Countess Ida and the Bradenstoke Cartulary
G . EDWARD ALLEN
This was a rather lengthy and loud thread which took place almost a year
ago.See DejaNews
In 1979, the Wiltshire Record Society published The Cartulary of
Bradenstoke Priory, which was edited by Vera C.M. London.
p. 9 has a discussion of the Countess Ida which two of the included
abstracts mention as the mother of William Longespee.
These two abstractions can be found on p. 143 and p.188. These are
probably also found in DejaNews.
DSH's position is that since none of us has handled, seen, or read the
originals, that it is clatrap.
My position was, and is, that the Wiltshire Record Society is no
fly-by-night organization and that it would not put its reputation
in jeopardy by publishing a work which, in England, would probably be
only too easy to shoot down. These documents have probably been gone
over with a fine-tooth comb by experts, if not from the Record Society,
then from The Twenty-seven Foundation which funded the publication.
If there was a problem, then surely some of the scholarly journals would
have printed something by some hot-shot scholar dying to make a name.
This does not seem to have happened and I assure you that in the world
of Academe, this would not have been allowed to go unremarked.
I am sure Spencer will have a witty retort to barbeque me. But this is
my position and I stand by it, that is to say that it appeared in a
reputable journal which probably has peer review, so that I think that
it is entirely probable that William Longespee's mother was a woman whom
he called Countess Ida.
Unfortunately, Gary Boyd Roberts prematurely released news that Douglas
Richardson had an article on the burner, which has yet to see the light
of print several years later. No one else has worked on the problem
because it is not the done thing to purloin someone else's work, even if
that someone might be considered slothful :-)
If Mr. Hines does not like this, I would cheerfully challenge him to go
to Wiltshire and investigate this himself if it really is that important
in his scheme of things. Then he can personally report back to us.
I have other fish to fry, so a trip to England is not on my calendar.
Any volunteers?
Kay Allen all...@pacbell.net
Tom Cain
Kay,
I would say that all your assumptions are fairly accurate. Certainly,
record societies such as Wiltshire RS, Suffolk Records or Lincolnshire
RS or any other RS all have a long and august academic tradition over
here. Many of our best regional and local historians publish work in
them. Indeed, it is often the only place that editions of esoteric
texts and cartularies CAN be published.
To satisfy my own curiosity I'll have a look at the edition in
question next time I'm in the Institute of Historical Research in
London - which will be either Thursday or Friday. The IHR - which is
the base of the Victoria County Histories - has a fairly comprehensive
local history library. I'm certain it'll be there.
As for not stepping on anyone's academic toes, this does not normally
apply to articles. Perhaps the Richardson 'article' was actually a
research paper to be given at a conference or research seminar. This
would explain it's non-appearence.
As for DSH. Thankfully, I have him kill-filed again after much abuse
he heaped on me on soc.hist.med a couple of weeks ago. It seems to me
his blow-hard attitude to the academic world betokens an deeply
underlying sense on insecurity. There's an old saying where I come
from - The ears of he who speaks too much are only accustomed to
agreement. I think it fits. I'm happy that, even if he rails against
me, I won't hear him.
Tom 8-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Tom Cain tc...@dircon.co.uk
Wembley, UK bca...@bbk.ac.uk
HA9 0AG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Vide infra. "Trotsky" sticks his head up out of the grass.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Tom Cain wrote in message
<03dd01bd4254$bfe3b7e0$4833...@tcain.easynet.co.uk>...
>As for DSH. Thankfully, I have him kill-filed again after much abuse
>he heaped on me on soc.hist.med a couple of weeks ago. It seems to me
>his blow-hard attitude to the academic world [???] betokens an [sic] deeply
>underlying sense on [sic] insecurity. There's an old saying where I come
>from - The ears of he [sic???] who speaks too much are only accustomed to
>agreement. I think it fits. I'm happy that, even if he rails against
>me, I won't hear him.
And this fellow is teaching eighth graders how to write, think and spell?
Incredible.
DSH
D. Spencer Hines
Vide infra
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <34F4AC...@pacbell.net>...
>This was a rather lengthy and loud thread which took place almost a year
>ago.See DejaNews
>
>In 1979, the Wiltshire Record Society published The Cartulary of
>Bradenstoke Priory, which was edited by Vera C.M. London.
>
>p. 9 has a discussion of the Countess Ida which two of the included
>abstracts mention as the mother of William Longespee.
No quotation of the cited material. No discussion of the provenance of the
document, or its interpretation.
>
>These two abstractions can be found on p. 143 and p.188. These are
>probably also found in DejaNews.
>
>DSH's position is that since none of us has handled, seen, or read the
>originals, that it is clatrap. [sic] [claptrap???]
Horseradish. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Since when have you
taken up mind reading as an avocation?
My post was addressed to Todd and his coterie. He made the original post on
this matter. Has he lost the power of speech?
<snip of much wishful thinking, hopeful and pious speculation and authority
rattling>
>Unfortunately, Gary Boyd Roberts prematurely released news that Douglas
>Richardson had an article on the burner, which has yet to see the light
>of print several years later. No one else has worked on the problem
>because it is not the done thing to purloin someone else's work, even if
>that someone might be considered slothful :-)
Why do you choose to fault Gary Boyd Roberts? He may have cleared what he
said in 1993 in RD500 with Richardson. Let's not jump to conclusions. What
does Richardson have to say?
D. Spencer Hines
Vickie Elam White
D. Spencer Hines wrote, quoting Kay Allen --
>G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <34F4AC...@pacbell.net>...
>>This was a rather lengthy and loud thread which took place almost a year
>>ago.See DejaNews
>>
>>In 1979, the Wiltshire Record Society published The Cartulary of
>>Bradenstoke Priory, which was edited by Vera C.M. London.
>>
>>p. 9 has a discussion of the Countess Ida which two of the included
>>abstracts mention as the mother of William Longespee.
>
>No quotation of the cited material. No discussion of the provenance of
the
>document, or its interpretation.
I think you need to search Deja News again. I have that thread in my
files, was
looking at it just the other day. Kay certainly did quote the cited
material, in
fact it was an extremely long post. And, if memory serves me, you did
comment
about it at the time, so I am fairly sure you saw it.
As for the rest, again you are incorrect. Search again.
>My post was addressed to Todd and his coterie. He made the original post
on
>this matter. Has he lost the power of speech?
Todd was not the only one involved in this thread, nor is he the only
person
involved in research into this matter. Kay posted the cited material, I
think she
has every right to comment on it now.
>Why do you choose to fault Gary Boyd Roberts? He may have cleared what he
>said in 1993 in RD500 with Richardson. Let's not jump to conclusions.
What
>does Richardson have to say?
No faulting involved. His mention was premature in that the article said
by him to
be "forthcoming" still hasn't appeared.
I think it just eats you up that someone else -- and not you -- may be in
contact with
Richardson, hmmm?
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
G . EDWARD ALLEN
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> Vide infra
>
> D. Spencer Hines
> --
>
> "Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
> ...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
> interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
> record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
> blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
> if they don't have pictures."
>
> Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
>
> >This was a rather lengthy and loud thread which took place almost a year
> >ago.See DejaNews
> >
> >In 1979, the Wiltshire Record Society published The Cartulary of
> >Bradenstoke Priory, which was edited by Vera C.M. London.
> >
> >p. 9 has a discussion of the Countess Ida which two of the included
> >abstracts mention as the mother of William Longespee.
>
> No quotation of the cited material. No discussion of the provenance of the
> document, or its interpretation.
