Mary, alleged bastard daughter of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou
Douglas Richardson
A few weeks ago, I posted regarding Mary, Abbess of Shatesbury, who
was addressed as "sister" by King Henry II of England (see my earlier
post further below). Inasmuch as some historians have suggested that
Mary was King Henry II's blood sister (rather than spiritual sister),
I asked if anyone knew how kings addressed abbesses in this time
period. If abbesses were commonly called "sister" by kings, then the
evidence collapses that Mary was King Henry II's sister.
In the intervening time, I've located the following letter written by
King Philippe IV of France in 1297 which is recorded in the medieval
source, Foedera. This letter indicates that King Philippe addressed
several monks of the Order of the Friar Preachers as "brothers"
[freres]. While this doesn't answer the direct question about how an
abbess was addressed by a king, it does at least indicate that monks
were called "brother" not "father" in this time period by kings.
If anyone has any other contemporary examples of how kings addressed
religious figures in the medieval period, I'd appreciate it if they
would post them here on the newsgroup. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Foedera: conventiones, literæ, et cujuscunque generis acta publica,
inter reges Angliæ et alios ... habita aut tractata, edited by Thomas
Rymer & Robert Sanderson, additions and corrections by Adam Clarke and
Frederick Holbrooke,
London: Record Commissioners 1816-1869
Vol. 1, pg. 861 [This document may be found on The Anglo-Norman
On-line: http://and4.anglo-norman.net:8082/cgi-bin/xpr-texts?file=/and-prod/texts/foedera1.xml%26amp;amp;target=861].
A.D.1297
Philippe, par la grace de DIEU, Roy de France, a tous ceux qui ces
presentes lettres verront, salut.
Nous establissons & envoyons especiamment nos amez freres, Geoffroy de
Ablines, & Odet de Sens, de l'ordre des freres Prescheurs, & frere
Pierre de Laudosies, & Robert de Progue, de l'ordre des freres
Mineurs, porteurs de ces lettres, a requerre de par nous ... "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Copy of earlier post
From: Douglas Richardson (royala...@msn.com)
Subject: Mary, alleged bastard daughter of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count
of Anjou
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2003-04-28 12:23:05 PST
Dear Newsgroup ~
In recent time, I posted a list of the identified bastard children of
Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou (died 1150/1). Included in the
list was Mary, Abbess of Shaftesbury, who died shortly before 5 Sep.
1216.
William Dugdale in Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 2 (1819), pg. 484
presents an abstract of a charter in which Mary was styled "my sister"
(sororis meae) by King Henry II. However, it appears that Mary was
subsequently styled "my dearest friend" [amicae] by King John [see
English Hist. Rev. 25 (1910): 303-306; 26 (1911): 317-326; 80 (1965):
314-322]. While "amicae" can mean kinswoman in this period, I've
routintely found holders of religious and public office addressed as
"amicus" or "amica" without any apparent indication of kinship
involved. Since Mary held a religious office, it is possible to
translate the "amicae" as as either friend or kinswoman in King John's
charter. The former would be the more likely meaning in this case.
Curiously, the author of the English Hist. Review articles cited above
was convinced that King John actually called Abbess Mary his "amitae"
(aunt) in his charter, not "amicae" (friend). This would make sense
in Mary was the sister of John's father, King Henry II. However, the
evidence the author presents for this claim seems a bit stretched to
me. Whatever the case, the author evidently was unaware that amicae
could also mean kinswoman.
Interestingly, the author did present compelling evidence which
indicates that Mary was the sister of Guy d'Outillé [Ostelli], Knt.,
of Shaftesbury, Dorset, who occurs 1194-1208. The author theorizes
that Mary and Guy were half-siblings, having the same mother.
Reviewing the above evidence, it seems that the critical piece of
evidence is the charter by King Henry II in which he called Abbess
Mary his "sister." This stray reference is significant, as it is the
only occasion in all the records found of Mary in which she is
directly connected to the king. In all other records, no comment is
made of any royal connection. Rather, she appears in one record as
the sister of Guy (evidently Guy d'Outillé, Knt., intended).
Hopefully someone here on the newsgroup is familiar with how abbesses
and priors were addressed by kings in this period. I know
priests/monks were called "brothers" and nuns were called "sisters."
The Pope and bishops were addressed as "father." However, I'm not
familiar with how kings addressed abbesses and priors. If an abbess
was normally called "sister" by the king, then the evidence for Mary
being sister to King Henry II collapses. If she could be called
either "mother" or "sister," then again the case for Mary being the
king's sister collapses.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google Home - Advertise with Us - Business Solutions - Services &
Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help
©2003 Google
R. Battle
message had been).
-Robert Battle
R. Battle
<snip>
> While this doesn't answer the direct question about how an
> abbess was addressed by a king, it does at least indicate that monks
> were called "brother" not "father" in this time period by kings.
<snip>
Hasn't it always been the case that in the RC church common monks were
called brothers? The term "father" would only be used if the monk were
also a priest, regardless of the status of the person speaking (unless, of
course, the monk happened to *be* that person's father ;-)).
-Robert Battle
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"R. Battle" <bat...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2003, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > While this doesn't answer the direct question about how an
> > abbess was addressed by a king, it does at least indicate that monks
> > were called "brother" not "father" in this time period by kings.
> <snip>
>
> Hasn't it always been the case that in the RC church common monks were
> called brothers? The term "father" would only be used if the monk were
> also a priest, regardless of the status of the person speaking
This is certainly current practice, and obviously for a long time before
now, but whether it was medieval practice is another matter.
One major difference these days is that the overwhelming majority of
monks are priests, whereas in the middle ages and before, I believe
that only the minority were priests.
> (unless, of course, the monk happened to *be* that person's father ;-)).
I disagree: the whole idea of a monastery was that previous personal
relationships were ignored. This is part of the reason why monks adopt
a new name, to show they have put aside their previous life.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Pierre Aronax
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> A few weeks ago, I posted regarding Mary, Abbess of Shatesbury, who
> was addressed as "sister" by King Henry II of England (see my earlier
> post further below). Inasmuch as some historians have suggested that
> Mary was King Henry II's blood sister (rather than spiritual sister),
> I asked if anyone knew how kings addressed abbesses in this time
> period. If abbesses were commonly called "sister" by kings, then the
> evidence collapses that Mary was King Henry II's sister.
>
> In the intervening time, I've located the following letter written by
> King Philippe IV of France in 1297 which is recorded in the medieval
> source, Foedera. This letter indicates that King Philippe addressed
> several monks of the Order of the Friar Preachers as "brothers"
> [freres]. While this doesn't answer the direct question about how an
> abbess was addressed by a king, it does at least indicate that monks
> were called "brother" not "father" in this time period by kings.
Except of course that Preachers are not monks but friars.
Pierre
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quite. And may I add some of the differences in case some are not
aware:
Monks belong to a monastery and a key vow is that of Stability, that of
remaining in the same place in their community. Theirs is a
contemplative life, suiting people who may be of a retiring nature.
Most monks follow, one way or another, the Rule of St Benedict and
there are different orders: Cistercians, Trappist, Carthusians, ordinary
Benedictines, etc. Monks predate Christianity, viz Buddhism, but St
Benedict was around in the 6th century AD.
Friars go round the place and have no vow of Stability. They engage in
much more public activities, such as teaching or preaching or missionary
work and suit more outgoing people. The original orders were Dominicans
("OP" = Order of Preachers) and Franciscans ("OFM" = Order of Friars
Minor, IIRC), founded respectively by St Dominic and St Francis (of
Assissi) who both founded their orders in the earlier part of the middle
ages. Doubtless there are many more orders these days.
Neither monks nor friars are hermits who are the complete loners.
Ann Sharp
"Tim
>
> > (unless, of course, the monk happened to *be* that person's father ;-)).
>
> I disagree: the whole idea of a monastery was that previous personal
> relationships were ignored. This is part of the reason why monks adopt
> a new name, to show they have put aside their previous life.
