Uchtred again (apologies in advance)
Alastair
apologies for revisting what, after a quick search, is obviously a
well trodden path, but I just re-registered for this soc, after a few
years away from dear old Deja. What I'm looking for is proof one way
or another that Waltheof II of Huntingdon is or isn't the same as
Waltheof of Tyndale. Seems to me that as Earl of Northumbria he would
also have been Lord of Tyndale, but I'm sure there's a vital piece of
evidence I'm missing, and I'd be extremely grateful if someone could
point me in the direction of that evidence.
All the best
Alastair
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> What I'm looking for is proof one way
> or another that Waltheof II of Huntingdon is or isn't the same as
> Waltheof of Tyndale.
More context is necessary - who is the Waltheof of Tyndale? If
it is who I have in mind, then no, they are different.
> Seems to me that as Earl of Northumbria he would
> also have been Lord of Tyndale,
Not necessarily - it depends on the nature of Tyndale as a
holding - it may have been held directly of the king, or held of
someone else entirely. Likewise, though, that doesn't meant that
a William of Tyndale should be equated with William the
Conqueror.
taf
Alastair
thanks for the reply - Waltheof Lord of Tyndale was father to Uchtred
Lord of Tyndale, who married Bethoc, Princess of Scotland (in 1085, it
seems), daughter of King Donald Bane. Their daughter married Richard
Comyn, Lord of Northallerton, who then also became Lord of Tyndale,
and their son was William Comyn, Earl of Buchan. This Waltheof (or
Waldef, or Waldeve), is also sometimes called Earl of Northumberland,
but what I want to know is whether this is true or not. The
information may be in the Visitation Of Northumberland, but I don't
have immediate access to that, and it doesn't seem to be on the net.
All the best
Alastair
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> thanks for the reply - Waltheof Lord of Tyndale was father to Uchtred
> Lord of Tyndale, who married Bethoc, Princess of Scotland (in 1085, it
> seems), daughter of King Donald Bane. Their daughter married Richard
> Comyn, Lord of Northallerton, who then also became Lord of Tyndale,
> and their son was William Comyn, Earl of Buchan. This Waltheof (or
> Waldef, or Waldeve), is also sometimes called Earl of Northumberland,
> but what I want to know is whether this is true or not.
OK, the answer is a resounding no. There were two Waltheofs who
held sway in Northumbria. The first of them (often called
Waltheof I) did have a son and successor Uchtred (perhaps giving
rise to the confusion), but that Uchtred married the daughter of
AEthelred II as his third wife. Since AEthelred was
great-grandfather of Margaret, Donald Bane's sister-in-law, this
first Waltheof was about three generations too early to match the
Tyndale one. The great-great-grandson of Waltheof I, Waltheof
II, had no son Uchtred, and in fact, no son at all. The names
Waltheof and Uchtred were not uncommon in the north, so there is
no basis for linking these men just based on their names.
taf
Alastair
Yes, I know about the two Waltheofs - what I'm trying to find out is
the identity of this other Waltheof, Waltheof of Tynedale, whose son
Uchtred married Bethoc. He certainly existed (he even makes it into
'Lines Of Succession'), but who was he? The Lords of Tynedale seem to
have had their seat at Bamburgh, as did the Earls of Northumberland. I
realise they could both have lived in the same place, but I still want
to know about the lineage of Tynedale.
Thanks
Alastair
Phil Moody
OK, the answer is a resounding no. There were two Waltheofs who
held sway in Northumbria. The first of them (often called
Waltheof I) did have a son and successor Uchtred (perhaps giving
rise to the confusion), but that Uchtred married the daughter of
AEthelred II as his third wife. Since AEthelred was
great-grandfather of Margaret, Donald Bane's sister-in-law, this
first Waltheof was about three generations too early to match the
Tyndale one. The great-great-grandson of Waltheof I, Waltheof
II, had no son Uchtred, and in fact, no son at all. The names
Waltheof and Uchtred were not uncommon in the north, so there is
no basis for linking these men just based on their names.
PLM: I am hoping you can help sort this information, which I find in F. M.
Stenton's "Anglo-Saxon England", p. 591. The scene is six months after the
conquest:
"and Waltheof, Earl Siward's son, to whom King Edward had recently given an
earldom comprising the shires of Huntingdon, Northampton, Bedford, and
Cambridge."
the footnote reads:
"Its boundaries, which contemporaries leave vague, can be reconstructed from
the claims put forward by Waltheof's heirs, the Senlis earls of Northampton
and the Scotish royal house"
PLM: Waltheof's connection to the throne of Scotland is fairly
straightforward but how are the Senlis earls of Northampton connected to
Waltheof?
