Eleanor de Furnival, wife of Richard de Brewes
ToddWhi...@aol.com
(was Re: Brewes-Wingfield-Pole.)_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2005-06/1118834930)
John and Paul~
John, you suggested that the Verdons may not have a descent from the
Furnivalle family, but the evidence provided by Paul shows the tenure of Brisingham
manor went with Eleanor as a form of dower [if I am reading it correctly],
and then it returned to the Verdon line. I know this in itself does not prove
or disprove a Furnivalle descent for the Verdons. But for the later Verdon
lord to be charged with the funeral expense of "Lady Brewes" does seem to
indicate a filial obligation. Do you feel the Verdon descent from the Furnivalle
family holds up? Thanks for any input.
Todd Whitesides
the...@aol.com
I agree, as you note, that the payment for the expenses of Eleanor
(de Furnival) (de Verdon) de Breuse's funeral by de Verdon is a good
indicator of a familial relationship. When I wrote,
" Concerning chronological issues re: this identification, the
CP account for John de Verdon states that " He m., before 1276,
Eleanor, da. of Sir Thomas de Furnivalle,..." but gives no
documentation. It is possible that Eleanor was a younger and 2nd
wife, born say 1265/1275, and not the mother of Sir Thomas de
Verdon who was bapt. at Whiston, York. on 10 Jan. 1275/6. If this
were correct, it is not chronologically impossible that Alianore
was dau. of Sir Thomas de Furnival (herein shown as her brother)
and his wife Joan le Despenser, but I currently shown their
daughter Eleanor as wife of Piers de Mauley (d. 1348). "
I intended to convey that the chronology and placement I gave is
most likely but not 100% certain. Sir Richard de Breuse was likely
born say 1265-1270; if Eleanor de Furnival was mother of Sir Thomas de
Verdon, and likely born say 1255-1260, she would have been slightly
older that Sir Richard - not the typical case (although several
well-known 'cases' of this type exist during the period).
Thanks for pointing out this important issue.
Cheers,
John
Clagett, Brice
and his wife, Ida of Lower Lorraine. I can't identify this descent.
How did it come?
Besides the four sons listed by John, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of
Suffolk, and Catherine Wingfield had at least one daughter: Amy (Anne),
who married (1) Sir Gerard del'Isle, (2) Robert Thorley. See, e.g.,
CP 8:52-53.
The...@aol.com
Dear Brice,
Thanks for the details on the de la Pole daughter.
Following is the descent from Eustace II of Boulogne and Ida of
Lower Lorraine to Eleanor de Furnival, via de Lucy, and Fitz Walter
and de Luvetot.
Cheers,
John *
1 Eustace II of Boulogne
----------------------------------------
Death: 1093
Occ: Count of Boulogne -1093
Father: Eustace I of Boulogne (-1047)
Mother: Matilda of Louvain
Count of Boulogne
fought at Battle of Hastings (see CP XII Appendix L, pp. 47-48)[1]
married 1stly (as 2nd husband) Goda of England[2],
2ndly Ida of Lower Lorraine[3]
cf. ES I Band I.2 Tafel 202 (Lorraine)[3]
Spouse: Ida of Lower Lorraine [2nd wife]
Death: 13 Aug 1113[3]
Father: Godfrey 'the Bearded' of Lorraine (-1069)
Mother: Uda (-<1054)
Marr: Dec 1057, Cambrai[4]
Children: Eustace III, count of Boulogne (->1125)
Godfrey de Bouillon, 'King' of Jerusalem(-1100)
Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem(-1118)
Goisfred (->1086)
1.1 Goisfred de Boulogne
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 1086[5],[6]
of Carshalton, co. Surrey
'Goisfrid filius Eustachii Comitis', held the manor of Carshalton at
the time of Domesday Book, 1086 [DP 229[6] ; Wagner, Pedigree and
Progress;[5] see also Todd A. Farmerie, 'William Fiennes, 'Sire de
Fiennes et de Tingry'[7]]
' Geoffrey son of count Eustace ', received Aulton, Surrey as
the maritagium of his wife:
' Geoffrey himself holds Aulton. Five freemen (held it) of King
Edward, and they could take what lord they pleased. Of these one held
2 hides and four 6 hides apiece. There were five manors. Now it is
thrown into one manor. It was then assessed for 27 hides, now for 3½
hides. The land is for 10 ploughs. In demesne there is one; and
(there are) 9 villeins and 9 cottars with 5 ploughs. There is a
church; and 7 slaves; and 12 acres of meadow. The men of the county
and of the hundred say that they have never seen the writ or the
livery officer who on the kings behalf had given Geoffrey possession
of the manor. In the time of king Edward it was worth 20 pounds; when
he took possession of it, 100 shillings, now ten pounds. Of these
hides Wesman holds 6 hides of Geoffrey son of count Eustace. Geoffrey
de Mandeville gave him this land with his daughter [as a dowery]. In
demesne there is one plough; and (there are) 3 villens and one cottar
with three ploughs; and a mill worth 35 shillings; and 3 slaves; and
10 acres of meadow. Wood worth 2 hogs. The land is for two ploughs.
In the time of king Edward it was worth 4 pounds, and afterwards 40s,
and now 110 shillings. Of the same hides a certain smith of the
King’s has half a hide, which in the time of king Edward he received
with his wife, but he has never done any service for it.' [Domesday
Book, for Carshalton[8]]
frequently referred to in error as 'Geoffrey' de Boulogne [the name
'Godfrey' having earlier been erroneously assigned to his famous
brother, 'Godfrey' of Bouillon][7]
cf. Genealogics # I00305429 [cites ES III:621][9]
Spouse: Beatrice de Mandeville
Father: Geoffrey de Mandeville, of Great Waltham, Essex (-<1100)
Mother: Athelaise
Marr: bef 1086[6]
Children: William (-ca1130)
1.1.1 William de Boulogne
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1130[10]
of Carshalton, co. Surrey[5]
cf. Genealogics #I00305427 [cites ES III:621][9]
Children: Pharamus de Boulogne(->1153)
Rohese, m. Richard de Lucy
1.1.1.1 Rohese de Boulogne
----------------------------------------
identification by Doug Richardson, based on the following charter in
which her son Godfrey, bishop of Winchester identifies his uncle
[brother of his mother] as Pharamus de Boulogne [Pharamuso de Bolonia
avunculo nostro]:
"545. Merton priory.
Inspeximus and confirmation for the canons of Merton of a charter of
bishop Godfrey of Winchester which confirms the grant to them of the
church of Carshalton, and its confirmation by his predecessor,
bishop Richard. The canons may convert the fruits and obventions in
proprios usus, making provision for a perpetual vicar with a vicarage
worth six marks. [Feb. 1198 X Dec. 1204]
Hubertus dei gratia Cantuariensis archiepiscopus totius Anglie primas
omnibus sancte matris ecclesie filiis ad quos presens scriptum
pervenerit eternam in domino salutem. Ad universitatis vestre
notitiam volumus pervenire nos cartam venerabilis fratris nostri
Godefridi Wyntoniensis episcopi diligentius inspexisse, per quam
dilectis filiis nostris canonicis ecclesie beate Marie de Merton'
ecclesiam de Aultona confirmavit in hec verba. Omnibus Christi
fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit Godefridus dei gratia
Wyntoniensis episcopus eternam in domino salutem. Considerantes
religionis fervorum domus Mertonie et bonam conversationem
dilectorum canonicorum ibidem deo servientium suavissime redolentem,
eis in iustis petitionibus suis deesse nolumus nec debemus. Inde est
quod nos, inspectis instrumentis predictorum canonicorum super
ecclesia de Aultona a nobili viro Pharamuso de Bolonia avunculo
nostro eis donate et a predecessore nostro Ricardo bone memorie
quondam Wyntoniensi episcopo confirmata, eandem donationem et
confirmationem iuxta quod in prefatis instrumentis continetur ratam
habemus et presenti carta nostra confirmamus, statuentes ut predicti
canonici omnes fructus et obventiones ex prefata ecclesia de Aulton'
provenientes in proprios usus licite possint convertere. Volumus
etiam nichilominus quod ad presentationem eorum prepetuus vicarius
per nos et successores nostros Wyntonienses episcopos in ea
instituatur, cui constituimus vicariam ad valentiam sex marcarum,
qui in ea ministrabit ipsamque ecclesiam de oneribus episcopalibus
exonerabit. Ut igitur quod a predicto episcopo prefatis canonicis
pia consideratione factum est firmum et perpetuum robur optineat,
supramemoratam confirmationem ipsius rationabiliter factam ratam
habemus et tam presenti scripto quam sigilli nostri testimonio
confirmamus.
Hiis testibus: magistro Ricardo cancellario nostro, Rannulfo
thesaurario Saresberiensis ecclesie, magistro Simone de Scalis,
magistro Godefrido de Insula, et aliis, etc." [Cheney, 201-202[11]]
Spouse: Richard de Lucy, of Diss; Justiciar of England
Death: 1178, Lesness, Kent (d. a monk)[12]
Father: NN de Lucy
Mother: Avelina
Children: Avelina de Lucy, m. Gilbert de Montfichet
Maud
Geoffrey de Lucy [father of Rohese de Lucy] (-<1178)
Alice de Lucy, m. Odinel d'Umfrevilleee
Godfrey de Lucy, bishop of Winchester(-1204)
1.1.1.1.1 Maud de Lucy
----------------------------------------
Occ: Lady of Diss
received Diss, Norfolk as her maritagium[1]
[shown as 2nd wife[13]in error,[1]]
Spouse: Walter fitz Robert, of Dunmow, Essex
Death: 1198[1]
Father: Robert fitz Richard de Clare (-1134)
Mother: Maud de St. Liz (-1140)
Children: Robert fitz Walter [ the Magna Carta surety ] (-1235)
Maud (ca1161->1196)
Alice, m. Gilbert de Peche
Simon fitz Walter, of Daventry
1.1.1.1.1.1 Maud fitz Walter
----------------------------------------
Birth: ca 1161[1]
Death: aft 1196
' ..Maud, da. of Walter fitz Robert.' [CP V:580, note (g) re: wife
of William de Luvetot[1]]
Spouse: William de Luvetot, of Sheffield, Yorks. and Worksop, Notts.
Death: bef 1182[1]
Father: Richard de Luvetot (-1171)
Mother: Cecily de Brito
Children: Maud (>1179->1247)
1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Maud de Luvetot
----------------------------------------
Birth: aft 12 Mar 1179[1]
Death: aft 23 Jun 1247[1]
heiress of Sheffield, co. York and Worksop, co. Notts
'Matildis de Lovetot, filia et haeres Willielmi de Lovetot ',
benefactress of Worksop priory, charter dated after 1218 [her husband
Gerard de Furnival was deceased; Mon. Angl. VI/1:119, Num. V[14]]
had livery of her father's lands, 20 May 1203[1]
she m. 1stly Ernulf de Magneville[15],
2ndly Gerard de Furnival
cf. CP V:580 note (g)[1]
Spouse: Gerard de Furnival, of Munden Furnivall, Essex
Birth: aft 12 Mar 1179[1]
Death: 1218[13]
Father: Gerard de Furnival
Marr: ca 1198[15]
Children: Thomas (->1238)
Gerard de Furnival, of Munden Furnivall, Essex(-ca1241)
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thomas de Furnival
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 13 Apr 1238[1]
knight, of Sheffield, co. York
cf. CP V:580 note (g)[1]
Spouse: Bertha de Ferrers
Death: aft 10 Feb 1266[1],[16]
Father: William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby (-1247)
Mother: Agnes of Chester (-1247)
Children: Sir Gerard de Furnival (- d.s.p. <1261)
Thomas (-1291)
NN, m. [evidently] Roger de Mowbray
William (-1264)
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thomas de Furnival
----------------------------------------
Death: 12 May 1291[1]
Burial: Church of the Friars Minors, Doncaster[1]
knight, of Sheffield, co. York, Worksop and Grassthorpe, Notts., Eyam,
Stoney Middleton and Brassington, co. Derby
2nd son (heir to brother Sir Gerard, d.s.p. before 18 Oct 1261[1])
of Sheffield, co. York and Worksop, co .Notts (inherited from
grandmother)
supporter of King Henry III against de Montfort (Sheffield attacked by
John D'eyville and Montfort's supporters)
cf. CP V:580-1[1]
Children: Margaret, m. (1) Sir Hugh de Nevill (->1289)
Sir Thomas de Furnival(>1251-<1332)
Sarah, m. (1) John Beke, (2) Edmund Foliot
Alianore
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1a Alianore de Furnival*
----------------------------------------
' Eleanor, da. of Sir Thomas de Furnivalle, of Sheffield, Yorks.'