>
> >
> >probably also found in DejaNews.
> >
> >DSH's position is that since none of us has handled, seen, or read the
> >originals, that it is clatrap. [sic] [claptrap???]
>
> Horseradish. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Since when have you
> taken up mind reading as an avocation?
>
> this matter. Has he lost the power of speech?
>
> rattling>
>
> >Unfortunately, Gary Boyd Roberts prematurely released news that Douglas
> >Richardson had an article on the burner, which has yet to see the light
> >of print several years later. No one else has worked on the problem
> >because it is not the done thing to purloin someone else's work, even if
> >that someone might be considered slothful :-)
>
> said in 1993 in RD500 with Richardson. Let's not jump to conclusions. What
> does Richardson have to say?
>
Dear Spencer,
Since you feel that I did not accurately state your position, would you
please state it for the record clearly, succinctly, and in one page or
less.
And for the record, I do score highly on tests for parapsychology. How
clever of you to have guessed :-)
I have quoted the material previously and it is probably available on
DejaNews. At that time I also gave a description of the material and of
its history.
I may not be a member of anyone's coterie, but since I participated in
the earlier thread and I am possessed of a mouth to speak and fingers
with which to type, I availed myself of opportunity. I'm sure Mr.
Farmerie will respond, should he feel the need.
As for Gary Boyd Roberts, you can query him at the HisGen during the
week, except Mondays. Mr. Richardson's number and address are in his
advertisements. I suggest that you query them for elucidation upon this
question. I wouldn't wish to be further accused of presumptuousness in
reading their minds.
Have a marvelous evening. Spokoyni noch, Spencer.
Kay
D. Spencer Hines
There has been a great deal of smoke and flashing mirrors on this issue of
"Countess Ida" and the alleged charters in the Cartularies of Bradenstoke
Priory.
If Vickie, Kay, Todd, Nat --- or anyone else --- is claiming that this
"Countess Ida" was the Mother of William Longespee and that she can be
correlated with the identity of another *known* individual, the burden of
proof is upon them.
I note that Todd has been "Ostrich Quiet" on this issue, which he was the
one to raise in this iteration --- just as he raised it a year ago --- and
then backed off in confused frustration because he could not prove his case
and was proved *never to have examined* these alleged charters in the
Cartularies of Bradenstoke Priory.
Understandably, it's difficult to be smoothly articulate when one's mouth
and eyes are full of sand --- because one's ostrich head has been buried in
a warm, comforting dune.
Todd failed to present a clear and convincing case for "Countess Ida" at
that time and I suspect he is no better equipped to do so today.
If he has the proof, let him present it to SGM, or cease and desist his
vague opinings and cerebral effluvia that present no hard data to his
readers.
Once again, it was Todd Farmerie who recently told us about "Ida" [no
"Countess" this time] let him stand and deliver his supposed evidence.
D. Spencer Hines
G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <34F4EC...@pacbell.net>...
>Dear Spencer,
>
>Since you feel that I did not accurately state your position, would you
>please state it for the record clearly, succinctly, and in one page or
>less.
Dear Kay,
I know you are not G. Edward Allen [Watch out for those folks who part their
names in the middle, like G. Edward and D. Spencer.] but are *really* Kay
Allen. However these other folks may not.
You are misquoting me again, dear. Please re-read what I wrote. Thank you
dear.
Now, you want me to state my position on what matter, Kay? Please state it
clearly and succinctly.
Sincerely,
Spencer
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <34F4EC...@pacbell.net>...
>Dear Spencer,
>
>Since you feel that I did not accurately state your position, would you
>please state it for the record clearly, succinctly, and in one page or
>less.
Dear Kay,
I know you are not G. Edward Allen [watch out for those folks who part their
names in the middle, like G. Edward and D. Spencer] but are *really* Kay
Allen. However these other folks may not.
You are misquoting me again, dear. Please re-read what I wrote. Thank you
dear.
Now, you want me to state my postion on what, Kay?
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Dear Spencer,
You are alleging that the cartulary is alleged. What is your case? What
are your evidences that they might not be kosher? Skepticism is
insufficient. There is no case but plenty of opinion (to which you are
certainly entitled), so stuff a sock in it and let's get on to something
new. I am getting bored with the same old panegyric! I am too fond of
horses to see a dead one pointlessly flogged.
Kay
Portculis
Oh great Hines, have you again not put forth any original material or thought?
Just criticizing people over spelling or names? That's distracting from the
discussion at hand. (You might as well attack me.)
The late Charles Evans was one of the most intelligent and careful researchers
in this field. In a letter to _The Genealogist_ 3:265-66 (1982) he commented
with approval on the two references from _The Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory_
to "Comitissa Ida, mater mea" as mother of William Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury. The editors of the cartulary appear to have accepted these
references as genuine, as Charles Evans did, and as I do. If it is alleged
that these charters have been altered or forged with respect to these
references, there ought to be some evidence presented as to this fact. The
editors found no evidence of forgery or interpolation and they saw the original
documents. After all, that is what published editions are for, to save the
rest of us the trouble and expense of examining these rare and difficult to
read documents ourselves. If Tigger or anyone else wishes to assert that there
is some problem with these documents it is for the person who makes such a
claim to find evidence to support it, because otherwise the document speaks for
itself.
As Charles Evans points out, there was really only one person who migtht
qualify as "Countess Ida" at this period. This woman was four times married,
but she was in a position to have had a brief affair with King Henry. It seems
to me that the proposition presented by Charles Evans should be further and
more closely examined, as he suggested should be done. But ridicule,
especially from a person who has not displayed any particular competence in
this field is not only unwarranted, but a gross impertinence.
As to the sugegstion that Doug Richardson is preparing an article on
Countess Ida, I have seen nothing that he has written that would show that he
is competent to deal with such a subject in any authoritative fashion.
Whatever he has written in the past has usually required considerable editorial
assistance to render it suitable for publication.
Todd A. Farmerie
Portculis wrote:
> As Charles Evans points out, there was really only one person who migtht
> qualify as "Countess Ida" at this period. This woman was four times married,
> but she was in a position to have had a brief affair with King Henry. It seems
> to me that the proposition presented by Charles Evans should be further and
> more closely examined, as he suggested should be done.
While the full elaboration of Richard's hypothesis has yet to appear, I
think we must at least credit him with identifying another viable
candidate for "Countess Ida". As wife of the Earl of Norfolk, Ida Bigod
appears in contemporary documents with the title Countess [CP Norfolk].
In addition, there is at least one documented later connection between
the families of Longespee and Bigod, when William Longespee was
appointed guardian to (nephew?) Roger Bigod, following the death of Earl
Hugh (Ida's son). In my view this trumps Evans' hypothesis, his main
supporting evidence being a lack of other candidates.
taf
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Dear Spencer,
Would you please state what is your position concerning Countess Ida,
The Bradenstoke cartulary (the "originals"), the Bradenstoke Cartulary
(the publication). I feel they can be accepted. It would appear that you
do not. If not, why not. If so, why so?
K
Vickie Elam White
D. Spencer Hines wrote --
<< I note that Todd has been "Ostrich Quiet" on this issue, which he was the
one to raise in this iteration --- just as he raised it a year ago --- and
then backed off in confused frustration because he could not prove his case
and was proved *never to have examined* these alleged charters in the
Cartularies of Bradenstoke Priory. >>
It is not necessary to examine each and every piece of original documentation
ourselves. If reputible researchers HAVE done so, which is the case in this
issue and so much of genealogy in general, and the arguments have been
presented and make sense, then that is sufficient.
