Sir Paunettus, kinsman to Edward the Black Prince: Clue to ancestry of Paonet de Ruet?
Douglas Richardson
Recently while doing a Google Search, I encountered a reference dated
c.1353 to a certain "Sir Paunettus" who is styled "kinsman" to Edward
the Black Prince, the eldest son of King Edward III of England and
Queen Philippe of Hainault [see Register of Edward the Black Prince, 4
(1933): 73 (Sir Paunettus styled "the prince's kinsman.") This item
may be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwnAAAAMAAJ&q=Paunettus&dq=Paunettus&pgis=1
It appears that the modern editor was unable to identify "Sir
Paunettus." But surely he is the same person as Sir Paonet de Ruet,
who was the father of Katherine de Ruet, the well known mistress/wife
of John of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster, the prince's
brother.
If so, this record would serve as an important clue to the ancestry of
Sir Paonet de Ruet.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mj...@btinternet.com
On Mar 8, 9:13 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Recently while doing a Google Search, I encountered a reference dated
> c.1353 to a certain "Sir Paunettus" who is styled "kinsman" to Edward
> the Black Prince, the eldest son of King Edward III of England and
> Queen Philippe of Hainault [see Register of Edward the Black Prince, 4
> (1933): 73 (Sir Paunettus styled "the prince's kinsman.") This item
> may be found at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwnAAAAMAAJ&q=Paunettus&dq=Paunettu...
>
> It appears that the modern editor was unable to identify "Sir
> Paunettus." But surely he is the same person as Sir Paonet de Ruet,
> who was the father of Katherine de Ruet
Why "surely"?
The knight who is said to have been the Black Prince's kinsman is
referred to only by his first name, "Paunettus", ie Payn, Paon, Pain,
Pagan, Paganus etc.
This was not a name unique to the father of Catherine Swynford. Sir
Payn de Tibetot and Sir Payn de Turberville come to mind as 14th
century knights with this Christian name, for example.
Do you have an exhaustive list of all 14th century English and Gascon
knights? How about the rest of Western Europe, whence the Black
Prince's kinsmen and retainers might be found?
Come to think of it, how do we know that this stray snippet view from
Google books does not refer to a clergyman, rather than a knight?
Does the original text [remember the importance of primary sources?]
call him a 'chivaler' or equivalent?
Furthermore, the issue of consanguinity also presents when considering
your hypothesis. If Payn de Roet was a kinsman of the Black Prince,
then his daughter must have been a cousin to the Prince's brother,
John of Gaunt, whom she eventually married. Is a dispensation for
their marriage known?
Turning possibilities (no matter how attractive) into certainties is
not good scholarship.
MA-R
Leo van de Pas
Payn de Beauchamp, of Bedford
Sir Payne de Turberville
Payn FitzJohn
Sir Payn Tybotot
Sir Payn Roet
Pain de Chaworth
Pain Tybotot
What a pain :-)
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
(pathological cross-posting removed)
Why "surely"?
MA-R
-------------------------------
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
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1318 - Release Date: 3/7/2008
2:01 PM
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2972780e-48db-469d...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I can only assume this is some kind of lame joke on Richardson's part.
All his weblink provides is a reference to "Sir Paunettus, the prince's
kinsman". Nothing to substantiate Richardson's "surely" in suggesting the
person was Paon(et) de Roet; nothing to provide an "important" clue to the
man's ancestry without even a hint as to the nature of the kinship; and
nothing to explain that if true this would either cast doubt on every source
that fails to mention a blood relationship between John of Gaunt and his
mistress/third wife Catherine de Roet, or throw out the mewling & puking
baby of all Richardson's kinship speculations to date along with the murky
bathwater of this alleged discovery if the kinship in question was not close
enough to be noted by anyone else.
Peter Stewart
t...@clearwire.net
> (pathological cross-posting removed)
>
> On Mar 8, 9:13 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> > Recently while doing a Google Search, I encountered a reference dated
> > c.1353 to a certain "Sir Paunettus" who is styled "kinsman" to Edward
> > the Black Prince, the eldest son of King Edward III of England and
> > Queen Philippe of Hainault [see Register of Edward the Black Prince, 4
> > (1933): 73 (Sir Paunettus styled "the prince's kinsman.") This item
> > may be found at the following weblink:
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwnAAAAMAAJ&q=Paunettus&dq=Paunettu...
>
> > It appears that the modern editor was unable to identify "Sir
> > Paunettus." But surely he is the same person as Sir Paonet de Ruet,
> > who was the father of Katherine de Ruet
>
> Why "surely"?
A curious quirk of the English language. The word 'surely' is only
used when it isn't true (if it was truly sure, then one would feel no
need to guild the lily - one would just make the claim outright
without the intimation of certainty). The use of such a term is
usually a good signal that someone trying to make a purse out of a
pig's ear, and should be a reason for increased rather than less
skepticism in the claim.
taf
Douglas Richardson
What the cackle of hyenas (Michael, Leo, Peter, taf) hasn't mentioned
to you is that the Latin form of Pain is usually "Paganus," not
"Paunettus." Katherine de Ruet's father was generally known as Paonet/
Paonnet de Ruet. I assume "Paunettus" is the Latin form of Paonnet.
It would not be the Latin form of Pain as I understand it. We know
for a fact that Paonet de Ruet was knighted, as was the prince's
kinsman, Paunettus.
For more particulars regarding Paonet/Paonnet de Ruet, newsgroup
readers might wish to read two interesting article in print. The
first article is by Haldeen Braddy entitled "Chaucer's Philippa,
Daughter of Panneto " in Modern Language Notes, Vol. 64, No. 5 (May,
1949), pp. 342-343. The second article is by Margaret Galway entitled
""Philippa Pan., Philippa Chaucer," in Modern Language Rev. (1960):
481-487.
As far as it goes, there is nothing whatsoever known which would
contradict the Ruet family from being near related to Edward the Black
Prince's mother, Philippe of Hainault, certainly within the 5th
degree. In fact, it has been theorized that the Ruet family is a
branch of the Roeulx family, which family is believed to have been a
cadet branch of the Counts of Hainault.
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. It is sad that so many posters have knee jerk reactions when they
read my posts. They don't bother to do any research. They just
scream.
I cite my sources and provide weblinks when I have them. This is what
good scholars do.
AdrianBnjmBurke
It seems from some of the medieval docs i have reviewed that
occasionally english/norman forenames were sometimes "latinized" in
strange ways - could that be the case here with paunettus? also,
"kinsman" could indicate a relationship through marriage not just by
blood - so if his daughter married john, he could have been referred
to as a kin of john's brother ?no?
M.Sjostrom
I have now and then observed two slightly different
traditions (even simultaneously at work) in using
'consanguineous':
1. Kinship within four degrees from a common
ancestor, whether cognatic or agnatic...
2. Recognized patrilineal kinship, even if more
remote than four degrees.
I have thought that they came to late-medieval western
European thinking from two different backgrounds, both
however important to that knightly society:
1. The designation by the church that one's kin
within four degrees are consanguineous in the sense of
making it forbidden to marry without papal
dispensation. People outside those degrees would then
not be proper kin, because they are not consanguineous
in ecclesiastical count. Not incestuous.
2. The tribal emphasis on male line. This predates
all influence of christian church. Only very few
tribal societies have been based on some other form of
kinship than purely male line, whereas most tribal
societies around the world I have looked at, have been
emphasizing agnatic line.
Of course, a portion of those agnatic lineages were
fabricated or imagined, within tribe, but even the
effort put to such fiction-creating shows its
significance as a basis of relations within tribe.
In this specific question of mgr de Roet, possibly a
very remote kinsman (via Hainaut lineage) of queen
Philippa, I can see some possibilities of the latter
view being the basis of that one mention in
contemporary document. It thus were the 'imagined'
agnatic lineage common with Philippa, mother of Black
Prince, which were reason there. And if this
speculation is correct, then it means that
contemporaries knew the Roets being an agnatic cadet
branch of the old dynasty of Hainaut.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
M.Sjostrom
About the connotative meaning of 'surely':
In the Finnish language, there is fairly similar
phenomenon.
The word 'surely' can be translated either 'varmasti'
or 'varmaankin'.
If there is the latter in a statement, it is in my
understanding intended to diminish the certainty:
... on varmaankin ....
(...is surely...)
the effect can be added, to make it a real whining:
....on varmaankin..., onhan...
(...is surely..., isn't it)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
t...@clearwire.net
On Mar 7, 4:18 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> What the cackle of hyenas (Michael, Leo, Peter, taf)
how quaint - in one fell ad hominem, he dismisses all critique of his
conclusion as the fault of everyone else.
> hasn't mentioned
> to you is that the Latin form of Pain is usually "Paganus," not
> "Paunettus." Katherine de Ruet's father was generally known as Paonet/
> Paonnet de Ruet. I assume "Paunettus" is the Latin form of Paonnet.
1000 years from now, will a researcher of similar acumen be puzzled
over the fate of the younger Kennedys? I mean really, both Bobby and
Robert couldn't have been assassinated on the same day, right, so
which one of them was it?
> This matter deserves further study.
As do they all.
> P.S. It is sad that so many posters have knee jerk reactions when they
> read my posts. They don't bother to do any research. They just
> scream.
It is sad that you try to deflect legitimate criticism of an
unsupported conclusion by suggesting that all of the critics have
flawed personalities, rather than that it is the argument that is
flawed.
Oh, and the fact that you insist, repeatedly, on crossposting material
appropriate to this group into other less appropriate ones is also
said. I know it makes you feel more important to have your gems read
by more people, but just look at the consequences. As a result of
crossposting, we are currently being subjected to threads that have
included discussions of bestiality, jokes about the female genitalia,
ranting about the American Civil War and the composition of the Bible,
the view of Romans and Roman Catholics on slavery, etc., and now
borders on a flame-war between people who don't even know they are
also posting here. What part of the cause/consequence relationship is
so unclear that you cannot find it in yourself to act in a manner
respectful of this group.
taf
mj...@btinternet.com
On Mar 8, 11:18 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> What the cackle of hyenas (Michael, Leo, Peter, taf) hasn't mentioned
Dear Douglas
I suggest you stick to the subject of the thread, the identity of Sir
Paunettus, and avoid the personal polemics. You're here to learn
about mediaeval genealogy and to make friends, remember?
(snip of waffle)
> This matter deserves further study.
Nobody's stopping you, but it would be nice to see you do it properly
for once.
> P.S. It is sad that so many posters have knee jerk reactions when they
> read my posts. They don't bother to do any research. They just
> scream.
Diddums. My research speaks for itself, and I am always happy to have
it reviewed, criticised and corrected. Yours though, for some reason,
is almost always riddled with error and ignorance. I am constantly
embarrassed for you, and I mean that most sincerely. I don't review
or reply to your posts for fun. I do it because over the years I have
come to realise that you are a poor scholar and an egomaniac, and you
are polluting this group with research that could be excellent, but
instead is rotten and faulty. Almost every post you make exhibits bad
genealogy, bad logic, and bad manners. Should that go uncorrected?
In case you haven't noticed, your only "friends" here are the other
trolls - such as Hines, who is manifestly interested only in causing
disruption. They say you can tell alot about a man by the company he
keeps. Meanwhile, you have invested considerable effort recently with
your cross-posting antics in a deliberate attempt to destroy this
group by infecting it with sporging. Are you really surprised you
don't get the respect you so loudly demand - in between dumping
garbage on us and filching other people's good research?
Now, instead of responding to reasoned argument with mature
discussion, you kvetch and squeal. How sadly typical.
If you are still surprised that your astonishing combination of bad
scholarship and sociopathy renders you liable to scrutiny and
reasonable criticism, then how about you lift your very low standard
of play, rather than whine and whinge like a schoolboy caught with his
hand stuck in the cookie-jar?
Best wishes always, Michael
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0ab1b80e-d687-49a2...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> What the cackle of hyenas (Michael, Leo, Peter, taf) hasn't mentioned
> to you is that the Latin form of Pain is usually "Paganus," not
> "Paunettus." Katherine de Ruet's father was generally known as Paonet/
> Paonnet de Ruet. I assume "Paunettus" is the Latin form of Paonnet.
> It would not be the Latin form of Pain as I understand it. We know
> for a fact that Paonet de Ruet was knighted, as was the prince's
> kinsman, Paunettus.
What the hyena's parasite Richardson is not telling, presumably becuase he
does not realise it, is that "Paunettus" is just a hybrid diminutive form of
Paganus - i.e. not the "Latin" for any other specific name but merely a
nonce rendering that was probably due in the first place to the person being
known as a junior living Paganus/Payen/Paon etc in his family, at that time
or as a hang-over from some earlier stage in his life.
<snip>
> P.S. It is sad that so many posters have knee jerk reactions when they
> read my posts. They don't bother to do any research. They just
> scream.
>
> I cite my sources and provide weblinks when I have them. This is what
> good scholars do.
It is sad that RIchardson knows so little, and parades his ignorance so
shamelssly in all our faces, that his posts need correcting so often. It
usually takes no research at all for someone who has a background in the
subject or a particular aspect of this - for instance, anyone who has looked
into medieval dating would have known at once that the 11th indiction did
not refer to the 11th day of a month. Richardson only displays further
ignorance by not realising how transparent his charade of learning is to
others who actually do some work in this field.
Good scholars do not research primarily on the Internet, unless they are
sudying the www itself rather than medieval genealogy and prosopography, for
which the primary sources are only haphazardly available so far - and
usually at a remove from the actual texts, in the catalogue summaries that
Richardson finds so compulsively but hardly ever pursues to the original for
himself, or from older editons and citations in secondary works.
In this case the pot has failed even to recognise a kettle, and is calling
its own reflection "black".
Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas
Rule nr 2 = Trying to improve his garbage is not on either, as it implies
he produces garbage
Rule nr 3 = Thou shalt stick to the rules of Richardson, sources and
websites even when only observations are made
Rule nr 4 = We have to pretend to be idiots and swallow whatever Richardson
sees fit to produce
Rule nr 5 = We have to do whatever Richardson expects of us, and at the
same time Richardson should be allowed to stick it to everybody and totally
disregard being asked to stick to the rules.
What he does not realise is that with his behaviour, he has created an
atmosphere of distrust about everything he spews out. He thinks he is better
than CP, Garby Boyd Roberts and whoever else who have achieved something.
In this situation I rather am a hyena than a deranged mangy lion.
And then to be told we are here to make friends? Richardson get real. You
want respect? You have to earn it first, and before you even attempt .this,
you have to make up a lot of ground first.
Your best, still, is not good enough.
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Paunettus, kinsman to Edward the Black Prince: Clue to
ancestry of Paonet de Ruet?
Leticia Cluff
<p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote:
>Cross-postings removed.
>
>"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:0ab1b80e-d687-49a2...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear Newsgroup ~
>>
>> What the cackle of hyenas (Michael, Leo, Peter, taf) hasn't mentioned
>> to you is that the Latin form of Pain is usually "Paganus," not
>> "Paunettus." Katherine de Ruet's father was generally known as Paonet/
>> Paonnet de Ruet. I assume "Paunettus" is the Latin form of Paonnet.
>> It would not be the Latin form of Pain as I understand it. We know
>> for a fact that Paonet de Ruet was knighted, as was the prince's
>> kinsman, Paunettus.
>
>What the hyena's parasite Richardson is not telling, presumably becuase he
>does not realise it, is that "Paunettus" is just a hybrid diminutive form of
>Paganus - i.e. not the "Latin" for any other specific name but merely a
>nonce rendering that was probably due in the first place to the person being
>known as a junior living Paganus/Payen/Paon etc in his family, at that time
>or as a hang-over from some earlier stage in his life.
Margaret Galway does actually make a good case for the existence
(and confusion) of two different names here. There is the name
that derives from Latin Paganus, giving Payne and Paine. But in
the case of Payne de Roet it could be an occupational name
meaning "pawn" or "footman", which occurs in forms like _paon_,
_peon_, _pyon_ and is attested in diminutive forms like
_paonnet_, _peonnet_, _pannet_ meaning "assistant usher".
Remember that Payne de Roet is referred to as "Egidii dicti
Paonet." Galway argues that he could have been given this epithet
because his position in the Ulster household was that of
assistant usher.
A look in the OED shows that the appellatives "pawn" and "payen"
have never been confused, as their various spellings do not
overlap. But is is possible that when used as names, the less
common one "Paon(et)" became subsumed under the more common
Payne.
Tish
Douglas Richardson
Modern authorities think that Katherine de Ruet's father's name was
actually Gilles de Ruet (or Roet), but that he was commonly called
Paon, or Paonet, de Ruet. See, for example, this brief snippet which
is quoted from the book, Some New Light on Chaucer: Lectures Delivered
at the Lowell Institute, by John Matthews Manly, published in 1926:
http://books.google.com/books?id=LRMtAAAAIAAJ&q=Paon+Ruet&dq=Paon+Ruet&lr=&pgis=1
I believe that Judy Perry takes this position.
In any case, I don't believe the name, Paon/Paonet, is the same name
as the English name, Pain, even though phonetically they are obviously
quite similar. Thus the Latin form Paunettus would not intended for
anyone named Pain, but rather for someone called Paonet. Since Paonet
de Ruet was definitely a knight, I see no reason not to accept that he
is the same person as "Sir Paunettus" who was styled "cousin" to
Edward the Black Prince in 1353. We know for certain that Sir Paon/
Paonet de Ruet was quite familiar with the English royal family in
this time period. In any case, such kinships can be quite distant and
still be acknowledged.
t...@clearwire.net
> In any case, I don't believe the name, Paon/Paonet, is the same name
> as the English name, Pain, even though phonetically they are obviously
> quite similar. Thus the Latin form Paunettus would not intended for
> anyone named Pain, but rather for someone called Paonet.