[CP XII/2:243[1]]
following the death of her 1st husband John de Verdon,
" Eleanor was granted dower and had lic., 17 Mar. 1295/6, to
m. Richard de Breuse. She was living as his wife (1302-03),
31 Edw. I, but the date of her death is not known. "
[CP XII/2:243[1], cites - in note (e) - " Cal. Close Rolls, 1288-96,
passim; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1292-1301, p. 185; Cal. Chancery
Warrants, vol. i, p. 58; Rye, Cal. Feet of Fines for Suffolk
(Suffok Inst. of Arch.), pp. 101, 106; ante, vol. ii, p. 304, note
"i", sub BREWES. "]
'On the morrow of St. John the Baptist 25 Edw. I, Richard de Brewose
obtained from [his mother] Alice, que fuit uxor Richardi de Brewosa,
the manor of Stradbroke, Suffolk. The younger Richard m. Alianore
(Feet of Fines, case 216, file 43, no. 42; file 45, no. 30). He was
sum. cum equis et armis 12 Mar 1300/01.' [CP II:304, note
(i)[1],[17]]
a fine recorded in the Feet of Fines (Suffolk):
' 31 Edward I, no 30 [c.1303]
Richard de Brewosa and Alionora his wife v William Roscelyn in
Wyngefeld, Stradebrok, Fresingfeld, Esham and Sutton. '[18]
she m. 1stly John de Verdon,
2ndly Richard de Breuse
cf. CP II:305, note (d)[1]
CP XII/2:243, note (e)[1]
cf. Todd Farmerie[19]
Spouse: John de Verdon [1st husband]
Birth: 11 Jun 1256[1]
Children: Sir Thomas de Verdon(-<1315)
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b Alianore de Furnival* (See above)
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Richard de Braose[19] [2nd husband]
Death: aft 25 Jul 1318[20],[21],[22]
Father: Sir Richard de Braose (-<1292)
Mother: Alice le Rus (ca1245-<1300)
Marr: aft 17 Mar 1295[1],[18]
Children: Sir Richard de Breuse, of Stradbroke (1301->1357)
1. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland
Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
2. David C. Douglas, "William the Conqueror," Univ of California
Press, 1964 (1st of English Monarchs series).
3. Detlev Schewennicke, "Europäische Stammtafeln: Neue Folge,"
Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1999 [4th series], Band
I.2 - Premysliden, Askanier, Herzoge von Lothringen, die Hauser
Hessen, Wurttemberg und Zahringen, First series by Wilhelm Karl,
Prinz zu Isenburg, continued second series by Frank, Baron Freytag
von Loringhoven.
4. J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald, "The Conqueror and His Companions,"
London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874, chapter on: EUSTACE II, COUNT OF
BOULOGNE, courtesy Pat Patterson,
http://genealogy.patp.us/conq/eustaceb.shm
5. "Pedigree and Progress," Sir Anthony Wagner, London: Phillimore
& Co., Ltd., 1975.
6. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday People," The Boydell Press,
1999, Vol. I: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English
Documents 1066-1166.
7. Leo van de Pas, "William Fiennes, Sire de Fiennes et de Tingry,"
3 Feb 1998, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, leov...@iinet.net.au
8. "Carshalton in the Domesday Book," London Borough of Sutton 2004,
provides text from Domesday Book re: Aulton (or Carshalton),
http://www.sutton.gov.uk/Sutton/Relaxing%2Band%2BLeisure/Heritage/Carshalton%2BDomesday%2BB
ook.htm
9. "Genealogics," website by Leo van de Pas, www.genealogics.com
10. Paul Theroff, "The Counts of Boulogne-sur-Mer," Paul Theroff's
Dynastic Genealogy Tables,
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/theroff/boulogne.txt
11. Douglas Richardson, "Translation of charter," 22 July
2004, provides text of Inspeximus and confirmation for the canons
of Merton of a charter of bishop Godfrey of Winchester, dated Feb.
1198 X Dec. 1204, text from C.R.Cheney and Eric John, English
Episcopal Acta III: Canterbury 1193-1205 (1986): 201-202.
12. W. L. Warren, "Henry II," University of California Press, 1973,
[English Monarchs Series].
14. Sir William Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum," London: Harding &
Lepard; and Longman Rees... Green, 1830.
15. William Farrer, Hon.D.Litt., Editor, "Early Yorkshire Charters,"
Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., Edinburgh, 1915-1916.
16. Paul Reed, FASG, "Bigod of Settrington, co. Yorks and Stocton,
co. Norfolk," August 2, 2000, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
17. Braose-Wingfield Connection, "John P. Ravilious, Todd Farmerie,
Cristopher Nash & Rosie Bevan," Nov 3, 2001,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com information re: Inq.p.m., William
le Rus, from Rosie Bevan; citation re: Stradbroke, & younger
Richard de Braose, Todd Farmerie.
18. Chris Phillips, "Braose-Wingfield Connection Redux," Jan 15,
2002, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com, includes cites from Walter
Rye, A Calendar of the Feet of Fines for Suffolk (1900).
19. Todd A. Farmerie, "De Braose," March 10, 1997,
GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com.
20. W. A. Copinger, M.A., LL.D., F.S.A., "The Manors of Suffolk:
Notes on Their History and Devolution," London: T. F. Unwin,
1905-1911, 7 Vols.
21. "Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516,"
www.histparl.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/
22. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/
* John P. Ravilious
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I believe that John Ravilious' comments regarding Eleanor de Furnival's
remote ancestry are based on my own private research on the Furnival
family. I'm presently working on an article for publication regarding
the Furnival ancestry which I hope to have finished sometime later this
year.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Clagett, Brice
was the mother of all of Sir Richard de Lucy's children, including
Maud?
Have we proof that Lucy had only one wife?
Isn't it the general view that Goisfred of Boulogne, the Domesday tenant
in Surrey, was a half-brother rather than full brother of Godfrey and
Baldwin, and therefore not the son of Ida of Lower Lorraine? The
alternative,
and I believe minority, view is that Goisfred and Godfrey were the same
person. See, e.g., Ancestral Roots 8th ed. pp. 138-40.
mwelc...@yahoo.com
Nice discovery regarding the Lucy family. Doug when and where will your
article appear. I can hardly wait.
Best
Mike
Todd A. Farmerie
> Isn't it the general view that Goisfred of Boulogne, the Domesday tenant
> in Surrey, was a half-brother rather than full brother of Godfrey and
> Baldwin, and therefore not the son of Ida of Lower Lorraine? The
> alternative,
> and I believe minority, view is that Goisfred and Godfrey were the same
> person. See, e.g., Ancestral Roots 8th ed. pp. 138-40.
At least to my mind, the possibility that Geoffrey and Godfrey were the
same was definitively put to rest a couple of years back. The two names
appear separately in the family - Eustace II had a brother Geoffrey, and
his father-in-law was Godfrey, so the use of both names for sons would
not be surprising. Further, Geoffrey de Boulogne appears in a document
with another man named Godfrey - it is clear that at least to this
clerk, the two men had different names. Likewise, Godfrey de Boulogne
(of Jerusalem) appears with men named Geoffrey, so again a distinction
is intended. The argument cannot be sustained that it was only later
historians who came to call men of the same name by different modern
versions.
It is also clear that whoever (Domesday tenant) Geoffrey's mother was,
she was not Ida. He was probably illegitimate, but an alternative is
possible: Eustace apparently divorced prior to his marriage to Ida, and
this could have resulted in the disinheriting of a child by the earlier
wife (perhaps Godgifu of England, perhaps another woman married between
Godgifu and Ida).
taf
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post.
I hope to be finished with my article sometime later this fall. When
completed, I'll let everyone know when and where it will appear in
print. In the meantime, I'm unable to discuss the matter further due
to the strict editorial policies of the journal which is publishing the
article.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
news:1118973411....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Mike ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
> I hope to be finished with my article sometime later this fall. When
> completed, I'll let everyone know when and where it will appear in
> print. In the meantime, I'm unable to discuss the matter further due
> to the strict editorial policies of the journal which is publishing the
> article.
If a particular journal has already undertaken to publish this work, you can
already tell us where it will appear, if not when. Of course, no-one is
asking for the whole substance of the article in advance.
Or is this journal so strict in its bizarre and counter-productive policies
that it can't even be named? That should narrow it down - surely there
couldn't be two or more, if indeed there is one, behaving so
unprofessionally towards its prospective authors.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<The...@aol.com> wrote in message news:105.631448...@aol.com...
What is meant here is hard to fathom - according to Round's quotation from
Dugdale's Monasticon (vi, 1017), the lord of Carshalton was described by his
grandson as "Gaufridus filius comitis Eustachii de Bolonia", so that
"Geoffrey de Boulogne" would hardly be an "error" for his name. Equally,
Godfrey de Bouillon is called "Godefridus" in many contemporary sources, so
I can't see how he is "erroneously" called "Godfrey" today.
The idea that these men were one & the same is preposterous. Godfrey de
Bouillon, one of the most famous figures of his time, was from childhood
designated as the heir to his maternal grandfather Duke Godfrey the Bearded
of Lorraine: after struggling to gain this inheritance he became margrave of
Antwerp and duke of Lower Lorraine, and later of course the advocate of the
Holy Sepulchre. The idea that this man might have settled in England earlier
on and married the daughter of a Mandeville lordling from Normandy, moreover
leaving descendants who inherited his lands in England but never said boo
about his vast prestige and great possessions abroad, is implausible in the
extreme.
Who raised this bogus identification in recent years? For the little
attention it ever deserved, this absurdity of Anglo-centric imagination was
dealt with long ago. The early life of Godfrey de Bouillon was studied
accurately enough by Kurt Breysig in 'Gottfried von Bouillon vor dem
Kreuzzuge', _Westdeutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst_ 18 (1898)
169-201. A good modern study in English, which also has this matter right,
is John Andressohn's _The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon_
(Bloomington, 1947).
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
> Who raised this bogus identification in recent years?
This line appeared, with a two-page discussion (the longest discussion
of a single issue in the book), in AR7 (1992), line 158A, with the
attribution, "This text supplied by Prof. David H. Kelley. Douglas
Richardson offered a similar line that contains the same data."
In the text, it relates that Round had refuted this identification
(which he attributed to a Dr. Liebermann). Next, "the truth was later
recognized by Joseph Armitage Robinson in his study of the Crispins, and
by H.W.C. Davis (1913). . . ." Then, "More recently, Johnson and
Cronne, . . ., have used Round's article to 'correct' Davis. The true
identity of Geoffrey/Godfrey was recognized again by Miss Catherine
Morton, who has been in touch with DHK and with Sir Anthony Wagner on
this matter."
> A good modern study in English, which also has this matter right,
> is John Andressohn's _The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon_
> (Bloomington, 1947).
