eleanor of aquitaine

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Rashid Amora

eleanor of aquitaine

Legg inn av Rashid Amora » 01 feb 2005 21:36:53

John Carmi Parsons once stated that eleanor had nine children from her
marriage to Henry II. Who was this ninth child?
Rashid

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 feb 2005 23:41:02

John Carmi Parsons is a reputable man and a straight-shooter.

If he has conclusive evidence for a 9th child of Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine I'm sure he'll bring it forward -- so we can deal with it and
discuss it.

Of course, if the child was born stillborn or died in infancy there is
probably no genealogical impact of note.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 feb 2005 01:51:02

Here's what Stewart Baldwin has to report:

"son, died young."

"Lewis (2002) would place an additional son either here or between
Geoffrey and Eleanor, based on a statement of Ralph of Diceto that there
were six sons, two of whom died young [R. Dic. ii, 17, 269]. Although
Ralph is generally a trustworthy authority, this son is not confirmed by
any other source."

http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... nry002.htm

"...not confirmed by any other source."

Slim Pickings Indeed...

Six LEGITIMATE SONS by Eleanor of Aquitaine, confirmed per Ralph of
Diceto?

We know Henry II had several bastards.

Genealogical Significance Nil.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 feb 2005 04:18:01

Innumerate Spencer Hines wrote:

Here's what Stewart Baldwin has to report:

"son, died young."

"Lewis (2002) would place an additional son either here or
b­etween Geoffrey and Eleanor, based on a statement of
Ralph of Dicet­o that there were six sons, two of whom died
young [R. Dic. ii, 17, 269].­ Although Ralph is generally a
trustworthy authority, this son is not ­confirmed by any
other source."

http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... nry002.htm

"...not confirmed by any other source."

Slim Pickings Indeed...

Six LEGITIMATE SONS by Eleanor of Aquitaine, confirmed
per R­alph of Diceto?

We know Henry II had several bastards.

Genealogical Significance Nil.

'Nuff Said.

No Spencer, not 'nuff.

The significance is that Henry and Eleanor had NINE children, not just
EIGHT as you shouted at the newsgroup.

If you think Ralph de Diceto can be overlooked simply because his
report is not confirmed by any other source, as Stewart Baldwin
properly stated, then you can have NO idea about the state of
information available to us on a great many such points.

Your credibility is indeed of some interest on SGM, since you try to
use this figment of your own imagination as a stick to beat others, yet
when you are plainly wrong you twist & writhe to avoid admitting this
like a ruined windsock with its hole ripped too wide.

Pathetic.

Every birth is of genealogical significance, no matter if the baby died
or turned out bad. Ask your mother.

You have turned out to be what Dr Spooner, in the common Oxford joke,
might have called a "shining wit".

Now...'nuff said.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 feb 2005 02:21:02

| I believe we are all well aware that in working with sources from the
| medieval period, we must be prepared to deal with what are often no
| more than tiny fragments of information. The passage from Ralph
| of Diss (= de Diceto) dealing with the children of Henry II and
| Eleanor of Aquitaine is one such fragment....

John Parsons
---------------------------------

What is the ACTUAL language in Ralph de Diceto's account and when and
where was it written?

We "DEAL" with "tiny fragments of information all the time" -- in
writing History and Genealogy and in Daily Life.

We don't necessarily BELIEVE and ACT ON all of these "tiny fragments of
information" UNCRITICALLY without CONFIRMATION from OTHER BUTTRESSING
sources.

"son, died young.
Lewis (2002) would place an additional son either here or between
Geoffrey and Eleanor, based on a statement of Ralph of Diceto that there
were six sons, two of whom died young [R. Dic. ii, 17, 269]. Although
Ralph is generally a trustworthy authority, this son is not confirmed by
any other source." [Stewart Baldwin]

1. Lewis "would place"...

2. "...this son is not confirmed by any other source."

Caveat Lector et Scriptor....

'Nuff Said.

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F1187D643BFE06FBABD4B9CB27E0@phx.gbl...

| I believe we are all well aware that in working with sources from the
| medieval period, we must be prepared to deal with what are often no
| more than tiny fragments of information. The passage from Ralph
| of Diss (= de Diceto) dealing with the children of Henry II and
| Eleanor of Aquitaine is one such fragment....

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 feb 2005 04:09:06

Spencer Hines wrote:

We don't necessarily BELIEVE and ACT ON all of these "tiny
f­ragments of information" UNCRITICALLY without CONFIRMATION
from OTHER BU­TTRESSING sources.

This is true enough - and we who care for the study of medieval
genealogy don't look for crooked reasons to DISBELIEVE or MAKE EXCUSES
for overlooking these "tiny f­ragments of information" when they are
pointed out to us.

As to whether or not I can be called a "charlatan", I leave it to
others here to make up their own minds. A charlatan is someone who
falsely claims (explicitly, like Richardson with his "elite training"
and "professionalism") or who pretends (implicitly, like Spencer with
his Latin tag-lines although he doesn't know a deponent verb from a bar
of soap) to possess certain knowledge, skills or capacities, usually in
order to gain money or some other kind of personal advantage (again
like Spencer, with his crude idea that SGM has or could ever have a
"top banana").

I should be fascinated to see specific instances where I have allegedly
done this. Spencer now has to fulfil the responsibility that he so
frequently demands of other posters, to put up or shut up. We know he
is incapable of withdrawing a false statement, but let us see if he can
justify a dubious one. Substance is required, Spencer, not just empty
epithets, rattle-bagging diversionary tactics and/or flatly changing
the subject.

As for his obsessive gabbling about my health & the imaginary prognosis
of a degenerative condition, perhaps I should find this interest
touching despite the dishonesty - but all that is touched is clearly in
Spencer's head. I have acknowledged (not "confessed" to) some
neurological problems that don't embarrass or discredit me in the
slightest, whatever Spencer may suppose.


Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 feb 2005 04:15:28

My apologies to SGM members for the cross-posting of my last message -
I didn't realise that this was going to other newsgroups until it
appeared on the Google board.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 feb 2005 05:10:03

Hilarious!

Vide infra pro risibus.

Peter Stewart is indeed the Top Banana of SGM -- the Raging Pogue Aussie
[RPA] who is allegedly descended from no less than THREE British Prime
Ministers -- and Henry VII, of course.

As well as carrying a touch of the Madness of King George III?

G'day to all the sound, sober, intelligent Regular Aussies -- who are
neither addlepated nor raging.

Pogue Stewart The Addlepated is AFRAID to have his charlatanry,
ignorance and stupidity revealed in other apposite newsgroups, akin to
SGM.

Peter prefers to keep his madness in the closet.

No Sale.

Hoist with his own petar.

KAWHOMP!!!

Par For The Course...

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107400528.496812.211730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

| My apologies to SGM members for the cross-posting of my last message -
| I didn't realise that this was going to other newsgroups until it
| appeared on the Google board.
|
| Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 feb 2005 05:31:01

Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude!

Peter Stewart seems to be having another VICIOUS attack of TRIGEMINAL
NEURALGIA -- which makes him RAGE -- out of Grand Angst, genuine pain
and discomfort.

While I feel very sorry for him, and wish him a speedy recovery, such
personal, mental and medical problems as he may have do NOT justify his
charlatanry, his disingenuousness, his duplicity, his unfocused rage and
his lying -- which I have fully documented in the past.

Pogue Stewart The Addlepated should get up off his duff and check the
Archives like a good boy -- and prattle no further.

But his TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA, plus his other neurological difficulties
DO allow him to reign secure as:

The TOP BANANA Of SGM.

So, even though there is acute pain and suffering for Peter, there is a
GREATER GOOD.

GREAT ENTERTAINMENT for all of us.

Praise The Lord...

Hail Britannia!

Waltzing Matilda!

Vive La France!

Maple Leaves Forever!

New Zealand?

God Bless America!

How Sweet It Is!

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 feb 2005 06:40:19

Spencer Hines wrote:

Pogue Stewart The Addlepated is AFRAID to have his charlatan­ry,
ignorance and stupidity revealed in other apposite newsgroup­s,
akin to SGM.

Not at all, Spencer - you are of course free to cross-post your fervid
accusations wherever you choose. I will not respond to other newsgroups
in which I don't choose to participate, so you can have the bent
pleasure of blathering elsewhere to what passes for your heart's
content. People in other newsgroups know you & can assess your
credibility without help from me.

As for

his charlatanry, his disingenuousness, his duplicity, his
unfocu­sed rage and his lying -- which I have fully documented
in the past.

you have all the work to do, Spencer - & by all means go to it. I can't
help you as I don't know of anything to be found in the archive that
could support your charges. You failed to document the alleged "lying"
before, so there is no value in patently misrepresenting this now as
having somehow worked out in your favour. Remember, it is you who are
claiming the high ground of sanity: all that was documented in that
instance was your own extreme stupidity IF what you had alleged about
my statements were true. You can always post what you claim was sent to
you in private emails from me, if you imagine that is going to help
your cause. Or else explain - if not, why not?

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 feb 2005 06:51:04

"son, died young.
Lewis (2002) would place an additional son either here or between
Geoffrey and Eleanor, based on a statement of Ralph of Diceto that there
were six sons, two of whom died young [R. Dic. ii, 17, 269]. Although
Ralph is generally a trustworthy authority, this son is not confirmed by
any other source." [Stewart Baldwin]

1. "Lewis (2002) would place an additional son either here or
[there]"...

2. "...this son is not confirmed by any other source."

Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude!

Caveat Lector et Scriptor....

Pogue Stewart is on a rip!

That's PETER Stewart -- not Stewart Baldwin -- who has been
straightforward and HONEST. Vide supra.

'Nuff Said.

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 feb 2005 08:25:45

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eXiMd.45$eF2.935@eagle.america.net...
"son, died young.
Lewis (2002) would place an additional son either here or between
Geoffrey and Eleanor, based on a statement of Ralph of Diceto that there
were six sons, two of whom died young [R. Dic. ii, 17, 269]. Although
Ralph is generally a trustworthy authority, this son is not confirmed by
any other source." [Stewart Baldwin]

1. "Lewis (2002) would place an additional son either here or
[there]"...

2. "...this son is not confirmed by any other source."

Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude!

Caveat Lector et Scriptor....

Pogue Stewart is on a rip!

That's PETER Stewart -- not Stewart Baldwin -- who has been
straightforward and HONEST. Vide supra.

Can Spencer Hines be seriously proposing this at third hand as an adequate
refutation of Ralph de Diceto, Andrew Lewis and John Carmis Parsons? And as
some kind of proof of someone's alleged dishonesty (mine or now, apparently,
Stewart Baldwin's)? And of his own alleged sanity?

Perhaps someone else can explain to him why this is moronic. He is evidently
not amenable to commonsense, but he just might think again if he gets some
of the "triangulation" that he so prizes on this nonsensical evasion &
distortion of his own making.

Stewart Baldwin was quite properly reporting the conclusion of Lewis, that
was based on the sudy of Ralph de Diceto and other sources BY LEWIS.

It is quite beyond me why Spencer now chooses to insult Stewart Baldwin with

That's PETER Stewart -- not Stewart Baldwin -- who has been
straightforward and HONEST. Vide supra.

I thought he meant to accuse me of crookedness and dishonesty, not to praise
me by comparison to Stewart.

Has Spencer quite taken leave of his few remaining sense?

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 feb 2005 10:23:45

In message of 3 Feb, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

My apologies to SGM members for the cross-posting of my last message -
I didn't realise that this was going to other newsgroups until it
appeared on the Google board.

Never saw it.

With my newsreader software I have set one filter to delete all postings
that are cross posted to three or more newsgroups.

Another filter puts crosspostings to two groups into a folder called
Spam.

Finally only those singly posted get to the soc.gen.med folder.

I can recommend this to get rid of obvious rubbish from troublemakers.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 03 feb 2005 14:30:02

So, even though there is acute pain and suffering for Peter, there is a
GREATER GOOD.

GREAT ENTERTAINMENT for all of us.


This thought approaches the pure essence of evil.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 feb 2005 22:29:43

""Richard Smyth at Road Runner"" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:001801c509f4$86503200$020010ac@peirce...
So, even though there is acute pain and suffering for Peter, there is a
GREATER GOOD.

GREAT ENTERTAINMENT for all of us.


This thought approaches the pure essence of evil.

Let's just be glad he has now made such a complete fool of himself that even
he appears to realise it, and (touch wood, at least for the moment) appears
to have shut up.

