Countess Ida Bigod - A Search for Answers
Douglas Richardson
One of the more intriguing historical/genealogical puzzlers of
medieval time is the identity of the parentage of Ida, mistress of
King Henry II and wife of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. By her affair
with King Henry II, she is ancestress to the important Longespee
family. By her marriage to Roger Bigod, she is the ancestress of the
later Bigod, Neville and Hastings families. Her descendants are
legion.
Many years ago, a certain Mr. Chauncey posted a note in the New
England Register to the effect that Roger Bigod had two wives, Ida de
Thouy and Isabella de Warenne [Reference: NEHGR, 10 (1856): 262].
Unfortunately, Mr. Chauncey failed to give his source for this
statement. However, I presume this information came from an
unpublished Bigod charter he saw while he was doing his research in
England.
The name "Thouy" is recognizable immediately as the important Tony
family, which family frequently spelled their name in this period with
an "h" following the T. As such, the question arises, which
generation would Countess Ida likely fit into the Tony family.
In order to get a handle on the chronology of the families involved, I
have examined the life histories of several grandchildren of Countess
Ida to get a feel for Countess Ida's father's possible date of birth.
I usually figure on 85 years for three generations. If we know when
Ida's grandchildren were born, then we can estimate her father's date
of birth by subtracting 85 years.
Countess Ida's eldest known grandchild is presumably Ida Longespee,
who in or about 1220 took her second husband, William de Beauchamp.
Although this was Ida Longespee's 2nd marriage, she presumably was no
more than 15 in 1220, or born about 1205. We know that Ida
Longespee's eldest brother, William Longespee, was born about 1212, he
having come of age about 1233. Ida's next brother, Stephen
Longespee, was presumably born soon afterwards, as I show he witnessed
a charter in 1240 and acknowledged a debt in 1241. As for Countess
Ida's other grandchildren, I show Hugh Bigod was born about 1215 and
Ralph Fitz Ranulph was born about 1218. As such, we have a birth
span here for five different grandchildren from approximately
1205-1218. If we subtract 85 years from this span, we should get a
pretty good idea of when Countess Ida's father was born. Making the
subtraction, we see a date of circa 1120-1133 is indicated for Ida's
father's birth.
Reviewing the Tony family tree, the most suitable candidate for
Countess Ida's parentage appears to be Roger de Tony, reportedly born
in or before 1105, who married sometime prior to 1135 to Ida of
Hainault, daughter of Baldwin III, Count of Hainault. This couple had
four sons, including Ralph, born about 1140, and Roger, Jr., whose
wife Ada de Chaumont was born about 1155 (aged 30 in 1185).
What evidence have we? Ida of Hainault, wife of Roger de Tony, is
known have had 20 librates of land at East Bergholt, Suffolk as a gift
from King Henry I on her marriage to Roger de Tony. This land
evidently descended to her younger son, Roger, Jr., whose wife, Ada de
Chaumont, and son, Baldwin, made gifts from this place in the
1180's-1190's to Dodnash Priory in Suffolk. For a record of these
gifts, one may consult the new book, Dodnash Priory Charters, edited
by Christopher Harper-Bill, published in 1998, pp. 34-37,39-40,72-73.
Ada and Baldwin de Tony's gifts to Dodnash Priory were for the express
purpose of donating the site of a religious house.
Interestingly, another party who also made a gift to Dodnash Priory of
land at East Bergholt was none other than Countess Ida's husband,
Roger Bigod. The recently published Dodnash charters show that Earl
Roger Bigod gave a tenement and land there to the Priory sometime in
the period, 1189-1221 [Reference: Dodnash Priory Charters, pp. 73-74].
It is odd that Roger Bigod would have land in this place and also
that he would donate it to a Tony related religious house, unless his
wife Ida were a member of this family. I believe this is a sure
indication that Roger Bigod's wife, Ida, was in fact a Tony.
As for Countess Ida's own date of birth, it appears her eldest son,
William Longespee, first appears in the records in 1191/2. If
correct, then we may assume he was born sometime in the period,
1170/5. Again, assuming that Ida was young when she had William
Longespee, we might place her birth at approximately 1155. This would
make her the same approximate age as Ada de Chaumont, wife of Roger de
Tony, Jr., mentioned above. Thus Ada de Chaumont and Countess Ida
were contemporaries of each other and presumably in the same
generation.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Todd A. Farmerie
and is poorly fitted to the topic, tone, and audience of the
medieval history group. As such, your crossposting to both
groups gains you nothing, but risks disrupting this group, as we
have just seen demonstrated. Please respect both groups and
restrain yourself from crossposting such genealogical questions
to soc.hist.med.
To soc.gen.med readers, I request that you pay particular
attention when responding to all posts from this individual, so
that you may notice and remove these inappropriate crossposts.
Todd A. Farmerie
co-Listowner
GEN-MEDIEVAL
leo van de pas
What a fascinating message. I have been looking around and found something
that may be of interest to this question.
CP IX page 575, has a note : "Bigot" has at all times been by no means an
uncommon name in Normandy, where this form has always continued. The name
was changed to Bigod in England. This footnote belongs to Roger Bigod, whose
parentage is not certainly known, and who has quite a write up in CP. He
married (1) Adelaide (Adelidis) whose parentage is unknown (2) Alice, sister
of William de Tosny, Lord of Belvoir, and daughter of Robert de Tosny, Lord
of Belvoir. Roger Bigod died 8 or 15 September 1107.
CP IX page 579, presumes that Hugh Bigod, born perhaps circa 1095, was by
the second wife. This Hugh became Earl of Norfolk and died before 9 March
1176/7 and is the father of Roger Le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, who married
Ida.
This shows there may well be a blood link with the Tosny
family already. Sadly ES Volume III/4 tafel 705 does not show whether there
is a link between the before mentioned Robert de Tosny and Roger III (known
as) de Conches who married Gertrude (Ida) of Hainault, daughter of Count
Baudouin III.
Sadly, Douglas only gives us the names of Roger III and Ida of Hainault's
four sons, but no daughter, surely Godeheut or Godehold, wife of William de
Mohun (Weis Ancestral Roots page 126) could have been mentioned to have that
family as complete as possible. The question, of course, arises : How many
more daughters were there? It is good to see that Weis calls Roger III by
the name of de Toeni, not de Conches as ES does.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> This footnote belongs to Roger Bigod, whose
> parentage is not certainly known, and who has quite a write up in CP. He
> married (1) Adelaide (Adelidis) whose parentage is unknown (2) Alice, sister
> of William de Tosny, Lord of Belvoir, and daughter of Robert de Tosny, Lord
> of Belvoir. Roger Bigod died 8 or 15 September 1107.
>
> CP IX page 579, presumes that Hugh Bigod, born perhaps circa 1095, was by
> the second wife. This Hugh became Earl of Norfolk and died before 9 March
> 1176/7 and is the father of Roger Le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, who married
> Ida.
Recent speculation suggests that there may have been just one
wife - that Adelaide (Adelidis) and Alice de Todeny are one and
the same.
> This shows there may well be a blood link with the Tosny
> family already. Sadly ES Volume III/4 tafel 705 does not show whether there
> is a link between the before mentioned Robert de Tosny and Roger III (known
> as) de Conches who married Gertrude (Ida) of Hainault, daughter of Count
> Baudouin III.
The relationship between Robert de Todeny of Belvoir and the main
Toeny line has been subject to much speculation, none of it all
that convincing (and I include in that category the recent
attempts of Keats-Rohan).
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Pas has pointed out.
It's good to see you address this matter of "Countess Ida" after so many
years. <g>
You were quite smart to post it to SHM as well. Many people over there
are interested in this sort of thing. They may buy your book when it
comes out. <g>
Ignore the anklebiters.
Stay on course.
Leo also says:
""Bigot" has at all times been by no means an uncommon name in Normandy,
where this form has always continued."
Here's an interesting grace note.
"Bigot" was the coverword [codeword] used for those who knew in advance
about the most sensitive matters having to do with the Allied landings
in Normandy on 6 June 1944 ---- "D-Day in Europe".
So, if one "was a Bigot" ---- one was in the know ---- and on a *very*
select list.
Therefore, "He's a Bigot [bigot] was not a derogatory slur." ---- in
that context <g>
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
ADRIANC...@cs.com
The evidence that the name of William Longespee's mother was Countess Ida
comes from a charter in the Bradenstoke Cartulary. The land which is gifted
in this charter [to Bradenstoke] formerly belonged (probably as copyhold) by
William Longespee's knight, the late Ralph de Parco. This knight was
originally knight to William Longespee's father in law William FitzPatrick
(-1196), earl of Salisbury, and the land in question was granted by this
William FitzPatrick to Ralph de Parco
The charter begins [as translated from Latin] "Gift in alms by William
Longespee Earl of Salisbury for the souls of Ela his wife and the countess
Ida his mother" [Why is Ela not referred to as countess?]
Thus everything in the charter has connections back to William's in-laws.
For this reason I believe that Ida was William Longespee's mother-in-law and
hence an alias for Alianore de Vitre. This would also explain her title
countess.
Without this charter, we have nothing on the name on William Longespee's
mother. Although there seems to be no contemporary evidence that the mother
was Rosamund Clifford, at least it is known Rosamund was one ot the
mistresses of Henry II, so the "traditional story" may be correct.
Because of William Longespee's close association with Salisbury Cathedral,
you may be interested in an early connection between the Toeny family and
that cathedral:
"Prebend:- The estate of Durnford [now, I think Great Durnford, a few miles
north of Salisbury] in Wiltshire was held by William of Eu in 1086, whose
lands were confiscated in 1093. The church was endowed by Isabel de Tosny,
widow of Walter son of Richard and was granted by her to the cathedral [of
Salisbury] before 1158. ..." [The Canons of Salisbury by Christopher Ross,
2000]
Now it looks to me as if this is the Isabel de Toeny/Tosny who was daughter
of Ralph de Toeny IV (c1076-1126), that is the Isabel who married Walter de
Clifford son of Richard FitzPons [See CP Vol XIV addition to note e) on page
762 of Vol XII/i] and I understand they are the parents of Rosamund Clifford.
BTW, one of the witnesses to the Bradenstoke charter was a Rog of _Durnford_.
Adrian.
Douglas Richardson wrote,
Kay Allen AG
the Tosny dtr. I don't know if the exact linkage between the two
Tosny/Tony/Toeni families is known.
Kay Allen AG
leo van de pas wrote:
> Dear Douglas,
> What a fascinating message. I have been looking around and found something
> that may be of interest to this question.
>
> CP IX page 575, has a note : "Bigot" has at all times been by no means an
> uncommon name in Normandy, where this form has always continued. The name
> was changed to Bigod in England. This footnote belongs to Roger Bigod, whose
> parentage is not certainly known, and who has quite a write up in CP. He
> married (1) Adelaide (Adelidis) whose parentage is unknown (2) Alice, sister
> of William de Tosny, Lord of Belvoir, and daughter of Robert de Tosny, Lord
> of Belvoir. Roger Bigod died 8 or 15 September 1107.