Also, Alan V. Murray, _The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic
History 1099-1125_ (Prosopographica et Genealogica #4) (Oxford, 2000),
which directly addresses the question in Appendix A (The Descendants of
Eustace II of Boulogne).
taf
Peter Stewart
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:d8tlgr$81$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> Who raised this bogus identification in recent years?
>
> This line appeared, with a two-page discussion (the longest discussion of
> a single issue in the book), in AR7 (1992), line 158A, with the
> attribution, "This text supplied by Prof. David H. Kelley. Douglas
> Richardson offered a similar line that contains the same data."
Ah, so this absurd speculation was independently supported by Tweedledum AND
Tweedledee - no surprises there.
Peter Stewart
the...@aol.com
The information noted in my earlier post in this thread,
containing in part the inspeximus of Bishop Godfrey's charter, was
provided to me privately by Douglas Richardson in 2004. This was in
connection with an article then pending completion and publication.
Unfortunately, I was not aware that this publication had not yet
occurred, and included this information in my post. This then was a
premature disclosure of this information, for which I have apologized
to Douglas.
Best regards,
John
the...@aol.com
I show no current information as to an approximate birth
date/range for Geoffrey de Boulogne (outside his evidently being 'of
age', at least, at Domesday Book, 1086), let alone a clear indication
as to his being legitimate or not. Clearly the succession to the
county of Boulogne and to the kingdom of Jerusalem have no bearing on
the question.
What evidence do we have that his mother was not Ida of Lower
Lorraine?
Grazie,
John
Peter Stewart
<the...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119008256....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It seems to me he should apologise to you, for providing such duff
information in the first place.
And then he should probably apolgise to his peculiar editor, for the
dreadful breach of secrecy in sharing part of his wonky research ahead of
publication.
But why you would apologise for inadvertently giving Richardson cause to do
his work more thoroughly for a change, & save himself from another grossly
silly error, is beyond me.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<the...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119008759.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
For a start, the life of Ida written in the early 1130s, apparently for her
granddaughter, see Acta sanctorum, April vol 2, 139-145, stating that she
was mother to three remarkable sons: "Primus filiorum fuit
Eustachius...secundus quippe fuit Godefridus...fuit tertius bonae memoriae
Balduinus". No Geoffrey.
Ida's second and third sons were not the kind of individuals, at any time in
history, who had full-brothers living dim and unnoticed lives in improbable
places.
Peter Stewart
the...@aol.com
This is a claim from lack of evidence, not evidence itself.
(1) If there was nothing 'remarkable about Geoffrey,
that would suffice for his not being included in
this life of Ida you cite.
(2) The fact that we know from this source (and others)
of these three well-known sons - of whom Eustace
was not very important historically (if more
important, genealogically) and not so remarkable in
fact - does not remove the possibility of there being
other sons, or daughters for that matter.
If the argument is that we have no proof of his legitimacy, that
is one issue; it would seem we have no evidence that he was
illegitimate, either.
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart
<the...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119017574.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter,
>
> This is a claim from lack of evidence, not evidence itself.
>
> (1) If there was nothing 'remarkable about Geoffrey,
> that would suffice for his not being included in
> this life of Ida you cite.
Is this supposed to be a joke? If you haven't read this Vita, how can you
prognosticate about it with no context apart from the brief note in my post?
It says her sons were remarkable, and names her three offspring, not
remotely suggesting that she might have had others. If you know anything
about medieval lives of notable mothers, you must realise that the author
could have found all the children of such a woman as the Blessed Ida as
remarkable as he pleased, especially when writing at the behest of a family
member.
> (2) The fact that we know from this source (and others)
> of these three well-known sons - of whom Eustace
> was not very important historically (if more
> important, genealogically) and not so remarkable in
> fact - does not remove the possibility of there being
> other sons, or daughters for that matter.
You just said it - Eustace wasn't remarkable but nevertheless was described
so. Geoffrey wasn't remarkable either, but then he wasn't Ida's son and so
wasn't mentioned.
Get over it.
> If the argument is that we have no proof of his legitimacy, that
> is one issue; it would seem we have no evidence that he was
> illegitimate, either.
Yes we do - read Round on Pharamus of Tingry and Heather Tanner's 'The
Expansion of the Power and Influence of the Counts of Boulogne under Eustace
II', _Anglo-Norman Studies_ 14 (Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1991).
Peter Stewart
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
WJho...@aol.com
p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
<< For a start, the life of Ida written in the early 1130s, apparently for
her
granddaughter, see Acta sanctorum, April vol 2, 139-145, stating that she
was mother to three remarkable sons: "Primus filiorum fuit
Eustachius...secundus quippe fuit Godefridus...fuit tertius bonae memoriae
Balduinus". No Geoffrey.
>>
Is there a possibility that Goisfred could be the son of the older Eustace,
the father of the Eustace you've been talking about ?
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
The elder Eustace had a son of this name, distinct from the Domesday
tenant. I suppose he could have had two of the name, but chronology
better fits the younger Eustace (II).
taf
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119022304.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Whatever the correct facts of the matter, there's no need to fly into a
> rage.
If this is addressed to me, you are greatly exaggerating - "rage" is hardly
an apt word for testiness due to a very obtuse reply in a quite unnecessary
thread.
My reason for describing Kelley and Richardson as Tweedledum & Tweedledee is
their shared habit of slovenly and inadequate research leading to
ill-founded and worthless conjectures. Both of them repeatedly, lazily
suppose that secondary works dealing with people and events from different
points of view must provide them with all the information in primary sources
needed to assess the genealogical facts, or possibilities, of a specific
case. This is not only ignorant and unprofessional, but makes for endless
trouble to genealogy as a study as well as nuisance to genealogists who are
obliged to correct these abuses of indirect evidence.
In this instance, no-one can sensibly propose to speculate about the issue
of Ida of Lorraine without reading the one biography of her written by a
contemporary. Yet John Ravilious, fortified only by some stale tripe from
Richardson, set out to do this and persisted when he was given enough
information to send him back to the check the major source.
If he had bothered to do so, he would have discovered from the context that
'Vita beatae Idae' is virtually premised on the fact that the lady had only
three pregnancies, from which three remarkable sons were born to her, as I
reported before.
I am contributing to a newsgroup, not writing a treatise on Ida or
undertaking research assistance for Kelly and Richardson. And so I am
naturally annoyed to find someone harping over utterly bogus interpretations
of a medieval document that have been read into my brief statements about
it.
Of course the bastards of a husband are not likely to be featured in the
biography of a wife, and the purported "absence of evidence" in this context
is self-evidently rot.
Peter Stewart
Jwc...@aol.com
Wasn`t Eustace II, Count of Boulogne`s first wife, Godgifu the widow of Dreux,
Count of Amiens and Vexin and daughter of Ethelred II, King of England by Emma
of Normandy, daughter of Duke Richard I and Gunnora. She and Dreux had a son
Ralph who was granted the manors of Toddington and Sudeley, Gloucester and
Chilvers Coton, Warwick. He was Earl of Hereford and d 1057, that honor not
being transmitted to his heirs, who were known by the surname de Sudeley. See AR 7
lines 235 and 250. We have a similar case with Geoffrey de Boulogne, yet
strangely as He would have been apparently the eldest of Eustace`s sons, He would
not recieve the title of Count of Boulogne, though He survived his father.
Thus either Godgifu wasn`t his mother, else He was excluded due to some physical
or mental impairment or voluntarily chose to cede his rights to Eustace III.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear John, Peter, Douglas, Todd, Tim and others,
>
> Wasn`t Eustace II, Count of Boulogne`s first wife, Godgifu the widow of Dreux,
> Count of Amiens and Vexin and daughter of Ethelred II, King of England by Emma
> of Normandy, daughter of Duke Richard I and Gunnora. She and Dreux had a son
> Ralph who was granted the manors of Toddington and Sudeley, Gloucester and
> Chilvers Coton, Warwick.
Yes, this is the case.
> He was Earl of Hereford and d 1057, that honor not
> being transmitted to his heirs, who were known by the surname de Sudeley. See AR 7
> lines 235 and 250.
Prior to the Norman conquest, English titles were not inherited in the
sense we have come to think of it. Some of them trended in certain
families, but were only starting to pass from father to son in this
generation. In each of these cases, the families in question were of
the highest status, and in two of the three the 'child' was an adult
already active on a national level (in the third case, the son was only
allowed to succeed to a lesser territory). Further, at this time the
older Ealdordoms began to be consolidated, both in terms of the total
number and who held them. Shortly before the conquest, there were just
6 (and Hereford was not among them), 4 were held by Godwin's sons (one
of these, Tostig, was then supplanted by the younger brother of one of
the other two Ealdormen). Likewise, Ralph had not performed well as
Ealdorman, and there was growing anti-Norman sentiment at the time of
his death. With all of this going on, there was about zero likelihood
that a son would follow him, even were that the norm, which it wasn't.
> We have a similar case with Geoffrey de Boulogne, yet
> strangely as He would have been apparently the eldest of Eustace`s sons, He would
> not recieve the title of Count of Boulogne, though He survived his father.
> Thus either Godgifu wasn`t his mother, else He was excluded due to some physical
> or mental impairment or voluntarily chose to cede his rights to Eustace III.
The case is not all that similar - there is no evidence that Geoffrey
held any English land prior to the Conquest, and even if he did, it may
have come about through his father's role there (he was a favorite of
the Confessor) independent of maternity. I really suggest that you give
Murray a read before you get too excited about this. The suggestion is
that the scandalous (IIRC, "incestuous") nature of the marriage which
resulted in divorce would have tainted the son's status. It is not
clear that this divorced wife was Godgifu, and it isn't entirely certain
that the reference was to Eustace. That Geoffrey was disinherited son
of such a marriage was presented as a secondary possibility, not as a
likelihood.
taf
Peter Stewart
> Jwc...@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
>> We have a similar case with Geoffrey de Boulogne, yet strangely as He
>> would have been apparently the eldest of Eustace`s sons, He would not
>> recieve the title of Count of Boulogne, though He survived his father.
>> Thus either Godgifu wasn`t his mother, else He was excluded due to some
>> physical or mental impairment or voluntarily chose to cede his rights to
>> Eustace III.
>
> The case is not all that similar - there is no evidence that Geoffrey held
> any English land prior to the Conquest, and even if he did, it may have
> come about through his father's role there (he was a favorite of the
> Confessor) independent of maternity. I really suggest that you give
> Murray a read before you get too excited about this. The suggestion is
> that the scandalous (IIRC, "incestuous") nature of the marriage which
> resulted in divorce would have tainted the son's status. It is not clear
> that this divorced wife was Godgifu, and it isn't entirely certain that
> the reference was to Eustace. That Geoffrey was disinherited son of such
> a marriage was presented as a secondary possibility, not as a likelihood.
Heather Tanner's work [see the paper already cited as well as _Families,
Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c.
879-1160_, The Northern World 6 (Brill, Leiden & Boston, 2004] on the links
between England and Boulogne, in which Geoffrey hardly figured at all, then
the evidence for Count Eustace II apparently holding & disposing of some
possessions of Godgifu after her death, without reference to any son by her,
plus the unlikelihood of this pair naming their son Geoffrey, make the
scenario above even more extremely implausible.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l3Bse.20321$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
>> If the argument is that we have no proof of his legitimacy, that
>> is one issue; it would seem we have no evidence that he was
>> illegitimate, either.
>
> Yes we do - read Round on Pharamus of Tingry and Heather Tanner's 'The
> Expansion of the Power and Influence of the Counts of Boulogne under
> Eustace II', _Anglo-Norman Studies_ 14 (Proceedings of the Battle
> Conference 1991).
If further evidence is required, the best available must be in the charters
of family members: Heather Tanner gives a useful list of these (relating to
the Boulonnais) in Appendix 1a of the book cited above.