Have YOU personally examined each and every piece of evidence that has
been put forward in ES, CP, AR7, etc.?
<< If he has the proof, let him present it to SGM, or cease and desist his
vague opinings and cerebral effluvia that present no hard data to his
readers. >>
No vague opinings and cerebral effluvia. Charter evidence has been
presented, which has been examined and accepted by quite reputible
researchers, has been put forward.
Since you seem to be the only one on this list or newsgroup who has a
problem with William LONGESPEE's identification of his own mother, in two
separate charters, as "Countess Ida" , then I say it is up to YOU to disprove
it. The other researchers here seem satisfied.
As for the actual identity and lineage of "Countess Ida", no one has put
forward anything more that an argument that she *may* be the woman who
married Sir Roger le BIGOD. We are awaiting Douglas Richardson's
paper to see just what these arguments are.
As for calling her Ida rather than "Countess Ida" once in a while, come off your
high horse. When called the mother of William LONGESPEE in the rest of
the message or thread, it is obvious to all but the dimmest bulb that they are
the same woman.
Now, sometime down the road, some new research may come to light that will
cause this line to be re-examined yet again, and it might even be that the
entire thing is a bunch of hooey. But that is why genealogy is a science. New
findings happen all the time, in fact they are encouraged. But for now, the rest
of are satisfied. Spencer, if you are not then I suggest you do the research
yourself.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
D. Spencer Hines
Hmmmm. Vide infra.
1. Still misspelling "Portcullis" as "Portculis" I see. Hilarious, s/he
picks a false name and then spells it wrong.
2. No document "speaks for itself." It needs verification and proof of
provenance, particularly if it is a compilation or copy.
3. A gross mistake with reference to "there was really only one person who
migtht [sic] qualify as "Countess Ida" at this period." What an incredibly
stupid and wrong-headed statement. It is just this sort of tunnel vision
that leads to disastrous errors in genealogy.
4. A cheap shot, of the lowest and most vile sort, taken at Douglas
Richardson:
>"As to the sugegstion [sic] that Doug Richardson is preparing an article on
>Countess Ida, I have seen nothing that he has written that would show that
he
>is competent to deal with such a subject in any authoritative fashion.
>Whatever he has written in the past has usually required considerable
editorial
>assistance to render it suitable for publication."
"Portculis"
A very sorry record indeed.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Portculis wrote in message
<19980226081...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> As Charles Evans points out, there was really only one person who
migtht
>qualify as "Countess Ida" at this period. This woman was four times
married,
>but she was in a position to have had a brief affair with King Henry. It
seems
>to me that the proposition presented by Charles Evans should be further and
David Greene
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>
> Portculis wrote:
>
> > As Charles Evans points out, there was really only one person who migtht
> > qualify as "Countess Ida" at this period. This woman was four times married,
> > but she was in a position to have had a brief affair with King Henry. It seems
> > to me that the proposition presented by Charles Evans should be further and
> > more closely examined, as he suggested should be done.
>
> think we must at least credit him with identifying another viable
> candidate for "Countess Ida". As wife of the Earl of Norfolk, Ida Bigod
> appears in contemporary documents with the title Countess [CP Norfolk].
> In addition, there is at least one documented later connection between
> the families of Longespee and Bigod, when William Longespee was
> appointed guardian to (nephew?) Roger Bigod, following the death of Earl
> Hugh (Ida's son). In my view this trumps Evans' hypothesis, his main
> supporting evidence being a lack of other candidates.
>
> taf
So far as the Bradenstoke Cartulary is concerned, we are not dealing with
something like the famous Horn Papers hoax. What we have is the careful
attempt by distinguished scholars to present an accurate version of a
significant early document. A cartulary is not the original charters; it is
instead, a copy, often in abbreviated form by the monks, often in abbreviated
form, of a monastery of those documents that granted property to the
institution. A cartulary is usually the closest we can come to the
monastic charters, which, in England, usually did not survive the
Reformation. For a discussion of such cartularies and the original
documents, see the new edition of the recently recovered Lanercost
Cartularly, published last year as Vol. 202 or 203 of the publications of the
Surtees Society.
Most experienced medievalists would be willing to accept the very scholarly
edition of the Bradenstoke Cartulary unless there are reasons to suspect it.
Such reasons have not been presented, and until they are, we should accept
the premise that William Longespee called his mother the Countess Ida, and go
on from there.
Doug Richardson's hypothesis for her identity is the most interesting thus
far presented, primarily because of the added connection that Todd presents.
Since his theory has already been presented in print, I think it fair to
discuss and evaluate it, even though his full article has not been published.
(Of course, part of the problem is that Gary Roberts likes to publish reports
on "works in progress," which can create embarrassment for the scholar doing
the work. I allowed Gary to publish some of the connections from my article
on the Lawrence [of Long Island] royal line, which put me in the position of
trying to respond to people who wanted to see my evidence long before I felt
ready to publish it [the article appeared ion The Genealogist, Vol. 10, No.
1].)
Are there any contemporary women who might have been called the "Countess
Ida," other than the ones proposed by Charles Evans and Douglas Richardson?
The argument from elimination is often dangerous, but it can be very useful.
dlg
David Greene
Let me try this posting again:
> Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> >
> > Portculis wrote:
> >
> > > As Charles Evans points out, there was really only one person who migtht
> > > qualify as "Countess Ida" at this period. This woman was four times married,
> > > but she was in a position to have had a brief affair with King Henry. It seems
> > > to me that the proposition presented by Charles Evans should be further and
> > > more closely examined, as he suggested should be done.
> >
> > While the full elaboration of Richard's hypothesis has yet to appear, I
> > think we must at least credit him with identifying another viable
> > candidate for "Countess Ida". As wife of the Earl of Norfolk, Ida Bigod
> > appears in contemporary documents with the title Countess [CP Norfolk].
> > In addition, there is at least one documented later connection between
> > the families of Longespee and Bigod, when William Longespee was
> > appointed guardian to (nephew?) Roger Bigod, following the death of Earl
> > Hugh (Ida's son). In my view this trumps Evans' hypothesis, his main
> > supporting evidence being a lack of other candidates.
> >
> > taf
> So far as the Bradenstoke Cartulary is concerned, we are not dealing with
something like the famous Horn Papers hoax. What we have is the careful
attempt by distinguished scholars to present an accurate version of a
significant early document. A cartulary is not the original charters; it is
usually the closest we can come to the monastic charters, which, in England,
usually did not survive the Reformation. For a discussion of such
cartularies and the original documents, see the new edition of the recently
recovered Lanercost Cartularly, published last year as Vol. 202 or 203 of the
publications of the Surtees Society.
Most experienced medievalists would be willing to accept the very scholarly
edition of the Bradenstoke Cartulary unless there are reasons to suspect it.
Reedpcgen
May I ask one point? Although I think the material mentioned by taf holds a
lot of weight, can we assume in our search that Countess Ida had to be English,
the wife of an Earl? Or is there any rationale for the possibility that she
might have been French? Just wondering.
pcr
Todd A. Farmerie
Actually, that she was English and not French is Richardson's
innovation. Evans, when he first brought this to the attention of the
larger genealogical public, appears to have looked immediately to
France, and the only Countess Ida he found was the Countess of
Boulogne. He appears not to have considered the English option, or if
he did, he missed Ida Bigod.
taf
Leo van de Pas
My apologies for stepping in half-way. However, may I ask what is the
question? Is the question who is the mother of William Longespee?
