Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Tony Hoskins
My question in re: the mother of Sueva Orsini, Duchessa d'Andria, could
have been answered easily, had I but considered a moment. A lesson for
us all about the folly of sending off emails too hastily!
My good friend and neighbor here in Northern California, Col. Charles
M. Hansen, FASG, just brought me some pages from his ongoing series
(with Neil D. Thompson) "The Ancestry of Charles II," in _The
Genealogist_ , regarding the identity of the mother of Sueva. This
information would seem to cinch the received view that Sueva's mother
was in fact Jeanne (Gorizia) de Sabran.
Under ancestor numbers 1574 and 1575, Col. Hansen and Dr. Thompson
state,
"1574. Niccolo Orsini, called "des Ursins," Count of Nola, [born] 27
August 1331, [died] Nola (after 14 February) 1399, ... [married] to
1575. Jeanne de Sabran, called "Gorizia," her testament dated 1357
[note 250].
Note 250: Casanovas, _Henri IV 83, evidently following Litta,
incorrectly gives Niccolo Orsini a second wife, Marie des Baux [Balzo],
only child and heiress of Raymond des Baux, Count of Soleto, d.s.p. 5
Aug. 1375 (_ES_ [new ed.] 3:4:752), and by letters dated 18 Oct. 1375,
Queen Joanna of Naples granted John d'Arcussia di Capra, Count of
Minervino, the castle and bourgs which had reverted to the crown by the
death of Raymond, Count of Soleto, without legitimate issue, "to the
exclusion of Nicholas Orsini, Count Palatine and of Nola, his nephew,
who had himself acknowledged that he has no rights in the feudal goods
of his uncle' (Watson, "Seize Quartiers' [supra note 203], 12:248, n.
15)."
I had suspected Davide Shama had relied on Litta for this proposed
second wife of Niccolo Orsini, Count of Nola. So it appears to be.
Many thanks to Charles Hansen for his splendid work, also for his
courtesy and interest. And, thanks again to Douglas Richardson for
taking the time and trouble to send us the 1363 letter of Pope Urban V,
which adds importantly to the documentation of this case.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for posting this information. Much appreciated.
I have a couple of questions for you. If Niccolo Orsini's wife was
named Giovanna (or Joan) in 1363, which is proven by the record I
posted, why do you believe she is the same wife as Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357?
Wouldn't there be two wives, one named Gorizia and one named Giovanna
de Sabran? Also, what is your evidence that Count Niccolo had a wife
named Gorizia?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
There is an interesting website in the Italian language devoted to the
Orsini family. You might like to check it out:
http://www.conteanolana.it/uomini%20illustri%20libro%20M-P/Orsini%20(Famiglia).htm
Among other things, the website states that Niccolo Orsini's wife's
name was Gorizia Sabrano. There is no mention of a wife named Giovanna
(or Joan).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
mark_...@hotmail.com
1) Simon de Montfort is listed as Duca di Leicester. Shouldn't Earl
become Conte?
2) De Montfort's wife is listed as sister of the Re di Gran Bretagna.
Inghilterra?
3) Guy de Montfort's wife - and the suggested mother of his daughter
Anastasia - is listed as Margherita Orsini. Surely she was Margherita
Aldobrandeschi(?)
Perhaps errors 1 and 2 are unimportant. Still, it's clear that the site
can't be relied on. Maybe the identification of Niccolo's Sabran wife
as Gorizia is taken from a decent source. It's a shame there are no
endnotes or bibliography.
Mark Bridge
Peter Stewart
<mark_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121248668.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This name for Giovanna is taken from Litta, who wrongly gave her husband a
second wife named Maria del Balzo (des Baux).
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Dear Peter ~
It strikes me as rather humorous that you have repeatedly bashed Dr.
David Kelley, FASG, over confusing the given names, Godfrey and
Geoffrey, but now seem clueless about Gorizia/Giovanna. I personally
don't think Gorizia is the same wife as Giovanna (nor does Tony
Hoskins). Gorizia supposedly left a testament dated 1357, whereas I
have shown that Giovanna was living in 1363.
Where is your evidence that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna?
Or, are you going to hide behind the Litta figleaf?
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121360756.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source of
the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is unknown
to me. That's all there is to it. Litta calls the woman otherwise known as
Giovanna by another name. He doesn't name a Giovanna as well in this
context, mistakenly giving the man a second wife called Maria del Balzo.
Lots of people make a will and live on for six years or more.
If you are interested in researching this further, by all means do so. But
do it for yourself without, trying to goad others and smear them with your
rancid idea of "collegiality". Get out your ouija board, as I'm sure you are
expert in psychic studies, and ask Litta why he did this.
Kelley didn't just "confuse" two different given names, he fabricated a
nonsensical case for making two quite distinct people into one - without
bothering to check the medieval sources - and used this figment of his own
incompetence to sneer at others who knew better.
You are now trying to make two women out of one who happens to have been
given a different name by a modern genealogist, clearly intending the same
person, on the basis of no further evidence whatsoever.
I haven't used a "figleaf", there is nothing to be hidden here in the first
place, and I patently didn't make any claim beyond the indisputable fact
that Litta is where the name Gorizia came from into the more recent
literature.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source of
> the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is unknown
> to me. That's all there is to it.
So, you're saying you think Gorizia is the same woman as Giovanna? Is
that right? Mmmmm .....
Litta calls the woman otherwise known as
> Giovanna by another name. He doesn't name a Giovanna as well in this
> context, mistakenly giving the man a second wife called Maria del Balzo.
> Lots of people make a will and live on for six years or more.
Actually Litta made two major mistakes. He confused Gorizia with
Giovanna, and he fabricated a ficticious second wife Maria del Balzo
for Count Niccolo Orsini. These sound like major errors to me. Why
aren't you ranting and raving about Litta's incompetence?
> I haven't used a "figleaf", there is nothing to be hidden here in the first
> place, and I patently didn't make any claim beyond the indisputable fact
> that Litta is where the name Gorizia came from into the more recent
> literature.
You seem to be avoiding the obvious, Peter. I don't think Gorizia is
the same woman as Giovanna. You apparently think they are the same
woman. Either you are right, or I am. Anyone want to take bets? Naw,
I think it's pretty obvious who is right.
>
> Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Litta called "Gorizia" a woman whose details in other respects make it plain
that she was the same as "Giovanna", that is Jeanne de Sabran.
Anomalous names are by no means uncommmon in medieval records. However, I
have no way of retracing Litta's steps in this matter. Nor, quite obviously,
has Richardson, but that doesn't sop him lurching & reeling to unwarranted
conclusions.
Litta made many mistakes. But he didn't sit back on his laurels, as a
professor and FASG like Kelley, undertaking NO research into important
matters while making absurd conjectures that mislead enquirers, backing
these up with nothing more than demonstrably baseless, wrong assertions -
and getting away with it for decades because no-one in the US genealogical
community checked the readily available sources and exposed the stupid
fraud.
Indeed in this case a biography of Godfrey de Bouillon had been published,
including an accurate chronology obviating his identification with the
English landholder Geoffrey fitz Eustace, as recently as 1985. But still
no-one bothered to look, including Richardson himself who was ignorantly
content to be associated in print with Kelley's drivel, just in case there
might be a smidgin of credit in this for himself.
Now he is trying to cover his own disgrace by making ludicrous
misinterpretations of Litta and of my straightforward answer about the
information given by that estimable, but not infallible, scholar.
Pathetic.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121383610.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121383610.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source
>> of
>> the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is
>> unknown
>> to me. That's all there is to it.
>
> So, you're saying you think Gorizia is the same woman as Giovanna? Is
> that right? Mmmmm .....
<snip>
> You seem to be avoiding the obvious, Peter. I don't think Gorizia is
> the same woman as Giovanna. You apparently think they are the same
> woman. Either you are right, or I am. Anyone want to take bets? Naw,
> I think it's pretty obvious who is right.
O dear, Richardson's esteemed colleague and admirer Gary Boyd Roberts must
enter the betting here, at the same odds with me for a change - see
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/education/articles/NEXUS/nexus_9_5_3.asp
He at least is able to interpret Litta's plain meaning: he names Sueva
Orsini's mother, otherwise known as Giovanna, as "Gorizia Sabrano" (see no.
6 in the first list). The source is described as "Litta's great set, the
bibliographical base for this column".
Richardson on the other hand assumed that Litta must have meant a woman
named only Gorizia, different from another woman called Giovanna. This
foolish idea of his represents the flip-side of folly from "the name's the
same....".
Feeling secure in his misunderstanding, as always, he then tried to taunt me
with his nonsense & offered to take bets. Any punters, I wonder?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Surely Mr. Stewart can do better than this bowl of mamby pampy mush!
Either Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna, or she isn't. Either
Litta based his work on solid evidence, or he didn't. Which is it?
Mr. Stewart tells is that Litta makes it "plain" that the woman he
calls "Gorizia" is the same wife as Giovanna. But Mr. Stewart
provides us no documentation to verify this. Do we just have to take
Mr. Stewart's word for this? I hope not!
I don't find anything "plain" in medieval records, unless there is
adequate documentation to prove it. So, perhaps Mr. Stewart can stop
hiding behind the little Litta figleaf and tell us the evidence Litta
used to conclude that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna.
Enquiring minds want to know!
Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
prove it.
I predict Mr. Stewart will run for the tall grasses in his next post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121420159....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Surely Mr. Stewart can do better than this bowl of mamby pampy mush!
> Either Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna, or she isn't. Either
> Litta based his work on solid evidence, or he didn't. Which is it?
>
> Mr. Stewart tells is that Litta makes it "plain" that the woman he
> calls "Gorizia" is the same wife as Giovanna. But Mr. Stewart
> provides us no documentation to verify this. Do we just have to take
> Mr. Stewart's word for this? I hope not!
Of course you don't - take the word of Gary Boyd Roberts instead. He can
evidently make sense of Italian, unlike you. "Mamby pampy" is presumably a
nonce term of your own, perhaps substituted for "namby pamby"? In any case
it is meaningless applied to me.
> I don't find anything "plain" in medieval records, unless there is
> adequate documentation to prove it. So, perhaps Mr. Stewart can stop
> hiding behind the little Litta figleaf and tell us the evidence Litta
> used to conclude that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna.
> Enquiring minds want to know!
