Queen Philippa's Birth Year
John Carmi Parsons
tiniest camera go places God in His mercy never intended it to go, I have
asked a friend to phone me the information from Hingeston-Randolph's edition
of Bishop Stapeldon's register concerning the premarital inspection of Queen
Philippa that Stapeldon recorded in 1319.
The point that this was to have settled (we hoped) was the time of year at
which this inspection was actually made. The countess of Hainaut stated that
the girl would be aged 9 years at the NEXT feast of St John Baptist. The
question was, then, whether Stapeldon's inspection took place before or after
24 June in 1319. If before, the year of the girl's birth would obviously be
1310; if after, the year would be 1311. It was hoped that the entries
surrounding this one in the register might suggest something about the
chronology of the inspection.
Alas for all fond hopes. Hingeston-Randolph turns out to have been one of
those asinine 19th- and early 20th-century editors who thought nothing of
printing documents out of their proper context in a register. The entry
concerning the inspection in fact (if you can believe this) appears only
in the index to the edition, in small print under Philippa's name! So there
is no way to tell from this particular source, as it was edited, when the
inspection might have taken place.
Hingeston-Randolph has, however, noted in a footnote a lacuna among all the
documents in the register, lasting from early July until 20 August 1319. Since
this lacuna is obviously AFTER 24 June 1319, then the girl would have turned 9
on or about 24 June 1320, making the year of her birth 1311.
Hingeston-Randolph may or may not have been right in his conjecture; when
I am again circulating, I will check the calendared rolls and *Foedera* for
any documents relevant to the diplomatic mission on which we know Stapeldon
was engaged at the time he inspected the count of Hainaut's daughter. There
may also be some more detailed information in Mark Buck, *Politics, Finance
and the Church in the Reign of Edward II: Walter Stapeldon, Treasurer of
England* (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983).
John Parsons
D. Spencer Hines
often make a jackass out of someone who is careless in Genealogy ---
and does not triple-check everything and then submit the results to a
withering critique --- i.e., Murder Board for their dissection---
which may be infuriating to some.
2. John Carmi Parsons has handled this in precisely the right way ---
and has not fallen into those tender and tempting traps. He deserves
a great deal of credit for his integrity, his candour and his
professionalism.
3. My understanding, at this point, from what he has written, is that
this lacuna [Latin for cavity, hollow --- or in this case 'gap'] in
the documents is somehow PROOF POSITIVE that Bishop Stapledon
conducted his inspection of ONE of the daughters of Guillaume III,
Comte de Hainault in 1319, BEFORE 24 June, the Feast of Saint John The
Baptist.
Here is the operative paragraph:
>Hingeston-Randolph has, however, noted in a footnote a lacuna among
all the
>documents in the register, lasting from early July until 20 August
1319. Since
>this lacuna is obviously AFTER 24 June 1319, then the girl would have
turned 9
>on or about 24 June 1320, making the year of her birth 1311.
4. No offense intended or taken, I trust. But could you parse and
elucidate this a bit tighter? The language seems a bit muddy. To my
mind, it is not convincing proof as stated --- particularly when you
also tell us that Hingeston-Randolph's reputation for accuracy and
probity is somewhat shaky:
>Hingeston-Randolph turns out to have been one of those
>asinine 19th- and early 20th-century editors who thought
>nothing of printing documents out of their proper context
>in a register.
5. Assuming, for the moment, as a working hypothesis, that the Bishop
did make his alleged 'inspection' in Hainault before the Feast of
Saint John The Baptist in 1319 ---- again not yet proven, in my
opinion ---- do we have evidence that the 'inspection' was indeed
conducted on Philippe de Hainault and not a sister? This issue was
raised previously by someone, perhaps it was Leo van de Pas. Philippe
appears to have had at least two other sisters, Johanna and
Margaret --- one of whom married Kaiser Ludwig IV in 1324.
6. All best wishes for a speedy recovery and again, I'm not trying to
create any discomfort for you during your convalescence --- but just
keeping a tight focus on the issue of Philippe de Hainault's birth
date --- and convincing proof for a candidate date.
Sincerely,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Remedium Irae Est Mors.
John Carmi Parsons wrote in message ...
John Carmi Parsons
On 6 Jan 1999, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> 3. My understanding, at this point, from what he has written, is that
> this lacuna [Latin for cavity, hollow --- or in this case 'gap'] in
> the documents is somehow PROOF POSITIVE that Bishop Stapledon
> conducted his inspection of ONE of the daughters of Guillaume III,
> Comte de Hainault in 1319, BEFORE 24 June, the Feast of Saint John The
> Baptist.