Setting aside your personal beliefs and your assurances about what a
medieval scribe might have done in trying to represent an unfamiliar
name, does it concern you in the slightest that now that you have
concluded the document is referring to some 'little peon' you have
opened up the pool of potential candidates astronomically?
taf
Peter Stewart
"Leticia Cluff" <letici...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9mt5t39s6tliim2g1...@4ax.com...
Leaving aside the question of whether "Sir Paunettus" refers to someone
called "Paonet" or "Pawnet" in the first place, does Margaret Galway provide
instances of other ushers being called "Pawn", or indeed "Sir Pawn", or for
assistants in an official capacity being given diminutive names such as
"Pawnet" that overtook their baptismal names when knighted?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> Setting aside your personal beliefs and your assurances about what a
> medieval scribe might have done in trying to represent an unfamiliar
> name, does it concern you in the slightest that now that you have
> concluded the document is referring to some 'little peon' you have
> opened up the pool of potential candidates astronomically?
>
> taf
Er ... Sir Paon (or Paonet) de Ruet was hardly "some little peon."
Whatever, let's hear your astronomical list of potential candidates.
Please cite your sources and your weblinks. Thanks!
Leticia Cluff
<p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote:
No, she doesn't adduce any parallel cases.
Maybe even Douglas saw that as a weakness of the article he
himself mentioned. Yet I notice that in his response to my post
he simply deleted everything I had written and wrote a new
message containing an argument very similar to the one I had
quoted from Galway:
"In any case, I don't believe the name, Paon/Paonet, is the same
name as the English name, Pain, even though phonetically they are
obviously quite similar. Thus the Latin form Paunettus would not
intended for anyone named Pain, but rather for someone called
Paonet. "
Odd behavior, don't you think?
Tish
mj...@btinternet.com
wrote:
> Maybe even Douglas saw that as a weakness of the article he
> himself mentioned. Yet I notice that in his response to my post
> he simply deleted everything I had written and wrote a new
> message containing an argument very similar to the one I had
> quoted from Galway:
>
> "In any case, I don't believe the name, Paon/Paonet, is the same
> name as the English name, Pain, even though phonetically they are
> obviously quite similar. Thus the Latin form Paunettus would not
> intended for anyone named Pain, but rather for someone called
> Paonet. "
>
> Odd behavior, don't you think?
No, not really; the copyist Richardson has made a career out of
stealing other men's flowers.
MA-R
Leticia Cluff
wrote:
Not just men's. In that post Douglas copied my summary of a
hypothesis in an article by Margaret Galway.
Don't forget this is International Women's Day!
Tish
t...@clearwire.net
> On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> > Setting aside your personal beliefs and your assurances about what a
> > medieval scribe might have done in trying to represent an unfamiliar
> > name, does it concern you in the slightest that now that you have
> > concluded the document is referring to some 'little peon' you have
> > opened up the pool of potential candidates astronomically?
>
As you seem to have forgotten your own argument, let me remind you.
You just suggested that Giles de Ruet was called Paonet, derived from
paon. You prefer to translate this as pawn, but it could just as well
be translated as peon (the two basically meaning the same thing
anyhow), while the "-et" ending is a diminutive. Thus by your own
theory, the man was called by this epithet (little pawn/peon, take
your pick). He was precisely a "little peon/pawn" according to you.
But how many other little peons were there? Now that it is a nickname,
rather than a given name, then any knight could have been called Sir
Paonet, for all we know. Before you had to argue that it was Payn de
Roet as opposed to other knights named Payn. Now you have to argue
that it was that 'little peon' Giles de Ruet as opposed to all of the
other little peons that might have been distant kinsmen of the Black
Prince.
taf
mj...@btinternet.com
wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:24:50 -0800 (PST), mj...@btinternet.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 9, 10:17 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Maybe even Douglas saw that as a weakness of the article he
> >> himself mentioned. Yet I notice that in his response to my post
> >> he simply deleted everything I had written and wrote a new
> >> message containing an argument very similar to the one I had
> >> quoted from Galway:
>
> >> "In any case, I don't believe the name, Paon/Paonet, is the same
> >> name as the English name, Pain, even though phonetically they are
> >> obviously quite similar. Thus the Latin form Paunettus would not
> >> intended for anyone named Pain, but rather for someone called
> >> Paonet. "
>
> >> Odd behavior, don't you think?
>
> >No, not really; the copyist Richardson has made a career out of
> >stealing other men's flowers.
>
> Not just men's. In that post Douglas copied my summary of a
> hypothesis in an article by Margaret Galway.
Apologies! You are quite right - Douglas/Joan is not fussy in this
respect.
MA-R
Peter Stewart
<snip>
>>Leaving aside the question of whether "Sir Paunettus" refers to someone
>>called "Paonet" or "Pawnet" in the first place, does Margaret Galway
>>provide
>>instances of other ushers being called "Pawn", or indeed "Sir Pawn", or
>>for
>>assistants in an official capacity being given diminutive names such as
>>"Pawnet" that overtook their baptismal names when knighted?
>
> No, she doesn't adduce any parallel cases.
>
> Maybe even Douglas saw that as a weakness of the article he
> himself mentioned. Yet I notice that in his response to my post
> he simply deleted everything I had written and wrote a new
> message containing an argument very similar to the one I had
> quoted from Galway:
>
> "In any case, I don't believe the name, Paon/Paonet, is the same
> name as the English name, Pain, even though phonetically they are
> obviously quite similar. Thus the Latin form Paunettus would not
> intended for anyone named Pain, but rather for someone called
> Paonet. "
>
> Odd behavior, don't you think?
In anyone but Richardson it would seem very odd, and despicable, but of
course in Douglasworld misrepresentation of this kind is a daily occurrence.
He is capable of any lie, opportunism or distortion that he can think up,
quite apart from those he perpetrates by instinct, without thought.
This is a man who claims to work in primary documents of the medieval
period, yet he has never applied himself to learn the first thing about
Latin; and to read French, yet he once deliberately overtyped "français" to
change it to "franqais" when he didn't recognise the word.
So "odd" behaviour, if by that you mean crass but slippery fraud, is just
what to expect from him.
Peter Stewart
katheryn...@gmail.com
Thank you for your post. As you youself would doubtless say, "much
appreciated"!
Regrettably, the Google Books view referenced is too chopped up for me
to view and make any comment on IT, but insofar as I can tell, Payne/
Paon/Paonette is likely a "dit" name for his (Giles dit Paonnet de
Ruet's) given name of "Giles".
Do you have better access to the book and reference in question?
From what I've read (sorry, no weblink or book-link), the dit name of
"Paon" can refer to two things:
--1: Little Peacock (or regular peacock); hardly flattering to my
modern mind but perhaps it was not an unkind reference in the medieval
period. I simply don't know.
--2: A diplomat of some sort, which Giles dit Paonnet de Roeulx
perhaps was in his supposed capacity of Guyenne King of Arms.
Any thoughts?
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
On Mar 7, 3:13 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Recently while doing a Google Search, I encountered a reference dated
> c.1353 to a certain "Sir Paunettus" who is styled "kinsman" to Edward
> the Black Prince, the eldest son of King Edward III of England and
> Queen Philippe of Hainault [see Register of Edward the Black Prince, 4
> (1933): 73 (Sir Paunettus styled "the prince's kinsman.") This item
> may be found at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwnAAAAMAAJ&q=Paunettus&dq=Paunettu...
katheryn...@gmail.com
I believe that the Braddy piece has since been discredited with
respect to 'Philippa, daughter of Panetto' or whatever it was (sorry;
I do have the article -- a printout of microfiche no less! -- but not
handy). (Okay, it helps to actually re-read your post as you yourself
suggest -- you've got the title right there in front of me!) :-/
I think Braddy's position was that Panetto referred to Philippa
Chaucer's father's position as manager of the pantry or stores (or,
was it that Philippa Pan* referred to HER being the mistress of the
pantry?), with the Pan* being an abbreviation for something like
'pantry'.
On the first argument (which she may not have made herself; can't
recall -- read it more than 20 years ago), one could perhaps justify
by the readings of the Cartulaire of the Counts of Hainault in which
it would seem that Paon/Gilles held the possibly hereditary position
of 'manager of the household' (and if you would like me to quote it
verbatim with reference, I can do that, possibly tomorrow after I get
off work but more probably later in the week), but I believe that the
Philippa Pan*/Philippa le Picarde theory is no longer in vogue.
As for cosanguinity (why cannot I spell properly at 11 at night?!),
the only marital impediment mentioned in the papal dispensation for
the marriage of John of Gaunt and Katherine Roet Swynford is that of
Gaunt's being a godfather to a child of Katherine's.
Have I missed something? Any thoughts, anyone?
<snip>
katheryn...@gmail.com
Froissart, who was in a position to know, never remarked upon the
connection and, indeed, refers to Katherine Roet Swynford as being of
'base lynage.'
While one can be comforted by Martin B. Ruud's pronouncement (on then-
uncertainty of Thomas Chaucer being the son of the poet Geoffrey)
that:
"It would be very nice if contemporaries of important people, or of
people who some centuries later turn out to be important, would always
ask themselves before putting pen to paper, 'Now, what will Dryasdust
four or five centuries hence wish to know about this man?' and write
accordingly. But they never do, and unfortunately for the historian
they probably never will. Contemporaries have a strange weakness for
neglecting the obvious." (Ruud, p. 86),
still, the lack of mention by a contemporary is troubling, no?
katheryn...@gmail.com
me out of my misery if I am wrong!), "Egidii" is the latin form for
the saint whose name in English is "Giles."
(really -- please do politely put me out of my misery if I'm wrong
because I know absolutely ZERO latin and my perhaps pathetic reading
of the phrase "Egidii dicti Paonet" is "Egidii [Giles], called Paonet"
and I'd really like to know if I'm spectacularly wrong about it).
Unlike most of you out there on SGM, I don't have a big smorgasbord of
families that I research, and so I really cannot afford to be
spectacularly wrong about the few I do.
=:-0
On Mar 8, 1:49 pm, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
katheryn...@gmail.com
You know, I've flip-flopped on the issue for years now. I even said I
disagreed with Lindsay Brook's position that Katherine Roet Swynford's
father was one of the last of the de Roeulx in my Foundations article
(after reading HIS Foundations article on the subject), but I am now,
for whatever it is worth, of the position that Mr. Brook was likely
correct, based upon what little source material that is available on
the subject.
But I could be swayed again should further information come to
light...
Best,
On Mar 8, 2:44 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Modern authorities think that Katherine de Ruet's father's name was
> actually Gilles de Ruet (or Roet), but that he was commonly called
> Paon, or Paonet, de Ruet. See, for example, this brief snippet which
> is quoted from the book, Some New Light on Chaucer: Lectures Delivered
> at the Lowell Institute, by John Matthews Manly, published in 1926:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=LRMtAAAAIAAJ&q=Paon+Ruet&dq=Paon+Rue...
katheryn...@gmail.com
I don't believe so.
And I'd really appreciate any insights from those who know more than I
on this business of Paon/Paonet etc. being a good 'nickname' if you
will referring to an usher and/or diplomat.
Does anyone here know how the term was used *at the time*? I honestly
don't know and haven't been particularly fruitful in trying to figure
it out on my own.
Best regards,
mj...@btinternet.com
> And, as far as I have been able to determine (please shoot me and put
> me out of my misery if I am wrong!), "Egidii" is the latin form for
> the saint whose name in English is "Giles."
Judy
You are absolutely correct.
Best wishes, Michael
Peter Stewart
<katheryn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc93924a-bf56-459e...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> And, as far as I have been able to determine (please shoot me and put
> me out of my misery if I am wrong!), "Egidii" is the latin form for
> the saint whose name in English is "Giles."
>
> (really -- please do politely put me out of my misery if I'm wrong
> because I know absolutely ZERO latin and my perhaps pathetic reading
> of the phrase "Egidii dicti Paonet" is "Egidii [Giles], called Paonet"
> and I'd really like to know if I'm spectacularly wrong about it).
You are quite right about the meaning of "Egidius dictus Paonet" (the
nominative, for the phrase that you quoted in the genitive - the original
text may have been relating him to someone in hsi family or something he
possessed).
However, it's worth noting that examples like this usually mean just an
alternative name commonly used by the individual, rather than an
occupational nickname or some other kind of epithet sometimes used for him.
The obvious derivation of Paonet is the diminutive form, "little Paon", i.e.
a junior Paganus. If you can't eliminate this, or at least show some
particular reason for its unlikelihood compared to other guesses, it is not
very productive to look for more novel or outlandish explanations of the
stated name.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<katheryn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d8507fe-6448-4d70...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Which is odd given that nobody else ever mentions it. Certainly
> Froissart, who was in a position to know, never remarked upon the
> connection and, indeed, refers to Katherine Roet Swynford as being of
> 'base lynage.'
Froissart didn't exactly say that Katherine's pedigree was "base" in its own
right, but rather that her lineage compared poorly to the families of John
of Gaunt's two previous wives - the text is "elle estoit de basse lignie au
regard des deux autres dames la duchesse Blanche et la duchesse Constance,
que le duc Jean avoit en devant eues par mariage".
According to Froissart her father was named "Paon de Ruet", described as "un
chevallier de Haynnau" (a knight from Hainaut), and as you say he would have
known about the man's background. If Paon was related to the old noble
family - of the same surname in Froissart's spelling - and whether or not he
was the man also called Gilles, the link might have been through an
illegitimate son for all we can surmise.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. It's always good to hear from you.
Yes,. I can certainly access this book for you and give you the full
citation. I won't be able to do it until next Sunday, however, which
is my usual day to spend at the local University.
I don't have any thoughts at the present as to the meaning of "Gilles
dit Paonet de Ruet" as opposed to plain "Paonet de Ruet." You see
aliases in England, but usually at a later date than this. My guess
(and it's purely that) is that Paonet is a nickname of some sort, and
that Gilles was his original baptismal name.
When you have a moment, perhaps you can summarize for the newsgroup
the evidence that Sir Paonet de Ruet who occurs in England was known
in Hainault as "Gilles dit Paonet de Ruet." Also, do you know of
other individuals who had the name Paonet?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Mar 9, 10:59 pm, katheryn.swynf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Douglas,
>
> Thank you for your post. As you youself would doubtless say, "much
> appreciated"!
>
> Regrettably, the Google Books view referenced is too chopped up for me
> to view and make any comment on IT, but insofar as I can tell, Payne/
> Paon/Paonette is likely a "dit" name for his (Giles dit Paonnet de
> Ruet's) given name of "Giles".
>
> Do you have better access to the book and reference in question?
>
> From what I've read (sorry, no weblink or book-link), the dit name of
> "Paon" can refer to two things:
>
> --1: Little Peacock (or regular peacock); hardly flattering to my
> modern mind but perhaps it was not an unkind reference in the medieval
> period. I simply don't know.
>
> --2: A diplomat of some sort, which Giles dit Paonnet de Roeulx
> perhaps was in his supposed capacity of Guyenne King of Arms.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Judyhttp://www.katherineswynford.nethttp://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Leticia Cluff
The only possible objection that could be raised against this is
the fact that the spelling "paon" is never found, as far as I
know, for the common English noun derived from Latin "paganus."
Here are all the variant spellings listed by the OED under
"payen":
ME paen, ME paene, ME paeyn, ME paian- (in compounds), ME paien,
ME paiene, ME pain, ME pan, ME pay (transmission error), ME
payen, ME payene, ME payent (plural), ME poyn (transmission
error), ME-15 payn, lME paigien; Sc. pre-17 paian, pre-17 pane,
pre-17 paya{ygh}n, pre-17 payan, pre-17 payane, pre-17 payene,
pre-17 payn, pre-17 payne.
< Anglo-Norman paen, paeen, paien, pain, pagen, pagien and Old
French, Middle French paien (also attested in Middle French as
paian, payen; French païen),
There is not a single example there of "paon" in either English
or French. Why should that spelling only have developed in a
derivative of Paganus used as a name?
Compare that with the spellings recorded for "pawn":
ME paun, ME pawon, ME pewne, ME pon, ME poun, ME povne, ME pown,
ME powne, ME-16 pawne, ME- pawn, 15 paune.
Admittedly, there is not a single example there of "paon" either,
nor in the Anglo-Norman forms cited by the OED (paun, poun,
poune), but we do find it among the Old French spellings (poon,
paon, pon).
Phonologically, then, it would seem that "paon" could not result
from "paganus", neither in the French nor the English of the day.
The words "payen" and "pawn" have two distinct diphthongs. So if
the name Paonet reflects Paganus, one would have to find an
explanation why normal phonological rules did not prevail in this
case.
There may well be an explanation (e.g. analogy, confusion, error,
ignorance, etc.) for this anomaly, but until I hear some good
arguments I remain undecided.
Tish
katheryn...@gmail.com
caveat but alas only after pressing the 'send' button. <sigh>
Still, even the relative charge of base lineage -- IF Paon/Payne de
Roet/Roeulx = Giles Roeulx -- strikes me as odd given that it was one
of the big families of 12-13th century Hainault. OTOH, it might just
as well be yet another of those oddities and outright misstatements
for which Froissart is regrettably well known, in both adapting/
continuing the chronicles of others (Jean le Bel?) as well as writing
some things considerably after the fact.
Katherine Roet Swynford's father might well have been an illegitimate
Giles... complicated by the existence of a contemporary legitimate
Giles (not impossible certainly), and he (her father) seems to have
held a hereditary office (near as I can tell from reading Malcom Vales
"The Princely Court").
As I have said, I struggle to understand all this and should doubtless
feel better knowing that there are those far more knowledgeable on the
subject who struggle as well.
On Mar 10, 1:25 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> <katheryn.swynf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
katheryn...@gmail.com
I don't know whether this is of assistance or not, but Weever, as
noted by, ironically, a Payne Fisher in 1684 and reprinted in 1885
near as I can tell, said this of Paon/Payne Roet's memorial brass in
Old St. Paul's:
"Near to this tomb was the Memorial for Sir Paganus Roet, whose
Effigies was fairly Portray'd in brass, at whose Feet you might have
read this broken inscription. Hic Jacet Paganus Roet miles guinne,
Rex Armorum Pater Catherine Ducisse Lancastriae..."
p.66 The Tombes, monuments, and sepulchral inscriptions, lately
visible in St. Paul's. Payne Fisher (1885). [snippet view, google
books].