This has nothing yet to DO with medieval records - Litta, researching in the
19th century, may or may not have used a medieval record for calling the
count of Nola's Sabran wife Gorizia rather than Giovanna as others before
and since his time have done. The only point at issue is whether or not
Litta used that name intending the Sabran mother of Sueva, or another
person. Roberts and I assert that he did mean the same lady: Richardson is
now trying to obfuscate his earlier claim that he didn't, and was talking
instead about a different women entirely.
> Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
> allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
> who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
> Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
> Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
> as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
Yes, you have missed ANY evidence that a Gorizia died and that a Giovanna
was a subsequent wife - all you have to go on is a different name used by
one historian that you have not even traced to a medieval source. The notion
that you can opine about this with authority is risible.
> I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
> Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
> collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
> It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
> prove it.
It's absolutely NOT the same thing at all: Giovanna and Gorizia are NOT
falsely claimed to be the same name, and NOT a conflation of one of the most
famous personages of the medieval era with a nonentity. Mr Stewart hasn't
"collapsed" anyone, but simply read Litta as he intended to be understood,
and as G.B. Roberts agrees, to mean that Niccolo married Gorizia Sabrano who
was mother of Sueva.
If you think I am going to transcribe Litta for you to save you the trouble
of looking this up, you are mistaken. I am not a party to your filching work
and references, and obtaining free research assistance, here. Several people
have stopped posting regularly to SGM to avoid this, while others now omit
detailed citations that formerly would have been given more liberally.
Others again provide information or references with a variety of indicators
planted to see if you merely copy or actually check.
> I predict Mr. Stewart will run for the tall grasses in his next post.
But I have never done such a thing - yet again you imagine that you can
falsely characterise someone else and your self-serving misrepresentation
will somehow become true, or at least credible to others, in the making. It
doesn't happen. Ever.
I have plainly stated that Litta called Niccolo Orsini's Sabran wife, mother
of his daughter Sueva, by the unexplained name Gorizia, wheras she is
otherwise called Giovanna (including by Pope Urban V). If you need to verify
this, the place to do it is in Litta's work, not in a Usenet group. There
are several other published works where you can find support for everything
I have said about this, such as in G.W. Watson's 'The Seize Quartiers of the
Kings and Queens of England', Table XXX, _The Genealogist_ new series 12
(1896) p. 244 ("Jane, da. of William di Sabrano") and p. 248 note 15
(Litta...calls her Gorizia"). NOTHING offered by Richardson provides a
skerrick of evidence that the one woman was not alternatively known as
Giovanna and Gorizia, the latter either to Litta alone in error or else also
by some earlier (perhaps medieval) writer/s known to him but not to us. That
is all I have claimed, and it is beyond dispute, so that there could be no
reason to high-tail it into the grass even if I were disposed to flight in
the first place - which, sadly for Richardson, I am clearly not.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
> O the tedium. Comments interspersed:
>
>
> <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1121420159....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
> >
> > Surely Mr. Stewart can do better than this bowl of mamby pampy mush!
> > Either Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna, or she isn't. Either
> > Litta based his work on solid evidence, or he didn't. Which is it?
> >
> > Mr. Stewart tells is that Litta makes it "plain" that the woman he
> > calls "Gorizia" is the same wife as Giovanna. But Mr. Stewart
> > provides us no documentation to verify this. Do we just have to take
> > Mr. Stewart's word for this? I hope not!
>
> Of course you don't - take the word of Gary Boyd Roberts instead. He can
> evidently make sense of Italian, unlike you. "Mamby pampy" is presumably a
> nonce term of your own, perhaps substituted for "namby pamby"? In any case
> it is meaningless applied to me.
Gary Boyd Roberts doesn't know a word of Italian, much less Latin. He
seldom does research in original records. He usually just copies from
secondary sources. Asking Gary for his opinion of Litta would be like
asking a bush African for his opinion of the Dalai Lama.
>
> > I don't find anything "plain" in medieval records, unless there is
> > adequate documentation to prove it. So, perhaps Mr. Stewart can stop
> > hiding behind the little Litta figleaf and tell us the evidence Litta
> > used to conclude that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna.
> > Enquiring minds want to know!
>
> This has nothing yet to DO with medieval records - Litta, researching in the
> 19th century, may or may not have used a medieval record for calling the
> count of Nola's Sabran wife Gorizia rather than Giovanna as others before
> and since his time have done. The only point at issue is whether or not
> Litta used that name intending the Sabran mother of Sueva, or another
> person. Roberts and I assert that he did mean the same lady: Richardson is
> now trying to obfuscate his earlier claim that he didn't, and was talking
> instead about a different women entirely.
Documentation has nothing to do with medieval records? Geez? Now
I've heard everything on the newsgroup. I guess you'd said that,
Peter, if you didn't have any evidence to support your case. Using
Roberts as your authority is really very lame. Roberts would be the
first to tell you he has no idea if Gorizia and Giovanna are the same
person.
> > Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
> > allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
> > who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
> > Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
> > Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
> > as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
>
> Yes, you have missed ANY evidence that a Gorizia died and that a Giovanna
> was a subsequent wife - all you have to go on is a different name used by
> one historian that you have not even traced to a medieval source. The notion
> that you can opine about this with authority is risible.
I can give my opinion if I like. If you find it "risible," too bad
for you.
> > I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
> > Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
> > collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
> > It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
> > prove it.
>
> It's absolutely NOT the same thing at all: Giovanna and Gorizia are NOT
> falsely claimed to be the same name, and NOT a conflation of one of the most
> famous personages of the medieval era with a nonentity. Mr Stewart hasn't
> "collapsed" anyone, but simply read Litta as he intended to be understood,
> and as G.B. Roberts agrees, to mean that Niccolo married Gorizia Sabrano who
> was mother of Sueva.
Yes, Gorizia has falsely been claimed to be the same wife as Giovanna.
That's Litta mistake number one. He also gave Count Niccolo another
wife named Maria del Balzo. That's mistake number two. Litta is a
flawed source who is not trustworthy.
> If you think I am going to transcribe Litta for you to save you the trouble
> of looking this up, you are mistaken. I am not a party to your filching work
> and references, and obtaining free research assistance, here. Several people
> have stopped posting regularly to SGM to avoid this, while others now omit
> detailed citations that formerly would have been given more liberally.
> Others again provide information or references with a variety of indicators
> planted to see if you merely copy or actually check.
Now I see it. You're perfectly willing for me to post long transcripts
of Pope Urbain's Lettres Communes and then pontificate on their
meaning. But, when it is your turn to post something of value, you beg
off. This makes you a newsgroup sponger, Peter. Big time.
How did I know Peter wouldn't provide anything from Litta? It's not
Sponge Bob Squarepants .... it's Sponge Peter Squarepants.
> > I predict Mr. Stewart will run for the tall grasses in his next post.
>
> But I have never done such a thing - yet again you imagine that you can
> falsely characterise someone else and your self-serving misrepresentation
> will somehow become true, or at least credible to others, in the making. It
> doesn't happen. Ever.
Peter Stewart ran for the tall grasses just as I predicted. He has no
evidence, no documentation.
> I have plainly stated that Litta called Niccolo Orsini's Sabran wife, mother
> of his daughter Sueva, by the unexplained name Gorizia, wheras she is
> otherwise called Giovanna (including by Pope Urban V). If you need to verify
> this, the place to do it is in Litta's work, not in a Usenet group.
I see. So now we're not supposed to discuss the Orsini family because
you can't handle it. Let me get my violin.
There are several other published works where you can find support for
everything
> I have said about this, such as in G.W. Watson's 'The Seize Quartiers of the
> Kings and Queens of England', Table XXX, _The Genealogist_ new series 12
> (1896) p. 244 ("Jane, da. of William di Sabrano") and p. 248 note 15
> (Litta...calls her Gorizia").
I've seen Watson already thank you.
> NOTHING offered by Richardson provides a
> skerrick of evidence that the one woman was not alternatively known as
> Giovanna and Gorizia, the latter either to Litta alone in error or else also
> by some earlier (perhaps medieval) writer/s known to him but not to us. That
> is all I have claimed, and it is beyond dispute, so that there could be no
> reason to high-tail it into the grass even if I were disposed to flight in
> the first place - which, sadly for Richardson, I am clearly not.
Spoken as Mr. Stewart runs for the tall grasses. All Mr. Stewart has
left is his little Litta figleaf to hide behind.
> Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
R. Battle
Lest the argument, such as it is, gets lost in the multiply-interspersed
re-replies, here (as I see it) are the pertinent questions:
(1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"?
(2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by Litta for
his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when it was
written or when it was acted upon?
-Robert Battle
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I predict Peter Stewart will dodge these questions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
D. Spencer Hines
he proves himself to be a poor man's imitation in the crunch.
DSH
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121458255.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
R. Battle
I'd actually like answers from *anyone* who is either engaged in the
debate or who has access to the information requested. Peter Stewart has
already implicity answered the first question in the negative, but I would
be interested in hearing from anyone who would answer in the positive.
The second question has not, to the best of my knowledge, been answered by
anyone yet (and obviously bears on whether or not the "Gorizia" of the
testament could chronologically be the "Giovanna" of other sources). Do
you have any insights on either question?
-Robert Battle
CED
You should answer the second question, namely:
"(2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by Litta
for
his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when it
was
written or when it was acted upon? "
It is you who has placed so much reliance on the testament. You should
authenticate the testament. Is this one of those questions to be
dodged?
CED
CED
Come to think of it, you are the one who insists that Gorizia and
Giovanna de Sabran are separate individuals; then you should answer the
first question as well, namely:
'(1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"? '
If there is no documented evidence of Gorizia other than Litta, then
you must have independent documentation. Show us the independent
documentation.
CED
CED
I am no genealogist and have no need for the information sought. I
want, just for once, that Mr. Richardson give an honest answer to his
own question. He, not any of the rest of us, raised the question and
made a point of it. He should provide the documentaion for his own
position, just as he himself demanded of others so many times in the
past. No one else has taken the position he holds. He is obligated to
document it with his own citations.
If I were he, I would be rude to you with some kind of degrading,
abusive, or humiliating comment. But fortunately I am not and will
spare you the treatment he has given so many others. However, if you
do not see that the obligation is upon him, you yourself have a problem
for which I have no solution.
As for my name, when you can prove that I am the only poster using
initials, false or otherwise, or a pen name, then I will consider
dropping my pen name. The use of pen names is an old and honored
tradition in the literary world. Or, did'nt you and Mr. Richardson
know that?
I once thought that you were Mr. Richardson were the same person; but
later, I discovered that he was not clever enough purposely to carry
out two personalities, so I concluded that either you two were separate
persons or he does it unknowingly.
