Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage

[bat...@hotmail.com]

Cheers and Happy New Year to all!

I've always been curious about the marriage of Thomas of
Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, to Alice Hayles. This is an
extraordinarily obscure marriage for a Prince of the royal blood.

Thomas was next in line to the throne after his brother King
Edward II, at least until the birth of the future Edward III in 1312.
Even after that, especially with the infant death rate in the 14th
century, he was still quite possibly a candidate to inherit the
throne.

About 1316, according to Burke's Peerage, he married Alice
Hayles, the daughter of a knight (an official in a county that I can't
remember offhand). Thomas of Brotherton was born in 1300, so
that would make him 16 at the time of his marriage.

Considering that Richard of Cornwall (younger brother of King
Henry III) and Edmund of Lancaster (younger brother of King
Edward I) both were wed to great heiresses and/or royal wives,
why was the younger brother of Edward II married to such an
obscure woman?

I find no reasons given in the works I've read on the life of Edward
II. It's very odd that Edward II or Thomas's mother Dowager Queen
Margaret (who didn't die until 1318) did not arrange a more
splendid match for the young prince. Were there political
reasons?

Is it possible that Thomas of Brotherton and Alice Hayles were a
teenaged love match that was allowed to go forward?

If anyone can shed light or direct me to possible further sources of
info, I would very much appreciate it.

Best regards,

----Brad Verity

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

[GRHa...@cs.com]

Hello Brad,

I fear I must challenge you to a duel, since you have belittled the name
of my 18th great aunt Alyce Hayles. Calling her obscure. Obscure, indeed!
Her husband was so obscure that he had to say he was from somewhere so people
would know who he was. He had no surname. while my 18th great aunt did.

Seriously, I have wondered about this myself and would love to know the
story. If you learn of any details off list please let me have them also.

If I can find any seconds I'll have them call on you. Do you think that
wet noodles at 500 yards would be satisfactory for the duel.

Gordon Reid Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Renia]

According to CP, Thomas of Brotherton, the 5th (of 6) son of Edward I,
but first by his 2nd wife, Margaret, dau of Philip III of France, married
Alice Hales about 1320. Her father, Sir Roger de Hales, was Coroner of
Norfolk from 1303 until his death in 1313. She died before 1330.

Renia

[RMe...@aol.com]

In a message dated 01/02/2001 5:18:44 PM Central Standard Time,
PSim...@cwcom.net writes:

<< According to CP, Thomas of Brotherton, the 5th (of 6) son of Edward I,
but first by his 2nd wife, Margaret, dau of Philip III of France, married
Alice Hales about 1320. Her father, Sir Roger de Hales, was Coroner of
Norfolk from 1303 until his death in 1313. She died before 1330.

Renia
>>

He had another wife as well, later on. I can't think of who she was right now.

Loyaulte Me Lie,
Rania

[bat...@hotmail.com]

GRHa...@cs.com wrote:

> I fear I must challenge you to a duel, since you have belittled
the name
> of my 18th great aunt Alyce Hayles. Calling her obscure.
Obscure, indeed!

I accept your duel challenge, Gordon! I love that you're eagerly
defending the honor of your 18th great aunt Alice. She would be
very pleased, I'm certain. By 'obscure' I meant there is very little
information on her, and did not mean to slight the Hayles family in
any way. I'm sure Sir Roger de Hales (see Raina's post on this
topic) was a very decent coroner of Norfolk as, ummm, coroners
go. ;)

> Her husband was so obscure that he had to say he was from
somewhere so people
> would know who he was. He had no surname. while my 18th
great aunt did.

Now you dare to slight my boy Thomas of Brotherton - on guard,
sir! Thomas didn't need a surname - he was the Earl of Norfolk.
And he was kind enough to put Brotherton on the map. I mean
who's ever heard of it except in relation to him? And, hey, he was
named after St. Thomas, as his mother Queen Margaret would
probably be quick to point out.

> Seriously, I have wondered about this myself and would love to
know the
> story. If you learn of any details off list please let me have them
also.

Absolutely. I'm glad you share interest in this unusual royal
marriage. Let's research it together and share all findings.

> If I can find any seconds I'll have them call on you. Do you
think that
> wet noodles at 500 yards would be satisfactory for the duel.

Ah, I think the Earl and Countess of Norfolk deserve a little more.
How about as we research, you take the cause of your 18th great
aunt Alice - that she 'a commoner,' as it were, managed to wed the
royal man she loved with full blessing of the court?

I'll be devil's advocate and claim the whole union reeks of a
clandestine love match held far away from court and that was
frowned on by the royal family for some time afterward.

Either way, it's a great story that begs looking into. Let the
research begin! Best regards, Brad Verity

[GRHa...@cs.com]

I have another spouse listed for Edward I also; but all I have is a surname,
and not too happy with the accuracy of it. De Botetourt. She purportedly
gave birth to a John De Botetourt in 1262. No further information on him.

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Gordon,
I think John de Botetourt was only a "possible" illegitimate son.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

[D. Spencer Hines]

Bogus.
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

<GRHa...@cs.com> wrote in message news:d5.7f9d93...@cs.com...

[RMe...@aol.com]

Actually I was thinking that Thomas of Brotherton had a wife after Alice
Hales.

Loyaulte Me Lie,
Rania

[bat...@hotmail.com]

RMe...@aol.com wrote:

> He had another wife as well, later on. I can't think of who she
was right now.