On Mar 10, 5:33 am, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:28:34 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
>
>
>
> <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> ><katheryn.swynf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Leticia Cluff
>Tish,
>
>I don't know whether this is of assistance or not, but Weever, as
>noted by, ironically, a Payne Fisher in 1684 and reprinted in 1885
>near as I can tell, said this of Paon/Payne Roet's memorial brass in
>Old St. Paul's:
>
>"Near to this tomb was the Memorial for Sir Paganus Roet, whose
>Effigies was fairly Portray'd in brass, at whose Feet you might have
>read this broken inscription. Hic Jacet Paganus Roet miles guinne,
>Rex Armorum Pater Catherine Ducisse Lancastriae..."
>
>p.66 The Tombes, monuments, and sepulchral inscriptions, lately
>visible in St. Paul's. Payne Fisher (1885). [snippet view, google
>books].
Yes, I knew that and ought to have mentioned it. This shows that
the name Paon(et) was Latinized as Paganus, but it doesn't prove
absolutely that it derives from Paganus.
When writing Latin, people in the Middle Ages had to find a Latin
form for vernacular names. This was not necessarily the original
Latin name, since many names did not have an original Latin form.
Karl, for example, was Latinized as Carolus, but there were never
any Romans named Carolus.
The word "pawn" (meaning originally foot soldier) derives from
Latin "pedo." Even if Paon was a distinct name from Payne (and
that may be a big if), it might not have occurred to anyone to
Latinize it as Pedo when there was a more familiar and close
enough sounding Latin equivalent Paganus.
It's all very tenuous, so I think I'll give up this line of
argument, before Peter pounces on me...
Tish
Peter Stewart
If Froissart's "Paon de Ruet" was named Paganus, there is one example. I
don't know whether he wrote about anyone who can be independently verified
as "Paganus", using "Paon" or some other form, but that would be the first
apposite check I suppose. Does anyone know?
The obvious difficulty for a nickname meaning "peon" or "peacock" is that
there is no definite article - why would the man not be identified as
"Gilles dit le Paon"?
Froissart for instance refers to Simon le Paonnier as "le Paonnier" without
his given name.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
>>I don't know whether this is of assistance or not, but Weever, as
>>noted by, ironically, a Payne Fisher in 1684 and reprinted in 1885
>>near as I can tell, said this of Paon/Payne Roet's memorial brass in
>>Old St. Paul's:
>>
>>"Near to this tomb was the Memorial for Sir Paganus Roet, whose
>>Effigies was fairly Portray'd in brass, at whose Feet you might have
>>read this broken inscription. Hic Jacet Paganus Roet miles guinne,
>>Rex Armorum Pater Catherine Ducisse Lancastriae..."
>>
>>p.66 The Tombes, monuments, and sepulchral inscriptions, lately
>>visible in St. Paul's. Payne Fisher (1885). [snippet view, google
>>books].
>
> Yes, I knew that and ought to have mentioned it. This shows that
> the name Paon(et) was Latinized as Paganus, but it doesn't prove
> absolutely that it derives from Paganus.
>
> When writing Latin, people in the Middle Ages had to find a Latin
> form for vernacular names. This was not necessarily the original
> Latin name, since many names did not have an original Latin form.
> Karl, for example, was Latinized as Carolus, but there were never
> any Romans named Carolus.
>
> The word "pawn" (meaning originally foot soldier) derives from
> Latin "pedo." Even if Paon was a distinct name from Payne (and
> that may be a big if), it might not have occurred to anyone to
> Latinize it as Pedo when there was a more familiar and close
> enough sounding Latin equivalent Paganus.
Is there any other evidence that Katherine de Ruet's father Paon was
king-of-arms for Guienne (or even "guinne")? If so, by what name/s is he
called in documents recording his official capacity?
Peter Stewart
mj...@btinternet.com
wrote:
> The only possible objection that could be raised against this is
> the fact that the spelling "paon" is never found, as far as I
> know, for the common English noun derived from Latin "paganus."
> Here are all the variant spellings listed by the OED under
> "payen":
>
> ME paen, ME paene, ME paeyn, ME paian- (in compounds), ME paien,
> ME paiene, ME pain, ME pan, ME pay (transmission error), ME
> payen, ME payene, ME payent (plural), ME poyn (transmission
> error), ME-15 payn, lME paigien; Sc. pre-17 paian, pre-17 pane,
> pre-17 paya{ygh}n, pre-17 payan, pre-17 payane, pre-17 payene,
> pre-17 payn, pre-17 payne.
> < Anglo-Norman paen, paeen, paien, pain, pagen, pagien and Old
> French, Middle French paien (also attested in Middle French as
> paian, payen; French païen),
>
> There is not a single example there of "paon" in either English
> or French. Why should that spelling only have developed in a
> derivative of Paganus used as a name?
For what it is worth, there is a reference from 31 July 1328 to a "Sir
Paon/Lord Paon de Balbis", called in the Latin text "Dominus Paonus de
Balbis" [Documents Regarding the Ancient Relations between Venice and
Ravenna, P.D. Pasolini, Imola, 1881, pp 43-44]. He is stated to have
been the Syndicate and Procurator for the Rector of Ravenna at that
time.
MA-R
wjhonson
As to the version "peacock" this is mentioned and rejected as related
to "paon" here
http://books.google.com/books?id=OHkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA427&dq=paonnet
There are given several spelling variations are related to the meaning
"pawn"
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
> Is there any other evidence that Katherine de Ruet's father Paon was
> king-of-arms for Guienne (or even "guinne")? If so, by what name/s is he
> called in documents recording his official capacity?
Apart from Weever's memorial of the monumental inscription at Old St
Paul's, the only other document I am aware of that connects Sir Paon
de Roet with the office of Guienne King of Arms is the alleged grant
of arms to James Andrews and his brothers (Harl MS 1069), but this is
generally said to be a forgery.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
On Mar 8, 11:18 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> What the cackle of hyenas (Michael, Leo, Peter, taf) hasn't mentioned
> to you is that the Latin form of Pain is usually "Paganus," not
> "Paunettus." Katherine de Ruet's father was generally known as Paonet/
> Paonnet de Ruet. I assume "Paunettus" is the Latin form of Paonnet.
> It would not be the Latin form of Pain as I understand it.
Here is a published source which claims that "Pain" and "Paonnet" were
the same:
'Plantagenet Ancestry', D. Richardson, Genealogical Publishing Co,
2004, p 75
Weblink for those who need it:
It seems Douglas is saying this is an unreliable work. I am happy to
agree.
Kind regards, Michael
katheryn...@gmail.com
Okay, I had to read your reply 3 or 5 times before its meaning finally
soaked in :-/ I hope it soaked in correctly [I've had a migraine for
a week and the part of my brain not compromised by the migraine is
instead compromised by the medicine for the migraine].
So, even Froissart's editor, who supplied a conjectured pedigree for
Paon de Roet, had him as the son of Huon, son of Jean de Roet (or the
other way around); in short, no absolute big Paons ahead of him but,
as you say, as simply a nickname, it's possible. I have found a Huon
Roeulx of the big-cheese Roeulx family, but as a brother or uncle and
not as a father or grandfather.
What I continue to find odd is that this nickname peackcock/little
peacock/usher/what-have-you continued on well after he was dead and
gone, in the lands beyond his birth where nobody likely would have
remembered the big Paon to his Paonnet.
You are likely correct about my only quoting a fragment of the latin
charter. Now that I know somebody who is competent in Latin, I can
dig up the entire thing! (and there's another one, that goes on for I
think 7 pages that looks like it might concern a hereditary dispute
involving the family and intermarriages. Until I can find a competent
Latin <--> English babelfish...).
But that single phrase in that single document is, as far as I am
aware, the only document which expressly links a Paonnet de Roet to a
Giles Roeulx, and, even as such, it's only guesswork which identifies
both/either with the father of Katherine Roet Swynford. It was a
Paganus and not a Giles who was commemorated in Old St. Paul's; a
Paonnet and Giles referenced as the father of Isabel Roet; a Payne/
Paon who was spoken of in Froissart.
Kindest thanks for your insights.
Peter Stewart
Thanks Michael, the date of this document (no. 10) is 11 July, in the
11th indiction - I wonder what a professional historian would make of
that...
Peter Stewart
katheryn...@gmail.com
not gunning for it to be genuine, it is simply that I have yet to read
the rationale by which it is said to be not genuine).
The interesting thing about that grant (apart that it doesn't use the
grantor's name at all, simply the heretofore and after shadowy title
of Guyenne King of Arms) is that its Roet arms are said to have
contained a pierced mullet for difference on its armourial device of
three wheels.
This same mark of difference was found by Birch on the ca. 1377 usage
of Katherine Roet Swynford's seal in which her arms impale those of
Hugh Swynford's. Later heraldic ornaments of Katherine as Duchess of
Lancaster, however, do NOT use the pierced mullet of difference.
Ref: Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, vol. 1 & II,
London 1887.
mj...@btinternet.com
Cheers Peter - that will treach me not to pay sufficient attention -
it clearly reads "die decimo primo" and as an accountant I should be
able to add ten and one!
Regards, Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
> Indeed, but on what grounds is it said to be a forgery? (Not that I'm
> not gunning for it to be genuine, it is simply that I have yet to read
> the rationale by which it is said to be not genuine).
Judy
Somewhere I have the full text and references (I'm still away on
holidays in the sun at present) - I will dig out what I have when I
get home. I seem to recall that the text is available online
somewhere.
I have never been satisfied as to the actual grounds of its being a
forgery, although the date assigned to it (1334) seems troubling for
certain chronological reasons - ie other known dates relating to
members of the grantee family.
The Visitations assign it a date of 1334 (eg Vis Northants 1618-1619,
W.C. Metcalfe (ed), London, 1887, p 62), but I note that in a
catalogue of the muniments at Stowe, (Bibliotheca Ms Stowensis, vol
II, C. O'Connor, Buckingham, 1819, pp 561-562 No xxv) it is described
as "18 Edward III, AD 1334" which is plainly a nonsense.
Cheers, Michael
Ginny Wagner
Pavo, pavonis N <3rd> M 3 1 M [XAXCO]
Peacock;
Pavus, pavi N <2nd> M 2 1 M [XAXCO]
Peacock;
Pava, pavae N <1st> F 1 1 F [EAXFW]
Peacock;
Also possibly of interest:
>From T. H. White's translation of a twelfth century bestiary, The Book of
Beasts:
"Pavo the Peacock is named after his voice. His flesh is so hard that it is
scarcely subject to putrefaction,(3) and it is not easily cooked. About this
bird a certain poet(4) sings: 'How can you be surprised that he often
ruffles his jeweled wings at you, O you hard-hearted woman, when you can
find it in your heart to hand him over to the cruel cook?
"(3)St. Augustine remarked, 'Who except God, the Creator of all things,
endowed the flesh of the dead peacock with the power of never decaying?' _De
Civ. Dei_.
'There is a tradition that the acute and inquisitive suffragan of Hippo (St.
Augustine) experimented with the flesh of this fowl, and found the popular
superstition to be correct'.
E. P. Evans.
"(4) Martial. The Bestiarist has unfortunately omitted to tell us that
peacocks are shy about their feet. 'When he sees his feet, he screams
wildly, thinking that they are not in keeping with the rest of his body'.
Epiphanius
'The proud sun-bearing Peacock with his feathers
Walkes all along, thinking himself a king,
And with his voice prognosticates all weathers,
Although God knows but badly he doth sing;
But when he looks downe to his base blacke Feete,
He droopes and is asham'd of things unmeete.'
CHESTER, _Love's Martyr_"
Peter Stewart
> Peter,
>
> Okay, I had to read your reply 3 or 5 times before its meaning finally
> soaked in :-/ I hope it soaked in correctly [I've had a migraine for
> a week and the part of my brain not compromised by the migraine is
> instead compromised by the medicine for the migraine].
>
> So, even Froissart's editor, who supplied a conjectured pedigree for
> Paon de Roet, had him as the son of Huon, son of Jean de Roet (or the
> other way around); in short, no absolute big Paons ahead of him but,
> as you say, as simply a nickname, it's possible. I have found a Huon
> Roeulx of the big-cheese Roeulx family, but as a brother or uncle and
> not as a father or grandfather.
>
> What I continue to find odd is that this nickname peackcock/little
> peacock/usher/what-have-you continued on well after he was dead and
> gone, in the lands beyond his birth where nobody likely would have
> remembered the big Paon to his Paonnet.
I see that Margaret Galway expressed a reservation about "Paonnet"
being derived from peacock - she wrote: "Godefroy in his dictionary of
medieval French gives the diminutive of _paon_, meaning peacock, as
_paonCEL_ or _paonCIEL_. This last does not commend the suggestion
that _PaonnET_ is a nickname signifying 'Little Peacock'." [Philippa
Pan, Philippa Chaucer, in _Modern Language Review_ 55 (1960) p. 486]
She noted of Froissart's Paon de Ruet, Katherine Swynford's father,
that "in the earliest discovered reference to him, recording a
donation he received from Queen Philippa in 1332, he is designated
'Panetto de Roet, de Hanonia'." However, the reference Galway gave for
this is to the index of Kervyn de Lettenhove's edition of Froissart,
where the name instead is "Panneto de Roed, de Hanonia".
Does anyone know if & where this record can be found in print?
Peter Stewart
JudyL...@gmail.com
Are you referring to Galway's February, 1954 'literary and historical
notes' to Notes & Queries in which she states, on p. 48,
"The familiar members of the family are Sir Payne Roet of Hainault
(baptised Gilles) and his daughters Elizabeth, Philippa and
Catherine. When Philippa of Hainault, aged about seventeen, came to
England in 1327 to marry Edward III, Payne Roet came with her. Five
years later the Queen gave a present to 'Panetto de Roed, de Hanonia.'
At the time of the capitulation of Calais in 1347 he was serving her
in some such capacity as marshal of the household (Froissart, ed.
Kervyn, V. 215; XV. 238; XXIII. 38)"
?
If so, I read the reference as referring to Roet's position with
Philippa ca. 1347 and not as referring to any present given by her to
him as "Panetto de Roed, de Hanonia." This is one of my deteriorating
prints-from-fiche views...
But, I, too, would like to see the reference in any event. I've found
tracking down the various Lettenhove commentaries difficult at best in
the online universe (and, in the physical book sense, overwhelming in
the many volumes of the Lettenhove volumes available).
Peter Stewart
<JudyL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f794acc8-ef5a-4dbf...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Peter,
>
> Are you referring to Galway's February, 1954 'literary and historical
> notes' to Notes & Queries in which she states, on p. 48,
>
> "The familiar members of the family are Sir Payne Roet of Hainault
> (baptised Gilles) and his daughters Elizabeth, Philippa and
> Catherine. When Philippa of Hainault, aged about seventeen, came to
> England in 1327 to marry Edward III, Payne Roet came with her. Five
> years later the Queen gave a present to 'Panetto de Roed, de Hanonia.'
> At the time of the capitulation of Calais in 1347 he was serving her
> in some such capacity as marshal of the household (Froissart, ed.
> Kervyn, V. 215; XV. 238; XXIII. 38)"
>
> ?
>
> If so, I read the reference as referring to Roet's position with
> Philippa ca. 1347 and not as referring to any present given by her to
> him as "Panetto de Roed, de Hanonia." This is one of my deteriorating
> prints-from-fiche views...
The extracts that I quoted earlier both came from Margaret Galway's later
article that I cited, 'Philippa Pan, Philippa Chaucer', in _Modern Language
Review_ 55 (1960).
She doesn't appear to transcribe details very accurately if she gave
"Panetto de Roed" in her 1954 _Notes & Queries_ article, and "Panetto de
Roet" in 1960, when the reference from Kervyn de Lettenhove actually reads
"Panneto de Roed". The gift from Philippa is clearly dated to 1332, but no
source is provided for this.
> But, I, too, would like to see the reference in any event. I've found
> tracking down the various Lettenhove commentaries difficult at best in
> the online universe (and, in the physical book sense, overwhelming in
> the many volumes of the Lettenhove volumes available).
The complete set is available on Gallica - if you want these, go to
http://gallica.bnf.fr/default.htm
then click on "Recherche" and paste
FRBNF37268300
into the field "Recherche libre". This will bring up a list of all volumes
that can be opened to read, or downloaded in part or complete.
Volumes XX to XXIII contain the index, with Paon de Ruet in XXIII on p. 38
as cited by Galway in your post above. NB The reference Galway copied from
there to "V. 215" is an error for VI. 215, placing Paon at the siege of
Calais. The third reference, XV. 238, is to the passage I quoted before
about Catherine's lineage compared to the pedigrees of John of Gaunt's other
wives.
Unfortunately the index does not give a reference for the 1332 gift from
Queen Philippa to "Panneto de Roed".
Apart from Paon and Catherine, the indexs list Huon de Roët and Jean de Roët
on p. 38, then Philippe de Roët (Chaucer's wife) on the next page followed
by "Roulx, Rolx, Rues", the various spellings used by Froissart for the
famous noble family in Hainaut. This does not suggest that he considered
"Paon de Ruet" a member of the same family. The information on Fastré du
Roulx (note the "du", meaning the designation was "of Le Roulx" whereas "de"
for Paon's surname indicates he was from a place called "Ruet" without the
definite article) ends with a brief mention of the extinction of the
seigneurs of Roulx in 1337, i.e. during the lifetime of Paon. This strongly
suggests that, if he was related at all (which appears far from likely to
me), this was almost certainly through an illegitimate connection.