But did religious adopt a new name in the middle ages? When did THAT
tradition start? Would a medieval person have adopted a different name than
the one he/she was baptized -- seems a bit casual about the significance of
the infant baptism.
L.P.H.,
Ann
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"Ann Sharp" <ax...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> "Tim
> >
> > > (unless, of course, the monk happened to *be* that person's father ;-)).
> >
> > I disagree: the whole idea of a monastery was that previous personal
> > relationships were ignored. This is part of the reason why monks adopt
> > a new name, to show they have put aside their previous life.
>
> But did religious adopt a new name in the middle ages?
Not many religious change their name. Benedictine monks mostly do, but
not many other male orders. Though certainly quite a few orders for
women had name changes. Secular religious do not do so.
When the monks started to do this, I regret I do not know. But I
suspect it was quite early as in St Benedict's rule he says of new
monks (Chapter 58):
"If he possess any property, let him either give it beforehand to the
poor, or make a formal donation bestowing it on the monastery. Let him
keep back nothing at all for himself, as knowing that thenceforward he
will not have the disposition even of his own body. So let him, there
and then in the oratory, be stripped of his own clothes which he is
wearing and dressed in the clothes of the monastery."
> When did THAT tradition start?
No idea, can't find out either. But, as above, it is not universal
these days.
> Would a medieval person have adopted a different name than the one
> he/she was baptized -- seems a bit casual about the significance of
> the infant baptism.
Re-read the above paragraph written in the 6th century (it is from a
recent translation of a manuscript of around 700 AD, reference Hatton 48
in the British Library) and think what you might expect them to do on
entering the monastery.
Chris Phillips
> > Hasn't it always been the case that in the RC church common monks were
> > called brothers? The term "father" would only be used if the monk were
> > also a priest, regardless of the status of the person speaking
Tim Powys-Lybbe replied:
> This is certainly current practice, and obviously for a long time before
> now, but whether it was medieval practice is another matter.
Yes, I'm sure I've seen "brother" used in this sense in medieval documents.
In fact, "friar" is "frere" in French and "frater" in Latin, isn't it? So in
fact it's difficult to see how it could be avoided when using these
languages.
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
>
>In fact, "friar" is "frere" in French and "frater" in Latin, isn't it? So in
>fact it's difficult to see how it could be avoided when using these
>languages.
I've seen it numerous times in medieval Latin English wills (abbreviated as
fr'). It's quite common, and many times lead me to initially look for a
relationship with the testator/-trix.
Paul
Douglas Richardson
Recently I asked if anyone knew how an abbess or prior might be
addressed by a king in medieval times. I posed the question as I had
found one historian who alleged that King Henry II of England had an
illegitimate sister, Mary, Abbess of Shaftesbury, on the basis of a
charter in which King Henry called the abbess his "sister." The
historian made this identification in spite of the fact that the
abbess clearly had a brother named Guy who served as her attorney,
which Guy appears to have been Sir Guy d'Outillé [Ostelli], of
Shaftesbury, Dorset, who occurs 1194-1208. For the articles in
question regarding Abbess Mary's kinship to King Henry II, please see
English Historical Review, 25 (1910): 303–306; 26 (1911): 317–326; 80
(1965): 314–322.
I've since located a document dated 1278, in which King Edward I
addressed an individual who was a prior. Here is a brief abstract of
that document:
"Rex dilectis & fidelibus suis fratri Joseph de Chauncy, priori
hospitalis Sancti Johannis Jerl'm in Anglia … salutem" [Reference: T.
Rymer, Foedera 1 Pt. 1 (1816): 560].
As we can see, King Edward I addressed Joseph de Chauncy, Prior of the
Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem in England, as "his brother." As
such, this would appear to answer the question as to how King Henry II
might have addressed Mary, Abbess of Shaftesbury. If a prior was
called "brother" by the king, I assume an abbess would have been
called "sister." If correct, as I stated earlier, the evidence that
Mary, Abbess of Shaftesbury, was King Henry II's blood sister
collapses. Rather, it appears that Mary was simply King Henry's
spiritual sister.
If anyone has any further particulars relating to how an abbess was
addressed by a king in medieval times, I'd appreciate it they would
post their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com>...
ADRIANC...@aol.com
writes:
Have a look at the following post
Date: 3 Sep 1998 10:53:00 -0700
From: jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca (John Carmi Parsons)
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.98090...@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Another bastard Angevin daughter?--II
Adrian
Pierre Aronax
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
<...>
> I've since located a document dated 1278, in which King Edward I
> addressed an individual who was a prior. Here is a brief abstract of
> that document:
>
> "Rex dilectis & fidelibus suis fratri Joseph de Chauncy, priori
> hospitalis Sancti Johannis Jerl'm in Anglia . salutem" [Reference: T.
> Rymer, Foedera 1 Pt. 1 (1816): 560].
>
> As we can see, King Edward I addressed Joseph de Chauncy, Prior of the
> Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem in England, as "his brother."
No: "dilectis and fidelibus suis" is a plural. The possessive "suis"
concerns more than one people, who are all the "dilectis and fidelibus" of
the king. So, it means "to his beloved and faithfull X, Y and Z". On the
contrary, "fratri" is a singular: it is something like a title postponed in
front of the name of the prior: "friar Joseph de Chauncy, prior etc...",
which he can also have used himself when producing an act in his own name
(for example "I, friar Joseph de Chauncy, prior etc."). That is not
surprising since, how it is obvious from the extract, he is not a monk at
all but an Hospitaller of St John (what will be called vulgariter in the
next century a knight of Rhodes).
That is different entirely from the king calling somebody "my brother".
Pierre
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
I'm well aware of Mr. Parsons' earlier post regarding Mary, Abbess of
Shaftesbury, as well as the sources which he has cited therein.
Unfortunately, a close examination of the evidence provided by these
authors indicates only that Mary, Abbess of Shaftesbury, had a brother
named Guy, who I believe has been correctly identified as Sir Guy
d'Ostelli. In King John's charter to Abbess Mary, he addressed Mary
simply as his "amica" [friend), which is the standard way kings
addressed a religious figure in this period of lower rank.
Below are several examples of how King Edward II addressed religious
figures who were of the rank below a Cardinal or Bishop:
l. "Rex venerandae religionis viro, & in Christo sibi karissimo,
fratri Fulconi de Vilareto, magistro sanctae domus hospitalis sancti
Johannis Jerl', salutem cum diliectione sincera." Date: 1309.
Reference: Foedera, 2 Pt. 1 (1818): 75.
2. "Rex religiosis viris, & in Christo sibi dilectis, magistro &
diffinitoribus capituli generalis fratrum de ordine paedictatorm apud
Pampilon' in Aragon' in proximo conventuris, salutem ..." Date: 1317
Reference: Foedera, 2 Pt. 1, pg. 324
3. "Rex religiosis viris, & sibi Christo dilectis, abbati Cistercen',
diffinitoribus, ac universis & singulis abbatibus, in capitulo
generali, apud Cisterc', in proximo celebrando, congregandis, salutem"
Date: 1323. Reference: Foedera, 2 Pt. 1, pg. 514.
4. "Rex, priori hospitalis Sancti Johannis Jer'l'm in Angl', salutem"
Date: 1326. Reference: Foedera, 2 Pt. 1, pg. 618.
As you can see, NONE of these people above were addressed as father.
In sharp contrast, I find that the kings consistently and regularly
addressed ALL Cardinals and Bishops in the medieval period as
"reverand father in God" (or similar words).
If I understand what these records are inferrring, it appears that the
kings addressed abbesses and priors in the medieval period as
"brother" and "sister." As such, King Henry II's reference to Abbess
Mary as his "sister" means only that she was his spiritual sister, not
his blood sister. If correct, I would have to conclude that Abbess
Mary is not his blood sister as alleged, ESPECIALLY since we have
evidence which suggests that Mary was a member of the Ostelli family.
Regardless, if you have other examples to share of how the king
addressed abbesses and priors, please feel free to post them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
ADRIANC...@aol.com wrote in message news:<f7.2eb8c3a...@aol.com>...