This may be how the Uctred and Waltheof conflation occured:
Crinan
Maldred Duncan I
Gospatrick Donald III
1st earl of
Dunbar
Waltheof = <bro> Gospatrick Bethoc =
Sigrid 2nd earl Huctred
Gunnild = Waltheof Hextilda =
Uctred, son of 3rd earl Richard Comyn
Fergus,
Lord of Galloway
PLM: There is plenty of room for confusion in the house of Dunkeld:-)
Cheers,
Phil Moody
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> PLM: I am hoping you can help sort this information, which I find in F. M.
> Stenton's "Anglo-Saxon England", p. 591.
>
> the claims put forward by Waltheof's heirs, the Senlis earls of Northampton
> and the Scotish royal house"
>
> PLM: Waltheof's connection to the throne of Scotland is fairly
> straightforward but how are the Senlis earls of Northampton connected to
> Waltheof?
Waltheof Siwardson was father of Maud, who married first Simon of
St.Liz, then David, King of Scotland.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
I don't know that anything is known of Waltheof of Tyndale, other
than his location in this descent (and that only because the
Comyns claimed the Scottish crown on the basis of the descent).
taf
Phil Moody
Waltheof Siwardson was father of Maud, who married first Simon of
St.Liz, then David, King of Scotland.
PLM: Thanks for clarifying this for me! I still don't know all these English
families and St. Liz/Senlis was a new one. I knew Maud was Waltheof's only
recorded child and was curious when I saw two families claiming her as their
amcestor.
Cheers,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Todd
A. Farmerie
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 5:12 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Uchtred again (apologies in advance)
Alastair
arise. However, Earl Siward was Lord of Tinddale in 1054, and King
David I became Lord of Tindale through his wife, the heir of Waltheof
of Huntingdon and Northumberland. This would suggest Tindale/Tyndale
was passed to Waltheof by his father, and thus Waltheof was indeed
Lord of Tyndale.
However, the only references I have so far that Huctred/Uchtred of
Tyndale's father was called Waltheof (or something similar) are from
net genealogies, which are notoriously unreliable, and no doubt they
all got it from the IGI source. However, it looks like there was a
Waltheof of Tyndale - the same as Waltheof of Huntingdon. So the
question is still was Uchtred's father the same Waltheof of Tyndale as
Waltheof Earl of Northumberland and Lord of Tyndale?
The Comyn family certainly trace themselves to this line, from the
marriage of Bethoc and Huctred, but who was Huctred's father?!!
I just ordered Hodgson's History of Northumberland, which should sort
the thing out, I hope, but if anyone has any answers before it
arrives, please let me know!
All the best
Alastair
Debbi Logan
I need some "how to" lessons (I am about to divulge exactly how green and
uneducated--medieval genealogically speaking--I truly am):
How do I know whether to use an identifier as a surname? For instance:
William D'Acre. Is "D'Acre" his last name, or should I use it to identify
where he was from? And by "from": does that always denote where he was
born? Or is it used to identify where he lived his adult life or what
property he owned?
Another example I have wondered about is Thomas de Brotherton. He was
actually a son of a Plantagenet king: Edward I, but would he have used the
surname Plantagenet or de Brotherton OR Norfolk, since he was also the Earl
of Norfolk?
Is an identifier using [D'] alphabetized under D and one using [de] under
whatever the next word is? For instance: D'Arcy under D and de Caen under
C? Or is the person identified by "de" filed under the given name and not
under a surname at all?
For women & children: How does a woman become a countess or a duchess? Is
it by birth, or marriage? Is she automatically a countess if she is married
to a count for instance? What is an earl's wife? (Don't anyone tell me she
is an "Earless"! :) ) What are the children of a duke, count or earl?
Just children, or do they hold an official title as well? How do I tell if
a woman married to a king was actually a queen? For most of the middle
ages, weren't they merely considered the wife of the king and not
neccessarily a queen? During the middle ages when there were so many
leaders with mistresses...were the children of those relationships
considered to be princes and princesses or were only those of the marriage
so identified? If not princes or princesses, how should they be identified?
