Who was Queen Clementia?
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/21/01 12:46:38 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< This is the same Clemence we have been talking about, just given
a different surname. How is it then more likely that Clemence le
Boteler de Verdun is any more likely than Clemence de Dauntsey de
Verdun? >>
It is not ... I meant mother of Rohese, not Joan. Sorry.
Actually, it seems that the identification of this Clemence as mother of Joan
is wrong but we have found the proper surname for her. I think the kinship
problem is one that cannot be overcome ... the chronology itself could
actually work, but Chris seemed to nail this line shut with his research in
finding a later marriage in a prohibited degree.
I suppose it would be good to find the actual mother of Joan -- but it is not
likely to give a better ancestry to the family than the one found with King
John.
Paul Reed mentioned before that there was a theory that the actual Queen
Clemence referred to by the chronicles was an error by the chronicler in
confusing the wives. Paul's quote was: "Dugdale states that Ranulph divorced
Constance because King John had been having relations with her. Jacobs
theorized that the gossip was that Joan's mother was a wife of Earl Ranulph
who had a child by King John. He further theorized that the Tewkesbury
scribe, knowing that the wife of the Earl was at that time named Clemence,
confused the two women."
In other words, the mother of Joan was Constance and the name of Queen
Clementia was an error because Ranulph was remarried to a woman named
Clemence or Clementia and the writer confused the issue. Certainly this is a
possibility that needs further exploration. Some questions arise from this
theory though. 1) Would having a child with John been grounds for divorce? 2)
Joan was acknowledged by John and given a very good marriage by his efforts
... so why would there be gossip and why would the child not be known to
Ranulph before his marriage?
- Ken
Roz Griston
-----Original Message-----
From: KHF...@aol.com [SMTP:KHF...@aol.com]
In other words, the mother of Joan was Constance and the name of Queen
Clementia was an error because Ranulph was remarried to a woman named
Clemence or Clementia and the writer confused the issue.
-Ken
there ya go.. was a civil servant that messed up the entry. :-))
roz
Owzat45
mother of Joan, as "Clementina (sic), wife of Henry Pinel". She gives no
authority or source (though she lists several biographies of John as
"recommended reading"). Does anyone know where the reference to Henry Pinel
has come from?
John Carter
Douglas Richardson
KHF...@aol.com wrote in message news:<51.149b98b...@aol.com>...
> In a message dated 11/21/01 12:46:38 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << This is the same Clemence we have been talking about, just given
> a different surname. How is it then more likely that Clemence le
> Boteler de Verdun is any more likely than Clemence de Dauntsey de
> Verdun? >>
>
> It is not ... I meant mother of Rohese, not Joan. Sorry.
>
> Actually, it seems that the identification of this Clemence as mother of Joan
> is wrong but we have found the proper surname for her. I think the kinship
> problem is one that cannot be overcome ... the chronology itself could
> actually work, but Chris seemed to nail this line shut with his research in
> finding a later marriage in a prohibited degree.
Dear Ken ~
Chris noted that a descendant of Princess Joan's intermarried with a
descendant of Rohese de Verdun's. That's old news. It doesn't "nail"
anything, Ken. People sometimes failed to get a needed dispensation.
Read the papal registers for lots of evidence of that. Also not all
dispensed marriages are recorded in the papal registers. Whether a
couple nearly related got a dispensation or not can not be used to
prove that a couple were near related. It can only be used if the
couple got a dispensation and the relationship of the two parties is
stipulated in the dispensation. Then you have evidence. Even then,
I've found three cases where the parties deliberately misled the Pope
as to the nature of their relationsip. So you have to be extremely
careful.
> I suppose it would be good to find the actual mother of Joan -- but it is not
> likely to give a better ancestry to the family than the one found with King
> John.
>
> Paul Reed mentioned before that there was a theory that the actual Queen
> Clemence referred to by the chronicles was an error by the chronicler in
> confusing the wives. Paul's quote was: "Dugdale states that Ranulph divorced
> Constance because King John had been having relations with her. Jacobs
> theorized that the gossip was that Joan's mother was a wife of Earl Ranulph
> who had a child by King John. He further theorized that the Tewkesbury
> scribe, knowing that the wife of the Earl was at that time named Clemence,
> confused the two women."
>
> In other words, the mother of Joan was Constance and the name of Queen
> Clementia was an error because Ranulph was remarried to a woman named
> Clemence or Clementia and the writer confused the issue. Certainly this is a
> possibility that needs further exploration. Some questions arise from this
> theory though. 1) Would having a child with John been grounds for divorce? 2)
> Joan was acknowledged by John and given a very good marriage by his efforts
> ... so why would there be gossip and why would the child not be known to
> Ranulph before his marriage?
What's your point? That John had sexual relations with many women?
We know that he did. Or that a woman named Constance has a different
name than Clemence? You've me confused there, Ken. We're
discussing the evidence that Clemence, wife of Nicholas de Verdun, was
the mother of Joan, wife of Llywellyn ap Iorwerth. We're not
discussing every Clemence that ever lived or every woman that King
John had relations with.
It seems that a more relevant issue is whether or not foreign hostages
were placed with their English relatives. We know that Susanna,
daughter of Llywelyn and Joan, was placed with Nicholas and Clemence
de Verdun. If the placement of Susanna falls into a larger pattern
of placing hostages with relatives, then that's something worth
talking about.
A contemporary example of a hostage who was placed with a relative is
the unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, who about
the year 1212 was placed with Robert Fitz Roger, ancestor of the
Clavering family. Alan's wife (and the mother of the child) was a
niece of Robert Fitz Roger. The child died while being held hostage
in England.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
P.S. Two examples of well known couples who failed to obtain the
required dispensation for marriage are Eleanor of Aquitaine and her
first husband, King Louis of France, and, Alan Fitz Roland and his 2nd
wife, Margaret of Huntingdon. Both couples surely knew they were near
related and married anyway. King Louis subsequently asked for a
divorce from Eleanor on grounds of consanguinity. Alan and Margaret
subsequently obtained a dispensation for their consanguinity and
remained married.
Renia
the following footnote on page 428.
Q
The names of some of his (King John's) mistresses are known. He gave a handsome
present of clothes to a certain Suzanne who is described as 'domicella, amica
domini Regis' [Rot. Misae 14 Jo. (ed. Cole), p. 267]. The mother of his
illegitimate daughter Joan, who married Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, is said to be
Clementia, [Annals of Tewkesbury, sub anno 1236]. He had a not inconsiderable
family of bastards besides Joan: Geoffrey [Curia Regis Rolls, iii. 321], John
[Rot. Lit. Pat., p. 117], Oliver [Mat. Paris, iii. 41], Richard [Wendover, iv.
29], and doubtless others.
UNQ
Renia
Paul C. Reed
> The Oxford History of England series, vol From Domesday Book To Magna Carta, has
> the following footnote on page 428.
>
> Q
> The names of some of his (King John's) mistresses are known. He gave a handsome
> present of clothes to a certain Suzanne who is described as 'domicella, amica
> domini Regis' [Rot. Misae 14 Jo. (ed. Cole), p. 267]. The mother of his
> illegitimate daughter Joan, who married Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, is said to be
> Clementia, [Annals of Tewkesbury, sub anno 1236]. He had a not inconsiderable
> family of bastards besides Joan: Geoffrey [Curia Regis Rolls, iii. 321], John
> [Rot. Lit. Pat., p. 117], Oliver [Mat. Paris, iii. 41], Richard [Wendover, iv.
> 29], and doubtless others.
> UNQ
>
> Renia
>
Wasn't there also a Henry, who John styled as 'Henry, who says he is my son,
but who is actually my nepos' but who was recognized as his brother by John's
legitimate son Henry?
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
Brava!
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3BFEB9AE...@btinternet.com...
Amanda Jones
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> P.S. Two examples of well known couples who failed to obtain the
> required dispensation for marriage are Eleanor of Aquitaine and her
> first husband, King Louis of France, and, Alan Fitz Roland and his 2nd
> wife, Margaret of Huntingdon. Both couples surely knew they were near
> related and married anyway. King Louis subsequently asked for a
> divorce from Eleanor on grounds of consanguinity. Alan and Margaret
> subsequently obtained a dispensation for their consanguinity and
> remained married.
>
Weren't Eleanor and Henry II also within the prohibited degrees? And would
it not have been an annulment, rather than a divorce?
Amanda
B.M. Kamp
>
> A contemporary example of a hostage who was placed with a relative is
> the unnamed daughter of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, who about
> the year 1212 was placed with Robert Fitz Roger, ancestor of the
> Clavering family. Alan's wife (and the mother of the child) was a
> niece of Robert Fitz Roger. The child died while being held hostage
> in England.
>
It seems that this statement contains a elements of the answer to my earlier
question concerning the mother of Helen of Galloway, married (about 1220) to
Roger de Quincy, 2nd earl of Winchester. CP says Helen was the second but
eldest surviving daughter of Alan of Galloway. Apparently the unnamed
daughter, held as hostage, was then the eldest child.
Two members of this group mentioned a Helen of the Isles (or de Lisle) as
mother of Helen of Galloway. Helen of the Isles "said to be the daughter of
Reginal (Lord of the Isles) MacSomerled". Reginald is mentioned in CP under
Isles as the first to be styled "lord of the Isles", without any reference
to his wife or to a daughter. He died 1207.
Combining these two pieces of information Helen of the Isles would then be
a daughter of Reginald Lord of the Isles and his wife, sister of Roger Fitz
Roger. I wonder if there is any information confirming this theory.
Who were the parents of Roger fitz Roger? Is it known how Robert fitz Roger
(x ca 1260 Margery de La Zouche), discussed earlier by this group (Euphemia
de Clavering) descends from Roger fitz Roger? Chronogically it seems
unlikely that Robert is son of this Roger.
Thanks in advance and regards to all,
Bert M. Kamp
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
>
> P.S. Two examples of well known couples who failed to obtain the
> required dispensation for marriage are Eleanor of Aquitaine and her
> first husband, King Louis of France, and, Alan Fitz Roland and his 2nd
> wife, Margaret of Huntingdon. Both couples surely knew they were near
> related and married anyway. King Louis subsequently asked for a
> divorce from Eleanor on grounds of consanguinity. Alan and Margaret
> subsequently obtained a dispensation for their consanguinity and
> remained married.
>
> ______________________________
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/23/01 10:46:22 AM, royala...@msn.com writes:
<< It seems that a more relevant issue is whether or not foreign hostages
were placed with their English relatives. We know that Susanna,
daughter of Llywelyn and Joan, was placed with Nicholas and Clemence
de Verdun. If the placement of Susanna falls into a larger pattern
of placing hostages with relatives, then that's something worth
talking about. >>
This aspect does seem to have been badly ignored in this forum. It may be
just the evidence needed to document the mother of Joan. For what reason was
Susanna made hostage? She was the granddaughter of King John, so one would
expect that he would insist upon the best treatment for her. If Clemence is
Joan's mother, then Susanna would have been put in the custody of her blood
grandmother and her step-grandfather. That does make sense and with the
property transfers should be a key identifier.
So far as chronology goes, Paul's examples were highly stretched. His
guesstimates leave a lot of room. On the low end, they can work -- on the
high end they are suspect. However, since there is not a new surname,
perhaps this chronology is changed. I would love to hear Doug's version of
the chronology.
<< Chris noted that a descendant of Princess Joan's intermarried with a
descendant of Rohese de Verdun's. That's old news. It doesn't "nail"
anything, Ken. >>
I believe he came up with a second cousin relationship. I would love to see
a chart of this. There seem to be some parallels in the identity with that
of Henry and Eleanor.
Eleanor was much older than Henry -- perhaps Clemence was much older than her
second husband. Eleanor and Henry were related -- as she was with Louis as
well. It may have been a convenient thing to marry a relative in those
particular times. If there was a barren marriage, one could easily annul it
for reasons of kinship and get a new wife that could produce an heir.
- Ken
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>
KHF...@AOL.com
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
> However, since there is not a new surname,
> perhaps this chronology is changed.
Not a new surname? Ken, now you have me thoroughly confused. Was not
the initial claim that the mother of Joan was Clemence de Dauntsey, daughter
of Sir Roger de Dauntsey? Then this was disproved, and we discovered
that Clemence was daughter of Philip le Butiller. So isn't the new surname
of the Clemence in question 'Le Buttiler'?
[further snippage]
> I believe he came up with a second cousin relationship. I would love to see
> a chart of this.
I guess you missed my post. Were you perhaps looking for something
in a different format?
I had posted:
Line 1:
1) Clemence de Dauntsey {le Butiller} = Nicholas de Verdun
2) Rohese de Verdun = Theobald le Botiler
3) Maud le Botiler = John FitzAlan
4) John FitzAlan = Isabel de Mortimer
Line 2:
1) [Clemence de Dauntsey {le Butiller}] = King John
2) Joan = Llwelyn
3) Gwladys = Ralph de Mortimer
4) Roger de Mortimer = Maud de Briouze
5) Isabel de Mortimer = John FitzAlan
I still think Clemence de Broc is a better candidate on chronological
grounds. What do you think about Clemence de Broc, Ken?
Paul
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post and worthwhile comments.
I earlier put the difference in ages between Joan, wife of Prince
Llywelyn, and Rohese de Verdun, wife of Theobald le Boteler, at
approximately 20 years. This is based on the dates of their
respective marriages. However, I believe I mentioned that some time
ago, I came across a reference to a charter issued by Rohese de Verdun
in which she mentioned her husbands (plural). Since it doesn't appear
that Rohese remarried after Theobald le Boteler's death in 1230, it
would appear that Rohese had an earlier marriage than the one in 1225
to Theobald le Boteler. If so, then Rohese was possibly 5-10 years
closer in age to Joan than I previously estimated. We know, for
instance, that Theobald le Boteler was born about 1200, and also that
he had a prior marriage to Joan de Marsh. As such, there is nothing
to prevent Theobald's 2nd wife, Rohese, from being born closer to
1200, than to 1210, and from her also having had a prior marriage.