I am not in the least bothered by his rantings, as these are far too silly &
baseless to be offensive.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 feb 2005 23:01:02

Pogue [Peter] Stewart's acute, hissy-fit attack of NEURALGIA -- which
makes him RAGE on USENET -- out of Grand Angst, frustration, genuine
pain and discomfort -- seems to have subsided for the nonce.

Excellent!

Several solid, swift blows upside the head with a sturdy 2 by 4, left
and right, which I administered to him out of genuine kindness and
concern -- always seem to do the trick.

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 feb 2005 23:36:56

Spencer Hines wrote:

Pogue [Peter] Stewart's acute, hissy-fit attack of NEURALGIA --
which makes him RAGE on USENET -- out of Grand Angst,
frustration, genuine pain and discomfort -- seems to have
subsided for the nonce.

O dear, Spencer still hasn't learned how to use parentheses, even after
inadvertantly insulting Stewart Baldwin by his clumsiness & failing to
correct himself. This basic skill was no doubt taught in a class of
primary school that Spencer missed.

Excellent!

Several solid, swift blows upside the head with a sturdy 2 by 4,
left and right, which I administered to him out of genuine kindness
and concern -- always seem to do the trick.

Not even Spencer can be so delusional as to believe this tripe. Clearly
he is back into his Usenet "top banana" fantasy.

If you want to inflict a blow, Spencer, you will need to dredge up
whatever you allege is in the archive to substantiate your wild
accusation of charlatanry. Words are double-edged swords, Spencer - and
your own can do you more damage than any of mine.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 feb 2005 23:49:45

I inadvertantly cross-posted again from using the blank "reply" screen
on Google-beta - I apologise to the newsgroup for this.

Now I will have done with this wretched site and instead will use the
link to "Google-classic" that I posted earlier.

Peter Stewart

Tony Hoskins

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 04 feb 2005 00:01:01

Can someone please tell me if GEN-MED has a moderator; some sort of
director-overseer? And, if so, how to contact this person?

Thanks.

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 feb 2005 01:04:45

Tony Hoskins wrote:
Can someone please tell me if GEN-MED has a moderator; some sort of
director-overseer? And, if so, how to contact this person?

GEN-MEDIEVAL has two Listowners, Don Stone and myself. We alternate
duties, so it is best to contact whichever of us is on duty using the
Listowners' email address:

GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-request@RootsWeb.com

The message will then be forwarded to the correct person.


That being said, you should bear in mind that Listowner and Moderator
are not the same thing. As Listowners, we deal with problems in
subscribing, unsubscribing or posting. Due to the nature of the linkage
between GEN-MEDIEVAL and soc.gen.medieval, GEN-MED cannot be moderated.
We can certainly make 'suggestions' regarding the conduct of posters,
but because moderation is not possible under the current configuration
there can be no 'or else' behind these suggestions.

In the current situation (or rather, situations) the participants in
question have been repeatedly told that their behavior is not
appreciated. They continue their rude behavior none the less, and at
some point (a point long since past) it becomes clear that the repeated
suggestions have no effect and hence simply add to the noise
(particularly since these rude posters use the suggestions as a platform
for additional misbehavior). As long as the posters in question are
participating in the group, the situation will not improve, except
temporarily.

All I can recommend is that you figure out who is responsible (shouldn't
be too hard) and kill-file them. They crave attention, so let them eat
silence.

taf

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 04 feb 2005 01:20:26

In message of 3 Feb, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Can someone please tell me if GEN-MED has a moderator; some sort of
director-overseer? And, if so, how to contact this person?

No it does not have a moderator. GEN-MED is not moderated. It
automatically accepts all postings to the newsgroup soc.gen.genealogy
and this newsgroup is not moderated.

A moderated newsgroup (a part of Usenet) requires the moderator to check
every posting before going public. It is thus slow and lacks
spontanaeity. Moderation is only suited to announcements which are of
low volume and not time critical.

Further there is no control of contributors on a news group. Anyone can
download and anyone can post. So all of this goes to GEN-MED.

Because GEN-MED is thus an extension of Usenet, there cannot be any
moderation of user control of GEN-MED.


PS. What does this have to do with Eleanor of Aquitaine? :-)

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 04 feb 2005 01:30:58

Todd Farmerie wrote:

Due to the nature of the linkage between GEN-MEDIEVAL
and soc.gen.medieval, GEN-MED cannot be moderated.

Is it not possible for the link to be optional, at least for SGM
posters, by showing an extra address that can be deleted (when spotted)
as with cross-posts to other newsgroups?

That way incorrigibly rude posters like me could choose to spare the
delicate feelings of those GEN-MED subscribers who for some reason feel
compelled to open every email in every thread coming from their list.

Peter Stewart

Don Stone

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Don Stone » 04 feb 2005 01:37:35

Tony Hoskins wrote:
Can someone please tell me if GEN-MED has a moderator; some sort of
director-overseer? And, if so, how to contact this person?

Thanks.

Anthony Hoskins

Todd Farmerie and I share listowner duties for GEN-MED, but the list is
unmoderated and (since it is gated with soc.genealogy.medieval) not easily
changed to moderated.

-- Don Stone

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 feb 2005 01:39:33

| I inadvertantly [sic] cross-posted again from using the blank "reply"
| screen on Google-beta - I apologise to the newsgroup for this.
|
| Now I will have done with this wretched site and instead will use the
| link to "Google-classic" that I posted earlier.
|
| Peter Stewart

Hilarious!

PRATFALL!!! by Pogue Stewart -- once again.

"Wretched" Indeed....

Peter has been hoist with his own petar.

He's Clearly Not Playing With A Full Deck...

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

Virginia, it just shouldn't get any better than this -- but it always
does.

Peter 'Pogue' Stewart = Top Banana of SGM.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Tony Hoskins

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 04 feb 2005 02:01:01

PS. What does this have to do with Eleanor of Aquitaine? :-)

Very true, Tim! But "desperate times breed desperate measures"!!

Thanks for the info.

And now - apologizing for the interruption - back to Eleanor.

Tony



Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Don Stone

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Don Stone » 04 feb 2005 02:03:41

Peter Stewart wrote:

Todd Farmerie wrote:

Due to the nature of the linkage between GEN-MEDIEVAL
and soc.gen.medieval, GEN-MED cannot be moderated.

Is it not possible for the link to be optional, at least for SGM
posters, by showing an extra address that can be deleted (when spotted)
as with cross-posts to other newsgroups?

That way incorrigibly rude posters like me could choose to spare the
delicate feelings of those GEN-MED subscribers who for some reason feel
compelled to open every email in every thread coming from their list.

Peter Stewart

I don't think the linkage can easily be made optional. Various technical
schemes to do this could probably be worked out, but I don't think that
RootsWeb could be persuaded to use scarce resources to create the needed
special-purpose software modifications. (RootsWeb is where the
linking/gating takes place, and they would view the cost/benefit ratio of
making these modifications as too high, I'm sure.)

-- Don Stone

Leo van de Pas

Do we need Moderation or a Moderator

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 feb 2005 02:11:02

We do have freedom of speech on gen-med, no-one is stopping anyone from
contributing to gen-med. There are people who think that freedom of speech
brings no responsibility, they maintain they can say whatever they want,
never mind how childish, how offensive, how stupid it may be.

Lately I have received several e-mails from people with questions they did
not dare ask on gen-med because of some individuals. My suggestion to them
was, first kill file the person you are concerned about and then ask the
question, after all, there is no such thing as a stupid question, the person
would not ask if they knew the answer. To this I added there is such a thing
as a stupid or nasty answer and we see enough of those.

In the past I had Douglas Richardson killfiled and may soon do it again. At
the moment he seems under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or has he
simply entered his second childhood?

Best wishes to all.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine


In message of 3 Feb, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Can someone please tell me if GEN-MED has a moderator; some sort of
director-overseer? And, if so, how to contact this person?

No it does not have a moderator. GEN-MED is not moderated. It
automatically accepts all postings to the newsgroup soc.gen.genealogy
and this newsgroup is not moderated.

A moderated newsgroup (a part of Usenet) requires the moderator to check
every posting before going public. It is thus slow and lacks
spontanaeity. Moderation is only suited to announcements which are of
low volume and not time critical.

Further there is no control of contributors on a news group. Anyone can
download and anyone can post. So all of this goes to GEN-MED.

Because GEN-MED is thus an extension of Usenet, there cannot be any
moderation of user control of GEN-MED.


PS. What does this have to do with Eleanor of Aquitaine? :-)

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org



Todd A. Farmerie

GEN-MED/soc.gen.med (was Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine)

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 feb 2005 02:57:29

Peter Stewart wrote:
Todd Farmerie wrote:


Due to the nature of the linkage between GEN-MEDIEVAL
and soc.gen.medieval, GEN-MED cannot be moderated.


Is it not possible for the link to be optional, at least for SGM
posters, by showing an extra address that can be deleted (when spotted)
as with cross-posts to other newsgroups?

That way incorrigibly rude posters like me could choose to spare the
delicate feelings of those GEN-MED subscribers who for some reason feel
compelled to open every email in every thread coming from their list.

There was a time when we tried working with the RootsWeb (owned by
Ancestry.com) people to work out something like this. Basically,
several times we made it high enough on their priority list to have
someone promise to look into it as soon as they got done with the other
pressing things they had on their plate, but apparently (unless they
were just paying us lip service) their plate kept getting refilled.

(I guess the situation was kind of like an Easter dinner I once went to
at the home of the ethnic grandmother of one of my friends. I had been
brought up with the "finish everything on your plate" ethic, while she
operated on the "if you empty your plate, you must still be hungry" one.
Talk about a clash of cultures - I nearly exploded before I figured
out what was going on and left a little.)

If you wish to spare the delicate feelings of subscribers, you could
refrain from posting knowingly objectionable material (really, must you
feed his ego? - he lives for the conflict), or put a recognizable label
on the Subject header [OT, JUNK, etc.] that others can then filter out.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 feb 2005 03:11:01

Excellent Question!

DSH

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:fb54ac374d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...

| ...PS. What does this have to do with Eleanor of Aquitaine? :-)
|
| --
| Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
| For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 feb 2005 03:51:01

John Carmi Parsons clearly subscribes to the belief that Eleanor of
Aquitaine was born c. 1124 NOT c. 1122.

John takes Eleanor as married to Louis VII at age 13 -- NOT 15.

He told us:

| The article by Andrew Lewis...identifies a chronicle that
| states Eleanor was aged 13 when she married Louis VII
| in 1137. We therefore need to change the generally assumed
| year of her birth from c. 1122 to c. 1124.

John Carmi Parsons -- 2 February 2005
-----------------------------------

MANY other sources have Eleanor's birthdate as c. 1122 -- and MANY
Mediaeval Historians and Genealogists use this birthdate -- NOT c. 1124.

The aforementioned article by Andrew Lewis appears in a book co-edited
by none other than John Carmi Parsons and published in 2002 or 2003. It
is _Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady_, ISBN: 0312295820. List Price
$79.95.

So John Parsons has a financial interest in encouraging sales of this
book, including the Lewis article.

He failed to mention that up-front.

Comments, Quibbles & Discussion?

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: GEN-MED/soc.gen.med (was Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine) [OT,

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 04 feb 2005 03:58:24

Todd Farmerie wrote:

If you wish to spare the delicate feelings of subscribers, you
could refrain from posting knowingly objectionable material
(really, must you feed his ego? - he lives for the conflict), or
put a recognizable label on the Subject header [OT, JUNK,
etc.] that others can then filter out.

Sorry Todd, but I don't particularly wish to spare anyone from an
inconvenience they at least partly bring on themselves, it's just that
I'm willing to do so.

As for not answering - much good this restraint does those who practice
it!

The battle in this thread started with perfectly polite & absolutely
non-triumphal advice from me that Spencer had given some dubious
information (indeed, he shouted it). Instead of engaging with this in
order to learn something he clearly didn't already know about, he
turned the discussion into a stream of piffle - matched, I freely
admit, from my side. I have an objection to being labelled a charlatan,
liar, and so on, without response. I also object to grotesque
hypocrisy, such as making vile claims about another person's health or
character that the poster won't even try to substantiate.

I also object to witless goonery of the kind we see occasionally from
Douglas Richardson, who is usually a more responsible it not always a
more expert contributor than he has shown himself over the past few
days.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 04 feb 2005 04:35:57

Spencer Hines wrote:

John Carmi Parsons clearly subscribes to the belief that Eleanor
of Aquitaine was born c. 1124 NOT c. 1122.

