New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Dear Newsgroup:
In 1840 Francisque Michel published the book, Histoire des Ducs de
Normandie et des Rois d'Angleterre. This work is now available online
on the helpful gallica website (http://gallica.bnf.fr/). The book
consists primarily of two manuscript French chronicles reputedly
written in the 1220's. As best I can determine, this work has escaped
the attention of the English speaking historians and genealogists.
According to one online source I consulted, a new modern edition of
this material is currently being planned by Daniel Power and Penny
Eley, both of the University of Sheffield.
As I was checking the index of the Michel book, I noticed references
to various bastard children of King Henry I of England. When I
checked the actual entries, I found that one of the French chronicles
gave a rather complete list of the bastards of King Henry I,
consisting of six sons and seven daughters. This list is strikingly
similar to one recorded by Robert de Torigny, who likewise identified
six sons and seven daughters for King Henry I. Presumably Robert de
Torigny and the anonymous author of the French chronicle had access to
the same source while compiling their list of Henry I's illegitimate
children. The two lists are not the same, however, as I note that the
chronicle published by Michel refers to one illegitimate son as
"Guillaumes," where Complete Peerage indicates that Torigny (who wrote
in Latin} calls the same person "Willelmus de Traceio" [that is,
William de Tracy].
For interest's sake, I've copied below a copy of the information from
the chronicle as published by Francisque Michel. I've added various
corrections in brackets.
" ... Quant li empereres Henris d'Alemaigne fu mors, li rois Henris
d'Engletierre envoia por Mehaut sa fille, et li fist jurer feuté et
homage des barons d'Engletierre et de Normendie; puis le donna - il á
feme á Joffroi Marchel [recte Martel] le conte, ki fu fils le conte
Fouque d'Anjou, qui de li ot .iij. fils: Joffroi, Henri et Guillaume.
Li rois Henrie, quant la roine Mehaus fu morte, prist á feme Aalis, la
fille Godefroi le duc de Louvaing, la cousine Wistasse de Bouloigne;
mais n'en ot nul enfant. Si ot-il de bas .vj. fils et .vij. filles.
Li aisnés des bastars fu Robiers, á qui il donna Sebile, ki fu hoirs
de tierre, et fu fille le conte Robiert Haymon et niece Robiert de
Montgomeri, et si estoit li chiés de son linage. Ses hiretages fu
Thoenis et la Marche de Beessin. Et si donna encore li rois á cestui
Robiert la tierre Haymon le Despensier, l'oncle sa feme, et la conté
de Leecestre. Guillaumes fu li secons des bastars; Richars fu li
tiers, qui fu noiiés o son frere. Renaus, Robiers et Gillebiers
furentr sans tierre. Mehaus sa fille bastarde fu donnée au conte del
Perche, l'autre á Connain le conte de Bretaigne; la tierce, qui ot non
Julyane, fu donnée á Guillaume [recte Eustache] de Paci; la quarte á
Guillaume Gayet [recte Gouet]; la quinte au visconte de Biaumont
[recte Beaumont]; la siste au fill Bouchart de Monmorenci. La
..vij.isme ot-il d'Isabiel, le serour le conte Galerant de Muellant, et
cele ne fu onques donnée á signour." END OF QUOTE.
Besides the material on the king's illegitimate children, Michel's
chronicler also includes information on King Henry I's second wife who
he calls "Aalis," daughter of Godfrey, Duke of Louvain, and cousin of
Eustache [III], Count of Boulogne. Queen Alice and Count Eustache III
were in fact doubly related, being descended in common from the Counts
of Louvain and the Dukes of Upper Lorraine. Exact particulars of
kinship can be found on Hal Bradley's great website at the following
address:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hwbradley/
Happy Thanksgiving everyone (in U.S.A.)!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
In 1840 Francisque Michel published the book, Histoire des Ducs de
Normandie et des Rois d'Angleterre. This work is now available online
on the helpful gallica website (http://gallica.bnf.fr/). The book
consists primarily of two manuscript French chronicles reputedly
written in the 1220's. As best I can determine, this work has escaped
the attention of the English speaking historians and genealogists.
According to one online source I consulted, a new modern edition of
this material is currently being planned by Daniel Power and Penny
Eley, both of the University of Sheffield.
As I was checking the index of the Michel book, I noticed references
to various bastard children of King Henry I of England. When I
checked the actual entries, I found that one of the French chronicles
gave a rather complete list of the bastards of King Henry I,
consisting of six sons and seven daughters. This list is strikingly
similar to one recorded by Robert de Torigny, who likewise identified
six sons and seven daughters for King Henry I. Presumably Robert de
Torigny and the anonymous author of the French chronicle had access to
the same source while compiling their list of Henry I's illegitimate
children. The two lists are not the same, however, as I note that the
chronicle published by Michel refers to one illegitimate son as
"Guillaumes," where Complete Peerage indicates that Torigny (who wrote
in Latin} calls the same person "Willelmus de Traceio" [that is,
William de Tracy].
For interest's sake, I've copied below a copy of the information from
the chronicle as published by Francisque Michel. I've added various
corrections in brackets.