The closer to 1200 Rohese's birth is, the less of a chronology problem
exists between her and her putative sister, Princess Joan.
So far, I haven't been able to find the specific charter in which
Rohese named her husbands {plural). However, I seem to recall that it
was a charter she issued to Grace Dieu Abbey in Leicestershire. This
abbey was founded by one of Rohese's Verdun ancestors. This past week
I discovered a royal confirmation dated 1241 in the Calendar of
Charter Rolls, vol. 1 (1903), pg. 265. This confirmation is for a
charter previously issued by "Roesia de Verdun," whereby she granted
the manor and advowson of Belton, co. Leicester to Grace Dieu Abbey.
Quite possible this is the charter in which Rohese refers to having
had more than one husband. Rohese's charter confirmed by the king
presumably dates from the period, 1230-1241, after Rohese had obtained
her inheritance and after Theobald le Boteler's death, but before the
king confirmed the charter. Hopefully an abstract of Rohese's
charter exists some place in print. In any case, more work needs to
be done before we have a firm grip on the chronology of all the
parties involved in this matter.
Regarding the issue of near related couples who failed to obtain
proper dispensation, unless I'm mistaken, Eleanor of Aquitaine failed
to obtain the necessary papal dispensation for either of her two
marriages. I don't have full particulars on this, though. Perhaps
someone more knowledgeable than I can kindly shed some light on this
interesting issue.
Also, I'm hoping that someone can soon report on the policy of foreign
hostages being placed with their English relatives. Perhaps we can
start with the case of Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway, whose
daughter was placed with her mother's uncle while she was a hostage in
England.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
KHF...@aol.com wrote in message news:<125.7ee368...@aol.com>...
Paul C. Reed
> So far, I haven't been able to find the specific charter in which
> Rohese named her husbands {plural). However, I seem to recall that it
> was a charter she issued to Grace Dieu Abbey in Leicestershire.
If it was, the abstract was not in Dugdale. You mentioned an Irish source.
I am surprised you did not keep the citation in your notes, given the high
profile of this discovery. As you were going to publish it, having formulated
an article to be published in The Genealogist, I thought you would have it
on hand, rather than sending me on a wild goose chase (which you did).
> This abbey was founded by one of Rohese's Verdun ancestors.
Grace Dieu was founded by Rohese, which I thought I'd posted.
> This past week
> I discovered a royal confirmation dated 1241 in the Calendar of
> Charter Rolls, vol. 1 (1903), pg. 265. This confirmation is for a
> charter previously issued by "Roesia de Verdun," whereby she granted
> the manor and advowson of Belton, co. Leicester to Grace Dieu Abbey.
Glad you made this "discovery." I somehow thought I'd made reference to
this on Nov. 20:
10 Dec. 1241, Inspeximus and confirmation of a charter of Rohesia de Verdun
granting to St. Mary and the church of Holy Trinity de la Grace Dieu at Belton
he manor and advowson of Belton [Cal. Charter Rolls 1:265].
[snip]
> Hopefully an abstract of Rohese's
> charter exists some place in print.
That would be Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, which I quoted in Latin.
> In any case, more work needs to
> be done before we have a firm grip on the chronology of all the
> parties involved in this matter.
[snip]
> Also, I'm hoping that someone can soon report on the policy of foreign
> hostages being placed with their English relatives.
I was hoping that as you brought it up, you might have made such a study
to support your opinion which you might share with us so we could judge it
for ourselves.
Sincerely,
Paul
PS: Ken, I'm still fascinated by what you think of the chronology of
Clemencia de Broc.
Renia
> KHF...@aol.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > However, since there is not a new surname,
> > perhaps this chronology is changed.
>
> Not a new surname? Ken, now you have me thoroughly confused. Was not
> the initial claim that the mother of Joan was Clemence de Dauntsey, daughter
> of Sir Roger de Dauntsey? Then this was disproved, and we discovered
> that Clemence was daughter of Philip le Butiller. So isn't the new surname
> of the Clemence in question 'Le Buttiler'?
Not so much a surname, as an occupation or position, quite possibly.
Renia
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > Hopefully an abstract of Rohese's
> > charter exists some place in print.
Paul Reed replied:
> That would be Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, which I quoted in Latin.
(Paul having previously posted)
<<
The actual charter reads [Dugdale's Mon, Angl. 6:567]: "Sciant praesentes et
futuri quod ego Roesia de Verdun concessi et hac praesenti carta mea
confirmavi...
pro me et haeredibus meis, et animabus parentum meorum, et omnium
antecessorum meorum, ac maritorum...."
>>
Perhaps I'm being stupid, but isn't the "maritorum" bit referring to (the
souls of somebody's) husbands? It would be clearer if there were a "meorum"
after it to specify "my husbands", but I can't think what else it could
mean.
Chris Phillips
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
>It seems that a more relevant issue is whether or not foreign hostages
>were placed with their English relatives. We know that Susanna,
>daughter of Llywelyn and Joan, was placed with Nicholas and Clemence
>de Verdun. If the placement of Susanna falls into a larger pattern
>of placing hostages with relatives, then that's something worth
>talking about.
The problem is that we have not yet seen any evidence presented that
this was the case. Providing a few examples in which hostages were
placed with relatives does not make a reasonable case. In order for
such an argument to have any force at all, it must be shown that it
was USUALLY the case, and not just that it was SOMETIMES the case.
To give another example, I would have little difficulty producing
quite a few examples of cases in which person X killed person Y, and X
and Y were in fact close relatives. Having produced some examples of
this, would I then be justified in taking a random case in which X
killed Y, and using that as evidence that X was closely related (or
even probably related) to Y? The answer is clearly "Of course not."
Providing a few examples does not represent a valid correlation.
It is the same with placing hostages. If it is to be demonstrated
that there is some correlation between placing hostages and being
related, then such a claimed correlation must be backed up by
something more than anecdotal evidence, which is all that we have seen
to date.
Stewart Baldwin
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for your post, Chris. Good observation.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Rosie Bevan
point so we don't actually know to whom the husbands belong. The
implication is that they belong to Rohese but we don't know that for sure.
I think the use of her own name after 1230 is not conclusive evidence that
she did not remarry. After all she did not use the name of her first husband
so she might not use the name of a second husband either.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun: Dispensations and Hostages
>
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > > Hopefully an abstract of Rohese's
> > > charter exists some place in print.
>
> Paul Reed replied:
> > That would be Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, which I quoted in Latin.
>
JJupar
The Pine or Pyne family were based in Devon near Barnstaple, for over 350
years and later became the Pyne-Coffin family.
Regards
JUDY.
Paul C. Reed
> I agree Chris. The meaning is vague and the sentence is truncated at a vital
> point so we don't actually know to whom the husbands belong. The
> implication is that they belong to Rohese but we don't know that for sure.
>
I agree that the most natural conclusion would normally be that Rohese
had more than one husband, but it is the vagueness that bothers me.
Further, it seems odd that it would be at the end. Kind of makes one
think she didn't have much fondness for them. One is almost tempted
to translate atque as "and even...."
>
> I think the use of her own name after 1230 is not conclusive evidence that
> she did not remarry. After all she did not use the name of her first husband
> so she might not use the name of a second husband either.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
Thanks for the observations and help. I thought that the references in the
Close Rolls, etc., were usually acts of Rohese as an unmarried woman.
If she had remarried, her husband would have had to join in.
It is conceivable that Rohese married before she wed Theobald le Boteler.
What we know is that no children survived, if such a marriage took place.
It makes one wonder if she married at an age too young to produce heirs.
I also seem to remember that the King not only asked Rohese to
marry Theobald, he also petitioned Nicholas de Verdun, her father.
If one were going to place a girl--especially one's granddaughter--as
a 'hostage,' one would want to be certain that she would have the
proper care, hence the inclusion of Clemence in the agreement.
Should something happen to Nicholas de Verdun, Susanna would
still be in the hands of her mentor. Bertran de Verdun, Nicholas's
father, was an important man, close to his king, but not a member
of the royal entourage. I have already detailed some of the counties
they had lands (I should also have included Oxfordshire). Nicholas
de Verdun rebelled against King John, but prominent persons,
pardoned, were of use.
Nicholas de Verdun and his wife Clemence were of such a status
that should no relationship with Susanna have been suspected,
no one would bat an eye.
Again, BEFORE one can use the argument of suspected
relationship as an argument for such a relationship, you must
show it to be a valid claim. Only opinion has been set forth.
And any such status should specifically focus on FEMALE
hostages.
Paul
Paul
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
> If one were going to place a girl--especially one's granddaughter--as
> a 'hostage,' one would want to be certain that she would have the
> proper care, hence the inclusion of Clemence in the agreement.
I should have pointed out, as Robert Battle did, that it was Henry who
was king, and the girl in question his niece.
[snip]
> Again, BEFORE one can use the argument of suspected
> relationship as an argument for such a relationship, you must
> show it to be a valid claim. Only opinion has been set forth.
> And any such study should specifically focus on FEMALE
> hostages.
Let me rephrase this. A claim has been made that hostages were
almost always put with their relatives. This is based, thus far,
solely on opinion (an opinion that conflicts with others). No
study has been presented to support that opinion.
Before one can state, "Hostages were put with relatives, so there
must be a relationship in this situation" one must show that female
hostages were indeed usually placed with relatives. The burden
of proof is on the person making the claim. He should not expect
others to go out and find the proof for him. He should be capable
of proving his point, if it is correct.
Paul
Rosie Bevan
From: "Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun: Dispensations and Hostages
> Further, it seems odd that it would be at the end. Kind of makes one
> think she didn't have much fondness for them. One is almost tempted
> to translate atque as "and even...."
That's exactly what I thought. Usually you find the spouse near the
beginning of those for whom souls are to be prayed. I wonder if she was
forced into a disparaging marriage.
.
> What we know is that no children survived, if such a marriage took place.
> It makes one wonder if she married at an age too young to produce heirs.
> I also seem to remember that the King not only asked Rohese to
> marry Theobald, he also petitioned Nicholas de Verdun, her father.
Does this imply that Rohese was not actually in the king's gift and that is
why he petitioned Nicholas de Verdun and 'asked' Rohese to marry Theobald?
Or was this part of the procedure of being in the king's gift and one was
expected to do as one was told as under King John, despite Magna Carta?
Cheers
Rosie
Paul C. Reed
Rosie Bevan wrote:
Whether a ward or widow, the king could not at this time force
a woman to marry. The king could choose a husband for a ward, but
consent was still necessary for a valid marriage (it makes one wonder
if those instances where a girl is taken captive, ravished and married,
if it was not more of an excuse to go off and have a marriage that
would not have been permitted).
A royal ward or widow could not marry without the king's
consent, or they could be fined, their lands taken away, or worse.
Magna Carta guarenteed that the king could not distrain a widow's
lands. The king could not withhold a widow's maritagium,
inheritance, and dower on her husband's death. Yet we hear of no
order to give Rohese dower before 1231, after the death of
Theobald le Boteler, and none afterwards before her death.
That is an important point. It would be expected, if she were a
widow before her marriage to Theobald, she would have taken
someone's dower with her--presumably someone important-- yet
there is no record of any such thing.
In 1184, Gilbert de Plumpton was put in chains and accused of
raping a girl in royal custody and marrying her without license.
It is said that if a ward refused marriage in the twelfth century, the
guardians would retain custody of the lands until the ward satisfied
them of the value of the marriage. The statutes of Merton and
Westminster stipulated how a lord would be compensated for a
ward's refusal to marry. But then, a ward could not be compelled
to marry, nor did they forfeit lands for such a refusal. When
Thomas Bardolf refused to be married, all Edward I could do was
order his men to be as hard on Thomas as they could be without
breakling the law.
BUT in this case, there was no escheat of land. Nicholas de Verdun
was not dead. Rohese was not a royal ward. Nicholas and Rohese
could arrange for whatever marriage they thought worthy.
I would like to emphasize that though there is a complete run of the
Close Rolls during the period in question, there is only ONE entry
giving Rohese her rights (the one in 1231, after the death of her
husband Theobald le Boteler).
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/25/01 10:47:19 PM, bat...@u.washington.edu writes:
<< The king at the time of the document in question was Henry III, not John.
-Robert Battle >>
You seem to know something of this document and its history. Could you please
share with uw what you have discovered?
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/25/01 11:47:36 PM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< (1) Clemence le Butiller
(2) Clemence de Fougers
(3) Clemence de Broc
I am not of the opinion that they have identical chronologies.>>
So what is known of Clemence de Fougers?
We have your guesstimate on Clemence le Buitiller. It seems that her
daughter Rohese had an earlier husband and this earlier marriage could make
your estimate off a good ten years. That alters the chronology you posted.
Even without this alteration, these are educated guesses about the age of the
subject based upon what is called the 'norm'. The problem with this kind of
logic is that there are always exceptions to the norm and one can never know
for sure whether they are dealing with an exception.
-Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/25/01 11:47:33 PM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< Nicholas de Verdun and his wife Clemence were of such a status
that should no relationship with Susanna have been suspected,
no one would bat an eye. >>
What does this mean exactly? This is clear as Mississippi River water.