Pierre Aronax
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3f3036a5$0$9609$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
> "fratri" is a singular: it is something like a title postponed in
> front of the name of the prior
Not "post" but rather "anteponed" of course...
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> I'm well aware of Mr. Parsons' earlier post regarding Mary, Abbess of
> Shaftesbury,
But failed to mention it nevertheless.
<...>
>In King John's charter to Abbess Mary, he addressed Mary
> simply as his "amica" [friend), which is the standard way kings
> addressed a religious figure in this period of lower rank.
I did not see the chart, so it is just a guess. But an obvious possible
error of transcription comes to mind: is it really "amica" or rather
"amita"?
> Below are several examples of how King Edward II addressed religious
> figures who were of the rank below a Cardinal or Bishop:
>
> l. "Rex venerandae religionis viro, & in Christo sibi karissimo,
> fratri Fulconi de Vilareto, magistro sanctae domus hospitalis sancti
> Johannis Jerl', salutem cum diliectione sincera." Date: 1309.
> Reference: Foedera, 2 Pt. 1 (1818): 75.
Here the king does NOT call "his" brother Foulques de Villaret, the famous
grand master of the order of Saint-John, again an Hospitallers: it is part
of the title of Foulques, who is "friar Foulques de Villaret, master of the
holy house of the hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem".
> 2. "Rex religiosis viris, & in Christo sibi dilectis, magistro &
> diffinitoribus capituli generalis fratrum de ordine paedictatorm apud
> Pampilon' in Aragon' in proximo conventuris, salutem ..." Date: 1317
> Reference: Foedera, 2 Pt. 1, pg. 324
The king does not call anybody here HIS brother: the letter is adressed to
the general chapter of the friars of the Domenican order of Pampeluna. They
are "brothers" between themselves, not brothers of the king. Again, quite
different from calling somebody "our brother".
<Two examples where the word brother is NOT used snipped>
> As you can see, NONE of these people above were addressed as father.
> In sharp contrast, I find that the kings consistently and regularly
> addressed ALL Cardinals and Bishops in the medieval period as
> "reverand father in God" (or similar words).
How would he call an abbot then?
> If I understand what these records are inferrring,
I think that is not the case since, of the 4 records, only one concerns
monastic people, and it does not use the word "brother".
> it appears that the
> kings addressed abbesses and priors in the medieval period as
> "brother" and "sister."
Douglas Richardson failed for the moment to produce any example of that (a
king calling an abbess or an abbot "sister" or "brother"), except for people
who are friars and who are so normally referred as "frater" without implying
that the spiritual parentage is with the correspondent.
Pierre
Douglas Richardson
The point of my four examples yesterday is that the king didn't
address any of the lesser religious figures as father. In all
instances I find where a king addressed a Bishop and Cardinal, they
were dutifully addressed as "reverand father." The contrast between
the two sets of people, high churchmen versus men of lower rank, is
apparent I think.
Per chance, do you have any examples to post? If so, please do so.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f30bf80$0$13915$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>...
Pierre Aronax
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com...
>
> The point of my four examples yesterday is that the king didn't
> address any of the lesser religious figures as father.
<...>
I thought your point was that kings adressed abbot and abbess as "brother"
and "sister". Then, what is the point of your point? How is it supposed to
explain why Mary was called "sister" by Henry II (see title of the thread)?
Nobody expect him to address her as "father" I think.
Pierre
Peter Stewart
>
> The point of my four examples yesterday is that the king didn't
> address any of the lesser religious figures as father. In all
> instances I find where a king addressed a Bishop and Cardinal, they
> were dutifully addressed as "reverand father." The contrast between
> the two sets of people, high churchmen versus men of lower rank, is
> apparent I think.
>
> Per chance, do you have any examples to post? If so, please do so.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f30bf80$0$13915$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>...
> > "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news: 5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <...>
> > > I'm well aware of Mr. Parsons' earlier post regarding Mary, Abbess of
> > > Shaftesbury,
> >
> > But failed to mention it nevertheless.
> >
> > <...>
> > >In King John's charter to Abbess Mary, he addressed Mary
> > > simply as his "amica" [friend), which is the standard way kings
> > > addressed a religious figure in this period of lower rank.
> >
> > I did not see the chart, so it is just a guess. But an obvious possible
> > error of transcription comes to mind: is it really "amica" or rather
> > "amita"?
Pierre is, characteristically, prescient in this query - see below.
At the opposite end of the scale of common sense, and even by the
standards of our trained historian, Douglas Richardson's idea about
this matter is wide of the mark & devoid of thought - indeed, his
latest adventure in reading medieval Latin would reflect no credit on
a trained seal.
First, evidence of early-14th century addresses to clerics of "the
[sic] rank below a Cardinal of Bishop" could have little value in
settling a question about how Henry II might have adressed an abbess
in the late 12th century.
Secondly, the examples quoted are irrelevant in themselves, as Pierre
indicated - none of the addresses given could shed any useful light on
the point at issue.
The sensible course for a professional historian or genealogist
looking into this would be to check the acta of Henry II for mention
of Marie, abbess of Shaftesbury's counterparts in rank and/or
relationship to the king.
Abbots are liberally represented, none of them addressed as "frater",
of course. The king's cousin Henry, abbot of Fécamp occurs several
times with recognition of their blood kinship, for instance: "ego rex
H. concedo Henrico abbati Fiscan[nensi], cognato meo" [_Receuil des
actes de Henri II...concernant les provinces françaises et les
affaires de France_, edd L Deslisle & E Berger, 2 vols (Paris,
1916-20), no 56, vol I p 157]. "Cognatus" he was, although not always
distinguished in this way, but never "frater".
On the other hand, a letter from Henry to the abbot of Cîteaux was
noted plainly "Rex Anglie abbati Cisterciensi" [ibid no 277 p 424],
rather more instructive for the purpose than the letter from
descendant to successor that was quoted by Douglas Richardson. No
compliments, no "spiritual kinship" in the extant record.
By way of contrast, a letter from Samson, abbot of Saint-Ouen about a
transaction of his colleague Henry of Fécamp and a priest named Simon
was suitably phrased: "inter fratrem nostrum H. Fiscannensem abbatem,
et Symonem presbiterum" [op cit, no 650 vol II p 265].
Naturally diplomatic conventions developed somewhat between the 12th
and 14th centuries, but abbots and abbesses were never held to
participate as brothers and sisters in the sacral aspect of kingship,
and they were not complimented as "brothers" and "sisters" by
unrelated medieval kings. Nor were kings held to be honorary
religious. A form such as "fratri Fulconi" was the natural way for
anyone, king or commoner, to address the member of an order, like a
Hospitaller, who was not an abbot in any case.
There is not the slightest hint of a royal use of "brother", much less
"sister", as the standard for abbots, priors and their female
equivalents in any of the examples quoted by Douglas Richardson to
back up his inane notion.
There is also not the slightest hint that he has actually read the
sources cited by John Carmi Parsons, as claimed in his earlier post.
If he had, he would readily have found that "amica" was discussed by
JC Fox in _EHR_ 25 (1910) p 305 and 26 (1911) p 319. There it is made
clear that the correct word used by King John was not "amica" (friend)
as transcribed from one charter in the register of Shaftesbury, but
"amita" (paternal aunt) as from a second charter in the same register
and as amended for the first by the Record Commissioners in _Rotuli
Chartarum, 1199-1216_, p 150.
King John's description of Marie as his "dearest aunt" confirms the
evidence that Eyton gave, from Dugdale, of the 1181 charter in which
Henry II called her his sister. The wording was "ad peticionem sororis
mee Marie Abbatisse", where the possessive pronoun clearly makes Marie
the king's sister by personal relationship and not just entitled by
courtesy as a sister of her order. Surely even Douglas Richardson
can't be serious in publicly fantasising that he knows more about this
than Dugdale, Eyton, Fox, Parsons, and many other scholars. If people
had been in the habit of acknowledging spiritual kinship by the
indiscriminate use of "frater" and "soror", the study of medieval
genealogy would be reduced to a hopeless nonsense. Then Douglas
Richardson would be in his element.