" ... Quant li empereres Henris d'Alemaigne fu mors, li rois Henris
d'Engletierre envoia por Mehaut sa fille, et li fist jurer feuté et
homage des barons d'Engletierre et de Normendie; puis le donna - il á
feme á Joffroi Marchel [recte Martel] le conte, ki fu fils le conte
Fouque d'Anjou, qui de li ot .iij. fils: Joffroi, Henri et Guillaume.
Li rois Henrie, quant la roine Mehaus fu morte, prist á feme Aalis, la
fille Godefroi le duc de Louvaing, la cousine Wistasse de Bouloigne;
mais n'en ot nul enfant. Si ot-il de bas .vj. fils et .vij. filles.
Li aisnés des bastars fu Robiers, á qui il donna Sebile, ki fu hoirs
de tierre, et fu fille le conte Robiert Haymon et niece Robiert de
Montgomeri, et si estoit li chiés de son linage. Ses hiretages fu
Thoenis et la Marche de Beessin. Et si donna encore li rois á cestui
Robiert la tierre Haymon le Despensier, l'oncle sa feme, et la conté
de Leecestre. Guillaumes fu li secons des bastars; Richars fu li
tiers, qui fu noiiés o son frere. Renaus, Robiers et Gillebiers
furentr sans tierre. Mehaus sa fille bastarde fu donnée au conte del
Perche, l'autre á Connain le conte de Bretaigne; la tierce, qui ot non
Julyane, fu donnée á Guillaume [recte Eustache] de Paci; la quarte á
Guillaume Gayet [recte Gouet]; la quinte au visconte de Biaumont
[recte Beaumont]; la siste au fill Bouchart de Monmorenci. La
..vij.isme ot-il d'Isabiel, le serour le conte Galerant de Muellant, et
cele ne fu onques donnée á signour." END OF QUOTE.
Besides the material on the king's illegitimate children, Michel's
chronicler also includes information on King Henry I's second wife who
he calls "Aalis," daughter of Godfrey, Duke of Louvain, and cousin of
Eustache [III], Count of Boulogne. Queen Alice and Count Eustache III
were in fact doubly related, being descended in common from the Counts
of Louvain and the Dukes of Upper Lorraine. Exact particulars of
kinship can be found on Hal Bradley's great website at the following
address:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hwbradley/
Happy Thanksgiving everyone (in U.S.A.)!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
On 25 Nov 2004 15:32:21 -0800, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
[snip]
How can this be considered a difference, considering that French
Guillaume is the same name as Latin Willelmus and English William?
Stewart Baldwin
Richardson) wrote:
[snip]
As I was checking the index of the Michel book, I noticed references
to various bastard children of King Henry I of England. When I
checked the actual entries, I found that one of the French chronicles
gave a rather complete list of the bastards of King Henry I,
consisting of six sons and seven daughters. This list is strikingly
similar to one recorded by Robert de Torigny, who likewise identified
six sons and seven daughters for King Henry I. Presumably Robert de
Torigny and the anonymous author of the French chronicle had access to
the same source while compiling their list of Henry I's illegitimate
children. The two lists are not the same, however, as I note that the
chronicle published by Michel refers to one illegitimate son as
"Guillaumes," where Complete Peerage indicates that Torigny (who wrote
in Latin} calls the same person "Willelmus de Traceio" [that is,
William de Tracy].
How can this be considered a difference, considering that French
Guillaume is the same name as Latin Willelmus and English William?
Stewart Baldwin
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Douglas Richardson wrote:
This is outrageous nonsense - just because Douglas Richardson hasn't
heard of a source we are supposed to accept that it has "escaped" the
attention of actual scholars!
The work has been cited on SGM before now, and beyond that has been
extensively studied, for instance by Gabrielle Spiegel in _Romancing the
Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-Century
France_, New Historicism 23 (Berkeley, 1993).
Peter Stewart
Dear Newsgroup:
In 1840 Francisque Michel published the book, Histoire des Ducs de
Normandie et des Rois d'Angleterre. This work is now available online
on the helpful gallica website (http://gallica.bnf.fr/). The book
consists primarily of two manuscript French chronicles reputedly
written in the 1220's. As best I can determine, this work has escaped
the attention of the English speaking historians and genealogists.
This is outrageous nonsense - just because Douglas Richardson hasn't
heard of a source we are supposed to accept that it has "escaped" the
attention of actual scholars!
The work has been cited on SGM before now, and beyond that has been
extensively studied, for instance by Gabrielle Spiegel in _Romancing the
Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-Century
France_, New Historicism 23 (Berkeley, 1993).
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<158dq0537je7k8cv15kni04aj9re0qum82@4ax.com>...
Are you asking me a question, Stewart?
DR
On 25 Nov 2004 15:32:21 -0800, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
[snip]
As I was checking the index of the Michel book, I noticed references
to various bastard children of King Henry I of England. When I
checked the actual entries, I found that one of the French chronicles
gave a rather complete list of the bastards of King Henry I,
consisting of six sons and seven daughters. This list is strikingly
similar to one recorded by Robert de Torigny, who likewise identified
six sons and seven daughters for King Henry I. Presumably Robert de
Torigny and the anonymous author of the French chronicle had access to
the same source while compiling their list of Henry I's illegitimate
children. The two lists are not the same, however, as I note that the
chronicle published by Michel refers to one illegitimate son as
"Guillaumes," where Complete Peerage indicates that Torigny (who wrote
in Latin} calls the same person "Willelmus de Traceio" [that is,
William de Tracy].