John takes Eleanor as married to Louis VII at age 13 -- NOT 15.

He told us:

| The article by Andrew Lewis...identifies a chronicle that
| states Eleanor was aged 13 when she married Louis VII
| in 1137. We therefore need to change the generally assumed
| year of her birth from c. 1122 to c. 1124.

John Carmi Parsons -- 2 February 2005
-----------------------------------

MANY other sources have Eleanor's birthdate as c. 1122

Can you quote or cite at least some of these sources precisely?
-- and MANY Mediaeval Historians and Genealogists use this
birthdate -- NOT c. 1124.

But isn't it your opinon that some medieval historians and genealogists
get up to "dirty tricks"? Are the "MANY" nevertheless to be given
credit, on a generalised basis?

The aforementioned article by Andrew Lewis appears in a book
co-edited by none other than John Carmi Parsons and published
in 2002 or 2003. It is _Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady_,
ISBN: 0312295820. List Price $79.95.

So John Parsons has a financial interest in encouraging sales of
this book, including the Lewis article.

He failed to mention that up-front.

It had already been mentioned - by me in a citation that John directly
referred to in his first post on the subject - before he joined the
discussion.

Peter Stewart

ferdon

Re: Do we need Moderation or a Moderator

Legg inn av ferdon » 04 feb 2005 12:11:01

If only more of us would use the "block sender" option.


----- Original Message -----

From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:03 AM
Subject: Do we need Moderation or a Moderator


We do have freedom of speech on gen-med, no-one is stopping anyone from
contributing to gen-med. There are people who think that freedom of speech
brings no responsibility, they maintain they can say whatever they want,
never mind how childish, how offensive, how stupid it may be.

Lately I have received several e-mails from people with questions they did
not dare ask on gen-med because of some individuals. My suggestion to them
was, first kill file the person you are concerned about and then ask the
question, after all, there is no such thing as a stupid question, the
person
would not ask if they knew the answer. To this I added there is such a
thing
as a stupid or nasty answer and we see enough of those.

In the past I had Douglas Richardson killfiled and may soon do it again.
At
the moment he seems under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or has he
simply entered his second childhood?

Best wishes to all.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine


In message of 3 Feb, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Can someone please tell me if GEN-MED has a moderator; some sort of
director-overseer? And, if so, how to contact this person?

No it does not have a moderator. GEN-MED is not moderated. It
automatically accepts all postings to the newsgroup soc.gen.genealogy
and this newsgroup is not moderated.

A moderated newsgroup (a part of Usenet) requires the moderator to check
every posting before going public. It is thus slow and lacks
spontanaeity. Moderation is only suited to announcements which are of
low volume and not time critical.

Further there is no control of contributors on a news group. Anyone can
download and anyone can post. So all of this goes to GEN-MED.

Because GEN-MED is thus an extension of Usenet, there cannot be any
moderation of user control of GEN-MED.


PS. What does this have to do with Eleanor of Aquitaine? :-)

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org




Ginny Wagner

RE: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 04 feb 2005 18:41:02

<Comments, Quibbles & Discussion?>

In Amy Kelly's Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings: On the first page
under The Rich Dower:

But his [Guillaume, Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine] early death in
1137 brought the king [Louis the Sixth of France, Louis the Fat] face to
face with problems that could not be postponed.

Guilliame's only heirs were two daughters. Eleanor, the elder, was a girl
(jeune pucelle) scarcely fifteen. This young duchess, with her legacy of
violent and unfinished quarrels, was King Louis's vassal, his lawful
marriage prize ....[4]


Notes: [4]Sug, Vie L. VI, 128.

Biblio: Sug Suger, De Administratione and De Consecratione. See
Panofsky.
Epistolae (HGF XV)
Vie de Louis le Gros and Vie de Louis VII. See Molinier.


1137 - 15 = 1122

Best,
Ginny

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 feb 2005 22:01:03

Bingo!

DSH
-------------

""Ginny Wagner"" <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOMEHMEGAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com...
|
| <Comments, Quibbles & Discussion?>
|
| In Amy Kelly's Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings: On the first
| page under The Rich Dower:
|
| But his [Guillaume, Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine] early death
| in 1137 brought the king [Louis the Sixth of France, Louis the Fat]
| face to face with problems that could not be postponed.
|
| Guilliame's only heirs were two daughters. Eleanor, the elder, was a
| girl (jeune pucelle) scarcely fifteen. This young duchess, with her
| legacy of violent and unfinished quarrels, was King Louis's vassal,
| his lawful marriage prize ....[4]
|
| Notes: [4] Sug, Vie L. VI, 128.
|
| Biblio: Sug Suger, De Administratione and De Consecratione. See
| Panofsky.
| Epistolae (HGF XV)
| Vie de Louis le Gros and Vie de Louis VII. See Molinier.
|
| 1137 - 15 = 1122
|
| Best,
| Ginny

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 feb 2005 03:16:35

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:woRMd.48$eS2.1165@eagle.america.net...
Bingo!

DSH
-------------

""Ginny Wagner"" <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOMEHMEGAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com...
|
| <Comments, Quibbles & Discussion?
|
| In Amy Kelly's Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings: On the first
| page under The Rich Dower:
|
| But his [Guillaume, Count of Poitou and Duke of Aquitaine] early death
| in 1137 brought the king [Louis the Sixth of France, Louis the Fat]
| face to face with problems that could not be postponed.
|
| Guilliame's only heirs were two daughters. Eleanor, the elder, was a
| girl (jeune pucelle) scarcely fifteen. This young duchess, with her
| legacy of violent and unfinished quarrels, was King Louis's vassal,
| his lawful marriage prize ....[4]
|
| Notes: [4] Sug, Vie L. VI, 128.
|
| Biblio: Sug Suger, De Administratione and De Consecratione. See
| Panofsky.
| Epistolae (HGF XV)
| Vie de Louis le Gros and Vie de Louis VII. See Molinier.
|
| 1137 - 15 = 1122

Not bingo, Spencer, not even close - this is a bust.

Relying on a fourth-hand account - from Suger, who wrote in Latin, through a
translator into French & then the unsupported addition by Amy Kelly of
Eleanor's supposed age at the time of her father's death - is no way to
argue with a fine historian such as Andrew Lewis. If you insist on doing
this, why not try reading his paper first?

Suger did NOT say that Eleanor was of a particular age. There is nothing in
his works to justify Kelly's "scarcely fifteen".

The passge cited in note [4] above recounts the news delivered to Louis VI
of Duke William X of Aquitaine's death (in early April 1137), and of his
dying wish that his most noble daughter, the young girl Eleanor ("filiam
nobilissimam puellam nomine Aanor") and her inheritance should be entrusted
to the king's custody and disposition in marriage ("desponsandam totamque
terram suam eidem retinendam et deliberasse et dimisisse").

In these circumstance, the king promised to marry her to his son & heir, and
this happened soon afterwards (in July of the same year): of course he
wouldn't have taken the risk of waiting if she had not already reached an
appropriate age, but the likelihood of this can't be determined merely from
Suger's calling her "puella".

So we are still waiting for a bingo with even one of these "MANY"sources
indicating that Eleanor was born earlier than ca 1124.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 04:44:24

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart has proven, once again, that he cannot even read a simple
newsgroup post -- nor be honest about what someone else has ACTUALLY
said or written -- it's just not in him -- or in his damaged brain -- to
be able to do that.

Hoist With His Own Petar....

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

I say again:

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart pig-ignorantly thinks I have plumped for an 1124 birthdate
for Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Pig ignorant indeed that chap is.

Brain-Damaged....

I have not plumped for any date -- but Pogue Stewart HAS -- on several
occasions -- sometimes as simply 1124 and on other occasions as circa
1124 -- to give himself some wiggle room -- as he bloviates, web-spins
and thumbsucks.

I HAVE pointed out that many fine scholars, including both accomplished
mediaeval genealogists and historians have held that Eleanor was born
circa 1122 -- which is true -- they have so stated it.

Pogue Stewart and his sidekick, John Parsons, have offered not a
SCINTILLA of PROOF to the contrary.

If we see some PROOF, solid EVIDENCE, we will weigh it on its MERITS,
reason carefully and decide accordingly.

That's what any intelligent, serious, genealogical and/or historical
inquirer should do.

But we do NOT give credence to any of the arrant bloviating we have seen
to date -- from both Stewart and Parsons,

If Pogue Stewart has some CONVINCING PROOF for a birthdate for Eleanor
of Aquitaine in 1124 -- or circa 1124 -- he has talked out of both sides
of his mouth in that respect -- let him present it here for examination
and adjudication.

Otherwise, he had best just stand in the corner with the dunce's cap on
and continue to be ridiculed and excoriated. His idle bluffs and hissy
fits don't work here.
------------------

Deeelightful!

Great Sport!

Kicking Pogue Stewart in the arse and watching him squeal is just
ABSURDLY easy.

Why its easier than shooting phlegmatic frogs in a barrel or drunken
kangaroos in the Outback, Virginia.

It just shouldn't get any better than this, Virginia -- but it always
does.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 05:08:37

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6rWNd.163$Df3.2555@eagle.america.net...
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart has proven, once again, that he cannot even read a simple
newsgroup post -- nor be honest about what someone else has ACTUALLY
said or written -- it's just not in him -- or in his damaged brain -- to
be able to do that.

Hoist With His Own Petar....

Considering the lectures that Hines has given in the past about this phrase,
he clearly has no idea how to apply it accurately.

What Spencer ACTUALLY wrote (on 4 February) was:

"MANY other sources have Eleanor's birthdate as c. 1122 -- and MANY
Mediaeval Historians and Genealogists use this birthdate -- NOT c. 1124."

It doesn't make a whit of difference whether or not Spencer has at any point
"plumped for" an 1124 birthdate - this is a smelly red herring. The problem
for him is that he cannot substantiate his plain and wrong statement, that
is in the archive for all to see.

He hasn't come up with a _single_ source to back up this fraudulent claim.
All he has to rely on is that some historians carelessly took a date of c.
1122 from Alfred Richard, who was confused on the point anyway. And he uses
this as a platform to insult Andrew Lewis and John Carmi Parsons, two of the
most highly-regarded medievalists & responsible historians at work today.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

Indeed. Childlish orthography won't make it any easier for Spencer - he has
made a champion fool of himself, yet again. It is rare that he ventures any
genealogical information, of course, taking refuge normally in unaccountable
opinions and lashing out at other posters until they turn away from argument
in disgusted silence, which he interprets as a free hit. Perhaps nothing
short of an open consensus of SGM readers could ever get through his skull
the idea that he has NIL credibility or respect in this forum.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 05:15:16

""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.20050207234511.01cc6550@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
You know there are some who would propose that two grown
men publicly ranting back and forth like this, for such an
extended time, have suppressed homosexual tendencies.

I should think more people could interpret this bizarre & wildy inapposite
comment as a sign of wanting to talk about the very subject that you brought
up, for reasons that I wouldn't speculate on.

Peter Stewart

Peter A. Kincaid

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 08 feb 2005 05:16:01

You know there are some who would propose that two grown
men publicly ranting back and forth like this, for such an
extended time, have suppressed homosexual tendencies.


At 11:44 PM 07/02/2005, you wrote:
Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart has proven, once again, that he cannot even read a simple
newsgroup post -- nor be honest about what someone else has ACTUALLY
said or written -- it's just not in him -- or in his damaged brain -- to
be able to do that.

Hoist With His Own Petar....

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

I say again:

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart pig-ignorantly thinks I have plumped for an 1124 birthdate
for Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Pig ignorant indeed that chap is.

Brain-Damaged....

I have not plumped for any date -- but Pogue Stewart HAS -- on several
occasions -- sometimes as simply 1124 and on other occasions as circa
1124 -- to give himself some wiggle room -- as he bloviates, web-spins
and thumbsucks.

I HAVE pointed out that many fine scholars, including both accomplished
mediaeval genealogists and historians have held that Eleanor was born
circa 1122 -- which is true -- they have so stated it.

Pogue Stewart and his sidekick, John Parsons, have offered not a
SCINTILLA of PROOF to the contrary.

If we see some PROOF, solid EVIDENCE, we will weigh it on its MERITS,
reason carefully and decide accordingly.

That's what any intelligent, serious, genealogical and/or historical
inquirer should do.