CED
D. Spencer Hines
You are SLOW!
It is a well-known fact that Richardson, Stewart and Hines are all the
same person.
And do stop hiding behind that silly pseudonym....
It completely abrogates any shred of credibility you might have had _ab
initio_.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"CED" <lees...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121462377....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I once thought that you were [sic] Mr. Richardson were the same
person; but
| later, I discovered that he was not clever enough purposely to carry
| out two personalities, so I concluded that either you two were
separate
| persons or he does it unknowingly. [sic]
|
| CED
CED
Since the posting to which the above response no longer appears, here
it is:
Since you have the knowledge maybe you would like to answer the
question's. Or are you a sponger and like to sit back and still other's
research and not give them credit.
Mike
Unlike CED who has no name and is posting under somebody else email
account
CED
CED
Who cares whether one has credibility with you?
CED
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I care.
DR
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121446717....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Gary Boyd Roberts doesn't know a word of Italian, much less Latin. He
> seldom does research in original records. He usually just copies from
> secondary sources. Asking Gary for his opinion of Litta would be like
> asking a bush African for his opinion of the Dalai Lama.
No-one is asking G.B. Robert for his opinion - he has already given this.
Whether or not he can read Italian is immaterial - he only had to consult a
table in Litta for this information, something that Richardson is bizarrely
unwilling to do for himself.
[I wrote:]
>> This has nothing yet to DO with medieval records - Litta, researching in
>> the
>> 19th century, may or may not have used a medieval record for calling the
>> count of Nola's Sabran wife Gorizia rather than Giovanna as others before
>> and since his time have done. The only point at issue is whether or not
>> Litta used that name intending the Sabran mother of Sueva, or another
>> person. Roberts and I assert that he did mean the same lady: Richardson
>> is
>> now trying to obfuscate his earlier claim that he didn't, and was talking
>> instead about a different women entirely.
>
> Documentation has nothing to do with medieval records? Geez? Now
> I've heard everything on the newsgroup.
No, that is not at all what I said: the discussion is about a person's name
that as far as I know can't be traced beyond 19th-century genealogist, and
this discussion can have nothing to do with medieval records when NONE
ILLUMINATING THIS QUESTION IS KNOWN.
> I guess you'd said that, Peter, if you didn't have any evidence to
> support
> your case.
My "case" is simply that the name Gorizia was given by Litta for the woman
otherwise known as Giovanna. Nothing more, nothing less. You can embroider
this plain cloth however you like, but the handiwork is all your own.
> Using Roberts as your authority is really very lame. Roberts would be the
> first to tell you he has no idea if Gorizia and Giovanna are the same
> person.
On the contrary, Roberts clearly considered that they were the same: why
else would he repeat Litta naming "Gorizia Sabrano"?
For the rest, I didn't adduce Roberts as an "authority" on this question but
simply to show that he had read Litta correctly whereas his idioitic friend
Richardson had not.
And if Richardson is now correct about the ignorance of his friend, the
statement by Roberts that I quoted earlier ("Litta's great set, the
bibliographical base for this column") is either a bald lie or he engaged a
translator to help him - the latter is something that Richardson would be
well advised to do instead of resorting always to the former.
>> > Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
>> > allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
>> > who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
>> > Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
>> > Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
>> > as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
>>
>> Yes, you have missed ANY evidence that a Gorizia died and that a Giovanna
>> was a subsequent wife - all you have to go on is a different name used by
>> one historian that you have not even traced to a medieval source. The
>> notion
>> that you can opine about this with authority is risible.
>
> I can give my opinion if I like. If you find it "risible," too bad
> for you.
No-one suggested you are not welcome to give us all a laugh with your oafish
ponderings on subjects about which you know nothing.
>> > I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
>> > Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
>> > collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
>> > It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
>> > prove it.
>>
>> It's absolutely NOT the same thing at all: Giovanna and Gorizia are NOT
>> falsely claimed to be the same name, and NOT a conflation of one of the
>> most
>> famous personages of the medieval era with a nonentity. Mr Stewart hasn't
>> "collapsed" anyone, but simply read Litta as he intended to be
>> understood,
>> and as G.B. Roberts agrees, to mean that Niccolo married Gorizia Sabrano
>> who
>> was mother of Sueva.
>
> Yes, Gorizia has falsely been claimed to be the same wife as Giovanna.
> That's Litta mistake number one. He also gave Count Niccolo another
> wife named Maria del Balzo. That's mistake number two. Litta is a
> flawed source who is not trustworthy.
NO - so far "Gorizia" has only been used as the name of a woman otherwise
called Giovanna. There is NO evidence that this was false - for all we know
yet, Litta might have found Gorizia in a medieval document that belonged or
referred to Giovanna, and preferred to call her by the more distinctive
name. On the other hand, he might have found the term aplied to her by an
earlier genealogist (I haven't looked into Imhoff, who wrote in Latin - for
all I known Litta might even have misconstrued something of his recording a
link to a place rather than a personal name).
>> If you think I am going to transcribe Litta for you to save you the
>> trouble
>> of looking this up, you are mistaken. I am not a party to your filching
>> work
>> and references, and obtaining free research assistance, here. Several
>> people
>> have stopped posting regularly to SGM to avoid this, while others now
>> omit
>> detailed citations that formerly would have been given more liberally.
>> Others again provide information or references with a variety of
>> indicators
>> planted to see if you merely copy or actually check.
>
> Now I see it. You're perfectly willing for me to post long transcripts
> of Pope Urbain's Lettres Communes and then pontificate on their
> meaning. But, when it is your turn to post something of value, you beg
> off. This makes you a newsgroup sponger, Peter. Big time.
No-one asked you to waste time on the useless transcripts from Urban V, that
you didn't understand and hoped to have clarified for you in further
discussion. These were utterly irrelevant to the questions at hand, except
for the date and name of the first and shorter extract, and the very brief
genealogical outline contained in the much longer second. You couldn't even
sort this out from the rest unaided, and were hoping for some free
assistance instead of seeking this professionally from someone who knows
more than yourself.
> How did I know Peter wouldn't provide anything from Litta? It's not
> Sponge Bob Squarepants .... it's Sponge Peter Squarepants.
I have provided the information given by Litta, and backed up my reading of
it with unequivocal concurrence from Watson and Roberts. I am not going to
provide a complete citation much less a transcription from Litta, as I am
NOT here to give Richardson short-cuts for his next published work.
> Peter Stewart ran for the tall grasses just as I predicted. He has no
> evidence, no documentation.
Another flat lie. I have stood still, maintaining the simple and
undisputable facts that I started with.
>> I have plainly stated that Litta called Niccolo Orsini's Sabran wife,
>> mother
>> of his daughter Sueva, by the unexplained name Gorizia, wheras she is
>> otherwise called Giovanna (including by Pope Urban V). If you need to
>> verify
>> this, the place to do it is in Litta's work, not in a Usenet group.
>
> I see. So now we're not supposed to discuss the Orsini family because
> you can't handle it. Let me get my violin.
What we "discuss" on SGM and what Ricahrdson "verifies" for himself or not
in the relevant books ARE TWO COMPETELY DIFFERENT MATTERS. No-one said we
should not discuss the Orsini - Richardson's contribution so far on this has
been to provide a red-herring citation to a genealogy of the Sabran family,
and I corrected this to save anyone the trouble of following his mislead.
>
> There are several other published works where you can find support for
> everything
>> I have said about this, such as in G.W. Watson's 'The Seize Quartiers of
>> the
>> Kings and Queens of England', Table XXX, _The Genealogist_ new series 12
>> (1896) p. 244 ("Jane, da. of William di Sabrano") and p. 248 note 15
>> (Litta...calls her Gorizia").
>
> I've seen Watson already thank you.
The why have you ignored what he had to say, without even checking Litta to
see if he was right or wrong?
>
>> NOTHING offered by Richardson provides a
>> skerrick of evidence that the one woman was not alternatively known as
>> Giovanna and Gorizia, the latter either to Litta alone in error or else
>> also
>> by some earlier (perhaps medieval) writer/s known to him but not to us.
>> That
>> is all I have claimed, and it is beyond dispute, so that there could be
>> no
>> reason to high-tail it into the grass even if I were disposed to flight
>> in
>> the first place - which, sadly for Richardson, I am clearly not.
>
> Spoken as Mr. Stewart runs for the tall grasses. All Mr. Stewart has
> left is his little Litta figleaf to hide behind.
The question starting all this was about the source for the name Gorizia.
The ONLY answer given so far is....LITTA. In a manner of speaking he is
BEHIND the fig-leaf of uncertainty on this sole point, but in any case
CANNOT provide one since the problem hasn't yet been traced any further to
something else that he might be covering.
Richardson is too busy digging himself into a deeper hole to see this.
Peter Stewart
Leo
credibility.
How do you get credibility? By contributing or producing. Where does Spencer
Hines fit in? Except for bile or a few superb ancestorlists is it now five
years ago?---tell me what has Hines produced? If he can't carp he won't
_contribute_ most of the time.
Peter Stewart
""Leo"" <l...@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000901c58994$44a905a0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
> For a person's opinion to count that person him/herself needs to have
> credibility.
> How do you get credibility? By contributing or producing. Where does
> Spencer Hines fit in? Except for bile or a few superb ancestorlists is it
> now five years ago?---tell me what has Hines produced? If he can't carp he
> won't _contribute_ most of the time.
Yes and no - some of his carping IS a contribution, but less and less as
time goes on.
In any case, Richardson is barking up a dead tree if he seriously hopes that
Hines believe and trust him. The recent sycohpancy is just a pose, that came
about becasue Hines couldn't bring himself to admit his total ignorance of
Latin and some other follies. Then he decided that an alliance with his
fellow pretender in this regard might be useful: misery loves company.
The credibility of Hines, such as it was, depended on people believing that
he was a man of superior education and culture. He blew this to smithereens.
Richardson never has more than shards of learning to start with. Now they
make a good pair, Humpty Dumpty and Dumpty Spencer Humpty.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
There's no need to get hot under the collar. Count Niccolo Orsini's
wives, Gorizia and Giovanna, have been dead for centuries.
If you can show us an example of a woman named Gorizia who was also
known as Giovanna, I could probably buy your "theory" that Giovanna di
Sabrano was also known as Gorizia. Otherwise, I think we must make the
prudent assumption that the two women were separate and distinct
people.