According to Gerald Paget (a very good source) the mother was
Rosamund Clifford (the Fair Rosamund) daughter of Walter, Lord Clifford
and Margaret de Tony. William also has a brother (also by Rosamund)
Geoffrey Longespee, Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor of England,
Archbishop of York, who died 18 December 1212.
He produces his sources at the beginning of each chapter, the section
in regards to William Longespee he quotes:
Complete Peerage
Burke's Guide to the Royal family
and two more which deal with later generations.
The Complete Peerage, book XI page 379, gives an infuriating footnote
about William Longespee's parents :
Hovenden vol. IV page 13. The legend that he was son of Henry II by
Fair Rosamund is discussed by Hunt in the Dict. Nat. Biog. In the fiscal
year 1196-7 he received a 3rd penny of Wilts. by the Kings writ.
However, the main text: Ela (or Isabel) only daughter and Heir, born circa
1191 in 1196 was given by Richard I, with the Earldom of Salisbury,
to his bastard brother, William Longespee.
Sorry if I add to the confusion.
Leo van de Pas
Nathaniel Taylor
In article <34F5ED...@po.cwru.edu>, "Todd A. Farmerie"
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Actually, that she was English and not French is Richardson's
>innovation. Evans, when he first brought this to the attention of the
>larger genealogical public, appears to have looked immediately to
>France, and the only Countess Ida he found was the Countess of
>Boulogne. He appears not to have considered the English option, or if
>he did, he missed Ida Bigod.
Evans' note in TG suggests that he (and his source, the editors of the
Cartulary, who first suggested Ida of Boulogne) was interpreting the title
to indicate only countesses _suo jure_, which limited it to Ida of
Boulogne when considering _both_ sides of the sleeve, so far as I know.
Richardson (or whoever should be credited with first thinking of Ida of
Norfolk as a possibility) simply widened the search to include wives of
counts or earls, as the title was authentically used in both English and
Continental charters of the period to apply to them as well.
Nat Taylor
Todd A. Farmerie
Leo van de Pas wrote:
>
> My apologies for stepping in half-way. However, may I ask what is the
> question? Is the question who is the mother of William Longespee?
Yes.
> According to Gerald Paget (a very good source) the mother was
Paget is generally a good source, but he occasionally accepts
traditional affiliations without looking into them very deeply. (He
also showed in his Baronage an annoying desire to link (if even with a
dotted line) everyone with the same surname even if (like the two
Aubignys) it has been clear for a long time that there is no
genealogical connection between them.
> Rosamund Clifford (the Fair Rosamund) daughter of Walter, Lord Clifford
> and Margaret de Tony.
This is the tradition, but as far as I know, this suggested maternity
did not appear for several hundred years after the fact. It probably
derives from the simple assumption that Rosamund (Henry's favorite
mistress, perhaps the only one known at the time the tradition arose)
would be mother of Geoffrey and William, Henry's favorite bastards.
> William also has a brother (also by Rosamund)
> Geoffrey Longespee, Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor of England,
> Archbishop of York, who died 18 December 1212.
Geoffrey's mother appears from contemporary sources as a woman named
Hikenai. He had a brother Morgan, who was perhaps also Henry's rather
than her husband's.
> He produces his sources at the beginning of each chapter, the section
> in regards to William Longespee he quotes:
> Complete Peerage
> Burke's Guide to the Royal family
> and two more which deal with later generations.
Burke is worthless for this time period. (That's another problem with
Paget. He was a lot less prudent in his selection of sources for his
volume of charts and tables than he should have been, and there are
several relationships of questionable authenticity there.)
> The Complete Peerage, book XI page 379, gives an infuriating footnote
> about William Longespee's parents :
> Hovenden vol. IV page 13. The legend that he was son of Henry II by
> Fair Rosamund is discussed by Hunt in the Dict. Nat. Biog. In the fiscal
> year 1196-7 he received a 3rd penny of Wilts. by the Kings writ.
Legend is an apt description.
> However, the main text: Ela (or Isabel) only daughter and Heir, born circa
> 1191 in 1196 was given by Richard I, with the Earldom of Salisbury,
> to his bastard brother, William Longespee.
Charles Evans quoted text from a charter in the recently (then)
published Cartulary of Bradenstone Priory in which William Longespee
called his mother "Countess Ida" (there was also a second charter in the
same source in which William made a similar statement, which reduces the
probability that the first was an error). The question seems to be
whether it is acceptable to mention this information without having gone
to London and looked at the Bradenstoke charters in the British Library.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
David Greene's post has certainly addressed the salient questions and done a
nice job of reopening the debate along the proper lines and asking the
apposite, opening questions.
Reedpcgen
While discussing the matter of Countess Ida and the possible Bigod connection
with Neil D. Thompson (editor of the first ten volumes of The Genealogist), he
told me that such a connection had been proposed decades ago, though off hand
he could not remember the specific source.
There were only so many Earls in England at that period. I expect that someone
has already listed them, listed their known wives, and come up with the English
possibility. I do not have time to do this now. Has such a list been posted
in previous discussions?
pcr
Vickie Elam White
Todd Farmarie wrote --
<< The question seems to be whether it is acceptable to mention this
information without having gone to London and looked at the Bradenstoke
charters in the British Library.>>
Well, no one seems to have any trouble with accepting William's naming
of his own mother excepter Mr. Hines.
I think the question is actually who was Ida, the woman called "Countess
Ida" by her son, William LONGESPEE, in two separate charters? And was
she a Countess by birth or by marriage?
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Delbert W Argyle
David Greene wrote:
>
> Let me try this posting again:
>
> > Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> > >
> > > Portculis wrote:
> > >
> > > > As Charles Evans points out, there was really only one person who migtht
> > > > qualify as "Countess Ida" at this period. This woman was four times married,
(chomp, chomp))
Hi,
The sole reference that I see is NCP, IX, pp 586/7, note f; where she is
identified as "the Countess Ida". On page 589 it says that Ida's
parentage is unknown. JOOC who were Ida's other spouses? Is her
parentage now known? TIA
DWA
D. Spencer Hines
Vide infra.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Vickie Elam White <10265...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
<199802270811_...@compuserve.com>...
Todd Farmarie wrote --
<< The question seems to be whether it is acceptable to mention this
information without having gone to London and looked at the Bradenstoke
charters in the British Library.>>
Well, no one seems to have any trouble with accepting William's naming
of his own mother excepter [sic] Mr. Hines.
That statement is contrary to fact. Let's follow the Rules of Evidence
here. If Genealogists and Historians had more Legal Education and even
Legal Training --- We Should All Be the Wiser. "Mentioning" the information,
as Todd Farmerie puts it, is not the issue here. "Proving" it beyond a
reasonable doubt, to an educated and critical audience is the issue.
Todd "mentions" too much about William Longespee's Mother, and has not
undertaken the disciplined approach to "prove" anything.
I think the question is actually who was Ida, the woman called "Countess
Ida" by her son, William LONGESPEE, in two separate charters? And was
she a Countess by birth or by marriage?
I have no objection to David Greene's proposal that we accept as a
hypothetical working premise that William Longespee reportedly named
"comitessa Ida mater mea" --- in writing --- and proceed accordingly to
identify all possible candidates, within the limits of our knowledge. I
suggested this approach over a year ago and was ridiculed and rejected.
Once again, Hines previously said all this a year ago, but no one was
willing to listen at that time.