>
> Here is the operative paragraph:
>
> >Hingeston-Randolph has, however, noted in a footnote a lacuna among
> all the
> >documents in the register, lasting from early July until 20 August
> 1319. Since
> >this lacuna is obviously AFTER 24 June 1319, then the girl would have
> turned 9
> >on or about 24 June 1320, making the year of her birth 1311.
In the paragraph that followed the one quoted here, I stated that "Hingeston-
Randolph may or may not have been correct in this conjecture," or words very
close to that (I'm doing this from memory). So I did not, to the best of my
understanding, intend to imply that I regarded this as proof positive. As I
then stated in the final paragraph, there remain other sources to be consulted
before the last word can be said.
> 4. No offense intended or taken, I trust. But could you parse and
> elucidate this a bit tighter? The language seems a bit muddy. To my
> mind, it is not convincing proof as stated --- particularly when you
> also tell us that Hingeston-Randolph's reputation for accuracy and
> probity is somewhat shaky:
If Hingeston-Randolph correctly deduced that the lacuna was caused by
Stapeldon's absence on the diplomatic mission between early July and 20
August 1319, then the inspection of the count of Hainaut's daughter clearly
took place in 1319 but after 24 June. So the "next" feast of St John the
girl's mother meant must be 24 June 1320. If the girl was to turn nine in
June 1320, the year of her birth was 1311. But as above, the accuracy of
Hingeston-Randolph's conjecture remains to be verified from other sources and
from Mark Buck's monograph on Stapeldon's episcopate and his administrative
activites for Edward II.
> 5. Assuming, for the moment, as a working hypothesis, that the Bishop
> did make his alleged 'inspection' in Hainault before the Feast of
> Saint John The Baptist in 1319 ---- again not yet proven, in my
> opinion ---- do we have evidence that the 'inspection' was indeed
> conducted on Philippe de Hainault and not a sister? This issue was
> raised previously by someone, perhaps it was Leo van de Pas. Philippe
> appears to have had at least two other sisters, Johanna and
> Margaret --- one of whom married Kaiser Ludwig IV in 1324.
My reasons for accepting the register's ascription to Philippa should be
recoverable from Dejanews. It has been suggested that the entry may also
refer to Sybilla, who appears to have been the count's eldest daughter but
who died in childhood. As Leo did in fact report, Dr A.W.E. Dek's great
work on the counts of Holland does state that Sybilla "occurs in 1319," but,
according to information Leo provided, Dek cites only other secondary works
for this statement and we cannot be certain at this point that Dek, in saying
that Sybilla "occurs in 1319," was really implying that the Stapeldon
register entry refers to her.
> 6. All best wishes for a speedy recovery and again, I'm not trying to
> create any discomfort for you during your convalescence --- but just
> keeping a tight focus on the issue of Philippe de Hainault's birth
> date --- and convincing proof for a candidate date.
Perfectly understood, and thanks for your kind wishes.
John Parsons
Reedpcgen
come to. I wanted to let him come to this conclusion independent of what I
thought.
It is that the gap shows when the party took their journey away from England
(otherwise how do we explain the gap in records?), and thus helps us date when
the inspection was made. I don't have the best edition of Rymer, so I leave
John to check that source when he can.
The initial question was, in which year did the feast day we were referring to
occur? That the gap was in July/August, after, rather than before the
occurrence of the feast of St. John the Baptist in June, places the matter in
the later year, rather than the previous year in question. (There, is that
clear as mud? ; )
This type of careful calculation (concerning feast days, regnal years, ages,
etc.,) is par for the course when dealing with records of this period; it's why
the Handbook of Dates is an indispensable tool. It's also why John was so
careful before drawing a definite conclusion in this important matter.
The best interpretation of the evidence we have at hand is that Philippa was
born 24 June 1311.
It is not that Hingeston-Randolph is not reliable--we are able to draw
sufficient conclusions from internal evidence in the Register having nothing to
do with his editorship (or in spite of it).
And if you check a previous post made by John, you will see why it is clear
that the daughter was Queen Philippa.
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
On 6 Jan 1999, Reedpcgen wrote:
> I think the point John has made is the same conclusion that I and others had
> come to. I wanted to let him come to this conclusion independent of what I
> thought.
Nothing wrong with hoping for a corroborative independent conclusion, but do
try to phrase it a bit less condescendingly, OK?
> The best interpretation of the evidence we have at hand is that Philippa was
> born 24 June 1311.