PSim...@cwcom.net writes:

<< According to CP, Thomas of Brotherton, the 5th (of 6) son of
Edward I,
> but first by his 2nd wife, Margaret, dau of Philip III of France,
married
> Alice Hales about 1320. Her father, Sir Roger de Hales, was
Coroner of
> Norfolk from 1303 until his death in 1313. She died before 1330.

Many thanks to you both, for getting me a start on this topic. I will
read other articles in COMPLETE PEERAGE next time I'm at the
library and see if further facts/clues emerge.

In the meantime, this snippet of info leads to more curious
questions about this unusual royal union:

A) Since Sir Roger de Hales died in 1313, he could not have
arranged his daughter Alice's marriage to young Earl Thomas. So,
who did? This completely blows my 'shotgun wedding' theory by
the way, with Sir Roger holding a lance to the back of young Earl
Thomas after catching him in the stables with the fair Alice.

B) Was a medieval coroner's function the same as a present day
one's? I haven't heard of many 14th century autopsies, so what
were the duties of a 'Coroner of Norfolk'? Very curious.

C) If the marriage took place in 1320 instead of 1316, then
Thomas' mother Dowager Queen Margaret was dead when it
occured. This seems more likely, as I can't imagine a positive
reaction from the lady at the news that her elder son was marrying
the coroner's daughter. Why did Queen Margaret, the widow of the
previous King of England, stepmother of the current one, and
blood aunt to both the current Queen of England and King of
France, not arrange a 'more suitable' marriage for her elder son
before her death? As John Parsons points out in his wonderful
biography of Eleanor of Castile, arranging marriages was one of
the most influential functions of medieval queens.

D) How is it that the marriages of Edward I's daughters were all
public affairs with well-chronicled dates and locations, while that of
his second son Thomas can not even be narrowed down to a
specific year due to poor coverage in the chronicles? Did it take
place at Westminster Abbey? Did King Edward II and Queen
Isabella attend? If it was a clandestine, secret marriage, what was
the reaction of the King and Queen to the new Countess of
Norfolk?

E) Is there any biographical/historical info at all on Alice, Countess
of Norfolk? Was she a frequent visitor at court during her lifetime?

If any one has suggestions as to other sources I can search for
answers, please let me know - I'd be very grateful.

Best regards, -------Brad Verity

[Benjamin Hertzel]

><< According to CP, Thomas of Brotherton, the 5th (of 6) son of Edward I,
> but first by his 2nd wife, Margaret, dau of Philip III of France, married
> Alice Hales about 1320. Her father, Sir Roger de Hales, was Coroner of
> Norfolk from 1303 until his death in 1313. She died before 1330.

Any information on Alice's mother?

Benjamin

[GRHa...@cs.com]

In a message dated 01/02/2001 6:48:51 PM Central Standard Time,
ja...@millcomm.com writes:

Alice Hayles mother was Alice Skogan b. 1277, Woodchurch, Kent, England.
No further information on her in my file. Don't even know where I got that
information; but I suspect it was from Hales.org.

[Renia]

Yes, he married Mary, widow of Sir Ralph de Cobham, sister of Sir Thomas de Brewes
and daughter of Sir Piers de Brewes.

Renia

[Jay Kotliar]

Glad to see distant cousins online interested in the same folks as I am.
Definitely a curiosity, still Thomas would have to marry with the King's
blessing or pay a major fine...was any fine levied???

[GRHa...@cs.com]

To all of you folks who thought that you had some data on the marriages of
Thomas of Brotherton may now just forget, remove all the information from
your files and go to beddie bye. We have received the be all know all am all
edict from above:

BOGUS!
ala D_Spencer_Hines

[Renia]

GRHa...@cs.com wrote:

In response to your statement:

> I have another spouse listed for Edward I also; but all I have is a surname,
> and not too happy with the accuracy of it. De Botetourt. She purportedly
> gave birth to a John De Botetourt in 1262. No further information on him.
>

Leo van de Pas wrote:

> Dear Gordon,
> I think John de Botetourt was only a "possible" illegitimate son.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
>

And in response to the same statement: DSH wrote:

> Bogus.
>

Renia

[Amanda Jones]

> B) Was a medieval coroner's function the same as a present day
> one's? I haven't heard of many 14th century autopsies, so what
> were the duties of a 'Coroner of Norfolk'? Very curious.

A lot of Coroner's functions remain the same. The point is not to do an
autopsy, but enquire into the cause of death, for example suicide,
unlawful killing, or open.

Amanda

[Renia]

bat...@hotmail.com wrote:

> RMe...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > He had another wife as well, later on. I can't think of who she
> was right now.
>
> PSim...@cwcom.net writes:
> << According to CP, Thomas of Brotherton, the 5th (of 6) son of
> Edward I,
> > but first by his 2nd wife, Margaret, dau of Philip III of France,
> married
> > Alice Hales about 1320. Her father, Sir Roger de Hales, was
> Coroner of
> > Norfolk from 1303 until his death in 1313. She died before 1330.
>
> Many thanks to you both, for getting me a start on this topic. I will
> read other articles in COMPLETE PEERAGE next time I'm at the
> library and see if further facts/clues emerge.
>
> In the meantime, this snippet of info leads to more curious
> questions about this unusual royal union:
>
> A) Since Sir Roger de Hales died in 1313, he could not have
> arranged his daughter Alice's marriage to young Earl Thomas. So,
> who did? This completely blows my 'shotgun wedding' theory by
> the way, with Sir Roger holding a lance to the back of young Earl
> Thomas after catching him in the stables with the fair Alice.