What I do object to is people who have never even sighted the Cartulary of
Bradenstoke Priory or determined its origins and provenance --- making
unqualified and categorical statements about it. That way lies lunacy in
all things Historical. One does not accept hearsay and rumour as fact in
Law, History or Genealogy.
Now, Mr. Tom Cain [our beloved "Trotsky"] has made some noises about
actually examining the Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory, which is reportedly
kept in the British Library and telling us about his findings and
interpretations of that document.
If he were to do that, I think that would be a step in the right direction,
as well. Then we might have at least one participant who actually knows
what he is talking about with respect to the Cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory --- rather than just repeatedly churning hearsay and rumour.
Even Medieval Historians and Genealogists should follow the well-proved
standards of the Rules of Evidence and the Historiographical Methodology,
which includes the critical examination of sources and the careful selection
of particulars from the authentic materials.
D. Spencer Hines
James C. Woodard
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>What I do object to is people who have never even sighted the Cartulary of
>Bradenstoke Priory or determined its origins and provenance --- making
<unqualified and categorical statements about it. That way lies lunacy in
>all things Historical. One does not accept hearsay and rumour as fact in
>Law, History or Genealogy.
And have you sighted the sources for all the things you post? I sometimes
think you hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to follow
youself.
Jim
James C. Woodard
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>What I do object to is people who have never even sighted the Cartulary of
>Bradenstoke Priory or determined its origins and provenance --- making
<unqualified and categorical statements about it. That way lies lunacy in
>all things Historical. One does not accept hearsay and rumour[sic] as fact
in
>Law, History or Genealogy.
And have you sighted the sources for all the things you post? I sometimes
think you hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to follow
yourself.
Jim
D. Spencer Hines
Vide infra.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
James C. Woodard wrote in message <6d6u2o$ern$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>>What I do object to is people who have never even sighted the Cartulary of
>>Bradenstoke Priory or determined its origins and provenance --- making
><unqualified and categorical statements about it. That way lies lunacy in
>>all things Historical. One does not accept hearsay and rumour as fact in
>>Law, History or Genealogy.
>
>And have you sighted the sources for all the things you post? I sometimes
>think you hold others to a higher standard than you are willing to follow
>youself. [sic]
>Jim
Yes, I have personally sighted the sources for the things that I post. If I
cite a source I have sighted it. I do not work from hearsay, innuendo,
rumour and "Family Tradition." But then, I've been educated in the
methodologies of History and Law.
Further, I urge others to do the same. Resist the "impulse to post" until
you have your corn all in one sack.
Qualify your remarks, "Tentative evidence suggests" --- "Allegedly" ---
"Reportedly" ---- "The preponderance of evidence indicates that..." ---
"There are four competing theories as to who was the Mother of Q. None of
them is completely convincing, but I shall present the evidence for each."
No, it doesn't make for "Authoritative Slam-Bang Narrative" designed to Awe
and Impress the Unwashed Masses with one's Omniscience --- but it makes for
much better Genealogy.
So, your "off the top" assumption, "I sometimes think you hold others..." is
quite mistaken and erroneous.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
D. Spencer Hines
Vickie Elam White
D. Spencer Hines wrote --
<<Yes, I have personally sighted the sources for the things that I post.
If I
cite a source I have sighted it. I do not work from hearsay, innuendo,
rumour and "Family Tradition." But then, I've been educated in the
methodologies of History and Law.>>
Such fancy footwork!
Yes, you have "sighted" the various sources you use, such as AR7 or
whatever. But, as you are demanding of us, do you "sight" the originals
that are cited in those sources?
Perfectly reputible researchers have examined the cartularies and
published them so that the rest of us can have the benefit of these
findings. It is not necessary to re-examine the originals.
Yes, we have "cited" Vera London's work. No, we have not "sighted" the
original cartularies. It is unnecessary at this point.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Vickie Elam White
D. Spencer Hines wrote --
<<Even Medieval Historians and Genealogists should follow the well-proved
standards of the Rules of Evidence and the Historiographical Methodology,
which includes the critical examination of sources and the careful
selection
of particulars from the authentic materials.>>
They already have, prior to publishing the charters.
You simply refuse to accept their stamp of approval on them.
I notice you have not addressed my previous question: do YOU
*personally* check each and every source used in CP, ES, etc.?
If you do, then you must be constantly reinventing the wheel. If not,
then button up.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Reedpcgen
>
>That statement is contrary to fact. Let's follow the Rules of Evidence
>here. If Genealogists and Historians had more Legal Education and even
>Legal Training --- We Should All Be the Wiser.
Mr. Hines,
I think you will find that we have some of the most careful and intelligent
followers of the Rules of historical criticism and evidence in this group (I
have read quite a few texts on the matter; you might provide titles of the
texts you would be willing to abide by in your discussion of evidence). As to
the legal profession, Dr. Neil D. Thompson received his law degree from Harvard
(1963), a fairly good place for that sort of thing. He agrees emphatically
that the printed matter is accurate and acceptable. So unless you wish to
specifically challenge him on rules of evidence, you have to choose a
different criticism.
> "Proving" it beyond a
>reasonable doubt, to an educated and critical audience is the issue.
[no comment]>
>What I do object to is people who have never even sighted the Cartulary of
>Bradenstoke Priory or determined its origins and provenance --- making
>unqualified and categorical statements about it.
Can we speak about this matter if we have read and analyzed the printed
account?
>Now, Mr. Tom Cain [our beloved "Trotsky"] has made some noises about
>actually examining the Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory, which is reportedly
>kept in the British Library and telling us about his findings and
>interpretations of that document.
There is an even simpler solution. The British Library, Department of
Manuscripts, has a photocopy service. You can order an official photocopy of
the original record, examine it, and educate us all. Would this be an
acceptable solution? Then we could mail it from person to person and all join
in the discussion on this group unfettered by objection (it would be under
copyright, so we couldn't make multiple copies of it without their permission).
pcr
P. S. I take this line of discussion to be almost on topic because it is a
discussion of the interpretation of documents and evidence in discussion and
how to resolve the issues in a real life practical manner, not theoretical
fluff.
; )
Tom Cain
Hi all
This one slipped through the mail-filters. I've fixed the problem, but
I found I have to make a reply. After it, I have no intention of
paying any more attention to Spencer's comments.
DSH wrote:-
>
>
...Let's follow the Rules of Evidence
>here. If Genealogists and Historians had more Legal Education and
even
>Legal Training --- We Should All Be the Wiser. "Mentioning" the
information,
>as Todd Farmerie puts it, is not the issue here. "Proving" it beyond
a
>reasonable doubt, to an educated and critical audience is the issue.
>
No Spencer, let's not follow your 'Rules'. And 'Proving' anything to
anyone is NOT the issue. I think this is the biggest mistake you make.
'Rules of Evidence' and '"Proving" it beyond a reasonable doubt' is
not an issue for historians. We all know that the sort of level of
proof required by criminal law is way beyond the competence of the
evidence available. Actually, the burden of proof is much more like
that in a civil case - 'On the Balance of Probabilities'. At least
that's the legal usage over here, I don't know if that's what happens
in the US.
On balance, it is an acceptable interpretation of the evidence that
'Comitisse Ida' was William Longsword's mother. The further evidence
that Ida Bigod was one of Henry II's favoured mistresses puts her on
the same side of the blanket as William. The scales are further tipped
that way by Todd's comments about William's guardianship of Roger
Bigod when his father (and therefore William's half-brother) died.