How can this be considered a difference, considering that French
Guillaume is the same name as Latin Willelmus and English William?
Stewart Baldwin
Are you asking me a question, Stewart?
DR
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Here's a question for you - why on earth do you write:
"I've added various corrections in brackets..."Joffroi Marchel [recte
Martel]...Guillaume Gayet [recte Gouet]...Biaumont [recte Beaumont]"?
Such orthographic glosses are NOT corrections, and the original text is
NOT in error on these names. If you wish to pose as an expert you need
to be mindful of medieval practice & careful in your own choice of
words: "recte" is Latin for "rightly" or "correctly", but medieval
Norman authors writing in the vernacular didn't have standard spellings
to comply with in the first place.
Even without a clue about their language you ought to realise that.
Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<158dq0537je7k8cv15kni04aj9re0qum82@4ax.com>...
On 25 Nov 2004 15:32:21 -0800, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
[snip]
As I was checking the index of the Michel book, I noticed references
to various bastard children of King Henry I of England. When I
checked the actual entries, I found that one of the French chronicles
gave a rather complete list of the bastards of King Henry I,
consisting of six sons and seven daughters. This list is strikingly
similar to one recorded by Robert de Torigny, who likewise identified
six sons and seven daughters for King Henry I. Presumably Robert de
Torigny and the anonymous author of the French chronicle had access to
the same source while compiling their list of Henry I's illegitimate
children. The two lists are not the same, however, as I note that the
chronicle published by Michel refers to one illegitimate son as
"Guillaumes," where Complete Peerage indicates that Torigny (who wrote
in Latin} calls the same person "Willelmus de Traceio" [that is,
William de Tracy].
How can this be considered a difference, considering that French
Guillaume is the same name as Latin Willelmus and English William?
Stewart Baldwin
Are you asking me a question, Stewart?
Here's a question for you - why on earth do you write:
"I've added various corrections in brackets..."Joffroi Marchel [recte
Martel]...Guillaume Gayet [recte Gouet]...Biaumont [recte Beaumont]"?
Such orthographic glosses are NOT corrections, and the original text is
NOT in error on these names. If you wish to pose as an expert you need
to be mindful of medieval practice & careful in your own choice of
words: "recte" is Latin for "rightly" or "correctly", but medieval
Norman authors writing in the vernacular didn't have standard spellings
to comply with in the first place.
Even without a clue about their language you ought to realise that.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
This supposedly "new" source for Henry I's children that Douglas
Richardson thinks English historians and genealogists have neglected is
in fact derived completely from Robert de Torigni after all.
Extracts are interspersed below from _The Gesta Normannorum ducum of
William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni_, edited by
Elisabeth van Houts, 2 vols (Oxford, 1992-95), abbreviated as "GND".
Note that the translations of this serve well enough for both texts,
because the anonymous author of the vernacular chronicle quite simply
rehashed what he had found in the Latin, adding a few slips along the way:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
GND II p. 240: "Cum igitur Henricus ... Romanorum imperator augustus ...
obisset ... rex Anglorum Henricus filiam suam ... imperatricem missis
proceribus ... fecit reduci in Angliam ... fecit ... satrapas totius
Anglici regni sub artissimo sacramento illi fidelitatem ... promittere
... dedit eamdem imperatricem in uxorem Gaufrido Martello, filio ...
Fulconis, qui ei in comitatum successit ... De qua ... genuit tres
filios, Henricum, Gaufridum ... Willelmum".
(When Emperor Henry of the Romans died, King Henry of England sent
noblemen to escort his daughter the empress [Matilda] into England and
made the magnates of all England [and Normandy] swear fealty to her; he
gave her in marriage to Geoffrey Martel [NB this odd byname is common to
both], son of Fulco whm he had succeeded as count, who with her had
three sons, Henry, Geoffrey and William).
All that is "new" so far is the order of naming these three sons.
GND II pp. 246-248: "Mortua itaque ... Mathilde regina ... Henricus rex
duxit Adelizam, filiam Godefridi ducis Louanie, comitis Eustachii
Boloniensis consobrinam, de qua nichil posteritatis accepit ... Habuit
tamen idem rex filios sex et septem filias, licet minus honesto ... modo
progenitos. Illorum autem primogenito Roberto ... puellam nomine
Sibillam, filiam Roberti filii Haimonis, neptem scilicet ... Rogerii de
Monte Gummerici ... matrimonia copulavit, concedens ei maximam
hereditatem ... que prefate uirgini hereditario iure competebat ...
Hereditatis autem ... caput est oppidum Torinneium nuncupatum, in
confinio Baiocensis ... Dedit etiam illi rex terram Haimonis dapiferi,
patrui uidelicet uxoris sue ... dedit illi ... comitatum Gloecestrie.