Thomas of Brotherton was created Earl of Norfolk on 8 Jan 1312/3. On 10
Feb 1315/6 he was created Earl Marshal of England. During the King's
absence in Scotland in the spring of 1319 he was left as Keeper of
England, and he was knighted by the King at York, 15 July the same year.
These may be clues, also, that his wife was daughter of the Coroner of
Norfolk hints at a county link.

> B) Was a medieval coroner's function the same as a present day
> one's? I haven't heard of many 14th century autopsies, so what
> were the duties of a 'Coroner of Norfolk'? Very curious.

Coroner is one of the oldest judicial officers in England, dating back to
the 12th century. The early function of the king's coroner, or "crowner",
were much wider than at present, the chief being to collect and guard
certain revenues of the king. He had to seek out criminals, extort
confessions, and confiscate their goods for the crown. He seized
treasure-trove in the king's name and took possession of wrecks, stranded
whales, and royal sturgeons. He also tried "appeals" or accusations of
felony, and investigated deaths from violence, the primary object being to
find whether, as otulaw, felon or suicide, the deceased person had left
property seizable by the coroner.

Renia

[bat...@hotmail.com]

In article <3A52822B...@concentric.net>,

[bat...@hotmail.com]

In article <3A52822B...@concentric.net>,
ba...@concentric.net wrote:

[bat...@hotmail.com]

In article <3A52822B...@concentric.net>,
ba...@concentric.net wrote:

[bat...@hotmail.com]

ba...@concentric.net wrote:
> Glad to see distant cousins online interested in the same folks
as I am.
> Definitely a curiosity, still Thomas would have to marry with the
King's
> blessing or pay a major fine...was any fine levied???

Jay,

Good point! I'll find out when I read through Complete Peerage at
the library. That work usually cites such fines when they were
levied on the nobility. Perhaps there's a Papal dispensation on the
records, too, regarding this union. That would have more
information. Thanks for bringing it up. [Gordon, looks like you
might win the first round. A lack of a royal fine on this marriage
would imply it had the approval of King Edward II].

Of course, the next question - if that's the case, why would the King
give his approval to such a disadvantageous match for his
younger brother? Maybe Edward II wasn't such a selfish louse
after all?

Thanks again, Jay, and I'll let you know what I find out. Regards,
-----Brad Verity

[Gryphon801]

There is no indication that a fine was levied, though CP does not date the
marriage except as "probably circa 1320".

[D. Spencer Hines]

Vide infra postea.

Leo and Renia are correct.

Hale is peddling codswallop, balderdash, moonshine and panther
urine ---- all in the same bottle.

----------------------------Cordon Sanitaire---------------

"I have another spouse listed for Edward I also; but all I have is a
surname, and not too happy with the accuracy of it. De Botetourt. She
purportedly gave birth to a John De Botetourt in 1262. No further
information on him."

Gordon Reid Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

----------------------------Cordon Sanitaire---------------

1. If Edward I did have any bastards, the women he had them with were
not "spouses." That's codswallop.

2. The name is de Botetourt, not "De Botetourt" ---- Hale has been
reading too much Alexandre Dumas. That's balderdash.

3. So, "John De Botetourt" is also rubbish. That's moonshine.

4. John de Botetourt's parents are unknown. Vide CP II:233-4, _sub
nomine_ Botetourt. That's accurate information.

5. John de Botetourt's birth date is unknown. He was summoned to
parliament in 1305 and died in 1324. That's accurate information.

6. John de Botetourt cannot be proven to be a bastard of King Edward I,
therefore to say that Edward I had a "spouse" who was "John De
Botetourt's" mother is also wrong. That's panther urine.

Ergo, as I said before ---- BOGUS.

Deus Vult.

Fortem Posce Animum.

Matthew 7:6
----

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3A5281E9...@cwcom.net...

[The Thill Group, Inc.]

I am cracking up here (slang for laughing).

Sorry D. Spencer but I guess I have to go stand in line for some of Hale's

codswallop, balderdash, moonshine and panther urine ---- all in the same

bottle. I had the same thing as he.

Wrong maybe but in his message [you noted it below if you need], he did say
he wasn't happy with the accuracy of it. I am not happy with mine either but
until it can be proven or disproved, what is wrong with a idea, as long as
it is noted that it may not be perfect? Are idea's now wrong too?

Dang this list of rules keep getting longer.

Becky T
Waiting to get slapped again
ttg...@home.com
* ttg-inc = The Thill Group, Inc., a corporation for
contract programming.
Only related to the genealogy line I work with as a means
to receive my e-mails.
* T. = Thill, as in the owner of The Thill Group, Inc.
* The genealogy information asked or shared is for
my personal hobby of genealogy and not connected to the
contract programming corporation that I own.
:)

----- Original Message -----
From: D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage

> Vide infra postea.
>
> Leo and Renia are correct.
>
> Hale is peddling codswallop, balderdash, moonshine and panther
> urine ---- all in the same bottle.
>
> ----------------------------Cordon Sanitaire---------------
>
> "I have another spouse listed for Edward I also; but all I have is a
> surname, and not too happy with the accuracy of it. De Botetourt. She
> purportedly gave birth to a John De Botetourt in 1262. No further
> information on him."
>

> Gordon Reid Hale
> Grand Prairie, Texas
>

[John Steele Gordon]

<GRHa...@cs.com> wrote in message news:55.f4eb18...@cs.com...