Right now we have one record dated 1363 which names Count Niccolo's
wife as Giovanna, not Gorizia. That's evidence, not opinion. Where is
your evidence?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
The proper question is: can you document that Gorizia ever existed as a
separate person from Giovanna de Sabran? The existence of Giovanna de
Sabran has not been in doubt. The burden of proof is upon you. What
is your evidence? What primary source do you have?
CED
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121507514.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter ~
>
> There's no need to get hot under the collar. Count Niccolo Orsini's
> wives, Gorizia and Giovanna, have been dead for centuries.
>
> If you can show us an example of a woman named Gorizia who was also
> known as Giovanna, I could probably buy your "theory" that Giovanna di
> Sabrano was also known as Gorizia. Otherwise, I think we must make the
> prudent assumption that the two women were separate and distinct
> people.
>
> Right now we have one record dated 1363 which names Count Niccolo's
> wife as Giovanna, not Gorizia. That's evidence, not opinion. Where is
> your evidence?
IN LITTA. It's only evidence for what he called the woman, and that IS ALL
THAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED FOR IT.
This blantant abuse of SGM readers for your own unprofessional purposes is
degrading even to your contemptible name in the study of genealogy.
Peter Stewart.
Peter Stewart
Richardson will not recognise his obligations in these matters. He can't be
taught.
Getting his work done by others, through foul or fouler means, is his idea
of "collegiality" - and it doesn't extend any further than that.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Peter Stewart is bobbing and weaving again - what a hoot!
I claimed that Count Niccolo Orsini's wife was named Giovanna in 1363.
And I produced a document to prove it. Within twenty four hours, no
less.
Peter Stewart claimed that Giovanna is the same person as Count
Niccolo's alleged wife, Gorizia. I asked him to produced his evidence.
He says he has none and that he's not going to provide any. Well, I
say if you have no evidence, then withdraw your allegation then. Shut
up or put up, Peter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
Mr. Richardson is again twisting the argument. The burden is on him,
not anybody else, to prove that Gorizia ever existed.
Mr Richardson has found himself in an untenable position, in that he
first intoduced the website in the "Italian language" in which Niccolo
Orsini's wife was named Gorizia. Peter Stewart did not introduce her
name. Now, because Mr. Richardson, well known for not being able to
handle languages, has found himself in the awkward position of
introducing ill-founded evidence, he is attempting to place the burden
elsewhere.
This has been obvious to any of who has followed this argument, an
argument created by Mr. Richardson; however, he will not let it go. He
apparently wants to hammer Mr. Stewart with a false charge, charge of
which Mr. Richardson is guilty.
Mr. Stewart has no allegation to withdraw and no position for which he
needs proof. Mr. Richardson does, however.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
DR
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I love to see Peter Stewart bob and weave when he has no evidence.
It's such a hoot!
DR
CED
So you agree! You have no evidence, only opinion.
CED
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Giovanna in 1363. That's it.
Where is your evidence? Or, do you just have an opinion?
DR
CED
The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
that of Gorizia which is the question.
You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna but
have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
I have been warned that when you get pushed into a tight spot you
attempt to change the subject. That won't work this time. The record
is clear and I shall ensure that you do not twist it. Show us your
evidence about Gorizia.
CED
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121530238.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Peter Stewart is bobbing and weaving again - what a hoot!
Peter Stewart has never once bobbed or weaved: I stand exactly where I
started, maintaining exactly what I said in the first place.
> I claimed that Count Niccolo Orsini's wife was named Giovanna in 1363.
> And I produced a document to prove it. Within twenty four hours, no
> less.
No-one has questioned that Orsini's wife in 1363 was Giovanna Sabrano. The
proof you found cited in another secondary work that you have failed to
disclose - since we know that you still can't even identify the information
in Urban V's document relating specifically to this question - DOES NOT
BEGIN TO PROVE THE WOMAN WAS NOT ALSO KNOWN AS GORIZIA.
> Peter Stewart claimed that Giovanna is the same person as Count
> Niccolo's alleged wife, Gorizia. I asked him to produced his evidence.
> He says he has none and that he's not going to provide any. Well, I
> say if you have no evidence, then withdraw your allegation then. Shut
> up or put up, Peter.
The claim I made is that Gorizia is another name for the Sabrano wife of
Niccolo otherwise called Giovanna. The latter name is established from
medieval records, the former only from the 19th-century work of Litta as far
as I know. The evidence for that statement CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN LITTA, and
this cannot change unless the name should be traced back beyond him. I have
never represented that I have done this - on the contrary I have said as
plainly as can be that I have not.
I don't believe that any document is now likely to come to notice
elucidating Litta's conclusion, that Niccolo Orsini's Sabrano wife and
mother of his daughter Sueva was somewhere called Gorizia rather than - or
in addition to - Giovanna.
Richardson refuses to see this inexorable logic or to undermine it with his
posturings. He insults the intelligence of his readers by trying to do this.
He also demeans even his own already low level of craftiness by trying to
make out that I have committed some kind of error that he can't specify.
Bringing in Kelley is a typical ploy: in this case, Richardson wants to
associate me with the statements of Litta just because I answered a question
pointing out that he is the first known source of a variant name for a
particular person. At the same time he wants to blame me for following a
published statement associating him in full with Kelley's nonsensical
conclusions on another matter, a claim that over years he chose not to deny.
It's hard to describe this as a flagrant double standard, since it lacks any
standards at all and is indeed mere stupidity unhinged.
Richardson fails to remember that influential members of the genealogical
community in which he wants to be honoured can read SGM, and certainly
others hear about his shennanigans here.
His Hinesian rubbish about "bobbing and weaving" or "running for the tall
grass" only goes to show that silence in the face of his crude
misrepresentations will not achieve anything. For the good of genealogy as a
study, some more people ought to speak up against his abuse of this
newsgroup, his self-interested traching of logic, his disregards for truth
and his flouting of all professional standards.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, Stewart definitely bobs and weaves -- he also bucks and weaves [a
form of tap dance].
Further, Stewart has the thoroughly buggered idea that all he has to do
is shout and everyone will stand silent and intimidated -- while he
rants on.
Hilarious!
He's Brain-Damaged -- and it's getting worse.
Stewart also keeps harping, bluffing and puffing on the Kelley matter.
Douglas Richardson has fully explained what happened there and has been
exonerated of blame -- but Stewart is solely in transmit mode -- unable
to read the incoming posts and interpret them.
He is damned funny though, I'll give him that.
He should quit his day job and do stand-up comedy in Australia and New
Zealand.
As it is, he's wasting his time mucking about with Genealogy.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8UhCe.59$ds5...@eagle.america.net...
> Hmmmmmm...
>
> Yes, Stewart definitely bobs and weaves -- he also bucks and weaves [a
> form of tap dance].
Prove it - post any two statements of mine that demur one from another.
There's no use posting misrepresentations that you can't back up, as you so
often tell others.
> Further, Stewart has the thoroughly buggered idea that all he has to do
> is shout and everyone will stand silent and intimidated -- while he
> rants on.
No, he has the idea that capitalisations are necessary to get the essential
points through to Richardson, since comprehension skills are so demonstably
lacking in him, and to make it unmistakable to anyone else that he MUST
understand the logic presented to him, whether or not he acknowledges doing
so.
> Hilarious!
>
> He's Brain-Damaged -- and it's getting worse.
>
> Stewart also keeps harping, bluffing and puffing on the Kelley matter.
>
> Douglas Richardson has fully explained what happened there and has been
> exonerated of blame -- but Stewart is solely in transmit mode -- unable
> to read the incoming posts and interpret them.
If Richardson has explained this, post his explanation - I'm sure I didn't
see it. He claimed that the editorial statement made by Sheppard was untrue
all along, but we only have his unsupported word for this. It doesn't begin
to explain why Richardnson left it on the record uncorrected for so long.
The latter fact undermines the former assertion.
> He is damned funny though, I'll give him that.
>
> He should quit his day job and do stand-up comedy in Australia and New
> Zealand.
>
> As it is, he's wasting his time mucking about with Genealogy.
Of course, Hines would know - we can all see every day how expert a
genealogist (or not) he is, from the detailed analysis of evidence that he
keeps favouring us with (or not)....
Peter Stewart
CED
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Hmmmmmm...
>
DSH:
I understand from others in the group that you have a severe mental
disorder. It is such that, as you get close to the edge, your postings
lose all their rational content and would, if they were not in English,
be utter gibberlish.
At the urgings of others, who know you better than I, to take pity, I
have chosen to ignore even the most ridiculous and malicious of your
postings.
Even now as you approach the edge (if the following posting is actually
yours and therefore evidence of your condtion), I am amazed that your
English is better than that of Mr. Richardson for whom you clack (or is
it quack, or maybe swallow frogs, or possibly lust?).
Is the language the product of your training or just that of an idiot
savant?
CED
Peter Stewart
though it's only a matter of time I suppose - note that for all his bluster
he doesn't offer any support to Richardson on the issue at hand about
Giovanna/Gorizia. Hines is even more dishonest and cowardly than he is
stupid, while Richardson's manifold failings are all in perfect equilibrium.
The organ-grinder ran out of lies, and up stepped the monkey to gibber &
caper in front of the audience trying to divert attention.
It never works. They will go on doing it as long as enough people sit back
watching in contempt but disdaining to speak up.
Peter Stewart
"CED" <lees...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121564463.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doug McDonald
> Mr. Richardson:
>
> The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
> that of Gorizia which is the question.
>
> You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna but
> have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
> position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
> evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
> Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
>
Its not required that Richardson prove anything. He can happily and
logically and without contradiction say "I agree that Giovanna de Sabran
existed in the year X and was married to Y. Others have suggested that a
woman called "Gorizia" either was the same person as Giovanna or was
a different person, who may have been married to Y also. I have seen
no good evidence as to either possibility".
Doug McDonald
CED
Doug McDonald wrote:
Dear Mr. McDonald:
I assume that you have not followed this thread from the beginning.
Therefore, I shall attempt to review it for you.
Mr. Richardson originally raised the question, using an "Italian
language" website of no genealogical value as evidence, that Niccolo
Orsini had a wife named Gorizia, therefore Niccolo had two wives,
Gorizia and Giovanna. He had no other evidence.
Peter Stewart did not agree.
Mr. Richardson began demanding, in most abusive language, that Stewart
put forward evidence that the two, Gorizia and Giovanna, were the same
women, a postion to which only Mr. Richardson had been firmly and
insistantly opposed.