>
> CP IX page 579, presumes that Hugh Bigod, born perhaps circa 1095, was by
> the second wife. This Hugh became Earl of Norfolk and died before 9 March
> 1176/7 and is the father of Roger Le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, who married
> Ida.
>
> This shows there may well be a blood link with the Tosny
> family already. Sadly ES Volume III/4 tafel 705 does not show whether there
> is a link between the before mentioned Robert de Tosny and Roger III (known
> as) de Conches who married Gertrude (Ida) of Hainault, daughter of Count
> Baudouin III.
>
> Sadly, Douglas only gives us the names of Roger III and Ida of Hainault's
> four sons, but no daughter, surely Godeheut or Godehold, wife of William de
> Mohun (Weis Ancestral Roots page 126) could have been mentioned to have that
> family as complete as possible. The question, of course, arises : How many
> more daughters were there? It is good to see that Weis calls Roger III by
> the name of de Toeni, not de Conches as ES does.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
> Canberra, Australia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 7:07 AM
> Subject: Countess Ida Bigod - A Search for Answers
>
Reedpcgen
over this problem in great detail.
auda/ada de chaumont was acting as a widow long after ida, wife and widow of
the earl of norfolk was also appearing in records.
auda de chaumont and countess ida are mutually exclusive identities, despite
the statement in vch that auda may have been mistress of henry (with all that
it implied). we even checked sources like the hundred rolls (thanks to stewart
for that).
better to spend your time on something else
paul
Reedpcgen
not marriage). check the archives.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote:
> ps we had advanced that countess ida was indeed a toeni/tony (but by birth,
> not marriage). check the archives.
But what is the objection to Adrian Channing's account that "the
countess Ida his mother" was in fact Wm Longspee's mother-in-law, as we
now term such relationships?
In view of what little I know of usages of that time, this is the
obvious explanation of the phrase and Ockham's (that excellent
Englishman) razor demands that we should not multiply entities beyond
necessity.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson
In my last post, I presented new evidence which links Earl Roger
Bigod, husband of Countess Ida, to members of the Tony family,
specifically Ada de Chaumont, widow of Roger de Tony, Jr., and her
son, Baldwin de Tony. I showed that sometime in or before 1188, Ada
de Tony with her son, Baldwin's consent, gave land at East Bergholt,
Suffolk for the site of a religious house. Earl Roger Bigod (husband
of Countess Ida) similarly gave property also at East Bergholt to
Dodnash Priory. East Bergholt is known to have been the maritagium of
Ida of Hainault, wife of Roger de Tony, Sr.
The surviving Dodnash Charters indicate that Ada and Baldwin de Tony
were eventually succeeded at East Bergholt, Suffolk by a certain Roger
de Akeny. The editor of Dodnash Priory Charters makes no explanation
for Roger de Akeny's appearance in the chain of title. The editor of
VCH Oxford 5 (1957): 138 states that the exact relationship between
the Tonys and the Akenys is not known. However, it would appear that
Roger de Akeny was actually the son of Baldwin de Tony. The evidence
for this is slim, but compelling. Complete Peerage, 14 (1998): 614
indicates that Baldwin de Tony's father, Roger, was seigneur of
Acquiny in France. The book Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families by
L.C. Loyd (1951), pg. 2 affirms that the castle of Acquiny in France
"was in the hands of the lords of Tony." Presumably, as with some of
their English possessions, the castle of Acquiny was settled on a
younger son of the family, Roger de Tony, Jr., whose descendants
eventually adopted the surname Acquiny. That the Akeny and Tony
families are from the same stock is indicated by the fact that Roger
de Akeny sealed with a maunch, the same heraldic device found on the
Tony arms. For Roger de Akeny's previously unnoticed seal, see
Dodnash Priory Charters, pg. 78. For the early Tony arms bearing the
maunch, see Rolls of Arms Henry III (Harleian Soc. Pubs., vol.s.
113-114) (1967), pp. 24-35, 64.
Following Roger de Akeny's death c. 1241, his lands were divided
between his two sons-in-law, Matthew and Pain de la Mare [see Complete
Peerage, 8 (1932): 463-464, chart following). Matthew and Pain de la
Mere were subsequently succeeded by their sons, both named John de la
Mere. Brault's book, Roll of Arms: Edward I (1272-1307), pg. 280
shows that one of these John de la Mere's bore for his arms, Gules a
maunch argent, while the other bore, Gules a maunch ermine. Their
cousins, Robert de Tony and John de Mohun, bore virtually identical
arms, they being Argent a maunch gules and Gules, a maunch argent
ermine (see Brault, pg. 536). That the Tony, Akeny, de la Mare, and
Mohun families all bore a maunch is a testimony to their common
ancestry.
Is there any evidence to link William Longespee to the Akeny family?
Yes, there is. Red Book of the Exchequer, Part II (1896), pg. 804
gives an enrollment of various knights' fees. Under Essex, the
following statement is found:
"Rogerus de Akymy [Akeny] tenet in Bradewell ij carucatas terrae quae
fuerent Roberti de Sancto Remigio et Willelmi Bacun, Normanorrum; et
valent per annum £x. Quam [terram] Rex Johannes dedit fratri sup
Willelmo de Longaspata, et idem Comes praedicto Rogero."
The above text states that "Roger de Akeny holds in Bradwell, Essex 2
carucates of land which were previously owned by Robert de St. Remy
and William Bacon, Normans, and the value per year is £10, which land
King John gave to his brother, William Longespee, and the said Earl
[gave it] to the said Roger." By my arrangement of the family, Roger
de Akeny would be the son of William Longespee's first cousin, Baldwin
de Tony.
There is also evidence to link William de Longespee's sons, William
and Stephen, to Roger de Akeny's heirs, the de la Mares. Complete
Peerage 8 (1932) chart following pg. 464 shows that Matthew de la Mare
witnessed an indenture dated 1245-6 of a charter from William
Longespee the younger to his brother, Stephen. Matthew de la Mare was
the husband of Florence de Akeny, daughter and co-heiress of Roger de
Akeny.
As for associations between the Akeny and Mohun families, I show that
a Brother Baldwin de Akeny (a clerk) witnessed a charter in 1273 for
the Preceptory of Duxford in Cambridgeshire. In 1308, the Perceptor
of this religious house was John de Mohun [see VCH Cambridge, 2
(1948): 262].
More evidence can be adduced to show the tie between the Longespee and
Tony/Akeny families. However, I believe the above gives a good
overview of the pattern found in the records.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.02040...@posting.google.com>...
Bill Prokasy
(10:262) which reports that Roger Bigod had two wives (Ida de Thouy and
Isabella de Warenne). Though the focus of the posting was on Ida, it
does raise a question about Isabella. The CP (XII, pt. 1, p. 500, note
g), reports Isabella with two marriages: one to Robert de Lacy and the
other to Gilbert de Laigle. It makes no mention of Roger Bigod.
Did she have three marriages?
Bill
--
William F. (Bill) Prokasy
Home Page: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~wprokasy/home.htm
Other Pages Maintained
Haverhill: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~wprokasy/haverhill/Haverhill.htm
Methuen: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~wprokasy/methuen/index.htm
Athena Grand Opera Company: http://athenagrandoperacompany.org
Opera Guild: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~wprokasy/opera/operag.htm
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for mentioning that Roger de Tony, Sr., and his wife, Ida of
Hainault, had another daughter, Godeheut, who married William de
Mohun. Godeheut's maritagium was the manor of Brinkley, co.
Cambridge, which I believe descended in the Tony family from their
ancestress, Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror. I
descend from Godeheut de Tony through the colonial immigrant, Agnes
(Harris) (Spencer) Edwards. In my second post, I mention the
Tony-Mohun connection in two places.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
leov...@bigpond.com (leo van de pas) wrote in message news:<006d01c1ddbe$1cb60460$e5718690@leo>...
> Dear Douglas,
> What a fascinating message. I have been looking around and found something
> that may be of interest to this question.
Kay Allen AG
Kay Allen AG
Douglas Richardson
As a trained historian and a professional genealogist, I believe I'm
in an excellent position to judge whether or not the content of my
posts deserves to be crossposted to both soc.genealogy.medieval and
soc.history.medieval. Despite what you say, the identity of King
Henry II's mistress and the mother of his illegitimate son, William
Longespee, is a matter of both historical and genealogical importance.
As such, crossposting is fully warranted in this case.
As a matter of fact, you probably couldn't have pick a worse post to
label "unhistorical." Much ink has been spilt on the pages of history
regarding the bogus story of "Fair" Rosamond Clifford being the mother
of William Longespee. For the first time, evidence is surfacing as to
the true identity of William Longespee's mother. The information that
I'm posting will eventually change the pages of the DNB, the
Encyclopedia Brittanica, Complete Peerage, and many other historical
reference works.
The crossposting issue aside, it's time that historians and
genealogists began affiliating with one another. I extend my hand in
friendship to my fellow historians and my fellow genealogists. May we
as scholars join to find the answers we all seek. Collegiality is the
key to finding those answers.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3CAF782C...@interfold.com>...
Reedpcgen
post the two charters which, in latin, specifically describe countess ida as
mother of william (thank you, kay). .
as to the d'akeny family, check an article by p. w. daykin in _family history_
18:(1996) for starters.
i'm afraid we have a private discussion about all the facts and evidence
concerning auda/ada de chaumont off the list, in case it should need to be
published to rebut a theory someone else had. you can spend as much time as
you want on this theory, but suffice it to state that there is clear and ample
evidence that auda de chaumont is not countess ida.
below is something i'd posted about two years ago.
Recent correspondence has again piqued my interest in trying to prove the
identity of the Countess Ida, mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury
(illegitimate son of Henry II).
Older members of the group may recall the many discussions we had on this group
about this subject. William twice referred to his mother as "the Countess
Ida." We determined that the only person in England who fit that bill was Ida,
wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (d. 1221). Her parentage is as yet
unproved [her son Hugh le Bigod married in 1207, and his son and heir, Roger,
was born ca. 1212/13].
After an extensive search of Continental Idas who had any connection with
England, I had suggested that Ida may have belonged to the de Toeni family.
I'd like to expound a little more on this and ask for help.
Roger de Toeni [the third of that name, or III] was born ca. 1104, and died
after Michaelmas 1157, presumably before his son died in 1162. He married Ida
of Hainault, daughter of Baldwin III, Count of Hainault, by his wife Yolande de
Guelders. It is not known when Ida died, but she presumably survived him, as
Henry II granted her [Ida de Tounay] land at Garsington, co. Oxford [Rot.
Hund.].
This couple had four known sons:
(1) Ralph de Toeni [V], who succeeded his father and died 1262/3, having
married Margaret de Beaumont.