Since she is my 22nd great grandmother, I'll be happy to hold your coat. As
the aggrieved party, you have the choice of weapons. This gives the
challenger a considerable advantage, of course, as he can choose a weapon he
is good at and his opponent is not. This may account for why more
challengers survived duels than did the challenged. (Ask Alexander
Hamilton.)

JSG

[Jay Kotliar]

Not only would Edward be sanctioning a disadvantageous marriage, he
would be risking raising the ire of nobles who had aspirations for their
daughters. Look at the anger Henry III received when he married his
sister to Simon de Montfort, and Simon at least was the son of a man who
was offered the throne of England! Of course Edward II was one who made
alot of decisions that earned him the ire of his powerful magnate.
Perhaps Edward feared his brother to some degree and saw the match as
diminishing the threat????

[p.sutton]

Although the father of John de Botetourt may or may not be known "CP
II:233-4, _sub nomine_ Botetourt" is not the last word. CP Volume XIV
Addenda & Corrigenda 1998 Sutton Publishing p. 102 states "page 233 line
13 - for whose parentage is unknown read bastard s. of Edward I [Hailes
Chron. in BM Cott MS Cleopatra DIII f.51 ex inform A.R. Wagner]".

I know that this topic has been debated at length, I think last year.

Peter Sutton

> -----Original Message-----
> From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of D.
> Spencer Hines
> Sent: 03 January 2001 03:33
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage
>
>

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nope.

That's not the last word either.

Stay tuned.
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"p.sutton" <p.su...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BDEILJCPECNKFPKPCL...@ntlworld.com...

[GRHa...@cs.com]

Hello Spency,

To paraphrase, "Egotism corrupts and absolute egotism corrupts
absolutely"!

[William Addams Reitwiesner]

leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas) wrote:

>From: <GRHa...@cs.com>
>To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:12 AM
>Subject: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage
>
>
>> I have another spouse listed for Edward I also; but all I have is a
>surname,
>> and not too happy with the accuracy of it. De Botetourt. She purportedly
>> gave birth to a John De Botetourt in 1262. No further information on him.
>>
>> Gordon Reid Hale
>> Grand Prairie, Texas
>>
>>

>Dear Gordon,
>I think John de Botetourt was only a "possible" illegitimate son.
>Best wishes
>Leo van de Pas

See *The American Genealogist*, vol. 63 (1988), pp. 145-153 for an article
on the Botetourt family, with information about John de Botetourt's correct
parentage. No, he wasn't a child of Edward I, not even "possibly".

William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com

"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."

[D. Spencer Hines]

It's good to know that CP can be WRONG ---- even in the corrections,
addenda and corrigenda volume.

How Sweet It Is!

Who is this A. R. Wagner pogue? Anyone know him?
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...

| | > "I have another spouse listed for Edward I also; but all I have is
a
| | > surname, and not too happy with the accuracy of it. De Botetourt.
| She
| | > purportedly gave birth to a John De Botetourt in 1262. No further
| | > information on him."
| | >
| | > Gordon Reid Hale
| | > Grand Prairie, Texas
| | >

| | > | > Gordon Reid Hale
| | > | > Grand Prairie, Texas
| | > |

| | > | In response to your statement:
| | > |

| | > | > I have another spouse listed for Edward I also; but all I have
| is a
| | > surname,
| | > | > and not too happy with the accuracy of it. De Botetourt. She
| | > purportedly
| | > | > gave birth to a John De Botetourt in 1262. No further
| information
| | > on him.
| | > | >
| | > |

| | > | Leo van de Pas wrote:
| | > |

| | > | > Dear Gordon,
| | > | > I think John de Botetourt was only a "possible" illegitimate
| son.
| | > | > Best wishes
| | > | > Leo van de Pas
| | > | >
| | > |

[Robert S Baxter]

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Addams Reitwiesner" <reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage

> leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas) wrote:
>
> >From: <GRHa...@cs.com>
> >To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:12 AM

> >Subject: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage
> >
> >
> >> I have another spouse listed for Edward I also; but all I have is a
> >surname,
> >> and not too happy with the accuracy of it. De Botetourt. She
purportedly
> >> gave birth to a John De Botetourt in 1262. No further information on
him.
> >>
> >> Gordon Reid Hale
> >> Grand Prairie, Texas
> >>
> >>

> >Dear Gordon,
> >I think John de Botetourt was only a "possible" illegitimate son.
> >Best wishes
> >Leo van de Pas
>
>

> See *The American Genealogist*, vol. 63 (1988), pp. 145-153 for an article
> on the Botetourt family, with information about John de Botetourt's
correct
> parentage. No, he wasn't a child of Edward I, not even "possibly".
>
>
> William Addams Reitwiesner
> wr...@erols.com
>
> "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
>

> William,

Please enlighten us as not all of us have access to TAG,

Regards,

Bob

[Renia]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

> Nope.
>
> That's not the last word either.

Why? Do you have other info which refutes the CP corrigenda?

Renia

[Renia]

Renia wrote:

> "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>
> > Nope.
> >
> > That's not the last word either.
>
> Why? Do you have other info which refutes the CP corrigenda?