This establishes an 'prima facia' case that William had some
kin-relationship to the Bigods. It is an entirely acceptable
hypothesis, and will do until something better comes along. Under
Scottish criminal law, this case would be found as 'Not Proven' - and
returned to the investigators until more evidence could be found - if
we were to apply Spencer's intolerant strictures on evidence. The
burden of evidential proof Spencer demands is too heavy for most
medieval material - and I find it incredible that someone professing
to be a historian would not understand this.
My interest in medieval genealogy is from the prosopograhical side
rather than the tracing of the roots of living families. My long-time
mentor and former tutor is Ann Williams - those working on pre- and
post-Conquest families will probably know of her recent book "The
English and the Norman Conquest" and her work on Harold Godwinesson,
Ralf of Hereford, Oda of Deerhurst, as well as her seminal article on
Aelfric of Mercia and his family. Ann once observed that identifying
anyone in the middle ages from documentary sources is a chancy thing.
Sources such as Domesday Book or chronicles are unreliable without
corroboration and it only takes one new discovery of a cartulary or
even a single charter to throw the whole thing into a cocked hat - and
certainly my own researches on the family and career of Hugh de
Grandemesnil incline me to agree with her.
We are not doing detective work where we can uncover 'the Truth, the
Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth'. We can not ask for 'Truth' as
there is no such thing in historical investigation. We see their world
incompletely through the fragments they have left us. To castigate
Todd because he has understood this and Spencer has not points, I
think, to Spencer's lack of understanding of 'Historical Methodology'
as much as his lack of understanding of the period in question.
Or perhaps there's a 'hidden agenda' here. Did Spencer recognise
himself in the generalised comments Todd made earlier this week about
conduct - or the lack of it - on the list and NG?
>
>Now, Mr. Tom Cain [our beloved "Trotsky"] has made some noises about
>actually examining the Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory, which is
reportedly
>kept in the British Library and telling us about his findings and
>interpretations of that document.
>
I think a word of explanation is perhaps needed here. Spencer and I
have crossed swords before on soc.history.medieval. I made the mistake
of mentioning that I was a socialist (which over here is like someone
in the US mentioning they were a 'liberal') and my job - I teach in UK
secondary schools whilst attempting to find time to finish my PhD.
Spencer immediately cast me in the role of 'red under the bed', thus
proving to all Brits/Europeans on s.h.m that McCarthy is alive and
living in Hawaii!
I am no-one's 'beloved Trotsky' but Spencer's. If Spencer were as
aware of British politics as he likes to think he is, he would know
that the Trotskyite 'Militant Tendency are a much marginalised
political force in the UK and that the British socialist movement has
more in common with - and links to - your Democrat party than is has
to the communistic tendencies of many of the surviving European
socialist parties. However, judging from his long and tedious .sig
files, I've probably opened myself up to comments on 'Zipper Gate',
land-deal fraud and 'smoking-but-not-inhaling' jokes.
I offered to look at the publication in question - not at the
cartulary in the BL, as it's probably on it's way to the new
St.Pancras site by now and inaccessible until the summer at least.
However, were I to inspect the document itself I doubt that I could do
as good a job as it's editor - which seems to me to be a perfectly
good piece of work, and according to my VCH contacts is probably spot
on. Spencer will ask by what authority I can say this. The fact is I
am a published academic who is regularly asked to give papers at
national and international conferences on Medieval History - in fact,
I shall be delivering a paper on Hugh de Grandemesnil at Leeds this
year - whilst struggling to come to terms with the shrinking academic
world in the UK. My credentials are in the public domain, as is my
work and reputation as a teacher, researcher and historian. Can the
same be said of Mr David Spencer Hines? I think not!
Todd, I'm sorry that the post has so much invective and has broken
your newly laid down rules so soon - especially as I'm a newbie here.
However, I have reviewed the instructions on how to filter out
unwanted mail in Outlook Express and I now have Spencer fully
kill-filed and consigned to oblivion as far as I am concerned. May I
suggest that others do likewise. I've no doubt that Spencer has made
some contributions in the past - valuable ones... ? But I think the
disruption he can cause is way out of proportion to his usefulness.
Ignoring him has marginalised him on other NGs, it will work here.
Tom 8-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Tom Cain tc...@dircon.co.uk
Wembley, UK bca...@bbk.ac.uk
HA9 0AG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Reedpcgen wrote in message
<19980228053...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>[Again, the following was worded much better the first time, but AOL signed
me
>off JUST after I had added my initials and was about to post! (I know, but
it's
>free)]
Ahhhhhh, but the best things in life are NOT free. Serves you right. <grin>
[Interesting Post Follows ---- Furthering the Debate on The Earl of
Salisbury's Mother]
<snip>
>P. P. S. (answering a different post:) I vainly believe that my printed
>articles and those of others like Nat Taylor and David Greene meet (and
even
>exceed the quatlity of much past stuff) the level of scholarship of Early
>Modern Historians and Medieval English Historians alike. We ARE
historians.
>We examine the minutiae that most historians only examine on sabattical.
Be
>careful of making GLOBAL criticisms, Mr. Hines, which are inherently
>fallacious. You never know, we might establish reputations as the
historians
>you promote, given another fifty years or so. ; )
Reedpcgen [Interesting name --- DSH]
Oh ye of little faith. If you would just read what I wrote, rather than
improvising on and embellishing it.
Here it is again:
"3. If Douglas Richardson, or any other reputable genealogist wrote an
article on this matter --- he should take nothing as "given" or "proven" or
"validated" in advance, but prove the authenticity and provenance of the
relevant documentation beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because many
Medieval Historians are sloppy and casual in their proofs --- to a degree
that Early Modern and Modern Historians would never be allowed to get away
with, is no justification to let the standards slide. If there is not
sufficient evidence to prove the case, then so be it."
D. Spencer Hines
Once more unto the breach --- with hopes that it will be read as written.
Using the Zoom Lens This time.
"Just because many Medieval Historians are sloppy and casual in their
proofs --- to a degree that Early Modern and Modern Historians would never
be allowed to get away with, is no justification to let the standards
slide."
D. Spencer Hines
I did not make a "GLOBAL criticism" as you so indicate, supra. N.B. the
word "MANY" [not "ALL"] before Medieval Historians. SOME Medieval
Historians are NOT "sloppy and casual in their proofs."
Further, I accept and concur with your argument that Nat Taylor and David
Greene [and others] "meet (and even exceed the quatlity [sic] of much past
stuff) the level of scholarship of Early Modern Historians and Medieval
English Historians alike. We ARE historians." I have no quarrel with that.
In addition, you said:
"As to historical evidence, I personally feel that according to the levels
of scholarship today, our statements and printed matter should be able to
stand up in a court of law."
I WELCOME that statement as well, and agree with it entirely.
So, in summation, your "P.P.S." is a strawman. We do not disagree on those
matters.
Finally:
A. I made no "GLOBAL criticism" of Medieval Historians.
B. Good, sound, reputable Genealogists ARE Historians and should meet the
Scholarly Standards of Historians. [SSH]
C. Genealogical Statements and Printed Matter should be able to stand up in
a Court of Law.
Quod erat demonstrandum et Pax Vobiscum,
D. Spencer Hines
P.S. Be advised that so straightforwardly and candidly agreeing with me on
these matters is going to make you many enemies here on SGM. Beware the
"vast right-wing conspiracy" of mediocre genealogists, hangers-on, wannabes
and never weres. <grin>
Reedpcgen
[Again, the following was worded much better the first time, but AOL signed me
off JUST after I had added my initials and was about to post! (I know, but it's
free)]
> The scales are further tipped
>that way by Todd's comments about William's guardianship of Roger
>Bigod when his father (and therefore William's half-brother) died.