In looking at some of the data bases on the internet, it seems as though
"ez" endings on Spanish names denotes "child of" just as "fitz," "ap," and
"mac" do. Is that correct? For instance Alfonso Sanchez, would have been
Alfonso the son of Sancho? Would Sanchez in this case be a surname? Or an
identifier? Were daughters identified the same way? Maybe Maria Sanchez?
How can a man be a Duke and an Earl at the same time? Does it have to do
with being invested with different amounts of property each title comes
with? Why am I thinking that a Duke must be the son of a king or queen--as
in the Duke of Windsor? Can anyone else be a Duke?
Okay, although my mind is still teeming with unasked questions, I am going
to stop here. You all are probably reeling from the enormity of my
ignorance already!!
Thanks for all your help,
Debbi
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I can see where the Waltheof/Uchtred Northumbria confusion could
> arise. However, Earl Siward was Lord of Tinddale in 1054, and King
> David I became Lord of Tindale through his wife, the heir of Waltheof
> of Huntingdon and Northumberland. This would suggest Tindale/Tyndale
> was passed to Waltheof by his father, and thus Waltheof was indeed
> Lord of Tyndale.
>
> However, the only references I have so far that Huctred/Uchtred of
> Tyndale's father was called Waltheof (or something similar) are from
> net genealogies, which are notoriously unreliable, and no doubt they
> all got it from the IGI source. However, it looks like there was a
> Waltheof of Tyndale - the same as Waltheof of Huntingdon. So the
> question is still was Uchtred's father the same Waltheof of Tyndale as
> Waltheof Earl of Northumberland and Lord of Tyndale?
He simply cannot be. Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland did not
have a son Uctred, Huctred, or any thing else. His sole heiress
was his daughter. It must be said that this whole Donald Bane
descent is not the best documented, and so I guess Waltheof "of
Tyndale" could be Ealr Waltheof if the pedigree itself is an
invention of no historical value. Waltheof of Tyndale cannot be
both father of Uctred AND identical to the Earl.
taf
Reedpcgen
will find that given names like Ughtred/Uchtred, Waltheof and Siward and not at
all rare. You even get interesting names like Ravenkill.
Do not expect that because two noblemen bear the given name Waltheof that they
must in some way be related by blood.
Paul
PDel...@aol.com
usually in the Genealogical or Heraldic section. this will also explain the
various titular permutations amongst the European Countries.
European Nobility and Heraldry published by Heraldry Today is a good book
and would wipe away a few cobwebs.
As for names, this is a more intangible subject because PATRONYMIcs OR FAMILY
NAMES did not really come into existence until well into the Medieval era. A
person was usually, if sufficiently well known, known from his place of
origin or his senior demesne.
One could write tomes on each of the subjects you have touched on, but let
the books do all the work!
Peter de Loriol
Tim Powys-Lybbe
dlo...@bellsouth.net (Debbi Logan) wrote:
> I know that's rather a cryptic subject title, but here goes:
>
> I need some "how to" lessons (I am about to divulge exactly how green and
> uneducated--medieval genealogically speaking--I truly am):
>
> How do I know whether to use an identifier as a surname? For instance:
> William D'Acre. Is "D'Acre" his last name, or should I use it to identify
> where he was from? And by "from": does that always denote where he was
> born? Or is it used to identify where he lived his adult life or what
> property he owned?
It varies. Many of the early "de" were of the place of birth, but
sometimes is could be of the caput or principal location where they
lived.
>
> Another example I have wondered about is Thomas de Brotherton. He was
> actually a son of a Plantagenet king: Edward I, but would he have used the
> surname Plantagenet or de Brotherton OR Norfolk, since he was also the Earl
> of Norfolk?
He would probably have been Thomas Norfolk in later life, that is how
peers sign themselves to this day, forename then title name. But in
earlier life he was known by his place of birth, Brotherton; a clear
identifier. The purpose of these usages was to identify these people
and "Thomas of Brotherton" did not have too many duplicates whereas
Earl of Norfolk was as common as dirt!
But he was never Plantagenet, that was not adopted as a surname until
Richard P., duke of York, did so.
> Is an identifier using [D'] alphabetized under D and one using [de] under
> whatever the next word is? For instance: D'Arcy under D and de Caen under
> C? Or is the person identified by "de" filed under the given name and not
> under a surname at all?
How you file it is entirely up to you. I originally distinguished the
Nevilles from the de Nevilles and the de Nevills. Now I find it more
intelligible to give them all the one surname of Neville and put any
"de" in with the forenames; it prints out OK, that's what matters to me;
and I can group them all together in my files by surname.