I see from WAR's post that CP is wrong on this issue. Not quite the bible we
thought, then. I'm beginning to wonder the same about Keats-Rohan's Domesday
People. What do others think?

Renia

[D. Spencer Hines]

Of course.

Caveat Lector.
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3A535DF9...@cwcom.net...

[GRHa...@cs.com]

Well, what in the hell is it then. I'll bet you enjoyed pulling the wings off
flies when you were a child. If you were ever a child.

Seriously Mr. Hines, I wish you would cease being so childish about your
knowledge. If you are a professional and don't wish to contribute
information you may have just keep quiet. That's what a gentleman would do.
That's what any normal person would do. Do you enjoy tantalizing people with
your knowledge? That is childish!

[Renia]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

> It's good to know that CP can be WRONG ---- even in the corrections,
> addenda and corrigenda volume.
>
> How Sweet It Is!
>
> Who is this A. R. Wagner pogue? Anyone know him?

Sir Anthony Richard Wagner, b 1908, educ Eton and Balliol College, Oxford.
Portucllis Pursuivant of Arms 1931-43; Richmond Herald 1943-61; Garter
1961-78; Clarnceux King of Arms from 1978; registrar College of Arms
1953-60; genealogist Order of the Bath 1961-72, etc, etc.

In other words, Britain's top genealogist, and knighted for it.

Renia

[Renia]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

> Of course.

Then reveal all.

> Caveat Lector.

Hannibal Lector.

> D. Spencer Hines

Renia

[D. Spencer Hines]

Well, if Bill Reitwiesner and Hines and many others are correct, Sir
Anthony appears to have screwed the pooch on this one.

How Sweet It Is!
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3A538981...@cwcom.net...

[Jon Meltzer]

> Sir Anthony Richard Wagner, b 1908

Sir Anthony died in 1995.

[Jay Kotliar]

>

Please take these stupid exchanges into the realm of private messages.
Remember that these posts go into the archives. Think of six months from
now when some researcher is doing a lookup on Thomas of Brotherton etc.
they will have to wade through post after post of twaddle and catty remarks
by pompous blowhards to get to real data. If you have a proof or disproof
of a particular lineage than state them and let them stand on their own
merits, but these silly remarks about the urine of great cats,etc. serve
no purpose except to pollute the newsgroup with the bile of viscious and
selfish individuals.

[Jay Kotliar]

Now here is an excellent example of an intelligent, factual, polite and proper
refutal of a false theory. May others learn from William Reiwiesner's
example!!!!

[Stewart, Peter]

If the researcher six months from now reads the posts from Spencer Hines on
this or any subject, he or she will find a deal of common sense, however
vigorously expressed. The pundit in question is a learned sportsman, who
like all of us is chasing after truth & intellectual rigour -- at whatever
cost to life & limb for the hapless or careless (including myself on
occasions) who cross him in pursuit.

Highly spirited language is not vicious or necessarily selfish. I'd sooner
be put in my place by a howling whirlwind than by a gentle puff, as at least
then I can console myself that it took some force to blow my stuff &
nonsense to smithereens.

Peter Stewart

[Kay Allen AG]

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

> It's good to know that CP can be WRONG ---- even in the corrections,
> addenda and corrigenda volume.
>
> How Sweet It Is!
>
> Who is this A. R. Wagner pogue? Anyone know him?
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>

> A. R. Wagner may be the late Sir Anthony Wagner, who amongst his titles
> was Garter King of Arms. I never had the pleasure of knowing him. But I
> do have a friend who teaches at Cal who had a carrel next to him. My
> friend has always spoken highly of him as a scholar and a gentleman.

Kay Allen AG

>
>
>

[Jay Kotliar]

Sorry all the researcher will see is the self-centered ravings of an
egomaniac. One can simply give the reasonings of ones arguments and lay off
exchange after exchange of name calling like your so called pundit engages in
on the newsgroup. The selfish egotist often cross posts his irrelevant
personal attacks to many groups as well. I have pointed out to the newsgroup a
recent post that refutes a mistaken position without all the nonsense. The
nonsense can be taken off line in personal messages for all of you who enjoy
such childesh and catty remarks.

[alrea...@my-deja.com]

In article <3A53C3B7...@pacbell.net>,

> >A. R. Wagner is indeed the late, great Sir Anthony Richard Wagner.
Proper title was Garter Principal King-at-Arms, (making him, in fact,
the highest ranking herald & genealogist in England). He held earned &
honorary doctorates, was awarded more than one knighthood, attaining
eventually CBE, (Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, as high as
one can reach in England except for Knight of the Garter). He was
awarded an admiralty in the Nebraska Navy, and has been lauded as the
greatest scholar at the College of Arms since Camden, (Garter Principal
under Henry VIII, thus making them the two greatest scholars ever in
that institution!) He is the author of, inter alia, English Genealogy,
Pedigree and Progress, and an exhaustive history of England's heralds.
He was founder of the Tower Historical Office. Sir Anthony was so
esteemed that when he lost his eye-sight he was retained as Clarenceaux
King-at-Arms. He and Lady Wagner were/are very paragons of
graciousness & gentility. He deserves a little more respect, even
posthumously, than to be called a 'pogue', (is that rogue), for 1
mistake.