But we do NOT give credence to any of the arrant bloviating we have seen
to date -- from both Stewart and Parsons,

If Pogue Stewart has some CONVINCING PROOF for a birthdate for Eleanor
of Aquitaine in 1124 -- or circa 1124 -- he has talked out of both sides
of his mouth in that respect -- let him present it here for examination
and adjudication.

Otherwise, he had best just stand in the corner with the dunce's cap on
and continue to be ridiculed and excoriated. His idle bluffs and hissy
fits don't work here.
------------------

Deeelightful!

Great Sport!

Kicking Pogue Stewart in the arse and watching him squeal is just
ABSURDLY easy.

Why its easier than shooting phlegmatic frogs in a barrel or drunken
kangaroos in the Outback, Virginia.

It just shouldn't get any better than this, Virginia -- but it always
does.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 05:31:02

Indeed. Childlish [sic] orthography won't make it any easier...

Peter 'Pogue' Stewart
----------------------

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart actually thinks "CHILDLISH" is an English word.

Well, he claims he ATTENDED Oxford University -- but did NOT GRADUATE.

Oxford University certainly saw through this disingenuous, lying,
brain-damaged, charlatan-pogue and wisely did not confer a degree on
him. They certainly got THAT right.

And he still has not produced an IOTA of proof for a birthdate of 1124
or even for "circa 1124" -- just continual whining, hissy fits,
bloviating, thumbsucking and web-spinning.

Hoist with his own petar yet again and come a cropper.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

I say again:

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart = Top Banana of SGM, et al.

Deeeelightful As T.R. Would Say....

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 06:28:57

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rhXNd.169$Df3.2467@eagle.america.net...

<blather snipped>

And he still has not produced an IOTA of proof for a birthdate of 1124
or even for "circa 1124" -- just continual whining, hissy fits,
bloviating, thumbsucking and web-spinning.

No matter how many times it's repeated, a flagrant lie remains just that.

The source for a birthdate of ca 1124, as posted before, is in RHGF XVIII at

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?D ... NUMM-50136

on pp. 241-242.

So that Spencer doesn't waste any more time over this, I will transcribe it:

"Anno MCXXXVI, quinto idus aprilis, quod fuit in Parasceve, obiit Willelmus
palatinus Comes Pictavensis, ultimus Dux Aquitaniae, apud Sanctum-Jacobum en
Galicie, unicam filiam XIII annorum, nomine Alienor...et monarchiam
Aquitaniae, reliquens Ludovico Francorum Regi.."

So that Spencer can understand it, I will translate it:

"1136 [written in Limoges at a time when the calendar year usually began
from Easter Sunday], 9 April, which was on Good Friday, died Wiliam, count
palatine of Poitou, the last duke of Aquitaine, at Santiago in Galicia,
leaving his only [wrong, there was a second] daughter, a girl of 13 years
named Eleanor, along with the principality of Aquitaine, to Louis, King of
the Franks."

As I have said, Andrew Lewis discussed this text, the source of its errors
and the interpolation as well as the plausibility of certain phrases
(including Eleanor's age) that are not found elsewhere.

This is much more than "an IOTA". Now for Spencer's "MANY sources"
countering this with indications of ca 1122 as the birthdate, and 15 as
Eleanor's age at the time of her father's death and of her own first
marriage.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 07:01:01

Regine Pernoud, in her very highly respected biography, _Alienor
d'Aquitaine_, also took the position that Eleanor was born about 1122.

Further, the PLACE of Eleanor's birth is ALSO an issue.

Marion Meade points out that both Poitiers and the castle of Belin, near
Bordeaux, are candidates.

I have pointed out that many fine scholars, including both accomplished
mediaeval genealogists and historians have held that Eleanor was born
circa 1122 -- which is true -- they have so stated it.

Pogue Stewart and his sidekick, John Parsons, have offered not a
SCINTILLA of PROOF to the contrary.

If we see some PROOF, solid EVIDENCE, we will weigh it on its MERITS,
reason carefully and decide accordingly.

That's what any intelligent, serious, genealogical and/or historical
inquirer should do.

But we do NOT give credence to any of the arrant bloviating we have seen
to date -- from both Stewart and Parsons,

If Pogue Stewart has some CONVINCING PROOF for a birthdate for Eleanor
of Aquitaine in 1124 -- or circa 1124 -- he has talked out of both sides
of his mouth in that respect -- let him present it here for examination
and adjudication.

Otherwise, he had best just stand in the corner with the dunce's cap on
and continue to be ridiculed and excoriated. His idle bluffs and hissy
fits don't work here.

Peter Stewart is indeed the Top Banana of SGM -- the Raging Pogue Aussie
[RPA] who is allegedly descended from no less than THREE British Prime
Ministers -- and Henry VII, of course.

As well as carrying a touch of the Madness of King George III?

But all that gets him no special privileges here -- he should know that
by now.

G'day to all the sound, sober, intelligent Regular Aussies -- who are
neither addlepated nor raging.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 07:06:33

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eAYNd.171$Df3.2680@eagle.america.net...
Regine Pernoud, in her very highly respected biography, _Alienor
d'Aquitaine_, also took the position that Eleanor was born about 1122.

Do you not yet begin to get a glimmer of understanding as to why Andrew
Lewis subtitled his paper "Some Revisions"? That is how historical knowledge
progresses, by cumulative - collegial - research & publication. Not by lies,
distortion, refusal to countenance admitting error, slinging baseless
insults & petualnt fits of indiscriminate capitalisation.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 08:51:01

Lord Love A Duck!

Pogue Stewart has finally been smoked out of his spider hole.

We pull him out into the blinding sunlight -- just like Saddam.

But, what do we GET from him at long last as PROOF, Virginia?

We Get Fluff....

Pogue Stewart gives no:

1. Provenance for this sorry little [chronicle?] fragment.

2. No author for this sorry little fragment.

3. No biographic details and credentials for the author of this sorry
little fragment [the chronicler/s?] -- so we can BEGIN to examine,
compare and contrast, test and perhaps even validate it.

Further:

Clearly the author, whoever he may be, gets the number of DAUGHTERS
WRONG.

Eleanor is well-known to have had a SISTER, ALIX, KNOWN AS PETRONELLA
[Petronilla] -- who later married Raoul 'le Vaillant' de Vermandois,
Comte de Vermandois et de Valois. She reportedly died in 1153.

When Louis VII departed for the Second Crusade in 1147, he reportedly
left Abbot Suger and Raoul, Comte de Vermandois as DUAL REGENTS to serve
in his absence as the sovereign.

Now our AUTHOR here, perhaps some cloistered monk, [but we are not told]
is so ignorant he doesn't even know about the EXISTENCE of this YOUNGER
SISTER of the Queen -- and yet we are expected to trust him absolutely
as to the EXACT AGE of Eleanor, whom he styles as the ONLY DAUGHTER of
Willelmus palatinus Comes Pictavensis, ultimus Dux Aquitaniae.

Perhaps he has CONFUSED the two daughters. Petronella [Alix] WAS about
12 or 13 in 1137.

Hilarious!

People here are not NEARLY as dumb as Pogue Stewart apparently THINKS
they are.

This is some scintilla of proof....

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Hoist with his own petar yet again.

KAWHOMP!!!

Pogue Stewart -- after all his induced labor -- indeed he has been the
unwilling object of a Caesarian section on my part -- has given birth to
a mouse.

See below for ANOTHER error on Pogue Stewart's part -- a LATIN error.

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:t6YNd.152133$K7.105654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| "Anno MCXXXVI, quinto idus aprilis, quod fuit in Parasceve, obiit
| Willelmus palatinus Comes Pictavensis, ultimus Dux Aquitaniae,
| apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie, unicam filiam XIII annorum,
| nomine Alienor...et monarchiam Aquitaniae, reliquens Ludovico
| Francorum Regi.."...

| "1136 [written in Limoges at a time when the calendar year usually
| began from Easter Sunday], 9 April, which was on Good Friday, died
| Wiliam, [sic] count palatine of Poitou, the last duke of Aquitaine, at
| Santiago in Galicia **, leaving his only [wrong, there was a second]
| daughter, a girl of 13 years named Eleanor, along with the
| principality of Aquitaine, to Louis, King of the Franks."

***BAD Translation by Pogue Stewart. The Latin translates into English
as "at [the shrine of] Saint James [de Compostela] in Galicia" -- [which
is located at Santiago.] *** I've filled in the understood elided words
in the brackets.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 09:15:07

Comments interspersed:

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa_Nd.173$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...
Lord Love A Duck!

Pogue Stewart has finally been smoked out of his spider hole.

We pull him out into the blinding sunlight -- just like Saddam.

But, what do we GET from him at long last as PROOF, Virginia?

We Get Fluff....

Pogue Stewart gives no:

1. Provenance for this sorry little [chronicle?] fragment.

2. No author for this sorry little fragment.

3. No biographic details and credentials for the author of this sorry
little fragment [the chronicler/s?] -- so we can BEGIN to examine,
compare and contrast, test and perhaps even validate it.

Why not read what the editors of RHGF had to say about this, Spencer? You
pretend to understand Latin, after all, but couldn't seem to get you head
around this very simple text until I tranlated it for you. Now you are
puffed up with sham experise again, of course.

If you were at all sensible you would also read what Andrew Lewis had to say
about the manuscruipt from which this passage was taken, since he has
undertaken an intensive study of it as I told you before.

Further:

Clearly the author, whoever he may be, gets the number of DAUGHTERS
WRONG.

No, he copied a passsage from another chronicler who had this wrong (one who
was in his day every bit as highly respected as are Warren, Meade and other
modern historians that Spencer is so desperately scouring for bogus
support), but added several details including the age of Eleanor, from other
lost source/s. This is so common in medieval texts that no-one who has
genuinely studied the period ought to need educating on the point.

Eleanor is well-known to have had a SISTER, ALIX, KNOWN AS PETRONELLA
[Petronilla] -- who later married Raoul 'le Vaillant' de Vermandois,
Comte de Vermandois et de Valois. She reportedly died in 1153.

When Louis VII departed for the Second Crusade in 1147, he reportedly
left Abbot Suger and Raoul, Comte de Vermandois as DUAL REGENTS to serve
in his absence as the sovereign.

What has this to do with the subject under discussion? Can't concentrate,
Spencer?

Now our AUTHOR here, perhaps some cloistered monk, [but we are not told]
is so ignorant he doesn't even know about the EXISTENCE of this YOUNGER
SISTER of the Queen -- and yet we are expected to trust him absolutely
as to the EXACT AGE of Eleanor, whom he styles as the ONLY DAUGHTER of
Willelmus palatinus Comes Pictavensis, ultimus Dux Aquitaniae.

Perhaps he has CONFUSED the two daughters. Petronella [Alix] WAS about
12 or 13 in 1137.

No, not confused, just apparently mistaken on this point - however, "unicam"
in this context is not all that unusual when speaking of sole heiresses no
matter how many sisters they may have had, so it isn't necessarily an
outright error in the ultimate source. This, by the way (Spencer can
discover for himself) is a local chronicler whose information is for a great
many generally accepted details ALL that we have. Warren, Meade and others
could not have written their books without him.

All of this, Spencer wishes us to understand, is quite unknown to the
panjandrum of Hawaii - but of course that doesn't stop him from shouting
opinions on the matter while calling others ignorant.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 10:06:58

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa_Nd.173$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...

<snip>

Eleanor is well-known to have had a SISTER, ALIX, KNOWN AS PETRONELLA
[Petronilla] -- who later married Raoul 'le Vaillant' de Vermandois,
Comte de Vermandois et de Valois. She reportedly died in 1153.

She was last recorded alive late in that year. What is the source of any
report reaching Hawaii that she died shortly after?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 10:40:36

Cross-posts removed - apologies for not noticing these in earlier posts.


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Si%Nd.152364$K7.148273@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa_Nd.173$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...

snip

Eleanor is well-known to have had a SISTER, ALIX, KNOWN AS PETRONELLA
[Petronilla] -- who later married Raoul 'le Vaillant' de Vermandois,
Comte de Vermandois et de Valois. She reportedly died in 1153.

She was last recorded alive late in that year. What is the source of any
report reaching Hawaii that she died shortly after?

We are both wrong - she was last recorded alive late in 1151, not in 1153
(her husband had remarried and died before then).