By the way, I'm not convinced that Fox was right in identifying the
abbess of Shaftesbury with the poetess "Marie de Fance". There is an
interesting paper by UT Holmes, 'New Thoughts on Marie de France',
_Studies in Philology_ 29 (1932), disputing this. Holmes _surmised_
(NB no proof was offered) that she might have been the youngest
daughter of the Beaumont twin Waleran, count of Meulan & earl of
Worcester by his second wife Agnes de Montfort, dame of Gournay. This
Marie was wife of Hugo de Talbot, seigneur of Cleuville, and ancestor
with him of the earls of Shrewsbury and consequently of many SGM
participants.
Peter Stewart
Nathaniel Taylor
peter....@crsrehab.gov.au (Peter Stewart) wrote:
> By the way, I'm not convinced that Fox was right in identifying the
> abbess of Shaftesbury with the poetess "Marie de Fance". There is an
> interesting paper by UT Holmes, 'New Thoughts on Marie de France',
> _Studies in Philology_ 29 (1932), disputing this. Holmes _surmised_
> (NB no proof was offered) that she might have been the youngest
> daughter of the Beaumont twin Waleran, count of Meulan & earl of
> Worcester by his second wife Agnes de Montfort, dame of Gournay. This
> Marie was wife of Hugo de Talbot, seigneur of Cleuville, and ancestor
> with him of the earls of Shrewsbury and consequently of many SGM
> participants.
It would be nice to place Marie de France firmly in the medieval
literary family tree, and also in our shared ancestry, but ...
The translation of the _Lais_ I happened to be reading today mentions
the Meulan hypothesis among the usual suspects, but suggests that that
Marie may hae been too young to be the authoress, though I see little
concrete dating anywhere in this introduction (this is the Penguin
Classics prose translation I'm assigning in one of my fall history
classes). Most writers I've seen (since the days of Holmes and his
interlocutors) are content to name the various candidates and leave it
at that, though they usually name Marie abbess of Shaftesbury first.
Then again, perhaps it's just her [obvious] royal connection that gets
her pride of place.
Nat Taylor
Pierre Aronax
"Peter Stewart" <peter....@crsrehab.gov.au> a écrit dans le message de
news: 5054737e.03080...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> There is also not the slightest hint that he has actually read the
> sources cited by John Carmi Parsons, as claimed in his earlier post.
> If he had, he would readily have found that "amica" was discussed by
> JC Fox in _EHR_ 25 (1910) p 305 and 26 (1911) p 319. There it is made
> clear that the correct word used by King John was not "amica" (friend)
> as transcribed from one charter in the register of Shaftesbury, but
> "amita" (paternal aunt) as from a second charter in the same register
> and as amended for the first by the Record Commissioners in _Rotuli
> Chartarum, 1199-1216_, p 150.
Thanks for that. I was suspecting an error of that kind because I have
already seen it happens: of course "c" and "t" are easy to confuse. And,
besides, it would have been strange for a king of that time to call an
abbess simply "amica": a bit spicy in my opinion.
> King John's description of Marie as his "dearest aunt" confirms the
> evidence that Eyton gave, from Dugdale, of the 1181 charter in which
> Henry II called her his sister. The wording was "ad peticionem sororis
> mee Marie Abbatisse", where the possessive pronoun clearly makes Marie
> the king's sister by personal relationship and not just entitled by
> courtesy as a sister of her order.
<...>
It would have been helpful if Douglas Richardson had posted the exact
quotation at the beginning of the thread.
Pierre
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
Thanks for those added details. However, it appears there is a
chronological problem with your statement concerning one Mary/Marie,
alleged daughter of Waleran de Meulan (d. 1166):
' This Marie was wife of Hugo de Talbot, seigneur of Cleuville,
and ancestor with him of the earls of Shrewsbury and
consequently of many SGM participants. '
We find one Richard Talbot, of Linton, co. Hereford as the earliest
identified ancestor of the Talbots, Lords Talbot (and later Earls of
Shrewsbury). According to CP, this Richard Talbot had a grant of the
manor of Linton from Henry II, and was recorded as holding lands in
Wilton and Linton equally with Hugh de Longchamp in 1156; he is also
identified as having d. before 1176, and was succeeded by his son
Gilbert.
The basic problem with any descent of these Talbots from Waleran de
Meulan:
1. Waleran de Meulan married Agnes de Montfort sometime between 1136
(date of death of her father Amaury de Montfort-l'Amaury) and
1142 (end date given in CP). She received Gournay-sur-Marne
as her maritagium from her brother [1].
2. The issue of Waleran and Agnes were born between say 1140 and 1160
(and likely during a shorter range ending before 1160). Waleran
was born in 1104, and d. 10 April 1166 at Preaux (as a monk);
I show no good date range for Agnes' birth. [See the family
details concerning Waleran, Agnes and their identifiable issue
below.]
3. Richard Talbot of Linton, co. Hereford was evidently active as
an adult in 1156 (see above), and was born between say 1125 and
1145 (likely toward the later part of this range). His son
Gilbert was likely born 1169 or before (he received a new
charter for Linton from King Richard at Gisors, 30 March 1190).
Given the marriage date range for Waleran de Meulan and Agnes de
Montfort, it borders on the impossible that they should have a
grandchild by an eldest child born any time before 1151 (assuming
birth of that child in 1136, and conception of a child by that child
in 1150).
I believe Cleuville became a holding of a branch of the de
Stuteville ( or d'Estouteville) family in the 12th century by an
heiress of this Hugh or Hugo de Talbot you mentioned. I wonder if
in fact this Hugo de Talbot had married a daughter of Waleran, count
of Meulan (d. before 1081) - great-grandfather of the Waleran de
Meulan discussed above - leading to the confusion emanating from
Holmes and/or others?
Cheers,
John *
________________
1 Waleran de Meulan
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1104[1]
Death: 10 Apr 1166, Abbey of Preaux (d. a monk)[1]
Burial: Preaux
Occ: Count of Meulan[1]
Father: Robert de Beaumont (ca1046-1118), Earl of Leicester and Count of
Meulan
Mother: Isabel of Vermandois (ca1081-<1147)
elder twin of brother Robert[1]
succeeded father as Count of Meulan
held lands in Gloucester and also Sturminster, Dorset (held by grandfather
Roger de Beaumont) - CP Vol VII, Leicester p 522n [1]
rebelled against Henry I with Hugh de Montfort, 1123; captured at
Rougemontier (or Bourgtheroulde), 26 March 1124 and held prisoner until
ca. 1129 at Bridgnorth (moved to Wallingford, 1126)[2]
Adherent of Stephen, 1135; apparently created Earl of Worcester ca.
1140 (CP, Vol. VII - Appendix I, 'Waleran, Count of Meulan and his
Successors', pp. 737-742)[1]
fought on side of King Stephen at Lincoln, Feb 1141/2 together with
'brother William of Warenne' (fled the battle acc. to Ord. Vitalis)[3]
Participant in Second Crusade, 1147 (took the cross at Vezelay, 1146)[1]
major landholder in Worcester, styled 'earl of Worcester'[4]
resigned titles and became a monk at Preaux, where he died[1]
Spouse: Agnes de Montfort[1]
Death: 15 Dec 1181[1]
Father: Amaury de Montfort-l'Amaury (-<1136), count of Evreux
Mother: Agnes de Garlande, heiress of Gournay-sur-Marne
Marr: bef 1142[1]
Children: Robert (-ca1207)
Isabel (-1220)
Waleran (-?1181)
Amauri (-<1196)
Roger (->1205)
Ralph
Stephen
1.1 Robert de Meulan
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1207[1]
Occ: Count of Meulan
early adherent of the Young King, 1173; reconciled to Henry II (witness to
Treaty of Falaise with William the Lion, Aug 1175). Adherent at varous
times to English and French kings (Richard, then Philip, then Richard
and John).