(After the death of Queen Matilda King Henry married Adeliza, daughter
of Duke Godefrey of Louvain, cousin of Count Eustace of Boulogne, from
whom he had no offspring. He had however six sons and seven daughters
who were begotten less lawfully. The firstborn of these was Robert, to
whom he gave as wife a girl named Sibilla, daughter of Robert fitz
Haimo, the niece of Roger [sic, not "Robert"] de Montgomery with a great
endowment that was hers by inheretance, an honour of which the caput was
at Torigni in the Bessin district. The king also gave Robert the land of
Haimo the steward, uncle of his wife, as well as the county of
Gloucester [sic, not Leicester]).
Nothing else "new" here except for two miscopied proper nouns.
GND pp. 248-250: "Ricardus autem, huius comitis uno de patre frater, cum
fratre suo Willelmo in ... naufragio periit. Alii uero tres, id est
Rainaldus, Robertus, Gislebertus ... sine casamento sunt ... Filiarum
uero una, nomine Mathildis, nupsit comiti Perticensi ... Alia ... data
est Conano, comitis Minoris Brittannie ... Tercia scilicet Iuliana
Eustachio de Paceio ... Quarta Willelmo Goieto. Quinta uicecomiti de
Bello Monte ... Sexta Matheo, filio Burcardi de Montemorenceio. Septima,
qui nata est ex Elisabeth, sorore Waleranni comitis Metlenti, adhuc
innupta permanet".
(Richard, the earl's paternal half-brother, dorwned with his brother
William in the shipwreck. The other three, Rainald, Robert and Gilbert,
are without estates. One of the daughters, named Matilda, was married to
the count of Le Perche, another was given to Count Conan of Brittany;
the third, Juliana, to Eustace de Pacy; the fourth to William of Gouet;
the fifth to the viscount of Beaumont; the sixth to Matthew, son of
Burcgard de Montmorenci. The seventh, whose mother was Isabel the sister
of Count Waleran of Meulan, remains unmarried.)
All that is different here is the anonymous 13th-century chronicler's
mistake in making William, the prince who drowned in the White Ship,
into one of King Henry's bastards.
This is a striking example of the need for a genealogist who aspires to
scholarly standards to take some trouble over learning Latin and
French, in order to avoid such an ungainly pratfall as announcing a
"new" source that is absolutely NOTHING OF THE KIND.
Peter Stewart
Richardson thinks English historians and genealogists have neglected is
in fact derived completely from Robert de Torigni after all.
Extracts are interspersed below from _The Gesta Normannorum ducum of
William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni_, edited by
Elisabeth van Houts, 2 vols (Oxford, 1992-95), abbreviated as "GND".
Note that the translations of this serve well enough for both texts,
because the anonymous author of the vernacular chronicle quite simply
rehashed what he had found in the Latin, adding a few slips along the way:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup:
In 1840 Francisque Michel published the book, Histoire des Ducs de
Normandie et des Rois d'Angleterre. This work is now available online
on the helpful gallica website (http://gallica.bnf.fr/). The book
consists primarily of two manuscript French chronicles reputedly
written in the 1220's. As best I can determine, this work has escaped
the attention of the English speaking historians and genealogists.
According to one online source I consulted, a new modern edition of
this material is currently being planned by Daniel Power and Penny
Eley, both of the University of Sheffield.
As I was checking the index of the Michel book, I noticed references
to various bastard children of King Henry I of England. When I
checked the actual entries, I found that one of the French chronicles
gave a rather complete list of the bastards of King Henry I,
consisting of six sons and seven daughters. This list is strikingly
similar to one recorded by Robert de Torigny, who likewise identified
six sons and seven daughters for King Henry I. Presumably Robert de
Torigny and the anonymous author of the French chronicle had access to
the same source while compiling their list of Henry I's illegitimate
children. The two lists are not the same, however, as I note that the
chronicle published by Michel refers to one illegitimate son as
"Guillaumes," where Complete Peerage indicates that Torigny (who wrote
in Latin} calls the same person "Willelmus de Traceio" [that is,
William de Tracy].
For interest's sake, I've copied below a copy of the information from
the chronicle as published by Francisque Michel. I've added various
corrections in brackets.
" ... Quant li empereres Henris d'Alemaigne fu mors, li rois Henris
d'Engletierre envoia por Mehaut sa fille, et li fist jurer feuté et
homage des barons d'Engletierre et de Normendie; puis le donna - il á
feme á Joffroi Marchel [recte Martel] le conte, ki fu fils le conte
Fouque d'Anjou, qui de li ot .iij. fils: Joffroi, Henri et Guillaume.
GND II p. 240: "Cum igitur Henricus ... Romanorum imperator augustus ...
obisset ... rex Anglorum Henricus filiam suam ... imperatricem missis
proceribus ... fecit reduci in Angliam ... fecit ... satrapas totius
Anglici regni sub artissimo sacramento illi fidelitatem ... promittere
... dedit eamdem imperatricem in uxorem Gaufrido Martello, filio ...
Fulconis, qui ei in comitatum successit ... De qua ... genuit tres
filios, Henricum, Gaufridum ... Willelmum".