> For women & children: How does a woman become a countess or a duchess? Is
> it by birth, or marriage?
Yes, both can apply.
> Is she automatically a countess if she is married
> to a count for instance?
Yes.
> What is an earl's wife? (Don't anyone tell me she is an "Earless"! :)
> )
Countess.
> What are the children of a duke, count or earl? Just children, or do they
> hold an official title as well?
They have no title until they succeed; but they may have courtesy
titles. Practices on this have changed over the years. The courtesy
title is usually the next most senior title the father (grandfather,
whatever) owns after his senior title. Younger sons and daughters do no
get that sort of courtesy title.
> How do I tell if a woman married to a king was actually a queen?
The normal practice is to call them Queen. Morganatic marriages were
much later.
> For most of the middle ages, weren't they merely considered the wife of
> the king and not neccessarily a queen?
Sometimes it was thought important to have them crowned queen.
Similarly George IV thought it important not to have his wife crowned.
> During the middle ages when there were so many leaders with
> mistresses...were the children of those relationships considered to be
> princes and princesses or were only those of the marriage so identified?
Prince is a modern term, in my opinion. I have not seen it extensively
used in older documents.
Some bastards were given big titles as in Robert de Caen who became earl
of Gloucester and James Scott who was duke of Monmouth.
> If not princes or princesses, how should they be identified?
As in Thomas of Brotherton?
Practices changed over the centuries; you have to find waht was done in
the period concerned.
And "prince" in Poland does not mean son of a monarch; I am under the
impression that it means little more than knight (please correct me
everyone!).
> In looking at some of the data bases on the internet, it seems as though
> "ez" endings on Spanish names denotes "child of" just as "fitz," "ap," and
> "mac" do. Is that correct? For instance Alfonso Sanchez, would have been
> Alfonso the son of Sancho? Would Sanchez in this case be a surname? Or an
> identifier? Were daughters identified the same way? Maybe Maria Sanchez?
Not my patch.
> How can a man be a Duke and an Earl at the same time?
Easily, he inherits or is appointed to both.
> Does it have to do with being invested with different amounts of
> property each title comes with?
In the distant past earls and barons were territorial, some baronies
went with the property and certainly some properties went with the
title. These days there is no need for any property to go with a title;
I know of one baron whose job is that of neighbourhood plumber.
> Why am I thinking that a Duke must be the son of a king or queen--as in
> the Duke of Windsor? Can anyone else be a Duke?
Duke are a later invention in England, though, as in duke of Normandy,
they are an old feature of the continent of Europe. The first English
dukes were usually sons of sovereigns and they usually had little or no
properties as land went with earldoms and baronies.
The duke of Marlborough was not a son of a sovereign. Ditto the duke of
Wellington. To some extent a practice developed that a leader in
battle had to be a duke.
> Okay, although my mind is still teeming with unasked questions, I am going
> to stop here. You all are probably reeling from the enormity of my
> ignorance already!!
No, if you have not asked or heard about it before, it is all wierd. I
seem to remember that Whitaker's Almanac (try a libary, even for an
old edition) had some good summaries of current practices. Otherwise,
reading Complete Peerage from cover to cover would give you a good feel
for English practice. Then you have the other countries with all these
other ridiculous titles... Happy reading!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Phil Moody
I can see where the Waltheof/Uchtred Northumbria confusion could
arise. However, Earl Siward was Lord of Tinddale in 1054, and King
David I became Lord of Tindale through his wife, the heir of Waltheof
of Huntingdon and Northumberland. This would suggest Tindale/Tyndale
was passed to Waltheof by his father, and thus Waltheof was indeed
Lord of Tyndale.
PLM: I don't have a problem with this, but there remains the strong
possibility that Malcolm III had his own claim to Tyndale, and thus
providing king David with a paternal right of inheritance.
I don't know what evidense there might be that Uctred was the son of Earl
Waltheof (d. 1075), but I know of no sound reason why it cannot be possible.
Todd, appears to believe differently, though he has not demonstrated exactly
why he believes Waltheof was not Uctred's father. I see no reason to think
that Maud and Uctred could not have different mothers.
Cheers,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
Alastair
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:45 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Uchtred again (apologies in advance)
Graeme Wall
moody...@prodigy.net (Phil Moody) wrote:
[snip]
>
> PLM: I am hoping you can help sort this information, which I find in F. M.