Mr. Richardson offered no further evidence, but did continue to demand
that Stewart do so.
(Only one other person had questioned whether Gorizia and Giovanna
might be two different women.)
I hope this has been helpful for you in gaining an understanding of
what has been happening on this thread. If I have not done so, please
review the thread.
With best regards,
CED
fairthorne
The start of the thread was a query from Tony Hoskins on 7th July
which I quote below
I am one of the despised breed of lurkers and I too am interested in the
answer
ES III 750 gives the third wife of Franceso del Balzo as Sveva Orsini,
daughter of Niccolo Conte di Nola
and
ES XIV 183 gives Giovanna de Sabran d1379 married 1332 Niccolo Orsini Conte
di Nola
ES III 750 does not give Sveva's mother - does that mean there was doubt, or
it was of no interest?
I find it a bit suspicious that Shama's website gives both with the family
name of Balzo - but maybe they were cousins etc
A supplementary embarassing question - how reliable is the website
(Genealogie Delle Dinastie Nobili Italiane) - apologies to Davide Shama for
asking this, but I am in such a state of ignorance of this period that I'm
not able to judge
cheers
Simon
--------------
Giovanna/Jeanne de Sabran or Maria del Balzo?
I read conflicting accounts of the mother of Sueva Orsini, daughter of
Niccolo Orsini, Conte di Nola (will 1399), and wife (1381) of Francesco
del Balzo, Duca d'Andria (d.1422).
1) Leo van de Pas' site "Genealogics", Ronny Bodine's _The Ancestry of
Dorothea Poyntz_ , and Doug Richardson's _Plantagenet Ancestry_ all
call Sueva's mother Giovanna/Jeanne de Sabran. But Mr. Richardson's book
also cites a source which in fact names another woman as Sueva's
mother:
2) <www.sardimpex.com> [Genealogie Delle Dinastie Nobili Italiane], sub
"Orsini del Balzo, Orsini di Pitigliano" shows Sueva's mother as maria
del Balzo:
"K1. Nicola (* 27-8-1331 + testamento: 14-2-1399, morto poco dopo a
Nola), 3° Conte di Nola, Gran Giustiziere del Regno di Napoli...Nobile
Romano; Senatore di Roma nel 1356
a) = Napoli 1352/1355 Giovanna (o Garizia) de Sabran, figlia di
Guglielmo Conte di Ariano e di Francesca dei Conti di Celano
b) = ca. 1359 Maria del Balzo, figlia di Raimondo Conte di Soleto
e di Isabella d'Eppes (d'Appia) (* 1340/1341 + ?) (v.)
L1. (ex 1°) Beatrice (* 1352/1355 ca. + ?), Nobile Romana. = ca.
1368/1370 Luigi Antonio della Ratta 3° Conte di Caserta (v.)
L2. (ex 2°) Roberto (* 1360 ca. + ca. 1400), 4° Conte di Nola
L3. (ex 2°) Sveva, Nobile Romana. = 8-12-1381 Francesco I del Balzo 1°
Duca d'Andria (v.)
L4. (ex 2°) Raimondo detto "Raimondello" Orsini del Balzo (+
Taranto 17-1-1406), 1° Principe di Taranto, Conte di Soleto (occupata
nel 1382), Duca di Benevento."
Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.
----------------
CED
"fairthorne" wrote:
> Sorry to disagree - Mr. Richardson originally raised the question
>
To fairthorne:
I'm sorry that I did not make my summary clear. I had only intended to
summarize the controversy which began with the thread begun on 12 July
2005 and the posting of Mr. Richardson from the website in the "Italian
laguage." That is when the question of one or two women arose, that
is: that Gorizia was not the same person as Giovanna. Such a
distinction was not the subject of the earlier thread.
I should have made myself more nearly clear. Sorry.
Best regards,
CED
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121625741....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>If Richardson has explained this, post his explanation - I'm sure I
>>>didn't see it. He claimed that the editorial statement made by Sheppard
>>>was untrue all along, but we only have his unsupported word for this. It
>>>doesn't begin
> to explain why Richardnson left it on the record uncorrected for so
> long. The latter fact undermines the former assertion.
>
> bothered about correcting his errors. It's actually rather refreshing
> to see someone react with indifference (more or less) to those they
> dislike.
This is rubbish - however much Richardson may have disliked Sheppard, a
scholar is bound to care for the truth & nothing can excuse leaving a
falsehood on the record. IF the claim about Richardson's concurrence with
Kelley was false, Richardson owed it to himself and to readers of the book
to correct it. What he thought of anyone else is immaterial.
The possible ulterior motives in leaving the statement uncorrected are not
far or hard to seek. An honourable motive has not yet been suggested. NOT
ONE. You are free to try, of course, but the above is another dismal
failure.
> On the other hand, your inevitable, automatic responses to DR
> undermine your assertions of extreme dislike for him.
You are posting from mistaken impressions, yet again.
I don't "dislike" Richardson - I have never met him. I know nothing of him
personally beyond whatever he exposes of himself in the newsgroup. I wish to
know less. I despise his work and postings to SGM, and the characteristics
betrayed in these.
As to your weird impression that I respond to every last post from him, try
sorting the messages on the Usenet group in your browser, and you will see
that I don't respond to the majority of Richardson's posts. I don't even
read a lot of them - his work does not interest me: truth and the facts do.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:dbe1bn$d46$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
If Richardson bothered to look into Litta, he would see - as he has been
told often - that the woman called "Gorizia" Sabrano is given the same
background as the woman elsewhere known as Giovanna Sabrano. Insofar as this
is "evidence" for anything it is only for an alternative name for the same
individual, unless we are to suppose on such a flimsy basis that Niccolo
Orsini married two sisters.
The ONLY reasons Richardson has stated or implied for supposing these names
must refer to two different women are (1) that he doesn't have a clue how
frequently dual names are found for medieval individuals, and (2) he doesn't
understand that any person in 14th-century Italy could make a will and yet
not die promptly.
These add up to the silliest load of stuff & nonsense that he has
perpetrated for some time.
And all the while HE has insisted that someone else has a burden of proof on
a question that HE has invented from ignorance while refusing to check the
source for himself as advised.
Hardly worth our attention, except that HE didn't have the nous to shut up.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Where's your evidence, Peter?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
you just provided it.
If you mean on the pointless question you raised, what part of "Litta" do
you still not understand?
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121643858.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
CED
Admit it you have no documentary evidence for the existence of Gorizia
as a separate person from Giovanna de Sabran. If you have no such
evidence, then say so and end this tedious, tiring discussion.
This thread had such promise until you introduced that website in the
"Italian language" and with it your idea that Gorizia was a different
person from Giovanna. Now just admit that it was a mistake to post
that website and be done with it.
Let us proceed to another subject. Possibly we can get back to
Giovanna de Sabran again when you are not party to the discussion.
CED
Peter Stewart
You seem to be assuming that Richardson is genuine in his "idea" that
Gorizia is a different person from Giovanna. This is not so.
All he wants is to have the matter expounded for him, with full
transcription and particularisation of the relevant sources, that he can't
understand and won't engage a professional to help him with.
More than enough evidence has already been posted to resolve the question
that he moronically persists in repeating.
First, that Litta is the source for the name "Gorizia" applied to a wife of
Niccolo Orsini: this can only be verified by consulting Litta. The absence
of a medieval document to back up the information can't be remedied, as far
as anybody knows. The absence of any other source or authority for "Gorizia"
before Litta could only be evidenced by checking every published and
unpublished record preceding his time, something that Richardson is welcome
to attempt - at least this would save him from wasting everyone else's time
and anyone's remaining goodwill on the matter.
Richardson has chosen to credit Litta on one aspect, that Niccolo may or may
not had a wife named "Gorizia", yet to be proven, but at the same time
arbitrarily to disregard the details given in this context that clearly
identify her with the woman otherwise known as Giovanna. No cogent reason
has been offered for this.
Maintaining this nonsense, Richardson further worries that Litta's "Gorizia"
made a will long before Giovanna died. Now, if these women were separate
individuals (as he demands I prove), and yet both daughters of Guillaume de
Sabran, count of Ariano (as the only available source leaves us no
alternative but to imagine), then why on earth would Pope Urban V extend a
favour to Niccolo and Giovanna while they were flouting the Church's
prohibition against marriage within such close affinity as a widowed husband
to his own sister-in-law? Or does Richardson expect that a dispensation
should be found for this, merely on the basis of his lack of understanding
and failure to comprehend what he is told?
Richardson doesn't have a clue what favour I am talking about, since he
doesn't know what the document he clumsily transcribed ("duxtaxat" for
"dumtaxat") actually means. That is proof, once more, that he is unskilled
and basically incompetent for the field of study he has adopted.
And yet he doesn't have the nous to shut up, and nor do the members of his
equally ignorant claque.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
No evidence = opinion.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121652244.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We see once again that Peter Stewart has no evidence.
Since Richardson is notoriously blinded by egomania and contrariness, no-one
should be too perturbed that he STILL can't admit seeing what everyone else
knows he must have understood long ago.
No matter how long he goes on making a fool of himself, I will go on
pointing this out - but I will not do his work for him.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1121652244.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> pointing this out - but I will not do his work for him.
>
> Peter Stewart
When Peter has some evidence, then we can talk. Until then, Peter is
wasting everyone's time.
Peter Stewart
Richardson can't even observe the usual courtesies with other people's
words, so it's no surprise that he is willing for us all to see how
resolutely he fails to take in their meaning.
There is no conceivable percentage in this for Richardson, yet he is fool
enough to persist.
It's past time for some others to tell him this, apart from CED and myself.
He won't listen to sense, but perhaps he will be shaken by consensus.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121653371.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Peter Stewart is very fond of the word _nous_ -- even though he doesn't
have any -- because his brain is damaged.
No doubt that is why Peter is so fond of the word _nous_.
He seems to think if he just keeps typing and posting the word _nous_,
like a mantra -- he might actually acquire some _nous_ of his own.
Fat Chance.
John 5:14
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
| myself. He won't listen to sense, but perhaps he will be shaken
| by consensus.
|
| Peter Stewart
-------Cordon Sanitaire--------------
Hmmmmmmm.
Pitiful...
And:
Desperate...
But...
Hilarious!
Peter has missed his true calling.
Stand-up comedy is his forte.
Sad....
Peter Stewart
Even you can surely see how feeble a riposte this is, reduced to babbling,
vaporous assertions, infantile language, and a quite inapposite Bible
reference for bad measure.