(2) Roger de Toeni, Jr., dead by 1185, when his wife Ade/Alda de Chaumont was
holding land at Holkington, co. Norfolk, of her son Baldwin de Toeni [II]
(1170-1216), Seigneur de Acquigny, apparently father of Roger de Akeny and Sir
William Dakeny [Acquigny]. The Rotuli de Dominabus states that Ade/Alda was
born about 1155, and that she had five daughters aside from her son Baldwin.
[Does anyone have any Dakeny ancestry?]
(3) Baldwin de Toeni, who settled in Hainault [having resided with his uncle
Baldwin IV], where he died in 1170, leaving issue.
(4) Geoffrey de Toeni, a cleric who flourished 1157-62, 1177.
It is my theory [stated long ago] that Roger de Toeni [III] and Ida of Hainault
also had at least one--probably more than one--daughter. This Toeni family
continuded its naming patterns generation after generation to an amazing degree
[Roger, Ralph, Baldwin (after the marriage to Ida) and Robert]. The same was
probably true of female names.
I theorize that Roger [III] and Ida of Hainault had a daughter named Ida de
Toeni, and that she married Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Henry I is stated
to have given East Bergholt to Roger [III] de Toeni and his wife Ida of
Hainault in maritagium [Book of Fees 1:134 ("Henricus primus, Rex Anglie, dedit
Rogero de Tooni...in maritagio cum filia comitis de Henou")/Testa, 295].
[end quote]
we know of godeheut, but i think the odds are very good that there was another
sister named ida, and her status would have been correct for such a union.
paul
Reedpcgen
the archives before rehashing things. there is valuable discussion theer.
christian settipani was kind enough to help me with some of the french sources
after my post
[quote]
Adrian, though Baldwin de Toeni and his mother Alda [her name is always given
as Alda/Ade in all records I've seen, never Ida], did give lands in East
Bergholt to Dodnash Priory, this Baldwin was son of Roger, husband of Alda de
Chaumont, which Roger was the second son of Roger de Towni [III] and his wife
Ida of Hainault. The lands had been granted by Henry I to Roger in marriage
with Ida [in maritagio cum filia comitis de Henou]. See CP 12:i:764 and notes
g-h.
I note that there was an Oda de Chaumont who was son of Guillaume, but the
Rotuli de Dominabus (Pipe Roll Society 35] specifically states that Ade's
father was named Robert de Chaumund[/t?]. He is more likely to be Robert de
Chaumont "le Roux" (ca. 1134-1174) who belonged to the family de
Chaumont-Quitry, d'Orbec (Vexin), who is stated to be a direct descendant of
Pepin II by his son Childebrand through the Nebelon. Sources I've seen show
marriages between daughters of the counts of Flanders in earlier generations,
and Robert's mother, Frangal de Fougers, is given as a granddaughter of
Etienne/Stephen (1069-1137), Earl of Richmond. I do not know how much of this
is accurate, and have not seen a source that gives this Robert's daughters.
[end quote]
paul
D. Spencer Hines
As this post starkly reveals, Pogue Reed has lost the ability to find
the shiftkeys on his keyboard.
Hilarious!
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020407165519...@mb-md.aol.com...
Reedpcgen
>concerning auda/ada de chaumont off the list, in case it should need to be
>published to rebut a theory someone else had.
that should have read that we had a private discussion two years ago, so the
information was not posted to the group (it should not read that we are now
having such a discussion)
paul
Robert S Baxter
I know this may be off the wall as Alison Weir is not a particularly
scholarly source. However, she mentions in her book BRITAIN'S ROYAL
FAMILIES that Henry II had a mistress Ikenai, a "prostitute," probably
the daughter of a knight. This name "Ikenai" strikes me as a
corruption of Akeny or Acquiny. Might there be a connections. Weir
goes on to give William de Longespee as a son of this union, adding it
is probably not correct.
Regards,
Bob
Roz Griston
remarked he had injured his arm, and was typing one handed.
can you remember why i type like this? we'll SEE if you have the mental
DEXTERITY to remember.
roz
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Hilarious!
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Vires et Honor.
| i'm afraid we have a private discussion about all the facts and
evidence
| concerning auda/ada de chaumont off the list, in case it should need
to be
leo van de pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Subject: Re: Countess Ida Bigod - A Search for Answers
> Dear Mr. Farmerie:
>
> As a trained historian and a professional genealogist, I believe I'm
> in an excellent position to judge whether or not the content of my
> posts deserves to be crossposted to both soc.genealogy.medieval and
> soc.history.medieval.
====I do not understand the negatives of cross-posting, Todd Farmerie does,
but I feel gen-medieval is a "party" and I think it is ill-mannered to kick
the host. When he asks something, he does it with a purpose, and we should
oblige.
If people want to send the same message to two different places, let them
create it twice, avoiding crossposting.
<snip>
. The information that
> I'm posting will eventually change the pages of the DNB, the
> Encyclopedia Brittanica, Complete Peerage, and many other historical
> reference works.
=======Douglas, you sound so confident that YOU are going to provide the
proof, why not give it? If you are only being hopefull and speculating, then
do not make such claims, they may come to haunt you. How far have you got
with your proving that ALL the FitzAlans changed to Arundel? To quote
yourself "You said it, you prove it" and do not ask others to do your work.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
<snip>
ADRIANC...@cs.com
For what its worth, here is what the Duchess of Cleveland (1889) has to say
on Akeny:
Akeny: De Acquigny, from Acquigny, near Louviers, Normandy. "Le Seigneur
d'Acquigny appears in Tailleur's Chronicles of Normandy." Herveius de
Acquigny occurs 1058 (Morice, Histoire Bret. Preuves, i. 439). Roger de
Akeny, thirteenth century, held fiefs from the Honour of Peveril of London
(Testa de Nevill). This family was numerous, and of great importance in
England, as the records show."-_The Norman People_. In the time of Henry III.
Ralph de Akeny gave some lands in Norfolk to the "pi or de Petra ": and about
1272 Roger Dakeney held a fourth part of Northwold, in the same county, of
Earl Warren; and _Domina Johanna de Dakeneye_ was of Suffolk. Baldwin de
Akeny, Lord of Holkham, and his son Thomas, also appear in Kent, where Dom.
John de Akeny was a land owner in Wittlesford Hundred.-_Rot.
Hundredorum_. "Several generations of Dakeny, from Edward I. to 1390, were
lords of a sixth part of the barony of Cainho, in Bedfordshire."-_Glover's
Derby_. Robert Dakeny, one of the Lords of Clophill and Kannho, also held
Lathbury and Little Filgrave in Buckinghamshire. He was knight of the shire
for Bedford in 1316; and one of the Commissioners for raising foot-soldiers.
Roger Dakeny, of Bucks, is also mentioned.-_Palgrave's Parliamentaty Writs_.
Chancy records a family of Dakins, that lasted for some generations, in
Hertfordshire, that is believed to have been the same.
...
Cleveland also mentions that in 1547 the Earl Marshal issued a warrant for
the apprehension of one William Dakyns who had compiled spurious pedigrees
for nearly one hundred families in Essex, Hertford and Cambridge.
Adrian
Douglas Richardson
The question of whether or not Earl Roger Bigod had a second wife,
Isabel de Warenne, has never been properly examined. She is not
mentioned in the records which Complete Peerage used which document
his known wife, Ida. To date, Mr. Chauncey's statement that a
marriage to Isabel de Warenne took place has received no notice by
either historians or genealogists. Ditto, his statement that his
known wife Ida was a Tony. This information lay unnoticed by all,
until Kay Allen and I independantly came across it buried in an old
issue of the New England Register. Kay and I both felt Mr. Chauncey's
statement warranted further study.
Fortunately, a series of original Suffolk charters is currently being
issued, the editors now being up to the 15th volume. That is how I
found the new Dodnash Priory charter for Earl Roger Bigod which shows
he held land at East Bergholt, Suffolk, a Tony family holding.
Perhaps in time someone will undertake to publish a series of Norfolk
charters, where the charter which Mr. Chauncey presumably saw naming
Earl Roger's two wives was probably recorded.
As for Earl Roger's known wife, Ida, being a Tony, please continue to
follow this thread, where I will lay out the evidence of her identity
as a Tony in successive posts.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
wpro...@arches.uga.edu (Bill Prokasy) wrote in message news:<3CB08FA1...@arches.uga.edu>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> Dear Mr. Farmerie:
>
> As a trained historian and a professional genealogist, I believe I'm
> in an excellent position to judge whether or not the content of my
> posts deserves to be crossposted to both soc.genealogy.medieval and
> soc.history.medieval. Despite what you say, the identity of King
> Henry II's mistress and the mother of his illegitimate son, William
> Longespee, is a matter of both historical and genealogical importance.
> As such, crossposting is fully warranted in this case.
But experience has been that cross-posting leads to an accumulation of
irrelvant and off-message postings.
An alternative is parallel posting, which would avoid the problems that
taf is so well aware of. Parallel posting means that you post one copy
to one group and another, separate posting to the other group(s).
Tim Powys-Lybbe
all...@pacbell.net (Kay Allen AG) wrote:
> I believe that this has been discussed in the archives.
I know. I have raised it, once. Adrian Channing has raised it more
than once.
But I have never found anyone who would answer this point about the
reference of the term "mother" (or whatever the word was in whatever
language the record was written). We are suggesting that this term
meant both the modern 'mother and the modern 'mother-in-law', and that
"mother" was thereby ambiguous. Can anyone refute this interpretation?
D. Spencer Hines
Sending parallel posts is awkward and cumbersome. It takes enough extra
time and trouble that many posters simply won't do it ----- so readers
just get screwed and don't see the post ---- in one group or the other.
Douglas seems to understand that point ---- so he posts simultaneously
to just two groups.
Others here do it occasionally ---- but sparingly. Good for them.
Smart.
Deal With It.
If you just can't stand posts that are sent to both SGM and SHM, do what
Nat Taylor does. Filter out any posts that have a comma in the
_Newsgroups_ line of the header.
We've had FAR too much whining over, under and about this issue ---- and
that last bloviation by taf reads like something from Miss
Thistlebottom, when she goes into high dudgeon in deportment class in
1891.
Hilarious!
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:e45cac2...@southfrm.demon.co.uk...
Paul J Gans
>Dear Mr. Farmerie:
>As a trained historian and a professional genealogist, I believe I'm
>in an excellent position to judge whether or not the content of my
>posts deserves to be crossposted to both soc.genealogy.medieval and
>soc.history.medieval. Despite what you say, the identity of King
>Henry II's mistress and the mother of his illegitimate son, William
>Longespee, is a matter of both historical and genealogical importance.
> As such, crossposting is fully warranted in this case.
[major cut]
Mr. Richardson:
Do you notice anyone from soc.history.medieval (with the
possible exception of He Who Knows No Rules) responding
to your posts?
---- Paul J. Gans
Dennis J. Cunniff
Vicky Elam White, David Faris, Don White, and others) from "A charter of William Longsword published
in the _Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory_, ed. Vera C. M. London (Publications of the Wiltshire
Record Society, vol. 35, 1979) seem to be "Comitissa Ida, mater mea" and "Ida comitissa, mater mea":
both translate to "Countess Ida, my mother".