(When Emperor Henry of the Romans died, King Henry of England sent
noblemen to escort his daughter the empress [Matilda] into England and
made the magnates of all England [and Normandy] swear fealty to her; he
gave her in marriage to Geoffrey Martel [NB this odd byname is common to
both], son of Fulco whm he had succeeded as count, who with her had
three sons, Henry, Geoffrey and William).
All that is "new" so far is the order of naming these three sons.
Li rois Henrie, quant la roine Mehaus fu morte, prist á feme Aalis, la
fille Godefroi le duc de Louvaing, la cousine Wistasse de Bouloigne;
mais n'en ot nul enfant. Si ot-il de bas .vj. fils et .vij. filles.
Li aisnés des bastars fu Robiers, á qui il donna Sebile, ki fu hoirs
de tierre, et fu fille le conte Robiert Haymon et niece Robiert de
Montgomeri, et si estoit li chiés de son linage. Ses hiretages fu
Thoenis et la Marche de Beessin. Et si donna encore li rois á cestui
Robiert la tierre Haymon le Despensier, l'oncle sa feme, et la conté
de Leecestre.
GND II pp. 246-248: "Mortua itaque ... Mathilde regina ... Henricus rex
duxit Adelizam, filiam Godefridi ducis Louanie, comitis Eustachii
Boloniensis consobrinam, de qua nichil posteritatis accepit ... Habuit
tamen idem rex filios sex et septem filias, licet minus honesto ... modo
progenitos. Illorum autem primogenito Roberto ... puellam nomine
Sibillam, filiam Roberti filii Haimonis, neptem scilicet ... Rogerii de
Monte Gummerici ... matrimonia copulavit, concedens ei maximam
hereditatem ... que prefate uirgini hereditario iure competebat ...
Hereditatis autem ... caput est oppidum Torinneium nuncupatum, in
confinio Baiocensis ... Dedit etiam illi rex terram Haimonis dapiferi,
patrui uidelicet uxoris sue ... dedit illi ... comitatum Gloecestrie.
(After the death of Queen Matilda King Henry married Adeliza, daughter
of Duke Godefrey of Louvain, cousin of Count Eustace of Boulogne, from
whom he had no offspring. He had however six sons and seven daughters
who were begotten less lawfully. The firstborn of these was Robert, to
whom he gave as wife a girl named Sibilla, daughter of Robert fitz
Haimo, the niece of Roger [sic, not "Robert"] de Montgomery with a great
endowment that was hers by inheretance, an honour of which the caput was
at Torigni in the Bessin district. The king also gave Robert the land of
Haimo the steward, uncle of his wife, as well as the county of
Gloucester [sic, not Leicester]).
Nothing else "new" here except for two miscopied proper nouns.
Guillaumes fu li secons des bastars; Richars fu li
tiers, qui fu noiiés o son frere. Renaus, Robiers et Gillebiers
furentr sans tierre. Mehaus sa fille bastarde fu donnée au conte del
Perche, l'autre á Connain le conte de Bretaigne; la tierce, qui ot non
Julyane, fu donnée á Guillaume [recte Eustache] de Paci; la quarte á
Guillaume Gayet [recte Gouet]; la quinte au visconte de Biaumont
[recte Beaumont]; la siste au fill Bouchart de Monmorenci. La
.vij.isme ot-il d'Isabiel, le serour le conte Galerant de Muellant, et
cele ne fu onques donnée á signour." END OF QUOTE.
GND pp. 248-250: "Ricardus autem, huius comitis uno de patre frater, cum
fratre suo Willelmo in ... naufragio periit. Alii uero tres, id est
Rainaldus, Robertus, Gislebertus ... sine casamento sunt ... Filiarum
uero una, nomine Mathildis, nupsit comiti Perticensi ... Alia ... data
est Conano, comitis Minoris Brittannie ... Tercia scilicet Iuliana
Eustachio de Paceio ... Quarta Willelmo Goieto. Quinta uicecomiti de
Bello Monte ... Sexta Matheo, filio Burcardi de Montemorenceio. Septima,
qui nata est ex Elisabeth, sorore Waleranni comitis Metlenti, adhuc
innupta permanet".
(Richard, the earl's paternal half-brother, dorwned with his brother
William in the shipwreck. The other three, Rainald, Robert and Gilbert,
are without estates. One of the daughters, named Matilda, was married to
the count of Le Perche, another was given to Count Conan of Brittany;
the third, Juliana, to Eustace de Pacy; the fourth to William of Gouet;
the fifth to the viscount of Beaumont; the sixth to Matthew, son of
Burcgard de Montmorenci. The seventh, whose mother was Isabel the sister
of Count Waleran of Meulan, remains unmarried.)
All that is different here is the anonymous 13th-century chronicler's
mistake in making William, the prince who drowned in the White Ship,
into one of King Henry's bastards.