Well, if you can't keep quite you will have to keep on being humiliated by
the damp squibs you come up with. You can have no-one else to blame.
Peter Stewart.
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FnFCe.144$ds5....@eagle.america.net...
CED
Mr. Richardson:
Obviously you have no pride. Please spare us more, lest you have no
shame.
You put yourself in this box. Now just stop struggling against it; and
you'll find a way to ease your way out, unnoticed.
CED
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
mwelc...@yahoo.com
haven't stopped laughing at this since it was posted. He still can't
use his or her real name. So you can't be taken seriously. Maybe he or
she has no pride in himself or herself.
Mike Welch
Peter Stewart
Ah, here we see the level of intelligence that Hines can call his own - some
while ago it was pointed out to him that using the conjunction "et"
successively is a solecism, not literate Latin usage.
But still he does it.
Next time any question arises about correcting someone's database, we will
surely not hear from Hines who can't correct a single word in his oafish
pose as a Latinist. He perhaps picked this up, along with his novelty
spelling pedantries and general knowledge, from a crossword puzzle in his
local "Honoluelue" newspaper.
Whether or not I am a comedian, at least there is some variety to my posts.
Hines has a repertoire of three, maybe four, that he can't help trotting out
no matter how weary we all are with his limited, cloddish humour.
And still he has not tried to answer the direct & salient challenge in my
previous post, asking for the simplest and most readily available proof - if
this exists - of his allegation about bobbing and weaving. That's another
specimen of the failed Hines technique, as pinned for inspection before now,
showing roughly the brain-power of a mosquito that keeps on buzzing for
blood as it hungrily infests a lifeless puddle.
He won't venture to support Richardson on any specific point, but merely
provides a vague background hum like a daft insect..
Peter Stewart
mwelc...@yahoo.com
I have one simple question. What were Litta's sources. If Litta used no
sources than his research is flawed. Can you name his sources or not?
Mike Welch
Peter Stewart
<mwelc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121663113.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter
>
> I have one simple question. What were Litta's sources. If Litta used no
> sources than his research is flawed. Can you name his sources or not?
If you have been reading this thread you have already seen the answer to
this question, repeatedly.
Of course Litta used sources - but in this instance we don't know what, or
how old, or how reliable his information might have been. As I said before,
he could have misinterpreted something. It doesn't make any difference to
resolving issue, since we can't trace it back beyond him. The simple fact is
that the woman he called Gorizia was from all we know and in all respects
apart from the name he used THE SAME PERSON as Giovanna.
The ENTIRE discussion is only going on to this point because Richardson
petulantly hopes to get his work of checking Litta done for him, and some
Italian and Latin texts translated, at the cost of exposing his juvenile
obstinacy to newsgroup members whom he clearly does not respect.
Why you should still cling on to a misguided respect for him in the face of
these constant turmoils of stupidity is a mystery.
Peter Stewart
mwelc...@yahoo.com
Than Litta is worthless in this. If nobody can check his sources than
his work is flawed. He is no better than the modern online database.
Which also give no sources.
Mike Welch
Nathaniel Taylor
apparently the only known wife of Niccolo Orsini, count of Nola. They
are relatively proximal ancestors of Jacquette de Luxembourg, and thus
of a considerable number of Anglo-American descendants--including,
apparently, my children.
Q: Was Jeanne de Sabran also known as 'Gorizia', or did Niccolo Orsini
have another wife by that name?
The name 'Gorizia' is explicitly associated with Jeanne de Sabran in her
entry, no. 1575, in Neil D. Thompson & Charles M. Hansen's "A Medieval
Heritage: the Ancestry of Charles II, King of England," _The
Genealogist_ 17 (2003), p. 251.
The entry in Thompson & Hansen was posted by Tony Hoskins here on 12
July [from Gen-Medieval-L post <s2d3efe9.023@CENTRAL_SVR2>]:
> "1574. Niccolo Orsini, called "des Ursins," Count of Nola, [born] 27
> August 1331, [died] Nola (after 14 February) 1399, ... [married] to
>
> 1575. Jeanne de Sabran, called "Gorizia," her testament dated 1357
> [note 250].
One can make two observations on these brief passages: First, it appears
that Thompson & Hansen believe Jeanne de Sabran is the same as
'Gorizia'. Second, the wording is ambiguous, but perhaps a 1357
testament for this woman uses the name 'Gorizia'. But this is not
entirely clear: the entry does NOT say "called 'Gorizia' IN her
testament dated 1357."
Now, some days previously Douglas Richardson had posted a document
showing the count's wife as 'Johanna' [= Jeanne, Joan, Giovanna] in
1363. His reaction to Tony's post of the twelfth was to associate the
'Gorizia' mentioned by Thompson & Hansen with the 1357 testament (when
this is not entirely clear from the passage). Richardson also appears
to have thought the 1357 testament suggested that she had died about
that time. Earlier, in citing the on-line pedigree-index to Thompson &
Hansen, on the 'Foundation for Medieval Genealogy' website, Richardson
had misread the notation "d. a1357" to stand for "died about 1357" when
in fact it means "died after 1357."
Douglas Richardson wrote on 7 July [from article
<1120764055.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>]:
> ... the Graphical Index to the Ancestry of
> Charles II found on helpful Foundations for Medieval Genealogy website
> (http://fmg.ac/Projects/CharlesII/9-12/24/393.htm) states that Jeanne
> de Sabran died about 1357. This is also incorrect.
But the entry on the page Richardson cites reads simply "Jeanne de
Sabran ( -a1357)," and it is clear from the context that 'a' in the
date stands for 'after', not 'about': elsewhere on the same page 'c' is
used for 'circa'. Whether or not he was influenced by this mistaken
reading of the webpage (which one might call a quaternary source),
Douglas Richardson told Tony that he did not believe that 'Gorizia'
cited in 1357 could be the same as 'Jeanne' from 1363.
Richardson wrote on July 12 [from article
<1121237685....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>]:
> If Niccolo Orsini's wife was named Giovanna (or Joan) in 1363,
> ... why do you believe she is the same wife as Gorizia who
> allegedly left a testament dated 1357?
>
> Wouldn't there be two wives, one named Gorizia and one named Giovanna
> de Sabran? What is your evidence that Count Niccolo had a wife
> named Gorizia?
In fact when Tony posted the entry he had not been concerned about
'Gorizia' and expressed no opinion or belief about her: Tony had been
interested in the other alleged wife, Marie des Baux, who Thompson &
Hansen dispensed with in a footnote, also quoted by Tony. As posted by
Tony (in the same message cited above):
> Note 250: Casanovas, _Henri IV 83, evidently following Litta,
> incorrectly gives Niccolo Orsini a second wife, Marie des Baux [Balzo],
> only child and heiress of Raymond des Baux, Count of Soleto, d.s.p. 5
> Aug. 1375 (_ES_ [new ed.] 3:4:752), and by letters dated 18 Oct. 1375,
> Queen Joanna of Naples granted John d'Arcussia di Capra, Count of
> Minervino, the castle and bourgs which had reverted to the crown by the
> death of Raymond, Count of Soleto, without legitimate issue, "to the
> exclusion of Nicholas Orsini, Count Palatine and of Nola, his nephew,
> who had himself acknowledged that he has no rights in the feudal goods
> of his uncle' (Watson, "Seize Quartiers' [supra note 203], 12:248, n.
> 15)."
Now, this footnote explicitly deals with Marie des Baux. But Tony did
NOT post the source-paragraph corresponding to the data in entries
1574-1575, where one would expect to find the source of 'Gorizia' and
mention of the 1357 testament. Here are the sources listed for this
couple, on the same page of Thompson & Hansen's article, [_TG_ 17
(2003), 251] [adapted into a list for this post]:
1. Litta 8 (62): xi. [sic: though fascicle 62, on the Orsini, is in
vol. 7, not vol. 8.]
2. Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini di Monterotondo...," Bollettino
della Societa umbria di storia patria 2 (1896): 89-112, at 99-106.
3. la Chesnaye-Desbois, _Dictionnaire de la noblesse_, 3d ed., 19 vols.
(Paris, 1863-76), 18:13-14.
4. Turton, 224-5.
5. Emile Leonard, _Les Angevins de Naples (Paris, 1954), 421, 454, 464.
6. Joannis 460, 524 [? = J-D Joannis, _Les seize quartiers genealogiques
des Capetiens, 4 vols. (Lyon, 1958-65)].
7. Alessandro Cutolo, _Re Ladislao d'angio Durazzo (Naples, 1969), 46,
57, 75, 129n23, 132n44, 143n52, 179n85.
8. Casanovas, _Henri IV_, 83. [=Francis M. Casanovas, _Les ancetres
d'Henri IV: 512 quartiers_ (Paris, 1991)]
Now: perhaps one or more of these eight sources (all the others of which
postdate the Orsini fascicle in Litta) mention this 1357 testament
and/or a document of that or other date which uses 'Gorizia' to name a
wife of Niccolo Orsini.
Turton (no. 4), the only one of these sources in my study, does neither.
For what it's worth, Turton assigns Jeanne de Sabran an approximate
death date of "c. 1379," not used by Thompson & Hansen. Can Turton's
date be traced to a document?
So: rather than continuing a long volley of rancor, is anyone interested
in the problem, and has access to any of these sources other than Turton?
By the way, 'Gorizia' is an old medieval town in the extreme northeast
of modern Italy, on the Slovene border between Trieste and Friuli. It
is nowhere near Sabran (Provence). I have no knowledge of it as a given
name, medieval or modern.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Leo
You seem to be rattled by someone calling him/herself CED. Why?
What we call ourselves or how we sign our messages is our own business.
There are several people who use words which obviously are not their names.
So what? That does not invalidate their message. For all we know CED could
be his/her initials but that is not our businness.
What you did here is in a way come to the defense of Richardson. You really
shouldn't do it this way. If you think you _can_ support Richardson, stick
to the points, quote a source but do not try to belittle a person because
you do not like the way they present themselves.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
WJho...@aol.com
mwelc...@yahoo.com writes:
You have a full stop at "database." So you are implying that all online
databases, give no sources. That isn't true.
The other more important untruth is that Litta is worthless.
It was common in the past to write genealogical books without citing your
sources. In fact I was reading a biography of Blavatsky and she cited several
sources, the modern author stating that this was "uncommon to unheard of" and
this was only a little over a hundred years ago.