I would personally feel most comfortable with "on or about" 24 June 1311; as a
glance at the Inquisitions Post Mortem will show clearly, exact dates reckoned
in this way are extremely rare--that is, the closest major feast to the day of
birth (or death) would be used, whether or not it was the precise day of the
event.
> It is not that Hingeston-Randolph is not reliable--we are able to draw
> sufficient conclusions from internal evidence in the Register having nothing
> to do with his editorship (or in spite of it).
Today's diplomatic editors would disagree with this estimate, as do I. A
conscientious diplomatic editor ideally reproduces the format of the original
document as precisely as possible and does not muck about with the layout. The
entry concerning Philippa should have appeared in the printed edition exactly
where it does in the original register. Then we would not have to rely on
Hingeston-Randolph's footnote for the July-August 1319 lacuna.
> And if you check a previous post made by John, you will see why it is clear
> that the daughter was Queen Philippa.
And I shall re-iterate here that to date I have seen no reason to change my
thinking on that point.
For aught yet seen, then, the closest date we are likely to have for Queen
Philippa's birth would appear to be "ca 24 June 1311."
John Parsons
Reedpcgen
>On 6 Jan 1999, Reedpcgen wrote:
>
>> I think the point John has made is the same conclusion that I and others
>had
>> come to. I wanted to let him come to this conclusion independent of what I
>> thought.
>
>Nothing wrong with hoping for a corroborative independent conclusion, but do
>try to phrase it a bit less condescendingly, OK?
>
NO offense was meant. I was aware of the gap (which is the major reason for
assuming a delegation left England in July/August) when the matter first came
up. But I know you are a thorough and intelligent researcher. By mentioning
this then, I might have prejudiced you to not look for or checking something
you otherwise would have. Also, I knew you were certainly capable of coming to
a definite conclusion, but that you did not at that time have immediate access
to the records; and I did not have time to check what you were going to.
>> The best interpretation of the evidence we have at hand is that Philippa
>was
>> born 24 June 1311.
>
>I would personally feel most comfortable with "on or about" 24 June 1311; as
>a
>glance at the Inquisitions Post Mortem will show clearly, exact dates
>reckoned
>in this way are extremely rare--that is, the closest major feast to the day
>of
>birth (or death) would be used, whether or not it was the precise day of the
>event.
>
BUT if we are going to say "on or about" here, we'd have to do this in every
instance where an exact date is given in an IPM. I, of course, have instances
where ages or dates in IPM were years off. How do we know when any date is
spot on? If the feast day is movable it is one thing, if static, why not
another? For instance, the inquisitions of both parents of Robert de Harley
stated he would be aged twenty-eight at the feast of the Annunciation [25
March]. Does this mean he was born on that date or just near that date? Or
what about proofs of age? This is why I give a dates in texts of articles, but
an explanation in the note.
[I think this would be a very important issue to discuss further.]
>> It is not that Hingeston-Randolph is not reliable--we are able to draw
>> sufficient conclusions from internal evidence in the Register having
>nothing
>> to do with his editorship (or in spite of it).
>
>Today's diplomatic editors would disagree with this estimate, as do I. A
>conscientious diplomatic editor ideally reproduces the format of the original
>
>document as precisely as possible and does not muck about with the layout.
>The
>entry concerning Philippa should have appeared in the printed edition exactly
>
>where it does in the original register. Then we would not have to rely on
>Hingeston-Randolph's footnote for the July-August 1319 lacuna.
>
What I meant by my statement was that EVEN THOUGH the text has been
manipulated, the internal evidence and surviving text still provides evidence
for the case [my comment was in reply to something DSH had asked or stated].
Of course, I would ALWAYS like any text to be reproduced exactly [with
editorial emendations in brackets, etc.], which is why I quote so extensively,
or as extensively as possible, in my articles.
If you re-read what I wrote, I state that the text of the Bishop's register is
not necessarily faulty [I was not talking about the format; is the text of the
register unreliable?], but that "IN SPITE" of this we can still come to a
fairly sound conclusion.
>> And if you check a previous post made by John, you will see why it is clear
>> that the daughter was Queen Philippa.
>
>And I shall re-iterate here that to date I have seen no reason to change my
>thinking on that point.
>
AND again, Leo, I have to agree with John. The person who made the later note
was not doing it arbitrarily.
>For aught yet seen, then, the closest date we are likely to have for Queen
>Philippa's birth would appear to be "ca 24 June 1311."
>
>John Parsons
Yes.
pcr