>This establishes an 'prima facia' case that William had some
>kin-relationship to the Bigods.
Actually, no. It is always intriguing to see familial names when you are
looking for them, but the vast majority of guardianships were granted to people
of no immediate or near relation (at least within two or three generations).
They frequently became related in the next generation because the person would
acquire the wardship and marriage of an heir in order to marry them to one of
their own children, or at least profit by an arranged marriage. Also, some
income from the ward's lands were also generally part of the package. In the
case of Roger le Bigod and William Longespee, however, the grant of
guardianship seems to be much more motivated by political expediency. There is
no actual reason to assume a blood relationship between the two (though there
may have been):
Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk 1189-1221, was husband of only one known wife,
named Ida. They were parents of Hugh le Bigod, Earl 1221-1125. It was Hugh's
son (not Roger's) that is the minor in question. Roger le Bigod, b. 1212 or
1213, was a minor at his father's death.
William Longespee was given the marriage of Ela/Isabel of Salisbury, with the
Earldom, by King Richard I in 1196. She was born ca. 1191 (or 1187). William
was a close associate and member of the Royal household. He was with Richard
in Normandy 1196-8, present at John's coronation 27 May 1199, and according to
CP 11:379, note h (citing Hovendon, vol. iv, p. 13, Rot. Chartarum and Cartae
Antiquae), William was "during the reign, till Midsummer 1216, ...constantly
with the King [John] or occupied with the King's business." Earl William died
7 March 1225/6 in the tenth year of Henry III's reign (acceded 19 Oct. 1216).
The elder Roger le Bigod had joined the Barons against King John in their
ultimatum from Stamford with his son Hugh and were among the 25 sureties
elected to maintain Magna Charta against King John. William Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury, was among the list of nobles named in the preamble of that document
as advisors to the king. Hmmmm. (Hugh le Bigod had already married Maud,
daughter of William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, chief of the advisors, though,
so families were not entirely split along party lines.)
Hugh le Bigod did not die until 1225, and the elder Roger lived on until 1221.
But Hugh's heir, Roger, fell into the King's hands in 1216. It is at THAT time
that his custody (not guardianship, in the sense of wardship) was granted to
William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, a close and loyal associate (and brother)
of King John. It just happened that the heir was still a minor when his father
and grandfather died. I conclude from this that there is no evidence from this
event alone of blood relationship--merely that William was one of John's most
trusted allies (in spite of John's personal habits). (Roger's wardship was
granted to King William "the Lion" in Oct. 1226, after Earl William's death,
but remember that Roger had already married the King's daughter, so family
interests were just being cared for.)
So examining the facts in context, there is no indication of bloodship from the
lone item of the guardianship. We have to look elsewhere.
Henry II had many French connections (his father was Geoffrey of Anjou and
Maine, his wife was Eleanor of Aquitaine, formerly wife of King Louis VII, his
eldest son William was born in Normandy, his heir young Henry married Louis'
daughter Margaret, he died at Chinon, and even King John had been married to
Isabella of Angouleme), let alone the amount of time he spent on the Continent.
Henry was one of the most dashing and succesful warriors of his time, and
certainly had an eye for the ladies. So I don't see how we can discount a
possible liason with the Countess of Boulogne at this point.
I thought it was interesting that Countess Ida of Norfolk was simply called
"Ida uxoris Meae" in one charter, but 'Countess Ida' in another:
CP 9:585, note b, citing [William] Dugdale, Mon[asticon Anglicanum], 4:102:
Ego Rogerus Bigot, comes Norfolchiae, concessi et hac praesenti carta mea
confirmavi Deo et ecclesiae beatae Mariae de Colne [etc.] ... et cum capella de
Herewyche, quam ego assensu eorum fundavi, pro salute animae meae et comitis
Hugonis fratris [sic, recte patris] mei [see, even undisputedly valid charters
have their mistakes], et comitissae Julianae matris meae, et Idae uxoris
meae....
CP 9:586, note f, citing Anc[ient] Deed A 14361:
Again he granted tithes of his demesne of Halvergate to Carlow Priory for the
souls of his father Earl Hugh and his mother the Countess Juliane, his wife the
Countess Ida, and his son William...." (But since Calendar of Ancient Deeds is
rendered in English, I cannot give the original Latin.)
At any rate, CP was not able to identify the parentage of Countess Ida of
Norfolk. Is anyone aware that a discovery of her parentage has since been
made?
pcr
P. S. I don't mean to criticize Tom Cain. I do like almost all of his posts,
but I think he is replying in the heat of battle. As to historical evidence, I
personally feel that according to the levels of scholarship today, our
statements and printed matter should be able to stand up in a court of law. I
myself was an 'expert witness' for a probate matter concerning an estate in
Florida, the nearest relatives of which were found to be living in Ireland(!
and had never heard of the man who died intestate). So I have a little
experience with how genealogy actually applies to law here in the U. S . ; )
Reedpcgen
> Just because many
>Medieval Historians are sloppy and casual in their proofs --- to a degree
>that Early Modern and Modern Historians would never be allowed to get away
>with, is no justification to let the standards slide.
O. K. I see that you used the qualifier "many" so it was not technically a
'global criticism,' but the implied meaning seemed to be so to me. I guess
what confused me was how I think of this matter (the line of discussion was of
English material, so I take this to refer to English historians).
How do you distinguish between 'Medieval Historians' and 'Early Modern
Historians'? How do you draw the line?
In my estimation, there is very little difference between English historians
writing in the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries in comparison to the
difference between Early Modern and Modern historians. There is a VAST
difference between their (Dodsworth, Dugdale, etc.) works and what they
expected of evidence and what 'Modern Historians' like Maitland, Round,
Galbraith, Painter, etc., expected and tolerated.
You have been very vague in your usage. For this post to have any beneficial
(or valid) reason of continuing, name names and be specific. Otherwise, one
opinion is just as valid as another, and so much hot air.
Note that my answer groupedMedieval and Early Modern historians together.
Again, what historians (be specific) are you talking about, and how do you
differentiate between the periods? And why do you group Early Modern and
Modern historians in the same group with the same values?
>Be advised that so straightforwardly and candidly agreeing with me on these
matters ....
I do not see that I am agreeing with you in the facts, the specifics, or the
way in which we think and evaluate. Knowing more about English historians,
their tactics and works would be of use to the group, but vague opinions do not
really educate, so if you don't post specific facts about the historians, their
works and tactics, please e-mail me privately.
pcr
Adrian Channing
I don't want to go over old ground, but could someone give brief details as
to if or why William Devereux Earl of Salisbury has been ruled out as the
father of Ida.
From Collectanea Cliffordiana by Arthur Clifford, Esq. (1817) states:
"Rosamund had by King Henry, two sons: William, surnamed "Longspee," and
Geoffrey, who was born in the year 1159. Her connexion with the king,
therefore, must have begun some years before that period; and as she died
in the year 1177, their intimacy appears to have lasted about twenty years;
nor could Rosamund have been very young at the time of her death.
William Longspee, Rosamund's eldest son, married Ela, sole daughter and
heir of William Fitzpatrick [ie William fitz Patrick], Earl of Salisbury,
through the interest of his half brother King Richard I, who after his
marriage, conferred the title of Earl of Salisbury upon him".
I note that Burke's Extinct peerage (1883) quotes Dugdale as evidence that
Eda was the D'Evereux heiress.