To state that all genealogical books of the past are worthless is the extreme
edge of reasoning. I doubt you'll find many adherents of that extreme
position in this group or among professional genealogists or historians.
Peter is taking a middle position, that we cannot simply discard Litta and
others, but we have to merely say, we don't know what sources they used if any.
That to me seems perfectly reasonable.
Will Johnson
mwelc...@yahoo.com
Thank You for posting Neil Thompson sources. Perhaps Neil Thompson aka
gryphon801 can answer these question about his work. Since he post's on
this newsgroup.
Mike Welch
Peter Stewart
<mwelc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121664101....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, quite so - except that apart from Litta there is known reason to worry
about a "Gorizia" in the first place. If the name (or person) is to be
discussed at all, this can only be done with reference to Litta.
It should be added that his work was excellent for his time and inspires
some general trust in his capacities to locate and interpret evidence. That
can't be said for Richardson.
Peter Stewart
R. Battle
<snip>
> It's past time for some others to tell him this, apart from CED and
> myself. He won't listen to sense, but perhaps he will be shaken by
> consensus.
<snip>
I think that at least some have given up on the thread as a lost cause. I
haven't, but starting in high school (where I despised those students who
would repeat what a previous student said in order to obtain some sort of
participation points) I have never seen the point of adding my two cents
when they are the same two cents that have already been anted up by
someone else. And, to be perfectly honest, I've lost track of exactly
what Doug's position currently is with regard to the wife/wives in
question and what he is asking for documentation about.
The following is my *impression* of the debate as it stands; if it is
incorrect on any points I would appreciate enlightenment:
Douglas Richardson's position: there was a wife Giovanna and possibly a
wife Gorizia; if the latter existed she could not have been identical with
Giovanna because of the date of a "testament" of Gorizia (and the
non-equivalence of the two names).
Peter Stewart's position: the first known source that gives a wife the
name Gorizia is Litta; this is the name that Litta gives to the lady
others call Giovanna. This interpretation of Litta was shared by GBR and
G. W. Watson.
Is that the way the argument stands?
If so, then there is no evidence that *can* be brought to bear to prove
P.S.'s point that Litta is the first to use the name Gorizia, except the
argument from silence (he hasn't found anything earlier, nor apparently
has anyone else that has been reading this thread). With regard to the
details of the life of the person that Litta calls "Gorizia" and whether
or not they match the life of the known "Giovanna," that is easy enough to
check for someone with access to Litta (and it is at the FHL); and in the
meantime the explicit or tacit affirmation of that from those who have
read Litta (PS, GBR, and Watson) suffices for me.
-Robert Battle
Peter Stewart
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-68...@news1.east.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> So: rather than continuing a long volley of rancor, is anyone interested
> in the problem, and has access to any of these sources other than Turton?
Thank you, Nat - with luck this could break the circuit.
> By the way, 'Gorizia' is an old medieval town in the extreme northeast
> of modern Italy, on the Slovene border between Trieste and Friuli. It
> is nowhere near Sabran (Provence). I have no knowledge of it as a given
> name, medieval or modern.
As to modern usage, a correspondent off-list has sent me the following
links:
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:606360&id=I05200
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:2705249&id=I552705065
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:2426470&id=I518410697
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=:2199052&id=I106
adding that a search for "Gorizia" on the Social Security Death Index at
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=ssdi/search_ssdi.asp&clear_form=true
comes up with 18 examples.
As to the place, it's conceivable that Jeanne de Sabran had married a lord
from (or indeed in) Gorizia before she married Niccolo Orsini, or had some
other connection ther that can't now be found - but this is going a step
past Litta by assuming that he had perhaps misunderstood a reference,
something that he certainly did not do frequently.
Peter Stewart
Nathaniel Taylor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nathanieltaylor-68...@news1.east.earthlink.net...
>
> As to the place, it's conceivable that Jeanne de Sabran had married a lord
> from (or indeed in) Gorizia before she married Niccolo Orsini, or had some
> other connection ther that can't now be found - but this is going a step
> past Litta by assuming that he had perhaps misunderstood a reference,
> something that he certainly did not do frequently.
Peter, thank you. I read Robert Battle's last post after making mine.
Do you in fact have Litta (fasc. 62) to hand, then? To clarify, is it
indeed Litta, and not some later source, who calls Niccolo's wife
'Gorizia'? And does Litta mention a 1357 testament, or is this only in
one or more of the later sources?
Peter Stewart
"R. Battle" <bat...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.61b.05...@dante73.u.washington.edu...
<snip>
> The following is my *impression* of the debate as it stands; if it is
> incorrect on any points I would appreciate enlightenment:
>
> Douglas Richardson's position: there was a wife Giovanna and possibly a
> wife Gorizia; if the latter existed she could not have been identical with
> Giovanna because of the date of a "testament" of Gorizia (and the
> non-equivalence of the two names).
>
> Peter Stewart's position: the first known source that gives a wife the
> name Gorizia is Litta; this is the name that Litta gives to the lady
> others call Giovanna. This interpretation of Litta was shared by GBR and
> G. W. Watson.
>
> Is that the way the argument stands?
Yes - and thank you, Robert. It could not be put more clearly.
The problem arose because Richardson insists on claiming that if I restate
the opinion of Litta I must also give him the unknown evidence behind this,
even though he has been told it can't be recovered and may not even have
existed, as implied, in the first place.
Peter Stewart
mwelc...@yahoo.com
Thank You for your anwer on Litta. We know Litta made error's but hey
were humans and not perfect. So it's stll possible there was two wives.
We will have to take Litta for what it's worth. Just a stepping stone.
Mike Welch
Peter Stewart
Sorry, Nat, I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table. Chico
Doria has a set, but I don't think he is reading SGM posts lately.
The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not found an
earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining it.
Let me add that one person who could perhaps clarify this off the top of his
head is Lindsay Brook: I learned today that he is recovering well from a
serious accident and hopes to leave hospital soon. I'm sure the newsgroup
will also be pleased to know this.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<mwelc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121668446.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
It's not possible that there were two wives from the same family, both the
mother of Sueva.
I don't know how many more times it will have to be stated that Gorizia is
just another name for the woman usually called Giovanna. All that is likely
to be established from Litta's source, if this came to light and proved to
be valid in the first place, would be that Gorizia might have been the
preferred name of the woman baptised - or possibly even miscalled -
Giovanna. However, we know that Pope Urban V called her by the latter name,
evidently in response to an application sent to Avignon by or on behalf of
her husband and naming her, so this is not highly probable to say the least.
Peter Stewart
mwelc...@yahoo.com
No not rattled in the least. Not coming to the support of Doug either
he doesn't need me to speak for him. I would hope we are all adults
here even if we don't act like sometime's.
Best Wishes
Mike Welch
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
< I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
< not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table.
So, Peter finally confesses he only has notes from Litta, not Litta
itself. Peter could have saved much time and needless excuses if he
had made this confession earlier. He implied he had access to a copy
of Litta, when he did not. This explains Peter's continued bob and
weave, and his refusal to answer direct questions about Litta. Peter's
dishonesty is now laid bare.
< The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not found
an
< earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining it.
Again, another confession. So, Peter had no evidence all along. No
evidence = opinion. Peter's been making it up as he goes along. How
can anyone take Peter seriously now?
< Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo
were you doing?
You were trying to give CED an earful because he is exposing Richarson and
you tried to belittle him because you find CED unacceptable. Again, if you
were not being rattled and you were not supporting Richardson what were you
doing in that message which you have removed?
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelc...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: OT Whats in a name was Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de
Sabran
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121669936....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> My comments are interspersed. DR
>
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> < I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
> < not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table.
>
> So, Peter finally confesses he only has notes from Litta, not Litta
> itself. Peter could have saved much time and needless excuses if he
> had made this confession earlier. He implied he had access to a copy
> of Litta, when he did not. This explains Peter's continued bob and
> weave, and his refusal to answer direct questions about Litta. Peter's
> dishonesty is now laid bare.
Rubbish - I said Litta is not on my shelves, but this does not in any way
mean that I don't have access. Can't you comprehend the plainest statement
in English?
I use plenty of books without owning them. That is what libraries - such as
FHL - are for. At the moment I am at home, and not at the library a few
minutes walk away where a set of Litta is held. I don't intend to go there
at your behest.
I never claimed to have Litta in front of me. I made extensive and detailed
notes from the work years ago, and these include what I believe to be an
accurate transcription of the relevant information. My notes accord exactly
with the statements of Roberts and Watson. However, without checking the
original again, I would not be so irresponsible as to post this even if I
considered it necessary and appropriate to do so when Richardson only wants
it so as to avoid looking into an Italian book that he can't understand.
> < The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not found
> an
> < earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining it.
>
> Again, another confession. So, Peter had no evidence all along. No
> evidence = opinion. Peter's been making it up as he goes along. How
> can anyone take Peter seriously now?
THE ABOVE IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG. Your lies are NOT working,
and your shameless, disgraceful opportunism is misplaced.
Is there ANYONE here, Welch, Hines and Brandon included, who actually
endorses Richardon's comments throughout this thread and who will undertake
to defend these?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> As to the place, it's conceivable that Jeanne de Sabran had married a lord
> from (or indeed in) Gorizia before she married Niccolo Orsini, or had some
> other connection ther that can't now be found - but this is going a step
> past Litta by assuming that he had perhaps misunderstood a reference,
> something that he certainly did not do frequently.
>
> Peter Stewart
Litta stated that Count Niccolo Orsini married Maria del Balzo. It is
now apparent that Litta made up this marriage. This should be a red
flag to tell us that Litta is a seriously flawed secondary work which
should be used with extreme caution.
In Peter's attempt to explain Litta's confusion over the given names,
Gorizia/Giovanna, Peter has suggested that the name of Count Niccolo's
alleged wife, Gorizia, is actually a placename. A 30 second search of
the internet indicates that the given name, Gorizia/Garizia, occurs in
Italy in medieval times. I find, for example, that Guidone,
"feudatario di Massino, Albezzate e Besnate," living c. 1140, had a
wife named Garizia.
http://www.sardimpex.com/visconti/VISCONTIDUCALI.htm.
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/italy/visconti1.html.