Amongst the four charters of Ida herself, the only one surviving in its
original form does not name her offspring. Of the other three, I have been
able to check two today.
Both are printed in _Opera diplomatica et historica_, edited by Aubert Le
Mire (Miraeus) & Jean-François Foppens, 4 vols (Brussels, 1723-48) I 77-79.
The first (pp. 77-78) is dated 1096 and names three sons: "Ego Ida
Boloniensis comitissa...in idipsum filiis meis Godefrido, Eustachio et
Balduino mihi cooperantibus" (NB this was written after Godfrey became duke
and outranked his elder brother).
The second (p. 79) is also given in _Cartulaire de l'abbaye de
Saint-Bertin_, edited by Benjamin Guérard, Collection des cartulaires de
France 3 (Paris, 1840), pp. 227-8 no. 16, dated either 1098 (from the AD
stated) or 1093 (from the indiction). This names two sons in the edition by
Guérard, with the third also named in Miraeus: "ego Ida, Boloniensium, Dei
gratia, comitissa...pro incolumitate filiorum meorum [Eustathii] Godefridi
et Balduini".
The following charter in Guérard, p. 229 no. 17, is a charter of Count
Eustace II dated 1122: "Ego Eustacius, Dei gratia, Boloniensium comes...pro
anima patris mei Eustacii, comitis, matrisque mee Yde, comitisse, et fratrum
meorum Godefridi, Ierosolomitani regis, atque Balduini, qui ei in regno
successit".
Finally, a charter of Godfrey is printed in Miraeus I p. 76, as follows:
"Ego Godefridus, legitimus successor et haeres ducis Godefridi
Barbati...Hanc meam intentionem cum retulissem matri meae Idae, praedicti
ducis filiae, et fratribus meis Balduino et Eustathio, eorum deinde consilio
et consensu voluntario".
In addition we have the evidence, or if you prefer the "lack of evidence",
of 'Genealogia comitum Buloniensium', edited by Ludwig Conrad Bethmann, MGH
SS IX 299-301. The first part of this was written in 1096 and states (p.
301): "Eustachius vero accepit uxorem filiam Godefridi ducis, Idam
nomine...et genuit ex ea tres filios, Eustachium et Godefridum qui nunc est
dux Lotharingiae et Balduinum".
There can be few women of the 11th century whose offspring are more
definitely known by name, gender and number. Kelley and Richardson could
easily have discovered this for themselves in an hour of sensible, not to
say professional, research.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>
> "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:l3Bse.20321$F7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> <the...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1119017574.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If the argument is that we have no proof of his legitimacy, that
>>> is one issue; it would seem we have no evidence that he was
>>> illegitimate, either.
>>
>> Yes we do - read Round on Pharamus of Tingry and Heather Tanner's 'The
>> Expansion of the Power and Influence of the Counts of Boulogne under
>> Eustace II', _Anglo-Norman Studies_ 14 (Proceedings of the Battle
>> Conference 1991).
>
> If further evidence is required, the best available must be in the
> charters of family members: Heather Tanner gives a useful list of these
> (relating to the Boulonnais) in Appendix 1a of the book cited above.
Apologies, that should be "the book cited earlier".
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
> Heather Tanner's work [see the paper already cited as well as _Families,
> Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c.
> 879-1160_, The Northern World 6 (Brill, Leiden & Boston, 2004] on the links
> between England and Boulogne, in which Geoffrey hardly figured at all, then
> the evidence for Count Eustace II apparently holding & disposing of some
> possessions of Godgifu after her death, without reference to any son by her,
> plus the unlikelihood of this pair naming their son Geoffrey, make the
> scenario above even more extremely implausible.
I will grant you the first part, but I don't see it at all unlikely that
Eustace and Godgifu would use the name Geoffrey, given that Eustace had
a brother, the Bishop of Paris, who bore the name. (Murray surveys
_Recuil des actes de Philippe Ier_ for the Bishop, and finds 39
instances which call him some variant of Goisfridus, and one Godfridus
(in a document where another surviving copy has Goafridus). Likewise,
_Historia comitum Ghisnensium_, _Ex chronico Sithiensi_, and the abbey
chronicle of Saint-Hubert all call him by variants of what we now call
Geoffrey.)
Now that I am at home I can add/amplify regarding the following:
Alan Murray writes with regard to dating the marriages of Eustace, "The
question is complicated by a record of the Council of Rheims (1049), at
which Pope Leo IX excommunicated for incest a Count Eustace and a Count
Engelrand; they have been identified as the count of Boulogne and the
Count of Ponthieu, although there are no indications as to the identity
of their wives." He goes on to give a background of the various
interpretations that had been made of this as to whether it refers to
Godgifu or to Ida. He leans toward Godgifu (the "incest" based on
shared descent from Alfred the Great, relying on Tanner's reconstruction
of the Counts of Boulogne), but introduces the possibility of an
intermediate marriage.
As to Geoffrey's chronology, William the Conqueror made him a grant in a
charter dated 1066/71, 15-20 years before Domesday, which puts his birth
in the second half of the 1040s at the latest.
taf
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>> Heather Tanner's work [see the paper already cited as well as _Families,
>> Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England,
>> c. 879-1160_, The Northern World 6 (Brill, Leiden & Boston, 2004] on the
>> links between England and Boulogne, in which Geoffrey hardly figured at
>> all, then the evidence for Count Eustace II apparently holding &
>> disposing of some possessions of Godgifu after her death, without
>> reference to any son by her, plus the unlikelihood of this pair naming
>> their son Geoffrey, make the scenario above even more extremely
>> implausible.
>
> I will grant you the first part, but I don't see it at all unlikely that
> Eustace and Godgifu would use the name Geoffrey, given that Eustace had a
> brother, the Bishop of Paris, who bore the name. (Murray surveys _Recuil
> des actes de Philippe Ier_ for the Bishop, and finds 39 instances which
> call him some variant of Goisfridus, and one Godfridus (in a document
> where another surviving copy has Goafridus). Likewise, _Historia comitum
> Ghisnensium_, _Ex chronico Sithiensi_, and the abbey chronicle of
> Saint-Hubert all call him by variants of what we now call Geoffrey.)
But if legitimate (is this certain?) the bishop was a younger son & wasn't
given this name as heir to his father or to honour his mother's lineage -
the indications are that he came in order after Eustace (their father's
name) and Lambert (their maternal grandfather's). I still think it unlikely
that Eustace II and Godgifu would have chosen this name in preference to
Eustace or Æthelred, or to Balduin that was probably used in the Boulogne
comital line before their generation.
Peter Stewart
the...@aol.com
Thank you, Peter for those charter extracts. On their own, these
would appear (without further analysis) to place Geoffrey de Boulogne
outside the group of Ida's issue; when taken with Todd's contribution
of details from William the Conqueror's charter ca. 1066/71, it is
quite clear that Geoffrey was the issue of a previous union -
legitimate or no. Thanks to you, Todd, for your input on this.
The chronology does place Geoffrey de Boulogne in the realm of
possibility as a child of Eustace II by Goda/Godgifu - she was widowed
in 1035, and had her last child by Dreux of Mantes no later than say
1035 or 1036 (if Ralph 'the Timid' was b. posthumously). Given the
problem of both surviving adult children not being documented, or
children not surviving past childhood, there is no reason to presume
that Geoffrey [if a child of Godgifu] was the only, or oldest, child of
the union. There easily could have been an older brother, or two, who
survived long enough to be named, but not to enter the [surviving]
written record.
This matter certainly deserves further study.
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart
<the...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119094599.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There is less than no reason to postulate other sons simply in order to move
the name Geoffrey up the scale of probability, when as far as we know this
man didn't inherit anything that Godgifu possessed and in all likelihood she
had no connection with him, genealogical or otherwise.
Geoffrey is mentioned in three acts, or forgeries, ascribed to William the
Conqueror: the following references are to _Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum:
The Acta of William I, 1066-1087_, edited by David Bates (Oxford, 1998).
No. 298 p. 893, undated, 1066 x 1071 according to the editor, notifying
grant of Claygate, Surrey etc to Westminster abbey, (p. 892: "This writ is
either a total forgery or an extensively elaborated version of an authentic
William I writ"): "Willelmus rex Anglorum...Gaufrido filio comitis Eustachii
et omnibus baronibus...de Suğregia"
No. 314 p. 928, undated, 1076 x 1084/85 according to the editor,
confirmation of Geoffrey's gift on behalf of his wife Beatrice of three
hides (one at Balham, two at Walton near Morden, neighbouring Carshalton) to
Westminster abbey: "Gaufridus filius comitis Eustachii pro Beatrice uxore
sua". Bates noted that the identification of Geoffrey with Godfrey de
Bouillon was repeated in _Westminster Abbey Charters 1066-c.1214_ edited by
Emma Mason assisted by Jennifer Bray, London Record Society 25 (London,
1988). Maybe that is where Kelley and/or Richardson picked up on the
subject.
No. 324 p. 952, Whitsun 1085 x 1086, including a recital of the previous
gift, "Gosfridus filius comitis Eustachii pro coniuge sua Beatrice".
Described by Bates (p. 948) as "another typical Westminster product of the
mid-twelfth century.
Since the charter of 1066/71 is suspect and the mention of Geoffrey in this
may have been drawn from a later document placing him in Surrey, perhaps no.
314, there is no definite occurrence until the late 1070s or early 1080s.
Peter Stewart
Jwc...@aol.com
One the one hand there is
a lack of evidence supporting Geoffrey de Boulogne being a son of Eustace II
and Godgifu of England. AR 7 line 250 gives Godgifu`s death as occuring in
1055, line 158A gives Eustace`s marriage to Ida of Lower Lorraine as 1057. If
Eustace and Godgifu were forced to separate on account of incest, when did this
occur ? On the other hand, was Geoffrey a renowned enough warrior to be granted
the hand of Beatrice de Mandeville in marriage if He were beyond doubt, a
bastard ?
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
In Mr. Stewart's continued rant and rage, he appears determined to show
just how foolish he really is. For some bizarre reason, Mr. Stewart
supposes that I believe that Geoffrey son of Count Eustace in England
is the same person as Duke Godfrey, the legitimate son of Count Eustace
who went to Jerusalem. Unfortunately for Mr. Stewart, he is dead
wrong. I don't believe this, nor have I ever thought this was so.
Just where Mr. Stewart got this idea, I have no idea. He certainly
never enquired of me.
In a related issue, I've had several communications in recent time with
David H. Kelley, FASG, regarding this matter. While Dr. Kelley and I
have divergent views regarding the Geoffrey/Godfrey problem, I have
enormous respect for him. He truly is a gentleman and a scholar. He
has been extremely helpful to me. That Mr. Stewart would refer to this
accomplished individual as "Tweedledum" is outrageous. Mr. Stewart
owes Dr. Kelley an apology.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1119115717.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In Mr. Stewart's continued rant and rage, he appears determined to show
> just how foolish he really is. For some bizarre reason, Mr. Stewart
> supposes that I believe that Geoffrey son of Count Eustace in England
> is the same person as Duke Godfrey, the legitimate son of Count Eustace
> who went to Jerusalem. Unfortunately for Mr. Stewart, he is dead
> wrong. I don't believe this, nor have I ever thought this was so.
> Just where Mr. Stewart got this idea, I have no idea. He certainly
> never enquired of me.
You must have an idea where this idea came from, as its basis has been
posted to the newsgroup.
Are you determined on drawing attention to your lies?
In response to my question "Who raised this bogus identification in recent
years?"
Todd Farmerie replied:
> This line appeared, with a two-page discussion (the longest discussion
> of a single issue in the book), in AR7 (1992), line 158A, with the
> attribution, "This text supplied by Prof. David H. Kelley. Douglas
> Richardson offered a similar line that contains the same data."