<<Again, BEFORE one can use the argument of suspected relationship as an
argument for such a relationship, you must show it to be a valid claim. Only
opinion has been set forth. And any such status should specifically focus on
FEMALE hostages. >>
In all fairness, you must focus on 'granddaughters' of kings who were held
hostage. It is not a big field. This is a horse of another color and all
these tools techniques that as sometimes used to determine evidence set by
precedent and invalid. The king could really do as he wished in such cases.
The transfer of property history and any other form of familial inheritance
or keep has to be the deciding factors in this instance.
- Ken
Douglas Richardson
> "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > relationship as an argument for such a relationship, you must
> > show it to be a valid claim. Only opinion has been set forth.
> > And any such study should specifically focus on FEMALE
> > hostages.
>
> Let me rephrase this. A claim has been made that hostages were
> almost always put with their relatives. This is based, thus far,
> solely on opinion (an opinion that conflicts with others). No
> study has been presented to support that opinion.
>
> Before one can state, "Hostages were put with relatives, so there
> must be a relationship in this situation" one must show that female
> hostages were indeed usually placed with relatives. The burden
> of proof is on the person making the claim. He should not expect
> others to go out and find the proof for him. He should be capable
> of proving his point, if it is correct.
I believe the burden is on you, Paul. I cited my evidence. You only
gave us your opinion. Your evidence please.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/26/01 12:47:24 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< I should have pointed out, as Robert Battle did, that it was Henry who
was king, and the girl in question his niece. >>
Yes, I am looking forward to a few remarks on the history of this hostage
situation, as it is quite important to the case at hand.
Also, how is Susanna Henry's niece? I thought she was Llewelyn and Joan's
daughter, thus she would be his great-grandchild. Do I have this wrong? Or
are we talking about different hostages and different eras?
<< Before one can state, "Hostages were put with relatives, so there
must be a relationship in this situation" one must show that female
hostages were indeed usually placed with relatives. The burden
of proof is on the person making the claim. He should not expect
others to go out and find the proof for him. He should be capable
of proving his point, if it is correct. >>
It would indeed be good to have other examples. I believe Doug did post at
least one such example -- the case of "Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway,
whose
daughter was placed with her mother's uncle while she was a hostage in
England." The question then is are there more? Also, if these hostages were
actual relatives of the king, then we also have a horse of a different color
-- an uncommon situation.
The time and history of this hostage situation is important. If this were in
the time of Henry, then perhaps Henry's wishes were influential in marrying
John's daughter Joan to Llewelyn?
This subject is getting quite deep and understanding the full chronology and
reasons behind the hostage situation is essential to understanding the issue.
This is a decently important issue that has long been a mystery despite the
attention it has received from some of the world's most famous historians.
The issue transcends and superseded the ego battles that have been exhibited
in the past between supporters of Paul Reed and supporters of Douglas
Richardson. We have some valuable clues and evidence. It should be possible
to work this out at this time, but the ego involvement and cries that it is
incumbent on one person to support this claim only obfuscates the issue. If
anyone can add information, this is the time to do it.
canberra
and, possibly, Susanna is his niece.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <KHF...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun: Dispensations and Hostages
>
Chris Phillips
> Before one can state, "Hostages were put with relatives, so there
> must be a relationship in this situation" one must show that female
> hostages were indeed usually placed with relatives. The burden
> of proof is on the person making the claim. He should not expect
> others to go out and find the proof for him. He should be capable
> of proving his point, if it is correct.
On the whole, to me, the question about whether Clemence de Verdun could
have been Joan's mother looks more open than it did a couple of weeks ago.
The chronology seems more open, now that Clemence's supposed connection to
the de la Mares has been severed, and now that we know that - by all
appearances - Rohese had more than one husband. Whether we think she did or
she didn't, and however brief we suspect a previous marriage might have
been, that does seem to introduce a degree of uncertainty into the
chronology that wasn't there when we assumed Theobald was her first husband.
I did have a brief look for Philip Boteler at the weekend, without success.
The only reference I saw that might have been a slight clue was that there
was a tenant of Wilton in (I think 1166) called Philip of Wimborne. (Whether
he could have been somebody's "butler" I don't know!)
One point that I don't think has been discussed - a different one from the
question of whether hostages were normally placed with relatives - was the
point about why Clemence de Verdun was mentioned along with Nicholas, in the
order for Susanna to be placed as a hostage. Actually, I think Paul has
touched on some of the practicalities of this, but I wonder if anyone can
comment on how common it was for a wife to be named in this way?
Perhaps this point might be easier to evaluate than the question about how
often hostages were placed with relatives (as the relationships might not be
known!) - I don't mind having a little look at this in the published
records, in due course, if it would be useful. (I'm hoping that some of the
published records may have useful subject indexes, with entries such as
"hostages" - normally I just use the indexes of "nominorum" and "locorum".)
Chris Phillips
Rosie Bevan
Actually I agree with Paul. If one make a genealogical connection based on a
theory, it is up to the proposer to propound that theory. This is normal
academic practice. So far you have only given us a Scottish and unroyal
example of hostage keeping. I don't consider this sufficient evidence of a
connection at all.
BTW I have uncovered another contemporary Clemence - Clemence de Malherbe
daughter of John Malherbe d 1181 and wife of Eudes de Longvilier d.1229. So
far this is the sixth contemporary Clemence I have come across and I wasn't
even looking!
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun: Dispensations and Hostages
> "Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:<3C01EA62...@uswest.net>...
> > "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Again, BEFORE one can use the argument of suspected
> > > relationship as an argument for such a relationship, you must
> > > show it to be a valid claim. Only opinion has been set forth.
> > > And any such study should specifically focus on FEMALE
> > > hostages.
> >
> > Let me rephrase this. A claim has been made that hostages were
> > almost always put with their relatives. This is based, thus far,
> > solely on opinion (an opinion that conflicts with others). No
> > study has been presented to support that opinion.
> >
>
> > Before one can state, "Hostages were put with relatives, so there
> > must be a relationship in this situation" one must show that female
> > hostages were indeed usually placed with relatives. The burden
> > of proof is on the person making the claim. He should not expect
> > others to go out and find the proof for him. He should be capable
> > of proving his point, if it is correct.
>
R. Battle
<snip>
I originally posted the document 14 Nov 2001. Here it is again (from the
/Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III/ [1225-1232] (London, 1903), p.
230 (m. 11)):
"/De filia Lewelini./--Rex dilecto et fideli suo Nicholao de Verdun et
Clementie uxori sue, salutem. Sciatis quod nos vobis benigne concedimus
quod fidelis noster et dilectus frater L. princeps Norwallie et Johanna
uxor sua et dilecta soror nostra Susannam filiam suam, neptem nostram,
vobis committere duxerit (/sic/) nutriendam, eam salvo et secure et sine
omni dampno et occasione suscipiatis et penes vos retineatis. In cujus
rei testimonium etc. vobis mittimus. Teste me, apud Westmonasterium,
xxiiij die Novembris, anno etc." (1228)
-Robert Battle
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 11/25/01 11:47:33 PM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
>
> <<Again, BEFORE one can use the argument of suspected relationship as an
> argument for such a relationship, you must show it to be a valid claim. Only
> opinion has been set forth. And any such status should specifically focus on
> FEMALE hostages. >>
[snip]
> The king could really do as he wished in such cases.
I don't know if you realize it, but this completely invalidates
any argument based on hostage placement - if the king really
could do as he wished in such cases, then all bets are off, and
all general rules are inapplicable.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
On the contrary, the purely anecdotal "evidence" that you cited is far
from sufficient to establish your case. Since you are the one making
the claim, the burden of proof (which you have not supplied) rests
with you and you alone. For a claim as sweeping as the one you have
made, examples simply do not suffice, and some sort of statistical
evidence must be presented. It is not appropriate for you to demand
evidence from those who are making the simple (and obvious)
observation that you have not presented any significant evidence to
support your claims about hostages and relatives.
Stewart Baldwin
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
[I wrote:]
> > Before one can state, "Hostages were put with relatives, so there
> > must be a relationship in this situation" one must show that female
> > hostages were indeed usually placed with relatives. The burden
> > of proof is on the person making the claim. He should not expect
> > others to go out and find the proof for him. He should be capable
> > of proving his point, if it is correct.
>
> I believe the burden is on you, Paul. I cited my evidence. You only
> gave us your opinion. Your evidence please.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> E-mail: royala...@msn.com
You gave us anecdotal examples numbering a handful? Maybe I
missed the post where you referred us to printed studies. What
were the parameters of your study? How many examples in England
and Wales did you use?
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> how is Susanna Henry's niece? I thought she was Llewelyn and Joan's
> daughter, thus she would be his great-grandchild. Do I have this wrong? Or
> are we talking about different hostages and different eras?
Henry III, not Henry II.
> << Before one can state, "Hostages were put with relatives, so there
> must be a relationship in this situation" one must show that female
> hostages were indeed usually placed with relatives. The burden
> of proof is on the person making the claim. He should not expect
> others to go out and find the proof for him. He should be capable
> of proving his point, if it is correct. >>
>
> It would indeed be good to have other examples. I believe Doug did post at
> least one such example -- the case of "Alan Fitz Roland, lord of Galloway,
> whose
> daughter was placed with her mother's uncle while she was a hostage in
> England."
One instance does not a general principle make. To be
predictive, it would have to be true much of the time, with
"much" being a number significantly greater than one.
> This is a decently important issue that has long been a mystery despite the
> attention it has received from some of the world's most famous historians.
> The issue transcends and superseded the ego battles that have been exhibited
> in the past between supporters of Paul Reed and supporters of Douglas
> Richardson.
That's right, they don't have any opinions or ideas of their own,
they are just brainless zombies posting in response to the mystic
calls of thier leaders. You might want to at least consider the
possibility that the "supporters" of these two actually think for
themselves, and simply happen to hold a common opinion on the
issues at hand. It is insulting to simply dismiss the opinions
of the majority of the people on this list simply because of who
they happen to agree with on a particular issue.
> We have some valuable clues and evidence. It should be possible
> to work this out at this time, but the ego involvement and cries that it is
> incumbent on one person to support this claim only obfuscates the issue. If
> anyone can add information, this is the time to do it.
All disagreements are not about ego. In this case, we have a
specific claim about a correlation between hostage assignment and
relationship. Basic scholarly practice is that the person
proposing something new holds the burden of proof. Further,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You can't just
say "crop circles are made by short purple aliens from the planet
IMAX, and if you can't prove that it's false, then it must be
true". That is not about ego, it's about scholarship.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Whether a ward or widow, the king could not at this time force
> a woman to marry. The king could choose a husband for a ward, but
> consent was still necessary for a valid marriage (it makes one wonder
> if those instances where a girl is taken captive, ravished and married,
> if it was not more of an excuse to go off and have a marriage that
> would not have been permitted).
In a recent analysis of medieval legal rape, it was concluded
that most accusations were made by husbands against men who (for
either amorous or noble intent) helped their wife to run away
from them, or by fathers (or guardians) against their daughter's
(or ward's) chosen (but unworthy) suitor. They concluded, for
example, that the famous case of Sir Thomas Mallory was probably
just a vendetta by a local political rival, acting at the behest
of an unworthy husband whose wife Mallory had assisted to
escape.
To bring in a genealogical relevance, this bears on the
longstanding debate of which of three contemporary Thomas
Mallorys was the author. The otherwise prefered candidate had
been dismissed because no one who wrote a work about knightly
nobility could be guilty of rape, but on closer examination, the
"rape" charge may describe a noble act.
taf
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
> It should be possible to work this out at this time, but the ego
> involvement and cries that it is
> incumbent on one person to support this claim only obfuscates the issue.
Ken, egos are not the criteria here, scholarship is.
The reason I bothered about this in the first place is because it is a matter
of how we practice and maintain scholarship in our field today.
There is a certain level of scholarship that is now maintained by
journals such as The Genealogist, The American Genealogist, the
National Genealogical Society Quarterly, the New England Historical
and Genealogical Register, etc. The expectations are not limited to
medieval genealogy, but genealogical standards in general.
The standard is that when a statement of fact is made, it should not only
be backed up by a citation which leads to a primary source, it means
that the hows and whys are also explained where there is possible
confusion.
I would think that rather than being angry about the discussion that has
taken place on this group, Doug would be grateful. He stated his
intent to put into print, in the immediate future, the statement that Joan
might be daughter of Clemence de Dauntsey, daughter of Sir Roger de
Dauntsey and wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
As a result of our discussion, rather than Doug going to press with the
identification of Clemence de Dauntsey, we now know that this is false,
that the Clemence in question was not daughter of Sir Roger de
Dauntsey, and that she was in fact daughter of Philip le Butiller.
Doug has therefore been saved the embarrassment of a follow-up
article in a national journal by having this vetted here, and we have
been saved the headache of future queries ("but is says here...").
It does not matter who puts forth these claims, it is a matter of the
scholarship presented to back claims up. If I made these claims,
they would be open to the same scrutiny and criticism. If I had
submitted this to one of the leading journals, I can guarantee that these
same questions would be asked, and I would be expected to answer
them before such an article would go to press. That is the value of
peer review. It saves an editor and journal from embarrassment by
having such questions asked before the fact, instead of after it.
I was highly embarrassed (on a personal level) by a last minute
addition I made to an article that was recently corrected on this
group (concerning the Bohun ancestry of the Corderoy family). I
wish I had added it in the beginning of review, so that it might have
been caught (even by me) before it went to press.
[to repeat again part of what Ken wrote:]
>cries that it is incumbent on one person to support this claim
>only obfuscates the issue.
Ken, it IS incumbent on a person who makes a claim to support it!