This is a striking example of the need for a genealogist who aspires to
scholarly standards to take some trouble over learning Latin and
French, in order to avoid such an ungainly pratfall as announcing a
"new" source that is absolutely NOTHING OF THE KIND.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
Since Douglas Richardson can't answer this, I shall: the anonymous
chronicler didn't know anything about King Henry's children except what
he found written earlier by Robert de Torigni, and he made the mistake
of supposing that the brother named William who had drowned along with
the bastard Richard must have been the same as William de Tracey.
Consequently he toted up the numbers and came to six illegitimate sons
as stated, when Robert de Torigny had actually named seven in all - one
being legitimate.
The sentence that confused him and that he omitted was: "Quartus,
scilicet Willelmus de Traceio, paululum post mortem patris, rebus
humanis exemptus est" (GND II 248-250, The fourth [bastard son], that is
William de Tracey, shuffled off this mortal coil soon after the death of
his father).
The "new" source touted by Richardson was parrotted by a writer who
didn't even realise that the White Ship disater, in which the legitimate
William perished, had happened 15 years before King Henry's death, not
shortly afterwards.
Peter Stewart
On 25 Nov 2004 15:32:21 -0800, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
[snip]
As I was checking the index of the Michel book, I noticed references
to various bastard children of King Henry I of England. When I
checked the actual entries, I found that one of the French chronicles
gave a rather complete list of the bastards of King Henry I,
consisting of six sons and seven daughters. This list is strikingly
similar to one recorded by Robert de Torigny, who likewise identified
six sons and seven daughters for King Henry I. Presumably Robert de
Torigny and the anonymous author of the French chronicle had access to
the same source while compiling their list of Henry I's illegitimate
children. The two lists are not the same, however, as I note that the
chronicle published by Michel refers to one illegitimate son as
"Guillaumes," where Complete Peerage indicates that Torigny (who wrote
in Latin} calls the same person "Willelmus de Traceio" [that is,
William de Tracy].
How can this be considered a difference, considering that French
Guillaume is the same name as Latin Willelmus and English William?
Since Douglas Richardson can't answer this, I shall: the anonymous
chronicler didn't know anything about King Henry's children except what
he found written earlier by Robert de Torigni, and he made the mistake
of supposing that the brother named William who had drowned along with
the bastard Richard must have been the same as William de Tracey.
Consequently he toted up the numbers and came to six illegitimate sons
as stated, when Robert de Torigny had actually named seven in all - one
being legitimate.
The sentence that confused him and that he omitted was: "Quartus,
scilicet Willelmus de Traceio, paululum post mortem patris, rebus
humanis exemptus est" (GND II 248-250, The fourth [bastard son], that is
William de Tracey, shuffled off this mortal coil soon after the death of
his father).
The "new" source touted by Richardson was parrotted by a writer who
didn't even realise that the White Ship disater, in which the legitimate
William perished, had happened 15 years before King Henry's death, not
shortly afterwards.
Peter Stewart
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
In article <80Apd.48706$K7.47173@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
One could note that the interest of the 'Anonymous of Bethune' (as the
author has been called, since Holder-Egger's notes in MGH Scriptores
26:699-717, where one finds an annotated excerpt from the chronicle) as
an independent source lies not in the early section (which is based on
Wm. of Jumieges & Robert of Torigny), but in his nearer-contemporary
reportage on the French annexation of Normandy and brief campaign in
England.
One philological note: 'Guillaumes' is a correct nominative singular of
a second-declension masculine noun (like the proper name 'William') in
the French of 1220, which still echoes a few Latin case endings.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup:
In 1840 Francisque Michel published the book, Histoire des Ducs de
Normandie et des Rois d'Angleterre. This work is now available online
on the helpful gallica website (http://gallica.bnf.fr/). The book
consists primarily of two manuscript French chronicles reputedly
written in the 1220's. As best I can determine, this work has escaped
the attention of the English speaking historians and genealogists.
This is outrageous nonsense - just because Douglas Richardson hasn't
heard of a source we are supposed to accept that it has "escaped" the
attention of actual scholars!
The work has been cited on SGM before now, and beyond that has been
extensively studied, for instance by Gabrielle Spiegel in _Romancing the
Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-Century
France_, New Historicism 23 (Berkeley, 1993).
One could note that the interest of the 'Anonymous of Bethune' (as the
author has been called, since Holder-Egger's notes in MGH Scriptores
26:699-717, where one finds an annotated excerpt from the chronicle) as
an independent source lies not in the early section (which is based on
Wm. of Jumieges & Robert of Torigny), but in his nearer-contemporary
reportage on the French annexation of Normandy and brief campaign in
England.
One philological note: 'Guillaumes' is a correct nominative singular of
a second-declension masculine noun (like the proper name 'William') in
the French of 1220, which still echoes a few Latin case endings.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
"I've added various corrections in brackets..."Joffroi Marchel [recte
Martel]...Guillaume Gayet [recte Gouet]...Biaumont [recte Beaumont]"?
Such orthographic glosses are NOT corrections, and the original text is
NOT in error on these names. If you wish to pose as an expert you need
to be mindful of medieval practice & careful in your own choice of
words: "recte" is Latin for "rightly" or "correctly", but medieval
Norman authors writing in the vernacular didn't have standard spellings
to comply with in the first place.
Even without a clue about their language you ought to realise that.