How do you square this with your claim today, "I don't believe this, nor
have I ever thought this was so"?
> In a related issue, I've had several communications in recent time with
> David H. Kelley, FASG, regarding this matter. While Dr. Kelley and I
> have divergent views regarding the Geoffrey/Godfrey problem, I have
> enormous respect for him. He truly is a gentleman and a scholar. He
> has been extremely helpful to me. That Mr. Stewart would refer to this
> accomplished individual as "Tweedledum" is outrageous. Mr. Stewart
> owes Dr. Kelley an apology.
The fact that you have respect for Kelley doesn't mandate that I must agree.
Maybe on Planet Richardson things are done differently, but not here under
the moon.
I don't care if the man is "accomplished" in your view, or for that matter
if he is a professor or a proboscis monkey - if I think he's a fool, I
reserve the right to say so. I gave my reason for concluding that he tends
to be lazy in going about research into mysterious and/or contentious
subjects, and incompetent in reaching conclusions from partial & borrowed
knowledge that all of the available evidence does not support. You do the
same, consistently. I stand by that.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Alan Murray discusses these questions in the book cited earlier by Todd,
_The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History 1099-1125_,
Prosopographica et genealogica 4 (Oxford, 2000), appendix A, 'The
Descendants of Eustace II of Boulogne'.
On p. 160: "Eustace II had a son called Geoffrey, who by 1085 had married
Beatrice, the daughter of Geoffrey I de Mandeville...who after the conquest
of England had risen from relative obscurity to become a major landholder in
England and castellan of the Tower of London".
On p. 161, wirting about the bogus identification of Geoffrey with Godfrey:
"Godfrey had been groomed to succeed to the Ardennes-Bouillon lands in
Lotharingia; as heir to the territory of Bouillon and county of Verdun, it
would have been strange for him to seek a wife among the middling members of
the Anglo-Norman nobility".
And on p. 162: "The obvious inference would be simply that he [Geoffrey] was
a bastard...However, he was able to marry a daughter of Geoffrey de
Mandeville, who, even if she did not belong to the uppermost rank of the
Anglo-Norman nobility, nevertheless would have represented a relatively
high-status marriage partner for a bastard".
I don't agree completely with the last statement: Geoffrey's father had been
excommunicated in 1049 for an incenstuous marriage , presumably his recorded
union with the English princess Godgifu, and he was not remarried to Ida
until 1057 or later. That leaves plenty of time for Count Eustace to have
had several children by concubine/s if he had not done so already - and
indeed given what we are told about Ida's "chaste" attitude to marital
intercourse he may well have indulged himself later beyond his conjugal
rights & duties with her.
William of Tyre and Orderic both wrongly attributed extra children to this
pair, the former giving them a son called William (namesake of Geoffrey's
recorded son), and the latter some unspecified daughters. (Misguided efforts
have been made to marry these to Conon, count of Montaigu - even fancifully
naming his wife Ida - and more remarkably still to Emperor Henry IV.)
Murray suggests that Eustace II might have had another wife - between
Godgifu and Ida - from whom he was perhaps separated in 1049, but this is
speculation to fill in a possible rather than a necessary blank since we
don't know when Godgifu died and have no reason to suppose that Geoffrey was
legitimate anyway. The naming of "Geoffrey fitz Eustace" is consistent with
other known illegitimate sons of similar status around this time, for
instance Eustace III of Boulogne's bastards Ralph and Eustace ("Radulfus
filius comitis" and "Eustacius frater eius"), and Alan of Brittany's son
"Brian fitz Count", lord of Abergavenny and (by marriage) Wallingford.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I'll repeat my statement from yesterday: I have never believed that
Geoffrey son of Count Eustace in England was the same person of Duke
Godfrey de Bouillon who went to Jerusalem.
Please put the emphasis on the word "never."
Peter Stewart
Such arbitrary statements are not worth the trouble to post, even for
someone with credibility that you do not possess.
Once again, how do you square this claim with the words published in
AR7 - and apparently "never" denied by you until now - as posted by
Todd:
"This text supplied by Prof. David H. Kelley. Douglas Richardson
offered a similar line that contains the same data".
The data in Kelley's text was a load of hooey, ignorant and
self-satisfied nonsense almost beyond belief from any person who has
studied medieval history and genealogy.
Are you now claiming that you did not provide "a similar line that
contains the same data", so that Weis was lying or somehow mistaken on
this point although you haven't chosen to remark on it before?
Or are you claiming that your "similar line" in fact contained quite
different & contradictory data, rather than "the same", on the issue
that Kelley discussed in several pages of extremely foolish blather?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I have never believed that Geoffrey son of Count Eustace in England was
the same person of Duke Godfrey de Bouillon who went to Jerusalem.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
> Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com wrote:
>
>>Dear Newsgroup ~
>>
>>I'll repeat my statement from yesterday: I have never believed that
>>Geoffrey son of Count Eustace in England was the same person of Duke
>>Godfrey de Bouillon who went to Jerusalem.
<snip>
> Once again, how do you square this claim with the words published in
> AR7 - and apparently "never" denied by you until now - as posted by
> Todd:
>
> "This text supplied by Prof. David H. Kelley. Douglas Richardson
> offered a similar line that contains the same data".
<snip>
> Are you now claiming that you did not provide "a similar line that
> contains the same data", so that Weis was lying or somehow mistaken on
> this point although you haven't chosen to remark on it before?
Not that this will move the discussion forward at all, but Weis had been
out of the picture for some time (having died in 1966). The 7th Edition
of Ancestral Roots, coming a full 25 years later, is highly modified
from the last Weis Edition (the 3rd), and the line in question, as it
appears, was not in the 6th. Thus, while Weis is still listed as
author, the text in question should be attributed to one of the
following: "With Additions and Corrections by Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr.,
Assisted by David Faris."
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I'll repeat my statement from yesterday: I have never believed that
> Geoffrey son of Count Eustace in England was the same person of Duke
> Godfrey de Bouillon who went to Jerusalem.
(Trying to move the discussion forward . . . ) Perhaps, having told us
what you never believed was the case, you could now tell us what you do
believe was the case - a distinct son of Ida, or not Ida; a mistress or
Godgifu.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
news:1119246934.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| OK. One more time.
|
| I have never believed that Geoffrey son of Count Eustace in England
| was the same person of [sic] Duke Godfrey de Bouillon who went to
| Jerusalem.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: www.royalancestry.net
------------------------------------------------
Did you tell Weis, Kelley, Sheppard and Faris that?
AR-7 has been on the street with your attributed, alleged, bum dope
since 1992.
See Line 158A, page 138.
Thirteen years is a long time without correction.
DSH
Peter Stewart
Maybe that will leap-frog one of the interesting points at issue, which
relates to the veracity of editorial statements in AR7.
If Douglas Richardson did not in fact offer a "similar line" from
Eustace II to Faramus containing "the same data" as Kelley's text, then
it is surely useful for AGM members to know that they can't rely on the
(living) editor & his assistant to interpret the most basic
genealogical information provided to them.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< Geoffrey son of Count Eustace in England >>
Is it certain that "Gaufridus" is the same name as "Geoffrey" ?
Thanks
Will
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1119246934.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Did you tell Weis, Kelley, Sheppard and Faris that?
The answer is No, Yes, Yes, Yes. Mr. Weis was long deceased at the
time of these events.
> AR-7 has been on the street with your attributed, alleged, bum dope
> since 1992.
>
> See Line 158A, page 138.
>
> Thirteen years is a long time without correction.
>
> DSH
I submitted a line to Ancestral Roots which treated Geoffrey son of
Count Eustace as a different person from Duke Godfrey. Dr. Kelley
submitted a line which treated them as the same person. Mr. Sheppard
chose to use Dr. Kelley's version. This was a purely an editorial
decision on Mr. Sheppard's part. I had no knowledge of Dr. Kelley's
submission until the book was printed.
I have great respect for Dr. Kelley. He is a most honorable gentleman.
I consider it a privilege to know him. As of six months ago, Dr.
Kelley was still of the opinion that Geoffrey/Godfrey are the same
individual. He had not yet seen Tanner or Murray, however. He may
have changed his position on the matter in the meantime.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> I submitted a line to Ancestral Roots which treated Geoffrey son
> of Count Eustace as a different person from Duke Godfrey.
> Dr. Kelley submitted a line which treated them as the same person.
> Mr. Sheppard chose to use Dr. Kelley's version. This was a purely
> an editorial decision on Mr. Sheppard's part. I had no knowledge of
> Dr. Kelley's submission until the book was printed.
Spencer's point was that you have had thirteen years to point out this
editorial falsehood, as you now claim it to be, SINCE the book was
printed. Can you refer us to an SGM post, or letter to an editor, or
otherwise a notice appearing in one of your own publications that set
this matter straight? If not, why not? Did you find it congenial to be
wrongly associated with such a dismal piece of work as Kelley's in AR6
and 7?
> I have great respect for Dr. Kelley. He is a most honorable gentleman.
> I consider it a privilege to know him. As of six months ago, Dr.
> Kelley was still of the opinion that Geoffrey/Godfrey are the same
> individual. He had not yet seen Tanner or Murray, however. He may
> have changed his position on the matter in the meantime.
The trouble is that he had not bothered to look into the sources before
he reached his ill-founded conclusion. Tanner and Murray are not these
sources, that were available to Kelley all along. His patronising idea
of "linguistic sophistication" on his side over the bogus
Geoffrey/Godfrey matter is laughable, and the rest is simply idiotic.
Or was Faramus de Tingry so busy with his etymology studies that he
clean forgot his grandfather had been a famous duke & crusader, the
ruler of Jerusalem?
Perhaps you could tell us why you didn't choose to demolish this stack
of mouldy straw before now so that your admirers would not be drawn
into the error. Was this out of respect for the misguided & foolish Dr.
Kelley, FASG, or from some other motive?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Is it certain that "Gaufridus" is the same name as "Geoffrey" ?
Yes, there are plenty of instances where people were called
"Gausfridus" or some orthographic variant in Latin documents and
"Jausfré", "Joffré" or something similar in the vernacular.
The same kind of progression can be traced from "Godefridus" to
"Godfrey". However, by his own estimation Dr Kelley was too
"linguistically sophisticated" to bother looking for this, and so
deluded that he thought Round was prone to learning such basics on the
hop.
Peter Stewart
mwelc...@yahoo.com
tell me if Mr. Beall reprinted Dr. Kelley's Boulogne line again?
Best Wishes
Mike Welch
D. Spencer Hines
Good, Direct, Straightforward Post....
Thank you, Douglas.
It sounds as if the information dealing with you on page 138 in AR-7 is
just bum dope ---- erroneous.
Bad Show...on the authors' part.
DSH
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1119307207....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Genealogists don't like to cast stones at other genealogists -- as they
all live in glass houses.
Doctors, Lawyers, Dentists, Academics, Journalists, Contractors and Used
Car Dealers are in the same predicament.
Douglas Richardson writes and compiles huge Genealogy Books with tens of
thousands of discrete facts in them.
Some errors are bound to creep in.
If he were to start firing off a correction every time he spots an error
in someone else's book or article he would simply invite massive
counterattack from those he corrects.
Hell, look at how furious people get at me when I point out factual,
logical, spelling and syntactical errors in what they post here.
The people I have brought to task would crucify me if given half a
chance and certainly never allow me to earn a living as a Genealogist --
something I neither need nor desire to do.
But Douglas doesn't have that choice. He has himself and six children
to support. He can't just go around hitting people upside the head --
colleagues -- with a 2 by 4 the way I do -- and excoriating them for
their errors and carelessness.
So, genealogical errors often go uncorrected -- because of "Professional
Courtesy".
Could he have done it very quietly, discreetly and "privately" --
perhaps.
But if he did he shouldn't tell us -- because then it wouldn't be quiet,
discreet and private anymore -- right?
Further, many people hold a grudge for corrections in private too -- you
can never calculate what may offend them -- and you have an enemy for
life.
So, Genealogists don't like to cast stones at other genealogists -- as
they all live in glass houses.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1119315008....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart
professions to correct or even bring attention to the glaring mistakes of
colleagues. However, in this case Richardson's name was associated in a very
prominent arena with some work that is beneath even his unwholesome
standards.
I should have thought it easy and safe enough for him to request between AR6
and AR7 that the false statement about him should be removed, if not
explicitly corrected, in the next edition. And then it ought to have been
within his powers and principles to offer a definite counter to the baseless
theories in Kelley's drivel.
This is not just an ordinary mistake: it seems to me a scandal for American
genealogical scholarship that such outright nonsense, perpetrated by one
FASG and published by another, should have stood virtually unchallenged
before the public since 1988 (if it appeared in AR6, as I'm told but can't
check). Far from being adequately debunked in all that time, it is still
polluting databases and suckering people who ought to know better.
The best that Richardson has posted to sgm before now was a brief statement,
not referring to AR7, in March 1998 (in the thread "'Shakespeare in Love"
and Charlemagne'):
"Regarding the confusion over Godfrey de Boulogne being the same individual
as Geoffrey de Boulogne, I've never accepted David Kelley's thesis that the
names
Geoffrey and Godfrey had the same origin or that they were interchangeable.
I suspect they both had a different origin linguistically and were not
interchangeable. I can prove that the two names were separate and distinct
by the approximate time period in question. For example, Richard de Lucy
the famous Justiciar had sons, one named Godfrey and one named Geoffrey.
There is NO confusion in the records regarding the identities of these sons.
My feeling on this matter is that Geoffrey de Boulogne was illegitimate and
that he was a separate and distinct person from Godfrey de Boulogne."
That shows that Richardson has been consistent on the subject, if not
exactly forthright, for the past seven years or so. It's not a question of
"feeling", of course, but anyway it is good to see that he wasn't fooled
despite negligently allowing others to be.
The most thorough attempt to disabuse sgm readers on this matter that I can
find was in posts by Leo van de Pas in November 1998, in the thread "Godfrey
de Bouillon and Charlemagne".
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xiPte.439$Vr6....@eagle.america.net...
Clagett, Brice
Kelley's essay, appears in the 8th edition of Ancestral Roots.
mwelc...@yahoo.com
Would like to thank you and the other person who also told me Doug name
has been removed from that which is 158A pages 152-154.
Best
Mike Welch
D. Spencer Hines
mwelc...@yahoo.com
Was just trying to say Thank You to the people who sent me the
information on this line one person told me that Doug name has been
removed from this line and Dr. Kelly is the only person who contributed
to this line.Brice told me that the line is still in the book. The line
in the book is 158A pages 152-154.
Sincerely Yours
Mike
D. Spencer Hines
DR's name has been removed with reference to line 158A in AR8?
Cheers,
Spencer
<mwelc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119592423.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thanks for your good post.
It's good to know that Mr. Beall has removed my name from Dr. Kelley's
work in the current edition of Ancestral Roots. I can good sleep at
night now, knowing I'm no longer credited for a mistake I never made.
In the future, I hope that Mr. Stewart gets his facts straight before
he launches into another vitriolic foray here on the newsgroup. For
Tim Powys-Lybbe to defend Mr. Stewart's outburst is inexcusable. It's
disturbing to think that Mr. Powys-Lybbe actually finds pleasure in
seeing the facts twisted into lies.
More than anything, this affair demonstrates once again the need for a
moderated newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> In the future, I hope that Mr. Stewart gets his facts straight before
> he launches into another vitriolic foray here on the newsgroup. For
> Tim Powys-Lybbe to defend Mr. Stewart's outburst is inexcusable. It's
> disturbing to think that Mr. Powys-Lybbe actually finds pleasure in
> seeing the facts twisted into lies.
Mr Richardson has no grounds for making that statement. I merely said
that Mr Stewart had given me cause for LOLs. I did not say any more
than that. Will Mr Richardson please withdraw that assertion
immediately: Mr Richardson cannot produce a source for it.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Peter Stewart
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:1e0b3a8...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
> In message of 24 Jun, "Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com"
> <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> In the future, I hope that Mr. Stewart gets his facts straight before
>> he launches into another vitriolic foray here on the newsgroup. For
>> Tim Powys-Lybbe to defend Mr. Stewart's outburst is inexcusable. It's
>> disturbing to think that Mr. Powys-Lybbe actually finds pleasure in
>> seeing the facts twisted into lies.
>
> Mr Richardson has no grounds for making that statement. I merely said
> that Mr Stewart had given me cause for LOLs. I did not say any more
> than that. Will Mr Richardson please withdraw that assertion
> immediately: Mr Richardson cannot produce a source for it.
He is posting - as so often - compounded nonsense about both of us.
For many years Douglas Richardsons's name was prominently conjoined with
David Kelley's for the appallingly ill-researched and baseless conjecture
identifying the obscure English landholder, husband & father Geoffrey fitz
Eustace with the celebrated Lotharingian duke, crusader and famously
heirless bachelor Godfrey de Bouillon.
It is apparent that Richardson never bothered to correct this publicly,
either in print or here when Todd Farmerie quoted the attribution in a post
to SGM recently, and he has not tried to explain this lapse.
We have only his belated word that he ever drew this error, discreditable to
himself, to the attention of the editor/s responsible; and no evidence that
he ever attempted to inform the many readers that Kelley was peddling
garbage, apart from one post to SGM years after the fact expressing
disagreement from a "feeling" that it may be wrong, merely citing another
distinct pair of brothers named Godfrey and Geoffrey.
I found this feeble, guarded approach to a disclaimer by Richardson in the
archive and promptly posted it, and yet he accuses me of "twisting facts
into lies" about him. Par for the course with his usual failure to defend
himself substantively.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
This is Peter Stewart's usual response when confronted with his
manifest errors. Deny everything and attack the person who exposes the
truth of the matter. Mr. Stewart seems to think that by telling still
more outrageous lies that he can bully people into silence. Not
hardly.
Mr. Stewart needs to fess up to his egregious mistake about my position
about Geoffrey/Godfrey of Boulogne issue and make a sincere apology to
the distinguished Dr. Kelley. The sooner he puts this ugly mess behind
him, the better it will be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1119659831....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> This is Peter Stewart's usual response when confronted with his
> manifest errors. Deny everything and attack the person who exposes the
> truth of the matter. Mr. Stewart seems to think that by telling still
> more outrageous lies that he can bully people into silence. Not
> hardly.
>
> Mr. Stewart needs to fess up to his egregious mistake about my position
> about Geoffrey/Godfrey of Boulogne issue and make a sincere apology to
> the distinguished Dr. Kelley. The sooner he puts this ugly mess behind
> him, the better it will be.
What on earth do you think you are talking about?
Kelley owes an apology to the genealogical community for his ludicrous
errors in an astoundingly stupid piece of work. Because of his conceit and
incompetence, many databases will perpetuate this nonsense, and meanwhile
untold numbers of ancestry studies will have been privately printed and
circulated making a fraudulent link between modern families and one of the
most renowned figures of the entire Middle Ages, who in reality had no
progeny at all. Clearly a number of professional genealogists will have been
hoodwinked too, not least by the lack of any responsible corrective, into
producing the same rubbish for clients on the supposed authority of Kelley
FASG, allegedly backed by Richardson with no explicit denial from the
latter.
Kelley deserves every insult that has been directed at him, and more - his
effort in this case is not inconsistent with other shoddy work, and puts him
firmly at the bottom of the Roderick Stuart class as a scholar.
Richardson can scarcely complain that the facts were not straight on the
public record when HE KEPT THEM CROOKED by his silence. It is open to
readers to assess the plausible motives for this - no-one, including
himself, has yet suggested any that does the slightest credit to Richardson.
And no-one, himself included, has even remotely established any case for
accusing me of lying. The "ugly mess" is not of my making - on the contrary,
I have been obliged to UNMAKE it by exposing facts of the matter.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
citations -- that Godfrey de Bouillon, the celebrated Crusader, was a
bachelor and died without issue.
Peter Stewart
> Let's see the hard and cold evidence -- with complete quotations and
> citations -- that Godfrey de Bouillon, the celebrated Crusader, was a
> bachelor and died without issue.
The sources are many and the literature is vast - works by Anderssohn and
Murray have already been cited that provide a starting point if you wish to
verify this, one of the best-known facts about one of the best-known figures
of the period.
A useful finding aid is the bibliography of the first crusade compiled by
Murray, at http://www.deremilitari.org/biblio/firstcrusade.htm.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
PS - another line of enquiry that has clearly been overlooked by Kelley and
those readers of AR6 (?), AR7 and AR8 who have been misled by him is the
effect that might have been expected upon the crusading & other political
activities in Palestine of Richard I if he had known that one of his own
subjects in England had the best claim to succeed Godfrey and his brother
Balduin I as king of Jerusalem.
Peter Stewart
the...@aol.com
This 'line of enquiry' would be a complete non-starter. Given
that the throne of Jerusalem had passed to Count Baldwin of Edessa
(subsequently King Baldwin II of Jerusalem) and had been maintained
through various travails among his descendants, there was no 'better
claim' to that throne any more than there was a 'better claim' to that
of England at the time. [One might as well pursue possible claims of
the descendants of Eustace III of Boulogne - also pointless...]
The family of the Kings of Jerusalem were near kin of Richard
Coeur-de-Lion, being also male-line descendants of Fulk V of Anjou
(King of Jerusalem, 1131-1143). Richard was clearly linked with the
issue of the succession on a personal level, not 'merely' as a leading
Crusader ca 1190-1192. He was doubtless pleased to see his nephew
Henry of Champagne marry the heiress Isabella, and become King of
Jerusalem in 1192.
John
D. Spencer Hines
He has insisted Godfrey de Bouillon was a bachelor and had no progeny
whatsoever.
He needs to show us the genealogical proof for those bald assertions.
Complete citations -- not truncated ones -- and convincing quotations --
are all that will cut the mustard.
Peter Stewart must understand that he needs to:
Stand & Deliver -- Or Retract And Fold....
Deus Vult.
Peter Stewart
<the...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119667143.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter,
>
> This 'line of enquiry' would be a complete non-starter. Given
> that the throne of Jerusalem had passed to Count Baldwin of Edessa
> (subsequently King Baldwin II of Jerusalem) and had been maintained
> through various travails among his descendants, there was no 'better
> claim' to that throne any more than there was a 'better claim' to that
> of England at the time. [One might as well pursue possible claims of
> the descendants of Eustace III of Boulogne - also pointless...]
I was suggesting a question that Kelley should have asked himself. Balduin
II gained the throne of Jerusalem as the closest relative of Balduin I on
the spot. The claimes of Eustace III were not overlooked, just impracticable
at the time. A line of succession from the imagined "Godfrey/Geoffrey" of
Kelley's theory to his son William and grandson Faramus was NOT considered,
then or ever after. Why not?
> The family of the Kings of Jerusalem were near kin of Richard
> Coeur-de-Lion, being also male-line descendants of Fulk V of Anjou
> (King of Jerusalem, 1131-1143). Richard was clearly linked with the
> issue of the succession on a personal level, not 'merely' as a leading
> Crusader ca 1190-1192. He was doubtless pleased to see his nephew
> Henry of Champagne marry the heiress Isabella, and become King of
> Jerusalem in 1192.
If you think the Angevins considered close blood relationships to themselves
mattered more than any political leverage they could gain outside of
kinship, you have a lot of catching up to do.
I was not suggesting that Richard would have gone into battle for the rights
of his subject, but only that if real this would surely have become a factor
in his dealings.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart is doing a classic buck and weave.
>
> He has insisted Godfrey de Bouillon was a bachelor and had no progeny
> whatsoever.
>
> He needs to show us the genealogical proof for those bald assertions.
>
> Complete citations -- not truncated ones -- and convincing quotations --
> are all that will cut the mustard.
>
> Peter Stewart must understand that he needs to:
>
> Stand & Deliver -- Or Retract And Fold....
Spencer Hines needs to understand that if he doubts such well-known facts as
I have asserted, he needs to do his own homework.
There is no question about Godfrey of Bouillon having a wife and children.
The fact that Kelley disn't bother to find this out does not oblige me to
waste time trying to educate confused Hawaiians.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
and turning -- trying to dance away from the issues.
He has insisted Godfrey de Bouillon was a bachelor and had no progeny
whatsoever.
He needs to show us the genealogical proof for those bald assertions.
He needs to prove that Godfrey de Bouillon _decessit sine prole_.
Complete citations -- not truncated ones -- and convincing quotations --
are all that will cut the mustard.
Peter Stewart must understand that he needs to:
Stand & Deliver -- Or Retract And Fold....
Dancing is NO substitute.
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart continues executing a classic buck and weave -- twisting
> and turning -- trying to dance away from the issues.
>
> He has insisted Godfrey de Bouillon was a bachelor and had no progeny
> whatsoever.
>
> He needs to show us the genealogical proof for those bald assertions.
>
> He needs to prove that Godfrey de Bouillon _decessit sine prole_.
>
> Complete citations -- not truncated ones -- and convincing quotations --
> are all that will cut the mustard.
>
> Peter Stewart must understand that he needs to:
>
> Stand & Deliver -- Or Retract And Fold....
>
> Dancing is NO substitute.
It's always baffling that Spencer, when he wants information spooned up to
him, goes about it by trying to insult the person he expects to do the
spoon-feeding.
The work of Alan Murray has been cited for him, and yet instead of seeking
this out, or asking what it has to say, Spencer prefers to make a fool of
himself with absurd claims about "bucking and weaving" by others.
Murray presented evidence from charters that Godfrey's younger brother
Balduin was considered his heir in Lorraine before the 1st crusade. He
further discussed an agreement as to the rights of Godfrey in Jerusalem and
succession to his rule & possessions in the Holy Land. Balduin's familiar
Fulcher of Chartres made it quite clear that Balduin's claim to succeed his
elder brother Godfrey was by hereditary right: he started book II of his
history with this explicit claim. The right was not challenged. William of
Tyre was at pains to point out the godliness in every respect of Godfrey's
life, and consequently his worthiness to assume the rule of Christians in
the very place where Christ had worn a crown of thorns, as of course were
others.
What room is left for an abandoned wife & son in England, or known bastard/s
anywhere?
Spencer can seek out the specific citations and convince himself with
quotations till he is surfeited, if he can understand these and no deponent
verbs are involved, but he can do the spooning for himself. I am not going
to rehearse in detail the work of others, and the consensus of historians
for nearly 1,000 years, just for the sake of pandering to his whims and
tantrums.
Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas
that Eustace III was invited to come and take the throne of Jerusalem but he
declined and as a result their cousin Baudouin Le Bourg, already in
Palestine, became king.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Todd A. Farmerie
> This storm in a teacup made me look up same of the aspects and it
> appears that Eustace III was invited to come and take the throne of
> Jerusalem but he declined and as a result their cousin Baudouin Le
> Bourg, already in Palestine, became king.
Murray suggests otherwise. Eustace accepted and set out for Jerusalem,
but only got as far as Italy when he learned that an opposing faction
had already crowned Baldwin. It was in the face of this accomplished
fact that Eustace decided not to press his claim.
taf
Peter Stewart
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:d9irkj$aur$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
The essential point in relation to Kelley's theory is that no-one, then or
ever, advanced a claim for any descendant of Geoffrey, lord of Carshalton &
Beatrice de Mandeville.
Peter Stewart
Leo
I do not disbelieve you but this is what Steven Runciman has to say:
Baldwin I had neglected his final duty as king; he made no arrangement for
the succession to the throne. The council of the kingdom hastily met. To
some of the nobles it seemed untinkable that the crown should pass from the
house of Boulogne. Baldwin I had succeeded his brother Godfrey; and there
was still a third brother, the eldest, Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
Messengers were hastily dispatched over the sea to inform the Count of his
brother's death and to beg him to take up the heritage. Eustace had no wish
to leave his pleasant country for the hazards of the East; but they told him
it was his duty.
-----and from here on they agree with you, I should have read more :-)
He set out towards Jerusalem. But when he reached Apulia he met other
messengers, with the news it was too late. The succession had passed
elsewhere. He refused the suggestion that he should continue on his way and
fight for his rights. Not unwillingly, he retraced his steps to Boulogne.
---and so in a way he declined........
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Geoffrey -- Son Of Count Eustace II of Boulogne/Godfrey de
Bouillon
Leo van de Pas
With apologies, I have not followed this saga from the beginning. I can only
take up here with Peter Stewart's remark about Geoffrey, lord of Carshalton
& Beatrice de Mandeville.
ES III/4 Tafel 621
Eustace II Count of Boulogne (father of Godfrey of Bouillon) has by an
unknown woman two sons, Guillaume and Godefroy, and apparently a third
Hugues. This is what is given for this Godefroy :
Godefroy, Lord of Carshalton, in 1100 in the Holy Land; married before 1086
Beatrix de Mandeville, daughter of Godefroy and Ithalaise, they had
certainly one son William de Boulogne and perhaps a son Harold. About
William the following:
William de Boulogne, mentioned in 1106, died circa 1130. Has a son, no
indication whether legitimate or not : Faramus de Boulogne or de Tingry.
Faramus married Maud and had a son William (no further details) and a
daughter Sibyl who married Enguerrand de Fiennes who was killed "vor Akkon
1189".
I have Enguerrand in my system as Ingelram and as an ancestor of William de
Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton, Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, David II,
King of Scots, Richard II, King of England, Henry V, King of England, and
after a quick count about 28 Gateway Ancestors to America.
As I have said before, Tafel 621 gives many sources. Perhaps ES is wrong, I
just hope not. If anyone can clarify this matter I would be very pleased.
D. Spencer Hines
He is actually providing some evidence -- not just bucking, weaving and
throwing a hissy fit -- like Stewart.
DSH
""Leo van de Pas"" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000901c57951$6db3f7f0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Peter Stewart
""Leo van de Pas"" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000901c57951$6db3f7f0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
ES III/4 table 621 in the main points at issue agrees with Alan Murray as to
the offpsring of Eustace II - three legitimate sons, all by Ida (1. Godfrey,
called "Gottfried", de Bouillon, 2. Count Eustace III and 3. King Balduin I,
though this is not the correct order of birth as 1. and 2. should be
reversed); and three illegitimate sons, Geoffrey, called "Godefroy", lord of
Carshalton (married to Beatrix de Mandeville, daughter of "Godefroy" &
Athelaise), Guillaume, and Hugues.
A Guillaume was mentioned by William of Tyre as a stay-at-home and
apparently elder brother of Godfrey de Bouilllon & King Balduin. Since he
would certainly have known of another legitimate brother - whether or not
senior to them - and did not call Guillaume a son of Ida when he gave her
just three, he was evidently writing of a bastard of their father.
I don't know where Hugues sprang from & don't have time to check through all
the sources listed. Harold in the next generation, though shown under a
broken line as doubtfully connected, is also a mystery to me.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Good For Leo!
>
> He is actually providing some evidence -- not just bucking, weaving and
> throwing a hissy fit -- like Stewart.
Um, Spencer - in the real world, ES published in the 20th is not "evidence"
for anything that happened in the 11th century.
Leo is engaged in a sensible discussion. You should try it, for a change.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: ntay...@fas.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor) Date: 1998/11/15
Subject: Godfrey de Bouillon & English family?
Leo van de Pas wrote:
>I can only quote Schwennicke and he gives Eustache II of Boulogne five
>sons, three legitimate and two illegitimate.
>You quote two sources, one 1895 and one 1913, 'inventing' the
>illegitimate half-brother. I doubt that Schwennicke would simply have
>copied this without checking.
In fact, that's exactly what Schwennicke did. This article by Round
(1895, repr. 1971) is the only relevant source among his bibliographical
references for that table.
>What happened to the 'inheritance' of Godfrey of Bouillon?
>Anthony Bridge, in his book "The Crusades" published in 1980,
>a long time after the other mentioned sources,
Kelley and Wagner were discussing this question in the late '70s and
early
'80s, I think. Bridge may have been totally unaware of this question,
so
simple posteriority argues nothing.
> on page 116 he records what
>happened:.....a group of Godfrey's own Lorrainers, who hated the papal
>legate, took control of the city, and sent a messenger to Baldwin of
>Edessa, Godfrey's brother, inviting him to come at once and TAKE OVER
HIS
>RIGHTFUL INHERITANCE AS NEXT OF KIN.
If that is exactly what the message said, and not a historian's
assumption
(or the testimony of a non-contemporary like William of Tyre) based on
the
assumption that that's the argument that would have been used, than it's
significant, otherwise not so. The issue of succession to the lordship
of
Jerusalem, as with other crusader property overseas, may have been
settled
without dealing with the niceties of kin--even close kin--left behind in
Western Europe. Runciman 1:315-26 tells of the frantic scramble for
control of the lordship after Godfrey's death. Godfrey had actually
willed Jerusalem to the patriarch, but the Lorraine party, whose
interest
were opposed to the Norman and Italian faction (which would assume
leadership through the patriarch) sent the bishop of Ramleh and others
to
fetch Baldwin "for they would only obey one of his [i.e. Godfrey's] kin"
(315). So in Runciman's language, this point is slightly different.
>If Godfrey de Bouillon, Duke of Lower-Lorraine, had had a legitimate
son,
>surely he would have been either King of Jerusalem or Duke of
>Lower-Lorraine, and not the holder of a small property in England.
Kelley notes that the Mandevilles were significant landholders in 11
counties in England after the Conquest; they became Earls soon
thereafter. He claims the Mandevilles would not have been a necessarily
improper match for the second son of a Picard count who had participated
in the Norman Conquest. The title to Lower Lorraine came to Godfrey
only
collaterally in 1084, through an in-law connection: and just as quickly
passed on to others. Easy come.
But why these English "Boulognes" had no connection or honors on the
continent if they were legitimate and knew themselves to be would need
to
be explained.
Nevertheless the possibility that the two Godfreys are the same person
needs to be explored more. The onomastic argument for it is correct:
the
name is the same, so it is possible that the individual is the same
(though of course there could have been two half-brothers with the same
name). While the burden of proof would be on identity (partly because
the
Crusader seems to have had no heir), I'd like to see a full documentary
chronology for both Godfreys before saying the father of William de
Boulogne definitely wasn't the Advocatus sancti sepulcri.
I note that "Godefroy Lord of Carshalton" is noted by Schwennicke
(following Round, I assume) to have been in the Holy Land in 1100.
What's
the source for this? Does anyone have the Round article on this handy?
By the way, the "A" text of the Genealogia comitum boloniensium, created
around 1096 (which survives in a 12th-century copy), doesn't mention any
of these Carshalton Boulognes.
I don't descend from this line. I've no vested interest either way, but
would like to see this problem, as one frequent poster puts it, "run to
ground."
Nat Taylor
---------------------------
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
----------------------
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: ntay...@fas.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor)
Date: 1998/11/15
Subject: Godfrey de Bouillon: English family?
ED MANN gave the following line of descent:
> 1 Godfrey de Boulogne [i.e. de Bouillon]
> 2 William de Boulogne
> 3 Pharamus de Boulogne
> 4 Sibyl de Boulogne
> 5 William de Fiennes ...
(citing Weiss' _Ancestral Roots_, 7th ed., Line 158a).
Whereupon leovd...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas) wrote:
>I have never seen a remark that Godfrey of Bouillon was married, and
that
>was the reason that his brother took over in Jerusalem.
Leo cites Schwennicke's ES NF 3:621, to show that this Guillaume de
Boulogne is actually son of a Godefroy, illegitimate half-brother to the
Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre (not King of Jerusalem) Godefroy de
Bouillon.
A "Goisfrid", son of Count Eustace [of Boulogne] is mentioned in
Domesday
Book as an English landholder, married to Beatrice de Mandeville (aunt
of
the first earl of Essex). Round (whom Schwennicke cites) and later Sir
Anthony R. Wagner (in _Pedigree and Progress_, pp. 159 & 253) were
convinced that this man was a separate person from the Crusader Godfrey
(and was thus necessarily illegitimate, because Count Eustace's
[legitimate] sons were known and did not include a "Goisfrid/Geoffrey").
However, The brief by David H. Kelley inserted in Weiss' _Ancestral
Roots_, 7th ed., presents compelling arguments to show that the two men
may have been the same. He points out that Goisfrid was onomastically
equivalent to Godfrey (something Round ignored as the modern
derivations,
Geoffrey and Godfrey, are distinct but not their medieval equivalents),
and that there is no evidence that the known data on the English
landholder with a wife and heir in England and the leader of the first
crusade cannot apply to one and the same person. This identity has
indeed
been on the table, as a query, since Round's day: Kelley mentions the
work
of Felix Liebermann, Joseph Armitage Robinson, and H. W. C. Davis as
"pro".
One significant counterargument, raised by Wagner, is that none of the
sources for the First Crusade ever allude to a marriage for Godfrey:
rather they tout his chastity. This is less compelling when it is
understood that contemporary writings of the first crusade don't talk
much
about the crusaders' home lives, and many of them left families behind.
Thereafter much of the surviving historiography of the Crusades (from
the
twelfth century onward) is tainted with the themes of moral fitness for
possession of the Holy Land. Godfrey succeeded in an enterprise which
others, later, could not sustain: therefore in retrospect his virtue
must
have been beyond theirs. Think of Tasso's oberblown moral epic
_Gierusalemme liberata_.
While this is not a proven descent (as Mr. Mann's database dump
suggests),
nor is it a fruitless and closed case as Mr. van de Pas thought. It is
an
intriguing hypothesis which deserves more complete scrutiny, and in a
different forum, than it has yet had. Kelley, at least, suggests that
determined digging may turn up more English records which will help tip
the scales one way or the other. Any takers?
Nat Taylor
--------------------------
"Having taught in a university history department for more than 36
years now, I would seek objectivity from anyone on the street
before asking an academic colleague in history."
Norman Ravitch, Professor of History, University of California,
Riverside -- The Wall Street Journal, 5 Nov 1998, p. A23.
D. Spencer Hines
Pogue Stewart, sobering up, is parading a BIT less of his standard
_modus operandi_ -- babble, bluster, blather and balderdash.
Shamed by Leo, Pogue Peter is quieting down and MAY actually do some
useful work and coherent posting for a change.
We Live In Hope....
No Guarantees, However...
No Dancing Allowed.
Peter Stewart
copied after it.
However, Kelley as paraphrased here was even wrong about Round supposedly
"ignoring" the alleged sameness of the names Godfrey and Geoffrey: in his
essay 'Our English Hapsburgs: a Great Delusion', printed in the same volume
as his 'The Counts of Boulogne as English Lords', Round dealt with the
romance identifying "Gotofridus" count of Hapsburg (died 1271), whom he
called "Gotfried" with the purported "princely" individual named "Galfridus"
or Geoffrey who went to England. Round of course knew that these names were
NOT the same.
Kelley's article in AR7 is a tissue of folly - there is NO redeeming value
in it whatsoever. The fact that it has been allowed to dupe readers for so
long is a poor reflection on scholarly genealogy in the USA over that time,
sadly in all quarters, including any contribution or silence from Hawaii
when these matters were discussed previously.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IO7ve.2$6i1...@eagle.america.net...
Peter Stewart
my posts and their order is a matter of record.
You demand citaitons and quotations for something you suddenly wish to know.
I have given you the case in outline, without reference to ES.
Remind us, will you, when was the least time you offered any post on any
subject containing the same kind of specific research assistance for others
that you are now demanding for yourself?
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4%7ve.4$6i1...@eagle.america.net...
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Remind us, will you, when was the least time you offered any post on any
> subject containing the same kind of specific research assistance for
> others that you are now demanding for yourself?
Make that the "last" time: my post was barely literate, equally rough in
grammar & orthography.
I hope any reader will feel free to offer an answer to this question - I'm
sure I can't remember the last time Spencer posted specific and useful
information on any subject, and perhaps he will have trouble remembering.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Todd,
> I do not disbelieve you but this is what Steven Runciman has to say:
>
> Baldwin I had neglected his final duty as king; he made no arrangement
> for the succession to the throne.
From Murray:
"According to Albert of Aachen, Baldwin I had expressly designated
Eustace as his successor, with Baldwin of Edessa only a second choice if
Eustace should decline the throne."
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
was dragged out. I realize I painted a rosier idea of David Kelley's
Geoffrey=Godfrey theory than is warranted. At the time I posted what's
below, my experience in onomastics was mostly in Languedoc and
Catalonia. There, I had seen forms of both 'Geoffrey' and 'Godfrey'
usually used by scribes (incorrectly) to refer to the same name (in
fact, both were used for the name normally rendered 'Guifredus'). But I
am now aware that all these names not only derive from distinct Germanic
roots but were understood as distinct in the population relevant to the
fitz-Eustace question (Anglo-Norman-Flemish-Lotharingian nobility, 11th
c.). I do suspect that one could find occasional scribal misuse of
non-equivalent names there or elsewhere, similar to what I've found in
Catalan/Occitan charters or texts.
In this case, I have been satisfied since shortly after making this
post, that Geoffrey fitz Eustace is more likely an illegitimate brother
of the Worthy, Godfrey, and bore what was understood as a distinct name.
I think Peter has been a bit too pointed in his reaction to David
Kelley. Kelley has long thought creatively about medieval genealogical
questions and, in conversation, freely admits when his speculations
carry him into areas where more specialised knowledge is necessary to
test (or discard) a theory. Certain of Kelley's theories have been laid
to rest when subjected to a systematic background check, but I don't
grudge him the right to produce more of them. The two pages of AR7
which include Kelley's discussion of this particular question
incorporate a number of related onomastic and socialogical contentions;
I think the text should be transcribed and made available here for
further comment. To do so may not violate fair use as far as the 'AR'
series is concerned; and I bet Dave wouldn't mind.
One problem we see illustrated in this whole Geoffrey fitz Eustace
shouting match lies in the whole system of shoehorning genealogical
arguments and analyses into 'lines' in books such as _Ancestral Roots_
or _Plantagenet Ancestry_. Theories need a more appropriate airing
among an audience qualified to test them, in the first place by quickly
identifying the scholarly literature necessary to contextualize the
theory. The readers of lineage compilations are usually genealogical
consumers without specialized pre-modern knowledge, and too often take
these lines as gospel with no appreciation of the nuances. Untested
ideas have a right to exist, but lineage-based compilations broadcast
them to the wrong community. This group steps into such a void, and
has proved a rapid clearinghouse for connecting theories--which
heretofore and otherwise would be broadcast to consumers without any
critical review--with a small global community of people with the skills
to evaluate them appropriately. I suppose it's too much to hope that
this critical work can continue without so much spleen.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Peter Stewart
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-94...@news1.east.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> I think Peter has been a bit too pointed in his reaction to David
> Kelley. Kelley has long thought creatively about medieval genealogical
> questions and, in conversation, freely admits when his speculations
> carry him into areas where more specialised knowledge is necessary to
> test (or discard) a theory. Certain of Kelley's theories have been laid
> to rest when subjected to a systematic background check, but I don't
> grudge him the right to produce more of them.
Nor do I, and indeed he is still producing more. When he fails to do this
responsibly, carefully, diligently, I have the right to express my views.
Modesty or caveats in conversation are of no use to readers.
Kelley has a habit of making weak or inadmissable conjectures public without
even bothering to research the sources, consider the circumstantial evidence
or check the literature. This to my mind would be reprehensible for a
freshman: it is inexcusable for a professor. Then to sneer at others as
"linguistically naive" because they didn't happen to fall into his own
"sophisticated" mistake and agree with his patent nonsense is the kind of
conceit that is usually expressed only by crack-pots, not by creative and
thoughtful academics.
In the case of Godfrey de Bouillon, there are a number of studies that would
have shown him the man could not have lived in England, quite apart from the
overwhelming evidence that he never married and had no children. As for the
preposterous notion that the hero of the 1st crusade might have abandoned a
wife and son "at home" without anybody remarking on it, his home before he
left for Palestine was in Lorraine, not Surrey. The narrative and diplomatic
sources in his dukedom were not even consulted.
Anthony Wagner was also notified by Catherine Morton of her misguided
theory, but neither of them fell into such comprehensive and silly error
about this as did Kelley.
Davis and Mason did commit the same blunder, but in their cases the bogus
identification was made only in passing notes: the matter was not argued by
them and did not mislead enquirers with spurious and quite unexamined
assertions to justify the misstatement.
I cannot retract any of my opinions about this. However, I can say that I do
not mean to belittle the company of FASGs by criticising the unduly
respectful acquiescence in Kelley's poor work on the subject. Naturally, the
honour of being a fellow does not carry with it the endorsement of
colleagues for everything that is published, good, bad or indifferent.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> I cannot retract any of my opinions about this. However, I can say that I do
> not mean to belittle the company of FASGs by criticising the unduly
> respectful acquiescence in Kelley's poor work on the subject. Naturally, the
> honour of being a fellow does not carry with it the endorsement of
> colleagues for everything that is published, good, bad or indifferent.
>
> Peter Stewart
Dear Newsgroup ~
I see Peter Stewart is backpedaling again. This is quite typical of
him when he has been caught making an enormous faux pas. Now, if he
can just apologize to Dr. Kelley, he'll be out of this ugly mess
completely. Calling Dr. Kelley names like "Tweedledum" and "idiot" is
way over the top. Dr. Kelley is a fine individual who deserves our
respect.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> I see Peter Stewart is backpedaling again. This is quite typical of
> him when he has been caught making an enormous faux pas. Now, if he
> can just apologize to Dr. Kelley, he'll be out of this ugly mess
> completely. Calling Dr. Kelley names like "Tweedledum" and "idiot" is
> way over the top. Dr. Kelley is a fine individual who deserves our
> respect.
And the apology I await from Mr Richardson?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1119716774....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You clearly don't understand plain English: "I cannot retract any of my
opinions about this" is not "backpedaling" in any sense.
I challenge you to prove this statement, and to show examples to justify
your "again".
My remarks about FASGs were just as plainly to clarify that my use of the
acronym in posts about Kelley was only about undue respect paid to him, and
not to their association or the honours it gives to others. Kelley uses
"FASG" at the head of many articles, and apparently for many this lends a
false authority to the contents.
I further challenge you to offer a shred of substantive defense for Kelley's
work rather than make more arbitrary claims that he is owed an apoloigy from
me just because in the past he had helped you.
Peter Stewart
Avoidance of these direct challenges will be plainly seen as "backpedaling"
on your own part. Go to it.
Peter Stewart