Resigned his lands in England on 1 May 1204 to his daughter Mabel and
William de Reviers, Earl of Devon (dispossessed by King John without
acceptance of resignation, 1204)[1]
Spouse: Maud of Cornwall[1]
Father: Reginald fitz Roy (-1175), Earl of Cornwall
Mother: Mabel 'filia Willelmi'
Marr: ca 1165[1]
Children: Waleran (-<1207) [ * ancestor of sieurs de Courselles ]
Piers (-<1203)
Henry (-<1204)
Mabel (->1204), m. William de Redvers, Earl of Devon
[ * ancestors of the de Redvers and de Courtenay
Earls of Devon ]
Agnes m. Guy de la Roche Guyon
1.2a Isabel de Meulan*
----------------------------------------
Death: 10 May 1220[1]
she m. lstly Geoffrey de Mayenne
2ndly Maurice de Craon (bef 1183)[1]
Spouse: Maurice II de Craon, seigneur de Craon [2nd husband]
Death: 12 Jul 1196[1]
Father: Hugh I de Craon, seigneur de Craon
Mother: Isabel de Vitre
Children: Amaury (-1226), seigneur de Craon and seneschal of Anjou
[ * ancestor of Joan de Geneville, wife of Roger de
Mortimer, Earl of March (exe. 1330) ]
Other Spouses Geoffrey de Mayenne
1.2b Isabel de Meulan* (See above)
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Geoffrey de Mayenne, seigneur de Mayenne
Death: 18 Feb 1169[1]
Father: Juhel of Mayenne (-1161)
Mother: Clemence d'Alencon
Children: Juhel III (-1220), seigneur de Mayenne
Other Spouses Maurice II de Craon
1.3 Waleran de Meulan
----------------------------------------
Death: ? 1181[1]
probably the 'Waleranus de Mellento' who was a canon of Rouen cathedral,
1173-1181 (CP Vol. VII, p. 738n)[1]
1.4 Amauri de Meulan
----------------------------------------
Death: bef Feb 1196, d.s.p.[1]
Occ: seigneur de la Queue et Gournay-sur-Marne
seigneur de Gournay-sur-Marne
inherited his title from his mother
1.5 Roger de Meulan
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 13 Nov 1205[1]
Occ: seigneur de la Queue et Gournay-sur-Marne
seigneur de Gournay-sur-Marne
heir to his brother Amauri
vicomte of Evreux (ceded same to Philip II of France, 1204)[1]
Spouse: Isabel[1]
1.6 Ralph de Meulan
----------------------------------------
1.7 Stephen de Meulan
----------------------------------------
1. "The Complete Peerage," G. E. Cokayne, 1910 -
The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the
United Kingdom.
2. "Henry I," C. Warren Hollister, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001,
[English Monarchs Series].
3. Ordericus Vitalis, "Historiae ecclesiasticae,"
www.deremilitari.org/lincoln4.htm
extracted May 15, 2002.
4. "Henry II," W. L. Warren, University of California Press, 1973,
[English Monarchs Series].
_________________________________
NOTES (to text of post):
[1] cf. CP Vol. VII, Appendix I: "Waleran, Count of Meulan, and
his Successors" (pp. 737-742)
* John P. Ravilious
Douglas Richardson
The point of this discussion is to determine if King Henry referred to
Abbess Mary as his "sister" due to a blood kinship, or a spiritual
kinship. Given that Mary is known to have been the sister of a
certain Guy, evidently Sir Guy de Ostelli, I want to make sure that we
understand what the king was saying when he called Abbess Mary his
sister. In your post, I note that you forgot to mention Guy de
Ostelli. Why is that?
In the future, please do try to be a bit more collegial. Saying that
I'm "inane" because I want a closer look at the evidence is a bit of a
stretch, even for you, Peter. We don't have to agree on everything,
but we do have to get along.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
peter....@crsrehab.gov.au (Peter Stewart) wrote in message news:<5054737e.03080...@posting.google.com>...
Pierre Aronax
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> said
5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com...
> The point of this discussion is to determine if King Henry referred to
> Abbess Mary as his "sister" due to a blood kinship, or a spiritual
> kinship.
<...>
But he also said previously:
>>> The point of my four examples yesterday is that the king didn't
>>> address any of the lesser religious figures as father.
So I'm puzzled.
> In the future, please do try to be a bit more collegial.
I don't find "collegial" to refuse to consider any contribution when they
point to the obvious fact that your methodology is not the good one. In my
previous post, I pointed that your four examples were irrelevant to know if
an English king would have address an abbot as "brother" (not to speak of an
abbess as "sister"), since no individual here was even monks, or those who
were were not addressed as "brother". I also suggested that the strange
"amica", used by King John for abbess Mary, could be in fact "amita", and so
an evidence that she was King Henry's sister, and not an evidence of the
contrary as you triumphally asserted (even claiming that it was "the
standard way kings addressed a religious figure in this period of lower
rank").
In your answer, you did not take these objections and this suggestion into
account or discussed them, you tried rather to justify uneasily your poor
methodology by changing surreptitiously the question: the problem was no
more to check if it was normal for a king of that time to call an abbess
"sister", but to know if it was not abnormal for him not to call her
"father"! Astonishingly, your patient enquiry permitted you to answer that,
actually, no, it was not so strange that he did not so. You concluded by a
tentative of pure intimidation, asking me if "per chance" I have not any
examples to post (otherwise shut up), and so suggesting that my previous
contribution was useless compared to your impressive collection of no less
than four examples, all irrelevant, which commanded only respect and not
inopportune commentaries. It is true that this pupils are sometimes so
inconvenient with their factual objections.
The same is true for your answer to Peter Stewart: all you do is posing as
the virtuous offended, but you don't answer on the arguments.
In the future, please do try to avoid such pompous professorial style, since
you are in no position to use it, to be a little more coherent and to answer
in a "collegial" way (that means without loophole) to objections which are
made to your confuse assertions.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com...
>
> The point of this discussion is to determine if King Henry referred to
> Abbess Mary as his "sister" due to a blood kinship, or a spiritual
> kinship. Given that Mary is known to have been the sister of a
> certain Guy, evidently Sir Guy de Ostelli, I want to make sure that we
> understand what the king was saying when he called Abbess Mary his
> sister. In your post, I note that you forgot to mention Guy de
> Ostelli. Why is that?
Why would the fact that Mary was Guy's sister be *a priori* less problematic
or more sure than the fact that she was the King's sister, since you said we
have only one document where she is said sister of Guy, when we have two
documents where she appears as the King's sister? That would be the first
point to look at: what is the source for this parentage with Guy, and is
that source as sure as you pretend it is? If indeed it is, a possible answer
would be that Mary shared her father with the King and her mother with Guy
(only a guess to be tested of course).
Pierre
D. Spencer Hines
Peter Stewart ---- when Richardson has posted something indefensible, wrong or
stupid ---- and someone calls him on it.
He prefers correction on these matters only in PRIVATE ---- so:
1. His gross ignorance will not be publicly revealed.
2. He will not lose face.
3. Folks will still want to buy his book.
4. He can get research assistance gratis, take credit for the information,
and make a profit on it by including the information in his book.
It's really no more complicated than that.
The interesting thing is how many naïve fools continue to play HIS game ----
on HIS terms.
Peter Stewart is by NO means one of them. Neither is Pierre Aronax.
Both men call a spade a spade ---- and they do so IN the newsgroup ---- as is
entirely appropriate.
So, Richardson takes a shot at Peter Stewart and accuses Peter of not being
"collegial" ---- a term Richardson has picked up from Academia, and which he
thinks sounds erudite, posh and tony ---- "professorial."
Très drôle.
Deus Vult.