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 11:09:44

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa_Nd.173$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:t6YNd.152133$K7.105654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| "Anno MCXXXVI, quinto idus aprilis, quod fuit in Parasceve, obiit
| Willelmus palatinus Comes Pictavensis, ultimus Dux Aquitaniae,
| apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie, unicam filiam XIII annorum,
| nomine Alienor...et monarchiam Aquitaniae, reliquens Ludovico
| Francorum Regi.."...

| "1136 [written in Limoges at a time when the calendar year usually
| began from Easter Sunday], 9 April, which was on Good Friday, died
| Wiliam, [sic] count palatine of Poitou, the last duke of Aquitaine, at
| Santiago in Galicia **, leaving his only [wrong, there was a second]
| daughter, a girl of 13 years named Eleanor, along with the
| principality of Aquitaine, to Louis, King of the Franks."

***BAD Translation by Pogue Stewart. The Latin translates into English
as "at [the shrine of] Saint James [de Compostela] in Galicia" -- [which
is located at Santiago.] *** I've filled in the understood elided words
in the brackets.

O my goodness, I didn't read this far down in Spencer's blather before this
message poppped up on Google.

Obviously the Hawaiian ignoramus fancies himself as a Latinist again &
doesn't learn from his mistakes - "en Galicie" isn't even IN Latin, it's
quite obviously a vernacular interpolation.

Sanctus-Jacobus IS Santiago, a perfectly literal translation of the place
name - and "apud" means "at", "by" or "near", not "in": nothing here says
that the duke died actually in the shrine of Santiago (or Saint James if you
must), just at that place (to which he had gone on pilgrimage).

Peter Stewart

Peter A. Kincaid

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 08 feb 2005 11:40:02

At 12:15 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.20050207234511.01cc6550@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
You know there are some who would propose that two grown
men publicly ranting back and forth like this, for such an
extended time, have suppressed homosexual tendencies.

I should think more people could interpret this bizarre & wildy inapposite
comment as a sign of wanting to talk about the very subject that you brought
up, for reasons that I wouldn't speculate on.

Peter Stewart


This was King Eddie week. Perhaps you should consult with some
psychologists about the ongoing Stewart - Hines online love spat. If
you guys continue to populate our mailboxes with this perpetual
jevenile, ego inflating diatribe you will have to live with everyone's
perception or misperception of it. As they would say around here -
it ain't normal!

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 11:59:33

""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.20050208062238.01c9c268@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
At 12:15 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.20050207234511.01cc6550@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
You know there are some who would propose that two grown
men publicly ranting back and forth like this, for such an
extended time, have suppressed homosexual tendencies.

I should think more people could interpret this bizarre & wildy inapposite
comment as a sign of wanting to talk about the very subject that you
brought
up, for reasons that I wouldn't speculate on.

Peter Stewart


This was King Eddie week. Perhaps you should consult with some
psychologists about the ongoing Stewart - Hines online love spat. If
you guys continue to populate our mailboxes with this perpetual
jevenile, ego inflating diatribe you will have to live with everyone's
perception or misperception of it. As they would say around here -
it ain't normal!

If the vituperation upsets you so, why don't you simply concentrate on the
contentious issues in the discussion about the assessment & interpretaition
of sources? If you can't see beyond the manner to the matter, and yet feel
the need to make gratuitous & fatuous comments, just who is being juvenile
and egotistic?

Your attempt at psychology has misfired badly - Spencer Hines and I have
never met. If you can't make out a difference in approach to the questions
at hand and in the substance of responses between him and me, you should
probably look for another interest as medieval genealogy will surely prove
too hard.

Peter Stewart

Peter A. Kincaid

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 08 feb 2005 12:51:02

At 06:59 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:

""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.20050208062238.01c9c268@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
At 12:15 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.20050207234511.01cc6550@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
You know there are some who would propose that two grown
men publicly ranting back and forth like this, for such an
extended time, have suppressed homosexual tendencies.

I should think more people could interpret this bizarre & wildy inapposite
comment as a sign of wanting to talk about the very subject that you
brought
up, for reasons that I wouldn't speculate on.

Peter Stewart


This was King Eddie week. Perhaps you should consult with some
psychologists about the ongoing Stewart - Hines online love spat. If
you guys continue to populate our mailboxes with this perpetual
jevenile, ego inflating diatribe you will have to live with everyone's
perception or misperception of it. As they would say around here -
it ain't normal!

If the vituperation upsets you so, why don't you simply concentrate on the
contentious issues in the discussion about the assessment & interpretaition
of sources? If you can't see beyond the manner to the matter, and yet feel
the need to make gratuitous & fatuous comments, just who is being juvenile
and egotistic?

Your attempt at psychology has misfired badly - Spencer Hines and I have
never met. If you can't make out a difference in approach to the questions
at hand and in the substance of responses between him and me, you should
probably look for another interest as medieval genealogy will surely prove
too hard.

Peter Stewart


Problem is that if there is anything meaningful to these Stewart -
Hines rants good luck finding it in all the gibberish. Say what you
wish about me I have said my piece on this. Normal people
know when to ignore such quibble. Surely you could make better
use of your talents than to participate in such behaviour.

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 12:57:25

""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.20050208072915.01ca9e88@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
At 06:59 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:

Problem is that if there is anything meaningful to these Stewart -
Hines rants good luck finding it in all the gibberish. Say what you
wish about me I have said my piece on this. Normal people
know when to ignore such quibble. Surely you could make better
use of your talents than to participate in such behaviour.

It takes a matter of minutes ni my day - as you can see from my sloppy
typing, I don't spend more time than over posts than is necessary to be
understood.

As for your critique of the exchanges, you must be paying virtually no
attention if you think your comments above are acute. Normally intelligent
people can work out the comparative strength of arguments from hte matter,
as I said before, despite the manner, and don't feel the need to add an
extra layer of complaint & insult without ANY sense or substance whatever,
as you have done (and keep doing).

Peter Stewart

Larry Swain

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Larry Swain » 08 feb 2005 13:30:13

Peter Stewart wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa_Nd.173$Df3.2847@eagle.america.net...


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:t6YNd.152133$K7.105654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| "Anno MCXXXVI, quinto idus aprilis, quod fuit in Parasceve, obiit
| Willelmus palatinus Comes Pictavensis, ultimus Dux Aquitaniae,
| apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie, unicam filiam XIII annorum,
| nomine Alienor...et monarchiam Aquitaniae, reliquens Ludovico
| Francorum Regi.."...

| "1136 [written in Limoges at a time when the calendar year usually
| began from Easter Sunday], 9 April, which was on Good Friday, died
| Wiliam, [sic] count palatine of Poitou, the last duke of Aquitaine, at
| Santiago in Galicia **, leaving his only [wrong, there was a second]
| daughter, a girl of 13 years named Eleanor, along with the
| principality of Aquitaine, to Louis, King of the Franks."

***BAD Translation by Pogue Stewart. The Latin translates into English
as "at [the shrine of] Saint James [de Compostela] in Galicia" -- [which
is located at Santiago.] *** I've filled in the understood elided words
in the brackets.


O my goodness, I didn't read this far down in Spencer's blather before this
message poppped up on Google.

Obviously the Hawaiian ignoramus fancies himself as a Latinist again &
doesn't learn from his mistakes -


Well, Peter, he DOES have Latin in his tag line, do come along. ;)


"en Galicie" isn't even IN Latin, it's
quite obviously a vernacular interpolation.

Sanctus-Jacobus IS Santiago, a perfectly literal translation of the place
name - and "apud" means "at", "by" or "near", not "in": nothing here says
that the duke died actually in the shrine of Santiago (or Saint James if you
must), just at that place (to which he had gone on pilgrimage).

Just so.

John Parsons

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av John Parsons » 08 feb 2005 17:41:02

Marion Meade cites neither authority nor source for Eleanor's age at death.
Her ultimate resource was most likely Alfred Richard, not impossibly by way
of Amy Kelly's book.

I quote here from Andy Lewis' article (just so listmembers need not rush out
& spend themselves into the poorhouse buying the book--though I'm sure many
will already have guessed that there are plenty of library copies they can
consult for free and at no profit to me):

"...[W]hen speaking of Eleanor's birth, [Richard] wrote that it was only
from knowing that she was eighty-two years old when she died, in 1204, that
one could place her birth in 1122. Yet when speaking of her death, he gave
her age as '_about_ eighty two years,' while citing no source to that effect
[FN 11]." [FN 11 reads: Richard, _Histoire des comtes de Poitou_ 1:488 and
n1, 2:437 (emphasis added).]

In other words, Richard stated that Eleanor was "about 82" in 1204, but gave
no authority nor any source to support his statement. Those like Kelly,
presumably Meade, perhaps Pernoud, and most likely Weir, who relied on
Richard, thus have no more to substantiate their reports than he had.

The statement in the Limoges chronicle that she was 13 in 1137 therefore
stands as the only contemporary information as to her age. We should be
grateful that Andy found it.

As Marion Facinger, Meade had previously published an extremely useful
article, "A Study of Medieval Queenship: Capetian France (987-1237),"
*Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History* 5 (1968): 1-47. This article
continues to inspire research & commentary & remains a fundamental
contribution to queenship studies in North America and Europe.

Unfortunately Meade's monograph on Eleanor was not received with resounding
critical approbation in 1977. In part this resulted from unlucky timing:
the book appeared shortly after publication of a volume of essays edited by
W.W. Kibler, titled *Eleanor of Aquitaine: Patron and Politician* (Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press, 1976). This volume contains essays read at a
symposium inspired in part by the first serious modern work on Eleanor,
Edmond-Rene Labande's 1951 essay "Pour une image veridique d'Alienor
d'Aquitaine," which had recently appeared in a 1973 volume of Labande's
collected essays.

Meade's book was, however, criticized for incorporating imaginary material
(e.g., that Eleanor was a healthy and merry child; while it may be inferred
from her longevity that she was healthy, we know nothing about her before
her marriage in 1137), and for parading as exclusively a woman's take on the
queen's life. While male scholars like Stubbs had commented on Eleanor's
career in passing, all previous biographers of Eleanor were women, which
rather weakens Meade's claim to break new ground as her biographer. (What
is interesting, of course, is to compare the successive viewpoints of those
earlier female biographers with Meade's interpretations of the queen's
career.)

Regards

John P.



From: "Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:49:30 -0000

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZyPNd.128$Df3.2179@eagle.america.net...
Yes.

Marion Meade, Eleanor's highly respected biographer, also held that
Eleanor must have been born in 1122.

This would make her 82 when she died in 1204.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:cu88e8$os7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

| Eleanor was apparently 30 in May 1152 on her divorce from Louis
(don't
| know the source for this), so if this is correct she was 15 in 1137.
|
| Jamie


Marion Meade says it is recorded that Eleanor was 82 when she died in
1204, but she doesn't appear to give the source.
(notes to p19)

Jamie


Gjest

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 feb 2005 18:11:01

In a message dated 2/7/2005 11:17:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

I should think more people could interpret this bizarre & wildy inapposite
comment as a sign of wanting to talk about the very subject that you brought
up, for reasons that I wouldn't speculate on.

Peter Stewart




Wrong Peter, Kincaid is not a participant in the "my is the biggest
contest". That is strictly you and Hines.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

Ginny Wagner

RE: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 08 feb 2005 20:01:01

It does seem to me that everyone has made good points re this discussion.
That no one has a real authority who has said that Eleanor was definitely
born on such and such a date. Thus, simple arithematic just won't do it
despite my desire to come to a clean, definitive answer.

I thought this discussion has been quite good in that it revealed how
footnotes need to recap a bit of the information referenced so that a
footnote about the fact that a person was at X spot isn't taken to mean a
person is X age when they are in the same paragraph footnoted.

In addition, every source has been a qualified date or age. From the little
bit I've learned, and please correct me if I'm putting my foot in it once
again:

1. If I were to die today my stone would say 1948-2005; but, by a quirk of
a late in the year birthdate, I would actually only be 56 years old. That
could be one problem with Eleanor's date -- perhaps she was a November or
December baby.

2. Regnal years and knowing exactly how they were used. I would be counted
as in the 2 year of President Harry Truman who took over for Franklin
Roosevelt who died; however, Harry Truman was first elected President in
November of 1948 first Tuesday and I was born late in the same month he was
elected and he didn't take the oath of office for his first elected as
President term till January 21 so describing my birthdate in relation to the
term of the head honcho would lead to lots of confusion -- when I try to
imagine figuring it back when they didn't have mass media it becomes even
more confusing -- brothers of kings riding off in the night to take over the
treasury and claim the crown, etc.