> Stenton's "Anglo-Saxon England", p. 591. The scene is six months after the
> conquest:
>
Which edition? That reference in my copy covers the landing of the Norman
fleet in Pevensey Bay (3rd Edition OUP, reprinted 1985). A quick skim
through the index doesn`t reveal the quote.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Todd A. Farmerie
> I don't know what evidense there might be that Uctred was the son of Earl
> Waltheof (d. 1075), but I know of no sound reason why it cannot be possible.
> Todd, appears to believe differently, though he has not demonstrated exactly
> why he believes Waltheof was not Uctred's father. I see no reason to think
> that Maud and Uctred could not have different mothers.
Waltheof was not some minor personage, nor did he fade into
obscurity. He flew high and fell hard. The status of his
inheritance, one of the biggest in England at the time, was well
known. His claim was not jure uxoris, and any son would have put
forward some claim to some part of it. There was no son, in any
of the sources.
Waltheof father of Uctred, and Earl Waltheof both could have had
an interest in Tyndale, at different levels of infeudation.
Considering how common the name Waltheof was, you need more than
just the coincidence of names to conclude that a personage as
well known as Earl Waltheof had a previously undetected and son
and heir who was passed over without mention.
taf
Alastair
>
> He simply cannot be. Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland did not
> have a son Uctred, Huctred, or any thing else. His sole heiress
> was his daughter. It must be said that this whole Donald Bane
> descent is not the best documented, and so I guess Waltheof "of
> Tyndale" could be Ealr Waltheof if the pedigree itself is an
> invention of no historical value. Waltheof of Tyndale cannot be
> both father of Uctred AND identical to the Earl.
>
> taf
Hi Todd,
three things - the Donald Bane descent is accepted, surely, at least
the marriage of his grandaughter Hextilda of Tyndale to Richard Comyn
- although granted the Waltheof/Waldef connection is spurious, or at
least unproven (as far as I know). But Huctred of Tyndale is a real
person, it seems. The second is that Waltheof had two 'accepted'
daughters, not one - Matilda/Maud, who married Simon de St Liz and
then King David, and Alice, who married Ralph de Toesni.
The third is that we can't say for sure that Waltheof didn't have a
son - he just doesn't figure in the 'accepted' genealogies. It's
unlikely, of course, but not impossible that two people who are right
now thought to be separate people were in fact the same. As I've said
before, at the time, Waltheof seems to have been both Lord of Tyndale
and Earl of Northumberland, and thus, if Huctred was Lord of Tyndale,
then he either usurped it or inherited it, neither of which seem to
have happened.
The Lordship of Tyndale went either to Bishop Walcher or to the
English crown on Waltheof's execution - but it seems to have stayed
with Judith and then Matilda (although I haven't seen Simon de St Liz
described as Earl of Northumberland and Lord of Tyndale), passing to
King David, who kept it after the Battle of the Standard, losing
pretty much everything else, except Huntingdon.
So if Huctred wasn't Lord of Tyndale, he must have either just come
from there (but then what was he doing marrying a very valuable (in
political terms) Scottish Princess, whose marriage gave rise to the
Comyn Clan, and future claimants of the Scottish throne), or he should
have been Lord of Tyndale, but his expected title was withheld by King
William. In other words, he was Waltheof's son, but wasn't allowed to
inherit, as King William needed to give the title to someone else for
political reasons. Conjecture, I admit, but possible.
The genealogies can't help here, nor can the regular history books.
The key is obviously establishing exactly what happened to the
Lordship of Tyndale after Waltheof's execution, which might help to
find out who Huctred was: I hope Hodgson's History of Northumberland
(on its way) and a trip to Edinburgh and its library and PRO next week
will sort that out. Then, I hope, I'll know who his father was, and we
can go from there.
But again, if anyone knows any different (for certain), then let me
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In looking at some of the data bases on the internet, it seems as though
> "ez" endings on Spanish names denotes "child of" just as "fitz," "ap," and
> "mac" do. Is that correct?
Yes. Fitz is the best comparison.
> For instance Alfonso Sanchez, would have been
> Alfonso the son of Sancho?
Yes, at early times - later, such names came to be surnames.
> Would Sanchez in this case be a surname? Or an identifier?
Just an identifier.
> Were daughters identified the same way? Maybe Maria Sanchez?