Peter Stewart
JudyL...@gmail.com
Thank you for this information and insight. I will follow up on it as
well as report back the Cartulaire... references as I find them.
Douglas Richardson
It's always a pleasure reading your enlightened posts.
Regarding the issue of the possible kinship between Sir Paon/Paonet de
Ruet/Roet, of Hainault, and Edward the Black Prince, my research into
contemporary records of this period indicates that the king and the
royal princes could and did address people as their kinsfolk, which
individuals could be related to them quite remotely. As a general
rule, such kinships were within the fifth degree (i.e., 4th cousins)
on at least one side of the relationship, usually the king's. As
such, Sir Paon/Paonet de Ruet could be quite remotely related to
Edward the Black Prince, and still have their kinship acknowledged.
Presuming that Sir Paon/Paonet de Ruet is the "Sir Paunettus" who was
styled "prince's cousin," then we should be looking for Sir Paon/
Paonet de Ruet to be descended from the a brother or sister of an
ancestor of the Edward the Black Prince somewhere out to his great-
great-grandparents. I should mention that a connection through an
illegitimacy counts.
Reviewing the Prince's ancestry, the most likely place to find such a
link in the Prince's ancestry in his through one of three of his great-
great-grandparents:
1. Jeanne de Dammartin - she had three sisters who left descendants.
2. Jan/Jean d'Avesnes, Count of Hainault - he has one brother and two
half-brothers who left descendants.
3. Aleide of Holland - she has one brother and one sister who left
descendants.
My guess is that the kinship between Sir Paunettus and the Prince
would be on the remote side. We know, for instance, that John of
Gaunt got a dispensation to marry Katherine de Ruet, daughter of Paon/
Paonet, but not due to consanguinity. That means John and Katherine
were related beyond the 4th degree of kinship, otherwise the kinship
would have been noted in their dispensation. John of Gaunt could be
related within the 4th degree to Katherine's father, however.
Basically this means that Sir Paon/Paonet de Ruet would be related no
closer than the 4th degree to Edward the Black Prince.
Insofar as these distant kinships go, this matter is often badly
misunderstood by modern historians who fail to appreciate the fact
that kings and the royal princes were quite well informed regarding
the names of their more remote relatives, and vice versa. A good
example of two modern historians who stumbled over an acknowledgement
of a remote kinship in the medieval period are the historians "C.F.R."
and "L.S.W." who signed the biography of Sir Gilbert Talbot in the
modern reference work, House of Commons 1386-1421, 4 (1992): 560-563.
On page 562, they make the following statement about Sir Gilbert
Talbot:
"Sir Gilbert's correspondence with the abbot reveals an inflated view
of his own importance: while writing from his house in the parish of
St. Faith, London, he referred to himselfr grandly as a kinsman of the
King. (If such he was, it was through a very distant connection.)."
END OF QUOTE.
As we can see, the two modern historians actually mock Sir Gilbert
Talbot because he claimed kinship to the king. They even doubt such a
kinship existed at all! Shows what they know.
In point of fact, Sir Gilbert Talbot WAS related to the king within
the 5th degree by way of his descent from Queen Isabel of Angouleme,
wife successively of King John of England and Hugues de Lusignan. And
yes, on their part, the Kings of England regularly acknowledged their
kinship to the Valence, Hastings, and Grey families, from which
families Sir Gilbert Talbot descended (see table below). If nothing
else, the two historians showed their extreme prejudice in judging
medieval people by modern standards of kinship. That's not good. Not
good at all. They were also rotten genealogists.
Sir Gilbert Talbot's descent from Queen Isabel of Angouleme goes as
follows:
1. Isabel of Angouleme, married (2nd) Hugues de Lusignan.
2. William de Valence.
3. Isabel de Valence, married John de Hastings, 1st Lord Hastings.
4. Elizabeth de Hastings, married Roger de Grey, 1st Lord Grey of
Ruthin.
5. Juliane de Grey, married John Talbot, Knt., of Richard's Castle,
Herefordshire.
6. Gilbert Talbot, Knt.
Having said that, I imagine we should find a similar remote tie
between Sir Paon/Paonet de Ruet and Edward the Black Prince.
Something remote, but still blood kinship, within the 5th degree on at
least one side.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. I'll be sure to check the reference to "Sir Paunettus" being
called "prince's cousin" this coming Sunday. I'll get you the exact
quotation of the printed text.
Douglas Richardson
I don't know if you have this Ruet reference or not, so I thought I'd
send this weblink your way just in case you didn't have it.
This appears to be a reference to Hue de Ruet in Répertoire numérique:
série H, Archives départementales du Nord, published in 1928.
As you doubtless know, Lettenhove thought that Huon de Ruet and Paon
de Ruet were the same person. See the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jZYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA57&dq=fils+Paon+Roet&lr=
wjhonson
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter,
>
> > Okay, I had to read your reply 3 or 5 times before its meaning finally
> > soaked in :-/ I hope it soaked in correctly [I've had a migraine for
> > a week and the part of my brain not compromised by the migraine is
> > instead compromised by the medicine for the migraine].
>
> > So, even Froissart's editor, who supplied a conjectured pedigree for
> > Paon de Roet, had him as the son of Huon, son of Jean de Roet (or the
> > other way around); in short, no absolute big Paons ahead of him but,
> > as you say, as simply a nickname, it's possible. I have found a Huon
> > Roeulx of the big-cheese Roeulx family, but as a brother or uncle and
> > not as a father or grandfather.
>
> > What I continue to find odd is that this nickname peackcock/little
> > peacock/usher/what-have-you continued on well after he was dead and
> > gone, in the lands beyond his birth where nobody likely would have
> > remembered the big Paon to his Paonnet.
>
> I see that Margaret Galway expressed a reservation about "Paonnet"
> being derived from peacock - she wrote: "Godefroy in his dictionary of
> medieval French gives the diminutive of _paon_, meaning peacock, as
> _paonCEL_ or _paonCIEL_. This last does not commend the suggestion
> that _PaonnET_ is a nickname signifying 'Little Peacock'." [Philippa
> Pan, Philippa Chaucer, in _Modern Language Review_ 55 (1960) p. 486]
>
Walter William wrote his dictionary 70 years earlier, in which he
states that the diminuative paonnet is related to paon "Pawn" and has
nothing to do with peacock. I posted the link earlier in this thread.
So Margaret is a bit too late to claim precedence on that correction.
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d6b06ad4-fadc-4cc5...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Judy ~
>
> I don't know if you have this Ruet reference or not, so I thought I'd
> send this weblink your way just in case you didn't have it.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?q=Ruet+maitre+chevalier&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-45,GGGL:en&um=1&sa=N&tab=wp
>
>This appears to be a reference to Hue de Ruet in Répertoire numérique:
> série H, Archives départementales du Nord, published in 1928.
It will be easier to track this down if the title is given the right way
round - this is correctly: _Archives départementales du Nord, Répertoire
numérique_ for the series title, with the subtitle for this volume: _Série
H. (Fonds bénédictins et cisterciens) 1 H à XXXV H_, edited by Max Bruchet
(Lille, 1928).
> As you doubtless know, Lettenhove thought that Huon de Ruet and
> Paon de Ruet were the same person. See the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=jZYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA57&dq=fils+Paon+Roet&lr=
This is misleading on two counts: Kervyn de Lettenhove was his baronial
title - Kervyn was not his given name as implied by calling him simply
"Lettenhove"; and he made this suggestion in 1857 but in his monumental
edition of Froissart (published from 1867 to 1877), vol. XV p. 399, he
suggested that Paon de Ruet was perhaps the son of Jean de Ruet (died 1305)
who was son of Huon de Ruet - perhaps not the man occurring in 1322, but
there is no mention here of identifying Paon with a younger namesake of his
putative grandfather.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Dear Judy ~
>
> It's always a pleasure reading your enlightened posts.
>
> Regarding the issue of the possible kinship between Sir Paon/Paonet de
> Ruet/Roet, of Hainault, and Edward the Black Prince, my research into
> contemporary records of this period indicates that the king and the
> royal princes could and did address people as their kinsfolk, which
> individuals could be related to them quite remotely. As a general
> rule, such kinships were within the fifth degree (i.e., 4th cousins)
> on at least one side of the relationship, usually the king's. As
> such, Sir Paon/Paonet de Ruet could be quite remotely related to
> Edward the Black Prince, and still have their kinship acknowledged.
>
> Presuming that Sir Paon/Paonet de Ruet is the "Sir Paunettus" who was
> styled "prince's cousin," then we should be looking for Sir Paon/
> Paonet de Ruet to be descended from the a brother or sister of an
> ancestor of the Edward the Black Prince somewhere out to his great-
> great-grandparents. I should mention that a connection through an
> illegitimacy counts.
Richardson should first be looking to substantiate the highly dubious
presumption that Sir Paon/Paonet de Ruet is the same as "Sir Paunettus" in
the first place.
> Reviewing the Prince's ancestry, the most likely place to find such a
> link in the Prince's ancestry in his through one of three of his great-
> great-grandparents:
>
> 1. Jeanne de Dammartin - she had three sisters who left descendants.
>
> 2. Jan/Jean d'Avesnes, Count of Hainault - he has one brother and two
> half-brothers who left descendants.
>
> 3. Aleide of Holland - she has one brother and one sister who left
> descendants.
>
> My guess is that the kinship between Sir Paunettus and the Prince
> would be on the remote side. We know, for instance, that John of
> Gaunt got a dispensation to marry Katherine de Ruet, daughter of Paon/
> Paonet, but not due to consanguinity. That means John and Katherine
> were related beyond the 4th degree of kinship, otherwise the kinship
> would have been noted in their dispensation. John of Gaunt could be
> related within the 4th degree to Katherine's father, however.
> Basically this means that Sir Paon/Paonet de Ruet would be related no
> closer than the 4th degree to Edward the Black Prince.
And does Richardson have examples of dispensations for spiritual affinity
that do not even mention a known consanguinity of this degree?
> Insofar as these distant kinships go, this matter is often badly
> misunderstood by modern historians who fail to appreciate the fact
> that kings and the royal princes were quite well informed regarding
> the names of their more remote relatives, and vice versa. A good
> example of two modern historians who stumbled over an acknowledgement
> of a remote kinship in the medieval period are the historians "C.F.R."
> and "L.S.W." who signed the biography of Sir Gilbert Talbot in the
> modern reference work, House of Commons 1386-1421, 4 (1992): 560-563.
> On page 562, they make the following statement about Sir Gilbert
> Talbot:
>
> "Sir Gilbert's correspondence with the abbot reveals an inflated view
> of his own importance: while writing from his house in the parish of
> St. Faith, London, he referred to himselfr grandly as a kinsman of the
> King. (If such he was, it was through a very distant connection.)."
> END OF QUOTE.
>
> As we can see, the two modern historians actually mock Sir Gilbert
> Talbot because he claimed kinship to the king. They even doubt such a
> kinship existed at all! Shows what they know.
Note that the quote says "If such he was" - the point of the ridicule,
evidently missed by Richardson in his fervour to show that someone else was
wrong, is that Talbot was making this claim inappropriately, whether true or
not, in writing to an abbot, not in correspondence with the king. In any
case, a relationship in the 5th degree was beyond the limit of Richardson's
"general rule" for royal acknowledgement of kinship, so if this "rule" has
any validity it was also a stretch of self-promotion for that reason.
> In point of fact, Sir Gilbert Talbot WAS related to the king within
> the 5th degree by way of his descent from Queen Isabel of Angouleme,
> wife successively of King John of England and Hugues de Lusignan. And
> yes, on their part, the Kings of England regularly acknowledged their
> kinship to the Valence, Hastings, and Grey families, from which
> families Sir Gilbert Talbot descended (see table below). If nothing
> else, the two historians showed their extreme prejudice in judging
> medieval people by modern standards of kinship. That's not good. Not
> good at all. They were also rotten genealogists.
Not really, not nearly. They made a reasonable point, that a rotten reader
misunderstood.
Peter Stewart
JudyL...@gmail.com
knight, who, dying in 1313, was once buried with possible relatives
Eustache du Roeulx, last Lord of Roeulx, who died in 1336, Fastre du
Roeulx, d. 1331, and the perhaps related Msgr. Thierri de Reux, Sr. de
Hunchegnies, d. 1303, in the church of St. Feuillien in Hainault
[Annales du Cercle Archeologique de Mons (Vo. 24, Mons: 1895, p.
187)]. Also once buried at St. Feuillien was Renard du Roeulx (13th
c.) along with wife Mahaut; in their time, they headed up the Renars
family [Annales du Cercle Archeologique de Mons, Vol. XX (Mons: 1887),
pp. 479-481.] The House of Renars had its stronghold "at the extreme
border mprtj pf the territory of Thieu, opposite ... the castle of
Roeulx and on the left ... Ottignies." -- ibid.).
Kervyn de Lettenhove also cited the finding of a Huon de Roet in a
1322 charter (Froissart. Etude Litteraire sur le XIV Siecle, pas M.
Kervyn de Lettenhove. Vol. I, pp. 56-7 (Paris: 1857? 1837? I think
the scan was so bad I couldn't tell which date it was).
I apologize for any typos which may be found.
JudyL...@gmail.com
Hello Douglas,
Thank you for your suggestions. I look forward to what you can find
on the "Sir Paunettus" kinsman.
On Mar 11, 12:20 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> I don't know if you have this Ruet reference or not, so I thought I'd
> send this weblink your way just in case you didn't have it.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?q=Ruet+maitre+chevalier&sourceid=navcli...
>
> This appears to be a reference to Hue de Ruet in Répertoire numérique:
> série H, Archives départementales du Nord, published in 1928.
--Okay, I just pulled this up but it seems to refer to a carpenter
hired to do some work in the 1750s or so. Did I mistype or misread
something?
Thanks again,
katheryn...@gmail.com
--Here is the text of the first bit that I have found: This is from
one of the volumes of _Cartulaire Des Comtes de Hainaut, pp. 321-22,
and concerns the granting of a prebend to Elizabeth, daughter of Lord
Giles, called Paonet de Ruet. Is it significant that Elizabeth is
"Elizabet dicte dou Ruet..." (the dou as opposed to de, I mean. I'll
readily admit myself well and truly ignorant in Latin.) ??
begin quoted text:
=======================================
"Lettres par lesquelles l'imperatrice Marguerite accorde a Elizabeth
du Roeulx, la prebende du chapitre de Sainte-Waudru, de Mons, vacante
par le deces de Beatrix de Wallaincourt.
(27 juillet 1349, a Munich en Baviere.)
Margareta, Dei gracia, Romanorum imperatrix, comitissa Hanonie,
Hollandie, Zelandie ac demonia Frisie, venerabilibus personis nobisque
in Christo dilectis, capitulo Beate Waldetgrudis Montensis,
Cameracensis dyocesis, salutem et omne bonum. Cum nos canonicatum et
prebendam ecclesie nostre predicte ad nostram collationem spectantem,
per obitum quondam Beatricis de Wallaincourt, ipsius ecclesie cum
decessit canonice prebendate, vacantes ad presens, nobili
adolescentule Elizabet dicte dou Ruet domini Eidii dicti Paonet de
Ruet filie, pleno jure contulerimus cum suis juribus et pertintiis
universis, hinc est quod vos attente requiremus tenore presentium
nichilominus mandantes quantinus eandem Elizabeth de Ruet in
corporalem possessionem dictorum canonicatus et prebende juriumque et
pertinentiarum eorumdem inducatur, eidemque de fruetibus, proventibus,
re3ditibus et emolumentis universis ipsorum respondeatis seu
responderi faciatis, stallum sibi in choro et locum in capitulo eum
plenitudine juris canonice prebendate aassignantur, adhibitis etiam
soliennitatibus que solent et debent in talibus adhiberi. In quorum
testimonium, sigillum nostrum presentibus hiix duximus apponendum.
Datum in Monacho in Bavaria, anno Domini millesimo tricentesimo
quadragesimo nono, vicesima septima die mensis julii."
==================================
end quoted text.
My apologies for the lack of diacriticals (I think they are called?).
I don't know how to accurately reproduce these online (they are higher
ASCII and are thus not consistent across typefaces and platforms
AFAIK).
Kindest thanks to all,
On Mar 11, 12:35 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
katheryn...@gmail.com
Yes, kindest thanks for this when you are able.
And, yes, I will try to post here the summary of the arguments
favoring/opposed to Payne de Roet <--> Giles du Roeulx (As you and
others are likely aware, historian Alison Weir has recently taken the
position that the two are not the same, but I fear is is from a
reading of my FMG article, a position that I am reconsidering at the
moment and will continue to do so based upon the valued assistance of
individuals helping out here).
Best,
On Mar 11, 10:02 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
Peter Stewart
<katheryn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5c4620b-dd75-481d...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter (at al.):
>
> --Here is the text of the first bit that I have found: This is from
> one of the volumes of _Cartulaire Des Comtes de Hainaut, pp. 321-22,
> and concerns the granting of a prebend to Elizabeth, daughter of Lord
> Giles, called Paonet de Ruet. Is it significant that Elizabeth is
> "Elizabet dicte dou Ruet..." (the dou as opposed to de, I mean. I'll
> readily admit myself well and truly ignorant in Latin.) ??
>
> begin quoted text:
>
> =======================================
> "Lettres par lesquelles l'imperatrice Marguerite accorde a Elizabeth
> du Roeulx, la prebende du chapitre de Sainte-Waudru, de Mons, vacante
> par le deces de Beatrix de Wallaincourt.
>
>(27 juillet 1349, a Munich en Baviere.)
I assume this is from volume 1 (1881) of the edition by Léopold Devillers.
