I gave him the Earldom of
Salisbury, that would indicate a birth by no later than 1175 (and William
was acting as sheriff in 1199). Even Henry III refused to acknowledge acts
done in his minority (under age twenty-one), until he had again ratified
them after attaining majority, and though one might be given lands during
minority, one could not sue or be sued or act officially in court under age
twenty-one because whatever was done might later be denied or objected to by
any party.

Paul C. Reed

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:GHTSe.23693$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Peter Stewart

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 6:44:07 AM9/5/05
to

"Paul" <Paul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:H8SdnRWXxqh...@comcast.com...

> After some brief exchanges off-list, I thought I should post both the
> material from the book and from the Pipe Roll entries so that all listers
> would have the benefit of this information in the discussion. Those not
> around for the last few years should understand that we had carried on
> extensive discussions about William Longespee, his birth, mother, Ida, the
> Toeni family, etc., including red herrings such as Auda de Chaumont.

Ah yes, Auda de Chaumont - wasn't she a short-time candidate favoured by the
speculative prodigy Richardson, immediately before he switched to his
"long-time" theory regarding an Ida de Tosny?

Many thanks for posting the information, Paul.

Peter Stewart


John P. Ravilious

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 9:20:29 AM9/5/05
to
Dear Paul,

Many thanks for those additional details from Dr. Morris' book.
The citations, text and interpretation (both Dr. Morris' and yours) are
very much appreciated.

Cheers,

John

Paul wrote:
> After some brief exchanges off-list, I thought I should post both the
> material from the book and from the Pipe Roll entries so that all listers
> would have the benefit of this information in the discussion.

>>>>>> snip <<<<<<<<<<

Jwc...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 9:42:12 AM9/5/05
to
Dear Nichol, Douglas and others,
A Couple of other earlier
Marys include Mary of the Scots, daughter of Malcolm III Caen Mor, King of
Scots by 2nd wife St Margaret the Aetheling. Mary of the Scots married Count
Eustace III of Boulogne and had Maud of Boulogne b abt 1105 who married Stephen of
Blois who took the throne of England in 1135 d 1154. their daughter Mary of
Blois b 1136-1182 married Matthew of Alsace, younger son of Thierry of Lorraine,
Count of Flanders by Sibyl, daughter of Fulk V, Count of Anjou by 1st wife
Erembourg, Countess of Maine. Thierry of Flanders was the son of Thierry II,
Duke of Lorraine and Gertrude, daughter of Count Robert I of Flanders and
Gertrude of Saxony. Mary of Blois` daughter Maud of Flanders was wife of Henry I,
Duke of Brabant
see AR7 lines 129,164, 165 and 169
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Todd A. Farmerie

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 1:31:09 PM9/5/05
to
Peter Stewart wrote:
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
> news:431b...@news.ColoState.EDU...
>
>>Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>>Thank you for the good post. Much appreciated. Nice to know that my
>>>long time theory regarding Ida, mother of William Longespee, being a
>>>Tony has finally been proven correct.
>>
>>I am also pleased it proved correct - in spite of being based on the
>>slimmest of evidence, you made so much of your guess that it would have
>>contaminated databases and books for years had it proved wrong. A bullet
>>has been dodged.
>
>
> But it hasn't yet been conclusively proved right, at least not in evidence
> posted to the newsgroup.

My point is that guesses are free - they are easily made and easily
abandoned if they prove erronous. However, in this modern internet era
where a speculation, even one couched as a speculation, immediately
shows up in a hundred databases across the web and in various
vanity-published books that in turn get recopied into more databases,
there is a responsibility not to present such guesses unless there is
something more than vague speculation behind them, and certainly not to
present them as fact as has been done in numerous instances both here
and in published books. Guesses can be useful tools to point one to
possible sources which will confirm or refute the speculation, and that
is where the credit goes - to the researcher who finds the proof, rather
than to the one who sits at home and publishes guesses. Basically, no
real credit is deserved for guessing right but guessing wrong really
mucks up the waters and hence much care should be taken as to how or
even whether one presents such speculation. To exercise a complete lack
of caution and then to crow like a rooster and notch one's belt when one
of the guesses proves right indicates a certain lack of appreciation for
the situation we all face.

taf

Peter Stewart

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 6:38:57 PM9/5/05
to

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:431c...@news.ColoState.EDU...