3. The calendars back then, if I'm not mistaken, used what a lot of
companies use, or what we consider a fiscal year -- they started in the fall
when the harvest came and everyone got paid, etc. I'm speaking in a very
general sense but the point being that their calendar didn't correspond with
ours today so discrepencies could occur.

Thus, if you take all those variables and give us fragments that say circa
or about, then it is, to my way of thinking, a miracle that anyone can be
pinned down. Why, the abbot I'm studying has a stone in a choir of an abbey
Cathedral with his date of death yet I've found references that give other
dates for his passing!

Regarding dates of death, it is my understanding that when a layperson
entered Church service a word was used that meant they died -- but what was
meant was they had died to the life they had led -- then were reborn in the
service of the church. I wonder if the same thing happened when they were
on their way out of the Church. Is this something that any of you are
familiar with? I want my man to return to his home in Breton at Mt. St.
Michel for a couple of years after his "death" at St. Albans.

Finally, Eleanor was a woman. It is possible that she lied about her age!
Lol.

Ginny Wagner

"Do the best one can. Do it over again. Then still improve, even if ever
so slightly, those retouches. It is myself that I re-make," said the poet
Yeats in speaking of his revisions. -- Marguerite Yourcenar

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 20:11:02

Good Thoughts.

DSH

""Ginny Wagner"" <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOCEAOEHAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com...

| It does seem to me that everyone has made good points re this
discussion.
| That no one has a real authority who has said that Eleanor was
definitely
| born on such and such a date. Thus, simple arithematic just won't do
it
| despite my desire to come to a clean, definitive answer.
|
| I thought this discussion has been quite good in that it revealed how
| footnotes need to recap a bit of the information referenced so that a
| footnote about the fact that a person was at X spot isn't taken to
mean a
| person is X age when they are in the same paragraph footnoted.
|
| In addition, every source has been a qualified date or age. From the
little
| bit I've learned, and please correct me if I'm putting my foot in it
once
| again:
|
| 1. If I were to die today my stone would say 1948-2005; but, by a
quirk of
| a late in the year birthdate, I would actually only be 56 years old.
That
| could be one problem with Eleanor's date -- perhaps she was a November
or
| December baby.
|
| 2. Regnal years and knowing exactly how they were used. I would be
counted
| as in the 2 year of President Harry Truman who took over for Franklin
| Roosevelt who died; however, Harry Truman was first elected President
in
| November of 1948 first Tuesday and I was born late in the same month
he was
| elected and he didn't take the oath of office for his first elected as
| President term till January 21 so describing my birthdate in relation
to the
| term of the head honcho would lead to lots of confusion -- when I try
to
| imagine figuring it back when they didn't have mass media it becomes
even
| more confusing -- brothers of kings riding off in the night to take
over the
| treasury and claim the crown, etc.
|
| 3. The calendars back then, if I'm not mistaken, used what a lot of
| companies use, or what we consider a fiscal year -- they started in th
e fall
| when the harvest came and everyone got paid, etc. I'm speaking in a
very
| general sense but the point being that their calendar didn't
correspond with
| ours today so discrepencies could occur.
|
| Thus, if you take all those variables and give us fragments that say
circa
| or about, then it is, to my way of thinking, a miracle that anyone can
be
| pinned down. Why, the abbot I'm studying has a stone in a choir of an
abbey
| Cathedral with his date of death yet I've found references that give
other
| dates for his passing!
|
| Regarding dates of death, it is my understanding that when a layperson
| entered Church service a word was used that meant they died -- but
what was
| meant was they had died to the life they had led -- then were reborn
in the
| service of the church. I wonder if the same thing happened when they
were
| on their way out of the Church. Is this something that any of you are
| familiar with? I want my man to return to his home in Breton at Mt.
St.
| Michel for a couple of years after his "death" at St. Albans.
|
| Finally, Eleanor was a woman. It is possible that she lied about her
age!
| Lol.
|
| Ginny Wagner
|
| "Do the best one can. Do it over again. Then still improve, even if
ever
| so slightly, those retouches. It is myself that I re-make," said the
poet
| Yeats in speaking of his revisions. -- Marguerite Yourcenar

John Parsons

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av John Parsons » 08 feb 2005 20:51:02

Since Hines is so anxious to have the last word, I'll let him have it here
(he said with a wealth of meanings). Allow me to reprint the following from
our archives, proving that Hines can't remember what he says from one week
to the next:


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:50:22 -0000


John Carmi Parsons is a reputable man and a straight-shooter.

[rest of message snipped]


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:14:06 -0000

Parsons, you sheep-ignorant FOOL!

Read _Hamlet_ -- you know, the play written by Will Shakespeare.

ACT III, Scene iv, Lines 207 and 208 -- since you seem to be
brain-damaged too.

Parsons, you are as dumb as dirt and thrice as arrogant.

Parsons, hoist with his own petar.

That Olympian Hauteur shattered into a thousand pieces -- those
"fragments" he loves so well.

PRATFALL!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

The word can also be spelled PETARD -- but I'm using Shakespeare's
language.

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F27531116AD145B5A88FE1B2740@phx.gbl...

| Hines, the word is correctly spelt "petard"--not "petar."
|
| John P.
|
|
| >From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
| >Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
| >To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| >Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
| >Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 03:44:24 -0000
|
| >Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
|
| >Pogue Stewart has proven, once again, that he cannot even read a
| >simple newsgroup post -- nor be honest about what someone else
| >has ACTUALLY said or written -- it's just not in him -- or in his
| >damaged brain -- to be able to do that.
|
| >Hoist With His Own Petar....
|
| >PRATFALL!!!
|
| >KAWHOMP!!!
|
| >KERSPLAT!!!
|
| >I say again:
|
| >Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
|
| >Pogue Stewart pig-ignorantly thinks I have plumped for an 1124
birthdate
| >for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
|
| >Pig ignorant indeed that chap is.
|
| >Brain-Damaged....
|
| >I have not plumped for any date -- but Pogue Stewart HAS -- on
several
| >occasions -- sometimes as simply 1124 and on other occasions as circa
| >1124 -- to give himself some wiggle room -- as he bloviates,
web-spins
| >and thumbsucks.
|
| >I HAVE pointed out that many fine scholars, including both
accomplished
| >mediaeval genealogists and historians have held that Eleanor was born
| >circa 1122 -- which is true -- they have so stated it.
|
| >Pogue Stewart and his sidekick, John Parsons, have offered not a
| >SCINTILLA of PROOF to the contrary.
|
| >If we see some PROOF, solid EVIDENCE, we will weigh it on its MERITS,
| >reason carefully and decide accordingly.
|
| >That's what any intelligent, serious, genealogical and/or historical
| >inquirer should do.
|
| >But we do NOT give credence to any of the arrant bloviating we have
seen
| >to date -- from both Stewart and Parsons,
|
| >If Pogue Stewart has some CONVINCING PROOF for a birthdate for
Eleanor
| >of Aquitaine in 1124 -- or circa 1124 -- he has talked out of both
sides
| >of his mouth in that respect -- let him present it here for
examination
| >and adjudication.
|
| >Otherwise, he had best just stand in the corner with the dunce's cap
on
| >and continue to be ridiculed and excoriated. His idle bluffs and
hissy
| >fits don't work here.
| >------------------
|
| >Deeelightful!
|
| >Great Sport!
|
| >Kicking Pogue Stewart in the arse and watching him squeal is just
| >ABSURDLY easy.
|
| >Why its easier than shooting phlegmatic frogs in a barrel or drunken
| >kangaroos in the Outback, Virginia.
|
| >It just shouldn't get any better than this, Virginia -- but it always
| >does.
|
| >D. Spencer Hines
|
| >Lux et Veritas et Libertas
|
| >Vires et Honor

Leo van de Pas

Gen-Med archives was Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 08 feb 2005 20:51:02

Dear Gordon,

I agree and disagree with you :-) One aspect about this conversation must
not be forgotten and that is the archives of Gen-Med. If Peter Stewart does
not challenge whatever Hines says, it may seem that Hines was correct in
whatever he has said.

Keep in mind "what" Peter Stewart says, not so much in how it is said. I
have killfiled Hines a while back and it makes life certainly more peaceful.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <GRHaleJr@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine


In a message dated 2/7/2005 11:17:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

I should think more people could interpret this bizarre & wildy
inapposite
comment as a sign of wanting to talk about the very subject that you
brought
up, for reasons that I wouldn't speculate on.

Peter Stewart




Wrong Peter, Kincaid is not a participant in the "my is the biggest
contest". That is strictly you and Hines.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas



D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 21:01:14

Lord Love A Duck!

Now PARSONS, in turn, has finally been smoked out of HIS spider hole.

We pull him out into the blinding sunlight -- just like Saddam.

But, what do we GET from him at long last as PROOF, Virginia?

We get some SUBSTANCE and some EVIDENCE....

Parsons -- after all his induced labor -- indeed he has been the
unwilling object of a Caesarian section on my part -- has given birth to
a healthy, beaming child, a girl named Alienor.

I've also helped him sell his book. <g>

He should be grateful for that.

Good Post by Parsons.

It's good to see some SUBSTANCE from him for a change -- instead of just
blather, amusing Olympian Hauteur and flatulent bloviation.

His comments re Marion Meade are MOST interesting.

Parsons has now SAVAGED THREE female scholars who have written about
Eleanor of Aquitaine -- Amy Kelly, Alison Weir and Marion Meade, whom he
damns with faint praise below.

Parsons seems to be on a campaign of ***Post-Feminist Payback.***

"Ain't Mediaeval Scholarship Fun?" Why, it's even more vicious and
cut-throat than American Presidential Politics.

Next he can savage Bonnie WHEELER, his co-editor on _Eleanor of
Aquitaine: Lord And Lady_ -- if he DARES.

Stay Tuned....

I MAY even BUY Parsons' book -- if he keeps making hemi-semi-candid,
hemi-semi-honest, semi-substantive posts such as this one.

No Guarantees.

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F6A9B86035E3CD9CFEEAEEB2740@phx.gbl...

| Marion Meade cites neither authority nor source for Eleanor's age at
death.
| Her ultimate resource was most likely Alfred Richard, not impossibly
by way
| of Amy Kelly's book.
|
| I quote here from Andy Lewis' article (just so listmembers need not
rush out
| & spend themselves into the poorhouse buying the book--though I'm sure
many
| will already have guessed that there are plenty of library copies they
can
| consult for free and at no profit to me):
|
| "...[W]hen speaking of Eleanor's birth, [Richard] wrote that it was
only
| from knowing that she was eighty-two years old when she died, in 1204,
that
| one could place her birth in 1122. Yet when speaking of her death, he
gave
| her age as '_about_ eighty two years,' while citing no source to that
effect
| [FN 11]." [FN 11 reads: Richard, _Histoire des comtes de Poitou_
1:488 and
| n1, 2:437 (emphasis added).]
|
| In other words, Richard stated that Eleanor was "about 82" in 1204,
but gave
| no authority nor any source to support his statement. Those like
Kelly,
| presumably Meade, perhaps Pernoud, and most likely Weir, who relied on
| Richard, thus have no more to substantiate their reports than he had.
|
| The statement in the Limoges chronicle that she was 13 in 1137
therefore
| stands as the only contemporary information as to her age. We should
be
| grateful that Andy found it.
|
| As Marion Facinger, Meade had previously published an extremely useful
| article, "A Study of Medieval Queenship: Capetian France (987-1237),"
| *Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History* 5 (1968): 1-47. This
article
| continues to inspire research & commentary & remains a fundamental
| contribution to queenship studies in North America and Europe.
|
| Unfortunately Meade's monograph on Eleanor was not received with
resounding
| critical approbation in 1977. In part this resulted from unlucky
timing:
| the book appeared shortly after publication of a volume of essays
edited by
| W.W. Kibler, titled *Eleanor of Aquitaine: Patron and Politician*
(Austin,
| TX: University of Texas Press, 1976). This volume contains essays
read at a
| symposium inspired in part by the first serious modern work on
Eleanor,
| Edmond-Rene Labande's 1951 essay "Pour une image veridique d'Alienor
| d'Aquitaine," which had recently appeared in a 1973 volume of
Labande's
| collected essays.
|
| Meade's book was, however, criticized for incorporating imaginary
material
| (e.g., that Eleanor was a healthy and merry child; while it may be
inferred
| from her longevity that she was healthy, we know nothing about her
before
| her marriage in 1137), and for parading as exclusively a woman's take
on the
| queen's life. While male scholars like Stubbs had commented on
Eleanor's
| career in passing, all previous biographers of Eleanor were women,
which
| rather weakens Meade's claim to break new ground as her biographer.
(What
| is interesting, of course, is to compare the successive viewpoints of
those
| earlier female biographers with Meade's interpretations of the queen's
| career.)
|
| Regards
|
| John P.
|
| >From: "Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk>
| >To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| >Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
| >Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:49:30 -0000
| >
| >"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:ZyPNd.128$Df3.2179@eagle.america.net...
| > > Yes.
| > >
| > > Marion Meade, Eleanor's highly respected biographer, also held
that
| > > Eleanor must have been born in 1122.
| > >
| > > This would make her 82 when she died in 1204.
| > >
| > > D. Spencer Hines
| > >
| > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| > >
| > > Vires et Honor
| > >
| > > "Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
in
| > > message news:cu88e8$os7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
| > >
| > > | Eleanor was apparently 30 in May 1152 on her divorce from Louis
| > > | (don't know the source for this), so if this is correct she was
| > > | 15 in 1137.
| > > |
| > > | Jamie
| > >
| >
| >Marion Meade says it is recorded that Eleanor was 82 when she died in
| >1204, but she doesn't appear to give the source.
| >(notes to p19)
| >
| >Jamie

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 21:41:01

Hilarious!

| I agree and disagree with you...