> Margareta, Dei gracia, Romanorum imperatrix, comitissa Hanonie,
> Hollandie, Zelandie ac demonia Frisie,
Make that "domina Frisie" (lady of Friesland). The charter is just a
standard appointment to the prebend of the chapter of Sainte-Waudru at Mons,
following the death of the previous incumbent Beatrix de Wallaincourt. This
was not hereditary - after the death of Elizabeth de Ruet it went to Jeanne
d'Ecaussines, as you found, later to Jeanne de Hérimés, then to Marguerite
d'Arnemude. Family relationship had nothing to do with this succession. The
only genealogial point of note in the charter of Margaret for this
discussion is
> nobili adolescentule Elizabet dicte dou Ruet domini E[g]idii dicti
> Paonet de Ruet filie
"to the young noblewoman Elizabeth called du Ruet, daughter of Gilles called
Paonet de Ruet".
There is no definite significance to "dou" in this text - "du" = "de le" is
French and does not exist in Latin; its use here was evidently an error,
quite apart from the inconsistency with "de Ruet" used for her father, and
perhaps these grammatically anomalous designations were not written by a
French-speaking scribe.
The other charter quoted, Albert of Bavaria's dated 24 July 1368, is only
useful for showing when Elizabeth had recently died. There is nothing here
to help establish whether her father Gilles was the same man as Katherine's
father Paon, or to prove beyond question that either of them belonged to the
family of Le Roeulx.
Peter Stewart
mj...@btinternet.com
(snip)
> The other charter quoted, Albert of Bavaria's dated 24 July 1368, is only
> useful for showing when Elizabeth had recently died. There is nothing here
> to help establish whether her father Gilles was the same man as Katherine's
> father Paon, or to prove beyond question that either of them belonged to the
> family of Le Roeulx.
So, the problem here is that we have a string of suppositions and
possibilities, culminating in a "surely"...
MA-R
Peter Stewart
<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c82834b1-1f7f-48bb...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> For what it is worth, there is a reference from 31 July 1328 to a "Sir
> Paon/Lord Paon de Balbis", called in the Latin text "Dominus Paonus
> de Balbis" [Documents Regarding the Ancient Relations between
> Venice and Ravenna, P.D. Pasolini, Imola, 1881, pp 43-44]. He is
> stated to have been the Syndicate and Procurator for the Rector of
> Ravenna at that time.
It appears that Paonus was a given name, or at least the Latinised form of
one, used in Italy - apart from the syndic & procurator for Ravenna noted
above, there was another "dominus Paonus" who witnessed a charter for
Rifreddo abbey in Piedmont, dated 10 February 1222, see _Cartario della
abazia di Rifreddo, fino all'anno 1300_, edited by Silvio Pivano (Pinerolo,
1902), no. 15, p. 22.
At this rate we could just as well speculate on Italian paternal ancestry
for Caterina Ruet.
Peter Stewart
katheryn...@gmail.com
Thank you for your translations. Yes, this is what I thought that it
meant, but it is good to have insight from someone who can actually
read it rather than guess at it.
I knew that the granting of the prebend was not hereditary; however, I
have found a number of the ladies granted one who seemed to be from
higher levels of societies but will admit I've not done the math to
say that xx% come from families holding high bailiff status or
whatnot. Perhaps it was random or for services rendered or...
Oh my -- demonia Friseland. There's a howler of a typo (mine I
think)! Sorry about that, but it was a nice bit of levity to wake up
to read, even if it was mine ;-)
Yes, I am aware that there is nothing which directly connects this
Giles called Paonet de Ruet with the Paonet de Ruet who is supposed to
be Katherine's father, but the timing is suggestive and the name seems
suggestive... just not conclusive, no?
Kindest thanks again,
Peter Stewart
<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:150b609d-f4ab-4c6d...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Imagine what Richardson's computation would have made of this 11th day in
the 11th indiction - the 11th 11th of July perhaps, making it the 121st day
of the month. And of course there are some "professional" accountants at
large who could come up with the same result, if a client wanted it badly
enough....
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<katheryn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3308356-3ddc-46a5...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thank you for your translations. Yes, this is what I thought that it
> meant, but it is good to have insight from someone who can actually
> read it rather than guess at it.
>
> I knew that the granting of the prebend was not hereditary; however,
> I have found a number of the ladies granted one who seemed to be
> from higher levels of societies but will admit I've not done the math
> to say that xx% come from families holding high bailiff status or
> whatnot. Perhaps it was random or for services rendered or...
Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention, it was the position of Gilles dit
Paon in the household of Margaret that someone suggested might have been
hereditary. (I don't find this convincing, it seems to be a way to account
for the otherwise odd transfer of a minor functionary after many years in
the service of Queen Philippa in England to the household of her sister in
Hainaut, then back to England where he apparently died & was buried grandly
in London.
Apart from this conjecture bearing on his family, the social rank of
Katherine's father Paon de Ruet would seem to be indeterminate but perhaps
at the lowly end of the scale for knights. I don't buy the "Guienne king of
arms" on the basis of the inscription - if this can't establish that his
name was actually "Paganus" it should not be taken by anyone who questions
the name as proof for his holding this otherwise dubious office. One
surviving grant of arms, that may be a later forgery anyway, would not
substantially add to the confidence. After John of Gaunt became duke of
Aquitaine when married to Paon's daughter, any such transitory role in his
duchy could be invented as a posthumous elevation for the deceased father of
his mistress/wife, whose antecedents were reportedly a subject of gossip.
There is very little to go by regarding "Gilles dit Paon" and his daughter
Elizabeth who was given a choir stall in Sainte-Waudru in 1349, but they
seem to have been a cut above Paon de Ruet and his daughter Katherine
Swynford, and Philippa Chaucer if she was another daughter; and Elizabeth as
a "youg noblewoman" at that time also seems to have been somewhat older than
these women.
<snip>
> Yes, I am aware that there is nothing which directly connects this
> Giles called Paonet de Ruet with the Paonet de Ruet who is
> supposed to be Katherine's father, but the timing is suggestive and
> the name seems suggestive... just not conclusive, no?
If the name is a form of Paganus, it was not rare enough to be all that
suggestive. If Paon was a different name, it was evidently less common - but
either way there is no particular reason to suppose it was other than a
baptismal name, or that Paon de Ruet in England could not have been related
to Gilles dit Paon in Hainaut without their being one and the same man,
and/or members of the lordly family of Le Roeulx.
Derek Howard
though they do not lead to any firm conclusions :
The coat of arms of the Roelx family ("Die He. V. Rues") was Argent
three lions rampant Gules. [Gelre roll of arms, no 1062, in "Gelre BR
Ms 15652-56", ed. van Helmont, Leuven 1992, p 340, illustrated page
197]. This is _not_ the same as the arms recorded for Katherine de
Roet in England, which were canting arms. This suggests she was not
entitled to the Roelx arms and, if she was descended from them or
another knightly or noble family, she or possibly her father may have
been illegitimate.
The wheel was used on the arms of a different family of the Hainault
nobility: the lords of Huesden (Or a wheel Gules -Gelre, 1040), and
the lords of Drungelen, a junior family of the lords of Huesden (Azure
a wheel Argent - Gelre, 1041).
The term Paon is almost certainly the word for peacock. There is a
possible rationale for this. The crest of the Counts of Hainault
consisted of peacock feathers as did de Melun lord of Antoing and the
marshal of Hainault also used peacock feathers, so did the Drossard or
Seneschal of Hainault (de Werchin). A representative such as a king of
arms, or indeed a junior or illegitimate relative may well have been
referred to as such in the diminutive. It was commonplace for heralds
to take their title from an heraldic emblem of their masters, as an
alternative to from their titles or territory, and to be widely known
by their title. It was also not uncommon for kings of arms in the low
counties to be distantly related to the ruling families. If there is
any truth at all in the allegations of a connection to the position of
Guyenne king of arms, this may have been preceded by a period as
herald of Hainault.
The chapter of the abbey of St Wadru at Mons was restricted to members
of the nobility. To have a position in the chapter would have required
proof of the appropriate noble quarters. At a much later date this was
legislated for in some detail but in essence had been the same since
its foundation.
The Roelx family were a junior branch of the Counts of Hainault and
were extinct in 1336. However, there were members by the name of
Gilles before that. "Gilles dis Rigaus dou Rues" was a party, at Mons,
to a declaration in 1277-78 and sealed with his arms. "Gilles dis
Rigaux sires dou Roes" "amortit" the land on which the chapel of
Bellecourt was built 1 April 1297. "Mes sires Giles dis Rigaus sires
dou Roelz chevalier" sealed an act of the baillie of Hainault in 1297.
His seal included the Roelx arms and the legend "Sr Egidii dicti
Rigavt militis dni de Rodio". [de Raadt: Sceaux armoriés des Pays-Bas
et des pays avoisinants, tome III, reprint 1999, page 232]. Note it is
not unusual to have a nickname as well as first name even on a seal.
I am not convinced that the record of the tomb inscription in St Pauls
referred to elsewhere on the thread represents a real transcription
from sight of the tomb. The wording surrounding the inscription
suggests it was speculation and the alleged wording of the tomb was no
more than was well known from other sources, the damage too
conveniently obscuring a lack of detail that would be expected on the
real thing.
Derek Howard
Peter Stewart
"Derek Howard" <dho...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:6e0ea3b5-85dd-4b27...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> The term Paon is almost certainly the word for peacock. There is a
> possible rationale for this. The crest of the Counts of Hainault
> consisted of peacock feathers as did de Melun lord of Antoing and the
> marshal of Hainault also used peacock feathers, so did the Drossard or
> Seneschal of Hainault (de Werchin). A representative such as a king of
> arms, or indeed a junior or illegitimate relative may well have been
> referred to as such in the diminutive. It was commonplace for heralds
> to take their title from an heraldic emblem of their masters, as an
> alternative to from their titles or territory, and to be widely known
> by their title. It was also not uncommon for kings of arms in the low
> counties to be distantly related to the ruling families. If there is
> any truth at all in the allegations of a connection to the position of
> Guyenne king of arms, this may have been preceded by a period as
> herald of Hainault.
This is a circular suggestion, or two.
We don't know for certain that there ever was such an office as "Guyenne
king of arms", whether Paon de Ruet held it or not, and whether or not he
was even a herald - he might even have been colour-blind for all we can
learn about the man.
We don't know that he was related in any way, legitimately or otherwise, to
the counts - or for that matter connected to any seneschal - of Hainault.
If Paon de Ruet ever served as a herald in Gyuenne, this putative
appointment was preceded by a long spell as a minor functionary in the
service of his son-in-law's mother, not as a herald in Hainault or anywhere
else from the evidence known to us.
The term paon meaning peacock can be found in any number of contexts,
including heraldic, but the diminutive is recorded as "paoncel" rather than
"paonnet". To say that "The term Paon is almost certainly the word for
peacock" is true, but does not lead on to conclude that this is the
exclusive etyomology and that the name Paon (occurring in Italy as well as
in Hainault at the relevant time) must have been derived from this term. It
is not established yet that it was indeed a nickname - for all we know so
far, it could even have been, say, a familiar contraction of a baptismal
name such as Pantaleon.
Vague possibilities are all very well in their place, but not all over the
place.
Peter Stewart
s.j....@dal.ca
If Paon "almost certainly" meant peacock then we might expect
people in those days to know that and accordingly Latinize it as
Pavo. We might likewise expect Italians to use a form like Pavone
(unless Paon could be some dialect variant - any Italian experts
here?).
I don't think we can say anything (pea)cocksure about this name
at all.
Tish
Peter Stewart
<s.j....@dal.ca> wrote in message
news:e5hnt35pkofi40lbj...@4ax.com...
> If Paon "almost certainly" meant peacock then we might expect
> people in those days to know that and accordingly Latinize it as
> Pavo. We might likewise expect Italians to use a form like Pavone
> (unless Paon could be some dialect variant - any Italian experts
> here?).
>
> I don't think we can say anything (pea)cocksure about this name
> at all.
Very true, Tish.
Peacocks are creatures of habit, who repeat behaviours day after day until
eventually they die from the effort of the one change they can't avoid, the
need to grow a new tail each year. Historians tend to similar ways,
repeating each other's notions that take their fancy until the toil of
processing new ideas in the end is overwhelming.
No Italian would have written "Paonus" for a name that meant peacock - and
we have seen two examples of Paonus to date, that turned up without a
systematic search. Clearly this was a proper name, as "dominus Paonus" on
diplomatic business for Ravenna was hardly likely to be called by a
nickname, much less one from the bestiary.
Peter Stewart
Derek Howard
> <s.j.cl...@dal.ca> wrote in message
No one is cock sure of anything. I prefaced my note with a comment
about not pointing to conclusions. People should read. However, I have
not come across a stream of people in the Belgian provinces using
"paon" or anything like as a first or nickname. On the other hand I
have seen references in chronicles to the bird and I pointed to a
concentration of peacock heraldic displays in Hainault. The only other
well known bearer of a panache of peacocks' feathers was the Duke of
Austria. While there are a few other individuals throughout Europe
with peacock feathers at that date, I consider that the concentration
in this area is possibly worthy of note. Nothing more.
Again, on the other hand, you may have a point about Italy -
suprisingly. Hainault is a long way from Italy and I would not
normally consider a different country, different culture so readily
useable as evidence one way or another. However, on 6 Oct 1313 there
was a priviledge accorded by count Guillaaume (1st) of Hainault to
three Lombard merchants to install themselves in the town of Ath. They
included one Barthélemy Paon. [Inventaire analytique du chartier de la
Trésorie des comtes de Hainaut, ed Wymans, Bruxelles 1985, p 111]It is
indeed just possible there is a connection to that surname. It is not
though until a century or two later that we see the occasional
occurence of the surname Payen in the area and there are no other
obvious inspirations for the use of paon in Hainault.
Remember, we are not searching for someone called simply Paon but
using it or its diminutive as a secondary name with a number of other
clues as to possible indentity. The clues need reading together. I
doubt whether this question is soluble.
Derek Howard
JudyL...@gmail.com
> The coat of arms of the Roelx family ("Die He. V. Rues") was Argent
> three lions rampant Gules. [Gelre roll of arms, no 1062, in "Gelre BR
> Ms 15652-56", ed. van Helmont, Leuven 1992, p 340, illustrated page
> 197].
--Are you certain? The Lalaing and Wijnbergen armourials have the
arms as Or, three lions rampant Gules. [This I believe I have from
Brian Timm's website].
> This is _not_ the same as the arms recorded for Katherine de
> Roet in England, which were canting arms. This suggests she was not
> entitled to the Roelx arms and, if she was descended from them or
> another knightly or noble family, she or possibly her father may have
> been illegitimate.
--Or, given that they are canting arms, which I believe were
especially adopted by the English, that the arms are English. This
could perhaps make sense but for the troublesome mark of a pierced
mullet for difference recorded on the even more troublesome 1330s
grant of arms to the brothers Andrewe by an unnamed Guyenne King of
Arms, and that the same mark for difference was recorded as being used
by Katherine Swynford ca. 1370s.
> The chapter of the abbey of St Wadru at Mons was restricted to members
> of the nobility. To have a position in the chapter would have required
> proof of the appropriate noble quarters. At a much later date this was
> legislated for in some detail but in essence had been the same since
> its foundation.
--Do you have a reference for this? I've been searching, in vain, for
more information on this. As I said previously, it seemed to me in
looking at some of the other records for canonesses at St. Waudru,
that they tended to be from the upper-classes. What little else I
think I've gleaned is that it was sort of a finishing school for these
high-born ladies, that they were bound by obedience but not poverty,
and that they could (and did) leave to marry. Does this sound about
right?
>
> The Roelx family were a junior branch of the Counts of Hainault and
> were extinct in 1336.
--It's less that the line was extinct than it was that they ceded
their patrimony back to the count of Hainault, which made the matter
moot.
> I am not convinced that the record of the tomb inscription in St Pauls
> referred to elsewhere on the thread represents a real transcription
> from sight of the tomb. The wording surrounding the inscription
> suggests it was speculation and the alleged wording of the tomb was no
> more than was well known from other sources, the damage too
> conveniently obscuring a lack of detail that would be expected on the
> real thing.
My suspicions are the same but, of course, we have no way of proving
it.
Kindest regards,
Judy
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
http://www.katherineswynford.net
Volucris
> <katheryn.swynf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]
> > nobili adolescentule Elizabet dicte dou Ruet domini E[g]idii dicti
> > Paonet de Ruet filie
>
> "to the young noblewoman Elizabeth called du Ruet, daughter of Gilles called
> Paonet de Ruet".
The 'adolescentule' seems to point to the age period adolescentia, an
age between 14 and 28 years according to Isidor of Sevilla.
Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
> No one is cock sure of anything. I prefaced my note with a comment
> about not pointing to conclusions. People should read.
We did, and you wrote "almost certainly" for something that is far from
certain.
> However, I have not come across a stream of people in the
> Belgian provinces using "paon" or anything like as a first or
> nickname. On the other hand I have seen references in chronicles
> to the bird and I pointed to a concentration of peacock heraldic
> displays in Hainault.
So you put 2 and 2 together and come up "almost certainly" with 5?
? The only other well known bearer of a panache of peacocks'
> feathers was the Duke of Austria. While there are a few other
> individuals throughout Europe with peacock feathers at that date,
> I consider that the concentration in this area is possibly worthy of
> note. Nothing more.
And so it is, in a context that links to heraldry; but the work to establish
whether this is the case with Sir Paon de Ruet in England or Guyenne and/or
Gilles dit Paon de Ruet in Hainault still remains to be done. So for them it
is only worth noting with explicit reservations that it is an old idea that
has been to some extent discredited by the usage "paoncel" rather than
"paonnet" as the diminutive for a little peacock.
> Again, on the other hand, you may have a point about Italy -
> suprisingly. Hainault is a long way from Italy and I would not
> normally consider a different country, different culture so readily
> useable as evidence one way or another. However, on 6 Oct 1313 there
> was a priviledge accorded by count Guillaaume (1st) of Hainault to
> three Lombard merchants to install themselves in the town of Ath. They
> included one Barthélemy Paon. [Inventaire analytique du chartier de la
> Trésorie des comtes de Hainaut, ed Wymans, Bruxelles 1985, p 111]It is
> indeed just possible there is a connection to that surname. It is not
> though until a century or two later that we see the occasional
> occurence of the surname Payen in the area and there are no other
> obvious inspirations for the use of paon in Hainault.