Historians had long criticized genealogy for its LACK of scholarly
approach. Donald Lines Jacobus and others worked for decades to
change and correct this view. It is just now that historians are
beginning to realize that the scholarship in the leading journals has
caught up with the highly critical standards of leading medievalists
such as John Carmi Parsons. That is why, after seeing one volume
of The Genealogist, the new editor of The Complete Peerage
obtained a full set of the journal. That is the level of scholarship
we are trying to maintain (not slide back down again).
There have also, in the past, been bitter complaints and claims that
certain individuals were not considered for inclusion in a certain
scholarly organization because of egos and politics. That is
completely untrue. The chief consideration is the quality and
quantity of publications, and not just what the public sees, but
what the editors see BEFORE the editor and the contributing
editors clean it up.
Just my opinion,
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
D'accord.
The Burden of Proof clearly rests on the shoulders of the ADVOCATE for a
Genealogical or Historical assertion.
I think what confuses some VERY confused people is that they are using
the Presumption of Innocence in an American Trial as their model. They
screw their thinking around totally back-arsewards and think that
someone ELSE [the "Prosecutor"] must prove THEM Guilty of Error.
Dead Wrong.
Scholarship Doesn't Work That Way.
If it DID, any idiot could propose a half-baked factoid or make a Bold,
Cunniculan-Pygan Assertion ---- and Real Scholars would spend MOST of
their waking hours batting them down.
That's NOT a profitable or efficient way to proceed in ANY serious
intellectual [or business] endeavour.
To Repeat:
The Burden of Proof clearly rests on the shoulders of the ADVOCATE for a
Genealogical or Historical assertion.
Who is the new editor of CP and what are his/her plans for future
publications?
Magna Carta.
Fortem Posce Animum.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3C02E3B4...@uswest.net...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I would think that rather than being angry about the discussion that has
> taken place on this group, Doug would be grateful. He stated his
> intent to put into print, in the immediate future, the statement that Joan
> might be daughter of Clemence de Dauntsey, daughter of Sir Roger de
> Dauntsey and wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
Actually, it has already been put into print - several years ago
in RD500.
taf
Paul C. Reed
I was aware that the statement had been made giving the name and
announcing a forthcoming article to be published in The Genealogist,
but in my mind that would simply make most people ask where they
should look.
In my mind, this was a more urgent situation because David Faris
had built up reputable trust and faith in the first two editions, by
including sources in most generations. His care is reviewing material
before adding it has resulted in fewer corrections than had been
necessary in publications like Ancestral Roots.
If this discussion were merely an opinion expressed about something
that was to stay on this group, I would not have endeavored to delve
into things so deeply so quickly (though curiosity gets me going from
time to time, as I expect it does for us all). But the expectation has
been put forth that what will appear in Plantagenet Ancestry 3 will be
of a high level of scholarship, and because of the standards adhered
to in the first two editions under the direction of David Faris, readers
of PA3 would put more faith in a statement it contains about such
ancestry than a similar statement made in an older edition of RD500.
That was my thinking, right or wrong.
Paul
D. Spencer Hines
PA3 should be SOLID ---- in deference to Dr. David Faris ---- among
other things.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3C030EA7...@uswest.net...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I was aware that the statement had been made giving the name and
> announcing a forthcoming article to be published in The Genealogist,
> but in my mind that would simply make most people ask where they
> should look.
You have more faith in "most" medieval 'genealogists' than I. I
suspect that those few who care were awaiting some probative
exposition, but "most" have already entered it into their
databases - after all, it's in a book, so it must be true. Not
that I'm saying that it isn't a good thing that it got headed off
before appearing in PA, but we will still be fighting to suppress
it for years just from the RD500 entry, especially since the
alternative is still "who knows", which doesn't look nearly as
nice in the database.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I was aware that the statement had been made giving the name and
> announcing a forthcoming article to be published in The Genealogist,
> but in my mind that would simply make most people ask where they
> should look.
You have more faith in "most" medieval 'genealogists' than I. I
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/26/01 4:48:12 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< if the king really
could do as he wished in such cases, then all bets are off, and
all general rules are inapplicable. >>
Exactly. All bets are off. No patterns exist. Only the weight of the
anecdotal evidence applies. I am not the one demanding that things fit in
patterns.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/26/01 6:47:53 PM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< Ken, it IS incumbent on a person who makes a claim to support it! >>
I agree Paul -- and this thread had already made significant contributions to
finding the correct information. Pat yourself on the back for that, as you
deserve it. Also, Doug can pat himself on the back for finding more useful
evidence and bringing it to light.
It is the war and disdain between the two of you that is hard to bear. You
both have such wonderful qualities and talents. These talents are quite
different. You are experienced at writing articles and delving into specifics
with close scrutiny. In other words, you are a specialist. Doug compiles
books that desperately need to be compiled. He is a primarily a generalist.
Most of the attitudes that exist between the two of you have been brought on
by allegations of not giving credit where credit it due, who did what first,
etc. These are ego-related judgment calls from both of you.
The past is past. Let is die that the future can be served with cooperative
efforts. It is better for you as individual persons and better for all as a
group. The two of you live in the same city and work on the same eclectic
studies. That you cannot go to dinner and compare ideas without jealousy and
disdain is in itself a crime against scholarship. You both need to think
about that.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/26/01 2:51:51 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< That is not about ego, it's about scholarship. >>
Oh? Where have you been hiding your head? So much of scholarship is ego. The
driving force behind modern scholastics is one-upmanship ... the first to
publish, the first to make a discovery, the most keen interpretation of
existing data ... especially where the combatants have violently disagreed
and past events are perceived as personal wrongs. Scholarship is lousy with
ego -- an infestation like lice in a colony of unwashed heads. The
competition in the academic community demands it and the success of ruthless
modern business practiced has crept into the academic community and created a
microcosm of the dog-eat-dog outside world. This is seen not only on this
forum -- where is is quite apparent to most ovservers -- but in the world of
research science as well.
The attitudes between Paul and Doug are like festered sores. These attitudes
color their opinions with implied allegations and disdain. It is getting a
little old to behold this on a constant basis, as some good observations are
lost or redirected -- not because they are not good observations, but because
of the mutual jealousy and hate that lie beneath the surface. This is
neither scholarship no humane treatment. It is one-up-manship and
professional jealousy in their worst forms, hidden under the veil of the
quest for "truth, justice and the American scholarly way."
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/26/01 2:47:48 PM, sba...@mindspring.com writes:
<< It is not appropriate for you [Douglas Richardson] to demand
evidence from those who are making the simple (and obvious)
observation that you have not presented any significant evidence to
support your claims about hostages and relatives. >>
Of course this is the case if you take Doug literally. However, the hostage
situation for a king's near relative is interesting evidence no matter how
you shake it. It does indeed make sense that relatives whose welfare are
important be assigned to the custody of those who will care properly for them
... and this is family members in most cases. This is not a case in which to
look for patterns, as the role of kingship was being redefined at this time
(shortly after the Magna Carta).
There is great danger in basing evidence from 'patterns' anyway. One can
always be wrong, as the people involved are always unique and their
relationships individual expressions of their personalities.
Perhaps the real lesson here is to avoid sweeping generalities period.
- Ken
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 11/26/01 4:48:12 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << if the king really
> could do as he wished in such cases, then all bets are off, and
> all general rules are inapplicable. >>
>
> Exactly. All bets are off. No patterns exist. Only the weight of the
> anecdotal evidence applies.
No. Even anecdotal evidence is of no value if the King could do
anything he wanted.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 11/26/01 2:51:51 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
>
> << That is not about ego, it's about scholarship. >>
>
> Oh? Where have you been hiding your head? So much of scholarship is ego.
(. . . conveniently diverting the discussion from the specific to
the general, but I'll bite.)
> The driving force behind modern scholastics is one-upmanship ...
I think your perceptions of the driving force behind modern
scholastics are somewhat mistaken. There are those for whom ego
does play a role, but the primary motivating forces are
intellectual curiousity and the needs of the stomach, not
necessarily in that order. (And yes, it does mean you have to
publish first, because it is much harder to publish second - no
publication, no money (whether salary or grants or perks); no
money, no food.)
Fortunately you are above all of that egomaniacal scholarship. I
bet that does wonders for your ego.
taf
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/26/01 4:48:12 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes: <<No.
wanted. >>
We piece together anecdotal evidence to fit in an order that seems convincing
and fits the facts. We create scenarios that convince based on anecdotal
evidence. We use some tools that are so universally accepted that they seem
to be laws, but we have to be very careful that we do not give too much
reality to what we 'perceive' as laws. These laws are still simply
conceptions that we have made on our minds. They may work for us at times,
but when they do not work, we have to challenge the validity of the law and
perhaps change it to accommodate new evidence or ideas.
Cases such as "Who is the mother of Joan" are exceedingly hard cases to
crack. People have been trying to do it for generations -- and some of these
people have been more informed that any of us. The only real advantage we
have is that we are living in a world where instant communication is possible
and many resources are either available from our desktops or can be had with
a query to someone nearer the source we desire.
Ms Bevan has now identified six contemporary women named Clemence. We only
know the details about two. From the high marriage and upbringing of her
child, one would expect that the real mother of Joan would be recorded, as
she was surely not a lowly woman named Clemence who milked cows. Further, the
name Clemence is very rare. The first Clemence I have heard of were early
Christians. One man named Clemens was an early pope. An early saint was named
Titus Flauvius Clemens. To feminize the name, I suspect it had to be
something like Clementia, Clementine, or Clementina. This is definitely not
an earthy Saxon name. It has French and Roman roots and means 'merciful' in
Latin. Thus, Clemence was an aristocratic name associated with the Normans,
not the Saxons.
The Clemence in question has to be able to fit the known chronology. It would
be expected that she would be mentioned some way in charters or documents or
property would be transferred to the family of Joan that would clarify the
relationship. After all, this was an aristocratic woman who had a child with
the future king of England. The child's paternal grandfather and grandmother
were Henry and Eleanor -- two of the most famous and glamorous souls that
every walked on earth.
The closest match that we have that fills all these criteria at the moment is
Clemence de Verdun. In this aspect, the hostage evidence is good by itself.
There is no need to show that hostages were kept with English relatives. It
makes sense that if a close relative of the king was held in custodial
arrest, the king would want the best care for the custody of the child. The
best care, then as now, would be provided by a family member. That evidence
may be anecdotal, but it is a damned good clue.
The chronology fits as well -- and there is some evidence in the transfer of
property.
With all these things in place, one would think that we are on the verge of
identification. Paul's original chronology stood as a barrier because it
required a child of 12 of 13 to give birth to a child. With a previous
marriage shown in the charter, we can add five or ten years. This no longer
requires a child of 13 to give birth. [It is not that a child of 13 could
not give birth ... of course they can. When I was 13 and in the 8th grade a
girl of 13 in my class dropped out of school because she was pregnant and
gave birth to a healthy son. This girl was physically mature for her age,
but so are many others and certainly this was even more so in the past where
there was no social benefit in prolonging childhood. The earlier they worked
and bred, the more society gained from them.]
Is Clemence of Verdun definitely the mother of Joan? Not necessarily, but
she is the best candidate yet of all we have because of supporting evidence.
If there is better supporting evidence for any of the other women, let is
look at it now. - Ken
In a message dated 11/27/01 9:49:09 AM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
Kenneth Harper Finton
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Ms Bevan has now identified six contemporary women named Clemence. We only
> know the details about two.
Three. Paul posted details on Clemence de Fouguers.
> Is Clemence of Verdun definitely the mother of Joan? Not necessarily, but
> she is the best candidate yet of all we have because of supporting evidence.
> If there is better supporting evidence for any of the other women, let is
> look at it now.
That supporting evidence being that Susanna was placed as hostage
of Nicholas and Clemence, which, if a king could do anything he
wants means absolutely nothing. Were it not for that one piece
of evidence, who would be the most likely candidate? This is why
the correct interpretation of that piece is important - does this
mean they were related or is this overinterpretation? Any kind
of argument based on what Henry would do must be thrown out based
on the king's ability to follow his whim, while Stewart has laid
to rest the anecdotal correlation argument based on his murder
analogy. That leaves statistical evaluation, and I get the
impression that no one has the inclination to do this. Without
it, then no conclusion can be reached based on Susanna's
guardianship, and we are right back where we started.
So, IS Clemence de Verdun better supported than the others?
taf
R. Battle
> In a message dated 11/26/01 4:48:12 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes: <<No.
> Even anecdotal evidence is of no value if the King could do anything he
> wanted. >>
>
> We piece together anecdotal evidence to fit in an order that seems convincing
> and fits the facts. We create scenarios that convince based on anecdotal
> evidence. We use some tools that are so universally accepted that they seem
> to be laws, but we have to be very careful that we do not give too much
> reality to what we 'perceive' as laws. These laws are still simply
> conceptions that we have made on our minds. They may work for us at times,
> but when they do not work, we have to challenge the validity of the law and
> perhaps change it to accommodate new evidence or ideas.
<snip>
> The closest match that we have that fills all these criteria at the moment is
> Clemence de Verdun. In this aspect, the hostage evidence is good by itself.
> There is no need to show that hostages were kept with English relatives. It
> makes sense that if a close relative of the king was held in custodial
> arrest, the king would want the best care for the custody of the child. The
> best care, then as now, would be provided by a family member. That evidence
> may be anecdotal, but it is a damned good clue.
It appears that you have an incorrect notion of what Todd (and others)
mean by anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is essentially evidence
gathered in a non-systematic, non-exhaustive manner. Anecdotal evidence
is useful only to demonstrate a general possibility, not a general
tendency (though it is often used so). In this case, the anecdotal
evidence referred to is not Henry III's placement of Susanna with Nicholas
and Clementia de Verdun, but rather the other cited case(s?) of hostages
being placed with relatives. If it can be demonstrated by other means
that Susanna was or was not a relative of Nicholas or Clementia, then this
case would be another piece of anecdotal evidence for or against the
hostage-relative connection. Non-anecdotal evidence would result from a
study involving a large number of randomly-selected hostage placements
where all of the relationships (or lack thereof) between hostages and
hosts were known, or else an exhaustive survey of such--certainly a
daunting task (if not an impossible one).