Leo van de Pas -- Mugwump Extraordinaire. [His mug is on one side of
the fence and his "wump" is on the other side.]

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

"I actually voted FOR the $87 billion before I voted AGAINST it."

John Forbes Kerry

Leo's fragile constitution can't stand the stresses of vigorous debate
among big boys and girls in the Free Market of Ideas.

Leo is also still angry with me because I laughed at and excoriated him
when he tried to retail the vicious rumour that Winston Churchill's
FATHER, Lord Randolph Churchill, may well have been Jack The Ripper.

So, Leo decided to hide behind his killfile [from which he periodically
peeps out timidly] because he was miffed and in a huff.

'Nuff Said.

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:002001c50e17$4a2fa400$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear Gordon,
|
| I agree and disagree with you :-) One aspect about this conversation
must
| not be forgotten and that is the archives of Gen-Med. If Peter Stewart
does
| not challenge whatever Hines says, it may seem that Hines was correct
in
| whatever he has said.
|
| Keep in mind "what" Peter Stewart says, not so much in how it is said.
I
| have killfiled Hines a while back and it makes life certainly more
peaceful.
| Best wishes
| Leo van de Pas
| Canberra, Australia
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: <GRHaleJr@aol.com>
| To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:00 AM
| Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
|
| > In a message dated 2/7/2005 11:17:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
| > p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
| >
| > I should think more people could interpret this bizarre & wildy
| inapposite
| > comment as a sign of wanting to talk about the very subject that you
| brought
| > up, for reasons that I wouldn't speculate on.
| >
| > Peter Stewart
| >
| > Wrong Peter, Kincaid is not a participant in the "my is the biggest
| > contest". That is strictly you and Hines.
| >
| > Gordon Hale
| > Grand Prairie, Texas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 21:50:02

I certainly did write that and had every reason to think it was true at
the time.

Here is the COMPLETE message I sent.

Parsons has fraudulently snipped most of it, which is disingenuous,
duplicitous and dishonest:
-----------------

"John Carmi Parsons is a reputable man and a straight-shooter.

If he has conclusive evidence for a 9th child of Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine I'm sure he'll bring it forward -- so we can deal with it and
discuss it.

Of course, if the child was born stillborn or died in infancy there is
probably no genealogical impact of note.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor"
--------------------

We still don't have that conclusive evidence.

Stewart Baldwin tells us:

"son, died young.

Lewis (2002) would place an additional son either here or between
Geoffrey and Eleanor, based on a statement of Ralph of Diceto that there
were six sons, two of whom died young [R. Dic. ii, 17, 269]. Although
Ralph is generally a trustworthy authority, this son is not confirmed by
any other source." [Stewart Baldwin]

1. Lewis (2002) WOULD PLACE an additional son [with NO NAME or
birthdate] either here [or THERE].

2. "...this son is not confirmed by any other source."

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Caveat Lector et Scriptor....
------------------------

I prefer to credit people as honest, candid and straightforward -- UNTIL
I have evidence to the contrary.

Since then, new evidence has come in concerning Parsons.

A careful, competent scholar always factors in New Evidence.

However, I still have hopes that John Parsons will RETURN to his BETTER
SELF.

His silly-buggers, arrogant pratfall over PETAR is the man at his
arrogant, ignorant worst.

Hopefully, we won't see any more of that -- after the [rhetorical] blow
upside the head I gave him with the sturdy 2 by 4 I keep close to hand.

Amusingly, Parsons is STILL not MAN enough to admit his pratfall-gaffe
concerning PETAR -- and apologize to me for it.

So Noted....

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F132287BFC472B9B81E6558B2740@phx.gbl...

| Since Hines is so anxious to have the last word, I'll let him have it
here
| (he said with a wealth of meanings). Allow me to reprint the
following from
| our archives, proving that Hines can't remember what he says from one
week
| to the next:
|
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
| Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
| Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:50:22 -0000
|
| John Carmi Parsons is a reputable man and a straight-shooter.
|
| [rest of message snipped]
|
|
| >From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
| >Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
| >To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| >Subject: Re: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
| >Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:14:06 -0000
| >
| >Parsons, you sheep-ignorant FOOL!
| >
| >Read _Hamlet_ -- you know, the play written by Will Shakespeare.
| >
| >ACT III, Scene iv, Lines 207 and 208 -- since you seem to be
| >brain-damaged too.
| >
| >Parsons, you are as dumb as dirt and thrice as arrogant.
| >
| >Parsons, hoist with his own petar.
| >
| >That Olympian Hauteur shattered into a thousand pieces -- those
| >"fragments" he loves so well.
| >
| >PRATFALL!!!
| >
| >KAWHOMP!!!
| >
| >KERSPLAT!!!
| >
| >The word can also be spelled PETARD -- but I'm using Shakespeare's
| >language.
| >
| >"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.]
| >
| >Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
| >opus.
| >
| >D. Spencer Hines
| >
| >Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| >Vires et Honor
| >
| >""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
| >news:BAY7-F27531116AD145B5A88FE1B2740@phx.gbl...
| >
| >| Hines, the word is correctly spelt "petard"--not "petar."
| >|
| >| John P.
| >|
| >|
| >| >From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
| >| >Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
| >| >To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| >| >Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
| >| >Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 03:44:24 -0000
| >| >
| >| >Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
| >| >
| >| >Pogue Stewart has proven, once again, that he cannot even read a
| >| >simple newsgroup post -- nor be honest about what someone else
| >| >has ACTUALLY said or written -- it's just not in him -- or in his
| >| >damaged brain -- to be able to do that.
| >| >
| >| >Hoist With His Own Petar....
| >| >
| >| >PRATFALL!!!
| >| >
| >| >KAWHOMP!!!
| >| >
| >| >KERSPLAT!!!
| >| >
| >| >I say again:
| >| >
| >| >Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!
| >| >
| >| >Pogue Stewart pig-ignorantly thinks I have plumped for an 1124
| >birthdate
| >| >for Eleanor of Aquitaine.
| >| >
| >| >Pig ignorant indeed that chap is.
| >| >
| >| >Brain-Damaged....
| >| >
| >| >I have not plumped for any date -- but Pogue Stewart HAS -- on
| >several
| >| >occasions -- sometimes as simply 1124 and on other occasions as
circa
| >| >1124 -- to give himself some wiggle room -- as he bloviates,
| >web-spins
| >| >and thumbsucks.
| >| >
| >| >I HAVE pointed out that many fine scholars, including both
| >accomplished
| >| >mediaeval genealogists and historians have held that Eleanor was
born
| >| >circa 1122 -- which is true -- they have so stated it.
| >| >
| >| >Pogue Stewart and his sidekick, John Parsons, have offered not a
| >| >SCINTILLA of PROOF to the contrary.
| >| >
| >| >If we see some PROOF, solid EVIDENCE, we will weigh it on its
MERITS,
| >| >reason carefully and decide accordingly.
| >| >
| >| >That's what any intelligent, serious, genealogical and/or
historical
| >| >inquirer should do.
| >| >
| >| >But we do NOT give credence to any of the arrant bloviating we
have
| >seen
| >| >to date -- from both Stewart and Parsons,
| >| >
| >| >If Pogue Stewart has some CONVINCING PROOF for a birthdate for
| >Eleanor
| >| >of Aquitaine in 1124 -- or circa 1124 -- he has talked out of both
| >sides
| >| >of his mouth in that respect -- let him present it here for
| >examination
| >| >and adjudication.
| >| >
| >| >Otherwise, he had best just stand in the corner with the dunce's
cap
| >on
| >| >and continue to be ridiculed and excoriated. His idle bluffs and
| >hissy
| >| >fits don't work here.
| >| >------------------
| >| >
| >| >Deeelightful!
| >| >
| >| >Great Sport!
| >| >
| >| >Kicking Pogue Stewart in the arse and watching him squeal is just
| >| >ABSURDLY easy.
| >| >
| >| >Why its easier than shooting phlegmatic frogs in a barrel or
drunken
| >| >kangaroos in the Outback, Virginia.
| >| >
| >| >It just shouldn't get any better than this, Virginia -- but it
always
| >| >does.
| >| >
| >| >D. Spencer Hines
| >| >
| >| >Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >| >
| >| >Vires et Honor

Phylis Stager

RE: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Phylis Stager » 08 feb 2005 22:10:02

If he impugns Bonnie....he impugns himself, and he would never do that.
Would he? Phyllis Stager

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines [mailto:poguemidden@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:10 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Lord Love A Duck!

Now PARSONS, in turn, has finally been smoked out of HIS spider hole.

We pull him out into the blinding sunlight -- just like Saddam.

But, what do we GET from him at long last as PROOF, Virginia?

We get some SUBSTANCE and some EVIDENCE....

Parsons -- after all his induced labor -- indeed he has been the unwilling
object of a Caesarian section on my part -- has given birth to a healthy,
beaming child, a girl named Alienor.

I've also helped him sell his book. <g>

He should be grateful for that.

Good Post by Parsons.

It's good to see some SUBSTANCE from him for a change -- instead of just
blather, amusing Olympian Hauteur and flatulent bloviation.

His comments re Marion Meade are MOST interesting.

Parsons has now SAVAGED THREE female scholars who have written about Eleanor
of Aquitaine -- Amy Kelly, Alison Weir and Marion Meade, whom he damns with
faint praise below.

Parsons seems to be on a campaign of ***Post-Feminist Payback.***

"Ain't Mediaeval Scholarship Fun?" Why, it's even more vicious and
cut-throat than American Presidential Politics.

Next he can savage Bonnie WHEELER, his co-editor on _Eleanor of
Aquitaine: Lord And Lady_ -- if he DARES.

Stay Tuned....

I MAY even BUY Parsons' book -- if he keeps making hemi-semi-candid,
hemi-semi-honest, semi-substantive posts such as this one.

No Guarantees.