"Countess Ida, my mother-in-law" would be "Comitissa Ida, socrus mea".
mater, matris = mother
socrus, socrus = mother-in-law
Dennis J. Cunniff
=================
Kay Allen AG
not his mother-in-law's given name.
As you pointed Ockham urged us to go to the most non-complicated
explanation. Yours and Adrian's explanation would require we accept a more
complicated explanation.
Kay Allen AG
Todd A. Farmerie
> But what is the objection to Adrian Channing's account that "the
> countess Ida his mother" was in fact Wm Longspee's mother-in-law, as we
> now term such relationships?
Well, for one thing, Wm's mother-in-law was not name Ida.
> In view of what little I know of usages of that time, this is the
> obvious explanation of the phrase and Ockham's (that excellent
> Englishman) razor demands that we should not multiply entities beyond
> necessity.
He calls her "mother", and she has a different name than the
known mother-in-law. We should not multiply entities needlessly,
but neither should we combine distinct individuals
illegitimately. I see no reason why William would not take the
opportunity to memorialize his mother, just because the land in
question had come to him through his wife (due to the nature of
his birth, he would not have had any land that came to him from
his mother).
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> As a trained historian and a professional genealogist, I believe I'm
> in an excellent position to judge whether or not the content of my
> posts deserves to be crossposted to both soc.genealogy.medieval and
> soc.history.medieval.
You may be all of this, but you are a novice to USENET, or you
would not be arguing such an indefensible position - that the
basic rules of netiquette don't apply to you.
> Despite what you say, the identity of King
> Henry II's mistress and the mother of his illegitimate son, William
> Longespee, is a matter of both historical and genealogical importance.
> As such, crossposting is fully warranted in this case.
The group (singular) in which a post is on-topic is that group
(singular) in which it is MOST relevant. There are rare (rare =
_extremely_ unusual) circumstances in which crossposting is
merited, but in such cases, followup headers should always be
used. A crosspost without followup is inexcusable.
> The crossposting issue aside, it's time that historians and
> genealogists began affiliating with one another. I extend my hand in
> friendship to my fellow historians and my fellow genealogists. May we
> as scholars join to find the answers we all seek. Collegiality is the
> key to finding those answers.
One should also read a group for at least 6 months before posting
to it. This is because a group is not defined by its name. Had
you done this, you would realize how disinterested that group is
in what you are peddling, and why regularly joining the two
groups in conversation is a bad idea.
(Doesn't it in the least disturb you that the only person
defending your actions is Hines?)
taf
Dolly Ziegler
-- one of my role models. Cheers, Dolly in Maryland
On 7 Apr 2002, D. Spencer
Hines wrote:
(snip)
> We've had FAR too much whining over, under and about this issue
---- and
> that last bloviation by taf reads like something from Miss
> Thistlebottom, when she goes into high dudgeon in deportment class in
> 1891. (snip)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Spencer Hines
pejorative.
The more accurate term is "simultaneous posting".
A post can *easily* be on topic in both SGM and SHM.
So, post it to both ---- after due consideration.
Now, posting to half a dozen disparate groups, just to kick up a row, is
clearly indefensible ---- so is profanity. So, condemn that ---- NOT
every post posted to SGM and SHM.
taf's basic problem is that he is an "anal personality" in Freudian
terms.
He sees what he refers to by the loaded pejorative "crossposting" as
"untidy" and "beyond my control."
taf abhors that. He wants to be "in control."
Occasionally, a post that is simultaneously posted to two groups brings
"undesirable elements" [in taf's lexicon] into SGM ---- and taf wants to
block that.
Such posts ALSO bring in new blood ---- productive blood ---- both to
SGM and SHM. taf doesn't want that either. He wants to work with the
Old Crowd.
Leo van de Pas's and Douglas Richardson's welcome postings to SHM can
only enrich that group ---- not damage it.
Finally, Thomas Jefferson would have very little respect for taf's
anserine position ---- zip point zero.
Freedom of Speech ---- Within Reason.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
She DOES have her moments, indeed.
I'm just objecting to her High-Dudgeon Mode. <g>
Cheers,
Spencer
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Dolly Ziegler" <d...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.0204072240270.28770-100000@mail...
Reedpcgen
> Much ink has been spilt on the pages of history
>regarding the bogus story of "Fair" Rosamond Clifford being the mother
>of William Longespee. For the first time, evidence is surfacing as to
>the true identity of William Longespee's mother. The information that
>I'm posting will eventually change the pages of the DNB, the
>Encyclopedia Brittanica, Complete Peerage, and many other historical
>reference works.
it really does amaze me that in spite of your having participated in threads on
this subject on this group in the past, you are assuming that all this is 'for
the first time.'
would not a union between the earl of norfolk and a daughter of the woman who
received east bergholt with her marriage be an explanation for why the earl
would have a connection with that place, or why he would so freely part with
the holding? One might suggest it was part of his wife's marriage portion, and
that this would be evidence that countess ida was indeed a daughter.
are you arguing that auda de chaumont was countess ida? please be clear about
this so we know what you are discussing.
paul
norenxaq
> > Despite what you say, the identity of King
> > Henry II's mistress and the mother of his illegitimate son, William
> > Longespee, is a matter of both historical and genealogical importance.
> > As such, crossposting is fully warranted in this case.
>
> The group (singular) in which a post is on-topic is that group
> (singular) in which it is MOST relevant. There are rare (rare =
> _extremely_ unusual) circumstances in which crossposting is
> merited, but in such cases, followup headers should always be
> used. A crosspost without followup is inexcusable.
>
rare? no. it is much more common, and necessary especially if one wants to
increase the probabilities of a reasonable response
>
> > The crossposting issue aside, it's time that historians and
> > genealogists began affiliating with one another. I extend my hand in
> > friendship to my fellow historians and my fellow genealogists. May we
> > as scholars join to find the answers we all seek. Collegiality is the
> > key to finding those answers.
>
> One should also read a group for at least 6 months before posting
> to it. This is because a group is not defined by its name. Had
> you done this, you would realize how disinterested that group is
> in what you are peddling, and why regularly joining the two
> groups in conversation is a bad idea.
>
6 months? no. if one has something to say in response to an inquiry or
information to impart, no waiting period is needed or suggested
>
> (Doesn't it in the least disturb you that the only person
> defending your actions is Hines?)
>
they aren't the only ones
>
> taf
ADRIANC...@cs.com
Dennis J. Cunniff wrote:
> The language seems to be Latin, and the operative words (quoted in prior
> postings from Kay Allen,
> Vicky Elam White, David Faris, Don White, and others) from "A charter of
> William Longsword published
> in the _Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory_, ed. Vera C. M. London
> (Publications of the Wiltshire
> Record Society, vol. 35, 1979) seem to be "Comitissa Ida, mater mea" and
> "Ida comitissa, mater mea":
> both translate to "Countess Ida, my mother".
>
> "Countess Ida, my mother-in-law" would be "Comitissa Ida, socrus mea".
>
> mater, matris = mother
> socrus, socrus = mother-in-law
>
Thank you for your post.
Do you mind if I ask, is the above based on your experience of translating
medieval charters. Early wills, in English, often use the terms for family
relationships loosely, thus the use of mother may well mean mother-in-law,
would the same be true for documents in Latin?
I only have Vera London translation for the phrase "for the souls of Ela, his
wife, and the Countess Ida, his mother". If I came across this in an English
document, I would assume, that both were deceased, but this is not the case
here. Have you any thoughts on this? (There is another example in the
Bradenstoke Cartulary where the same expression has been used but where the
deed indicates that the person is clearly living)
Adrian
Nathaniel Taylor
>> mater = mother
>
>Do you mind if I ask, is the above based on your experience of translating
>medieval charters. Early wills, in English, often use the terms for family
>relationships loosely, thus the use of mother may well mean mother-in-law,
>would the same be true for documents in Latin?
I think we can accept that 'mater' *could* be used in the legal /
associative sense for 'mother in law' in a 13th-century Latin charter in
England, but I would be happier with a *specific* contemporary
corroborating example with known individuals.
>I only have Vera London translation for the phrase "for the souls of Ela, his
>wife, and the Countess Ida, his mother". If I came across this in an English
>document, I would assume, that both were deceased, but this is not the case
>here. Have you any thoughts on this? (There is another example in the
>Bradenstoke Cartulary where the same expression has been used but where the
>deed indicates that the person is clearly living)
This is not a big deal. Most medieval monastic donations (in England
and elsewhere) have some variant on the formula 'pro remedio animae mee'
(sc. the donor), or for the souls of individuals, or a group, which
could be living or dead (or mixed). Prayers for the living could be
solicited as well as for the dead.
Nat Taylor
Douglas Richardson
The name of the individual who published the information in the New
England Register regarding Earl Roger Bigod's two wives was named
William Chauncey Fowler, not "Mr. Chauncey" as I stated. My thanks to
David Greene for pointing this error out to me.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.02040...@posting.google.com>...
Dennis J. Cunniff
>
> Dennis J. Cunniff wrote:
>
> > The language seems to be Latin, and the operative words (quoted in prior
> > postings from Kay Allen,
> > Vicky Elam White, David Faris, Don White, and others) from "A charter of
> > William Longsword published
> > in the _Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory_, ed. Vera C. M. London
> > (Publications of the Wiltshire
> > Record Society, vol. 35, 1979) seem to be "Comitissa Ida, mater mea" and
> > "Ida comitissa, mater mea":
> > both translate to "Countess Ida, my mother".
> >
> > "Countess Ida, my mother-in-law" would be "Comitissa Ida, socrus mea".
> >
> > mater, matris = mother
> > socrus, socrus = mother-in-law
> >
>
> Thank you for your post.
>
> Do you mind if I ask, is the above based on your experience of translating
> medieval charters. Early wills, in English, often use the terms for family
> relationships loosely, thus the use of mother may well mean mother-in-law,
> would the same be true for documents in Latin?
>
as given in most dictionaries. It's certainly possible that the words were used with something other
than their primary meaning, but to say so, at least one clear example should be found. I would
think the use of the word socrus in the Vulgate 'Book of Ruth' would fix it in the mind of most
scribes, and the only impetus for confusing the terms would be to be thinking in English while
writing in Latin. The secondary meanings of 'mater' in Latin would be origin, or source, or
motherland, or, in direct address, "Ma'am". But I don't think this is an instance of imprecision in
the term proper, like there is in 'nepos'.
> I only have Vera London translation for the phrase "for the souls of Ela, his
> wife, and the Countess Ida, his mother". If I came across this in an English
> document, I would assume, that both were deceased, but this is not the case
> here. Have you any thoughts on this? (There is another example in the
> Bradenstoke Cartulary where the same expression has been used but where the
> deed indicates that the person is clearly living)
>
For what it's worth, I think that most Christians of that time believed that both the living and the
dead have souls, and that prayer for the souls of both the living and dead was efficacious. I don't
think offering prayers for someone's soul necessarily implies they are dead. (Though I would wonder
if he had provided for his own soul's well-being elsewhere!).