-Robert Battle
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
I explained my theory regarding Clemence de Verdun in a rational and
coherent fashion. I made five points which are as follows:
1. I cited the evidence in which the mother of Joan, wife of Prince
Llywelyn, was named as Clemence.
2. I noted that Susanna, daughter of Joan and Llywelyn, was placed as
a hostage in the custody of Nicholas and Clemence de Verdun.
3. I noted that the name Clemence is extremely rare. Mr. Philips
provided a given name frequency for this period which backed my
assertion. He found the name Clemence occured only twice out of 1,407
occurrences of female given names in Essex fines for this specific
period. Two occurrences out of 1,407 makes the name Clemence rare
indeed.
Since Mr. Philips posted, a grand total of six contemporary women
named Clemence have turned up, out of 150 or so families of baronial
rank and possibly 2000 families of knightly rank. Of the six
Clemences, only two were of baronial rank. One woman of baronial rank
is known to have been childless. She is not likely to have been Joan's
mother. The other woman of baronial rank who is known to have had
issue was Clemence de Verdun. These facts make Clemence de Verdun a
prime candidate to be Joan's mother.
4. I stated that I previously had observed a pattern of foreign born
hostages being placed with English relatives. I cited the example of
Alan Fitz Roland's daughter in specific and the example of Scottish
hostages in general. I stated my belief that if such a pattern was
correct, then it was highly likely that Susanna was closely related to
Nicholas and Clemence de Verdun, her guardians.
So far, no one has step forward to refute either my observation or my
examples. Alan Fitz Roland whose daughter was a hostage was a
contemporary to Joan and Llywellyn, and held the same rank as Llewelyn
did at the English court. He was a blood kinsman of the king, just as
Joan was a blood kinswoman. Moreover, Alan's wife was the sister of
an English baron and the niece of another English baron. Surely, his
daughter would have received similar treatment as Joan's daughter,
Susanna. In Alan Fitz Roland, you have a contemporary person of
similar rank with a female child. His daughter was placed with her
uncle, an English baron. You couldn't ask for a better example. In
fact, it is tailor made.
5. I stated that the inclusion of Clemence de Verdun in the grant of
Susanna's custody was significant, if for no other reason that we have
primary evidence of a woman named Clemence associated with the family
of Princess Joan. I surmised that Clemence de Verdun had a personal
interest in Susanna, otherwise there would be no need for her to have
been included in the custody grant. Furthermore, I pointed out that
the wife of the next custodian of Susanna was not named in that grant.
The failure to name the wife of the second guardian underscores the
likelihood that Clemence de Verdun had a personal interest in Susanna.
This is basic deductive reasoning, not a "sweeping" claim.
Those were my five points and my evidence to support my theory. To
date, a worthwhile attempt has been made by Mr. Reed to discredit my
theory on a chronological basis. However, with the discovery of
Rohese de Verdun's hitherto unknown first marriage, Mr. Reed's
chronological argument has collapsed. The chronology between the
families of Princess Joan and Clemence de Verdun is now perfectly
acceptable.
If the discussion is to proceed further, it is necessary that Mr. Reed
cite his evidence and rebut my theory point by point on a factual
basis. The burden is on him. I've made my case as clearly and
cogently as I can. It is his turn to do the same. The newsgroup
wants to see his evidence. We already know his opinions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<3c02b0ca....@news.mindspring.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Dear Ken ~
Paul Reed has a standing invitation for breakfast, lunch or dinner, at
my treat, any time.
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
> If the discussion is to proceed further, it is necessary that Mr. Reed
> cite his evidence and rebut my theory point by point on a factual
> basis. The burden is on him. I've made my case as clearly and
> cogently as I can. It is his turn to do the same.
I do not see that the burden is on me. I do not think your points are
as weighty as they seem to you. This is not an either/or situation, i.e.,
(a) the mother of Joan must be named Clemence, and (b) because her
name is Clemence, she must be Clemence le Butiller, unless we come
up with a better candidate. That type of rationale is folly.
You have stated before that this was a "possibility".
Do you now conclude there is so much evidence
that this identification is likely, or proven, or is it still merely a
possibility?
Research should not be a case of seeing what you can get away with,
making claims and awaiting them to be disproved; it should be a case
of finding sufficient proof to conclude an identification is sound, or
to thoroughly explain when an identification is suggestive, but still
possibly completely erroneous.
Paul
Douglas Richardson
> That sounds like good thinking to me.
>
> PA3 should be SOLID ---- in deference to Dr. David Faris ---- among
> other things.
>
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> Vires et Honor
>
Dear Spencer ~
Thank you for your kind words. The forthcoming Plantagenet Ancestry,
3rd edition, will be extremely SOLID. As a trained historian and a
professional genealogist, I know full well the value of documentation.
I've added countless new citations and references to nearly all the
lines in the 3rd edition. Where I'm able, I quote from the actual
visitation records, so people can see exactly what was said in the
original record. Where known, I also provide the coat of arms for
each family. I've gone through all types of original records of the
period such as inquisitions post mortem, bishops registers, feet of
fines, ancient correspondence, published charters, etc. The citations
alone are worth the price of the book. This book will truly be a
treasure trove of information for people interested in their medieval
ancestry.
If anyone is interested in obtaining a copy of the book, they may
contact me privately at my e-mail address below. People can pay for
the book by either check or money order, or by chargecard. The price
is currently $60.00 (including shipping and handling). Add $5.00 for
foreign orders. This is a special prepublication price.
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you.
The proof, as you know quite well of course, will be in the pudding.
Cheers,
Spencer
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.01112...@posting.google.com...
Paul C. Reed
You asked that I take the time to reply to each of your points.
In an effort to be more congenial, here are some comments which I think
you ought to take into consideration (since you asked me). I admit
to playing devil's advocate on some of these points, but eventually
someone would have asked them anyway, so you might as well
address them now.
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Stewart ~
>
> 1. I cited the evidence in which the mother of Joan, wife of Prince
> Llywelyn, was named as Clemence.
There is no dispute about one annal stating that Joan was daughter
of King John and Queen Clemence. That statement has been
known for a LONG time, and we have discussed that matter
thoroughly. Assuming that an error had not been made by the author
[for instance, mistaking Clemence de Fougers, second wife of
Ranulph, Earl of Chester, for his first wife Constance (who
was divorced by the Earl for having an affair with John)],
what this gives us is a NAME, Clemence.
We already have at least six candidates of this period,
and we have not even tried canvasing records for them in any
methodical way. The candidates found to date have all been
accidents, which would lead one to believe there may be
many more we have not found yet.
> 2. I noted that Susanna, daughter of Joan and Llywelyn, was placed as
> a hostage in the custody of Nicholas and Clemence de Verdun.
Was she actually a hostage, or was he placing his niece with a
couple who could see to her education and training in England,
rather than in rustic and rugged Wales? The Letter Patent was
dated 24 Nov. 1228, and called Llywelyn "fidelis noster et
dilectus frater" and called Joan "dilecta soror nostra" [our
beloved sister].
> 3. I noted that the name Clemence is extremely rare. Mr. Philips
> provided a given name frequency for this period which backed my
> assertion. He found the name Clemence occured only twice out of 1,407
> occurrences of female given names in Essex fines for this specific
> period. Two occurrences out of 1,407 makes the name Clemence rare
> indeed.
That was only a survey of one record type in one county. Again, we
now have six candidates of the period and status who could
theoretically be Joan's mother. If you are arguing negative disproof,
the number that have already cropped up would cast doubt against
your using the Essex study as an argument for exclusion of all other
possibilities [would naming patterns in Essex carry over to
Wiltshire or Gloucestershire or FRANCE?]. .
> Since Mr. Philips posted, a grand total of six contemporary women
> named Clemence have turned up, out of 150 or so families of baronial
> rank and possibly 2000 families of knightly rank.
BUT we have not studied ALL of these 150 families to know there
are not more girls named Clemence--you word this as if we had.
That is fallacious.
FURTHER, John spent time in France during his youth. Is it
not very possible that there was a Clemence in France? The
English records you have searched would not find her. What
was John's itinerary for the period in question 1187-1192?
> Of the six
> Clemences, only two were of baronial rank.
Why should we think she must have been of baronial rank?
I have already posted that Warren, who has had vastly more
experience in this period--and John's life--than you or I,
said that Joan's mother was *likely* of humble origin.
> One woman of baronial rank
> is known to have been childless.
No, she is not known to have had legitimate offspring. That may
have been her husband's fault, not hers, so you cannot exclude her.
> She is not likely to have been Joan's
> mother. The other woman of baronial rank who is known to have had
> issue was Clemence de Verdun. These facts make Clemence de Verdun a
> prime candidate to be Joan's mother.
But you have not made an exhasutive study of baronial families, and
the other women are of a high enough status to have been the mother.
Clemence de Broc is even known to have given birth to an illegitimate
son, and her father and brother were both at court ca. 1189.
AND AGAIN, let's look at what you conclude might be the MOST
logical assumptions. You have oftimes in the past argued that girls,
especially an heiress of baronial rank, would be betrothed as a child.
You have also argued that they would marry as soon as they were
able after that. This would be twelve years of age.
Rohesia de Verdun married Theobald le Boteler in 1225. By
applying logic and arguments you have claimed was most
frequently the case before, we would expect that Rohesia was
married quite soon after her first husband's death, given that
her marriage would be in the King's gift, she was an heiress,
and the King owed favors. We know Rohese had no
surviving children by any marriage before Theobald. Thus
we might expect that she was too young to bear children
to that husband, was betrothed as a young girl, and married
first at age twelve. One might ague that Rohese would not
have married before about 1220, when she was about
twelve, and therefore born say 1208.
So, we would have (by this reasoning) Clemence de
Verdun having her ONLY KNOWN child in 1208, but
the claim that she bore Joan about 1187-9, two decades
earlier.
Are you now willing to concede that it was NOT
predominantly the case that heiresses of baronies were
not betrothed as young girls and married as soon as
they came of age? SHOULD we presume they were
USUALLY older?
[This would mean we SHOULD assume that Gwladys
was older than twelve when she married Reginald
de Braose in 1215, and thus could not have been
daughter of Joan, who married Llywelyn in 1205-6.
FURTHER, it would mean Joan was much older
at her marriage in 1205-6 (Llywelyn was then in his
thirties), and THAT would stretch the birth of Joan
even earlier, STILL stretching the comparative
chronology.]
> 4. I stated that I previously had observed a pattern of foreign born
> hostages being placed with English relatives. I cited the example of
> Alan Fitz Roland's daughter in specific and the example of Scottish
> hostages in general. I stated my belief that if such a pattern was
> correct, then it was highly likely that Susanna was closely related to
> Nicholas and Clemence de Verdun, her guardians.
Such a pattern is not correct. In this ONE example, you have a female
used as a hostage by John, NOT Henry III. John made a practice of
taking hostages. I glanced at the Patent Rolls and saw listings of many
hostages. In all those cases, the hostages were male heirs of
the baron or mercenary captain he wanted to keep in line.
I saw nothing in the families named as hostages when their release
was ordered to indicate (from my knowledge of families of this period)
that they were related to the lord by whom they were held
[such as Despencer, etc.].
But I would here stipulate that where you are dealing with hostages
in England and Wales who belong to that limited group of men who
held baronies or Earls, there was so much intermarriage that it is
likely one could trace some type of distant relationship.
The question here is WERE THEIR CAPTORS CHOSEN
***BECAUSE*** THEY WERE RELATIVES,
or was it mere happenstance?
And if you claim it was a consideration to put hostages with
relatives, WHAT PATERN do you see they used as the
consideration?
I think you must answer this if you claim such a theory.
In the ONE specific case you give which has a connection
to England [through maternal ancestry] of the Scotsman Alan,
son of Roland, we have the ELDEST daughter and COHEIR
being taken hostage. She was the heir (albeit female).
She was obviously chosen not because she was female,
or for her nurturing and education, but because
she was heir of the lands (with her younger sister).
In our case, Susanna was the King's niece. She was not an heir of
Llywelyn. Llywelyn had his eldest [illegitimate] son Gruffydd,
his son Tegwared y Baiswen, Prince Dafydd, and a number of
daughters. Why take Susan as hostage, instead of a son or
grandson?
> So far, no one has step forward to refute either my observation or my
> examples. Alan Fitz Roland whose daughter was a hostage was a
> contemporary to Joan and Llywellyn, and held the same rank as Llewelyn
> did at the English court. He was a blood kinsman of the king, just as
> Joan was a blood kinswoman.
There is a difference between being a distant kinsman and the
king's niece. There is also a difference in Alan's daughter being
his ELDEST COHEIR, and Susanna, who was only one of a large
number of children.
> Moreover, Alan's wife was the sister of
> an English baron and the niece of another English baron. Surely, his
> daughter would have received similar treatment as Joan's daughter,
> Susanna.
Doug, what does the order which places Alan's daughter in
captivity as a hostage say?
> In Alan Fitz Roland, you have a contemporary person of
> similar rank with a female child. His daughter was placed with her
> uncle, an English baron. You couldn't ask for a better example. In
> fact, it is tailor made.
No, I would disagree, for the reasons stated above.
> 5. I stated that the inclusion of Clemence de Verdun in the grant of
> Susanna's custody was significant, if for no other reason that we have
> primary evidence of a woman named Clemence associated with the family
> of Princess Joan. I surmised that Clemence de Verdun had a personal
> interest in Susanna, otherwise there would be no need for her to have
> been included in the custody grant.