[Stewart, Peter]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Kotliar [mailto:ba...@concentric.net]
> Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2001 13:52
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage
>
>

> Sorry all the researcher will see is the self-centered ravings of an
> egomaniac. One can simply give the reasonings of ones
> arguments and lay off exchange after exchange of name calling
> like your so called pundit engages in on the newsgroup. The
> selfish egotist often cross posts his irrelevant personal attacks to
> many groups as well. I have pointed out to the newsgroup a
> recent post that refutes a mistaken position without all the
> nonsense. The nonsense can be taken off line in personal
> messages for all of you who enjoy such childesh and catty
> remarks.

No-one has claimed to enjoy childish and catty remarks, so I have to presume
you are now making one.

You could try searching the SMG archive through

http://www.kuijsten.net/usenet_search/genealogy.html

where you can see the poster's name against each message and pass over any
contributor who disturbs your equanimity.

You can also "kill-file" an individual e-mail address and never receive
offending e-mails from that source in the first place.

Peter Stewart

[David Collyer]

Dear Friends,
Would anyone happen to have a line back on the following bloke?.........

Thomas BINGHAM of Sutton Bingham, d. < 1403; m. Mary ROMSEY, d < 1415,
daughter of Sir Walter ROMSEY and Alice FILLIOL.
Many thanks
David in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia

[D. Spencer Hines]

Thank you kindly, sir.

It's good to know that Britain, I presume, can still produce men of your
intelligence, wit and calibre.

I confess, I've seen so much of the .22 calibre lightweights, such as
Tony Blair and some of the scruffy little creatures who populate these
newsgroups ---- that I was afraid you all were not up to it anymore.

We, in the United States, also produce far more than our fair share of
small calibre lightweights and scruffy little creatures, to be sure.

[Opened to: soc.history.medieval]

Britannicus Traductus Sum.
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"Stewart, Peter" <Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au> wrote in message
news:BE9CF8DEAB7ED311B05...@v003138e.crsrehab.gov.au...

[D. Spencer Hines]

Indeed.

Which doesn't mean he can't be wrong, of course.
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"Kay Allen AG" <all...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3A53C3B7...@pacbell.net...

[D. Spencer Hines]

1. Let's get this clearly on the record ---- amidst all the irrelevant,
adulatory hogwash here.

2. Sir Anthony Wagner [1908-1995] said that John de Botetourt was an
illegitimate son, a bastard, of King Edward I.

3. Reitwiesner and others say that's dead wrong.

Did everyone copy that?

Focus Friends.
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

<alrea...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:930of4$a7s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

[tiglath]

D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message

news:o3P46.15311$7f3.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> Thank you kindly, sir.
>
> It's good to know that Britain, I presume, can still produce
> men of your intelligence, wit and calibre.

Let's see...

Mr. Hines' witty and intelligent (allegedly) interlocutor says:

"I'd sooner be put in my place by a howling whirlwind than by a gentle
puff, as at least then I can console myself that it took some force to
blow my stuff & nonsense to smithereens."

This fellow is defending the building of great edifices with faulty
foundations. Those which are harder to demolish are the better ones.
That is, the farther he goes in the wrong direction the better; adding
strong cement to the clutter of error is a good thing; he tells us.
And Mr. Hines finds him intelligent & witty.

What can Mr. Hines (who doesn't know which end of the tube the round
comes out of) know about caliber?

This nonsense wasn't too sturdy, was it?.

No bloody wonder.

----------------------------------

[D. Spencer Hines]

In the absence of definitive proof, it is quite foolish to say that John
de Botetourt is a bastard son of King Edward I, as Sir Anthony Wagner
has apparently done.

CP has repeated that error.

Show us the proof and we'll believe it.

Deus Vult.
----

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Swanson" <sswa...@butler.edu>
To: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
Cc: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Anthony Wagner

| The case of the matter is that highly respected authorities disagree
on
| the analysis of the chronicle evidence indicating that John Botetourt
was
| Edward I's illegitimate son. No evidence--or analysis of
evidence--has
| yet emerged that has resolved the question for parties interested.
Sir
| Anthony Wagner might well be correct. Mr Reitweisner might well be
| correct. At the moment we simply do not know.
|
| Cheers,
| Scott Swanson
| sswa...@butler.edu

|
|
|
| On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > 1. Let's get this clearly on the record ---- amidst all the
irrelevant,
| > adulatory hogwash here.
| >
| > 2. Sir Anthony Wagner [1908-1995] said that John de Botetourt was
an
| > illegitimate son, a bastard, of King Edward I.
| >
| > 3. Reitwiesner and others say that's dead wrong.
| >
| > Did everyone copy that?
| >
| > Focus Friends.

| > --
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| > "The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of
truth....
| > This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end
beyond
| > itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra
Gentiles"
| > [c.1258-1264]
| >
| > "Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et
arceo."
| >
| > Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
| >
| > 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.
| >
| > Vires et Honor.
| >

[Renia]

Might be a good idea to investigate Sir Anthony Wagner's sources and
documentation. Or else to investigate CP's reference to it.