Yes, but something to keep in mind is that "Sanchez" was not the
contemporary form, at least in the early surviving documents.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
Waltheof of Tynedale is mentioned very briefly (as father of Uchtred,
husband of Bethoc) in Anderson's "Early Sources of Scottish History",
vol. 2, p. 182. No suggestion is made there that Waltheof of Tynedale
may have been the same as the earl of Northumbria, and the two
Waltheof's were indexed separately, suggesting that Anderson regarded
them as two different individuals. The sources cited for Waltheof of
Tynedale are Scot's Peerage, vol. 1, pp. 416-7, and Joseph Bain,
Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, vol. 1, no. 2287. I
suggest that those sources be examined for what information they might
provide.
Stewart Baldwin
Alastair
> Waltheof was not some minor personage, nor did he fade into
> obscurity. He flew high and fell hard. The status of his
> inheritance, one of the biggest in England at the time, was well
> known. His claim was not jure uxoris, and any son would have put
> forward some claim to some part of it. There was no son, in any
> of the sources.
>
> Waltheof father of Uctred, and Earl Waltheof both could have had
> an interest in Tyndale, at different levels of infeudation.
> Considering how common the name Waltheof was, you need more than
> just the coincidence of names to conclude that a personage as
> well known as Earl Waltheof had a previously undetected and son
> and heir who was passed over without mention.
>
> taf
I understand all of this, Todd, and maybe the Waltheof thing is a red
herring - what I'm really trying to do is find out who Huctred was. Of
course, if he was Waltheof's son, he didn't get passed over without
mention, he married a Scottish Princess! However, I'm prepared to
accept that the two Waltheofs weren't the same, and that if Huctred
was Waltheof II's son he would have made it into the history books
somewhere - still want to know who he was though.
Cheers
Alastair
D. Spencer Hines
say.
All questions do not have answers ---- although we often try to force
one.
Deus Vult.
Sefton: [William Holden] "One more word. If I ever run into any of you
bums on a street corner, just let's pretend we never met before.
Understand?"... Only in a democracy can a poor guy get his keister shot
off with a rich guy." ---- Stalag 17 [1953] Billy Wilder & Edwin Blum.
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.
"Alastair" <skr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6c35317a.01092...@posting.google.com...
Phil Moody
Which edition? That reference in my copy covers the landing of the Norman
fleet in Pevensey Bay (3rd Edition OUP, reprinted 1985). A quick skim
through the index doesn`t reveal the quote.
PLM: My apologies, It slipped my mind that the book is somewhat popular:-)
2nd edition, second printing 1950, Oxford University Press. Graeme, this may
help you find it in your edition. The coronation of William I was on the
preceding page.
Cheers,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
Kevan L. Barton
I thought it might have meant "Al is fun so what if he has no cheese."
Cheers,
Kevan
Disclaimer: This msg did not target anyone, nor belittle the topic. It is
simply one's troll attempt at light humus. I thought I'd trough a little
blight on the present dankness.
This Marylander who is watching and sitting with others as they grieve,
truly hopes the best for all of you. Glad to see we're returning to normal
topics. May God bless all his innocent children.
A Channing
> moody...@prodigy.net (Phil Moody) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > PLM: I am hoping you can help sort this information, which I find in F.
M.
> > Stenton's "Anglo-Saxon England", p. 591. The scene is six months after
the
> > conquest:
> >
> Which edition? That reference in my copy covers the landing of the
Norman
> fleet in Pevensey Bay (3rd Edition OUP, reprinted 1985). A quick skim
> through the index doesn`t reveal the quote.
> --
> Graeme Wall
>
It's the 2nd edition 1947 (my reprint, bought by me when new for 45/- (45
shillings =Ł2.25), 1967)
ŠAdrian (Surrey, UK) <ACha...@CompuServe.Com>
NB There should _not_ be an(y) attachment(s) to this plain text message
Alastair
> Waltheof of Tynedale is mentioned very briefly (as father of Uchtred,
> husband of Bethoc) in Anderson's "Early Sources of Scottish History",
> vol. 2, p. 182. No suggestion is made there that Waltheof of Tynedale
> may have been the same as the earl of Northumbria, and the two
> Waltheof's were indexed separately, suggesting that Anderson regarded
> them as two different individuals. The sources cited for Waltheof of
> Tynedale are Scot's Peerage, vol. 1, pp. 416-7, and Joseph Bain,
> Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, vol. 1, no. 2287. I
> suggest that those sources be examined for what information they might
> provide.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
Thankyou, Stewart - looks like you just gave me the answer to my
question. I'll check out the book and the two references, as soon as I
can get hold of them.