"I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon
Buonaparte." ---- Attributed to Arthur Wellesley, [1769-1852] Duke of
Wellington
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original material
contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It may be quoted
only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution to the author,
unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f32834a$0$18142$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
Nathaniel Taylor
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And this is precisely the view that other scholars have taken, as noted
in John Parsons' post of 1998, which cites:
>...Constance Bullock-Davies, "Marie Abbess of Shaftesbury, and her
>brothers," _English Historical Review_ 80 [1965], 314f, where
>Marie's mother is identified as the wife of the sire d'Outille in Anjou,
>and several of her half-brothers living in England are also discussed).
Nat Taylor
Pierre Aronax
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message
de news: nathanieltaylor-8F...@news01.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <3f3285a9$0$26963$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>,
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<...>
> > If indeed it is, a possible answer
> > would be that Mary shared her father with the King and her mother with
Guy
> > (only a guess to be tested of course).
>
> And this is precisely the view that other scholars have taken, as noted
> in John Parsons' post of 1998, which cites:
>
> >...Constance Bullock-Davies, "Marie Abbess of Shaftesbury, and her
> >brothers," _English Historical Review_ 80 [1965], 314f, where
> >Marie's mother is identified as the wife of the sire d'Outille in Anjou,
> >and several of her half-brothers living in England are also discussed).
I wonder why this view was originally dismissed by Douglas Richardson, who
claimed to have read this article.
Pierre
Peter Stewart
>
> The point of this discussion is to determine if King Henry referred to
> Abbess Mary as his "sister" due to a blood kinship, or a spiritual
> kinship. Given that Mary is known to have been the sister of a
> certain Guy, evidently Sir Guy de Ostelli, I want to make sure that we
> understand what the king was saying when he called Abbess Mary his
> sister. In your post, I note that you forgot to mention Guy de
> Ostelli. Why is that?
>
> In the future, please do try to be a bit more collegial. Saying that
> I'm "inane" because I want a closer look at the evidence is a bit of a
> stretch, even for you, Peter. We don't have to agree on everything,
> but we do have to get along.
I have stated before that I am NOT Douglas Richardson's colleague, and
cleary I said his notion was "inane" because of the conclusion he was
attempting to draw from wonky evidence - just as he now inanely
misrepresents what I wrote. People who don't realise the extent of
their ignorance are fools; and as a specimen of that type, soi-disant
"genealogist" and "historian", Douglas Richardson is furthermore an
arrogant, unctuous fraud. Not a colleague.
As to Guy de Ostelli, from memory there is one record in which he
appears and a Guy, presumed to be the same, had been called a brother
of Marie, abbess of Shaftesbury. But this detail was crossed out - for
all we know, it could have been done at the time, on discovery of an
error by the scribe. Not quite overwhelming when set against three
royal charters without erasures or deletions, though of course it
doesn't have to be "against" these anyway.
Marie could be sister to both Guy de Ostelli and Henry II in a way
that is so obvious it shouldn't need stating - even to Douglas
Richardson and what is left of his buying public.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
John is right about this, and my post was definitely wrong - Cleuville
passed with Jeanne de Talbot to the seigneurs of Estouteville. Her
father was Hugo, and I misread my own handwritten notes, transferring
the Cleuville seigneury from one Hugo Talbot to another.
I'm not sure from memory what Holmes had to say about the marriage of
Marie de Meulan, and I will check this as soon as I can. I'm pretty
certain that he wasn't confusing Marie with an earlier bride from the
former comital family of Meulan. When time permits I shall also check
Émile Houth's articles, especially 'Galeran II [IV], comte de Meulan:
catalogue de ses actes précedé d'une étude biographique' in _Bulletin
philologique et historique_ and David Crouch's _The Beaumont Twins_
for information about Waleran's children. Someone else may be able to
do so more promptly.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
A wonder it is indeed, Pierre - from the empty ether he plucked an
idea that, in calling Marie "my sister", Henry II was referring to her
as his "spiritual" sibling. This was confirmed when his elite training
revealed that Henry's great-great-grandson called priests "father",
unless they belonged to the single rank existing in the hierarchy
below cardinals & bishops. He has since favoured us with the news that
"neptis" can mean kinswoman, and "fitz" grandson. We shall probably
learn next that "Richardson" means all-knowing & "Douglas" wise. Then
(maybe) the book will appear & we can pack up our notes and find
something else to do, as the problems of medieval genealogy will be
solved & it would be uncollegial to ask further questions.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thanks for those added details. However, it appears there is a
> chronological problem with your statement concerning one Mary/Marie,
> alleged daughter of Waleran de Meulan (d. 1166):
>
> ' This Marie was wife of Hugo de Talbot, seigneur of Cleuville,
> and ancestor with him of the earls of Shrewsbury and
> consequently of many SGM participants. '
>
> We find one Richard Talbot, of Linton, co. Hereford as the earliest
> identified ancestor of the Talbots, Lords Talbot (and later Earls of
> Shrewsbury). According to CP, this Richard Talbot had a grant of the
> manor of Linton from Henry II, and was recorded as holding lands in
> Wilton and Linton equally with Hugh de Longchamp in 1156; he is also
> identified as having d. before 1176, and was succeeded by his son
> Gilbert.
It may be a few days before I can check this more thoroughly - for the
time being, Holmes in the article cited before wrote that Marie,
youngest daughter of Waleran of Meulan and Agnes, married "a Hugh
Talbot, baron de Cleuville" who is "easily identified among the
ancestors of the present Earl of Shrewsbury". He placed this Hugh as
son of a namesake whose father was "Richart de Tallebot (in
Buckinghamshire)". One of his references appears to be at odds with
one in CP, with the names "Richard" and "Hugh" Talbot occurring
respectively in the Pipe Roll 2 Henry II and the Red Book of the
Exchequer for what seem to be corresponding entries in 1155-6.
Holmes noted that his information about Hugh's title came from Louis
de Mas Latrie, and that "Cleuville" was itself mysterious. He
suggested (not at all convincingly to me) that this might be Clovellie
near Barnstaple in Devon.
Meanwhile Emile Houth in the article cited earlier said that Waleran's
daughter who married a Hugo de Talbot was named Isabelle.
So more work to do - unless of course Douglas Richardson can open his
manuscript & collegially give SGM readers (but not me) the answer.
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
Perhaps we even have a problem with multiple Hughs; one the lord of
Cleuville (with the Stuteville connection), one married to a daughter of Waleran de
Meulan and Agnes de Montfort. Speculation only: should you find some further
information on that score, including the basis for Holmes' statements, please
advise.
From some of the other references you cited, if the Hugh Talbot in
question lived ca. 1140-1160 perhaps he was a brother or cousin of one of the
Talbots of Linton - collateral relationship yes, but not a 'direct' ancestor of the
Earls of Shrewsbury.
Meanwhile, Houth was correct that Waleran de Meulan had a daughter
Isabelle (or Isabel); however, the only known marriages for the historic Isabel were
to Geoffrey de Mayenne (d. 1169/70) and Maurice de Craon (d. 1196).
Cheers,
John
Douglas Richardson
Years ago I heard an excellent sermon which my pastor preached one
Sunday. He encouraged the congregration to examine all criticism
which comes your way in life. If the criticism is productive, make
the needed changes. If it is not, then ignore it.
I've read your heavily critical post below but fail to find anything
productive in it. Rather, you seem to be motivated to say something
nasty for the sole reason that I refuse to give you a free copy of my
forthcoming book. As I've explained to you before, you'll have to pay
for your copy just like everyone else. As soon as I receive your
check, I'll send you a signed copy just as I promised.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<hUvYa.176$Hy2....@eagle.america.net>...
Sutliff
Richardson that Hines would receive a free signed book, he is trying to
avoid his offer. That we have to endure this still is unfathomable. Very
collegial of Richardson.
Henry Sutliff
Date: 17 Mar 1999 01:58:25 GMT
From: Dcrdcr4<dcr...@aol.com >
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Message-ID: <19990316205825...@ng101.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Douglas Richardson, 'Countess Ida' -- et al.
Spencer:
Your post was worth a good laugh. Thanks for the chuckles. Best
always,
Douglas Richardson
P.S. Thanks for hyping the new book, Magna Carta Ancestry. I'll make
sure you get a personal autographed copy.