Dennis J. Cunniff
Douglas Richardson
I suspect that a medieval man could refer to his mother-in-law as his
"mater," just as colonial men referred to their mother-in-law as
"mother." In this vein, I have found extremely rare instances (two
exactly) of men who referred to other men as their "nephews," when the
other individual was actually their nephew-in-law. This is two
instances out of hundreds of examples I have examined. In this case,
William Longespee's mother-in-law was clearly named Eleanor, not Ida.
Consequently, the reference to my "mater" Countess Ida would refer to
William's mother, not his wife's.
As for the name, Ida, I have on occasion seen it interchangeable in
the records with the given name, Idoine. However, I have never seen
it as a substitute for Eleanor.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Nathaniel Taylor <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<ntaylor-494D37...@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
all...@pacbell.net (Kay Allen AG) wrote:
> If he said mother, Ockham would assume he meant mother.
Exactly. And this word appears, from Testamenta Vetusta, to have had
two meanings in those times, those of "mother" and what we now describe
as "mother-in-law".
Or is this reading of those admittedly dodgy translations and
abstractions wrong?
> And he
The scribe of the cartulary said?
> said Ida, not his mother-in-law's given name.
Agreed
> As you pointed Ockham urged us to go to the most non-complicated
> explanation. Yours and Adrian's explanation would require we accept a more
> complicated explanation.
Not necessarily more complicated but one that warrants some examination
because of verbal usages of those times and possibly then rejection.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"Dennis J. Cunniff" <dcun...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> The language seems to be Latin, and the operative words (quoted in prior
> postings from Kay Allen, Vicky Elam White, David Faris, Don White, and
> others) from "A charter of William Longsword published in the _Cartulary
> of Bradenstoke Priory_, ed. Vera C. M. London (Publications of the
> Wiltshire Record Society, vol. 35, 1979) seem to be "Comitissa Ida,
> mater mea" and "Ida comitissa, mater mea": both translate to "Countess
> Ida, my mother".
>
> "Countess Ida, my mother-in-law" would be "Comitissa Ida, socrus mea".
>
> mater, matris = mother
> socrus, socrus = mother-in-law
Many thanks for the above. Can you also say whether "socrus" was in
common use at that time?
From my reading of the translations in Testamenta Vetusta, it seems that
mother's in law were regularly referred to as mother and that they had
no concept, in those times, of "in-law"
Nathaniel Taylor
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>I suspect that a medieval man could refer to his mother-in-law as his
>"mater," just as colonial men referred to their mother-in-law as
>"mother."
Douglas, thank you for your good post. I suspect this too, as you can
infer from my post which you quoted. Of course the only thing that is
useful is to find (or to fail to find) a confirming analogy in
13th-century charters.
>> I think we can accept that 'mater' *could* be used in the legal /
>> associative sense for 'mother in law' in a 13th-century Latin charter in
>> England, but I would be happier with a *specific* contemporary
>> corroborating example with known individuals.
>William Longespee's mother-in-law was clearly named Eleanor, not Ida.
>Consequently, the reference to my "mater" Countess Ida would refer to
>William's mother, not his wife's.
My post did not argue against this obvious point.
At any rate, it should be clear that the heart of the Ida question lies
in other areas--some of which have now been revived, but which have yet
to be stated succinctly here.
Nat Taylor
leo van de pas
in Latin. Now the names involved.
Countess Ida is the mother, or mother-in-law. The person we know as the
mother in law has been referred to as Eleonore and Alianore de Vitre. The
name that ties Countess Ida to the house of Tosny/Toeny/Tony is Ida. And
reference is made to Countess Ida of Hainault, wife of Roger III de Tosny.
If you look at ES III/4 Tafel 705 you find that this Ida is recorded as
Gertrude (Ida) von Hennegau (Hainault).
Gertrude, to me, seems pretty far removed from Ida, so what was the reason.
How far removed is Ida from Eleonore or Alianore? Could nicknames or
whatever be involved here?
It seems we are not on solid ground anywhere. It seems all we can say about
the mother of William Longespee is that she "could be a Countess Ida", could
be because she could also be his mother-in-law.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Countess Ida Bigod - A Search for Answers
Kay Allen AG
probably ment mother. If he had said Alianor, than we could have assumed
mother-in-law. But Ida is Ida and Alianor is Alianor and I don't see ground for
confusion.
Kay Allen AG
Dennis J. Cunniff
that's a clear counter-example. The use of 'socrus' certainly bracketed the specified period (The
Vulgate on one side, Erasmus on the other) but if some British legal documents fail to distinguish
between mother and mother-in-law, then that's the way it is!
Is 'socrus' never used in the Testamenta Vetusta?
Dennis J. Cunniff.
Reedpcgen
not clear to me what this new discovery is), let me expound a little. Two
years ago when we had the previous discussion about Ada/Auda/Alda de Chaumont,
Countess Ida, etc., I did extensive research in original records, including
charters, the Book of Fees, etc. In fact, we even had the unpublished
Flamstead Cartulary checked to be certain there was no mention of a daughter or
granddaughter of Ida of Hainault named Ida, or further information about Auda
de Chaumont. Others were also kind enough to check sources I did not have
access to, such as the Hundred Rolls.
At that time I checked _Dodnash Priory Charters_ (published by Boydell & Brewer
in 1998, v. 16 in the series Suffolk Charters).
Dodnash is in Suffolk near the Essex border, next to East Bergholt. In fact
the priory was initially established at East Bergholt in the aldergrove, and
later moved to Dodnash. Wimer the chaplain founded it (he had been 'alumnus'
of Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. The Earls of Norfolk held land in East
Bergholt and other parishes where tenants who held of him donated lands to
Dodnash.
Remember that this was a period where all respectable higher gentry made a
point of founding and supporting religious houses as they were able. Ada (de
Chaumont) de Toeni and her son Baldwin were also major supporters of this
foundation. But so, too, apparently were the immediate relatives of Wimer.
As we had discussed some two years ago, Henry I granted Roger de Toeni [d.
1157-62] and his wife Ida of Hainault 20 l. of lands in East Bergholt as her
marriage portion. Toeni land in East Bergholt passed to their second son, also
named Roger, and his wife Auda de Chaumont. She and her son Baldwin granted
lands in East Bergholt to Wimer for the use of the priory.
"Ada de Tonei" granted, at the petition of her son Baldwin "de Toeni", for the
soul of her husband Roger de Toeni [viri mei], her own soul and those of her
ancestors all her land in Bergholt, even to the water which divides Bergholt
from Dodnash for the establishment of a religious house. In the next charter,
Baldewin de Toeni granted to Wimer the chaplain all his land in Bergholt (an
apparently his rights to the land that was hers) in pure and perpetual alms for
the souls of Roger de Toeni his father, his mother, and all his ancestors
[charters 2 & 3, pp. 34-5].
Charter 4 states plainly that Baldwin de Toeni and his mother Alda granted
their lands in Bergholt at the instance of Wimer (the founder of the place).
It is worthy of note that the first three witnesses to Baldwin de Toeni's
charter are "domina Ada matre mea, Roberto de Chaumunt, Gilberto filio Wimeri".
Ada de Thoeni/Touni also granted land that had been held by one Brithwald, and
confirmed a pledge made by Richard de Bramford (charters 7 & 8, pp. 39-40).
The other charter granted by Ada de Toni was a parcel of lands in East
Bergholt, in exchange for a similar amount of meadow which the canons there had
granted to her.
Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, granted ("through the promtings of charity") the
homage and service of Adam Buris with all his tenement in the vill of Bergholt,
and all the land held by Alan filius Sewardi in the same vill, and all the land
held in demesne by William de Bramford, and all the aldergrove of the same fee.
"All this is confirmed as granted to him by the charter of William of
Bramford." William de Braham and his father Richard were among the witnesses.
(Charter 54, p. 73)
Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, also confirmed the grant of his mill of Flatford
in the vill of Bergholt. "just as Edward son of Wlfard of the Aldergrove
granted it to him". (charter 56, pp. 74-5) As Roger Bigod was not Earl until
1189, and the first grants by Auda and Baldwin were before 1189, they were
granted at different periods.
Auda de Chaumont was still alive in 1202 [Pipe Roll 4 John, p. 115]. It is
interesting to note that Roger de Akeni granted, possibly soon after Michaelmas
1228, all the land with appurtenances which Brictwald on the day of his death
held in Bergholt (charter 60, pp. 77-8; and see no. 61, pp. 78-9).
I don't see that it is particularly remarkable that the Earl of Norfolk held
lands in East Bergholt, or that his tenants granted lands held of him to a
foundation by Wimer, who had been connected to him.
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
>>The group (singular) in which a post is on-topic is that group
>>(singular) in which it is MOST relevant. There are rare (rare =
>>_extremely_ unusual) circumstances in which crossposting is
>>merited, but in such cases, followup headers should always be
>>used. A crosspost without followup is inexcusable.
>
> rare? no.
Yes, rare.
> it is much more common, and necessary especially if one wants to
> increase the probabilities of a reasonable response
It is never necessary, and it is only used more commonly because
it is misused. There is one place on USENET, and only one place,
where medieval genealogy is on-topic. If one would read the
medieval history group for the prescribed 6 months before posting
it would become clear what little prospect of a reasonable
response it presents.
This is all said without a consideration of the history of the
two groups, where crossposting by one inconsiderate individual
continually results in flame-wars, which disruptions have only
been controled, to the degree that they can be, through a
gentlemen's agreement, whereby if we respect their group they
will respect ours, and limit their Hines-bashing to their own
group. While imperfect, it is better than the alternatives, so
there had better be a good reason not to abide by this agreement,
considering the consequences.
Then, every so often, we get a poster who is so impressed by
their own insightfulness that they just cannot resist sharing
their intellect with the larger audience. Why? Certainly not
because of the answers it generates, as genealogical posts in
soc.his.med generally only generate responses that say, "go to
soc.gen.med".
>>One should also read a group for at least 6 months before posting
>>to it. This is because a group is not defined by its name. Had
>>you done this, you would realize how disinterested that group is
>>in what you are peddling, and why regularly joining the two
>>groups in conversation is a bad idea.
>
> 6 months? no. if one has something to say in response to an inquiry or
> information to impart, no waiting period is needed or suggested
Yes, six months. This is basic USENET 101. Go to news.groups
and ask there - they will tell you exactly that. (Actually they
will tell you to read 6 months before posting, unless you think
you shouldn't have to, in which case you should read for a full
year.)
taf
D. Spencer Hines
there - they will tell you exactly that. (Actually they will tell you
to read 6 months before posting, unless you think you shouldn't have to,
in which case you should read for a full year.)"
taf
--------------
Pure, unadulterated twaddle.
taf probably believes in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny too. I'll
bet he wears high-button shoes and has his mother lace them up for him
as well.
Where *do* these little hot-house-flowers and tender-violet, ivory-tower
academics come from?