Renia

[Scott Swanson]

Sir Anthony Wagner did not state conclusively that John de Botetourt was
the illegitimate son of Edward I. He offered a meticulous analysis of the
Halesowen chronicle--I believe the Halesowen chronicle--which placed John
de Botetourt in a family tree as the natural son of Edward I, the
likelihood that monks at that particular abbey might know such
information, the state of the manuscript which has several erasures and
additions, and concluded it likely that the chronicler knew what he was
talking about. He did not claim to have proven the matter. He did offer
up an argument for public scrutiny which some have accepted as likely and
some have rejected as unlikely based on a different evaluation of the
state of the manuscript, other evidence, or other reasoning. Medieval
history and genealogy is by necessity often a tissue of inference and
guesswork rather than hard proof, and Wagner in his work of John of
Botetourt, as elsewhere, was careful to separate what he felt he could
prove from what he felt he could infer. Whether Wagner or his opponents
on this matter are finally right I can hardly say, but Wagner was not
mistaken in putting his argument forward for consideration or in the
cautious and tentative manner of his conclusions.

Cheers,
Scott Swanson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Fine.

But that's not what CP XIV:102 says.

Check it yourself, you'll see.

Further, it's the _Hailes Chronicle, in BM Cott. MS. Cleopatra, D III,
f. 51_ as described in CP. Are you describing a different document?

Cheers,
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"Scott Swanson" <sswa...@butler.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.31.010104...@thomas.butler.edu...

[Stewart, Peter]

Comments interspersed:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tiglath [mailto:tig...@usa.net]
> Sent: Friday, 5 January 2001 3:11
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage
>
>
>

> D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
> news:o3P46.15311$7f3.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Thank you kindly, sir.
> >
> > It's good to know that Britain, I presume, can still produce
> > men of your intelligence, wit and calibre.
>
> Let's see...
>
> Mr. Hines' witty and intelligent (allegedly) interlocutor says:
>
> "I'd sooner be put in my place by a howling whirlwind than by a gentle
> puff, as at least then I can console myself that it took some force to
> blow my stuff & nonsense to smithereens."
>
> This fellow is defending the building of great edifices with faulty
> foundations. Those which are harder to demolish are the better ones.

You have missed the point: "stuff and nonsense" - mine or yours - do not
constitute a founded edifice, unless you mean some sort of Potemkin village.
The consolation I was suggesting is a matter off self-deception, of course.
(And by the way, I'm not British but Australian.)

> That is, the farther he goes in the wrong direction the better; adding
> strong cement to the clutter of error is a good thing; he tells us.

I don't see how cement is added to error by blowing it away. I've seen
cement being applied by hose, but not onto a moving target.

> And Mr. Hines finds him intelligent & witty.

Clearly I am too obtuse to enter into the mixture of your metaphor.

> What can Mr. Hines (who doesn't know which end of the tube the round
> comes out of) know about caliber?

The calibre of a gun is inside the tube and runs in both directions. The
calibre of a projectile doesn't depend on which end it emerges from.

> This nonsense wasn't too sturdy, was it?.

Perhaps you do get the point after all. What, pray, would "sturdy" nonsense
look & smell like?

Peter Stewart

[Scott Swanson]

It is indeed the Hailes Chronicle--my notes are at home; the Complete
Peerage was not alone in adopting Wagner's views as the best judgment at
the time and described John de Botetourt accordingly. Now it may not be
the best judgment, which the editors of the Complete Peerage could not
have known at the time they wrote. But unless Wagner editted the
Botetourt article in the Complete Peerage, he must be judged by his own
work, not by others' use of it.

Cheers,
Scott Swanson

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, D. Spencer Hines wrote:

[Renia]

Very interesting. Thank you.

Renia

[William Addams Reitwiesner]

rsba...@bellsouth.net (Robert S Baxter) wrote:

>From: "William Addams Reitwiesner" <reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org>

<chomp>

>> See *The American Genealogist*, vol. 63 (1988), pp. 145-153 for an article
>> on the Botetourt family, with information about John de Botetourt's
>correct
>> parentage. No, he wasn't a child of Edward I, not even "possibly".
>

>Please enlighten us as not all of us have access to TAG,

The article is titled "The parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324), and the
author is F. N. Craig.

Before I get to the correct parentage of John de Botetourt, I want to
explain how story of the erroneous parentage started, propagated, and
snowballed.

First, folio 53 of the *Hailes Abbey Chronicle* really does have an
(incomplete) genealogical chart of Edward I, his two wives, and their
children, and it really does include John de Botetourt as one of the
children. To quote from a letter (included in the article):

"The name ["J. Botetourte"] appears in a roundel
on the right-hand side of the table, next to a
roundel with the name of Elizabeth, daughter of
Eleanor of Castile. As the vellum has been scraped,
presumably for an erasure, it is hard to decipher
the word(s) which follow the name "J. Botetourte",
but it appears to read "d[e?]noth" (?Denothus --
unacknowledged)."

There has been much learned discussion as to whether the entry should be
accepted or not, given that it is over an erasure, but other places in the
manuscript have been erased and written over, and the current thought is
that there is nothing sinister in the erasure, just a re-arrangement of the
layout of the table by the compiler.

The entry has long been known to historians, and was discussed by H. G.
Richardson in his analysis of the Hailes Abbey Chronicle. Botetourt was
included as an illegitimate son in the list of children of Edward I given
by Powicke in his *Handbook of British Chronology* [1939], p. 37 (citing
Richardson). The alleged connection appears to have not been noticed by
the genealogical community until Walter Lee Sheppard included Botetourt in
his "Royal Bye-Blows" article in the *New England Historical and
Genealogical Register*, vol. 119 [1965], on p. 94.