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.03080...@posting.google.com...
> Spencer ~
>
> Years ago I heard an excellent sermon which my pastor preached one
> Sunday. He encouraged the congregration to examine all criticism
> which comes your way in life. If the criticism is productive, make
> the needed changes. If it is not, then ignore it.
>
> I've read your heavily critical post below but fail to find anything
> productive in it. Rather, you seem to be motivated to say something
> nasty for the sole reason that I refuse to give you a free copy of my
> forthcoming book. As I've explained to you before, you'll have to pay
> for your copy just like everyone else. As soon as I receive your
> check, I'll send you a signed copy just as I promised.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
<snip>
John A. Rea
by R. Howard Bloch, from the U of Chicago, apparently dealing
with her works. Perhaps it might have a something more
recent than Holmes et al on her identity.
John
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<26.3d3a751...@aol.com>...
> Thursday, 7 August, 2003
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Perhaps we even have a problem with multiple Hughs; one the lord of
> Cleuville (with the Stuteville connection), one married to a daughter of
> Waleran de Meulan and Agnes de Montfort. Speculation only: should you find
> some further information on that score, including the basis for Holmes'
> statements, please advise.
>
> From some of the other references you cited, if the Hugh Talbot in
> question lived ca. 1140-1160 perhaps he was a brother or cousin of one of the
> Talbots of Linton - collateral relationship yes, but not a 'direct' ancestor
> of the Earls of Shrewsbury.
Well, maybe it's not that straightforward: Hugo Talbot was actually
recorded holding the family's part of Linton during this period - see
_Red Book of the Exchequer_, edited by Hubert Hall (London, 1896) part
II p. 679, under 1155-6: "In terris datis Hugoni de Longo Campo et
Hugoni [sic] Talebot in Lintone et Wiltone, xxxiij l. blancas". This
is at odds with the Pipe Roll entry of the same year, 2 Henry II, as
quoted in CP XII/1 p. 607 from _The Great Rolls of the Pipe for the
Second, Third and Fourth Years of the Reign of King Henry the Second,
1155-1158_, edited by Joseph Hunter (London, 1844) p. 51: "In terris
datis Hugoni de Longo Campo et Ricardo [sic] Talebot in Linton' et
Wilton' xxxiii li. bl."
I wonder if the copyist of the Red Book, or the editor, doubled up the
name "Hugo" by mistake. Some such error - possibly even by the
compositor and, if so, compounded by the proof-reader - appears likely
enough in view of the previous & subsequent years' Pipe Roll entries
reportedly referring (I haven't seen these) only to Richard and not to
Hugo as the co-tenant with Hugo de Longchamp at Linton. _Domesday
Descendants_ p. 1123 gives references for these, and also cites the
Red Book although Dr Keats-Rohan doesn't note the anomalous entry for
Hugo. She also doesn't mention the relevant grant by Henry II to
Richard Talbot: "Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Ricardo Talebot pro
servitio suo manerium de Lintona...in feodum et hereditatem...preter
LX. solidatas terre quas Hugo de Longocampo habet in eodem manerio"
[_Receuil des actes de Henri II, roi d'Angleterre et duc de Normandie,
concernant les provinces françaises et les affaires de France_, edited
by L Delisle & E Berger, 3 vols (Paris, 1916-1927), vol I p. 182 #78].
This grant was dated by the editors to between 1155 and 1158, on
information taken from Eyton's _Court, Household and Itinerary of King
Henry II_ (London, 1878). However, they seem to have overlooked
Eyton's reference to this specific document, which was given at
Argentan in Normandy and attested, amongst others, by Hilary, bishop
of Chichester who - also according to Eyon, op cit p. 20 - was with
the king in Normandy from ca 11 November 1156 to April 1157. This date
range for the grant, if correct, throws some slight & potentially
useful doubt on the Pipe Roll entries showing Richard already holding
Linton before that period.
It could be possible that Hugo Talbot shared Linton with Hugo de
Longchamp until formally surrendering this land after Michaelmas 1156
when it was given to a relative of his named Richard, possibly his
youngest son. In 1162 Hugo Talbot granted lands to Beaubec abbey in
Normandy with the consent of his wife and sons Gerard, Geoffrey, Hugo
and Richard [see W Farrer, _Honors and Knights' Fees_, 3 vols (London
& Manchester, 1923-25) vol. III p. 361]. By the way, It's tempting,
from these names and his standing on both sides of the Channel, to
speculate that Hugo was son of Geoffrey Talbot (of the _Gesta
Stephani_, the vengeful castellan of Hereford who was eventually
dispossessed locally in favour of Payn fitz John), and that the same
Hugo was father of the Richard of Linton from whom the earls of
Shrewbury can be securely traced. Maybe this Richard had accounted for
the moiety at Linton from 1155, with some confusion over his status
but found by Michaelmas 1156 not to be holding directly of the king as
recorded in the first two pipe rolls of his reign, so that Hugo was
entered in the exchequer book then instead, and shortly afterwards a
new grant was made to Richard.
Supposing Hugo Talbot had been the proper tenant, he might have been
absent on crusade, for instance, or retired to Normandy. He appears
there as the most prominent Talbot in the extant records for the late
1150s & early 1160s, for example in 1157 as the first supporter of
Hugo de Gournay in a settlement with Saint-Wandrille abbey [_Calendar
of Documents Preserved in France..._ edited by JH Round, vol I
(London, 1899) p. 60 #171]. These families were closely linked, the
famous Geoffrey's own father having been an under-tenant of Hugo de
Gournay's namesake ancestor in 1086, and the name of Gerard (Hugo
Talbot's eldest son above) was possibly from a Gournay connection, as
noted by Katherine Keats-Rohan [_Domesday Descendants_ p. 1123]. CP
XII/2 p. 607 says that the solution to the Talbot origin may be found
in Lacy alliances, noting that they intermarried with the Longchamp
family, co-tenants of Linton (Hugo de Longchamp was in the entourage
of Alienor of Aquitaine in the early 1150s, and she might have had a
hand in the grant to him of Linton); also, Geoffrey Talbot the
castellan of Hereford was described in _Gesta Stephani_ as "cognatus"
to Gilbert de Lacy, and Richard of Linton's son & heir was named
Gilbert, passing this name on to the later Talbots.
But this is straying too far from the presently known facts & there is
little point in trying to square the Pipe Roll and Red Book records
without knowing more about the background than I can find from printed
sources available in Melbourne - including whether or not there were
other contemporary Hugo Talbots, as John suggested, beyond the two
identified above. Perhaps one of the newsgroup's experts in English
lineages & feudal tenure (Paul, Rosie, Chris...) can suggest a simpler
explanation than occurs to my ill-equipped head.
In any event, the elder Hugo Talbot's wife in 1162 was called
Ermentrude, so that if a namesake of his had indeed been the husband
of "Marie de France", who lived & wrote in England long after that, it
was more plausibly his (third) son.
> Meanwhile, Houth was correct that Waleran de Meulan had a daughter
> Isabelle (or Isabel); however, the only known marriages for the historic
> Isabel were to Geoffrey de Mayenne (d. 1169/70) and Maurice de Craon (d.
> 1196).
This is certain, see _Recueil des actes de Henri II..._, vol II p. 239
#628, charter dated by the editors 1180/83: "ad petitionem
Ysabell[is], filie Gualerandi comitis de Mellento...quas prefata
Ysabellis concedentibus filiis suis, Juhello scilicet, filio Gaufridi
de Meduana, et Mauricio et Petro, filiis Mauricii de Creon".
Curiously, Louis de Mas Latrie got this right [_Trésor de
chronologie..._ (Paris, 1889) col. 1639] but then added two other
daughters who appear to be figments of someone's imagination (no
source is cited): "Marie, femme de Hue Talbot, baron de Cleuville" and
"Amieu, femme de Henri, baron de Ferrières". Not too surprisingly, ES
III table 700 agrees with Mas Latrie for both of these problematic
women (calling the second "Amicie") and their alleged marriages. I
suspect the source in this case was _Trésor gégéalogique de Dom
Villevieille_. CP VII p. 738 note (m) states flatly that Waleran had
"6 sons and 1 daughter", in an appendix based on information from GA
Moriarty. I haven't found a reliable source cited for any other
daughters.