Many many thanks,
Alastair
malinda
After you have reviewed the books, I hope you will raise the issue again.
Bethoc is supposedly an ancestress of Major Francis Wright who married
Anne Washington (sister of George Washington's grandfather).
Thank you........~malinda
Nona Ferdon
Waltheof I's son, Uchtred, married Aelgifu, daughter of Aethelred the
"Unready" -- then, SEVERAL generations later a Uchtred, Lord of Tyndale,
married Bethoc, daughter of Donaldbane III. Right?
Who was THIS Uchtred's father? ?
Nona
Paul Moynagh
<t...@powys.org> wrote:
> Otherwise,
> reading Complete Peerage from cover to cover would give you a good feel
> for English practice.
If you find that daunting, 'Debrett's Correct Form' by Patrick
Montague-Smith digests much of the British (note: the Scots and Irish resent
being excluded) system of titles. It also tells you what to call them should
you ever by chance, or mischance, meet or write to one of our aristos.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Moynagh
pmoy...@argonet.co.uk
Phil Moody
Waltheof was not some minor personage, nor did he fade into
obscurity. He flew high and fell hard. The status of his
inheritance, one of the biggest in England at the time, was well
known. His claim was not jure uxoris, and any son would have put
forward some claim to some part of it. There was no son, in any
of the sources.
PLM: Well, I would expect as much. If Waltheof had a son who was not by
Judith, I would not expect him to be legitamized by William I or II. Judith
being their relation, they would support Maud in everything and in their
eye's, Uctred would be a bastard and a threat to their control of these
important shires.
Scotland would be the only place of relative safety for Uctred and the
scarcity of written records in Scotland would leave Uctred's existance
undocumented.
Waltheof father of Uctred, and Earl Waltheof both could have had
an interest in Tyndale, at different levels of infeudation.
PLM: True enough.
Considering how common the name Waltheof was, you need more than
just the coincidence of names to conclude that a personage as
well known as Earl Waltheof had a previously undetected and son
and heir who was passed over without mention.
PLM: I don't think it has been established that Waltheof was a common name
outside the descendants of the Earls of Northumrian; so I will not concede
this point. The name it self may be exclusive to the Northumbrians and those
that migrated to Scotland and continued the naming practice of Uctred and
Waltheof, in remembrance of their past. I don't believe I am alone, in
giving some weight to the name.
It is known that Earl Siward married one of his relations off to Duncan I,
though the exact relationship remains conjectural. This then makes Earl
Siward the relation of Malcolm III, Donald III and Maelmuir. Earl Siward's
support of Malcolm's bid to regain Scotland has more to do with them being
related, rather than the political machinations King Edward. Furthermore,
Earl Siward gave the heirs of Duncan safe haven during MacBeth's reign and
the reciprocal can be expected of Malcolm III, after the murder of Waltheof
Siwardsson. Had Waltheof a son, he would have been sheltered in Scotland in
safety; just as Earl Siward had done for Malcolm III in his youth.
So when did Waltheof father this unrecorded son you may ask; well, I think
during Gospatric and Waltheof's rebellion against William I in 1069 would be
oportunistic. Given Waltheof's royal Scottish conections, I feel confident
that their was some intercourse between Scotland and the Northumbrian
rebels. Whether Waltheof was married or not is not really relavent to the
question of his fathering a son, but he could have fathered a son with a
Scottish lass during this period.
Waltheof may have been obliveous to his being a father until well after his
reconciliation with William I. Once Waltheof became aware that he had a son,
it would not be something he would want bandied about in England, to raise
the ire of William I. Waltheoff did not live much longer after this period.
Then the young Uctred Waltheofsson would have then been raised in Scotland
by his relatives and quite possibly by Donald III. This then brings Uctred
and Bethoc together in the same house and by Scottish standards, they are
not related to closely to prohibit the marriage.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Todd
A. Farmerie
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 5:51 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Uchtred again (apologies in advance)
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> Waltheof was not some minor personage, nor did he fade into
> obscurity. He flew high and fell hard. The status of his
> inheritance, one of the biggest in England at the time, was well
> known. His claim was not jure uxoris, and any son would have put
> forward some claim to some part of it. There was no son, in any
> of the sources.