I already expressed that if the King were seeing to his niece's well
being and education, it is not strange that the wife should be named
so that should something happen to Nicholas de Verdun, Susanna
would not be left in limbo at his death. By including Clemence,
the King was being prudent because it would be unlikely that both
Nicholas and Clemence would die at the same time.
> Furthermore, I pointed out that
> the wife of the next custodian of Susanna was not named in that grant.
Who was the next custodian of Susanna? How many other examples
do you have of grants of a female 'hostage'? Any?
> The failure to name the wife of the second guardian underscores the
> likelihood that Clemence de Verdun had a personal interest in Susanna.
> This is basic deductive reasoning, not a "sweeping" claim.
>
> Those were my five points and my evidence to support my theory. To
> date, a worthwhile attempt has been made by Mr. Reed to discredit my
> theory on a chronological basis. However, with the discovery of
> Rohese de Verdun's hitherto unknown first marriage, Mr. Reed's
> chronological argument has collapsed. The chronology between the
> families of Princess Joan and Clemence de Verdun is now perfectly
> acceptable.
>
I still feel that a variance of twenty years between the births of Joan
and Rohese de Verdun raises reasonable doubt. If there was a first
marriage, why is there no record of dower or assignment of it?
In fact, one might ask if the surviving grant to Grace Dieu was
a later invention in the place of a lost original. If it were the
original, one would have expected Rohese to name her parents
and husbands. However, is it possible that the original charter
has not survived (though it at one time did definitely exist), and
that Grace Dieu formulated the surviving charter at a later time,
knowing Rohese had founded the house, but not knowing
the names of her close relations? You have to admit the wording
is very odd. [I am playing devil's advocate here.]
> If the discussion is to proceed further, it is necessary that Mr. Reed
> cite his evidence and rebut my theory point by point on a factual
> basis.
You have presented a number of ***theories***, and you demand
that I do your work and find evidence to disprove them?
Rather than me requesting that you substantiate them by citing
evidence and facts to support them?
Spencer has pointed out the folly of this reationale.
When Spencer and I agree wholeheartedly, you have to admit
we may have something.
I have taken the time, as you requested, to address each
of these issues. Will you now do the same?
And are you stating that the identification of Clemence le
Butiller [if she were Joan's mother, she would not at that
time be called Clemence de Verdun] is proven,
or likely, or just a possibility?
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
I appreciate Paul's playing devil's advocate on this case. It is not my place
to respond point by point, but a few things strike me ... see below:
About the name Clemence: this should be in the prosopography data base that
was done by Keats-Rohan. This is a database covering this period of every
mention of the names at that time. Unfortunately, it is that very expensive
software data (4 to 5K) that no one in this forum owns. I wonder it I should
contact her and ask if the frequency of the name is known in this time period?
In a message dated 11/28/01 3:49:46 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes: << Was she
actually a hostage, or was he placing his niece with a couple who could see
to her education and training in England, rather than in rustic and rugged
Wales? The Letter Patent was dated 24 Nov. 1228, and called Llewelyn
"fidelis noster et dilectus frater" and called Joan "dilecta soror nostra"
[our beloved sister]. >>
I have wondeded about the hostage situation myself. I also wonder if it has
to be a hostage situation. Either way, even if it were an opportunity to
place the girl for a better education, the fact that Clemence was mentioned
along with Nicholas is important. Once again, it points to a family
connection with Clemence -- and with knowing that Joan's mother was named
Clemence makes it highly suggestive that she was actually sent to her
grandmother.
As I said before, I see no reason to conclude that Clemence was not a high
born woman. Low-born bastardettes (how about that word!) would not get the
attention she nor the high marriage that she received. Also, the name
Clemence implies that she was born into an educated and well-born Norman
family.
In a message dated 11/28/01 3:49:46 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes: << Clemence
de Broc is even known to have given birth to an illegitimate son, and her
father and brother were both at court ca. 1189. >>
Well, we are talking about a daughter, not a son. Was it the habit of
well-bred girls from noble families to have a series of illegitimate
children? I think not. This might even be used as evidence that this
Clemence is not the mother of Joan.
In a message dated 11/28/01 3:49:46 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes: << So, we
would have (by this reasoning) Clemence de Verdun having her ONLY KNOWN child
in 1208, but the claim that she bore Joan about 1187-9, two decades earlier.
>>
Perhaps as much as fifteen years earlier rather that 20 -- and that is
certainly not an unusual thing for half sisters. I am 15 years older than my
sister. My mother was my father's second wife. My father's first marriage
was childless, but should there have been a child, I would have a half sister
at least 20 years younger than me.
The chronology with Nicholas' wife works. What is of importance to me is the
placement of Susanna with Nicholas and Clemence. The fact the Clemence was
mentioned in the document personally is very strong evidence that she is very
likely the grandmother and that is why the placement was made. All we need
is some supporting evidence of inherited property in this family and we
should have a tentative identification. Evidently, Susanna died young. We do
not know what happened to her later.
In a message dated 11/28/01 3:49:46 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes: << And if you
claim it was a consideration to put hostages with relatives, WHAT PATTERN do
you see they used as the consideration? >>
Doug did claim that there was a pattern, but I see no reason to look for a
pattern at all. As you observed, there was so much intermarriage that many
of the nobles were related. I have suggested that this be considered a
unique case and it may not be a hostage situation at all. It may indeed be
the placing of a child with her grandmother for better upbringing and
preparation for an important marriage.
In a message dated 11/28/01 3:49:46 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes: << In our
case, Susanna was the King's niece. She was not an heir of Llewelyn.
Llewelyn had his eldest [illegitimate] son Gruffydd, his son Tegwared y
Baiswen, Prince Dafydd, and a number of daughters. Why take Susan as hostag
e, instead of a son or grandson >>
She may not have been an heir of Llewelyn, but she was his child. Joan's
mother must have been very pretty and sexy for John to have had an affair
with her. Privileged men like Prince John do not often choose ugly women
without charm as sex partners. We can even assume that Susanna was a very
cute girl. What father does not have a special place in his heart for his
beautiful little girl? Wales was a rugged place. She would get a better
chance at the good life with her grandmother and her husband in England.
In a message dated 11/28/01 3:49:46 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes: << I already
expressed that if the King were seeing to his niece's well being and
education, it is not strange that the wife should be named so that should
something happen to Nicholas de Verdun, Susanna would not be left in limbo at
his death. By including Clemence, the King was being prudent because it
would be unlikely that both
Nicholas and Clemence would die at the same time. >>
That is pretty thin logic, Paul. A prudent king providing for an alternative
when one would have been mandatory should both die at once? Very, very thin.
I tend to agree that perhaps there was no hostage situation at all and she
was there for her upbringing. That gets rid of all the demands for
statistical studies of hostages that could take 15 years! So we can drop the
hostage search, no?
This is all the more reason to believe that she was placed with her
grandmother and that is why Clemence was specifically mentioned. No way would
she have been left in limbo in case Nicholas died. She would still have her
grandmother. And if both died at the same time, her custody would be changed
or revert back to Joan, so there is no real reason to mention Clemence at all
unless the custody was primarily given to her because she was the grandmother
and she could provide much better opportunities for a classical education and
a fine marriage. -Ken
Chris Phillips
> Rohesia de Verdun married Theobald le Boteler in 1225. By
> applying logic and arguments you have claimed was most
> frequently the case before, we would expect that Rohesia was
> married quite soon after her first husband's death, given that
> her marriage would be in the King's gift, she was an heiress,
> and the King owed favors. We know Rohese had no
> surviving children by any marriage before Theobald. Thus
> we might expect that she was too young to bear children
> to that husband, was betrothed as a young girl, and married
> first at age twelve. One might ague that Rohese would not
> have married before about 1220, when she was about
> twelve, and therefore born say 1208.
>
> Verdun having her ONLY KNOWN child in 1208, but
> the claim that she bore Joan about 1187-9, two decades
> earlier.
Thank you for providing a lot more useful information today, especially
about the chronology of Gladys' marriage to Reginald de Mortimer.
I appreciate that you're avowedly playing the devil's advocate to some
extent, but I think there's maybe a danger of going too far in the opposite
direction, and giving the impression that the chronology disproves that
Clemence le Botiller was Joan's mother.
I thought the chronology looked very much against it when we thought
Clemence was the daughter of Roger Dauntesy, but to my mind it does seem
much more open now, especially in light of the evidence that Rohese married
more than once.
I just feel we're getting only a few sparse glimpses of these people, and
it's very difficult to construct chronologies like this on the basis of the
absence of issue from a prior marriage. In fact, do we really know Rohese
had no issue by a previous marriage - could she not have left daughters?
Indeed, unless I've missed something, are we sure that Maud was a daughter
of Theobald Butler? (A couple of weeks ago I was certainly puzzled about how
she fitted in.)
One other point: is it impossible that Clemence le Botiller and Clemence de
Broc might both be part of the solution, rather than being irreconcilable
rival candidates? Rosie provided a wealth of evidence about Clemence de
Broc, showing not only contact with the court, but also several tantalising
points of contact with Nicholas de Verdun and Clemence. Could Clemence le
Botiller fit into the Broc family group somehow*, and so still end up as a
close relative of Susanna, if Clemence le Broc was Joan's mother?
By all means accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it!
One point is that if Gladys is rejected as Joan's daughter, the
consanguinity argument would not longer be an obstacle to a solution like
this (just as it would not longer be an obstacle to Clemence le Botiller
being Joan's mother).
Chris Phillips
*I think Rosie was hinting at this possibility in her original message about
Clemence le Broc. I can't get a good enough grasp on the Broc chronology to
suggest where Clemence le Botiller might fit in, but it's tempting to
speculate whether she could have been a daughter of Clemence le Broc by a
previous marriage...
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
>
> Indeed, unless I've missed something, are we sure that Maud was a daughter
> of Theobald Butler? (A couple of weeks ago I was certainly puzzled about how
> she fitted in.)
>
Maud was given her marriage portion (or at least inheritance) by Clemence
(Le Butiller) de Verdun after 1231. If she were daughter of Rohese (only
daughter or one of several daughters) by a husband other than Theobald le
Boteler, she would be heir of that husband, and that husband's lands.
> One point is that if Gladys is rejected as Joan's daughter, the
> consanguinity argument would not longer be an obstacle to a solution like
> this (just as it would not longer be an obstacle to Clemence le Botiller
> being Joan's mother).
Yes, I tried to point that out in a post I made.
Thanks,
Paul
Paul C. Reed
> I appreciate Paul's playing devil's advocate on this case. It is not my place
> to respond point by point, but a few things strike me ... see below:
>
> About the name Clemence: this should be in the prosopography data base that
> was done by Keats-Rohan. This is a database covering this period of every
> mention of the names at that time. Unfortunately, it is that very expensive
> software data (4 to 5K) that no one in this forum owns. I wonder it I should
> contact her and ask if the frequency of the name is known in this time period?
It's a good thought, but that data base comes down to just about the period
Joan would have been born. We might entirely miss any reference to
Clemence.
FURTHER many record types did not exist or do not survive before the
reign of Henry III. Most of those records are geared to
recording the names and acts of men. (Philip le Butiller
might be included.)
WHY then should we expect that if the mother of Joan was named
Clemence that it would be likely for us to find a record of her,
let alone enough information to identify her?
Are the odds not heavily stacked against us ever knowing
the names of the wives and daughters of the VAST majority of
barons and knights (let alone humbler folk) about 1187?
(We still do not even know who Countess Ida was.)
Paul
Paul C. Reed
>>Rex dilecto et fideli suo Nicholao de Verdun et Clementie uxori
>>sue, salutem. Sciatis quod nos vobis benigne concedimus quod
>>fidelis noster et dilectus frater L. princeps Norwallie et Johanna
>>uxor sua et dilecta soror nostra Susannam filiam suam, neptem
>>nostram, vobis committere duxerit (/sic/) nutriendam, eam salvo et
>>secure et sine omni dampno et occasione suscipiatis et penes vos
>>retineatis. In cujus rei testimonium etc. vobis mittimus. Teste
>>me, apud Westmonasterium, xxiiij die Novembris, anno etc." (1228)
The king to his beloved vassal Nicholas de Verdun and to Clemence his
wife, greeting. Know that we have willingly (benigne, lit. 'with
good will') granted that our faithful vassal and beloved brother L.
prince of North Wales, and Johanna his wife (and our beloved sister),
cause their daughter Susanna, our niece, to be committed to you in
fosterage (ad nutriendam). Receive her and keep her in your
possession (retineatis penes vos) safely and securely and without
any deceit (dampnum) or ill intent (occasio). In testimony whereof
we have sent you [these letters...]. Witness [our hand], at
Westminster, the 24d day of November [1228].
Nat points out that, though it is a bit ambiguous as to who is
choosing Nicholas de Verdun & Clemence to foster the girl,
the action verb has the Waleses as the subject, rather than
the King, who is just conceding or allowing it to happen.
Thus, it would appear from the wording that Llywelyn and
Joan were the ones actually requesting that the King allow
Nicholas and Clemence to educate the girl.
Therefore, this is not a hostage situation at all, from the
looks of it, but it would suggest there was some connection
between Llywelyn and Joan and Nicholas and Clemence.
Makes you almost wonder if Clemence and Joan might
have known each other as girls during their education
(wild presumption on my part).
But then, should we assume that the person with whom she
was placed next was a relative? Doug, have you found a
relationship with the next guardian?
Paul
Rosie Bevan
You are as astute as ever and make some good points. This is what I have so
far.