They are hilarious. Someone must be inventing them and turning them
loose on USENET ---- like mechanised clones of a primordial Grand Wuss.
Simultaneous postings, with discretion, to a limited number of groups is
perfectly appropriate.
taf needs to retake Thinking 101 if he honestly believes that people, in
the mass, are going to read a newsgroup for six months before posting to
it.
Whoever is selling him bad weed ---- cease and desist ---- post-haste.
You're disrupting the newsgroup.
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
Hans Vogels
>
> about 1212, he having come of age about 1233. Ida's next brother, Stephen
> Longespee, was presumably born soon afterwards, as I show he witnessed
> a charter in 1240 and acknowledged a debt in 1241.
>
> As for Countess Ida's own date of birth, it appears her eldest son,
> William Longespee, first appears in the records in 1191/2. If
> correct, then we may assume he was born sometime in the period,
> 1170/5.
Hello Douglas,
What's your criterium for a man comming of age. Is it an accepted
standard age in the English speaking countries or a personal guess?
I raise this question because I'm originating from a different spot on
the continent. The province Noord-Brabant in the Netherlands to be
exact. Medieval (eastern and southern) Brabant seemed to use the
following minimum ages.
7 years for children to whitness grants and deeds by their parents.
14 years for boys to be able to whitness on their on their own right
and to be able to buy and sell property. This age seems to be closely
linked to the minimum marriage age for boys according to mediaval
canonical law.
18 years for a man to be able to fullfill his duties as a vassal.
24 years for comming of age.
It was also possible to become earlier of age by marrying < 24 years
or by act of emmanciation. The boy was provided with means of living
(property or income) and had to be living outside the family for a
period of six weeks and three days.
The minimum marriage age for a woman was 12 years. A girl was usually
married between the age of 15 tot 20 years (not talking of marriage
contracts) or got transfered to a nunnery.
In other parts of The Netherlands (say Holland-Kleve) and Germany
different ages were used so it could depent of the area.
I hope you don't mind my pointing this out. I'm not familiar with the
criteria used in the English en French countries but it would seem
adviseble to use a reference book so that at least on that score
you're sure of the basics.
I myself use (in my historial setting) a generation span of 25-30
years for an eldest son, named after the paternal grandfather and 20
years for a daughter. For younger sons (named after maternal
grandfather, father and others) and daughters I use a minimum of 30
years for a generation, keeping in mind that habits can change from
area to area and family to family and from period to period.
Met regards,
Hans Vogels, Helmond.
E-mail: h.vo...@chello.nl
Reedpcgen
I had calculated that William Longespee was born about 1170 according to the
lands (etc.) he received from his brother in 1191.
One did not have to be 'of majority' to receive land, but from the wording of
the particular records it appeared that he had then likely attained majority.
This is according to English law, and was specific to those who held of the
crown in chief by knight's service (or their heirs). If one held by socage or
other tenures, ages were different. Those who were residents of burroughs also
had different customs. We've discussed some details on the group before, but
there is no universal standard, and these standards, as they derive from
English law, are only applicable to English lands (and Wales, as it was held by
the English crown).
Paul
Reedpcgen
as Henry II was favorable towards his well born illegitimate children (and
those born by favorite companions), that WIlliam Longespee would have been
granted lands as soon as he attained majority. It is, however, possible that
he was older than twenty-one when he is first recorded as receiving lands of
the crown. The one original source which I believe would mention William
earlier than 1191 would be the warddrobe and household accounts, as it appears
he and Richard were quite close and it is possible that he was raised in the
household, or at least learned military service among the king's knights and
yeomen. These records, however, are not in print and I am not at Kew to make a
stab at it.
To quote previous posts:
[I posted, 03/04/1998:]
"...on 5 Feb. 1191 King Richard sent to the chancellor and the justiciars from
Messina ordering them to give the manor of Kirton in Lin[d]sey to his brother
William [Longespee], "Teste me ipso." _The Itinerary of King Richard I..._ by
Lionel Landon (London, 1935) [Pipe Roll Society], 46 (No. 350). There are
other references to WIlliam in this work on pp. 120, 122, 128-30, 133, 134 bis,
141, 142 ter."
[I posted, 03/07/1998]:
"The FIRST mention of William Longespee I can document is in 1191, after he had
received the grant from his brother Richard I (mentioned in a previous post).
The Pipe Roll Society, new series, v. 2, contains two references to "Willelmus
frater Regis" concerning his land in Kyrketon, co. Lincs. (p. 2, Mich. 1191, p.
231, Mich. 1192)."
John Sharp, myself and others, had proved that both the date of a grant
(attributed by DNB to this William Longespee) of the manor of Appleby in 1188
was in error, but that it was also the wrong WIlliam Longespee (Henry II's
brother, not his son, who is the subject of this discussion), which removed
that chronological impedement from this discussion.
John also posted [1998/03/07]:
"The 1191 grant of Kirton in Lindsey by king Richard to his brother stands
immume to question. The original writ is PRO: DL 10/45 and the Pipe Rolls for
the years 4, 5 and 6 Richard I show William the brother of the king in
possession."
Paul
Reedpcgen
purpose of the grant would be to provide William Longespee income with which he
could support himself. It was five years later [1196] that he was married to
the five-year-old heiress of the Earldom of Salisbury. That was certainly
favoritism.
Am I right in theorizing that there would be no incentive to grant lands to
William Longespee before he attained majority, as those lands would be held by
others (the crown, or grantees) until he attained majority? And if he were a
member of the household prior to 1191, he would have been housed and clothed at
the crown's expense.
Paul
Richard Smyth
months, and then ask there." Absent this change the recommendation is
self-contradictory. (Unless news.groups is not a news group.)
> Yes, six months. This is basic USENET 101. Go to news.groups
> and ask there - they will tell you exactly that. (Actually they
> will tell you to read 6 months before posting, unless you think
> you shouldn't have to, in which case you should read for a full
> year.)
>
> taf
>
Regards,
Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com
D. Spencer Hines
And a year, if you think you shouldn't wait.
Classic.
Twaddle.
Yes, Virginia ---- we have many extremely flakey academics in America,
who write -- and think -- with their elbows.
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Richard Smyth" <sm...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:001a01c1dfa9$86ef2090$0201a8c0@peirce...
Douglas Richardson
Gee, Todd, you sound like my mother: "No sex until you've dated for
six months and no marriage until you've dated for a year."
Personally, I think a person should wait at least two years before
crossposting. Then, there are no surprises. No fun either, I might
add.
dcr
P.S. Just pulling your leg, Todd. As with sex and marriage, it's up
to the individual to decide.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"Dennis J. Cunniff" <dcun...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Is 'socrus' never used in the Testamenta Vetusta?
Pass! TV has been translated and abstracted into English; it is not
wholly reliable and the footnotes by the editor even less.
But it was evident that after, say, 1450 "in-law" did become used as a
term in wills.
Reedpcgen
to see if others think the conclusion sound.
(a) William Longespee, being illegitimate, was in the eyes of the law child of
no one, and thus would have had no inheritance of his own.
(b) He would not have land until it was given him. However, once he was given
land by the crown, held in chief by knight's service, such as the grant of
Kirton in Lindsey, Lincolnshire, he would have become subject to the tenure by
which it was held.
(c) If William Longespee were not of majority in 1191, once he received the
grant of Kirton in Lindsey, it would have been held by the crown or a guardian
until he attained majority, with its profits and his marriage. His guardian
would have been certain to marry him off or sell his marriage to him.
(d) Thus there would have been no real incentive for the King to grant William
anything important before age twenty-one, but a strong incentive to grant him a
favored holding as soon as he had attained majority, presumably at his own
request or the pleadings of someone like Countess Ida.
Maitland 2:438:
"There is more than one 'full age.' The young burgess is of full age when he
can count money and measure cloth; the young sokeman when he is fifteen, the
tenant by knight's service when he is twenty-one years old.[4] ... The
military tenant is kept in ward until he is twenty-one years old:"
[4] "Glanvill, vii. 9; Bracton, f. 86b; Fleta, p. 6; Britton, ii. 9."
As favored as William Longespee was, by the above rationale, I would take it
that he was just of majority in 1191, not several years older, and definitely
not younger, thus born ca. 1170 (not 1165-70, or 1170-5).
Paul
Vickie Elam White
>For the first time, evidence is surfacing as to
>the true identity of William Longespee's mother. The information that
>I'm posting will eventually change the pages of the DNB, the
>Encyclopedia Brittanica, Complete Peerage, and many other historical
>reference works.
Excuse me??? Check the archives for many detailed threads about
Countess Ida. Nothing you have mentioned so far is new to the
discussion.
And here you had a waiting all these years for your the "solution" you
claimed to have found.
Vickie Elam White
Vickie Elam White
>But I have never found anyone who would answer this point about the
>reference of the term "mother" (or whatever the word was in whatever
>language the record was written). We are suggesting that this term
>meant both the modern 'mother and the modern 'mother-in-law', and that
>"mother" was thereby ambiguous. Can anyone refute this interpretation?
English may be ambiguous, but the Latin isn't. If he had meant
mother-in-law,
he would have used the word for it. It has been years since I took Latin in
high school, so I don't remember the word off-hand, but I do know that it
exists. Perhaps someone else will be able to furnish it for us. Latin even
has
different words for aunts and uncles depending on which side of the family
they are on, which is wonderful for this type of problem. I wish that our
language was that precise today.
Vickie Elam White
Vickie Elam White
>But it was evident that after, say, 1450 "in-law" did become used as a
>term in wills.
Yes, and it often referred to step-children and step-parents rather than
the relationship by marriage that we use today. That has led to some
huge misinterpretations of wills and erroneous family trees over the years,
and it is so difficult to correct them once they hit the 'net and books.
Vickie Elam White
D. Spencer Hines
It is a *masculine* noun , of the Fourth Declension.
[N.B. Many a man has probably seen his mother-in-law as quite
"masculine" and aggressive. <g> ---- DSH]
But, I'm certainly not saying that _SOCRUS_ was used in every mediaeval
document, where it supposedly "should" have been.
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Vickie Elam White" <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a8vraa$6dp$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
Vickie Elam White
>The Latin word for _mother-in-law_ is _SOCRUS, SOCRUS_.
Thank you.
Vickie Elam White
D. Spencer Hines
However, as I noted:
"But, I'm certainly not saying that _SOCRUS_ was used in every mediaeval
document, where it supposedly "should" have been." ---- DSH
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Vickie Elam White" <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a903lk$jv5$1...@suaar1ac.prod.compuserve.com...
Paul J Gans
I'm not. So here it is:
STOP IT NOW!
A number of you, including Leo, Vicki, and others have
followed that ass Hines and that idiot Richardson in
crossposting to soc.history.medieval.
If you don't stop, I promise you a flame war that will
rot your socks.
Understand?
----- Paul J. Gans
leo van de pas
I have NOT cross posted, I have sent messages to both, but separately. As I
have joined soc.hist.gen I do believe I have the right to contribute. Get
your facts correct before you start accusing. For your information, I don't
think I will be at soc.hist for very long.