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com
"I have no idea how an apple tree works. The quiet machine beneath the
bark is quite beyond my ken. [N English word for knowledge] But, like the
next man along, I find Imagination always willing to leap into Ignorance's
breach ...... " 5th Duke of Portland.
D. Spencer Hines
Adrian, thank you for getting us back onto the facts of William Longespee's
Mother and off Reading Comprehension 101.
Does anyone hold a birth date for William other than "probably circa 1176"
as I cited from AR7, Line 30?
Many people reading SGM are no doubt descended from William Longespee, Earl
of Salisbury, who was an important man in his own right --- warrior,
statesman and stand up gentleman. He was one of those old-fashioned leaders
who actually had Character.
Among Presidents of the United States and their wives many are reportedly
descended from William. James Madison, Mrs. Grant [Julia Boggs Dent Grant],
George Bush and Barbara Bush just for starters --- vide Gary Boyd Roberts'
"Ancestors of American Presidents" [1995]. I'll add George Washington [many
descents from William] and Thomas Jefferson, to the mix.
Anyone closely related to one of these Presidents or their ladies MAY [N.B.
Idiot Check.] well be descended from William of Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury. See the Dictionary of National Biography for the most
interesting and instructive career of this stand-up gentleman.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Adrian Channing wrote in message
<199802280752_...@compuserve.com>...
Todd A. Farmerie
Adrian Channing wrote:
>
> I don't want to go over old ground, but could someone give brief details as
> to if or why William Devereux Earl of Salisbury has been ruled out as the
> father of Ida.
William (not Devereux), Earl of Salisbury was William Longespee's
father-in-law, and would not then also be father of Longespee's mother.
>
> From Collectanea Cliffordiana by Arthur Clifford, Esq. (1817) states:
>
> "Rosamund had by King Henry, two sons: William, surnamed "Longspee," and
> Geoffrey, who was born in the year 1159. Her connexion with the king,
> therefore, must have begun some years before that period; and as she died
> in the year 1177, their intimacy appears to have lasted about twenty years;
> nor could Rosamund have been very young at the time of her death.
> William Longspee, Rosamund's eldest son, married Ela, sole daughter and
> heir of William Fitzpatrick [ie William fitz Patrick], Earl of Salisbury,
> through the interest of his half brother King Richard I, who after his
> marriage, conferred the title of Earl of Salisbury upon him".
What a mess. We know that Geoffrey's mother was a woman named Hikenai,
and all evidence suggests that he was the older of the two
half-brothers.
> I note that Burke's Extinct peerage (1883) quotes Dugdale as evidence that
> Eda was the D'Evereux heiress.
I think you are confusing Ela, wife of Longespee with Countess Ida, the
woman he calls his mother.
taf
ED MANN
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
<edited>
> . . . William Longespee . . .
> Among Presidents of the United States and their wives many are reportedly
> descended from William. James Madison, Mrs. Grant [Julia Boggs Dent Grant],
> George Bush and Barbara Bush just for starters --- vide Gary Boyd Roberts'
> "Ancestors of American Presidents" [1995]. I'll add George Washington [many
> descents from William] and Thomas Jefferson, to the mix.
I show at least 16 U.S. Presidents - 17 if you count Grover Cleveland
(22d & 24th) twice.
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
D. Spencer Hines
Sounds posh and tony.
OK. Who are your 16? [Let's count Cleveland once.] Hoover is allegedly
another one. Also, other well-known folks who are descendants?
Prince William of Wales is also reportedly a descendant of William
Longespee.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
ED MANN wrote in message <34F89296...@mail2.lcia.com>...
Ruth Barton
>Yes, I have personally sighted the sources for the things that I post. If I
>cite a source I have sighted it. I do not work from hearsay, innuendo,
>rumour and "Family Tradition." But then, I've been educated in the
>methodologies of History and Law.
>
>Further, I urge others to do the same. Resist the "impulse to post" until
>you have your corn all in one sack.
>
>Qualify your remarks, "Tentative evidence suggests" --- "Allegedly" ---
>"Reportedly" ---- "The preponderance of evidence indicates that..." ---
>"There are four competing theories as to who was the Mother of Q. None of
>them is completely convincing, but I shall present the evidence for each."
>
>No, it doesn't make for "Authoritative Slam-Bang Narrative" designed to Awe
>and Impress the Unwashed Masses with one's Omniscience --- but it makes for
>much better Genealogy.
>
>So, your "off the top" assumption, "I sometimes think you hold others..." is
>quite mistaken and erroneous.
>
>Quod erat demonstrandum.
>
>D. Spencer Hines
Well, I guess my genealogy research will end at the Atlantic shore in
Massachussetts then as I will never get to the Britsh Isles where the most
of my ancestors came from. I am certainly not a professional genealogist
or anywhere near it but I think it is rediculous to say that every one of
an ancestors must traipse across the ocean to view the original papers for
himself. It would almost seem that the officials would take a decidedly
dim view of this owing to the fragility of ancient papers. Do you have
such a poor opinion of other researchers that you don't even think they can
read and report what they have read?????? Ruth
Ruth (HOUGHTON) BARTON
Westminster,Vermont
mr...@sover.net
D. Spencer Hines
Vide infra.
You have totally misread what I wrote.
Please go back over it SLOWLY and read for CONTENT.
Resist the impulse to go off on a tangent and insert your own
misinterpretations and emotions into the material that I wrote.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Ruth Barton wrote in message ...
Todd A. Farmerie
Reedpcgen wrote:
> > The scales are further tipped
> >that way by Todd's comments about William's guardianship of Roger
> >Bigod when his father (and therefore William's half-brother) died.
> >This establishes an 'prima facia' case that William had some
> >kin-relationship to the Bigods.
This is a bit farther than I would go, because, as below, guardianships
were granted for other reasons, and were even sold to the highest
bidder.
>
> Actually, no. It is always intriguing to see familial names when you are
> looking for them, but the vast majority of guardianships were granted to people
> of no immediate or near relation (at least within two or three generations).
Do you know of any thorough analysis hving been done to determine the
frequency with which guardianships were sold, given in place of debt
repayment, given as political favors, or granted to a relative (and
combinations of the above). It sounds like it would make a good thesis
for someone, so I would be surprised if someone hasn't given it a look.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
In article <34FF41...@po.cwru.edu>, "Todd A. Farmerie"
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Reedpcgen wrote:
>
>>
>> It is always intriguing to see familial names when you are
>> looking for them, but the vast majority of guardianships were granted
to people
>> of no immediate or near relation (at least within two or three generations).
>
>Do you know of any thorough analysis hving been done to determine the
>frequency with which guardianships were sold, given in place of debt
>repayment, given as political favors, or granted to a relative (and
>combinations of the above). It sounds like it would make a good thesis
>for someone, so I would be surprised if someone hasn't given it a look.
It was common enough, and abused enough in the eyes of the aristocracy,
that John was specifically constrained in certain aspects of granting
wardships in Magna Carta of 1215 (caps. 4-8, 37, etc.). A study on the
subject of royal wardships, unfortunately beginning later than the period
in question, is Scott L. Waugh's _The Lordship of England: Royal Wardships
and Marriages in English Society and Politics 1217-1327_ (Princeton,
1988). By 'Royal Marriages' is meant the right of the king to dictate the
marriages of his (and in some degree his tenants') wards, not the kings'
own marriages. I don't have it handy so I can't reproduce any statistics
from it.
Nat Taylor