From there, the knowledge of the claimed Edward I -> Botetourt connection
spread among the genealogical community. Most were careful enough to
acknowledge that there was some doubt about the connection, but others
treated Botetourt as a genuine bastard of Edward I, without mentioning any
doubts.

And then one of the defects in GEDCOM made it even worse.

As many of you know, GEDCOM is a protocol, a way of communicating
genealogical data using a standardized machine-readable format. While some
of the computerized genealogical database management systems use GEDCOM
internally for storing data, most (maybe all) use GEDCOM for exporting or
importing files. In other words, someone using "TMG" can easily send data
to someone else who uses "Brother's Keeper" by writing the data out in
GEDCOM format.

The particular defect in GEDCOM that I'm referring to is that GEDCOM does
not allow you to differentiate between illegitimate and legitimate
children. It forces you to treat marriages and non-marital liaisons
identically. When man A and woman B have child C, GEDCOM refers to the
connection between A and B using only one tag format, no matter what the
circumstances of the actual connection. At least, that was the case when I
first looked into GEDCOM a number of years ago. Perhaps this part of
GEDCOM has been improved recently, but there are an awful lot of old GEDCOM
implementations out there. (And people wonder why I won't use a
computerized genealogical database management system).

So when someone added the Edward I -> John de Botetourt connection to his
database, even with all the caveats, as soon as he exported it to somewhere
else, shazam! -- Edward I now has a Botetourt wife, and a legitimate
Botetourt child.

Enough of that. Back to the Botetourt family. Botetourts were in England
as early as 1155-6. John de Botetourt (born say 1264, died in 1324)
appears to have been a son of a Guy de Botetourt (alive in 1274 and 1316)
by his wife Ada (living in 1308 and 1312), while Guy appears to have been a
son of an earlier Guy de Botetourt (living 1253 and 1264). The reason I
use "appears" is that there's no direct statement anywhere of John's
parentage (except the *Hailes Abbey Chronicle* :) Craig presents a
persuasive argument (persuasive to me, at least) that the above is the
correct Botetourt genealogy, based mostly on who held what lands and when.
But there is also the fact that the *Hailes Abbey Chronicle* is the *only*
place which even suggests that there's any connection between Edward I and
John de Botetourt, other than that of feudal overlord and talented
underling.

As always, your mileage may vary.

[Richard Smyth]

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Addams Reitwiesner" <reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org>

>

> First, folio 53 of the *Hailes Abbey Chronicle* really does have an
> (incomplete) genealogical chart of Edward I, his two wives, and their
> children, and it really does include John de Botetourt as one of the
> children.
>

What is the supposed explanation for why the name appears in a list of
Edward's children? (It cannot be a simpler hypothesis than the one Wagner
adopted.)

Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com

[DMMor...@aol.com]

He was also an FASG, if memory serves.

David Morehouse

[William Addams Reitwiesner]

sm...@nc.rr.com (Richard Smyth) wrote:

Craig does not provide any explanation for it. "The usual hypothesis is
that John was an illegitimate son of King Edward I. This paper will
develop the alternative hypothesis that John was the son of Guy Botetourt."

[Roz Griston]

oh we have returned to CP not being a valid source again..make up your
mind hines..this merry-go-round is tilted.
roz

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:59 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Thomas of Brotherton's Marriage

Indeed.

Which doesn't mean he can't be wrong, of course.

--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"Kay Allen AG" <all...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:3A53C3B7...@pacbell.net...
|
|
| "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
|

[Richard Smyth]

> >What is the supposed explanation for why the name appears in a list of
> >Edward's children? (It cannot be a simpler hypothesis than the one
Wagner
> >adopted.)
>
> Craig does not provide any explanation for it. "The usual hypothesis is
> that John was an illegitimate son of King Edward I. This paper will
> develop the alternative hypothesis that John was the son of Guy
Botetourt."
>
>
> William Addams Reitwiesner
> wr...@erols.com
>
> "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
>

But the existence of the name in the record is itself a fact that requires
explanation; it cannot have occurred by chance.

I suppose I will have to bundle up and go look at the article. The
immediate difficulty I see is that almost any evidence from the land
holdings would be consistent with the hypothesis that John was a natural son
of the king. In order for us to expect to find evidence of royal influence
in the records, one would have to add the secondary assumption that the
crown wanted the relationship to be a matter of public record. (And that,
being assumed, would itself require some explanation.)

Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com

[John Ravilious]

Friday, 5 January, 2001

Hello Richard et al.,

I will the ancient Chinese genealogical 'torture of 1,000 paper cuts' to
relocate what I now recall:

That the reasoned explanation I once read of the de Botetourt mystery was
a scribal error, whereby (for what reason I don't recall) the name of Sir
John de Botetourt was recorded in error in a list of Edward I's children. As
soon as I can relocate the source (or determine that this will not happen
during the current millenium), I will pass it on.

I do recall that Prestwich, in his work on Edward I (Yale English Monarchs
series) strongly disagreed with the possibility of Sir John de Botetourt
being his illegitimate son. I will dig out that volume later for his
specific reasoning.

Good luck, and good hunting.

John

__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes.

That's the correct source.

_Edward I_, Michael Prestwich, Yale University Press, 2nd Edition 1997.

I'm glad you have it.
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

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.

Vires et Honor.

"John Ravilious" <roberd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3C8ACFED.0FA3...@netscape.net...