I do object to you calling Douglas Richarson an idiot, in my opinion he is
misguided and too keen to make his mark, but an idiot he is not.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
HIS classroom.
Curiously, he thinks that SHM is his classroom too and that he has the
right to determine under what precise conditions people can post to HIS
newsgroup.
VERY Curious
And:
Hilarious.
How quickly these people, if they don't get *precisely* what THEY
want ---- turn into Net Nazis.
Appalling!
Further, this fellow appears to have been drinking and posting again.
Sad, very sad indeed...
His students deserve far better.
So do we...
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a905ep$k80$4...@news.panix.com...
Paul J. Gans
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, leo van de pas wrote:
> Dear oh Dear Paul Gans,
>
> I have NOT cross posted, I have sent messages to both, but separately. As I
> have joined soc.hist.gen I do believe I have the right to contribute. Get
> your facts correct before you start accusing. For your information, I don't
> think I will be at soc.hist for very long.
>
> I do object to you calling Douglas Richarson an idiot, in my opinion he is
> misguided and too keen to make his mark, but an idiot he is not.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
Leo:
It doesn't matter if you sent the message once to both
groups or individually to each. Soc.history.medieval
is still seeing off-topic postings.
Since I strongly doubt that you read the message you
were responding to on soc.history.medieval, I have
no idea why you thought that group would be interested
in your response.
As for Richardson, he's been asked politely by a number
of people, including myself, to stop. He's ignored all
requests. In that regard he's just like Hines, an
overgrown child who wants his tantrums read by total
strangers.
----- Paul J. Gans
leo van de pas
But I do believe I have the right
1.to contribute
2.to refute or correct when my name is (ab)used
3.as my only subject is medieaval genealogy and history I cannot see that my
messages were off-topic.
You accused me of crossposting, but now you change your tune and I am not
allowed to contribute?
Best wishes, as always.
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
This pogue is clearly unhinged and probably intoxicated.
As I noted previously, he thinks HE has the right to determine what
people post to a public USENET newsgroup, SHM. He has just confirmed my
assertion. Q.E.D.
What Vicki, Douglas, Leo and I have been posting is quite properly
perfectly applicable to newsgroups that deal with both Mediaeval
Genealogy and Mediaeval History.
Mediaeval Genealogists and Historians, as well as those of us interested
in these two important disciplines should be building Bridges to each
other ---- not Chinese Walls, in order to separate us.
That's the way good scholarship works. It's incredible that I have to
tell an NYU college professor that basic, primordial truth.
If Gans doesn't want to read these fine posts, he should adjust his
filters, or ramp up his Linus Security Blanket, his personal killfile.
But no, he'd much rather throw a public tantrum, make a scene ---- and
in the process further make an egregious ass of himself.
Appalling!
But...he's a grownup...sort of...
So:
It's His Choice.
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.44.02040...@panix2.panix.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
> 3.as my only subject is medieaval genealogy and history I cannot see that my
> messages were off-topic.
By definition, if they are on-topic for soc.gen.med, they are
off-topic for soc.hist.med, and vice versa. (A message is
on-topic only in the one group MOST relevant.)
Please, everyone. This is going exactly as I knew it would. We
have our community, and soc.hist.med has theirs. You are welcome
to contribute to either, but please respect each - if it's
genealogy it belongs in (and only in) soc.gen.med, and if it's
history (which for these purposes is defined more specifically as
non-genealogical history) then it belongs in soc.hist.med, but
there is next to nothing that belongs in both groups. This
includes clarifications and refutations of other peoples'
crossposts. They didn't want to see the original, and they don't
want to see the response. Just think how this group feels when
participants in other groups bring their flame war here, and each
has to get the last word - I won't name names, but you know the
two I am talking about. Show their group the respect they
deserve, or they most assuredly will not return the favor.
Just stop!
taf
Douglas Richardson
> | groups or individually to each. Soc.history.medieval
> | is still seeing off-topic postings.
> |
> | Since I strongly doubt that you read the message you
> | were responding to on soc.history.medieval, I have
> | no idea why you thought that group would be interested
> | in your response.
> |
> | As for Richardson, he's been asked politely by a number
> | of people, including myself, to stop. He's ignored all
> | requests. In that regard he's just like Hines, an
> | overgrown child who wants his tantrums read by total
> | strangers.
> |
> | ----- Paul J. Gans
Dear Paul ~
We need to build bridges between historians and genealogists, not fences.
I stand for friendship, free association, and collegiality.
Best always,
Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Todd A. Farmerie
> We need to build bridges between historians and genealogists, not fences.
> I stand for friendship, free association, and collegiality.
Umm, Doug, do you intentionally misfile library books as well,
just to spread the appreciation for the books you are reading
among people reading on other subjects. That is what you are
doing here. This is like saying that everyone should have an
appreciation for nature, so that is why I am releasing wild
animals in peoples' houses.
taf
William Black
Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.02041...@posting.google.com...
> We need to build bridges between historians and genealogists,
Why?
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
D. Spencer Hines
Friendship, free association, and collegiality mean just that ---- not
taf's anserine formulation of "misfiling library books". What an
incredibly barren, stunted, circumscribed and pedestrian mind that
analogy reveals.
Gans and taf want barriers and walls ---- the thicker and higher the
better ---- between Genealogy and History ---- Douglas wants to build
bridges between Genealogists and Historians.
That's the bottom line ---- anything else is pure sophistry and
folderol.
Further, no one need read a message twice. Any decent newsreader will
hide a message that has already been read in another newsgroup. Get
one.
Those who are not interested in messages on certain subjects can filter
them out. No one wants to read everything. But some folks, the Net
Nazis such as taf and Gans, want to tell other folks what they will be
permitted to see ---- rigidly determined.
Au fond, this is a battle between the cognoscenti, those who realize
that genealogists cannot ignore historians or vice versa and that the
work of each enriches the other ---- and the yahoos.
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3CB464A4...@interfold.com...
William Black
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:27_s8.154$jg3....@eagle.america.net...
>Au fond, this is a battle between the cognoscenti, those who realize
> that genealogists cannot ignore historians or vice versa and that the
> work of each enriches the other ---- and the yahoos.
So why are there no Universities with a Department of Genealogy?
Douglas Richardson
Dear Todd ~
I'm a trained historian and a professional genealogist. The majority
of my posts deal with both historical and genealogical issues. This
is why I have decided to crosspost. This is my choice, not your's.
Please respect it. We need to build bridges between historians and
genealogists, not burn them. "They have their community, we have
our's" mentality leaves a lot to be desired.
D. Spencer Hines
"The Hardening of the Categories"
[N.B. And the arteries... ---- DSH]
In Academia.
"Teach in your own department and stay out of mine"
Amusing.
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.02041...@posting.google.com...
| "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
D. Spencer Hines
This is what they refer to as:
"The Hardening of the Categories..."
In Academia.
[N.B. And the arteries... ---- DSH]
"Teach in your own department and stay out of mine!"
Amusing.
Budgets, Grants, Promotions, Prestige, Perquisites, Designated Chairs,
International Recognition, Book Deals, Lucrative Consulting Contracts,
Endowed Institutes ---- All Hinge On It.
"You work your pea patch and I'll work mine."
The academics then bring those same anserine, cunniculan-pygan attitudes
into SGM and SHM ---- and try to impose them on all of us.
Mike Dana
>
> Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:5cf47a19.02041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > We need to build bridges between historians and genealogists,
>
> Why?
Perhaps to satisfy homeless trolls?
--Mike
ADRIANC...@cs.com
writes:
I wrote:
> Prebend:- The estate of Durnford [now, I think Great Durnford, a few miles
> north of Salisbury] in Wiltshire was held by William of Eu in 1086, whose
> lands were confiscated in 1093. The church was endowed by Isabel de Tosny,
>
> widow of Walter son of Richard and was granted by her to the cathedral [of
> Salisbury] before 1158. ..." [The Canons of Salisbury by Christopher Ross,
>
> 2000]
>
> Now it looks to me as if this is the Isabel de Toeny/Tosny who was daughter
>
> of Ralph de Toeny IV (c1076-1126), that is the Isabel who married Walter de
>
> Clifford son of Richard FitzPons [See CP Vol XIV addition to note e) on
> page
> 762 of Vol XII/i] and I understand they are the parents of Rosamund
> Clifford.
>
I see that K.S.B. Keats-Rohan states that this Walter was son of Richard fitz
Gilbert de Clare and Rohesia Gifford. He died without issue by his wife
Isabel daughter of Ralph de Tosny in 1138. He was brother of Gilbert
Strongbow, earl of Pembroke (Domesday Descendants, page 400)
Adrian
Don Stone
> I'm a trained historian and a professional genealogist. The majority
> of my posts deal with both historical and genealogical issues. This
> is why I have decided to crosspost. This is my choice, not your's.
> Please respect it. We need to build bridges between historians and
> genealogists, not burn them. "They have their community, we have
> our's" mentality leaves a lot to be desired.
When I think about bridges between historians and genealogists, I think of the work
of people like Sir Anthony Wagner (_Pedigree and Progress_, _English Genealogy_,
etc.), who was especially skillful in exploring the historical implications of broad
patterns in genealogical data, for example. I think that this sort of work is both
interesting and important, and I would like to see more of it.
My interpretation of what we are hearing loudly and clearly from a number of
participants in s.h.m. is that they are not interested in detailed analyses of
specific genealogical puzzles in isolation, and I think we should respect that. If,
however, a genealogical perspective sheds light on why a certain medieval person
took a certain action, a posting to s.h.m. commenting on this would probably have
a positive reception.
-- Don Stone
D. Spencer Hines
SHM ---- and/or vice versa.
In fact very few posts should be sent simultaneously to both newsgroups.
To imply that someone IS suggesting such a course of action is a lie, a
prevarication and a Red Herring.
And Don Stone knows that.
'Nuff Said.
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CB48354...@verizon.net...
tiglath
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a91rd7$c3v$2...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
> news:27_s8.154$jg3....@eagle.america.net...
> >Au fond, this is a battle between the cognoscenti, those who
realize
> > that genealogists cannot ignore historians or vice versa and that
the
> > work of each enriches the other ---- and the yahoos.
>
> So why are there no Universities with a Department of Genealogy?
>
http://www.samford.edu/schools/ighr/ighr.html
Ignorance should be painful.
D. Spencer Hines
Ignorance *should* be painful and instructive.
Some folks just INSIST on *posting* first and *thinking* not at all.
Little Willie is caught short yet again.
He just doesn't measure up.
But, he has proved that he's a Gans-trained man ---- and may yet win
that Golden Coprolite.
"I post off the top," says my pet goose ---- Emperor Gans.
Hilarious!
Deus Vult.
"One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no
ordinary man could be such a fool."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) [1903-1950] ---- _Notes on
Nationalism_, May, 1945
Sol Disinfectus Optimus Est. Peccatoris Justificatio Absque
Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Lines 166-167
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
---------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"tiglath" <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:a922c3$hvf$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
D. Spencer Hines
scholarly standards and probably better educated people posting, across
the board as well, than does SHM.