Incidentally, despite the value of Houth's work on the counts of
Meulan themselves, his various articles are not a good guide to their
families - from lack of attention to extraneous individuals he makes
several very odd errors, such as giving an unrecorded husband to
Isabelle and identifying Waleran's mother-in-law as his wife on one
occasion - just imagine what Bob Hope might have made of that...
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
> The sensible course for a professional historian or genealogist
> looking into this would be to check the acta of Henry II for mention
> of Marie, abbess of Shaftesbury's counterparts in rank and/or
> relationship to the king.
An example of Henry II describing another abbess may be of interest,
although the following was written before he became a king - I had
forgotten that he himself had a paternal aunt who was an important
abbess, Matilda of Fontevraud. Shortly before she died, Henry as duke
of Normandy made a gift to Fontevraud in these terms: "ego Henricus,
dux Normannorum, comes Andegavorum, do et concedo...Matildi abbatisse,
amite mee, et toti conventui Fontis Ebraldi..." [_Receuil des actes_
edited by Delisle & Berger (details cited before), vol I p. 37 #30].
Like Marie of Shaftesbury to King John later, the abbess-aunt was
called "amita" - no hint of "amica", nor or "soror".
Incidentally, some necrologies refer to many of the dead (including
kings and lowlier individuals, laymen and often benefactors) as
"frater noster". Unless they were tonsured on deathbeds - quite a
frequent occurrence - this presumably indicates only that they were
now especially brothers in Christ, having encountered their general
human fraternity in death.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
> > Meanwhile, Houth was correct that Waleran de Meulan had a daughter
> > Isabelle (or Isabel); however, the only known marriages for the historic
> > Isabel were to Geoffrey de Mayenne (d. 1169/70) and Maurice de Craon (d.
> > 1196).
>
> This is certain, see _Recueil des actes de Henri II..._, vol II p. 239
> #628, charter dated by the editors 1180/83: "ad petitionem
> Ysabell[is], filie Gualerandi comitis de Mellento...quas prefata
> Ysabellis concedentibus filiis suis, Juhello scilicet, filio Gaufridi
> de Meduana, et Mauricio et Petro, filiis Mauricii de Creon".
> Curiously, Louis de Mas Latrie got this right [_Trésor de
> chronologie..._ (Paris, 1889) col. 1639] but then added two other
> daughters who appear to be figments of someone's imagination (no
> source is cited): "Marie, femme de Hue Talbot, baron de Cleuville" and
> "Amieu, femme de Henri, baron de Ferrières". Not too surprisingly, ES
> III table 700 agrees with Mas Latrie for both of these problematic
> women (calling the second "Amicie") and their alleged marriages. I
> suspect the source in this case was _Trésor gégéalogique de Dom
> Villevieille_. CP VII p. 738 note (m) states flatly that Waleran had
> "6 sons and 1 daughter", in an appendix based on information from GA
> Moriarty. I haven't found a reliable source cited for any other
> daughters.
It turns out that Dom Villevieille didn't originate this - although
compiled earlier, his _Trésor gégéalogique_ was not published until
1875, while these two purported daughters of Waleran, Marie and
Amicie, and their alleged marriages were already given in the third
edition of Père Anselme (Paris, 1726), tome 2 p. 406. No source is
cited there.
Peter Stewart
Pierre Aronax
>
> Years ago I heard an excellent sermon which my pastor preached one
> Sunday. He encouraged the congregration to examine all criticism
> which comes your way in life. If the criticism is productive, make
> the needed changes. If it is not, then ignore it.
Yous seems to have adopted only the last part of the preach, since we
have not seen you make any changes to your position despite the
constructive criticisms made by Peter Stewart and by myself, not even
recognize that you were indeed going in a wrong direction.
Pierre
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart wrote:
> CP
> XII/2 p. 607 says that the solution to the Talbot origin may be found
> in Lacy alliances, noting that they intermarried with the Longchamp
> family, co-tenants of Linton (Hugo de Longchamp was in the entourage
> of Alienor of Aquitaine in the early 1150s, and she might have had a
> hand in the grant to him of Linton); also, Geoffrey Talbot the
> castellan of Hereford was described in _Gesta Stephani_ as "cognatus"
> to Gilbert de Lacy, and Richard of Linton's son & heir was named
> Gilbert, passing this name on to the later Talbots.
Thanks for posting the very useful information about the early Talbots of
Linton. CP's suggestion about a Lacy-Talbot-Longchamp connection is one that
I've been meaning to follow up in connection with the problem of the origin
of Sibyl de Lacy, wife of Payn Fitz John.
I'd be interested to hear whether anyone have any information about the
Lacy-Longchamp marriage referred to by CP. I can't see any such marriage
mentioned in "Domesday Descendants", or in the pedigrees of Lacy of
Herefordshire and Pontefract in Wightman's book on the Lacy family.
On the nature of the kinship between Geoffrey Talbot and Gilbert de Lacy, it
does seem inescapable that Sibyl was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, on
Wightman's evidence from the Llanthony cartulary that Sibyl's daughter
Cecily called Hugh her "avus" (and possibly this is also stated in a
document at Gloucester which I'll have to try to get a copy of). On the
other hand, from the stray mention of an Agnes de Lacy and her daughter
Sibyl as benefactors of the Hospitallers, probably about the middle of the
12th century, it does seem likely that Sibyl's mother was called Agnes.
The best solution I can suggest to explain Sibyl's apparent Talbot ancestry
is a slight modification of the one proposed by Keats-Rohan. She suggested
that Hugh de Lacy's known wife Adeline could have been a daughter of
Geoffrey Talbot senior. But perhaps the evidence - and the chronology - can
be reconciled better by giving Hugh a second wife - probably a much younger
one - called Agnes, the daughter of Geoffrey Talbot senior and his wife
Agnes. (Sibyl could then have been named after her aunt, Geoffrey's known
daughter Sibyl.)
The one piece of evidence this would leave unexplained is the reference to
Gilbert de Lacy as the "cognatus" of Geoffrey Talbot junior. Gilbert is
assumed to be a nephew of Hugh de Lacy (either the son of his elder brother,
as Wightman argues, or traditionally the son of a sister), so Hugh's
suggested marriage to the sister of Geoffrey would not provide any sort of
blood relationship between Geoffrey and Gilbert.
So I've been wondering whether the connection between Geoffrey and Gilbert
can be explained by another marriage. Your idea about Richard possibly being
Geoffrey's son, and naming his own son Gilbert, is interesting.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
I wrote:
> The best solution I can suggest to explain Sibyl's apparent Talbot
ancestry
> is a slight modification of the one proposed by Keats-Rohan. She suggested
> that Hugh de Lacy's known wife Adeline could have been a daughter of
> Geoffrey Talbot senior. But perhaps the evidence - and the chronology -
can
> be reconciled better by giving Hugh a second wife - probably a much
younger
> one - called Agnes, the daughter of Geoffrey Talbot senior and his wife
> Agnes. (Sibyl could then have been named after her aunt, Geoffrey's known
> daughter Sibyl.)
There may just be a more radical possibility. I think the Talbot ancestry
has been assumed to come through Sibyl because she was known to be a Lacy,
and because Geoffrey Talbot's description of Gilbert de Lacy was evidence of
a relationship between the families. If the Geoffrey-Gilbert relationship
comes through a different route (as I'm assuming with the suggestion above),
I'm not sure whether it's clear that the Talbot ancestry has to come through
Sibyl at all. (Although I may well be overlooking some bit of evidence -
there are so many pieces in this jigsaw.)
An alternative may be for the unknown mother of Sibyl's husband, Payn Fitz
John, to be a Talbot. No evidence at all, although John and the Talbots both
held land in Essex, and the name Agnes occurs in both families.
Chris Phillips