In 1272 Robert Walerand died and the inquisition into his land holding
revealed that he held land in Steeple Lavington which had been given to him
by Maud Blancminster, whose mother Clemence de Verdun had given it to her as
a maritagium.
Amongst some very scattered land ownership in eight counties, Robert
Walerand was also holding lands in Worcestershire of the Bishop of
Worcester. These included in the parish of Tredington, Tatelingeton
(Talton), Derlingescote (Darlingscott), Newbolde (Newbold-on-Stour), and
Edmundiscote (Armscote). Also held was Hepwode (Hopwood) in the parish of
Alvechurch.
Now by coincidence all of these lands were granted to Robert Walerand by
Auger de Tatlinton (Talton), illegitimate son of Clemence de Broc, who had
acquired them from his nephew in 1255.
On the death of William de Maleseveres in 1226, Clemence was granted Talton
in dower by Thomas her second son. The implication of this is that Auger had
been bypassed because of his illegitimacy. However in 1255 William son of
Thomas granted the lands to his uncle Auger who then subinfeudated them to
Robert Waleraund.
The line of descent goes thus
1.William de Armscote fl 1166 father of
2.Auger of Talton
3.William de Maleseveres d.1226
+Clemence de Broc
4. Auger de Tatlinton (Talton) illeg.
4. Thomas (heir of his father)
5.William
5.Simon
5.Adam
4. Simon
4. Unnamed Son
[Source VCH Worcestershire v.3 p.254, 316, 541-551; IPM Sybil de Broc]
Is it a coincidence that Robert de Waleraund was granted lands which had
previously belonged to Clemence de Verdun and Clemence de Broc?
Additionally in the two IPMs of Sybil de Broc I quoted in a previous post,
there is sufficient evidence to show that all of Sybil's heirs were excluded
from their inheritence except Auger de Tatlinton, who being clearly
illegitimate, had no claim to it at all. The judgement was given as a result
of royal interference as it was "in arbitrio consilii domini Regis."
While it is not advisable to make wild assumptions out of this information,
a couple of questions do come to mind.
1.Could Auger have been an illegitimate brother of Henry III?
2.Was Clemence de Broc and Clemence de Verdun the same person?
If so it would mean she was not the mother of Rohese de Verdun.
More food for thought.
Cheers
Rosie
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> > Furthermore, I pointed out that
> > the wife of the next custodian of Susanna was not named in that grant.
>
> Who was the next custodian of Susanna? How many other examples
> do you have of grants of a female 'hostage'? Any?
And importantly (if there is a general pattern of Henry placing
his kin with relatives) was the next custodian a relative of
Susanna?
taf
Chris Phillips
> Is it a coincidence that Robert de Waleraund was granted lands which had
> previously belonged to Clemence de Verdun and Clemence de Broc?
>
> Additionally in the two IPMs of Sybil de Broc I quoted in a previous post,
> there is sufficient evidence to show that all of Sybil's heirs were
excluded
> from their inheritence except Auger de Tatlinton, who being clearly
> illegitimate, had no claim to it at all. The judgement was given as a
result
> of royal interference as it was "in arbitrio consilii domini Regis."
>
> While it is not advisable to make wild assumptions out of this
information,
> a couple of questions do come to mind.
>
> 1.Could Auger have been an illegitimate brother of Henry III?
>
> 2.Was Clemence de Broc and Clemence de Verdun the same person?
> If so it would mean she was not the mother of Rohese de Verdun.
That's very interesting. I can't help feeling there's a connection of some
sort between these two Clemences.
On point 2, I can't see how to get round the difficulty of Clemence de
Broc's father being called Ranulph, and Clemence de Verdun's Philip, if the
Curia Regis record discovered by Paul is correct. That's why I was grasping
at the possibility of one Clemence perhaps being the daughter of the other
by a previous marriage. (But that would spoil the idea about Auger, unless
Clemence de Broc had been King John's mistress whe she was a widow.)
One point that puzzles me is Auger's legal status. I think it's been
concluded in previous unrelated discussions that, legally, he would have
been the son of his mother and her husband at the time of his birth. So does
his status as an heir of Sybil necessarily indicate special favour?
Incidentally, I came across one of these Brocs (I think) yesterday in an
article on "The Foresters of Cannock in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries"
in Prosopon 12, which is available as a word document at:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/Prosopon12.doc
This mentions a Robert de Brok, who married Margery, daughter of William
Croc, and died "without a male heir" in 1196, though he apparently left a
daughter Margery who married Hugh de Loges. A subordinate forester Henry de
Brok is also mentioned.
Would this Robert be the Sir Robert de Broc, Forester of Cannock (Clemence's
brother), who married Margery da of Richard de Beauchamp, with issue, in
your original Broc post?
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> > Indeed, unless I've missed something, are we sure that Maud was a
daughter
> > of Theobald Butler? (A couple of weeks ago I was certainly puzzled about
how
> > she fitted in.)
> >
Paul Reed replied:
> Maud was given her marriage portion (or at least inheritance) by Clemence
> (Le Butiller) de Verdun after 1231. If she were daughter of Rohese (only
> daughter or one of several daughters) by a husband other than Theobald le
> Boteler, she would be heir of that husband, and that husband's lands.
Yes, the inquisition does state that Clemence gave it to Maud in free
marriage.
Just so I understand the argument - you'd say that if Rohese left a daughter
or daughters by a first marriage, and just sons (say) by a second, her
mother Clemence would not have settled land in free marriage on a daughter
of the first marriage, because that daughter would be an heir or coheir of
her father?
Chris Phillips
Paul C. Reed
No, I simply said that if Rohese left only a daughter or daughters by
a first husband, those daughters would be heir to her first husband's
lands. In other words, if Maud were daughter of Rohese, but NOT
daugter of Theobald le Boteler, and Maud's father had no sons, she
would be an heir of her father.
The question should really be (as we know Maud received land
directly from Clemence), was Maud daughter of Clemence (as
the document states) or Rohese? The fine calls her Maud de
Verdun, so we would assume she was either daughter or
granddaughter of Nicholas de Verdun by Clemence le Butiller.
If the Maud de Verdun/Albo Monasterio was the same Maud
who was ife of John Fitz Alan, her son and heir was born 14
Sep. 1246, and that Maud died 27 Nov. 1283.
Rohese de Verdun is called daughter and heir of
Nicholas de Verdun [see a previous post]. Thus it
would appear that Rohese had no legitimate sister.
Rohese de Verdun married Theobald le Boteler in
1225 and her son and heir was born the next year (so
we know she was at least of an age to bear children
in 1226). If Maud were daughter of Rohese, we might
estimate that she was born next, about 1228, and bore
her only son and heir John FitzAlan at about age
eighteen.
Paul
canberra
----- Original Message -----
From: <KHF...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun: Dispensations and Hostages
>
>
> I appreciate Paul's playing devil's advocate on this case. It is not my
place
> to respond point by point, but a few things strike me ... see below:
>
Dear Ken,
Can I do the same a bit? I understand that the reference to her was "Regina
Clementia". We know she was not a Queen, why should she be a
Clemence/Clementia? Could it have been a nickname? A reference to a
characteristic? As we stand, I think, most will agree we will never find out
for sure who the mother of Joan really was.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Paul C. Reed
Albo Monasterio might be a daughter of Rohese by a first husband.
Again, if this first husband of Rohese had a son by Rohese, he
would be eldest son of Rohese (and thus her male heir). If Rohese
only had a daughter or daughters by this first husband, Maud
would be heir or coheir of that first husband of Rohese. (1) We
would expect that ant first arranged marriage for Rohese would
be to a man who held in military service of the king. She was
a considerable heiress. (2) At his death, shortly before 1225,
we would expect that there would be an order in the Close
Rolls to give Rohese her dower out of that husband's estate
[what year of Henry III does IPMs start?].
I will have to check to see what source shows Maud as
wife of Sir John Fitz Alan by 20 Oct. 1242. But as her
only son and heir was not born until 14 Sep. 1246, one
might conclude she became fertile after she had already
married [thus was at least twelve in 1242 (b. before 1230),
but not likely older than eighteen in 1246 (b. after 1226)].
That chronology would fit with her being daughter of
Theobald le Boteler.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
Hi Leo,
That is exactly how I felt when Douglas first posted his findings. We have
known about Queen Clementia for a long time, but we have also known there was
no such queen. I always dismissed the whole thing by telling myself that the
scribe was in error and did not know anything about the people involved.
Even if there were a Clementia, why should be call her a queen?
Now that we have learned more about the situation, I believe that Clemence of
Verdun was a woman with a regal quality -- a charming and lovely noblewoman
totally in charge of any situation that came her way. After having an affair
and a child with the Prince of England, she still managed to marry one of the
richest and most powerful landholders in the country. I now believe that she
was a woman with the demeanor of a queen and was called Queen Clementia out
of respect and knowledge of for her person. She did bear a princess, so
calling her a queen -- especially if it fit her persona -- was the proper
thing to do.
The remaining stumbling lock to Clemence of Verdun being the mother of Joan
is the consanguinity in the marriage of some of her descendants. If Doug is
correct about
the parents of Gladys Dhu, then that is still an issue. However,
dispensations were not always sought. It was easy to divorce a barren woman
if she was a relative. This is what Louis did with Eleanor a few generations
earlier. Certainly, the politics and reasoning behind this famous divorce was
common knowledge among the descendants. It could well have served as a
strategic model for being able to have your cake and eat it too.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/28/01 11:16:27 PM, cbe...@paradise.net.nz writes:
<< 2.Was Clemence de Broc and Clemence de Verdun the same person?
If so it would mean she was not the mother of Rohese de Verdun. >>
That is food for thought. Makes some sense to me. How do we know that we have
the correct father for each of them ... is Philip beyond question?
This gets more interesting by the day.
- Ken
Chris Phillips
> > Just so I understand the argument - you'd say that if Rohese left a
daughter
> > or daughters by a first marriage, and just sons (say) by a second, her
> > mother Clemence would not have settled land in free marriage on a
daughter
> > of the first marriage, because that daughter would be an heir or coheir
of
> > her father?
Paul Reed replied:
> No, I simply said that if Rohese left only a daughter or daughters by
> a first husband, those daughters would be heir to her first husband's
> lands. In other words, if Maud were daughter of Rohese, but NOT
> daugter of Theobald le Boteler, and Maud's father had no sons, she
> would be an heir of her father.
And in a later message:
> (1) We
> would expect that ant first arranged marriage for Rohese would
> be to a man who held in military service of the king. She was
> a considerable heiress. (2) At his death, shortly before 1225,
> we would expect that there would be an order in the Close
> Rolls to give Rohese her dower out of that husband's estate
> [what year of Henry III does IPMs start?].
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at.
The PRO web site says inquisitions post mortem begin in 1236 (a bit earlier
than I should have guessed).
> If the Maud de Verdun/Albo Monasterio was the same Maud
> who was ife of John Fitz Alan, her son and heir was born 14
> Sep. 1246, and that Maud died 27 Nov. 1283.
At least there's no doubt that these Mauds were the same. The same
inquisitions that name her de Verdun and de Albo Monasterio also call her
the widow of John Fitz Alan, or at least mention her dower in the Fitz Alan
lands.
Possibly Maud's use of her (presumed) mother's surname "de Verdun" is
another argument in favour of her being Theobald's daughter. Am I right in
thinking that the lack of a paternal surname was often a factor in such
cases (as you argued with respect to "Fitz Alan" about her use of "de Albo
Monasterio")? Perhaps the fact that Theobald used a recently adopted title
like "le Boteler" was a factor in Rohese's children using the surname "de
Verdun".
Chris Phillips
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
[Note: It is obvious from the recent postings of several individuals
that the problem of identifying Joan's mother is a complicated case.
This posting concerns the specific general claim that hostages were
generally placed with relatives.]
>4. I stated that I previously had observed a pattern of foreign born
>hostages being placed with English relatives. I cited the example of
>Alan Fitz Roland's daughter in specific and the example of Scottish
>hostages in general. I stated my belief that if such a pattern was
>correct, then it was highly likely that Susanna was closely related to
>Nicholas and Clemence de Verdun, her guardians.
>
>So far, no one has step forward to refute either my observation or my
>examples. Alan Fitz Roland whose daughter was a hostage was a
>contemporary to Joan and Llywellyn, and held the same rank as Llewelyn
>did at the English court. He was a blood kinsman of the king, just as
>Joan was a blood kinswoman. Moreover, Alan's wife was the sister of
>an English baron and the niece of another English baron. Surely, his
>daughter would have received similar treatment as Joan's daughter,
>Susanna. In Alan Fitz Roland, you have a contemporary person of
>similar rank with a female child. His daughter was placed with her
>uncle, an English baron. You couldn't ask for a better example. In
>fact, it is tailor made.
But it comes nowhere near to establishing your claim that hostages
were were usually placed with relatives. It only shows the MUCH
weaker conclusion that hostages were SOMETIMES placed with relatives.
You seem to be completely missing the point here. If you claim a that
general pattern is true, then it simply does not suffice to give an
example or two and then claim that you have proven your point. The
logic there is simply not valid. It is a serious error of a very
fundamental type. (In fact, it is a point that some of my mathematics
students just never seem to get: you cannot prove a general statement
by simply giving a few examples.)
>If the discussion is to proceed further, it is necessary that Mr. Reed
>cite his evidence and rebut my theory point by point on a factual
>basis. The burden is on him.