Does "recte" in such circumstances mean "correctly for you the reader" or
does it mean "correctly for the author, who has made a mistake here"? I
ask because I do not know.
If my question betrays an uncertain latinity, I take comfort from the size
of my company. I recall that Gibbon said something similar about the
majority of the clerks who produced the records we now are studying.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
In message of 26 Nov, smyth@nc.rr.com ("Richard Smyth at Road Runner") wrote:
Remarkably my otherwise excellent pair of tomes, the photoreduced copy
of the Oxford English Dictionary, does not even give this word, which I
would certainly see as part of the English canon. I wait, with bated
breath, the pronouncements of the masters.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
"I've added various corrections in brackets..."Joffroi Marchel
[recte Martel]...Guillaume Gayet [recte Gouet]...Biaumont [recte
Beaumont]"?
Such orthographic glosses are NOT corrections, and the original text is
NOT in error on these names. If you wish to pose as an expert you need
to be mindful of medieval practice & careful in your own choice of
words: "recte" is Latin for "rightly" or "correctly", but medieval
Norman authors writing in the vernacular didn't have standard spellings
to comply with in the first place.
Even without a clue about their language you ought to realise that.
Does "recte" in such circumstances mean "correctly for you the reader" or
does it mean "correctly for the author, who has made a mistake here"? I
ask because I do not know.
If my question betrays an uncertain latinity, I take comfort from the size
of my company. I recall that Gibbon said something similar about the
majority of the clerks who produced the records we now are studying.
Remarkably my otherwise excellent pair of tomes, the photoreduced copy
of the Oxford English Dictionary, does not even give this word, which I
would certainly see as part of the English canon. I wait, with bated
breath, the pronouncements of the masters.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<sCEpd.49151$K7.38846@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Dear Peter ~
Don't get your undies in such a bunch.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): Appendix D, 105, states that Robert de
Torigny enumerated six illegitimate sons and seven illegitimate
daughters for King Henry I of England. This is the same total of
illegitimate children given by the anonymous French chronicler
published by Francisque Michel. I said nothing about Henry I's
legitimate issue, nor did Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Consequently he toted up the numbers and came to six illegitimate sons
as stated, when Robert de Torigny had actually named seven in all - one
being legitimate.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
Don't get your undies in such a bunch.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): Appendix D, 105, states that Robert de
Torigny enumerated six illegitimate sons and seven illegitimate
daughters for King Henry I of England. This is the same total of
illegitimate children given by the anonymous French chronicler
published by Francisque Michel. I said nothing about Henry I's
legitimate issue, nor did Complete Peerage.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<WhBpd.48768$K7.35444@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Dear Peter ~
I know this has been an emotionally trying day for you, but please do
get a grip. By all means, take a hot bath, and have a cup of tea with
some bisquits and jam. Before you know it, you'll feel right as rain!
Best always, Douglas Richardson
If you wish to pose as an expert you need
to be mindful of medieval practice & careful in your own choice of
words: "recte" is Latin for "rightly" or "correctly", but medieval
Norman authors writing in the vernacular didn't have standard spellings
to comply with in the first place.
Even without a clue about their language you ought to realise that.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
I know this has been an emotionally trying day for you, but please do
get a grip. By all means, take a hot bath, and have a cup of tea with
some bisquits and jam. Before you know it, you'll feel right as rain!
Best always, Douglas Richardson
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Does "recte" in such circumstances mean "correctly for you the reader"
or
does it mean "correctly for the author, who has made a mistake here"?
I
ask because I do not know.
If my question betrays an uncertain latinity, I take comfort from the
size
of my company. I recall that Gibbon said something similar about the
majority of the clerks who produced the records we now are studying.
Remarkably my otherwise excellent pair of tomes, the photoreduced copy
of the Oxford English Dictionary, does not even give this word, which I
would certainly see as part of the English canon. I wait, with bated
breath, the pronouncements of the masters.
I looked at the OED before I posted my query, but the examples it gives do
not give me a clear answer. I think the examples suggest that the word is
used to inform readers about the version that the readers should regard as
correct, rather than to inform them of what the author ought to have
regarded as correct. Anyway, here is OED on "recte":
"1. Correctly: used to indicate that the word or phrase following it within
a parenthesis is the correct version of that which immediately precedes the
insertion.
1886 Trans. Philol. Soc. 621 Leg. contini (recte cointinni) gen. of cointinn
s.f. 'strife, controversy'. 1934 Times Lit. Suppl. 3 May 325/2 'Tithreks
Saga' (recte 'Thithriks Saga af Bern'). 1939 Joyce Finnegans Wake (1964)
iii. 543 The villa of the Ostmanorum to Thorstan's, recte Thomars Sraid.
1979 Trans. Philol. Soc. 184 Kent translates the portion after my square
brackets 'This indeed+(is) my activity (recte physical-dexterity).' "
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Richard Smyth at Road Runner wrote:
This discussion is a waste of time & energy - the only relevant point to
note is that Douglas Richardson had said he was adding "corrections",
not modern standardisations. "Recte", both literally and in this
context, meant "correctly". The idea that there might be a shadow
meaning of "correctly for the reader" is a furphy - in spelling, there
is no distinction as to correctness between reading and writing.