>
> PLM: Well, I would expect as much. If Waltheof had a son who was not by
> Judith, I would not expect him to be legitamized by William I or II. Judith
> being their relation, they would support Maud in everything and in their
> eye's, Uctred would be a bastard and a threat to their control of these
> important shires.
Follow this argument to its logical conclusion . . . if he was
illegitimate, he would not have inherited Tyndale, and without
the Tyndale connection, there is no reason to think he was son of
Waltheof at all.
> Furthermore,
> Earl Siward gave the heirs of Duncan safe haven during MacBeth's reign and
> the reciprocal can be expected of Malcolm III, after the murder of Waltheof
> Siwardsson.
Waltheof wasn't murdered.
> Had Waltheof a son, he would have been sheltered in Scotland in
. . . he "MAY" have been sheltered in Scotland. You can't assume
that he WOULD have been.
> So when did Waltheof father this unrecorded son you may ask; well, I think
> during Gospatric and Waltheof's rebellion against William I in 1069 would be
> oportunistic. Given Waltheof's royal Scottish conections, I feel confident
> that their was some intercourse between Scotland and the Northumbrian
> rebels. Whether Waltheof was married or not is not really relavent to the
> question of his fathering a son, but he could have fathered a son with a
> Scottish lass during this period.
Why a Scottish lass? You have already accounted (supposedly) for
the Scottish connection through Siward's link to the royal
family.
> Waltheof may have been obliveous to his being a father until well after his
> reconciliation with William I. Once Waltheof became aware that he had a son,
> it would not be something he would want bandied about in England, to raise
> the ire of William I. Waltheoff did not live much longer after this period.
> Then the young Uctred Waltheofsson would have then been raised in Scotland
> by his relatives and quite possibly by Donald III. This then brings Uctred
> and Bethoc together in the same house and by Scottish standards, they are
> not related to closely to prohibit the marriage.
Do you see what you have done here? You have reconstructed an
entire alternative history of events - dating, nationalities,
motivations - in fine and precise detail, with no further data
than that Uctred of Tyndale is said to have been son of a man
named Waltheof. Don't you think this is reading a bit much into
the evidence (which no one has even looked up yet)?
taf
D. Spencer Hines
in school ---- by "educators".
Todd doesn't want to admit that.
_Facts_ to Moody are completely fungible and not all that important ----
as compared to ideas and beliefs.
"Actually, facts are just the way we see the world. Each of us has his
or her own point of view and own set of facts to describe that world."
That's what many farblondjet "educators" teach ---- or variations
thereof ---- certainly not ALL educators.
It's not "creative" or "rewarding" to just ferret out dry-as-dust OLD
facts and do that horrid, boring RESEARCH thing. That's "rote
learning" ---- not creative at all.
It's much more fun and "creative" [indicating a better, more worthy
person, of course ---- a smarter person, in the minds of these
cretins ---- DSH] to form "alternative versions of events."
Why it's just more "creative" all around. Higher thinking skills are
exhibited. Besides, it's more fun to grade the papers.
----------------------
Codswallop and Balderdash ---- But That's What Many In The Academic
Clerisy Teach ---- Particularly In The Secondary and Elementary Schools
Across The Land.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Sefton: [William Holden] "One more word. If I ever run into any of you
bums on a street corner, just let's pretend we never met before.
Understand?"... Only in a democracy can a poor guy get his keister shot
off with a rich guy." ---- Stalag 17 [1953] Billy Wilder & Edwin Blum.
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:3BACD9F3...@interfold.com...
Arthur Murata
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
D. Spencer Hines
"Bronwen Edwards" ---- the "educator" ---- at the college level, no
less ---- needs a Vocabulary lesson, an Epistemological lesson ---- and
a Legal lesson.
Educator, Educate Thyself.
She apparently has a Ph.D., in God knows what, it certainly doesn't
appear to be History -- sociology perhaps ---- but is as dumb as a sack
of hammers.
How Sweet It Is!
Why do we allow these idiots to teach our children?
They should be horsewhipped, stripped, tarred, feathered and ridden out
of town on a splintery rail ---- metaphorically speaking of course.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Fortem Posce Animum.
Sefton: [William Holden] "One more word. If I ever run into any of you
bums on a street corner, just let's pretend we never met before.
Understand?"... Only in a democracy can a poor guy get his keister shot
off with a rich guy." ---- Stalag 17 [1953] Billy Wilder & Edwin Blum.
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.
----- Original Message -----
DSH