This is simply not true. You have used flawed logic to support a
claim that has not yet been demonstrated. As the proposer of the
"hostages were placed with relatives" theory, the burden rests on your
shoulders, and you can not legitimately shift that burden to somebody
else by simply claiming that you have established the point, when it
is quite clear that you have not. The claim may in fact be true, but
it has yet to be demonstrated, and if you would like to see it get
accepted as a valid observation, then you, as the proposer, should do
the research yourself instead of making the ridiculous suggestion that
it is somebody else's job to go to the trouble of assembling the
evidence to find out whether or not the examples you gave are part of
a pattern that is true in general.
Stewart Baldwin
William Addams Reitwiesner
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <KHF...@aol.com>
>To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 2:04 AM
>Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun: Dispensations and Hostages
>
>> I appreciate Paul's playing devil's advocate on this case. It is not my
>place
>> to respond point by point, but a few things strike me ... see below:
>>
>Dear Ken,
>Can I do the same a bit? I understand that the reference to her was "Regina
>Clementia". We know she was not a Queen, why should she be a
>Clemence/Clementia? Could it have been a nickname? A reference to a
>characteristic?
I'd always thought that "Clementia" was an epithet, as in "Kind Lady".
>As we stand, I think, most will agree we will never find out
>for sure who the mother of Joan really was.
Works for me. Unfortunately that leaves a hole in the charts, and as we
all know, nature abhors a vacuum :)
--
Ceterum censeo DSH delendam esse.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Paul C. Reed
Adjectives of the form *clemens, clementis* are identical whatever the
gender they modify, so reference to a clement queen would be 'regina
clemens'. *Clementia* is a noun form which is here clearly a proper name,
not any form of an adjective.
Nat Taylor
Rosie Bevan
> concluded in previous unrelated discussions that, legally, he would have
> been the son of his mother and her husband at the time of his birth. So
does
> his status as an heir of Sybil necessarily indicate special favour?
His treatment appears to indicate otherwise. I was misled by the outcome of
the case and concluded that he must have been considered legitimate because
he was stated to be heir of Sybil. However, when I started looking at it
closely I realised there was something not right about the judgement because
it excluded Sybil's other heirs. The first IPM of Sybil outlined who the
correct heirs were, but the second one which was being arbitrated by the
king, cut out all the other heirs except Auger. The fact that he was not
heir of William Maleseveres in 1226 shows that he WAS considered a bastard.
There are a number of unusual features about this IPM - the mention that
Clemence was pregnant when she married, two inquisitions for the same
property, and direct personal involvement of the king.
>
> Incidentally, I came across one of these Brocs (I think) yesterday in an
> article on "The Foresters of Cannock in the Eleventh and Twelfth
Centuries"
> in Prosopon 12, which is available as a word document at:
> http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/Prosopon12.doc
> This mentions a Robert de Brok, who married Margery, daughter of William
> Croc, and died "without a male heir" in 1196, though he apparently left a
> daughter Margery who married Hugh de Loges. A subordinate forester Henry
de
> Brok is also mentioned.
Thanks very much for mentioning it - I hadn't seen it.
>
> Would this Robert be the Sir Robert de Broc, Forester of Cannock
(Clemence's
> brother), who married Margery da of Richard de Beauchamp, with issue, in
> your original Broc post?
I believe so. He married Margery Croc first and had Margery his daughter
who was heir of the post of Forester. With his second wife Margery
Beauchamp, he apparently had a son and heir Sir Lawrence Broc, who died s.p.
before 1204.
Cheers
Rosie
Paul C. Reed
> Possibly Maud's use of her (presumed) mother's surname "de Verdun" is
> another argument in favour of her being Theobald's daughter. Am I right in
> thinking that the lack of a paternal surname was often a factor in such
> cases (as you argued with respect to "Fitz Alan" about her use of "de Albo
> Monasterio")? Perhaps the fact that Theobald used a recently adopted title
> like "le Boteler" was a factor in Rohese's children using the surname "de
> Verdun".
Thanks, Chris. I agree, and think I came to the same conclusions in one
of my posts which explained why her son and heir adopted the surname
Verdun.
Cheers! <feeling very worn out>
Paul
Paul C. Reed
discussion
about Clemence le Butiller as possible mother of Joan, so I'll introduce
them now. When King John sent for Joan to arrange for her marriage, he
sent
for her IN FRANCE. This would usually indicate she had been educated
and nurtured there, n'est pas?
Second, the instrument which legitimized Joan stated she was born
before King John married his first wife, meaning Joan must have been
born by August 1189.
John Carmi Parsons wrote:
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999
<<Many years after she was married, Joan was declared legitimate
by Pope Honorius III, but the papal document explicitly stated that the
legitimation did not make her eligible to succeed to the throne of
England.
This document also states clearly that Joan was born before either of her
parents was married.This means that she must have been born before
John married his first wife, Isabella of Gloucester, in 1189. We know
that John spent much of his time before 1189 on the Continent, and the
earliest documentary evidence we have for Joan's life is, in fact, John's
order in 1203 that his daughter be brought to England from Normandy,
where she was presumably living at the time he betrothed her to Llywelyn.
Since we also know that Clemence was a fairly rare name in England in
the 12th century, but common in France, it seems very likely that
Joan's mother Clemence was French, and that Joan was born there
sometime before 1189.
As John himself was only born in December 1167, he was at most 21 and
maybe younger than that when his daughter Joan was born. She may well
have been the eldest of all the children he fathered by his various
mistresses.>>
John Carmi Parson wrote:
Date: 1999/07/20
<<Nobody, certainly not I, ever said the name Clemence was entirely
unknown
in England at this period--only that it was uncommon, whereas it was
popular
on the Continent. That Joan was in Normandy when John ordered her
brought
to England in 1203 is significant because there is so little evidence
that he
ever paid much attention to any of his children, legitimate or otherwise.
This
would argue that Joan had not got from England to Normandy before 1203
at John's side--i.e., that he had not taken her there with him. It is
more
likely that her whole life had been spent on that side of the Channel.
As we know Joan was born before 1189, she may well have been the eldest
among John's OOW children and it would be more likely at that period that
he would have fathered her in France. He did not begin to spend a great
deal of his time in England until after Henry II's death, also in 1189.
So far
as I've been able to determine, none of John's other OOW children had
French mothers.>>
The name Clemence was definitely more common in France, possibly
more popular because of various noble women who bore the
name (Clemence de Burgundy, Clemence de Bar, Clemence de
Dammartin, Clemence de Foix, Clemence de Poitou, and, of course,
Clemence de Fougers).
I've thrown together a working itinerary of John between 1184 (when
he would have been about sixteen) and 1189, by which time Joan was
born. I have not checked charters or other royal documents to supplement
this. It is just a rough draft:
1167 Dec 24 - John was born at Oxford, 8th and youngest child,
but placed under the care of an abbey in Anjou, where he spent
his early years [makes you wonder if he was originally destined
for the church!]
1183 Mar. 31 - at Windsor Castle (John was knighted)
1183 June 11 - young Henry dies
1183 Dec. - in London
1184 June - in Aquitaine, attacking his brother Richard; both ordered
back to England by their father
1185 Mar. 18 - at Clerkenwell: John, on bended knee, asks his father
to go to Jerusalem, but this is refused
1185 Spring - John sent to Ireland by Henry
1185 Apr. 24 - sails from Milford Haven to Waterford
1185 Dec. 17 - returns to England
1186 Christmas - John at Guildford with Henry. John ordered to go
to Normandy ahead of Henry
1187 Jan. - after Henry's arrival, John it placed as head of one branch
of the army.
1187 June - John still in France when Chateauroux besieged
1187 June 23 - truce
1188 Jan. 30 - Henry returns to England, possibly with John in tow
1188 Summer - Henry sends John back to Normandy, crosses from
Shoreham to Dieppe; Henry then goes to France, John remaining there
1189 June 12 - John at Le Mans when disarmed by Henry's order, and
John fled or was led away for safety
1189 July 6 - Henry I dies in France
1189 Aug. 12 - Richard brings John back to England with him
1189 Aug. 29 - John married at Marlebridge
1189 Sep. 3 - Richard crowned at Westminster Abbey
1189 Oct. - Richard sends John into Wales to subdue them
1190 Feb. - John summoned to Normandy and forced to swear
not to set foot into England for three years
1190 June - Richard goes on crusade [John breaks his oath]
For our purposes, I think the most important time, and the most
likely time for Joan to have been conceived, is the 1187-9 period.
1187 - John spends virtually the entire year in France
1188 - John might have returned to England in January, but by
summer is sent back to France, where he appears to have
remained
1189 - John appears to be in France January - August, returning
to England in August in anticipation of his marriage on 29 Aug.
If there were not more returns to England, it would appear that John
spent about 80% of his time from January 1187 until his marriage in
France. He was at some point given the County of Mortain, in
Normandy (before Richard's coronation).
Charter evidence might either substantiate this itinerary, or show
that he returned to England more often. I think it would be helpful
to fill in this itinerary [this was just a first stab, I did not have
time
to attempt to be exhaustive of sources for these two years].
Paul
Paul C. Reed
> I think two important points have been overlooked in the recent
> discussion about Clemence le Butiller as possible mother of Joan,
> so I'll introduce them now. When King John sent for Joan to
> arrange for her marriage, he sent
> for her IN FRANCE. This would usually indicate she had
> been educated and nurtured there
[snip]
> If there were not more returns to England, it would appear that John
> spent about 80% of his time from January 1187 until his marriage in
> France. He was at some point given the County of Mortain, in
> Normandy (before Richard's coronation).
John was Count of Mortain, in Normandy, by 1189. Is he known
to have had any holdings in England before his marriage? Normandy
was an important center for his father Henry, even after he became
King of England.
If it turns out that John spent four fifths of 1187- Aug. 1189 in France,
one might presume that Normandy would be his home base. Do we
know of a Clemence from Normandy who might be a candidate?
Clemence de Fougers was sister of Richard du Hommet, Constable
of Normandy, and her father was William du Hommet, Constable of
Normandy. She was first married to Alan de Dinan, and prominet
enough [her marriage would have been arranged by John] to marry
as her next husband Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl of Chester and
Vicomte d'Avranches, in Normandy. Ranulph was born at
Owestry [Album Monasterium, or Blonde Ville CP 3:167] about
1172, and was thus about four to five years younger than John.
Earl Ranulph had no issue by his first wife, Constance, daughter
and heir of Conan, Duke of Brittany, and Earl of Richmond (and
widow of Geoffrey, the King's nephew). He divorced her, it is
said for having an affair with King John. Earl Ranulph married
Clemence de Fougers in 1200, by Oct. 7, and any issue she
might have would become heir to both the Earldom of Chester
and Vicomte d'Avranches, in Normandy.
Given that Clemence de Fougers was daughter and sister of
Constables of Normandy, I would thank it likely that John,
Count of Mortain, in Normandy, knew of her [and perhaps
*knew* her]. A close connection to John might explain
what would seem a very advantageous second marriage
for Clemence.
Paul
Paul C. Reed
> Clemence de Fougers was sister of Richard du Hommet, Constable
> of Normandy, and her father was William du Hommet, Constable
She was actually daughter of William de Fougers, by Agatha du Hommet
That's what I get for posting so far past my bedtime.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> The name Clemence was definitely more common in France, possibly
> more popular because of various noble women who bore the
> name (Clemence de Burgundy, Clemence de Bar, Clemence de
No such woman - "Clemence of Foix" was an invention of
convenience by Vajay, the basis for whom has since proved
erroneous.
> 1167 Dec 24 - John was born at Oxford, 8th and youngest child,
> but placed under the care of an abbey in Anjou, where he spent
> his early years [makes you wonder if he was originally destined
> for the church!]
His name hints that way as well.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Sloppy, very sloppy:
"Paul C. Reed" wrote:
>
> The name Clemence was definitely more common in France, possibly
> more popular because of various noble women who bore the
> name (Clemence de Burgundy, Clemence de Bar, Clemence de
> Dammartin, Clemence de Foix, . . . .
"No such woman - "Clemence of Foix" was an invention of
convenience by Vajay, the basis for whom has since proved
erroneous." ---- Todd A. Farmerie
-----------------------------------------
Yes, very much in character.
Hoist with his own petard.
Before Pogue Reed clumsily chastises Douglas Richardson, and prattles
haughtily and prissily ---- he should clean up his own genealogical act.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Paul C. Reed
>
> > Clemence de Fougers was daughter of William de Fougers, by Agatha du
> Hommet
CP 3:168 states that there is an account of this family in
Journal of the British Archaeological Association, v. 7.
I do not have access to that source.
It would be interesting to know what it says about Clemence
and William de Fougers.
Paul
canberra
ES II Tafel 59 shows a Clemence de Foix as wife of Adalbert de Longwy,
admittedly this link is marked as questionable. There is a large list of
sources for Tafels 59-61 and Vajay is one of many. I wonder, can we dismiss
all Clemences de Foix as easily?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: Clemence, mother of Joan
> "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > The name Clemence was definitely more common in France, possibly
> > more popular because of various noble women who bore the
> > name (Clemence de Burgundy, Clemence de Bar, Clemence de
> > Dammartin, Clemence de Foix, . . . .
>
> No such woman - "Clemence of Foix" was an invention of
> convenience by Vajay, the basis for whom has since proved
> erroneous.
>
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Dear Todd,
> ES II Tafel 59 shows a Clemence de Foix as wife of Adalbert de Longwy,
> admittedly this link is marked as questionable. There is a large list of
> sources for Tafels 59-61 and Vajay is one of many. I wonder, can we dismiss
> all Clemences de Foix as easily?
Absolutely. Vajay himself just published an article which
destroys her existance and admits to the errors of his previous
theory. She NEVER existed, except in theory, and now not even
that.
Search the archives for this year and you will find a post of
mine, entitled, IIRC "Clemence of Foix - NOT!" in which I explain
this fully.
taf