But the argument for the name "Paon" to have meant anything to do with
"peacock" is based on its not occurring as "Payen", that would be expected
if the name was derived from "Paganus".
> Remember, we are not searching for someone called simply Paon but
> using it or its diminutive as a secondary name with a number of other
> clues as to possible indentity. The clues need reading together.
Only if the clues can be shown to be linked together by more than
coincidence.
> I doubt whether this question is soluble.
Yes, I'm afraid it is late to hope for any new evidence, and it can't be
resolved from the very little we know to date.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Volucris" <volu...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote in message
news:de993e7f-f59b-4d20...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 mrt, 08:56, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> > <katheryn.swynf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > nobili adolescentule Elizabet dicte dou Ruet domini E[g]idii dicti
> > > Paonet de Ruet filie
> >
> > "to the young noblewoman Elizabeth called du Ruet, daughter of Gilles
> > called Paonet de Ruet".
> [snip]
>
> The 'adolescentule' seems to point to the age period adolescentia, an
> age between 14 and 28 years according to Isidor of Sevilla.
Unfortunately, Hans, these age-group definitions given by Isidore were only
vaguely remembered and at best roughly applied in diplomatic (or narrative)
usage by the 14th century. However, in this case it is unlikely that
Elizabeth was younger than 12 in 1349, and she probably fell into the lower
end of the range 14-28. This would have made her perhaps around 15-25 years
older than Katherine de Ruet.
Peter Stewart
katheryn...@gmail.com
document I quoted earlier; other than the odd doubtless unintended
profanity, I don't know what to make of it...
===========================
Record of feodaux of the court of Mons, about the revenue of 200
pounds constituee in April 1282, on the ground of Roeulx, by Eustace,
lord de Roeulx and of Trazegnies, with the profit of his/her uncle
Ernoul known as of Roeulx. (24 stepembre 1369, has Mons.) We Gilles,
lords de Riumont, knights, baillius of Hainnau, let know concealed
that, in front of us and in the presenche and or tesmoing pleiseurs
men of stronghold has very high and pitching prinche, nostre to shit
and redoubted signor, the count de Hainnau and of Holland, which for
cabbage espessciaument were apiellet there so much quo laws porle,
appeared himself personelement before lime pits like, in the court,
have Mons, haus homs and noble, mesires Mikiulz, lords de Ligne and of
Briffouel, knights, and dist that, of tampz passet, haus homs and
noble, lords Jehans, lords de Werchin and senescaus of Hainnau,
knights, and Robiers de Ligne, has che tampz prevos LED church of
Condet and uncles to that the signor of Line, estoient themselves milk
in the court, have Mons, and avoyent there aportet a letter holy and
entire, sayellee souffissamment selone content, liquelle, has to them
requeste, avoit the-place estet liute and comptenoit word for word
fourme and content which follows: Jou Eustases, lords dou Streets and
of Trasegnies, faich to know has all that jou has has men to shit
uncle Ernoul known as dou Rues and has its hoirs and sucesseurs
otryet, donnet and delivret deus chens livrees of tiere per annum Al
tournaments U monnoie coursaule in the contet of valiant Hainnau Al in
stronghold and homage, has to hold of my and my hoirs and my
sucesseurs, signeurs dou Ruelz, has tousjours, perpetuelement and
hiretaulement, lezquelles deus chens livrees of tiere I Li doy to
return has ij payemens cescun year, it is has to know: hundred books
has holy Nativitet Jehan-Baptist coming proism and hundred in
Christmas proism after suiwant, and ensy of year in year continuelment
and perpetuelement has tousjours, ensy as said is chy-deseure; which
deus chens livrees of tiere I Li ay asenes has to take and has to
rechevoir hiretaulement has tousjours on all the hedge dou Rues, sy as
it are estent, and fault y avoit that it I euwist cescun year the deus
chens livrees that it them must take Al tonniu, have foraiges, have
measurings, have furnaces et al. winaghe dou Ruelz has tousjours,
cescun year, ensy as known as is above. And if it avenoit still that I
fled in defaute of payment, in any U partly, of the deus chens books
dessusdittes, cascum year, U it them euwist does not have the hedge,
Al tonniu, have foraiges, have measurings, have furnaces et al.
winaghe dou Ruels, they is my likings, my assens and me volente that
Ernous, my chiers uncles dessudis puet to sell so much of the hedge
deseuredicte which it has cescun year has tousjours chens books lime
pits have paiemens, ensy as said is deseure. And Li then cest scent to
amenrir in all empartie jou, semi to hoir my sucessor. And if it
avenoit still that Ernouls, my chiers uncles dessusdis, euwist necks,
fresh U rammings has cabbage qu I Li did not pay the deus chens books
dessusdittes cescun year has tousjours, ensy as said is, I Li doy to
return all couls, fresh U rammings that it y auroit by said SEN,
without other proueve to make and the deus chsns books to amenrir,
cescun year and in such manner, has its oirs and has its successors,
without proueve to ask.
=======================================
Peter Stewart
<katheryn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ad678a5-9d6c-47c2...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Okay, so here's what Babelfish has to say about the fragment of a
> document I quoted earlier; other than the odd doubtless unintended
> profanity, I don't know what to make of it...
Nothing, or at least nothing whatever to the point - even the gibberish from
Babelfish shows that there is no information here about Paon de Ruet, no
clue or hint to help resolve any question about him, or indeed about Gilles
dit Paon.
This is fishing with a net cast far too wide for your own good. There is no
point in fixating on the family of Le Roeulx and their connections in the
13th or 14th century, or their extinction or the fate of their hereditary
possessions, since you have at present no reason at all beyond a rough
similarity of surname to link any of these to the actual subject of your
enquiries. Not even "the name's the same", but just similar enough to be
temptingly suggestive when there is nothing else to go on. That is no basis
for systematic research.
And you can't expect other people to drop whatever they are doing in order
to translate a document - that you chose not to tell us us is no. 512,
running over 7 pages (176-182) in vol. II of Desvillers edition - when the
summary of this is enough to show it is far off track for this discussion.
You need to apply some self-discipline in research, _before_ asking for
help.
Peter Stewart
JudyL...@gmail.com
FWIW, I _did_ know that it didn't directly concern Katherine Roet's
father. That certainly doesn't preclude me from having an interest in
what happened to the family (and, again, FWIW, I _did_ previously I
thought at least allude to there being a 5 to 7 page document I
couldn't read).
You say that there is 'no good fixating' on the Roeulx family... and
yet more than a serious researcher or two has done exactly that and
without being essentially called on the carpet as 'silly' for so
doing. I am doing my best to follow-up on the article by Lindsay
Brook on the subject in the FMG Foundations; is he undisciplined as
well?
I am not asking you or anyone else to 'drop what they're doing' ...
if you can and are willing, then I am grateful. If you can/not and
are/not willing, so be it and my thanks again for noticing.
The few nuggets I've been able to find regarding Katherine and her
family weren't found by my immediately assuming that something was a
'no-good fixation'; rather, they were found by following every lead as
far as I could follow, and I've spent nearly 30 years doing just that.
It's perhaps not how you would spend your time, or even advise me to
spend mine, but I do not comprehend your hostility. When you speak of
'self discipine' I hardly know what to think.
It's not as if I haven't read Turtin's Plantagenet Ancestry or the
Oxford DNB or CP; I've read John Matthews Manly and Edith Rickart and
Derek Pearsal and Lindsay Brook and Alison Weir and Margaret Galway
and George Williams and Lejeune, Plumet...; I've read what little
Froissart had to say and Kervyn de Lettenhove after him, as well as
criticisms of Froissart. I've tried to follow their paper trails as
well which does not strike me as an undisciplined approach; perhaps
you could advise what you would consider a disciplined approach. I
was not of the impression that following in the path of worthies was
derelict. I've done my best to trace names, positions, heraldry and
history and to try to understand them together in context.
If you thought that the document was a worthless lead, then it would
have been an even greater waste of bandwidth to tell you that it is
"no. 512, running over 7 pages (176-182) in vol. II of Desvillers
edition" which, "the
summary of this is enough to show it is far off track for this
discussion" apparently. Citation wouldn't have improved things for
you, would it have?1?
I really well and truly do not understand your hostility. You simply
could have passed. I am an amateur doing her best. I never pretended
to be anything but.
Judy
On Mar 15, 8:32 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> <katheryn.swynf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Peter Stewart
news:e0ad2596-4047-4070...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Wow. That was unkind.
>
> FWIW, I _did_ know that it didn't directly concern Katherine Roet's
> father.
It doesn't even indirectly concern Katherin Roet's father - that is my point
that you are studiously missing by casting yourself as the injured victim.
There is no hostility or unkindness involved - I am simply advising you to
think for yourself first, rather than requesting help in your fishing
expedition after red herrings.
The emotions are on your side, not mine. No-one but you has applied the word
"silly", that you misleadingly placed in inverted commas as if I had said
it.
There is nothing so far to connect Paon de Ruet to the family of Le Roeulx
except wishful thinking.
That is no sound basis for research, something you might have discovered for
yourself after 30 years.
> That certainly doesn't preclude me from having an interest in
> what happened to the family (and, again, FWIW, I _did_ previously I
> thought at least allude to there being a 5 to 7 page document I
> couldn't read).
You didn't need to read it any more than the 511 documents before it in the
edition - it is irrelevant, as the brief summary helpfully indicated.
> You say that there is 'no good fixating' on the Roeulx family... and
> yet more than a serious researcher or two has done exactly that and
> without being essentially called on the carpet as 'silly' for so
> doing. I am doing my best to follow-up on the article by Lindsay
> Brook on the subject in the FMG Foundations; is he undisciplined as
> well?
That article added nothing but to outline a possible line of enquiry that
had already been identified in 1926 with no progress since - "In summary,
our quarry is perhaps a cadet of the family of the Lords of Roeulx". Lindsay
Brook had already pursued this, as obviously had others before & since 1926,
in the edition by Desvillers as his citation of this work showed: it is you
who are implying Brook might be "silly" if you think he perhaps missed some
useful evidence there which you might turn up in a document you can't read.
> I am not asking you or anyone else to 'drop what they're doing' ...
> if you can and are willing, then I am grateful. If you can/not and
> are/not willing, so be it and my thanks again for noticing.
You asked for help, then when no-one gave this quickly enough you posted a
ridiculous translation from Babelfish, no doubt expecting that someone would
carefully correct this in the light of commonsense, as you had not bothered
to do for yourself & readers - even to the extent of removing an obviously
misplaced profanity.
> The few nuggets I've been able to find regarding Katherine and her
> family weren't found by my immediately assuming that something was a
> 'no-good fixation'; rather, they were found by following every lead as
> far as I could follow, and I've spent nearly 30 years doing just that.
>
> It's perhaps not how you would spend your time, or even advise me to
> spend mine, but I do not comprehend your hostility. When you speak of
> 'self discipine' I hardly know what to think.
Then look it up in a dictionary, and maybe you will save yourself & others a
lot of time over the next 30 years.
> It's not as if I haven't read Turtin's Plantagenet Ancestry or the
> Oxford DNB or CP; I've read John Matthews Manly and Edith Rickart and
> Derek Pearsal and Lindsay Brook and Alison Weir and Margaret Galway
> and George Williams and Lejeune, Plumet...; I've read what little
> Froissart had to say and Kervyn de Lettenhove after him, as well as
> criticisms of Froissart. I've tried to follow their paper trails as
> well which does not strike me as an undisciplined approach; perhaps
> you could advise what you would consider a disciplined approach. I
> was not of the impression that following in the path of worthies was
> derelict. I've done my best to trace names, positions, heraldry and
> history and to try to understand them together in context.
The lack of discipline is in supposing that any and every record of the Le
Roeulx family might be useful in tracking down Paon de Ruet, for whom we
have no evidence that he was even distantly related, and that your skimming
of Desvillers might uncover some "nugget" missed by capable researchers -
such as John Matthews Manly & Lindsay Brook - since 1926. When I quoted
Margaret Galway's 1960 article before, with citation, you asked if this was
from a different article by her from 1954 - yet you had yourself cited the
1960 work in print: this is the kind of timewasting fuddle that I mean by
lacking self-discipline in research.
> If you thought that the document was a worthless lead, then it would
> have been an even greater waste of bandwidth to tell you that it is
> "no. 512, running over 7 pages (176-182) in vol. II of Desvillers
> edition" which, "the summary of this is enough to show it is far off
> track for this discussion" apparently. Citation wouldn't have improved
> things for you, would it have?1?
Yes it would, as your transcription was plainly not accurate. That is why
books such are carefully edited and printed in the first place.
> I really well and truly do not understand your hostility. You simply
> could have passed. I am an amateur doing her best. I never pretended
> to be anything but.
No, you were not doing your best - and that is why calling you on this might
be more helpful in the longer run than immediately pandering to your
requirement for the translation of irrelevant screeds.
Peter Stewart
Derek Howard
> On Mar 15, 2:01 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > The coat of arms of the Roelx family ("Die He. V. Rues") was Argent
> > three lions rampant Gules. [Gelre roll of arms, no 1062, in "Gelre BR
> > Ms 15652-56", ed. van Helmont, Leuven 1992, p 340, illustrated page
> > 197].
>
> --Are you certain? The Lalaing and Wijnbergen armourials have the
> arms as Or, three lions rampant Gules. [This I believe I have from
> Brian Timm's website].
Well spotted, Judy. Mea cupla. My apologies, I was in a rush and my
eyes travelled between keyboard and book picking up the metal from the
next line by accident. I can confirm also from the Bellenville
armorial, fol 40v, no 772, for "rues reux" that it should be in
English blason: Or three lions Gules armed and langued Azure; and the
arms further appear so in the Bergshammar and Urfé armorials
[L'armorial Bellenville, ed Pastoureau and Popoff, éditions du Gui
2004, page 180].
> > This is _not_ the same as the arms recorded for Katherine de
> > Roet in England, which were canting arms. This suggests she was not
> > entitled to the Roelx arms and, if she was descended from them or
> > another knightly or noble family, she or possibly her father may have
> > been illegitimate.
>
> --Or, given that they are canting arms, which I believe were
> especially adopted by the English, that the arms are English. This
> could perhaps make sense but for the troublesome mark of a pierced
> mullet for difference recorded on the even more troublesome 1330s
> grant of arms to the brothers Andrewe by an unnamed Guyenne King of
> Arms, and that the same mark for difference was recorded as being used
> by Katherine Swynford ca. 1370s.
Whether Katherine's arms were meant to reflect the Katherine wheel or
the cant on the surname or both is unclear.
Wager [Heralds of England, 18] shows no surprise at the claimed
Chaucer relationship to a Guyenne king of arms though he does include
a caveat. I cannot lay my hands at the moment on the discussions I
have seen of this grant at the moment but it is quite clear the grant
itself must be considered very likely to be a fake [note for Peter:
very likely is my subjective judgement and I am happy to give
subjective judgements and stand by them. That is not the same as
giving evidence of absolute certainty one way or another, and there is
no point in debating it]. However, the only copies I am aware of of
the text of the 1334 "grant" are College of Arms, collections mss
20bis, fol. 2 and ms Vincent 88, p 16. The text of the 1476
confirmation occurs in a number of mss. While there were Guyenne Kings
of Arms in the 15th century, the evidence for Roet or similar to have
been operating under the title in the early 13th century is cyclical
relating to this alleged grant. Such grants were not issued by heralds
under their own hand before the 15th century though imperial and royal
grants are known from the 14th. I suspect that the late 15th century
creation provided a false antiquity based on 15th century values,
heralds' titles and forms of grant.
As for the mark of "difference", this may or may not have any
significance. Often mullets appear withor without piercing. Sometimes
it is consistent and sometimes not.
> > The chapter of the abbey of St Waudru at Mons was restricted to members
> > of the nobility. To have a position in the chapter would have required
> > proof of the appropriate noble quarters. At a much later date this was
> > legislated for in some detail but in essence had been the same since
> > its foundation.
>
> --Do you have a reference for this? I've been searching, in vain, for
> more information on this. As I said previously, it seemed to me in
> looking at some of the other records for canonesses at St. Waudru,
> that they tended to be from the upper-classes. What little else I
> think I've gleaned is that it was sort of a finishing school for these
> high-born ladies, that they were bound by obedience but not poverty,
> and that they could (and did) leave to marry. Does this sound about
> right?
To hand I have the 18th century rules for submitting the genealogical
proofs for admission:
Réglement sur les Preuves de Filiation & de Noblesse réquises pour
entrer aux Chapitres Nobles des Pays-Bas, 23 Sep 1769.
Déclaration de SAR donnnée sur la représentation des Chanoinesses des
Chapitres Nobles de Mons, de Nivelles & d'Andennes, 3 Nov 1770 (re:
proofs of filiation and nobility);
a further Intepretation, 10 Jan 1781;
a further Déclaration, 3 Nov 1770 (re: nobles estates and chapters);
a further Déclaration of the same day (re: the noble chapters of the
Empire).
[Recueil chronologique de tous les placards, édits, décrets, ...., pub
Jos Ermens, Bruxelles, 1785, pp 334-350].
By the 18th century the ladies were required to show 16 noble
quarterings. This may not have been the case in the 14th century but
nevertheless the ladies were clearly nobles (and with enough funds and
endowments for a major rebuild of an earlier carolingian building in
the mid 15th century). You are quite right that many of the ladies
later left and married.
As to the precise rules in the 14-15th century, I am not quite so sure
if anything survives. For more on the 15th century edifice I can give
a bibliography if required. It housed the 1451 chapter of the Golden
Fleece despite demolition works having started.