Peter Stewart
Does "recte" in such circumstances mean "correctly for you the reader"
or
does it mean "correctly for the author, who has made a mistake here"?
I
ask because I do not know.
If my question betrays an uncertain latinity, I take comfort from the
size
of my company. I recall that Gibbon said something similar about the
majority of the clerks who produced the records we now are studying.
Remarkably my otherwise excellent pair of tomes, the photoreduced copy
of the Oxford English Dictionary, does not even give this word, which I
would certainly see as part of the English canon. I wait, with bated
breath, the pronouncements of the masters.
I looked at the OED before I posted my query, but the examples it gives do
not give me a clear answer. I think the examples suggest that the word is
used to inform readers about the version that the readers should regard as
correct, rather than to inform them of what the author ought to have
regarded as correct. Anyway, here is OED on "recte":
"1. Correctly: used to indicate that the word or phrase following it within
a parenthesis is the correct version of that which immediately precedes the
insertion.
1886 Trans. Philol. Soc. 621 Leg. contini (recte cointinni) gen. of cointinn
s.f. 'strife, controversy'. 1934 Times Lit. Suppl. 3 May 325/2 'Tithreks
Saga' (recte 'Thithriks Saga af Bern'). 1939 Joyce Finnegans Wake (1964)
iii. 543 The villa of the Ostmanorum to Thorstan's, recte Thomars Sraid.
1979 Trans. Philol. Soc. 184 Kent translates the portion after my square
brackets 'This indeed+(is) my activity (recte physical-dexterity).' "
This discussion is a waste of time & energy - the only relevant point to
note is that Douglas Richardson had said he was adding "corrections",
not modern standardisations. "Recte", both literally and in this
context, meant "correctly". The idea that there might be a shadow
meaning of "correctly for the reader" is a furphy - in spelling, there
is no distinction as to correctness between reading and writing.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Douglas Richardson wrote:
And this feeble rejoinder is supposed to lessen your embarrassment in
some way?
The only "new" element in this thread so far is that Douglas Richardson
has discovered a new way to make a fool of himself - and he is evidently
determined to go on seeking more novelties like this.
Very unedifying. A diet of Thanksgiving turkey on his part is a kind of
cannibalism....
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<WhBpd.48768$K7.35444@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
If you wish to pose as an expert you need
to be mindful of medieval practice & careful in your own choice of
words: "recte" is Latin for "rightly" or "correctly", but medieval
Norman authors writing in the vernacular didn't have standard spellings
to comply with in the first place.
Even without a clue about their language you ought to realise that.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
I know this has been an emotionally trying day for you, but please do
get a grip. By all means, take a hot bath, and have a cup of tea with
some bisquits and jam. Before you know it, you'll feel right as rain!
And this feeble rejoinder is supposed to lessen your embarrassment in
some way?
The only "new" element in this thread so far is that Douglas Richardson
has discovered a new way to make a fool of himself - and he is evidently
determined to go on seeking more novelties like this.
Very unedifying. A diet of Thanksgiving turkey on his part is a kind of
cannibalism....
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New List of the Bastards of King Henry I
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Another poultry-brained response: the "he" in my sentence quoted above
was the anonymous 13th-century chronicler, not Douglas Richardson.
It was clumsily written (by me) in another respect, but it is easily
understood & the absurd placement of "illegitmate" doesn't affect this
point.
I was explaining how the author came to conflate two Williams into one,
through a poor understanding of Robert de Torigni and misapplied arithmetic.
Richardson couldn't explain this since he hadn't evaluated the source he
was putting forward as "new", he didn't bother to check what Robert de
Torigni had written, and he couldn't work out that one was a selective
translation of the other because he didn't have a secondary authority to
tell him so.
What Richardson or CP may have said about Henry's legitimate offspring
is of course completely immaterial.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<sCEpd.49151$K7.38846@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Consequently he toted up the numbers and came to six illegitimate sons
as stated, when Robert de Torigny had actually named seven in all - one
being legitimate.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
Don't get your undies in such a bunch.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): Appendix D, 105, states that Robert de
Torigny enumerated six illegitimate sons and seven illegitimate
daughters for King Henry I of England. This is the same total of
illegitimate children given by the anonymous French chronicler
published by Francisque Michel. I said nothing about Henry I's
legitimate issue, nor did Complete Peerage.
Another poultry-brained response: the "he" in my sentence quoted above
was the anonymous 13th-century chronicler, not Douglas Richardson.
It was clumsily written (by me) in another respect, but it is easily
understood & the absurd placement of "illegitmate" doesn't affect this
point.
I was explaining how the author came to conflate two Williams into one,
through a poor understanding of Robert de Torigni and misapplied arithmetic.
Richardson couldn't explain this since he hadn't evaluated the source he
was putting forward as "new", he didn't bother to check what Robert de
Torigni had written, and he couldn't work out that one was a selective
translation of the other because he didn't have a secondary authority to
tell him so.
What Richardson or CP may have said about Henry's legitimate offspring
is of course completely immaterial.
Peter Stewart