This is a differential in competence level of long standing. It is
epitomised in this recent statement by the little old schlockmeister of
Washington Square:
"...I've often likened a newsgroup, particularly this one, as [sic] a
meeting of friends and acquaintances in a pub -- British style
preferably. There are several conversations going on simultaneously and
folks drift from conversation to conversation, mostly saying what they
wish [sic] off the top of their head.... [sic]"
Paul J. Gans ---- 28 March 2002
SGM *clearly* does not operate in that sloppy, anserine, careless
fashion. People do their homework before posting ---- in the main. And
there have been steady improvements on SGM over the past five to six
years.
Here is the other model again, in a slightly different anserine
explication:
"...Sometimes we post off the top of our heads. No problem there, most
everyone is guilty of that...."
Paul J. Gans ---- 13 January 2000
---------------------------------------
If there is no "problem" with it, why does the word "guilty" even come
into it? Obviously, there is a "problem" with it ---- it's careless and
sloppy and perpetuates bum dope.
So, there is definitely a major cultural difference and a marked
difference in seriousness and competence between the two newsgroups.
No one in his right mind would propose that all posts in one group
should be sent to the other. That would be totally addle-pated. It's a
Red Herring. "Fugedaboudit" ---- as Robert De Niro would say.
The cultural differences, the marked differences in competence will not
change until some pogues and poguettes die off or retire ---- that is a
Real World consideration.
Probably no more than 5-10%, at *most*, of the posts that are sent to
SGM should also be sent to SHM ---- some weeks far less than that no
doubt ---- perhaps 1-2%. And the decision as to which posts should be
sent simultaneously must be at the discretion of the author.
We are reasonable people. We can make it work.
William Black
A few one day courses at summer school a university department do not make.
Read what I wrote.
Now, try again...
William Black
> Indeed.
>
> Ignorance *should* be painful and instructive.
>
> Some folks just INSIST on *posting* first and *thinking* not at all.
>
> Little Willie is caught short yet again.
Oh no I wasn't.
That's not a department, it a few courses run by a library.
Paul J Gans
>http://www.samford.edu/schools/ighr/ighr.html
>Ignorance should be painful.
I'm sorry. Samford does not have a department of genealogy.
Through its library it is offering a series of courses in
the period June 9-14, 2002.
This can be checked out via Samford's home page at
---- Paul J. Gans
PS: One hopes DSH does his genealogy more carefully.
Douglas Richardson
to both newsgroups. This is much ado about nothing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<jW%s8.160$jg3....@eagle.america.net>...
tiglath
>
> tiglath <tig...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> news:a922c3$hvf$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a91rd7$c3v$2...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in
message
> > > news:27_s8.154$jg3....@eagle.america.net...
> > > >Au fond, this is a battle between the cognoscenti, those who
> > realize
> > > > that genealogists cannot ignore historians or vice versa and
that
> > the
> > > > work of each enriches the other ---- and the yahoos.
> > >
> > > So why are there no Universities with a Department of Genealogy?
> > >
> >
> > http://www.samford.edu/schools/ighr/ighr.html
> >
> > Ignorance should be painful.
>
> A few one day courses at summer school a university department do
not make.
>
> Read what I wrote.
>
That university has a _faculty_ of genealogy.
I understand we must forgive you lack of familiarity with academic
terms.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"Vickie Elam White" <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote
>
> >But I have never found anyone who would answer this point about the
> >reference of the term "mother" (or whatever the word was in whatever
> >language the record was written). We are suggesting that this term
> >meant both the modern 'mother and the modern 'mother-in-law', and that
> >"mother" was thereby ambiguous. Can anyone refute this interpretation?
>
> English may be ambiguous, but the Latin isn't. If he had meant
> mother-in-law,
> he would have used the word for it. It has been years since I took Latin in
> high school, so I don't remember the word off-hand, but I do know that it
> exists. Perhaps someone else will be able to furnish it for us.
"Socrus" we ave been told.
But I suspect it is classical latin that you are referring to. My
brother who did classical latin for a degree once told me he would not
be able to handle some medieval latin documents that I offered him as he
could not understand it. Further there is the consideration of what
word was used by whoever told the scribe what to write: it was probably
norman-french. Finally there is the fact that in the translations and
transcriptions of documents of that period it is evident that they did
not use a word for "mother-in-law".
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim Powys-Lybbe
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> > | It doesn't matter if you sent the message once to both
> > | groups or individually to each. Soc.history.medieval
> > | is still seeing off-topic postings.
> > |
> > | Since I strongly doubt that you read the message you
> > | were responding to on soc.history.medieval, I have
> > | no idea why you thought that group would be interested
> > | in your response.
> > |
> > | As for Richardson, he's been asked politely by a number
> > | of people, including myself, to stop. He's ignored all
> > | requests. In that regard he's just like Hines, an
> > | overgrown child who wants his tantrums read by total
> > | strangers.
> > |
> > | ----- Paul J. Gans
>
> Dear Paul ~
>
> We need to build bridges between historians and genealogists, not fences.
But the bridge can easily be made by parallel posting and not by
cross-posting with all the problems this brings in train. My experience
with other groups on totally separate subjects is that medium-volume
focussed discussions rapidly become high-volume, unfocussed, and even
irrelevant discussions if cross-posting starts. At least my news-reader
software gives me a warning message if I should dare to cross-post.
Parallel posting is where you send one copy of the post to one newsgroup
and another to the other group.
If members of the other group particularly like to study the things we
are interested in, then they should subscribe to this group. By all
means notify them of a medieval genealogy discussion and invite them to
subscribe if they are interested.
<cross-posting snipped>
Betty Harris
page of medieval Latin to a Latin Professor and he said no way could he
translate it.
Robert S Baxter
Betty,
I for one don't entirely agree. I have quite a bit of classical Latin under
my belt(5 in secondary school and 4 in college) and don't particularly have
any difficulty. The cases are the same, so are the conjugations. The
syntax is simpler, in fact easier, more like English, just the vocabulary is
a little different and sometimes the monks seem to make up words, like they
do in French during the transition from late Norman French into Middle
English. It is rather like the relationship between Attic and Koine Greek.
I think it really has to do with a certain snobbishness on the part of
Latin classisists.
Regards,
Bob
Drew Nicholson
> hide a message that has already been read in another newsgroup. Get
> one.
>
newsgroup, nu?
Drew Nicholson
> That university has a _faculty_ of genealogy.
>
> I understand we must forgive you lack of familiarity with academic
> terms.
>
"Department", not a "faculty".
19 people to teach seven days of classes? wow. It's probably a good deal
for the money, if you're into that sort of thing...
Todd A. Farmerie
> I'm a trained historian and a professional genealogist.
And I have a pet rock - so what? I don't give a rat's a** what
qualifications you choose to label yourself with. (By the way,
this is the third time you have marched these out, as if you need
to keep reminding yourself of your own importance.) They are not
relevant to this issue, which is about appropriate behavior on
USENET.
> The majority
> of my posts deal with both historical and genealogical issues.
All of your posts deal with genealogical questions (well, all but
the one that dealt with your travel schedule). The group most
relevant, based on name, charter, and content is soc.gen.med.
That means that this material is OFF-TOPIC in any group BUT
soc.gen.med, BY DEFINITION.
> This is why I have decided to crosspost.
You have decided to crosspost because you consider yourself too
important to be bound by the more civil constraints recommended
by both the established principles of USENET and the documented
history of these groups, each of which demonstrates that such
crossposting is a 'bad idea'. What makes you think you know
better than all of the insignificant people who have been here
long enough to have learned this lesson the hard way?
> This is my choice, not your's.
True - and if you want to run naked through the streets while
playing with yourself, it is your choice as well, but that
doesn't mean that you _should_ do it, nor that you should not be
called on the carpet for it.
> Please respect it.
You are the one who is not showing respect. You are
disrespecting everyone here and everyone in s.h.m. In fact, you
are now even dishonoring the promise that you made to me, that if
your crossposts resulted in flames (which they have) you would
stop. Am I to assume then that your statements are only valid
when they are convenient to you? - not very collegial.
You are not the first to come in here and think you know better
than the people who have been here from the start. You, of
course, are a "trained historian" and "professional genealogist",
as you are so fond of pointing out (I guess it depends on the
definition of "professional" one uses - in some contexts, it
refers to behavior, rather than how one makes a living). Well,
you will find a lot of people here who could themselves use those
descriptions, and they don't seem to have any problems sticking
with the program. What makes you so special that this doesn't
apply to you? Do you really think that you are the sole
individual so insightful that you must violate USENET standards?
Now, let's get something straight. I (and Don) have a special
responsibility to keep this group functioning in some semblance
of order. That is because of our roles as listowners of the
mailing list, and the nature of the mailing list in the
functioning of this community. What you are doing will, sooner
or later (in fact, it's already happening), screw this up, and
make our job harder, and yet you ask me to respect your decision
to make a nuisance of yourself. Whatever you do in the outside
world, here you are but one of several hundred, and you are
disrespecting every one of them. All of your claimed
qualifications may allow you feel good about yourself, but they
will not cause me to abandon my responsibility to all of the
lowly readers of this group that you apparently feel do not merit
your respect.
> We need to build bridges between historians and
> genealogists, not burn them. "They have their community, we have
> our's" mentality leaves a lot to be desired.
"Let there be Peace on Earth, and . . . ", Oh, screw it. If you
think that your inappropriate crossposting to a group THAT
DOESN'T WANT YOU THERE is going to make the world a better place,
you have an ego in severe need of deflation. (My comment, by the
way, had a context. We are not talking about genealogists and
historians here. We are talking about a specific group of
genealogists, and a specific group of historians, groups that
have proven that they mix about as well as water and lithium metal.)
USENET is divided into areas of discussion so that those
interested can go to the group dealing with topic that interests
them, and read to their heart's content. Everyone in soc.his.med
knows exactly where soc.gen.med is located, and can read it and
post to it at their leisure. They choose not to. HOW DARE THEY!
We can't have that, can we? We have to FORCE it on them,
because they don't know what a Brave New World it could be if
only they weren't so ignorant? Fortunately, we have Mr.
Richardson here, with all of his lauded qualifications, to
enlighten their dark and depressing world with the brilliance of
his intellect (and his travel schedule).
All of this is obviously not going to change your behavior,
because you are a "trained historian" and "professional
genealogist", which apparently dispensates all sins. How dare we
suggest that what you are doing might be counterproductive? Yes,
we have been in this group for years, and seen the effects of
behavior like yours numerous times before (mostly done by your
lone defender, Hines), but how can these years of experience
here, in this group, possibly compare with your role as a novice
with much exercised (but irrelevant to the issue) credentials?
I've done with this inconsiderate man. Please everyone, since he
cannot control his own inappropriate behavior, don't compound it
by responding without removing his ill-mannered crossposts.
taf