I fail to understand why Peter would think Gorizia would be a place
name, when it is a perfectly good Italian given name in this time
period. Go figure.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121672563....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>> As to the place, it's conceivable that Jeanne de Sabran had married a
>> lord
>> from (or indeed in) Gorizia before she married Niccolo Orsini, or had
>> some
>> other connection ther that can't now be found - but this is going a step
>> past Litta by assuming that he had perhaps misunderstood a reference,
>> something that he certainly did not do frequently.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> Litta stated that Count Niccolo Orsini married Maria del Balzo. It is
> now apparent that Litta made up this marriage. This should be a red
> flag to tell us that Litta is a seriously flawed secondary work which
> should be used with extreme caution.
>
> In Peter's attempt to explain Litta's confusion over the given names,
> Gorizia/Giovanna, Peter has suggested that the name of Count Niccolo's
> alleged wife, Gorizia, is actually a placename.
NO - I said it MIGHT be connected to the place, not that it is.
> A 30 second search of
> the internet indicates that the given name, Gorizia/Garizia, occurs in
> Italy in medieval times. I find, for example, that Guidone,
> "feudatario di Massino, Albezzate e Besnate," living c. 1140, had a
> wife named Garizia.
>
> http://www.sardimpex.com/visconti/VISCONTIDUCALI.htm.
>
> http://genealogy.euweb.cz/italy/visconti1.html.
>
> I fail to understand why Peter would think Gorizia would be a place
> name, when it is a perfectly good Italian given name in this time
> period. Go figure.
Gorizia IS the name of a place as well as a name given to females. That is
NOT debatable.
Will you ever learn that you can't just say "Up is Down, East is West, Black
is White" and make it so? People DON'T buy into your lies, they simply think
you are grossly foolish for offering these.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Litta stated that Count Niccolo Orsini married Maria del Balzo. It is
> now apparent that Litta made up this marriage. This should be a red
> flag to tell us that Litta is a seriously flawed secondary work which
> should be used with extreme caution.
All secondary work should be used with caution - it is Richardson's habitual
failure to do this that gets him into so much trouble, along with his
inability to use primary sources.
And it has NOT been established that Litta "made up" the purported second
marriage of Niccolo Orsini. What is your evidence that he is the first or
only author to state this?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
set of Litta. But he has since confessed that he merely consulted his
own cribbed notes of Litta made years ago. He's positive his notes are
accurate, but he won't post them.
Now he confesses he could have consulted Litta nearby if he wanted.
But he didn't care to do that. But, even if he had access to Litta, he
wouldn't post what Litta says.
Peter is sure Litta is accurate, but he confesses Litta made up Count
Niccolo's marriage to Maria del Balzo.
So, we are left again and again with conflicting statements from Peter
Stewart. And, still no evidence.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> Will you ever learn that you can't just say "Up is Down, East is West, Black
> is White" and make it so? People DON'T buy into your lies, they simply think
> you are grossly foolish for offering these.
>
> Peter Stewart
I believe I'm the only person so far to post any primary evidence
regarding Count Niccolo Orsini's wife, Giovanna di Sabrano. In sharp
contrast, all you have offered so far has been your opinions.
This must be why you are so upset, Peter. I have evidence, you have
opinions.
D. Spencer Hines
He quotes and cites some obscure source -- as if he had it in front of
him.
He seems to think it gives him some sort of secret cachet.
Now we know all he has is some scribbled notes "made years ago" -- and
he doesn't even have the Orsini Table either.
Hilarious!
Stewart The Fraud & Charlatan.
No Surprises There....
DSH
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121669936....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| My comments are interspersed. DR
Peter Stewart
become exasperated by his obdurate stupidity & quite the thead. Not so.
Comments interspersed:
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121673489....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart has me utterly confused. He implied he had access to a
> set of Litta. But he has since confessed that he merely consulted his
> own cribbed notes of Litta made years ago. He's positive his notes are
> accurate, but he won't post them.
I have access to a set of Litta and consult this whenever I wish. I said in
plain English that my notes were "extensive and detailed", not "cribbed". I
have no reason to post my notes literally, as I have stated (and
restated....) precisely what these contain. Any more could only be a
representation of what Litta himself said, and without verifying this from
the page I would never do such a thing - I respect the newsgroup and would
not insult readers by fiddling with the words of another.
> Now he confesses he could have consulted Litta nearby if he wanted.
> But he didn't care to do that. But, even if he had access to Litta, he
> wouldn't post what Litta says.
This is no "confession", merely an explanation to counter your deliberate
twisting of my words into your falsehood. I have said fr44om the start that
I will not transcribe Litta for you, as your scholarly duty is to consult
the work directly on a point of interest in it. I am not your research
assistant.
> Peter is sure Litta is accurate, but he confesses Litta made up Count
> Niccolo's marriage to Maria del Balzo.
I have NEVER said that Litta is "accurate", but only that he said what he
said. I have maintained from the satrt that I don't know where he found the
naem "Gorizia" and can't track this to ascertain if he was right, wrong or
somewhere in between.
> So, we are left again and again with conflicting statements from Peter
> Stewart. And, still no evidence.
There is no conflict whatsoever, and your misrepresentations are quite
ineffectual.
You have idiotically chosen to ignore the evidence, such as it is. Guillaume
de Sabran cannot have had two distinct daughters, one Gorizia and one
Giovanna, who both married Niccolo Orsini and bore his daughter Sueva. All
we have is that Litta in the 19th century called the single woman in this
genealogy "Gorizia" while others including contemporaries call her
"Giovanna" instead. Since Litta is the end of the line for "Gorizia", there
cannot be any further evidence unless this is newly discovered. We can't
even know that there is anything behind his statement to BE discovered, and
there is little value in speculating far beyond the possibility that the
place MIGHT have been involved in a misunderstanding on his part - and that
only because the alternative name is a rather peculiar one.
All that I have said on this is adequately supported.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121673859.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> Will you ever learn that you can't just say "Up is Down, East is West,
>> Black
>> is White" and make it so? People DON'T buy into your lies, they simply
>> think
>> you are grossly foolish for offering these.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> I believe I'm the only person so far to post any primary evidence
> regarding Count Niccolo Orsini's wife, Giovanna di Sabrano. In sharp
> contrast, all you have offered so far has been your opinions.
>
> This must be why you are so upset, Peter. I have evidence, you have
> opinions.
Here we go again - I am not "upset": this is your hope, but not
accomplished. You are wasting only minutes of my time and have no lingering
effect on me whatsoever as soon as I turn my attention away.
You are also confirming to the newsgroup that no sensible discussion with
you is possible, since you can't or won't take in the simplest statements
accurately if these embarrass you in any way. Once you have painted yourself
into a corner, you will wield the brush crazily & splatter everyone and
everything with lurid colours rather than admit your own error.
Your primary evidence so far is only for the name Giovanna, that isn't in
dispute, not that this was uniquely the name of Niccolo Orsini's Sabran
wife. The primary evidence for Litta's use of "Gorizia" for the same person
is in Litta, not in a medieval document. That is ALL there is to it.
If this has to be said over and over again, you are the loser by it.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q%JCe.154$ds5....@eagle.america.net...
> Peter Stewart seems to do this quite often.
>
> He quotes and cites some obscure source -- as if he had it in front of
> him.
>
> He seems to think it gives him some sort of secret cachet.
>
> Now we know all he has is some scribbled notes "made years ago" -- and
> he doesn't even have the Orsini Table either.
What deep idiocy - of course I don't have in front of me every source that I
cite here. Litta is not "obscure" and there is no "cachet", much less
secrecy, in looking things up and taking notes for later. My notes on this
particular matter were not "scribbled" but written quite legibly, and I
can't see any point (even distorted, as usually by you) in a complaint about
the timing of my research.
The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta. The
inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while reporting
what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought. How do you suppose
scholarship was done before photo-reproduction? Do you suppose that every
word must have been written straight from the source, never relayed in
notes?
Perhaps for once you might try to ANSWER a question or two rather than
bobbing and weaving.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
> Here we go again - I am not "upset": this is your hope, but not
> accomplished. You are wasting only minutes of my time and have no lingering
> effect on me whatsoever as soon as I turn my attention away.
As Peter Stewart turns his attention away from the newsgroup, I suggest
we review his record in this thread. False claims, no evidence,
misleading statements, assurances about sources which have been found
to be faulty, and now a goose hunt into a search for Gorizia as a
placename. In all, a very poor performance.
> You are also confirming to the newsgroup that no sensible discussion with
> you is possible, since you can't or won't take in the simplest statements
> accurately if these embarrass you in any way. Once you have painted yourself
> into a corner, you will wield the brush crazily & splatter everyone and
> everything with lurid colours rather than admit your own error.
He lacks evidence, so he attacks those that provide it. It's very sad.
> Your primary evidence so far is only for the name Giovanna, that isn't in
> dispute, not that this was uniquely the name of Niccolo Orsini's Sabran
> wife. The primary evidence for Litta's use of "Gorizia" for the same person
> is in Litta, not in a medieval document. That is ALL there is to it.
Here we come back to Peter Stewart's cribbed notes from Litta. He
won't post them. Nor will he post Litta's sources. He won't even
check a set of Litta he says he has available nearby. Is this man lazy
or what?
> If this has to be said over and over again, you are the loser by it.
Peter Stewart is doing an elaborate song and dance routine with the
Orsini family as his stage. He thought he would impress everyone with
his "notes" from Litta. When he got pinned down on that, it was wing
and buck, bob and weave until even he admitted he had no evidence. A
poor showing at that. I honestly don't know why the man bothered to
post if this was the best he could do. Time to pack it in, Peter.
> Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121678369....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Stewart. It's excuses galore from here on out, folks. Peter is too
lazy to consult a nearby copy of Litta. All he wants to do is wave his
yellowed cribbed notes from Litta in the air thinking that will impress
us. That, plus make wild accusations against anyone doing serious
research. That's so impressive, Peter!
I honestly don't know why this man has bothered to post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> Once again - is there ANYONE here who endorses Richardson's comments and
> will undertake to defend these?
>
> Peter Stewart
If anyone said yes, you'd immediately attack them, Peter.
No one is going to give you the opportunity for you to slam them this
way. No one.
Leo
bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be correct.
Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should withdraw
from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise he and
his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121679449....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>> Once again - is there ANYONE here who endorses Richardson's comments and
>> will undertake to defend these?
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> If anyone said yes, you'd immediately attack them, Peter.
>
> No one is going to give you the opportunity for you to slam them this
> way. No one.
Self-serving rubbish to cover your humiliation that even your claqueurs
won't come to your defense.
Hines is managing to get himself "slammed" without supporting you. Welch got
civil replies to civil posts. Brandon has taken to the hills.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
DR