> > The Roelx family were a junior branch of the Counts of Hainault and
> > were extinct in 1336.
>
> --It's less that the line was extinct than it was that they ceded
> their patrimony back to the count of Hainault, which made the matter
> moot.
I shall check when I have time.
Derek Howard
Derek Howard
>
> > The coat of arms of the Roelx family ("Die He. V. Rues") was Argent
> > three lions rampant Gules. [Gelre roll of arms, no 1062, in "Gelre BR
> > Ms 15652-56", ed. van Helmont, Leuven 1992, p 340, illustrated page
> > 197].
>
> --Are you certain? The Lalaing and Wijnbergen armourials have the
> arms as Or, three lions rampant Gules. [This I believe I have from
> Brian Timm's website].
Well spotted, Judy. Mea cupla. My apologies, I was in a rush and my
eyes travelled between keyboard and book picking up the metal from the
next line by accident. I can confirm also from the Bellenville
armorial, fol 40v, no 772, for "rues reux" that it should be in
English blason: Or three lions Gules armed and langued Azure; and the
arms further appear so in the Bergshammar and Urfé armorials
[L'armorial Bellenville, ed Pastoureau and Popoff, éditions du Gui
2004, page 180].
> > This is _not_ the same as the arms recorded for Katherine de
> > Roet in England, which were canting arms. This suggests she was not
> > entitled to the Roelx arms and, if she was descended from them or
> > another knightly or noble family, she or possibly her father may have
> > been illegitimate.
>
> --Or, given that they are canting arms, which I believe were
> especially adopted by the English, that the arms are English. This
> could perhaps make sense but for the troublesome mark of a pierced
> mullet for difference recorded on the even more troublesome 1330s
> grant of arms to the brothers Andrewe by an unnamed Guyenne King of
> Arms, and that the same mark for difference was recorded as being used
> by Katherine Swynford ca. 1370s.
Whether Katherine's arms were meant to reflect the Katherine wheel or
the cant on the surname or both is unclear.
Wager [Heralds of England, 18] shows no surprise at the claimed
Chaucer relationship to a Guyenne king of arms though he does include
a caveat. I cannot lay my hands at the moment on the discussions I
have seen of this grant at the moment but it is quite clear the grant
itself must be considered very likely to be a fake [note for Peter:
very likely is my subjective judgement and I am happy to give
subjective judgements and stand by them. That is not the same as
giving evidence of absolute certainty one way or another, and there is
no point in debating it]. However, the only copies I am aware of of
the text of the 1334 "grant" are College of Arms, collections mss
20bis, fol. 2 and ms Vincent 88, p 16. The text of the 1476
confirmation occurs in a number of mss. While there were Guyenne Kings
of Arms in the 15th century, the evidence for Roet or similar to have
been operating under the title in the early 13th century is cyclical
relating to this alleged grant. Such grants were not issued by heralds
under their own hand before the 15th century though imperial and royal
grants are known from the 14th. I suspect that the late 15th century
creation provided a false antiquity based on 15th century values,
heralds' titles and forms of grant.
As for the mark of "difference", this may or may not have any
significance. Often mullets appear withor without piercing. Sometimes
it is consistent and sometimes not.
> > The chapter of the abbey of St Waudru at Mons was restricted to members
> > of the nobility. To have a position in the chapter would have required
> > proof of the appropriate noble quarters. At a much later date this was
> > legislated for in some detail but in essence had been the same since
> > its foundation.
>
> --Do you have a reference for this? I've been searching, in vain, for
> more information on this. As I said previously, it seemed to me in
> looking at some of the other records for canonesses at St. Waudru,
> that they tended to be from the upper-classes. What little else I
> think I've gleaned is that it was sort of a finishing school for these
> high-born ladies, that they were bound by obedience but not poverty,
> and that they could (and did) leave to marry. Does this sound about
> right?
To hand I have the 18th century rules for submitting the genealogical
proofs for admission:
Réglement sur les Preuves de Filiation & de Noblesse réquises pour
entrer aux Chapitres Nobles des Pays-Bas, 23 Sep 1769.
Déclaration de SAR donnnée sur la représentation des Chanoinesses des
Chapitres Nobles de Mons, de Nivelles & d'Andennes, 3 Nov 1770 (re:
proofs of filiation and nobility);
a further Intepretation, 10 Jan 1781;
a further Déclaration, 3 Nov 1770 (re: nobles estates and chapters);
a further Déclaration of the same day (re: the noble chapters of the
Empire).
[Recueil chronologique de tous les placards, édits, décrets, ...., pub
Jos Ermens, Bruxelles, 1785, pp 334-350].
By the 18th century the ladies were required to show 16 noble
quarterings. This may not have been the case in the 14th century but
nevertheless the ladies were clearly nobles (and with enough funds and
endowments for a major rebuild of an earlier carolingian building in
the mid 15th century). You are quite right that many of the ladies
later left and married.
As to the precise rules in the 14-15th century, I am not quite so sure
if anything survives. For more on the 15th century edifice I can give
a bibliography if required. It housed the 1451 chapter of the Golden
Fleece despite demolition works having started.
> > The Roelx family were a junior branch of the Counts of Hainault and
> > were extinct in 1336.
>
> --It's less that the line was extinct than it was that they ceded
> their patrimony back to the count of Hainault, which made the matter
> moot.
I shall check when I have time.
Derek Howard
katheryn...@gmail.com
> There is nothing so far to connect Paon de Ruet to the family of Le Roeulx
> except wishful thinking.
--Says who? Says you? Brook disagrees and has expressly invited
further investigation into exactly that line of pursuit which I
attempt to follow.
You continue with:
> That is no sound basis for research, something you might have discovered for
> yourself after 30 years.
--Clearly not the case.
> > That certainly doesn't preclude me from having an interest in
> > what happened to the family (and, again, FWIW, I _did_ previously I
> > thought at least allude to there being a 5 to 7 page document I
> > couldn't read).
>
> You didn't need to read it any more than the 511 documents before it in the
> edition - it is irrelevant, as the brief summary helpfully indicated.
>
> > You say that there is 'no good fixating' on the Roeulx family... and
> > yet more than a serious researcher or two has done exactly that and
> > without being essentially called on the carpet as 'silly' for so
> > doing. I am doing my best to follow-up on the article by Lindsay
> > Brook on the subject in the FMG Foundations; is he undisciplined as
> > well?
>
> That article added nothing but to outline a possible line of enquiry that
> had already been identified in 1926 with no progress since - "In summary,
> our quarry is perhaps a cadet of the family of the Lords of Roeulx". Lindsay
> Brook had already pursued this, as obviously had others before & since 1926,
> in the edition by Desvillers as his citation of this work showed: it is you
> who are implying Brook might be "silly" if you think he perhaps missed some
> useful evidence there which you might turn up in a document you can't read.
--I imply nothing of the kind.
> > I am not asking you or anyone else to 'drop what they're doing' ...
> > if you can and are willing, then I am grateful. If you can/not and
> > are/not willing, so be it and my thanks again for noticing.
>
> You asked for help, then when no-one gave this quickly enough you posted a
> ridiculous translation from Babelfish, no doubt expecting that someone would
> carefully correct this in the light of commonsense, as you had not bothered
> to do for yourself & readers - even to the extent of removing an obviously
> misplaced profanity.
--Again, you needn't have reacted. You could have ignored it. If you
felt in a mood to lecture, I would have patiently stood for a diatribe
on the silliness of using Babelfish for medieval French. An obviously
but consistently misplaced profanity FWIW. A profanity which I
prefaced its translation for those with tender eyes and sensibilities.
--Yes, of course I had hoped that somebody might assist me; does that
declare it open season on those seeking help?
> > It's perhaps not how you would spend your time, or even advise me to
> > spend mine, but I do not comprehend your hostility. When you speak of
> > 'self discipine' I hardly know what to think.
>
> Then look it up in a dictionary, and maybe you will save yourself & others a
> lot of time over the next 30 years.
--I requested assistance with reading a document that seems to pertain
to the financial fallout of the family some thirty years or more after
its implosion, a request you could have ignored with civility.
Instead, you respond with an ad hominem attack on me for even asking
the question after you and you alone declared it a closed subject.
>
> > It's not as if I haven't read Turtin's Plantagenet Ancestry or the
> > Oxford DNB or CP; I've read John Matthews Manly and Edith Rickart and
> > Derek Pearsal and Lindsay Brook and Alison Weir and Margaret Galway
> > and George Williams and Lejeune, Plumet...; I've read what little
> > Froissart had to say and Kervyn de Lettenhove after him, as well as
> > criticisms of Froissart. I've tried to follow their paper trails as
> > well which does not strike me as an undisciplined approach; perhaps
> > you could advise what you would consider a disciplined approach. I
> > was not of the impression that following in the path of worthies was
> > derelict. I've done my best to trace names, positions, heraldry and
> > history and to try to understand them together in context.
>
> The lack of discipline is in supposing that any and every record of the Le
> Roeulx family might be useful in tracking down Paon de Ruet, for whom we
> have no evidence that he was even distantly related, and that your skimming
> of Desvillers might uncover some "nugget" missed by capable researchers -
> such as John Matthews Manly & Lindsay Brook - since 1926. When I quoted
> Margaret Galway's 1960 article before, with citation, you asked if this was
> from a different article by her from 1954 - yet you had yourself cited the
> 1960 work in print: this is the kind of timewasting fuddle that I mean by
> lacking self-discipline in research.
--Correcting me, ever so correctly, on the Galway citation (and in all
fairness, she wrote so many articles in which she repeats herself to
make the same essential claim, namely, that most if not all of what
Chaucer wrote was directly related to her perceived influence of Joan
of Kent, that I clearly must have confused one with the other) still
has absolutely nothing to do with my attempting to track down what
relationship, if any, there was between the father of Katherine
Swynford and the Roeulx family of Hainault. You imply that I think
myself better than Manly and Brook, and yet Brook himself has
encouraged further study of the matter. Then, when someone does this,
rather ineptly it would seem in your view, you castigate that person
with a lack of 'self discipline' for doing exactly what Brook has
recommended. Most researchers point out the recurrence of the name in
its various spellings in the Cartulaire... but fail to translate them
or place them into context. You have evidently read them all and
declare that the rest of us needn't bother, but, without context for
the rest of us, it's not a convincing argument merely because you say
so.
>
> > If you thought that the document was a worthless lead, then it would
> > have been an even greater waste of bandwidth to tell you that it is
> > "no. 512, running over 7 pages (176-182) in vol. II of Desvillers
> > edition" which, "the summary of this is enough to show it is far off
> > track for this discussion" apparently. Citation wouldn't have improved
> > things for you, would it have?1?
>
> Yes it would, as your transcription was plainly not accurate. That is why
> books such are carefully edited and printed in the first place.
--Excuse me? Now this might be helpful. Not that I'm asking you to
'drop everything'...
> No, you were not doing your best - and that is why calling you on this might
> be more helpful in the longer run than immediately pandering to your
> requirement for the translation of irrelevant screeds.
--Perhaps you might enlighten me as to what my best is. And, calling
me on what exactly? My request for assistance in understanding a
document you have decreed irrelevant? Maybe it is irrelevant; but I
won't know and understand that until I know and understand the nature
of the document, will I? Because your saying so and my understanding
so are not the same thing.
And I really have difficulty believing you would want it that way.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Wager [Heralds of England, 18] shows no surprise at the claimed
> Chaucer relationship to a Guyenne king of arms though he does
> include a caveat. I cannot lay my hands at the moment on the
> discussions I have seen of this grant at the moment but it is quite
> clear the grant itself must be considered very likely to be a fake
> [note for Peter: very likely is my subjective judgement and I am
> happy to give subjective judgements and stand by them. That is
> not the same as giving evidence of absolute certainty one way
> or another, and there is no point in debating it].
Asserting that a subjective judgment is "almost certain" when it is
objectively nothing of the kind is, at the least, poor communication -
especially when you go on to imply that others did not read you correctly,
when the problem was apparently that you had not read the prior thread
attentively.
If it is now your "subjective judgment" that you can stand by this while
covering it with a layer of fog, then this is indeed "subjective"
obfuscation but to call it "judgment" is another misuse of terms.
Why can't some people just admit when they make a mistake that is pointed
out, or else keep quiet about it?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
admit chevrons on replies...
<katheryn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf10747f-9b28-48d6...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 15, 10:41 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > There is nothing so far to connect Paon de Ruet to the family of Le
> > Roeulx
> > except wishful thinking.
>
> --Says who? Says you?
Say the established facts of the case.
> Brook disagrees and has expressly invited further investigation into
> exactly
> that line of pursuit which I attempt to follow.
So undertake FURTHER investigation - that is MY POINT. You are just plodding
back-&-forth over the same ground as Manly in 1926 and Brook in 2003, and
expecting others to go with you.
> You continue with:
>
> > That is no sound basis for research, something you might have discovered
> > for yourself after 30 years.
>
> --Clearly not the case.
What are you trying to argue? This appears to be self-righteousness, without
meaning.
<snip>
> > That article added nothing but to outline a possible line of enquiry
> > that
> > had already been identified in 1926 with no progress since - "In
> > summary,
> > our quarry is perhaps a cadet of the family of the Lords of Roeulx".
> > Lindsay
> > Brook had already pursued this, as obviously had others before & since
> > 1926,
> > in the edition by Desvillers as his citation of this work showed: it is
> > you
> > who are implying Brook might be "silly" if you think he perhaps missed
> > some
> > useful evidence there which you might turn up in a document you can't
> > read.
>
> --I imply nothing of the kind.
Yes you do, by the implication that Brook might have missed some evidence in
the smae place that you are now delving for it. Look up "imply" in a
dictionary. Brook suggested further research, i.e. to look for new evidence,
not repetitive research where none had been found.
> > > I am not asking you or anyone else to 'drop what they're doing' ...
> > > if you can and are willing, then I am grateful. If you can/not and
> > > are/not willing, so be it and my thanks again for noticing.
> >
> > You asked for help, then when no-one gave this quickly enough you posted
> > a
> > ridiculous translation from Babelfish, no doubt expecting that someone
> > would
> > carefully correct this in the light of commonsense, as you had not
> > bothered
> > to do for yourself & readers - even to the extent of removing an
> > obviously
> > misplaced profanity.
>
> --Again, you needn't have reacted. You could have ignored it.
For more than a week I did pass in silence over your exasperating waste of
other people's time & your own energy.
> If you felt in a mood to lecture, I would have patiently stood for a
> diatribe
> on the silliness of using Babelfish for medieval French. An obviously
> but consistently misplaced profanity FWIW. A profanity which I
> prefaced its translation for those with tender eyes and sensibilities.
So what? It quite obviously did not belong in the context, and since you had
enough nous to work out what the summary meant you could have taken the
trouble to sort through this and other nonsense that the machine produced.
> --Yes, of course I had hoped that somebody might assist me; does that
> declare it open season on those seeking help?
The point I made, and that you are flailing to resist, is that people will
gladly assist someone who first makes the effort to help herself. The thread
before this sidetrack of your wounded pride showed that much.
> > > It's perhaps not how you would spend your time, or even advise me to
> > > spend mine, but I do not comprehend your hostility. When you speak of
> > > 'self discipine' I hardly know what to think.
> >
> > Then look it up in a dictionary, and maybe you will save yourself &
> > others a
> > lot of time over the next 30 years.
>
> --I requested assistance with reading a document that seems to pertain
> to the financial fallout of the family some thirty years or more after
> its implosion, a request you could have ignored with civility.
> Instead, you respond with an ad hominem attack on me for even asking
> the question after you and you alone declared it a closed subject.
By all means research the family of Le Roeulx and what happened to their
possessions - but if you pursue this under the same thread as "Sir
Paunettus" about Paon de Ruet you invite the assumption that the two
subjects of enquiry are practically linked already in your view. That is not
so. The suggstion of Manly in 1926, resumed by Brook in 2003, has turned out
to be a blind alley on the evidecne available to them. You have found - and
as far as we can tell you have systematically searched for - NOTHING NEW.
<snip>
> > No, you were not doing your best - and that is why calling you on
> > this might be more helpful in the longer run than immediately
> > pandering to your requirement for the translation of irrelevant screeds.
>
> --Perhaps you might enlighten me as to what my best is.
Your article in _Foundations_ on 'Katherine Roet's Swynfords', for starters,
as well as other posts to SGM, are far better than your recent effusions.
> And, calling me on what exactly?
The lack of self-discipline - and now I could add your preternatural
forgetfulness.
> My request for assistance in understanding a document you have
> decreed irrelevant? Maybe it is irrelevant; but I won't know and
> understand that until I know and understand the nature of the
> document, will I?
You already knew this from the summary, and you could further tell from what
you knew that Paon de Ruet would not occur in a charter from 1292, and that
you had no intermediate evidence to connect him to anyone who did occur in
the document - so it was not likely to prove fruitful even if Manly and
Brook had not read and understood it before you, was it?
> Because your saying so and my understanding so are not the same thing.
It's not _because_ I say so, but _why_ I say so.
> And I really have difficulty believing you would want it that way.
I don't, of course - this is just more imaginative irrelevance on your part.
Peter Stewart
Derek Howard
> "Derek Howard" <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote in message
Sorry, Peter, that you feel so very strongly about this. I cannot help
that. My statement which you find so obnoxious was "The term Paon is
almost certainly the word for peacock". You seem to be unable to read.
"Almost" indicates that it is not absolute. It indicates that it is
subjective. It indicates therefore that it is an opinion. Given the
context, and I have read a great many medieval texts and have taken an
interest in the low countries records for some time, I think I am
entitled to an opinion as are you. You too do no have the absolute
correct known origin of the word. You make subjective judgements also.
When we are discussing genealogical proofs we are of course entitled
to expect absolute certainty before accepting a pedigree - though the
nature of absolute certainty in the medieval period is often a matter
of debate. But when we are discussing hypothese to determine which are
more worthy of further investigation or not, we are entitled to our
opinions as to probability.