I agree completely - well said, Todd.

If Richardson had not run into humiliating trouble of his own making in
recent days over "Uriah the Turk", on past form he would be even more vocal
in claiming imaginary credit over Ida. (Hines too is hiding in the tall
grass today, I see - but silence won't make that set of lies go away; and if
a certain other person doesn't come forward with an explanation promptly,
another bucket will be tipped.)

In general, I think the negative influence of speculation in genealogy goes
further than the superficial guesswork of Richardson in such questions as
Countess Ida, the Vernon lineage, and so on....ad nauseam. The difference
between right and wrong, without systematic research & careful analysis, CAN
be no more than luck, for which no credit is due.

At the higher end of the speculative genre, the relationship "possibilities"
proposed by Christian Settipani, often on very slight indications from
onomastics alone, may make for a delightful pastime in a few people's minds,
but whatever this study should be called it is not genealogy - rather it's a
version of the obsessive & unproductive "geekiness" that some ambitious
mathematicians apply to unsolved problems. Answers in genealogy are based on
evidence, not on hope.

Peter Stewart


Message has been deleted

mj...@btinternet.com

unread,
Sep 7, 2005, 9:36:51 AM9/7/05
to

John Brandon wrote:

> Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>
> > I am also pleased it proved correct - in spite of being based on the
> > slimmest of evidence, you made so much of your guess that it would have
> > contaminated databases and books for years had it proved wrong. A bullet
> > has been dodged.
>
> I don't see the need for worrying about what others (even millions of
> others) have in their little databases. There's no evidence that
> believing the wrong genealogy affects anyone's life in any way.
> Besides, "if they persist in their folly they will become wise," as
> someone said (? William Blake).

John - that's a surprising position to take: as if the truth doesn't
mean anything much (or is it only other people's 'truths'?). This is
surely a standard you don't apply to your own posts, or they would lose
their value?

MAR

Message has been deleted

Peter Stewart

unread,
Sep 7, 2005, 6:55:54 PM9/7/05
to

"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126102286....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > John - that's a surprising position to take: as if the truth doesn't
>> mean anything much (or is it only other people's 'truths'?). This is
>> surely a standard you don't apply to your own posts, or they would lose
>> their value?
>
> But think how silly it is to worry about what millions of other people
> believe about their own ancestry. If they persist in their folly
> (stick around long enough to start spotting inconsistencies; get a
> little smarter in their research skills; etc.), they will become wise.
>
> A narrow obsession with correcting errors from the past is what is most
> stifling and counter-productive in American genealogy at this time. I
> thin it's a wrong focus, and obscures the fact that there is still so
> much brand-new stuff out there to be found.

Without correcting errors as the study of genealogy progresses, this
obviously can't progress as well or as efficiently: if you don't take pains
over what is right or wrong in the conventional version of a line, how can
you know what remains to be firmly established? Even if filling in blanks is
the main object of study, the persistence of errors in other supposedly
known lines can obstruct the discovery of unknown ones.

Imagine an astronomer trying to study Mars today, but still following
Perceval Lowell's findings about canal systems & oases on the planet because
no-one in the meantime had bothered to correct these.

Medieval people have been dead for centuries, and there is no particular
hurry in examining the records that survive with evidence about them - these
are, generally, well conserved and new ones are not turning up every day. If
it doesn't matter to you that countless people may be left believing in
wrong information, surely it matters less that everyone should wait a bit
for new discoveries if more solid groundwork can help with these.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages