Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Queen of Scotland
Douglas Richardson
In earlier posts on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I presented
evidence which proved conclusively that Robert de Brus, Earl of
Carrick, lord of Annandale (afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of
Scotland) had a previously unknown second marriage by license dated 19
Sept. 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell, Knt., of
Holgate, Shropshire, and daughter of John Fitz Alan, of Clun and
Oswestry, Shropshire. In 1296 Robert de Brus and Maud sued in a plea
of dower regarding Maud's English lands. After this date, Maud
disappears from Scottish records. I presume therefore that this
marriage was terminated by divorce sometime before 1302 (date of
Robert's next marriage) on grounds of consanguinity. The two parties
were in fact near related to each other in the 4th degree of kindred,
by virtue of their common descent from Sir William Marshal, Earl of
Pembroke (died 1219). Maud Fitz Alan returned to England, where she
and her son, Edward Burnell, were sued in Michaelmas term, 6 Edward II
(1312-3) by Henry de Erdington regarding the manor of Wellington,
Shropshire. She presented to the church of Great Cheverell, Wiltshire
in 1314 and in 1315. Maud married (3rd) sometime before 19 June 1316
Simon de Criketot, who was living 7 March 1320.
In more recent time, I've learned that Maud petitioned the king and
council in England in 1302 styled as "Maud, widow of Philip Burnell."
The petition involves certain socages and burgages held in various
counties by her late husband, Philip Burnell [Reference: PRO Document,
SC 8/313/E63]. Maud was living 19 June 1316, but evidently died
sometime shortly before 17 Nov. 1326 (death date of her nephew, Edmund
de Arundel), as indicated by another petition dated c.1330 submitted
to the king and council by her daughter and son-in-law, Maud and John
de Haudlo [Reference: PRO Document, SC 8/52/2570].
As for Maud Fitz Alan's third husband, Simon de Criketot, I find that
in 1296, while with the king's army in Scotland, he was attached to
answer Robert de Escores on a plea of trespass, regarding which plea
he had licence to make an agreement, saving to the marshal his right;
they submitted themselves to the arbitration of William Talemasch and
Thomas de Hauville [Reference: Neville "A Plea Roll of Edward I's Army
in Scotland, 1296" in Miscellany of the Scottish Hist. Soc. 11
(1990)]. It is tempting to think that Simon de Criketot met Maud Fitz
Alan in 1296, when he was in Scotland. If so, perhaps the grounds for
Robert de Brus' divorce from Maud Fitz Alan was her abandonment and
adultery, not consanguinity at all. Unfortunately for us, the records
of Scottish divorces in this time period have not survived.
For interest's sake, I've copied below an abstract of the petition
dated c.1330, which concerns property Maud Fitz Alan received in
marriage from her brother, Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel. It
should be noted that following the death of Maud's brother, Earl
Richard Fitz Alan, the Fitz Alan family dropped the surname of Fitz
Alan and subsequently went exclusively by the surname (de) Arundel.
This explains why Maud's brother is called Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of
Arundel, in the petition below, whereas his son, Edmund, who was known
as Edmund de Arundel, is merely called Edmund, Earl of Arundel.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Maud Fitz Alan and her first
husband, Sir Philip Burnell.
Charles Calvert, Mary Launce, John Nelson, William & Elizabeth
Pole, Mary Johanna Somerset
For further particulars of these lines of descent and specifics
regarding the Fitz Alan/Arundel name change, please see my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), a copy of which can be obtained privately
through me.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
PRO Document, SC 8/52/2570 (abstract of document available online at
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
Petition dated c.1330 by John de Haudlo and Maud his wife to the king
and council who state that Philip Burnell and Maud his wife were
seised of certain tenements which were given in free marriage by
Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel, Maud's brother; which tenements
Maud leased to Edmund Earl of Arundel after Philip's death. Because
they ought to descend to Maud de Haudlo, daughter of Maud and Philip,
John and Maud brought a writ of formedon against Edmund after Maud's
death, but Edmund died while it was being pleaded. The tenements came
into the king's hand, and he gave them to Roger de Mortemer, formerly
Earl of March. They are now again in the king's hand through his
forfeiture, and John and Maud ask him to consider their right, and do
justice to them.
Endorsement: The heir of the Earl of Arundel is restored to his lands,
because of which they are to be at common law.
Douglas Richardson
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty]
Dear Newsgroup ~
I recently posted regarding the subsequent history of Maud Fitz Alan,
the hitherto unnoticed second wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick,
lord of Annandale (afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of Scotland).
In my earlier post copied below, I stated that this marriage was
terminated by divorce sometime before 1302, which is the date of King
Robert's next marriage. However, it appears that this marriage was
terminated by Easter term, 1299, when Maud sued in a plea of dower in
England as "Maud widow of Philip Burnell" regarding a messuage and
lands in Gunton, Norfolk [Reference: Walter Rye, Some Rough Materials
for a History of the Hundred of North Erpingham, 1 (1883): 82).
For a view of this pleading cited in Rye's work, see the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EhgHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA86&dq=%22Alexander+de+Clavering%22#PPA82,M1
Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300 written
in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
you prefer, Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnel).
Maud Fitz Alan's own document may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EhgHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA86&dq=%22Alexander+de+Clavering%22#PPA83,M1
Enjoy!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST
On Oct 17, 12:17 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty
From: Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:17:29 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 17 2007 12:17 pm
Subject: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Queen
of Scotland
Douglas Richardson
We're talking about a common constuct or phraseology in the medieval
period in England, either in Latin or French.
Today we would say "Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnell." Back then
they said "Maud who was the wife of Sir Philip Burnell." It means
the same thing. I prefer the modern rendering to the archaic one.
That's all.
However you render it, the text means that Maud Fitz Alan was formerly
the wife of Sir Philip Burnell, i.e., his widow.
DR
Douglas Richardson
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty].
Scots Peerage, 1 (1904): 8 (sub Kings of Scotland) assigns two wives
to Robert I [de Brus], King of Scotland. This material can be found
at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_KEKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&dq=Scots+Peerage+Robert+Brus+King+Maud#PPA8,M1
Regarding Robert de Brus' first wife, Isabel of Mar, it states the
following:
"He married, first, about 1295, Isabella, daughter of Donald, tenth
Earl of Mar, by whom he had an only child." END OF QUOTE.
No documention is provided for this marriage.
In a footnote, the editor explains that this wife "is called Matilda
in a warrant by Edward I. 13 October 1296, Cal. of Docs., ii. 850."
Thus, in spite of the fact that the editor was faced with evidence
that Robert de Brus had a wife named Maud in 1296, he still morphed
Maud into the first wife Isabel of Mar. In truth, Robert de Brus had
three wives, of whom Maud Fitz Alan was the second wife. This
marriage is proven from English sources, not Scottish ones. As far as
I know, Scottish sources are completely silent about King Robert I's
marriage to Maud Fitz Alan, doubtless because the marriage was brief,
childless, and ended in divorce, and because the wife was English.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. For those not familiar with Latin name forms of this time
period, Matilda is the Latin form of Maud (or, if you prefer,
Mahaud).
Leo van de Pas
Douglas Richardson has once again hitched his cart in front of the horse. He wrote:
> Scots Peerage, 1 (1904): 8 (sub Kings of Scotland) assigns two wives
> to Robert I [de Brus], King of Scotland. This material can be found
> at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=_KEKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA4&dq=Scots+Peerage+Robert+Brus+King+Maud#PPA8,M1
>
> Regarding Robert de Brus' first wife, Isabel of Mar, it states the
> following:
>
> "He married, first, about 1295, Isabella, daughter of Donald, tenth
> Earl of Mar, by whom he had an only child." END OF QUOTE.
>
> No documention is provided for this marriage.
>
> In a footnote, the editor explains that this wife "is called Matilda
> in a warrant by Edward I. 13 October 1296, Cal. of Docs., ii. 850."
>
> Thus, in spite of the fact that the editor was faced with evidence
> that Robert de Brus had a wife named Maud in 1296, he still morphed
> Maud into the first wife Isabel of Mar. In truth, Robert de Brus had
> three wives, of whom Maud Fitz Alan was the second wife.
But how does Douglas Richardson know that the SP editor had not simply mistaken a record of Robert's father of the same name with this wife named Matilda in October 1296?
Charters listed in Ruth Blakely's book oon the Brus family, cited earlier, make it clear that the Robert who inherited Annandale and other lands from his father in 1295 was still using the title "earl of Carrick" along with "lord of Annandale", etc, _after_ this time, so the stronger likelihood must be that he, and not his son Robert who later became king of Scots, was the man who married Maud Fitzalan. From all we know, it appears that only the elder man (died 1304) would have been called both "earl of Carrick" and "lord of Annandale" in 1296. This can be shown from his own charters. Where is Douglas Richardson's evidence that the same can be shown for the younger Robert?
Without much firmer evidence than has been offered, there is no good reason to overturn SP's account of the two, not three, marriages of King Robert the Bruce.
John Briggs
> Dear Denis ~
>
> We're talking about a common constuct or phraseology in the medieval
> period in England, either in Latin or French.
>
> Today we would say "Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnell." Back then
> they said "Maud who was the wife of Sir Philip Burnell." It means
> the same thing. I prefer the modern rendering to the archaic one.
> That's all.
I'm not sure about that. Would Maud have reverted to the status of "widow"
if her second marriage was annulled? Come to that, is it more or less
misleading to talk of medieval marriages ending in "divorce" rather than
"annulment"? Which is the correct modern equivalent?
> However you render it, the text means that Maud Fitz Alan was formerly
> the wife of Sir Philip Burnell, i.e., his widow.
"Formerly" is imprecise - it would cover divorce as well as widowhood.
--
John Briggs
Douglas Richardson
On Nov 11, 2:36 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
< Douglas Richardson wrote:
< > Dear Denis ~
<
< > We're talking about a common constuct or phraseology in the
medieval
< > period in England, either in Latin or French.
>
< > Today we would say "Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnell." Back
then
< > they said "Maud who was the wife of Sir Philip Burnell." It
means
> > the same thing. I prefer the modern rendering to the archaic one.
< > That's all.
<
< I'm not sure about that. Would Maud have reverted to the status of
"widow"
< if her second marriage was annulled?
Following Sir Philip Burnell's death, Maud Fitz Alan would have have
remained his widow the rest of her remaining life. Her remarriage and
divorce from Robert de Brus did not affect her position as Sir Philip
Burnell's widow. The same is true of her third marriage to Simon de
Criketot. I believe you are applying modern values to the medieval
period. That is ill advised.
<Come to that, is it more or less
< misleading to talk of medieval marriages ending in "divorce" rather
than
< "annulment"? Which is the correct modern equivalent?
The marriage between Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan doubtless ended
in divorce. The chief cause of divorce in this time period was
consanguinity (that is, near kinship betwen the two parties). In this
case, Maud Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus were related within the
prohibited degrees by their common descent frrom Sir William Marshal
(died 1219), Earl of Pembroke, hereditary Marshal of England.
< John Briggs
Margaret
anachronistic (attribution of a custom, event, etc. to a period to
which it does not belong). (Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300 written
in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
The writer of the text wrote "qe fu la femme". There's nothing
difficult in translating this as "who was the wife". But you claim
"widow", your preferred interpretation, means the same thing. But it
doesn't now and it didn't then. In this particular case it may (or may
not - who knows what evidence is lurking somewhere?) amount to the
same thing. But do you use this same "I prefer" (and it is I, not you,
see above) formula generally, in other cases? What other words,
customs and terms do you prefer to "modernise"? And why?
By the by, I think it's silly to insist everyone use only modern
names. What makes you think people can't cope with the vagaries of
medieval names, terms, etc.? Anyway it's all part of the fun of it,
mental gymnastics are good for us and getting to grips with Latin
forms does no one any harm.
You say you prefer the "modern rendering", but oddly, later on, in
response to a straightforward question you say the questioner's use of
what you call "modern values" is "ill advised". Do you think modern
values have nothing to do with modern renderings?
Reading your posts I often feel you are using your influential (and
privileged) position to create a dead hand layer of obfuscation
between the past and present, "rewriting" medieval genealogy in stone.
If everyone obeyed your instructions, it would only be rendered
according to your values, views, suppositions and preferences.
Yours
Margaret
Douglas Richardson
On Nov 12, 4:37 am, Margaret <marschb...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
< Changing "wife" to "widow" was unnecessary, arbitrary and
< anachronistic (attribution of a custom, event, etc. to a period to
< which it does not belong). (Douglas Richardson wrote:
< "Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300
written
< in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
< this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
< you prefer, Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnel)." )
<
>< The writer of the text wrote "qe fu la femme". There's nothing
< difficult in translating this as "who was the wife". But you claim
< "widow", your preferred interpretation, means the same thing. But it
< doesn't now and it didn't then.
The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
the modern construct "the widow of." If you prefer a strict, literal
rendering of all things medieval, please be my guest. However,
it'simpossible to give a strict rendering of everything written in
medieval Latin or medieval French into modern English. Expressions,
customs, laws, etc. change over time. Even modern translators have to
fudge a bit when they are translating one modern language into another
one. And, occasionally I've noticed they make changes in subtitles
in movies from what is spoken on the screen.
But do you use this same "I prefer" (and it is I, not you,
> see above) formula generally, in other cases? What other words,
> customs and terms do you prefer to "modernise"? And why?
I follow conventions currently used by modern historians. Pick up any
history book on medieval times. You'll notice several conventions
that are being followed if you pay close attention. They're usually
quite easy to spot.
> By the by, I think it's silly to insist everyone use only modern names.
Standardizing and modernizing names have a great advantage. But, for
the record, I "insist" on nothing. You are free to do what you wish.
All I say is that you should be consistent in your approach to names,
dates, titles, etc. If you have men's names all rendered in modern
spellings, then you should render the women's names that way as well.
A case in point. I just visited an online medieval genealogical
database. On the page in question, you can find the extended ancestry
of a certain invididual. Reviewing the extended ancestry, I found the
following "inconsistencies."
INCONSISTENCY #1:
I see Amicia, Eva, Egidia, and Sibilla used for women (all Latrin
forms) but Hugh, Roger, Robert, Walter, and Richard for men (modern
standardized forms). The modern standardized forms for the women's
names would be Amice, Eve, Gille (or Giles), and Sibyl.
INCONSISTENCY #2:
I see the forms Maud, Maude, and Matilda (Maud) all used. "Matilda
(Maud)" is used in several instances as if these women had a double
name. Actually Maud is the modern standardized form. Matilda is the
Latin form. There is no double name.
INCONSISTENCY #3:
I see 'Robert VI" used for someone whose name was "Robert de Brus."
And, no he wasn't a king. Ordinal numbers are not assigned to men in
other families. Some members of the de Brus family also have the
surname spelled "Brus," and some have the surname spelled "Bruce."
INCONSISTENCY #4:
I see "Hawise of Beaumont" and "Ida of Toeni" used, as well as
"William de Burgh" and "Walter de Lacy." The person should use
either "de" or "of" but not both. I only use "of" when the person is
a member of a ducal, comital, or royal family (for example, Elizabeth
of England, Isabel of France) . I try to be consistent. It can be
difficult at times.
INCONSISTENCY #5:
I see "Geoffrey Earl of Essex" used for a man's name, when the man's
name was actually "Geoffrey Fitz Peter" His title was Earl of Essex,
not his name.
INCONSISTENCY #6:
I see "Maud (Matilda) St. Hilaire" with no "de." In this case, the
name "Saint Hilaire" takes a "de."
I could cite more examples, but you get my point. The person who
generated this database is all over the map and follows no consistent
approach for how they treat names or titles. Sometimes they uses
"de," sometimes "of," something nothing. Sometimes they use Latin,
sometimes not. Sometimes they assisgn ordinals, sometimes not.
Sometimes they incorporate a title as part of the name, sometimes they
exclude the title completely. Sometimes they use a modern spelling of
a surname, sometimes not. And so forth and so on.
All I tell people is to be consistent.. From there I figure you're
smart enough to fill in your own blanks. Now if we can just get our
ancestors to be consistent.
< What makes you think people can't cope with the vagaries of
< medieval names, terms, etc.? Anyway it's all part of the fun of it,
< mental gymnastics are good for us and getting to grips with Latin
< forms does no one any harm.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you explain yourself
better?
< You say you prefer the "modern rendering", but oddly, later on, in
< response to a straightforward question you say the questioner's use
of
< what you call "modern values" is "ill advised". Do you think modern
< values have nothing to do with modern renderings?
You're misquoting me, or have misunderstood me, or both. Or, perhaps
I failed to make myself clear. Either way you're not saying what I
would say.
> Reading your posts I often feel you are using your influential (and
> privileged) position to create a dead hand layer of obfuscation
> between the past and present, "rewriting" medieval genealogy in stone.
> If everyone obeyed your instructions, it would only be rendered
> according to your values, views, suppositions and preferences.
You're free to be as consistent or inconsistent as you wish in your
genealogical records, or, for that matter, in your personal life.
Common sense, however, tells us you get further when you have order in
your life, as opposed to utter chaos.
Regardless, my personal views are just that. My personal views.
You're entitled to express your opinion as I am mine. I value your
right to express yourself freely.
In any event, I hardly have an influential (or privileged) position.
My kids just say "Oh Dad!" and do what they want. I think it would
be great to be a teenager again. Then again maybe not.
< Yours
< Margaret
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Carrick, widow of Adam de Kilconquhar. She died in 1292. He died in
1304 and would have probably/possibly married a second wife. Even
though he did not hold the Earldom of Carrick after his wife's death
he would surely have been called by the title as a courtesy. If
Robert his son had had a wife between Isabel of Mar and Elizabeth de
Burgh whom he married in 1302, surely the chroniclers would have noted
it, while they might not in the case of his father.
Are the references to Maud FitzAlan in CDS and if they are, how do
they treat them? I don't have my own copy and I'm miles from a
library which has one.
.
Leticia Cluff
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
>On Nov 12, 4:37 am, Margaret <marschb...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>< Changing "wife" to "widow" was unnecessary, arbitrary and
>< anachronistic (attribution of a custom, event, etc. to a period to
>< which it does not belong). (Douglas Richardson wrote:
>< "Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300
>written
>< in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
>< this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
>< you prefer, Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnel)." )
><
>>< The writer of the text wrote "qe fu la femme". There's nothing
>< difficult in translating this as "who was the wife". But you claim
>< "widow", your preferred interpretation, means the same thing. But it
>< doesn't now and it didn't then.
>
>The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
>the modern construct "the widow of." If you prefer a strict, literal
>rendering of all things medieval, please be my guest.
I don't think Margaret will be fooled by the mock-authoritative tone
of this message, or by the contorsions of a man who makes up his own
rules. The description of one construct as medieval and the other as
modern is wholly arbitrary, with no basis whatever in the reality of
either modern or medieval language.
Google hits for "who was the wife of": 52,500
Google hits for "who was the widow of": 9,690
Note the large majority for the "medieval" construct. I think you will
find that most of the examples occur in a non-medieval context.
>However,
>it'simpossible to give a strict rendering of everything written in
>medieval Latin or medieval French into modern English. Expressions,
>customs, laws, etc. change over time. Even modern translators have to
>fudge a bit when they are translating one modern language into another
>one.
Evidently it's not only modern translators who fudge.
Tish
Douglas Richardson
wrote:
Do you you hate all men, Tish, or just men with authority?
Renia
>
> The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
> the modern construct "the widow of."
It does not, whether you know the outcome of a marriage or not. Some
marriages were annulled and other couples got divorced.
Douglas Richardson
The medieval construct "who was the wife of" was used in opposition to
the construct "who is the wife of."
One meant the current wife, the other meant a widow (or if you prefer
a former wife). In the colonial period, a similar construct is the
phrase "my now wife" which refers to a man's current wife. It does
not mean or suggest the man had a previous marriage, although it has
been interpreted by many to mean that.
When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
invariably indicated by the text. So the medieval reader always knew
if a former wife was truly a widow or a divorced ex-spouse just from
the context. I have an example of a divorced woman on my desk right
now. In the lawsuit dated 1231 the woman refers to "Galfridus fuit
vir suus." Then she specifically states that "ipsa revera postquam
celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutem] inter ipsam and
predictum Galfridum." So while Geoffrey was stated to be her former
husband, the lady also tells us that they were divorced. She is not
anywhere styled "was was the wife of Geoffrey" in the record. In
fact, at the beginning of the lawsuit, even through Geoffrey was her
last husband, she uses her first husband's surname, and thus sidesteps
the issue of her being the former wife of Geoffrey [her third
husband]. She was also married to yet another party [her second
husband] before her marriage to Geoffrey, but she did not use that
surname either. And you wanted something simple I bet.
It is seldom that two living women would appear in a record together,
both of whom are called a man's former wife. I only know of one such
record which gives this impression. It is a probate record dating
from the 1500's. The record has been interpreted to mean that one
woman was the divorced wife and one woman was the widow. Both women
were seemingly assigned dower. But I have my doubts that the
interpretation of the record is correct. There may well be another
explanation for the way the record is written. In any event, this is
an early modern record, not a medieval one.
Now where were we again?
DR
t...@clearwire.net
> On Nov 12, 12:24 pm, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Do you you hate all men, Tish, or just men with authority?
Note the two (as if one were not enough) attempts to distort the
record in this criticism.
First, Mr. Richardson is trying to distract the reader from the actual
facts by attacking Ms. Cluff, but even if Ms. Cluff does hate all men
that in no way changes the facts. Mr. Richardson said something that
Ms. Cluff then countered with quantitative evidence. This quantitative
evidence clearly calls Mr. Richardson's statements into question,
independent of her opinion of men. (And elsewhere he says she is 'in
a snip', implying that he was being attacked by an emotional woman
rather than being fairly criticized for his behavior, another cheap
debate trick.) This is ad hominem - "she is a shrill man-hating WOMAN,
so don't believe anything she says". Hardly a scholarly rebuttal, but
then it is hard to rebut the facts, so an alternative approach was
needed, I guess.
Second, by setting up a false dichotomy he subtly self-applies
attributes which are, in fact, being questioned - he egotistically
begs the question of his own standing. In characterizing her
criticism as a result of either 1) a hatred of all men or 2) simply of
men with authority, he is automatically defining himself as a man with
authority, or the dichotomy would be meaningless. This automatically
places him in the position of a 'person in charge', being irrationally
attacked by those resenting his expertise. It is intended to make the
uncautious reader accept him as expert and her as lowly critic, rather
than viewing the two as equals holding differing opinions.
Oh, and note that he has actually deleted the context, so if you
didn't look back, you would never know he was responding to a post
expressing a legitimate disagreement with his position.
Just as a reminder, here is Mr. Richardson's stated purpose in
participating here:
"I think I can speak for most people who are newsgroup members. We're
here to learn about medieval genealogy and make friends, not play a
one-upmanship game."
Rather than speaking for most participants, I will leave it to the
readers to conclude whether Mr. Richardson practices what he preaches.
taf
Renia
> On Nov 12, 2:49 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>
>>Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
>>>the modern construct "the widow of."
>>
>>It does not, whether you know the outcome of a marriage or not. Some
>>marriages were annulled and other couples got divorced.
>
>
> The medieval construct "who was the wife of" was used in opposition to
> the construct "who is the wife of."
Indeed.
> One meant the current wife, the other meant a widow (or if you prefer
> a former wife).
Not all former wives were widows. Some were divorcees. Unless the
document states which is which, you can't tell.
> In the colonial period, a similar construct is the
> phrase "my now wife" which refers to a man's current wife. It does
> not mean or suggest the man had a previous marriage, although it has
> been interpreted by many to mean that.
Irrelevant. But the phrase "my now wife" simply allows that the "now"
wife may die and he may marry again in the future and wants to specify
this present wife.
>
> When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
> invariably indicated by the text.
That may or may not be so, but unless the text tells you, you cannot
tell whether the woman who "was the wife of" someone, was a widow or a
divorcee or, indeed, whether the marriage had been annulled.
John Briggs
Does it make sense to distinguish between divorce and annulment in the
medieval period? If not, which is the correct modern term to apply?
--
John Briggs
Douglas Richardson
Not at all irrelevant. We are talking about constructs of language,
the meaning of which may have been clear to contemporaries, but not
necessarily to those who follow centuries later.
< > When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
< > invariably indicated by the text.
<
< That may or may not be so.
It is so. The reason being that a medieval woman only had rights to
deal with her property`if she was single. Thus any lawsuit over
property, any assignment of dower would necessarily indicate that a
woman was married, widowed, or divorced and single. If she had a
husband, he was duly named.
A good case in point is Amice of Gloucester, the wife of Sir Richard
de Clare, Earl of Hertrford, the Magna Carta baron. Sometime before
Michaelmas 1198, Earl Richard and his wife, Amice, were separated by
order of the Pope on grounds of consanguinity, at which date she
claimed the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, which had been her marriage
portion. Their kinship was presumably due their common descent from
Harleve of Falaise, mother of William the Conqueror, King of England,
they being related in the 5th and 6th degrees of kindred though
Harleve. They were apparently considered divorced by Trinity term
1200, when Amice was called "former wife of the Earl of Clare." In
1202-1203 she repeated her claim to the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, and,
in 1205-1207, she claimed the advowson of St. Gregories, Sudbury,
Suffolk, which the Prioress of Eton said had been granted to Eton by
Earl William, Amice's father. The issue of the validity of their
marriage was presumably resolved, as Amice styled herself in later
charters the "Countess of Clare." Regardless, she and her husband
appear to have been estranged at the time of Earl Richard's death, as
her charters of this period make no mention of her husband, but only
their son and heir, Gilbert. Sir Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford,
died between 30 Oct. and 28 Nov. 1217. Following his death, Tonbridge
Priory petitioned the bishop to grant indulgence "to all who prayed
for the soul of Sir Richard de Clare, formerly Earl of Hertford, whose
body lies in the church of St. Mary Magdalen of Tonbridge, and the
souls of all faithful departed deceased and those who have assisted in
the building or upkeep of the lights" of the church of St. Mary
Magdalen in Tonbridge. Nevertheless, the Earl's widow, Amice, caused
his body to be carried to Tewkesbury Abbey, Gloucestershire, where it
was buried in the choir of the abbey. In the period, 1217-1223, in
her widowhood ["viduetate mea"], she gave to Stoke by Clare Priory a
messuage and possessions of the hospital of St. Sepulchre in Sudbury,
Suffolk. In the period, 1217-1236, Amice, Countess of Clare, in her
widowhood ["viduitate mea'] confirmed grants made to Margam Abbey by
her grandfather, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William, Earl of
Gloucester.
As we can see, even though Amice's marital status changed repeteadly,
from wife to separated spouse to divorced to married again to widow -
the records tell us her marital status through each period.
<, but unless the text tells you, you cannot
< tell whether the woman who "was the wife of" someone, was a widow or
a
< divorcee or, indeed, whether the marriage had been annulled.
Can you cite any medieval English examples of marriages that were
annulled? You mention this as a possibility. So I'm sure you have
some examples.
John Briggs
Can you explain why you think 'divorce' is a better term than 'annulment'?
--
John Briggs
Renia
We are not talking about constructs of language. We are talking of legal
terminology, much of which is still used in English law courts today.
>
> < > When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
> < > invariably indicated by the text.
> <
> < That may or may not be so.
>
> It is so. The reason being that a medieval woman only had rights to
> deal with her property`if she was single.
Unmarried women did not have property rights. Widows had property rights.
Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but who chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.
allan connochie
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1194729009.3...@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> [Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
> alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty]
>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I recently posted regarding the subsequent history of Maud Fitz Alan,
> the hitherto unnoticed second wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick,
> lord of Annandale (afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of Scotland).
> In my earlier post copied below, I stated that this marriage was
Does the document actually state "Lord of Annandale"? If it does won't
there be a potential problem there? Robert didn't become Lord of Annandale
until 1304 when his father died. Robert de Brus (the father) was married to
Marjorie of Carrick who died in 1292. He had also been Earl of Carrick but
gave the title to his son (the future king) on the death of Marjorie. He of
course had lands in England too and based himself there for some time during
the Scottish Wars. Isn't it possible that this 'secret marriage' could have
involved Robert de Brus the father rather than Robert de Brus the son? When
did the father's second marriage to Eleanor/Alionere take place?
Allan
Margaret
never come across before) I'd certainly have to fudge it. However,
"wife" needs no fudging whatever. Nor does "who was the wife". Film
subtitles are irrelevant here, it's totally different work with
totally different constraints and aims.
It's so sad. All you had to do was reply 'Oops, sorry' to Leo when he
first spotted the mistake. We all make mistakes. It's better in the
long run to swallow our pride and admit it. All you're doing is
digging yourself into a hole.
I've not seen anyone arguing for inconsistency. It's a fact of life
and part of being human. The problem is the way you jump down people's
throats, set yourself up in judgement - then continue with
inconsistencies of your own. I'm prepared to believe it's not
deliberate and that you're not aware of how offensive your admonitions
come over but that wouldn't make them any more useful or acceptable.
One way or the other you do, I'm afraid, seem muddled. I mentioned
"modern rendering" and "modern values" and how you allow yourself the
first and disapprove of the second. You replied "You're misquoting me,
or have misunderstood me, or both. Or, perhaps I failed to make myself
clear. Either way you're not saying what I would say." I did not
misquote, your words were there in the message I was replying to. I
read the two "moderns" together and saw the inconsistency. If it is
not what you meant it's up to you to analyse it further.
You asked me to explain my point better when I wrote:
< What makes you think people can't cope with the vagaries of
< medieval names, terms, etc.? Anyway it's all part of the fun of it,
< mental gymnastics are good for us and getting to grips with Latin
< forms does no one any harm.
I was trying to point out the pleasure and other benefits of research.
I'd like to discuss what I'm doing on this group. However, when I sent
in a question your response was pure negativity except when you
reminded me of your work. First you "corrected" my rendition of a
name, you gave a long list of inaccessible (to me) books, and you
ignored the problem raised in my (secondary) source, telling me
instead that *I'd* got it wrong. You then repeated the names and
relationships that I'd asked about in the first place. The impression
you left was "just take my word for it". Well no, Douglas, I won't
just take your word for it. You didn't read my question properly and
the evidence presented by my secondary source is worth investigating.
I was mortified by your treatment of the source I presented, passing
it off, as you did, as "my" confusion. This was downright
unprofessional. I decided not to present other people's work on sgm
again just to open it up to such insult.
More often than not your messages come over as if genealogy was your
private domain that Shall Not Be Questioned. You fend off and duck
questions, or ignore them, and when you're stumped you make personal
remarks.
For example, you write:
"You're free to be as consistent or inconsistent as you wish in your
genealogical records, or, for that matter, in your personal life.
Common sense, however, tells us you get further when you have order in
your life, as opposed to utter chaos."
"Regardless, my personal views are just that. My personal views.
You're entitled to express your opinion as I am mine. I value your
right to express yourself freely."
Why do you think you're in a position to tell me what I can and can't
do and what I'm entitled to - even if you did know anything about my
genealogical records or my personal life. You have no grounds for
making any comment whatever on them.
Personal views are not at issue. But when you publish your work it is
up for grabs. Readers have every right to ask about original sources,
question, discuss your interpretations, and evaluate them in relation
to other sources, the work of other genealogists, and the work of
historians without being discouraged and having their intelligence
insulted. It must be very gratifying to see your work cited so much
and with such confidence. Indeed, it's a real achievement. There's no
need to spoil it by responding as you do to awkward questions.
Finally, you write:
"In any event, I hardly have an influential (or privileged) position.
My kids just say "Oh Dad!" and do what they want. I think it would
be great to be a teenager again. Then again maybe not."
What part of "dead hand layer of obfuscation between the past and
present" makes you think I was commenting on your family life or
parenting skills?
Yours
Margaret
Alex Maxwell Findlater
I posted the above message, which is germane to the thread.
Unfortunately you all seem more interested in slagging each other off
than exploring the turn of the 13th century. Would anyone dare to
forswear their favourite pastime and address the argument in my post?
John Briggs
> On 12 Nov, 19:23, Alex Maxwell Findlater
> <maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert Bruce the elder married firstly 1271 Margaret Countess of
>> Carrick, widow of Adam de Kilconquhar. She died in 1292. He died in
>> 1304 and would have probably/possibly married a second wife. Even
>> though he did not hold the Earldom of Carrick after his wife's death
>> he would surely have been called by the title as a courtesy. If
>> Robert his son had had a wife between Isabel of Mar and Elizabeth de
>> Burgh whom he married in 1302, surely the chroniclers would have
>> noted it, while they might not in the case of his father.
>>
>> Are the references to Maud FitzAlan in CDS and if they are, how do
>> they treat them? I don't have my own copy and I'm miles from a
>> library which has one.
>
> Unfortunately you all seem more interested in slagging each other off
> than exploring the turn of the 13th century. Would anyone dare to
> forswear their favourite pastime and address the argument in my post?
CDS?
--
John Briggs
Margaret
You're quite right and it's a pity. I read your question and I'd like
to see it discussed. I'm afraid I don't know nearly enough to be of
use.
yours
Margaret
Alex Maxwell Findlater
>
> CDS?
> --
> John Briggs
Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, ed Joseph Bain - sometimes
called Bain
Douglas Richardson
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty].
I believe the information below gives a complete answer to Alex's
question regarding the identity of Robert de Brus, the husband of Maud
Fitz Alan.
A license was issued 19 September 1295, for Maud [Fitz Alan], late the
wife of Philip Burnel, tenant in chief, to marry Robert de Brus, lord
of Annandale [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301 (1895),
pg. 147]. A weblink to this record is given below:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e1v3/body/Edward1vol3page0147.pdf
The next record is a communication dated 13 October 1296 from King
Edward I of England to John de Langetone found in the published
Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland by Bain. This specific
record names Maud Fitz Alan's husband in 1296 as Robert de Brus, Earl
of Carrick and lord of Annandale. It is erroneously cited by Scots
Peerage as pertaining to Robert de Brus, grandson of the Competitor
(afterwards King Robert I), when it actually pertains to his father,
Robert de Brus, Senior, who died in 1304.
"On 13 October 1296 at Kirkham. The King to John de Langetone to his
chancellor. Empowers him to appoint some fit person to receive the
attiorneys of Robert de Brus Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale,
and Matill[idis] his`wife, in a plea of dower whereof the said earl's
clerk, the bearer, will acquaint him. Privy Seals (Tower), 24 Edward
I. Bundle 5." [Reference: Joseph Bain, Calendar of Documents relating
to Scotland, 2 (1884): 223, no. 850].
We can be certain of the identity of Maud Fitz Alan's husband, Robert
de Brus, from two documents. In the first document dated 1296, Robert
de Brus, son and heir of the Competitor, is dealing with his step-
mother, Christian d'Ireby regarding her dower in Scotland and
England. Robert grants his step-mother dower from the freehold of his
father in the valleys of Annan and Moffet, showing that in 1296 he
then controlled Annandale, not his son.
29 August 1296 from the Close Rolls Edward I. Agreement between
Chirstiana widow of Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale plaintiff and
Robert de Brus his son and heir defendant as to dower both in England
and Scotland. Robert grants her dower from the freehold of his father
in the valleys of Annan and Moffet as in John late king of Scotland's
time ... She also grants to the said Robert her dower in the rents of
the burghs of Annan and Lochmaben [Reference: Joseph Bain, Calendar
of Documents relating to Scotland, 2 (1884): 217, no. 826].
In the next document dated 1298, Robert de Brus, senior (i.e., son of
the Competitor) is specifically styled Earl of Carrick and lord of
Annandale, in spite of the fact that he had formally resigned the
earldom of Carrick and its lands to his son, Robert, junior, in 1292.
Thus, he should be the same individual who was assigned these same
titles in the communication by King Edward I mentioned above dated
1296.
Charter dated 29 May 1298 [Thursday in Pentecost week in 26 Edward I.]
Robert de Brus senior, Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale, releases
and quitclaims to John Herolff a half virgate of land in Writtle,
Essex [Reference: Ruth Blakely, The Brus Family in England and
Scotland, 1100-1295 (2005) pg. 232, no. 193; original in Essex Record
Ofice, Charter D/DP T1/1770.
I have confirmed the date of the charter cited by Blakely.
Unfortunately there appears to be no surviving charters for the
younger Robert de Brus (aftewards King Robert I) in this time period,
so we don't know what title(s) he used if any during this period.
What can be said, however, is that his father, Robert de Brus, Senior,
was clearly known as Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale during this
period, and we know that Maud Fitz Alan's husband had these titles.
Thus, it would appear that it was the elder Robert de Brus (died 1304)
who married Maud Fitz Alan, not his son, Robert de Brus the younger
(who was afterwards King Robert I of Scotland).
The marriage of Maud Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus appears to have
ended in divorce sometime before Easter term 1299, when Maud sued in
English courts as "Maud who was the wife of Philip Burnell" regarding
her right of dower in a messuage in Gunton, Norfolk, without making
reference to Robert de Brus as her husband [Reference: Rye, Some Rough
Materials for a Hist. of the Hundred of North Erpingham 1 (1883): 82-
85]. The usual cause for divorce in this time period was
consanguinity (that is, near kinship between the two parties). In
this case, Maud Fitz Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus were related in the
4th and 3rd degrees of kindred respectively by virtue of their common
descent from William Marshal (died 1219), Earl of Pembroke. Thus,
there would have been grounds for a divorce between these two
parties. In 1302 Maud petitioned the king and council in England as
"Maud widow of Philip Burnel" regarding socages and burgages held in
various counties by her late husband, Philip Burnell [PRO Document, SC
8/313/E63]. Maud Fitz Alan subsequently married (3rd) Simon de
Criketot. She was still living 19 June 1316, but died shortly before
17 Nov. 1326 (death date of her nephew, Edmund, Earl of Arundel), as
indicated by a petition to the king and council dated c.1330 submitted
by her daughter and son-in-law, Maud and John de Haudlo [Reference:
PRO Document, SC 8/52/2570].
Special thanks go to my good friend and colleague, Andrew MacEwen, of
Stockton Springs, Maine, the resident expert in all things Scottish,
for his gracious help in the preparation of this post. Mr. MacEwen
typifies the meaning of the expression, "a gentleman and a scholar."
Comments are invited.
t...@clearwire.net
> [Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
> alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty].
. . . just because he can . . .
> I believe the information below gives a complete answer to Alex's
> question regarding the identity of Robert de Brus, the husband of Maud
> Fitz Alan.
>
> A license was issued 19 September 1295, for Maud [Fitz Alan], late the
> wife of Philip Burnel, tenant in chief, to marry Robert de Brus, lord
> of Annandale [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301 (1895),
> pg. 147]. A weblink to this record is given below:
>
> http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e1v3/body/Edward1vol3page0147.pdf
>
> The next record is a communication dated 13 October 1296 from King
> Edward I of England to John de Langetone found in the published
> Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland by Bain. This specific
> record names Maud Fitz Alan's husband in 1296 as Robert de Brus, Earl
> of Carrick and lord of Annandale. It is erroneously cited by Scots
> Peerage as pertaining to Robert de Brus, grandson of the Competitor
> (afterwards King Robert I), when it actually pertains to his father,
> Robert de Brus, Senior, who died in 1304.
Just as a reminder, the post that started this thread stated (emphasis
mine):
"In earlier posts on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I presented
evidence which *proved conclusively* that Robert de Brus, Earl of
Carrick, lord of Annandale (*afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of
Scotland*) had a previously unknown second marriage by license dated
19 Sept. 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell, Knt., of
Holgate, Shropshire, and daughter of John Fitz Alan, of Clun and
Oswestry, Shropshire."
and
"In *truth*, Robert de Brus had three wives, of whom Maud Fitz Alan
was the second wife. This marriage is proven from English sources,
not Scottish ones. As far as I know, Scottish sources are completely
silent about King Robert I's marriage to Maud Fitz Alan, doubtless
because the marriage was brief, childless, and ended in divorce, and
because the wife was English."
So, what was "proved conclusively", what was "truth" only obscured do
to a "doubtless" cover-up just a few weeks ago (even as recently as
three days ago) now finds itself on the dustbin of history, without
the slightest indication of this reversal of fortune (I guess we
should just be glad all of the earlier posts in the thread were not
deleted).
taf
Alex Maxwell Findlater
leads to the conclusion which I expected, but being unable to see the
documents myself, I am unable to present them, or indeed vouch them.
Mr Richardson has very generously unravelled the construct which he
previously made: this would obviously have been a matter of some
delicacy for him, having initiated this thread on a somewhat different
basis. We should acknowledge his respect for the truth, as well as we
can see it at this distance, and hope that we, ourselves, are not to
be so unlucky as to start off on a false track. I myself have often
got the wrong end of the stick and had to rework research.
Furthermore this response which, we should all acknowledge, must have
taken some courage, was in the face of considerable hostility. I am
not suggesting that hostility was in one direction only, but I am
suggesting that research has to be done in a spirit of geniality and
collegiality to be really effective. We should all note this in our
hearts.
Thank you for your forbearance. End of sermon!
Alex
Leticia Cluff
Well said!
And Mr. Richardson has displayed this courage twice in two days. He
deserves praise for his frank and public admissions that he was in
error, and for his displays of graciousness in thanking the experts
whose opinions he heeded.
Pax vobiscum
Tish
Douglas Richardson
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty]
For those of you not familiar with this particular research problem,
it is known that Maud Fitz Alan's sometime husband, Robert de Brus,
was Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale in 1296. This is proven by
a warrant issued by King Edward I of England in that year. Likewise,
it is known that in 1292, three years prior to Maud's marriage to
Robert de Brus, that Robert de Brus, senior, resigned the earldom of
Carrick over to his son, Robert de Brus, junior (afterwards King
Robert I). Thus Scots Peerage assigns the record of the 1296 warrant
of King Edward I to the younger Robert de Brus in their account of the
royal Brus family. Given the fact that the younger Robert had the
earldom before this date, this is not at all surprising.
What confuses the matter, however, is that it is known that Robert de
Brus, senior, continued to use the title Earl of Carrick AFTER he
resigned the earldom and its lands to his son. So technically you
have two men who conceivably could be called Earl of Carrick in the
records. Unfortunately, while charters have survived for the father,
none have survived for the son in this time period. Thus, is is
unknown if both men were styled Earl of Carrick in 1296, or only one.
Confused yet? I am.
What resolves this particular problem is determining who was
controlling Annandale in 1296. This estate is also known to have been
held by Maud Fitz Alan's husband, Robert de Brus. Maud's husband is
specifically called "lord of Annandale" in the 1295 license that King
Edward I granted to Maud and Robert which allowed them to marry.
Maud's husband is also called "lord of Annandale" in the warrant of
King Edward I mentioned above dated in 1296. It is Bain's Calendar
that resolves this issue. Bain shows that the elder Robert de Brus
granted dower to his widowed step-mother, Christian d'Ireby "from the
freehold of his father in the valleys of Annan and Moffet" in 1296.
This grant proves that it was the elder Robert de Brus was lord of
Annandale in 1296, not the son.
Lastly, in a more practical vein, it is known that the elder Robert de
Brus was living in England after 1294, when he had livery of his
father's lands and was appointed Governor of Carlisle Castle. He
accompanied King Edward in his expedition to Scotland against Balliol
in 1296, but on his claims to the throne being thwarted by Edward, he
again retired to England, where he resided chiefly at Broomshawbury,
Essex. Thus, it was Robert de Brus, senior, who was living in England
at the time of Maud Fitz Alan's marriage to Robert de Brus, not the
son. Thus one would suppose it was more likely that it was the elder
Robert who was Maud's husband, she being English, rather than his son
of the same name who was presumably living in Scotland during this
time period. In 1299, for instance, the younger Robert de Brus was
chosen one of the guardians of the kingdom of Scotland.
Again I wish to thank Andrew MacEwen, of Stockton Springs, Maine for
his help and assistance in this matter. As I stated before, Mr.
MacEwen is the essence of a gentleman and a scholar.
Leo van de Pas
I think you are too kind and too generous towards Richardson. I don't
understand how you can talk about "his respect for the truth".
He send out a message.
He is told he is wrong
He removes his original message from the Google archives
He sends his re-written message-------without saying it is a re-write,
without acknowledging he was wrong in the first place.
You may see his "respect for the truth" in one matter, but there are too
many where this does not apply. To say this one "respect for the truth"
whitewashes Richardson, I would not agree.
Why do you think Richardson is encountering "hostility"? Richardson is the
only person "encountering hostitlity in regards to genealogy" Why do you
think that is the case?
He resents criticism and reacts negatively, instead of seeing "criticism" as
an effort to improve or correct the information. By his reactions he extends
the "hostility" and moves from the subject to the people who "dare" suggest
he might be wrong. How is that in regards to "respect for the truth"?
I don't know how many times I have said that Richardson is really tragic,
_if only_ his approach was different he would have had a huge number of
people supporting him, what he has achieved is totally the opposite.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
D. Spencer Hines
Tempest in a teapot.
Douglas Richardson did the right thing -- he revised and extended his
remarks.
Anyone is entitled to do that. Congressmen and Senators do it all the time.
If DR did indeed remove the original "wrong" message from Google, that's a
Good Thing too. It won't be there to mislead someone in the future.
What does Leo think happens in the publishing business when a new edition of
a book comes out? Things are CHANGED, including factual errors.
To then stress that DR must go around and thank everyone who may have
spurred him to make some corrections is also overwrought and tedious.
That can become a long battle of who shot John, who should get credit, _mea
culpas_ and all other sorts of wastes of time.
Better just to move on and do Real Genealogy without all the small-minded
back-biting that Leo has become a Master of.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.486.11949966...@rootsweb.com...
> He send [sic] out a message.
Douglas Richardson
> Leo is having yet another hissy fit....
Yes, he is. Poor thing.
DR
t...@clearwire.net
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mr Richardson has very generously unravelled the construct which he
> previously made: this would obviously have been a matter of some
> delicacy for him, having initiated this thread on a somewhat different
> basis.
Well, no, he didn't unravel the previous construct. He simply made the
best case for the new construct and ignored the fact that any other
construct had ever been posted, let alone as having been "proved
conclusively".
> We should acknowledge his respect for the truth, as well as we
> can see it at this distance, and hope that we, ourselves, are not to
> be so unlucky as to start off on a false track. I myself have often
> got the wrong end of the stick and had to rework research.
Anyone can start out on a wrong track, and that is why everyone should
keep an open mind to their own conclusions and be ready to reevaluate
them. The problem here is not that an initial conclusion was
abandoned for a revised one - that is as it should be. The real
problem is that the initial conclusion was announced to be "proven
conclusively". Something with that level of proof should not be so
easily revised, or to put it another way, something that can be so
readily revised should not be declared "conclusively proven". Instead,
this conclusively proven non-solution was declared to the group and
those who have raised doubts have been either ignored or denigrated
for doubting him, while historians were accused of covering up The
Truth. Now, again, he parades out The Truth, without any indication
that this new Truth is completely at odds with the previous Truth.
> Furthermore this response which, we should all acknowledge, must have
> taken some courage, was in the face of considerable hostility.
It would have taken more courage to say, "I was wrong and this is why"
rather than simply to declare a new dogma without the least hint that
as recently as three days before the alternative solution was being
touted by the same poster as The Truth. Further, such a behavior would
likely have faced less hostility than this artificial aura of smug
perfection.
> I am
> not suggesting that hostility was in one direction only, but I am
> suggesting that research has to be done in a spirit of geniality and
> collegiality to be really effective. We should all note this in our
> hearts.
I am all for geniality and collegiality, but have little truck for
hypocrisy and strutting self-importance. For years the poster has
treated this group (and now several other groups as well) as an
audience to be talked down to and not as a group of colleagues. Well,
when someone treats a public discussion forum as nothing but a vehicle
for self-promotion, when they make their expertise rather than the
genealogical facts the central issue, they reap what they sew.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
In the throes of another hissy fit.
DSH
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1195002397....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Well,
> when someone treats a public discussion forum as nothing but a vehicle
> for self-promotion, when they make their expertise rather than the
> genealogical facts the central issue, they reap what they sew. [sic]
>
> taf
t...@clearwire.net
> taf, Todd A. Farmerie, The Illiterate strikes again...
>
> In the throes of another hissy fit.
To Mr. Richardson. Before you chime in with another snide 'me too'
post in response to this, note that the poster has decided his
contribution is also appropriate for the newsgroup:
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial
Setting aside what this reveals about the USENET activities of the
poster (his mother must be so proud), you may wish to reevaluate his
choice before you respond.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
In the throes of another hissy fit.
DSH
Ray O'Hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:jIs_i.554$Ig4....@eagle.america.net...
> taf, Todd A. Farmerie, The Illiterate strikes again...
It seems they do most of their striking about your head.
Bill Arnold
that Beth and Betsey WERE/ARE/ALWAYS WERE/ALWAYS ARE nicknames aka
*sobriquets* of Elizabeth. And this is AFTER I wrote that I figured it out for
myself, and have repeated numerous times that I am a *naif* when it comes
to English Medieval matters. Shucks, I do believe *the Virgin Queen* was named
Elizabeth. And in my kindness, I was trying to save someone who might drop
a lineage by reminding us all that names change because people tell Visitation
takers and census takers the NAME they use: and it took me years to figure
out some of this stuff. So, I admit I am still learning.
So: Monsieur TAF better admit he can LEARN, too, not two, from this ole
English prof with an American leaning or two:
--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
"So, what was "proved conclusively", what was "truth" only obscured do
to a "doubtless" cover-up just a few weeks ago (even as recently as
three days ago) now finds itself on the dustbin of history, without
the slightest indication of this reversal of fortune (I guess we
should just be glad all of the earlier posts in the thread were not
deleted).
BA: I sure hope TAF is *not* deleted because he ought to know that
it was "only obscured due to" and not do nor dew!
Bill
PS eat some *humble pie,* Sir!
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
t...@clearwire.net
> TAF has taken me to task for not KNOWING in my genealogical heart of hearts
> that Beth and Betsey WERE/ARE/ALWAYS WERE/ALWAYS ARE nicknames aka
> *sobriquets* of Elizabeth.
This is a lie, of course. I only said that your analogy did not seem
applicable to the situation.
> So: Monsieur TAF better admit he can LEARN, too, not two, from this ole
> English prof with an American leaning or two:
>
> --- t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> "So, what was "proved conclusively", what was "truth" only obscured do
> to a "doubtless" cover-up just a few weeks ago (even as recently as
> three days ago) now finds itself on the dustbin of history, without
> the slightest indication of this reversal of fortune (I guess we
> should just be glad all of the earlier posts in the thread were not
> deleted).
>
> BA: I sure hope TAF is *not* deleted because he ought to know that
> it was "only obscured due to" and not do nor dew!
Wow, a second typo unmasked. Guilty as charged. That certainly puts me
in my place. You must be so very proud for catching it. I tend to
care more about substance, but seeing how badly you managed to distort
the substance above, I guess it is good that you are devoting your
efforts to proofreading.
taf
wjhonson
> that Beth and Betsey WERE/ARE/ALWAYS WERE/ALWAYS ARE nicknames aka
> *sobriquets* of Elizabeth.
I don't think a sobriquet and a diminuative name are the same thing.
To me a sobriquet can only be applied to a *particular* person, not to
all people with that same forename, such as Betsy.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickname
Will Johnson
Renia
>
> If DR did indeed remove the original "wrong" message from Google, that's a
> Good Thing too. It won't be there to mislead someone in the future.
Exactly.
Renia
>
> That can become a long battle of who shot John, who should get credit, _mea
> culpas_ and all other sorts of wastes of time.
>
> Better just to move on and do Real Genealogy without all the small-minded
> back-biting that Leo has become a Master of.
You can talk.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post and its accompanying sermon. Much
appreciated.
As a followup to my earlier response to you, I thought I'd post
another record which I found in the National Archives catalogue which
shows beyond any doubt that it was definitely Robert de Brus, senior
(died 1304) who was using the title Earl of Carrick in 1296, NOT his
son, Robert de Brus, junior (afterwards King Robert I of Scotland).
We can easily tell it was the father who was Earl of Carrick in 1296,
as both father AND son are mentioned in the same record below dated
1296! The father is styled Earl of Carrick in this record in spite of
the fact that he had resigned the earldom to his son in 1292, which
action was confirmed by the Scottish Parliament in 1293. The record
below proves conclusively that Scots Peerage was in error to assign
the 1296 warrant issued by King Edward I to the son, which record
involved Robert, Earl of Carrick, and his hitherto unknown wife, Maud
Fitz Alan. A transcript of the published 1296 warrant was included in
my last post and is taken from Bain's Calendar of Documents relating
to Scotland, 2 (1884): pg. 223, no. 850.
This, of course, raises another issue. How can a man resign the
earldom and its lands to another party, and yet continue to use the
title of the earl? Do you have any thoughts about this, Alex?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives catalogue
C 241/31/103
Debtor: Robert de Bruce {Brus}, knight, Earl of Carrick, Robert de
Bruce, his son, John de Sawbridgeworth, poulterer {Poleter}, and
John .......
Creditor: Nicholas Daleroun, Simon Daleroun, and Henry Daleroun,
citizens and merchants of Winchester.
Amount: £60.
Before whom: John Breton, Warden of London; .... .. ....... , Clerk
{coram nobis}.
First term: 08/04/1296
Last term: 08/04/1296
Writ to: Sheriff of Middx
Sent by: John Breton, Warden of London; .... .. ........, Clerk. |
Covering dates 1296
On Nov 13, 3:57 pm, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
< I am most grateful for this, above, analysis of the evidence. It
< leads to the conclusion which I expected, but being unable to see
the
< documents myself, I am unable to present them, or indeed vouch them.
< MrRichardsonhas very generously unravelled the construct which he
Douglas Richardson
< Wow, a second typo unmasked. Guilty as charged. That certainly puts
me
< in my place. You must be so very proud for catching it. I tend to
< care more about substance, but seeing how badly you managed to
distort
< the substance above, I guess it is good that you are devoting your
< efforts to proofreading.
<
< taf
No, Todd, you are merely reeping what you are sewing.
Speaking of which, I had at least three typo's in a post I made
yesterday. If anyone can find them, I'll you you five Google stars.
I'll even give you a hint. I misspelled the word attorneys.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City., Utah
wjhonson
> No, Todd, you are merely reeping what you are sewing.
>
> Speaking of which, I had at least three typo's in a post I made
> yesterday. If anyone can find them, I'll you you five Google stars.
> I'll even give you a hint. I misspelled the word attorneys.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City., Utah
----------
Yes you're reeping what you were sewing.
Quite distinct from reaping what you were sowing.
Douglas is quite a humourist.
Will
Douglas Richardson
Here is yet another record dated 1296 which involves Sir Robert de
Brus, Earl of Carrick, and his son, Robert de Brus [junior]
(afterwards King Robert I of Scotland). Again, the implications of
this are obvious. It is the father who had the title Earl of Carrick
in 1296, not the son, in spite of the father's resignation of the
earldom to the son in 1292.
Mr. MacEwen suspects that Robert de Brus, senior, may have retained
the "life-rent" of the earldom at the time he resigned the earldom in
favor of his son. Retaining the life-rent might have allowed the
father to continue using the title, even though the lands of the
earldom went to the son. However, possession of the life-rent is not
mentioned in the published transcript of the elder Robert de Brus'
resignation of the earldom in 1292. So, it is purely a guess as to
what might have allowed the father to contintue using the title, Earl
of Carrick, after the resignation.
Mr. MacEwen adds that retaining the life-rent of the earldom did
permit a later Earl of Lennox to continue using the title after he had
resigned the earldom in favor of his son. So there is at least one
example of possession of the life-rent affecting who held a title in
Scottish history.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives Catalogue
C 241/18/59
Debtor: Robert de Brus, knight, Earl of Carrick [who held the manors
of Hatfield Broad Oak, Harlow Hundred, Essex, and Writtle, Chelmsford
Hundred, and half the Harlow Hundred], and Robert de Bruce, his son,
William de Roding [Ongar Hundred], knight, William de Baddow {Badew}
[Chelmsford Hundred, Essex], and John de Writtle [Chelmsford Hundred,
Essex], called Serich.
Creditor: John de Abingdon, citizen [merchant] of London.
Amount: £120.
Before whom: John Breton, Warden of London; John de Bakewell, Clerk.
First term: 16/02/1296
Last term: 25/03/1296
Writ to: Sheriff of Essex
Sent by: John Breton, Warden of London; John de Bakewell, Clerk.
D. Spencer Hines
[taf = Todd A. Farmerie]
It was an error in Basic English, which someone who is a COLLEGE PROFESSOR,
as he is, certainly should NOT have made.
taf obviously does not know the difference between the verbs _TO SEW_ and
_TO SOW_.
Further, taf, as a Geographical Mid-Westerner, where Agriculture is SO
important, SHOULD understand the difference between these two verbs.
'Nuff Said.
Renia
More than enough said.
John Briggs
Ah, but does he post to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial, like D.
Spencer Hines?
--
John Briggs
Peter Jason
Oh Mr Hines; how low can you *sink*!
Douglas Richardson
>
< Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were
rife
< with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but who
chose
< to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had never
< legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.
You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples of
that for us?
Renia
> On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>
> < Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were
> rife
> < with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but who
> chose
> < to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had never
> < legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.
>
> You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples of
> that for us?
It is not necessary to cite "medieval examples". It was, and is, part of
(Catholic) church law.
John Briggs
> On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>>
> < Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were
> rife
> < with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but who
> chose
> < to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had never
> < legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.
>
> You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples of
> that for us?
Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.
divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro
divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis
divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii
separatio quoad torum
separatio quoad cohabitationem
declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem
dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge
--
John Briggs
Douglas Richardson
Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England, John?
John Briggs
Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs
Tiglath
There is nothing wrong with a little color in one's bed.
A surprising amount of black chicks fuck as good as they dance.
Convert.
t...@clearwire.net
>
> Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England, John?
His point is that the same church-imposed or -approved unmarriaging
you cite as examples of "divorce" might better be called "annulment"
based on modern usage of the terms. To demand that he now supply a
medieval example of "annulment", as opposed to "divorce", is missing
the point. At its heart, he is discussing semantics, and you are
playing semantic games.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
>
Ah, yes. Another sterling example of the benefits crossposting brings
to this group. What is your opinion on this post Mr. Richardson? Do
you think the groups is better off for it having been attracted here?
Do you think we have learned more about medieval genealogy and made
friends because a lame-brained crosspost induced this person to bring
this pearl of wisdom to us?
taf
D. Spencer Hines
taf seems to have sampled their wares -- and recognizes a pearl of wisdom.
DSH
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:76c61887-863d-43c0...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 15, 12:23 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>> There is nothing wrong with a little color in one's bed.
>>
>> A surprising amount of black chicks **** as good as they dance.
> Do you think we have learned more about medieval genealogy and made
John Brandon
>
> taf seems to have sampled their wares -- and recognizes a pearl of wisdom.
>
> DSH
Well, there's nothing wrong with that, I suppose ...
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0057b598-014b-441f...@i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
John Briggs
Yes, he won't answer any of these questions. It's some bizarre doctrinal
thing.
--
John Briggs
pierre...@hotmail.fr
Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage is
that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
be annulments.
Pierre
John Briggs
> that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
> be annulments.
Unless you are a genealogist living in Utah, it would seem.
--
John Briggs
Leticia Cluff
Looking at the only reference work I have at hand just now, I can
report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word "annul."
Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void in
law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation from
1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."
That is a post-medieval (only just) reference. The dictionary has no
medieval examples.
This doesn't say very much, of course. There could be earlier examples
of this English usage which the editors missed. Nor does it say
anything at all about the use of Latin "annullare" in medieval times
with reference to marriage.
Tish
John Briggs
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST), "pierre...@hotmail.com"
> <pierre...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
>> On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>>>> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
>>>>>>> Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were
>>>>>>> rife with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
>>>>>>> who chose to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage
>>>>>>> had never legally taken place so the woman remained as a single
>>>>>>> woman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples of
>>>>>> that for us?
>>>>>
>>>>> Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in
>>>>> favour of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
>>>>> following?
>>>>> Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.
>>>>>
>>>>> divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro
>>>>>
>>>>> divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis
>>>>>
>>>>> divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii
>>>>>
>>>>> separatio quoad torum
>>>>>
>>>>> separatio quoad cohabitationem
>>>>>
>>>>> declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem
>>>>>
>>>>> dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge
>>>>
>>>> Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
>>>> John?
>>>
>>> Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
>>
>> that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
>> be annulments.
>
> report what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the word "annul."
>
> Under sense 3, "To destroy the force or validity of; to render void in
> law, declare invalid or of none effect," there is a quotation from
> 1531: "The first marriage was annulled by that divorce."
>
> That is a post-medieval (only just) reference. The dictionary has no
> medieval examples.
>
> This doesn't say very much, of course. There could be earlier examples
> of this English usage which the editors missed. Nor does it say
> anything at all about the use of Latin "annullare" in medieval times
> with reference to marriage.
1531 is perfectly medieval enough for our purposes.
But some clear thinking (something sorely lacking on this newsgroup, and
also - it would seem - in the State of Utah) is required. A medieval sense
of the word "divorce" is being used to illustrate the modern meaning of the
word "annul"!
You would do better to look at what the OED says under "divorce".
Yes, they used the word "divorce" in the medieval period, but it would
(usually) mean what we now call "annulment". Divorce in the modern sense did
not exist in the medieval period. (In theory, of course. The practice was
remarkably similar to the present one where the Roman Catholic Church grants
annulments to Americans following a civil divorce.) All (or nearly all)
medieval "divorces" were what we would call "annulments". By 1531, "annul"
was being used in the modern sense, but the medieval use of "divorce" was
still used.
In modern terms, the 1531 quotation would be re-written: "The first marriage
was annulled by that Declaration of Nullity."
--
John Briggs
Renia
One thing to remember during the medieval period was that Christians
were members of the Catholic Church and most of the Catholic Church laws
which apply today, applied then.
One of those, is divorce and annulment. The Catholic Church does not and
never did recognise divorce. This is why Henry VIII broke from the Pope
who would not allow him to annul his marriage to Katherine of Aragon.
Today, as always, Catholics who have been divorced in civil law are
still seen as married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Should two
(civilly) divorced Catholics wish to marry each other in a Catholic
Church, they cannot, for the Church would see this as bigamy. In civil
law, they can do what they like. They only way they can marry again in a
Catholic Church, is to have their first marriages annulled. Under
special circumstances, today, this is possible. I know one Catholic man
who is on his third wife by this method.
To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
marriage did happen but is now over.
pierre...@hotmail.fr
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:09:39 -0800 (PST), "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"
That is not what an annullement is in canon law: an annullement
declares a marriage to have never existed (although strangely some of
its consequences can still exist). It is not a divorce in the modern
sense that is a dissolution of an existing marriage (this marriage
existed before, now it exists no more), although that also can happen
in few specific cases.
Pierre
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
e by this method.
>
> To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
> happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
> marriage did happen but is now over.
>
themselves".
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage is
considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.
Best regards,
Francisco
John Briggs
Yes and no. The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.
It is a mistake to equate the medieval church with the modern Roman Catholic
Church, the changes caused by extreme evolution (particularly the
Counter-Reformation and Vatican II) are almost as great as the revolutionary
changes in other churches caused by the Reformation.
> One of those, is divorce and annulment. The Catholic Church does not
> and never did recognise divorce. This is why Henry VIII broke from
> the Pope who would not allow him to annul his marriage to Katherine
> of Aragon.
> Today, as always, Catholics who have been divorced in civil law are
> still seen as married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Should two
> (civilly) divorced Catholics wish to marry each other in a Catholic
> Church, they cannot, for the Church would see this as bigamy. In civil
> law, they can do what they like. They only way they can marry again
> in a Catholic Church, is to have their first marriages annulled. Under
> special circumstances, today, this is possible. I know one Catholic
> man who is on his third wife by this method.
>
> To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
> happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
> marriage did happen but is now over.
Catholic annulments are not the same as civil annulments, which clouds the
issue. (There's a punther, I think...)
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
That's not right either. Their status is as if the marriage had been valid -
which was also the medieval position.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Yes, but the medieval term was "divorce" [divortium] - a more squeamish
Vatican now calls it "a declaration of nullity."
--
John Briggs
Renia
A reminder, that the children of an anulled marriage are and were deemed
illegitimate and that would affect inheritance.
Renia
Not always.
> It is a mistake to equate the medieval church with the modern Roman Catholic
> Church, the changes caused by extreme evolution (particularly the
> Counter-Reformation and Vatican II) are almost as great as the revolutionary
> changes in other churches caused by the Reformation.
True enough, but with regard to marital annulments, I think we're on
safe ground. To bring in Reformation and Council of Trent changes where
they don't impinge on what we are discussing, just serves to cloud the
issue.
>>One of those, is divorce and annulment. The Catholic Church does not
>>and never did recognise divorce. This is why Henry VIII broke from
>>the Pope who would not allow him to annul his marriage to Katherine
>>of Aragon.
>>Today, as always, Catholics who have been divorced in civil law are
>>still seen as married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Should two
>>(civilly) divorced Catholics wish to marry each other in a Catholic
>>Church, they cannot, for the Church would see this as bigamy. In civil
>>law, they can do what they like. They only way they can marry again
>>in a Catholic Church, is to have their first marriages annulled. Under
>>special circumstances, today, this is possible. I know one Catholic
>>man who is on his third wife by this method.
>>
>>To annul a marriage, is and was to declared it void, as if it never
>>happened. This is not the same as divorce, which is to declare a
>>marriage did happen but is now over.
>
>
> Catholic annulments are not the same as civil annulments, which clouds the
> issue. (There's a punther, I think...)
I'm not talking about civil annulments. Don't know about them. A
Catholic annulment means the marriage "never happened".
Renia
Absolutely and utterly not.
John Briggs
Well, no - they usually weren't.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Can you be more precise?
--
John Briggs
Renia
You'd better get back to your Catechism of Christian Doctrine.
And read up about Henry VIII.
Renia
See my previous post, above.
John Briggs
You were on safer ground with your earlier definition: "as if it never
happened".
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Date? Edition? Which particular part?
> And read up about Henry VIII.
How is that relevant?
--
John Briggs
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/16/2007 8:15:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
francisco.tav...@gmail.com writes:
Against third parties - namely children born - the annuled marriage is
considered valid until the date of the decree of annulation so it
becomes the same as if it was a divorce.
----------------
There is at least one example, where the *ending* of a marriage, in this
time period, resulted in the children being declared illegitimate. So I'm not
sure about your response above.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
WJho...@aol.com
Rome over it, he still adopted the current concept that children of an annulled
marriage were illegitimate.
There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,
and then later on, Elizabeth is as well after her mother was beheaded. So
I'm sure these children grew up in a state of confusion, never knowing if they
were going to become immensely wealthy and powerful one day, to being
consigned to a convent the next.
t...@clearwire.net
> I think the point being made is, regardless of the fact that H8 split from
> Rome over it, he still adopted the current concept that children of an annulled
> marriage were illegitimate.
Not according to the Act of Succession he drafted.
> There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,
Called by whom?
The fact is, Henry was making it up as he went along, even, if only
briefly, considering illegitimate son Henry Fitz Henry as heir. The
problem with Mary was not her birth, it was her upbringing (Catholic),
but in the end, she was named senior heir to her brother, irrespective
of both.
> and then later on, Elizabeth is as well after her mother was beheaded.
But not because her mother was beheaded (which is somewhat different
than an annulment). It was because she was conceived in adultery or
fornication, depending on your view of the marriage to Catherine.
> So
> I'm sure these children grew up in a state of confusion, never knowing if they
> were going to become immensely wealthy and powerful one day, to being
> consigned to a convent the next.
(or to Tower Hill)
taf
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/16/2007 11:45:44 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
t...@clearwire.net writes:
But not because her mother was beheaded (which is somewhat different
than an annulment). It was because she was conceived in adultery or
fornication, depending on your view of the marriage to Catherine.
-------------------
The first marriage was annulled, the second was legitimate while he wanted
it to be.
She wasn't declared a bastard because her mother was beheaded.
The second marriage was declared void as well.
pierre...@hotmail.fr
Actually, no, not in canon law at least: if the marriage is considered
putative, then children are legitimate as far as canon law is
concerned, despite the fact that the marriage never existed for other
purpose. Of course, that's a point about which canon law and civil law
can be in conflict, although it is less about the marriage itself than
about the legitimacy of the children (a question about which law
conflicts were frequent).
Pierre
pierre...@hotmail.fr
In Latin, "divortium" just means "separation" ("divortium itinerum"
for example is the parting of the ways): "divortium" is of course one
of the consequence of an annulment, although a separation can also
happen without annulment of the marriage.
John Briggs
Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium" ("divorcium"),
listed elsethread. But that was just the conclusion of the process, so the
name got attached to it. "Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the
process was to determine that the marriage had been null (and void -
although there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
start.
--
John Briggs
Renia
Interesting.
When my children were young, I wanted them to go to my old Catholic
school because it was the best state school in the neighbourhood. Being
a good (lapsed) Catholic, I decided to take them to Mass every week and
began discussions with the Priest about getting them into the school
where he was one of the Governors. He sat in my house, with his halo
shining brightly, and declared my husband should get his first (Church
of England) marriage anulled, because in the eyes of the Catholic
Church, we were not married. How would I like it, the Priest asked, when
our neighbours found out our children were illegitimate? I decided my
hypocrisy could go no further and sent the to them Church of England
school instead.
At about the same time, a female relative found a new boyfriend. He was
a good Catholic and was on his third wife, having had his previous two
marriages anulled. He was thinking of having the third anulled, because
he wanted to marry my relative, who had been married in a Catholic
Church but who had been civilly divorced. The relative thought about it
(being wary of his marital record) and looked into it. She, too, would
have to have her Catholic marriage anulled and her children would be
declared illegitimate. She told her boyfriend to go back to his wife.
Renia
> On Nov 16, 11:27 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>I think the point being made is, regardless of the fact that H8 split from
>>Rome over it, he still adopted the current concept that children of an annulled
>> marriage were illegitimate.
>
>
> Not according to the Act of Succession he drafted.
I think he drafted it precisely because Mary was deemed illegitimate. He
still wanted her to succeed Edward.
>
>
>
>>There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,
>
>
> Called by whom?
Personally, can't think of any off the top of my head, but it is well
known Mary was bastardized.
>
> The fact is, Henry was making it up as he went along, even, if only
> briefly, considering illegitimate son Henry Fitz Henry as heir. The
> problem with Mary was not her birth, it was her upbringing (Catholic),
> but in the end, she was named senior heir to her brother, irrespective
> of both.
As far as he, himself, was concerned, Henry VIII never stopped being
Catholic even after he broke with Rome. All that had changed, in his
eyes, was he'd dumped the Pope in order to end his marriage to Katherine.
>>and then later on, Elizabeth is as well after her mother was beheaded.
>
>
> But not because her mother was beheaded (which is somewhat different
> than an annulment). It was because she was conceived in adultery or
> fornication, depending on your view of the marriage to Catherine.
After Anne Boleyn's beheading, I seem to remember the Court talk
beginning to legitimize Mary which resulted in bastardising Elizabeth.
Hence Henry had to write the succession into his will.
>>So
>>I'm sure these children grew up in a state of confusion, never knowing if they
>>were going to become immensely wealthy and powerful one day, to being
>>consigned to a convent the next.
>
>
> (or to Tower Hill)
Indeedy. Precisely where Elizabeth ended up.
wjhonson
>
> Yes, of course - there were different types of "divortium" ("divorcium"),
> listed elsethread. But that was just the conclusion of the process, so the
> name got attached to it. "Annulment" isn't quite right either, as the
> process was to determine that the marriage had been null (and void -
> although there are distinctions between "void" and "voidable") from the
> start.
> --
> John Briggs
Being careful of course to distinguish between a "marriage contract"
which was for a future marriage ceremony, and which, if either party
were under the age of consummation could be voided by either party
once they reached the age at which the marriage would take place.
By the way, in the initial case DR did not submit the entire case
record but only a part. As we know, a marriage contract is binding on
the *adult* signers, that is, they could not change their mind later,
as the under-age *consenters* could. Regardless of whether the child
returned to her first *future* husband, the lawsuit presumably was
directed at the adults involved who were not doing their due diligence
at keeping her under their thumb.
Are their cases where a person actually sues a under-age child and not
their guardian?
Will Johnson
John Briggs
He was probably technically correct on that point. But you should have
called his bluff: had he told the neighbours you could have sued him for
slander.
> At about the same time, a female relative found a new boyfriend. He
> was a good Catholic and was on his third wife, having had his
> previous two marriages anulled. He was thinking of having the third
> anulled, because he wanted to marry my relative, who had been married
> in a Catholic Church but who had been civilly divorced. The relative
> thought about it (being wary of his marital record) and looked into
> it. She, too, would have to have her Catholic marriage anulled and
> her children would be declared illegitimate.
That last point is incorrect. Certainly now, and almost certainly then.
There seems to have been a choice in the medieval period, and they usually
wjhonson
> t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 11:27 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >>There are several references where Mary is called a bastard or illegitimate,
>
> > Called by whom?
>
> Personally, can't think of any off the top of my head, but it is well
> known Mary was bastardized.
>
Alison Weir in her book "The Children of Henry VIII" states that
"...Mary never saw her mother again. In 1533 she was declared a
bastard and unfit to inherit the crown and made to wait upon her half-
sister the Princess Elizabeth..."
1533 by the way is the same year in which Thomas Cranmer "...declared
that the King's marraige to Katherine of Aragon was null and void and
that the marriage Henry had already entered into with Anne Boleyn was
valid."
Will Johnson
wjhonson
I would also point out, that Mary and Elizabeth for that matter were
*restored* to the succession by the influence of their last step-
mother Katherine Parr and the Act of Parliament was not passed until
1543. Pointedly, in that act *neither daughter* was declared
legitimate.
Anne Boleyn had gone to the block in May 1536, so both Mary and
Elizabeth were not in the succession for at least those 6 to 7 years.
As to Elizabeth, although the Act of Succession of 1533/4 made
Elizabeth his heir, when her mother was executed, she was declared a
bastard and struck from the succession (Weir, pg 7)
Will Johnson
D. Spencer Hines
I'm sure the priest understood Renia was only trying to get her boys into
the parochial school.
That was patently OBVIOUS.
Renia is the HYPOCRITE here.
As to Renia's female relative [what a curious, circumlocutory expression --
cousin, aunt, whatever] -- if the boyfriend was a three-time loser, but
wanted to try for FOUR marriages -- she made a WISE choice.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhl1o7$68m$1...@mouse.otenet.gr...
> pierre...@hotmail.com wrote:
> When my children were young, I wanted them to go to my old Catholic school
> because it was the best state school in the neighbourhood. Being a good
> (lapsed) Catholic, I decided to take them to Mass every week and began
> discussions with the Priest about getting them into the school where he
> was one of the Governors. He sat in my house, with his halo shining
> brightly, and declared my husband should get his first (Church of England)
> marriage anulled [sic], because in the eyes of the Catholic Church, we
> were not
> married. How would I like it, the Priest asked, when our neighbours found
> out our children were illegitimate? I decided my hypocrisy could go no
> further and sent the to them Church of England school instead.
>
> At about the same time, a female relative found a new boyfriend. He was a
> good Catholic and was on his third wife, having had his previous two
> marriages anulled [sic]. He was thinking of having the third anulled
> [sic], because he
> wanted to marry my relative, who had been married in a Catholic Church but
> who had been civilly divorced. The relative thought about it (being wary
> of his marital record) and looked into it. She, too, would have to have
> her Catholic marriage anulled [sic] and her children would be declared
Renia
I've consulted The Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12584a.htm
Q
Putative Marriage
Putative (Latin, putativus supposed) signifies that which is commonly
thought, reputed, or believed. A putative marriage, consequently, in
canon law is a matrimonial alliance which is commonly reputed to be
valid, and is sincerely believed by one at least of the contracting
parties to be so in the eyes of the Church, because entered into in good
faith; but which in reality is null and void, owing to the existence of
a diriment impediment. The Church too in her external forum recognizes
such a marriage, until its invalidity be proved; and concedes to the
children born thereof the rights of legitimacy.
UNQ
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09131e.htm
Q
Legitimation
(Latin legitimatio).
The canonical term for the act by which the irregularity contracted by
being born out of lawful wedlock is removed (see IRREGULARITY).
Legitimation consequently presupposes illegitimacy. It is to be noted
that all children born of marriage are presumed in canon law to be
legitimate. This holds, not only for valid marriages, but also for such
as are commonly reputed to be valid, though really invalid, provided
such marriages were entered into, by at least one of the parties, in
good faith. A marriage of this latter kind is called a putative
marriage. If both parties to such marriage were in bad faith, the
children would be held legitimate in the external forum, as this bad
faith would not be manifest. In case both contractors were in good
faith, the children would be legitimate, even if the marriage were
afterwards declared to be null.
Presumption of legitimacy is always in favour of the children born of a
person in wedlock, unless evident proof be given that physical reasons
make the paternity of the husband impossible, such as absence,
impotence, etc.; and even a sworn confession of wrongdoing on the part
of either reputed parent will not otherwise affect the legitimacy of the
children. Infants born before the usual time of gestation or after it,
as, for example, at the beginning of the seventh month after the
marriage ceremony, or at the completion of the tenth month after the
death of the husband, are held to be legitimate. When marriage is
entered into by two parties who suspect there is an impediment but make
no inquiry into the truth, and it afterwards be made plain that such
obstacle to validity did exist, their offspring is illegitimate, because
affected ignorance is equivalent to knowledge. If, however, the doubt
arise after the consummation of the marriage, children conceived before
a sentence of invalidity is rendered have the standing of legitimate
children.
UNQ
Priests! Hah!
Tiglath
> Hmmmmmmm...
>
> taf seems to have sampled their wares -- and recognizes a pearl of wisdom.
>
> DSH
>
> <t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
>
> news:76c61887-863d-43c0...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 15, 12:23 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> >> There is nothing wrong with a little color in one's bed.
>
> >> A surprising amount of black chicks **** as good as they dance.
> > Do you think we have learned more about medieval genealogy and made
> > friends because a lame-brained crosspost induced this person to bring
> > this pearl of wisdom to us?
>
> taf
Friends? Who cares?
Swine can always leave pearls for those who can appreciate them.
John Briggs
Was he Irish, by any chance?
--
John Briggs