I have no axe to grind with regard to the question at hand but I do
suggest that less ad hominem attacks, more effort to help those who
ask questions, more readiness to consider in a civilised way points
drawn to the attention of the group, would not go amiss. No one is
asking anybody else to drop everything if they have no wish, no one is
requiring anyone else to participate in a thread.
Now get off your high horse and get back to your more constructive
other self.
Derek Howard
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> I have no axe to grind with regard to the question at hand but
> I do suggest that less ad hominem attacks, more effort to help
> those who ask questions, more readiness to consider in a
> civilised way points drawn to the attention of the group, would > not go amiss.
My "attack" was on the blatant misstatement that the name Paon "almost
certainly" meant peacock - this is not "ad hominem", whereas your
response in my view "almost certainly" has been.
See how easy it is to say what you mean and then stand by what you
say?
> No one is asking anybody else to drop everything if they have
> no wish, no one is requiring anyone else to participate in a
> thread.
Again, you ahve not been reading attentively. Judy posted her request
for help with the long document (mistranscribed and lacking a citation
to the printed text) on March 16, with the message timing at 5:46 am:
On Mar 16, 5:46 am, JudyLPe...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is from the first page-and-a-half of a document in the
> Cartulaire des Comtes de Hainaut.
>
> Can anyone help out with its meaning?
She then chivvied the newsgroup with patent gibberish from Babelfish,
obviously trying another tack to get what she wanted, on the _same
day_ at 1:47 pm:
On Mar 16, 1:47 pm, katheryn.swynf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Okay, so here's what Babelfish has to say about the fragment of
> a document I quoted earlier; other than the odd doubtless
> unintended profanity, I don't know what to make of it...
If a lapse of only 8 hours is not expecting other people when they
read her initial request to "drop everything" in order to help her, I
don't know what is.
> Now get off your high horse and get back to your more
> constructive other self.
I assume this means "Stop criticising Derek Howard", as there is no
"high horse" or "other self" involved. Just a misplaced "almost
certainly" on your part that has been weakly rationalised but not
effectively supported. This is a forum where rigour is applied to all
posts, no matter who these come from - and prickly overreactions like
yours are a sadly common waste of everybody's time & patience.
Peter Stewart
katheryn...@gmail.com
>
> Whether Katherine's arms were meant to reflect the Katherine wheel or
> the cant on the surname or both is unclear.
--Indeed. I agree for whatever little it is worth. It could be
either or both or neither. Since you have said somewhere that you
have developed an interest in the Low Countries, can you comment on
how common canting coats were there at that time?
> Wager [Heralds of England, 18] shows no surprise at the claimed
> Chaucer relationship to a Guyenne king of arms though he does include
> a caveat.
--Yes, I remember this.
I cannot lay my hands at the moment on the discussions I
> have seen of this grant at the moment but it is quite clear the grant
> itself must be considered very likely to be a fake [note for Peter:
> very likely is my subjective judgement and I am happy to give
> subjective judgements and stand by them. That is not the same as
> giving evidence of absolute certainty one way or another, and there is
> no point in debating it]. However, the only copies I am aware of of
> the text of the 1334 "grant" are College of Arms, collections mss
> 20bis, fol. 2 and ms Vincent 88, p 16. The text of the 1476
> confirmation occurs in a number of mss. While there were Guyenne Kings
> of Arms in the 15th century, the evidence for Roet or similar to have
> been operating under the title in the early 13th century is cyclical
> relating to this alleged grant. Such grants were not issued by heralds
> under their own hand before the 15th century though imperial and royal
> grants are known from the 14th. I suspect that the late 15th century
> creation provided a false antiquity based on 15th century values,
> heralds' titles and forms of grant.
--And I am very open to it not being genuine; I would simply like to
know on what grounds it was/is/has been declared a forgery, which I've
not been fruitful in finding.
> As for the mark of "difference", this may or may not have any
> significance. Often mullets appear withor without piercing. Sometimes
> it is consistent and sometimes not.
--In this particular case, it is finding a difference at all --
pierced or otherwise. Pre-Duchess of Lancaster status, the sole known
instance of her arms AFAIAA is three wheels (catherine? or not?) with
a pierced mullet for difference (ca. 1377 I believe, per Birch). Post-
marriage with John of Gaunt the representation is strictly three gold
catherine wheels on a field of gules. Maybe it means nothing, but
then, I wonder why it was picked for a fradulent usage. I don't
suppose this means that the Andrewes grant is not fraudulent... it
just makes me wonder in the absent of specific and useful commentary
to the contrary.
> > > The chapter of the abbey of St Waudru at Mons was restricted to members
> > > of the nobility. To have a position in the chapter would have required
> > > proof of the appropriate noble quarters. At a much later date this was
> > > legislated for in some detail but in essence had been the same since
> > > its foundation.
--Does the granting of a prebend indicate that the grantor paid the
entry of the named prebendary? (My apologies if this is an obviously
stupid question).
> > --Do you have a reference for this? ...
>
> To hand I have the 18th century rules for submitting the genealogical
> proofs for admission:
> Réglement sur les Preuves de Filiation & de Noblesse réquises pour
> entrer aux Chapitres Nobles des Pays-Bas, 23 Sep 1769.
> Déclaration de SAR donnnée sur la représentation des Chanoinesses des
> Chapitres Nobles de Mons, de Nivelles & d'Andennes, 3 Nov 1770 (re:
> proofs of filiation and nobility);
> a further Intepretation, 10 Jan 1781;
> a further Déclaration, 3 Nov 1770 (re: nobles estates and chapters);
> a further Déclaration of the same day (re: the noble chapters of the
> Empire).
> [Recueil chronologique de tous les placards, édits, décrets, ...., pub
> Jos Ermens, Bruxelles, 1785, pp 334-350].
> By the 18th century the ladies were required to show 16 noble
> quarterings. This may not have been the case in the 14th century but
> nevertheless the ladies were clearly nobles (and with enough funds and
> endowments for a major rebuild of an earlier carolingian building in
> the mid 15th century). You are quite right that many of the ladies
> later left and married.
>
> As to the precise rules in the 14-15th century, I am not quite so sure
> if anything survives. For more on the 15th century edifice I can give
> a bibliography if required. It housed the 1451 chapter of the Golden
> Fleece despite demolition works having started.
--Thank you for this information!
Kindest thanks for your input,
Peter Stewart
"Derek Howard" <dho...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:335b6a76-8dc3-4526...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 15, 7:26 pm, JudyLPe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 2:01 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
> >
> > > The chapter of the abbey of St Waudru at Mons was restricted to
> > > members of the nobility. To have a position in the chapter would
> > > have required proof of the appropriate noble quarters. At a much
> > > later date this was legislated for in some detail but in essence had
> > > been the same since its foundation.
> >
> > --Do you have a reference for this? I've been searching, in vain, for
> > more information on this. As I said previously, it seemed to me in
> > looking at some of the other records for canonesses at St. Waudru,
> > that they tended to be from the upper-classes. What little else I
> > think I've gleaned is that it was sort of a finishing school for these
> > high-born ladies, that they were bound by obedience but not poverty,
> > and that they could (and did) leave to marry. Does this sound about
> > right?
The secularisation of the canonesses was apparently complete by the time of
Ferdinand of Portugal, count of Flanders, who regulated the managment of
prebends in 1214. The ladies had not taken vows of perpetual chastity since
at least the late 12th century, and had retained some rights to personal
property that could be taken with them if leaving the cloister to marry.
I doubt that you will find formulated rules of nobility qualification
applying in 1349, but the first place to look would be the edition of the
various (I think two, but maybe more) medieval cartularies - _Chartes du
chapitre de Sainte-Waudru de Mons_, edited by Léopold Devillers & Ernest
Mathieu, 4 volumes (Brussels, 1899-1913).
It may also be useful to check _Description analytique de cartulaires et de
chartriers du Hainaut_, by Léopold Devillers, 8 volumes (Mons, 1865-1878),
and the analysis of the Sainte-Waudru charters by Ursmer Berlière in
_Annales du Cercle archéologique de Mons_ 27 (1897) pp. 311-328, also
Georges Despy, 'Note sur le sens de capitulum', _Archivum latinitatis Medii
Aevi. Bulletin Du Cange_ 20 (1950) 245-254.
Peter Stewart
Matt Tompkins
> The term paon meaning peacock can be found in any number of contexts,
> including heraldic, but the diminutive is recorded as "paoncel" rather than
> "paonnet".
That 'paoncel' and not 'paonet' is the only recorded diminutive form
of the noun 'paon' does not necessarily mean that 'Paonet' could not
have been a diminutive form of a personal name 'Paon'. In fact the
existence of a hypochoristic or pet version of the name in such a form
would be quite probable: -et was a suffix frequently used in the
formation of hypochoristic names at this time, in both English and
French.
There are even examples from England of names very similar to Paonet
or Paunettus. The modern English surname Pannett is believed to have
derived from just such a forename - a glance in Reaney and Wilson
provides the example of Thomas Paynet, listed in the 1332 Sussex
subsidy roll, and also Painotus de Norwude (1176, Devon - formed with
the equally common and effectively interchangeable suffix -ot). These
examples come from England, but they derive from a naming tradition
which England acquired from the continent.
Though it has to be said that English surname specialists usually
explain these names as diminutive forms of Pain, Payn, Payen, rather
than Paon.
Matt Tompkins
Peter Stewart
"Matt Tompkins" <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:99532759-daf8-4bd1...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The name we are after came from Hainaut, not from England.
"Paone(n)et" is recorded as the diminutive for paon meaning peon, while
"paoncel" is recorded as the diminutive for paon meaning peacock. The twain
have not yet met. That is the evidence we have to deal with, whatever we
wish to set alongside it as alternative possibilities.
What might have been, although not evidenced so only existing as a
projection of modern minds, however plausible it may seem, can only remain
supposition, not even rising to the "almost" certain. Frankly I don't see
the value of competing subjective opinons (mine included) on what _might_
have been, beyond the evidence. We could argue about this in a tighter or
wider circle, but it will remain a circular argument.
We can only work towards objective conclusions in a straight line from known
facts via logic. Paonet is not known to have been used as a diminutive for
"peacock", and no word for "peacock" is as yet established to have been used
as a name anyway. Who was ever called "Pavo"? If you want to maintain that
the name Paon perhaps did mean "peacock" after all, then there should be
examples in the form "Pavo", either because Paon was a new name occurring
spontaneously & fully formed at some late stage, that people who used it
understood to be derived from this word, or else it was an old name by the
14th century that at an earlier time would have taken a form closer to its
Latin origin.
Peter Stewart
Matt Tompkins
> "Matt Tompkins" <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > would be quite probable: -et was a suffix frequently used in the
> > formation of hypochoristic names at this time, in both English and
> > French.
<snip>
> > These
> > examples come from England, but they derive from a naming tradition
> > which England acquired from the continent.
> The name we are after came from Hainaut, not from England.
As I said, those examples come from England, but they derive from a
naming tradition
which England acquired from the continent. -et was a suffix
frequently used in the
formation of hypochoristic names at this time in both English and
French.
Matt Tompkins
Peter Stewart
The point is that -et was a suffix used commonly for words that were not
names, as was -cel. The first can be shown to have been attached to "paon"
from peon, the second to "paon" from pavo. Trying to mix and match these to
suit a particular case, with no instances to show, is not secure as to
etymology or historiography.
I don't dispute that the word "paon" could mean peacock at the time, but I
have not seen evidence to indicate that this was anybody's name. Are there
Latin texts referring to Gilles dit Paon de Ruet in Hainaut calling him
"Egidius dictus Pavo"?
Nor have I seen evidence of transferring the heraldic symbols of overlords
into names for their vassals or flunkeys - whether furred or feathered, this
seems a rather fatuous misreading of mere coincidence to me. Where are men,
heralds or otherwise, called Leopard or Unicorn? Or, closer to this
purported example from feathers, where are servants of a prince of Wales,
say, known as Ostrich?
Peter Stewart
wjhonson
_Cartulaire Des Comtes de Hainaut, pp. 321-22,
> and concerns the granting of a prebend to Elizabeth, daughter of Lord
> Giles, called Paonet de Ruet. Is it significant that Elizabeth is
> "Elizabet dicte dou Ruet..."
<snip>
> (27 juillet 1349, a Munich en Baviere.)
>
> Margareta, Dei gracia, Romanorum imperatrix, comitissa Hanonie,
> Hollandie, Zelandie ac demonia Frisie, venerabilibus personis nobisque
> in Christo dilectis, capitulo Beate Waldetgrudis Montensis,
> Cameracensis dyocesis, salutem et omne bonum. Cum nos canonicatum et
> prebendam ecclesie nostre predicte ad nostram collationem spectantem,
> per obitum quondam Beatricis de Wallaincourt, ipsius ecclesie cum
> decessit canonice prebendate, vacantes ad presens, nobili
> adolescentule Elizabet dicte dou Ruet domini Eidii dicti Paonet de
> Ruet filie,
-------------------------
I do think it's relevant that we have here an Elizabeth described as
"adolescent" in 1349. I had previously attached her as a daughter of
Giles Sire de Roeulx, and that this daughter Elizabeth married Sir
Nicholas Seigneur d'Aubrechicourt.
I think this was based on a suggestion by Douglas Richardson here back
in Feb 2007 ish. Now it would seem fairly clear she could not be this
wife who would have had to be in her 40's *at least* by this time.
Will Johnson
JudyL...@gmail.com
seem she did not marry at all.
Peter Stewart
> Also, inasmuch as Elizabeth died at St. Waudru in the 1360s, it would
> seem she did not marry at all.
This somewhat detracts from the idea that her father Gilles might have
belonged to the family of the lords of Le Roeulx, at least as a
legitimate scion - otherwise his only known daughter would have been a
potentially desirable bride from before 1349 & onwards. Yet his status
as a noble and a member of Empress Margaret's household would be
harder to explain if he was connected to that family by an
illegitimate link and so and cut off from any claim to share in their
rank or inheritance.
To this point it looks as if all we can say is: Katherine's father
Paon de Ruet from Hainault _may_ have been related to an older
contemporary there named Gilles (also called Paon) de Ruet, a minor
nobleman of unknown family, who had a daughter Elizabeth apparently
born ca 1330/35.
Peter Stewart
katheryn...@gmail.com
> On Mar 18, 9:47 am, JudyLPe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Also, inasmuch as Elizabeth died at St. Waudru in the 1360s, it would
> > seem she did not marry at all.
>
> This somewhat detracts from the idea that her father Gilles might have
> belonged to the family of the lords of Le Roeulx, at least as a
> legitimate scion - otherwise his only known daughter would have been a
> potentially desirable bride from before 1349 & onwards. Yet his status
> as a noble and a member of Empress Margaret's household would be
> harder to explain if he was connected to that family by an
> illegitimate link and so and cut off from any claim to share in their
> rank or inheritance.
Alison Weir makes the argument that there may have been a Roet
tradition of 'giving a daughter to God' based upon Philippa Chaucer's
daughter Elizabeth entering first St. Helen's Priory, London, and
secondly Barking Abbey in 1381, sponsored by John of Gaunt, as well as
a supposition that the Margaret Swynford also named by royal
nomination to a religious house in 1377 (along with Elizabeth Chaucer
in the same grant) was a daughter of Katherine Swynford.
Inasmuch as the Roeulx' family's fortunes seem to have imploded before
the time of Elizabeth Roeulx being granted the prebendary, it could
also be that this was a graceful gesture by the Empress Margaret to
one of the comital family's trusted supporting families which had lost
the ability to attract a mate for Elizabeth.
Peter Stewart
> On Mar 17, 4:55 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 9:47 am, JudyLPe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Also, inasmuch as Elizabeth died at St. Waudru in the 1360s, it would
> > > seem she did not marry at all.
>
> > This somewhat detracts from the idea that her father Gilles might have
> > belonged to the family of the lords of Le Roeulx, at least as a
> > legitimate scion - otherwise his only known daughter would have been a
> > potentially desirable bride from before 1349 & onwards. Yet his status
> > as a noble and a member of Empress Margaret's household would be
> > harder to explain if he was connected to that family by an
> > illegitimate link and so and cut off from any claim to share in their
> > rank or inheritance.
>
> Alison Weir makes the argument that there may have been a Roet
> tradition of 'giving a daughter to God' based upon Philippa Chaucer's
> daughter Elizabeth entering first St. Helen's Priory, London, and
> secondly Barking Abbey in 1381, sponsored by John of Gaunt, as well as
> a supposition that the Margaret Swynford also named by royal
> nomination to a religious house in 1377 (along with Elizabeth Chaucer
> in the same grant) was a daughter of Katherine Swynford.
Well, taking a prebend at Saint-Waudru was not exactly making
Elizabeth an oblate - it seems rather to have been placing her where
she would not be a professed nun and indeed leaving to marry remained
an option. I think the Almighty by 1349 was probably expecting a tad
more commitment from families making traditional gifts.
> Inasmuch as the Roeulx' family's fortunes seem to have imploded before
> the time of Elizabeth Roeulx being granted the prebendary, it could
> also be that this was a graceful gesture by the Empress Margaret to
> one of the comital family's trusted supporting families which had lost
> the ability to attract a mate for Elizabeth.
But did the Le Roeulx family suffer some untold disaster, somehow
affecting every living member at once, or did it actually become
extinct in 1336? I'm not clear what evidence is relied on to suggest
their "fortunes seem to have imploded" rather than that their
bloodline simply came to an end, as Kervyn de Lettenhove implied.
If it is just that people called de Ruet were still around and assumed
to be related, that appears to be an argument as circular as a
Catherine wheel. But if there is solid evidence for the simultaneous
dispossession of Le Roeulx kinsmen and something more clearly focused
than "Roeulx = Rues = Ruet" to link Gilles dit Paon to this reversal,
then it is a different story.
Peter Stewart