"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.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F6A9B86035E3CD9CFEEAEEB2740@phx.gbl...

| Marion Meade cites neither authority nor source for Eleanor's age at
death.
| Her ultimate resource was most likely Alfred Richard, not impossibly
by way
| of Amy Kelly's book.
|
| I quote here from Andy Lewis' article (just so listmembers need not
rush out
| & spend themselves into the poorhouse buying the book--though I'm sure
many
| will already have guessed that there are plenty of library copies they
can
| consult for free and at no profit to me):
|
| "...[W]hen speaking of Eleanor's birth, [Richard] wrote that it was
only
| from knowing that she was eighty-two years old when she died, in 1204,
that
| one could place her birth in 1122. Yet when speaking of her death, he
gave
| her age as '_about_ eighty two years,' while citing no source to that
effect
| [FN 11]." [FN 11 reads: Richard, _Histoire des comtes de Poitou_
1:488 and
| n1, 2:437 (emphasis added).]
|
| In other words, Richard stated that Eleanor was "about 82" in 1204,
but gave
| no authority nor any source to support his statement. Those like
Kelly,
| presumably Meade, perhaps Pernoud, and most likely Weir, who relied on
| Richard, thus have no more to substantiate their reports than he had.
|
| The statement in the Limoges chronicle that she was 13 in 1137
therefore
| stands as the only contemporary information as to her age. We should
be
| grateful that Andy found it.
|
| As Marion Facinger, Meade had previously published an extremely useful
| article, "A Study of Medieval Queenship: Capetian France (987-1237),"
| *Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History* 5 (1968): 1-47. This
article
| continues to inspire research & commentary & remains a fundamental
| contribution to queenship studies in North America and Europe.
|
| Unfortunately Meade's monograph on Eleanor was not received with
resounding
| critical approbation in 1977. In part this resulted from unlucky
timing:
| the book appeared shortly after publication of a volume of essays
edited by
| W.W. Kibler, titled *Eleanor of Aquitaine: Patron and Politician*
(Austin,
| TX: University of Texas Press, 1976). This volume contains essays
read at a
| symposium inspired in part by the first serious modern work on
Eleanor,
| Edmond-Rene Labande's 1951 essay "Pour une image veridique d'Alienor
| d'Aquitaine," which had recently appeared in a 1973 volume of
Labande's
| collected essays.
|
| Meade's book was, however, criticized for incorporating imaginary
material
| (e.g., that Eleanor was a healthy and merry child; while it may be
inferred
| from her longevity that she was healthy, we know nothing about her
before
| her marriage in 1137), and for parading as exclusively a woman's take
on the
| queen's life. While male scholars like Stubbs had commented on
Eleanor's
| career in passing, all previous biographers of Eleanor were women,
which
| rather weakens Meade's claim to break new ground as her biographer.
(What
| is interesting, of course, is to compare the successive viewpoints of
those
| earlier female biographers with Meade's interpretations of the queen's
| career.)
|
| Regards
|
| John P.
|
| >From: "Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk>
| >To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| >Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
| >Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:49:30 -0000
| >
| >"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >news:ZyPNd.128$Df3.2179@eagle.america.net...
| > > Yes.
| > >
| > > Marion Meade, Eleanor's highly respected biographer, also held
that
| > > Eleanor must have been born in 1122.
| > >
| > > This would make her 82 when she died in 1204.
| > >
| > > D. Spencer Hines
| > >
| > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| > >
| > > Vires et Honor
| > >
| > > "Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
in
| > > message news:cu88e8$os7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
| > >
| > > | Eleanor was apparently 30 in May 1152 on her divorce from Louis
| > > | (don't know the source for this), so if this is correct she was
| > > | 15 in 1137.
| > > |
| > > | Jamie
| > >
| >
| >Marion Meade says it is recorded that Eleanor was 82 when she died in
| >1204, but she doesn't appear to give the source.
| >(notes to p19)
| >
| >Jamie

John Parsons

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av John Parsons » 08 feb 2005 22:51:02

Compare what Hines said at 21:03 with what he had said at 2:10 the same day
(i.e., now he's not forgetting what he said from one week to the next, but
from one hour to the next). At 2:10 he congratulates himself for making me
provide what he is pleased to call "some substance and some evidence" and
describes my message as a "good post." At 21:03 he claims "we still don't
have that conclusive evidence."

Go figure.

As to "petar" and "petard," Hines claims I have not responded to him on this
topic. I did respond to him, off list (though I admit I did not go so far as
to apologize). His failure to acknowledge that message to the group, while
he still complains that I did not answer him, gives the lie direct to the
"Honor" he claims in his tag line.

Evidently his Latin is even worse than we thought.

Regards

John P.


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:03:18 -0000

I certainly did write that and had every reason to think it was true at
the time.

Here is the COMPLETE message I sent.

Parsons has fraudulently snipped most of it, which is disingenuous,
duplicitous and dishonest:
-----------------

"John Carmi Parsons is a reputable man and a straight-shooter.

If he has conclusive evidence for a 9th child of Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine I'm sure he'll bring it forward -- so we can deal with it and
discuss it.

Of course, if the child was born stillborn or died in infancy there is
probably no genealogical impact of note.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor"
--------------------

We still don't have that conclusive evidence.


Now, please to remember what Hines said earlier today:


-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines [mailto:poguemidden@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:10 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Lord Love A Duck!

Now PARSONS, in turn, has finally been smoked out of HIS spider hole.

We pull him out into the blinding sunlight -- just like Saddam.

But, what do we GET from him at long last as PROOF, Virginia?

We get some SUBSTANCE and some EVIDENCE....

Parsons -- after all his induced labor -- indeed he has been the unwilling
object of a Caesarian section on my part -- has given birth to a healthy,
beaming child, a girl named Alienor.

I've also helped him sell his book. <g

He should be grateful for that.

Good Post by Parsons.

[rest of message snipped]

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 feb 2005 23:08:17

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F85C903F531A73A8FCB2BEB2740@phx.gbl...
Compare what Hines said at 21:03 with what he had said at 2:10 the same
day (i.e., now he's not forgetting what he said from one week to the next,
but from one hour to the next). At 2:10 he congratulates himself for
making me provide what he is pleased to call "some substance and some
evidence" and describes my message as a "good post." At 21:03 he claims
"we still don't have that conclusive evidence."

Go figure.

As to "petar" and "petard," Hines claims I have not responded to him on
this topic. I did respond to him, off list (though I admit I did not go so
far as to apologize). His failure to acknowledge that message to the
group, while he still complains that I did not answer him, gives the lie
direct to the "Honor" he claims in his tag line.

Evidently his Latin is even worse than we thought.

It couldn't be, John - someone who doesn't know about deponent verbs and the
meaning of "apud" cannot possibly know even the rudiments of Latin. It is
just another failed pose of Spencer's, designed to command respect for his
blatherings.

As to "petar", the word appears in this form in many (but not all) editions
of Hamlet, "to have an engineer hoist with his own petar", meaning a kind of
bomb-case. It comes from the French word "pétard", meaning nowadays both a
firecracker and someone's backside, and it appears in that form in most
English dictionaries.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 23:11:02

Probably not.

Just teasing....

It's good to see an intelligent Top Poster.

DSH

""Phylis Stager"" <phugo@countrynet.net> wrote in message
news:200502082205.j18M5jNw022703@mail.rootsweb.com...

| If he impugns Bonnie....he impugns himself, and he would never do
that.
| Would he? Phyllis Stager
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: D. Spencer Hines [mailto:poguemidden@hotmail.com]
| Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:10 PM
| To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
|
| Lord Love A Duck!
|
| Now PARSONS, in turn, has finally been smoked out of HIS spider hole.
|
| We pull him out into the blinding sunlight -- just like Saddam.
|
| But, what do we GET from him at long last as PROOF, Virginia?
|
| We get some SUBSTANCE and some EVIDENCE....
|
| Parsons -- after all his induced labor -- indeed he has been the
unwilling
| object of a Caesarian section on my part -- has given birth to a
healthy,
| beaming child, a girl named Alienor.
|
| I've also helped him sell his book. <g>
|
| He should be grateful for that.
|
| Good Post by Parsons.
|
| It's good to see some SUBSTANCE from him for a change -- instead of
just
| blather, amusing Olympian Hauteur and flatulent bloviation.
|
| His comments re Marion Meade are MOST interesting.
|
| Parsons has now SAVAGED THREE female scholars who have written about
Eleanor
| of Aquitaine -- Amy Kelly, Alison Weir and Marion Meade, whom he damns
with
| faint praise below.
|
| Parsons seems to be on a campaign of ***Post-Feminist Payback.***
|
| "Ain't Mediaeval Scholarship Fun?" Why, it's even more vicious and
| cut-throat than American Presidential Politics.
|
| Next he can savage Bonnie WHEELER, his co-editor on _Eleanor of
| Aquitaine: Lord And Lady_ -- if he DARES.
|
| Stay Tuned....
|
| I MAY even BUY Parsons' book -- if he keeps making hemi-semi-candid,
| hemi-semi-honest, semi-substantive posts such as this one.
|
| No Guarantees.
|
| "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.]
|
| Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
|
| D. Spencer Hines
|
| Lux et Veritas et Libertas
|
| Vires et Honor
|
| ""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
| news:BAY7-F6A9B86035E3CD9CFEEAEEB2740@phx.gbl...
|
| | Marion Meade cites neither authority nor source for Eleanor's age at
| death.
| | Her ultimate resource was most likely Alfred Richard, not impossibly
| by way
| | of Amy Kelly's book.
| |
| | I quote here from Andy Lewis' article (just so listmembers need not
| rush out
| | & spend themselves into the poorhouse buying the book--though I'm
sure
| many
| | will already have guessed that there are plenty of library copies
they
| can
| | consult for free and at no profit to me):
| |
| | "...[W]hen speaking of Eleanor's birth, [Richard] wrote that it was
| only
| | from knowing that she was eighty-two years old when she died, in
1204,
| that
| | one could place her birth in 1122. Yet when speaking of her death,
he
| gave
| | her age as '_about_ eighty two years,' while citing no source to
that
| effect
| | [FN 11]." [FN 11 reads: Richard, _Histoire des comtes de Poitou_
| 1:488 and
| | n1, 2:437 (emphasis added).]
| |
| | In other words, Richard stated that Eleanor was "about 82" in 1204,
| but gave
| | no authority nor any source to support his statement. Those like
| Kelly,
| | presumably Meade, perhaps Pernoud, and most likely Weir, who relied
on
| | Richard, thus have no more to substantiate their reports than he
had.
| |
| | The statement in the Limoges chronicle that she was 13 in 1137
| therefore
| | stands as the only contemporary information as to her age. We
should
| be
| | grateful that Andy found it.
| |
| | As Marion Facinger, Meade had previously published an extremely
useful
| | article, "A Study of Medieval Queenship: Capetian France
(987-1237),"
| | *Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History* 5 (1968): 1-47. This
| article
| | continues to inspire research & commentary & remains a fundamental
| | contribution to queenship studies in North America and Europe.
| |
| | Unfortunately Meade's monograph on Eleanor was not received with
| resounding
| | critical approbation in 1977. In part this resulted from unlucky
| timing:
| | the book appeared shortly after publication of a volume of essays
| edited by
| | W.W. Kibler, titled *Eleanor of Aquitaine: Patron and Politician*
| (Austin,
| | TX: University of Texas Press, 1976). This volume contains essays
| read at a
| | symposium inspired in part by the first serious modern work on
| Eleanor,
| | Edmond-Rene Labande's 1951 essay "Pour une image veridique d'Alienor
| | d'Aquitaine," which had recently appeared in a 1973 volume of
| Labande's
| | collected essays.
| |
| | Meade's book was, however, criticized for incorporating imaginary
| material
| | (e.g., that Eleanor was a healthy and merry child; while it may be
| inferred
| | from her longevity that she was healthy, we know nothing about her
| before
| | her marriage in 1137), and for parading as exclusively a woman's
take
| on the
| | queen's life. While male scholars like Stubbs had commented on
| Eleanor's
| | career in passing, all previous biographers of Eleanor were women,
| which
| | rather weakens Meade's claim to break new ground as her biographer.
| (What
| | is interesting, of course, is to compare the successive viewpoints
of
| those
| | earlier female biographers with Meade's interpretations of the
queen's
| | career.)
| |
| | Regards
| |
| | John P.
| |
| | >From: "Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk>
| | >To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| | >Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
| | >Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:49:30 -0000
| | >
| | >"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| | >news:ZyPNd.128$Df3.2179@eagle.america.net...
| | > > Yes.
| | > >
| | > > Marion Meade, Eleanor's highly respected biographer, also held
| that
| | > > Eleanor must have been born in 1122.
| | > >
| | > > This would make her 82 when she died in 1204.
| | > >
| | > > D. Spencer Hines
| | > >
| | > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| | > >
| | > > Vires et Honor
| | > >
| | > > "Vaughan Sanders" <jamie@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote
| in
| | > > message news:cu88e8$os7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
| | > >
| | > > | Eleanor was apparently 30 in May 1152 on her divorce from
Louis
| | > > | (don't know the source for this), so if this is correct she
was
| | > > | 15 in 1137.
| | > > |
| | > > | Jamie
| | > >
| | >
| | >Marion Meade says it is recorded that Eleanor was 82 when she died
in
| | >1204, but she doesn't appear to give the source.
| | >(notes to p19)
| | >
| | >Jamie

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 feb 2005 23:51:01

Pogue Parsons makes another futile charge with his broken lance -- which
was badly damaged when he was hoist with his own petar. <g>

DSH
----------------

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F85C903F531A73A8FCB2BEB2740@phx.gbl...

<disingenuous fluff deleted>

NOW Pogue Parsons is pretending he can't read simple, straightforward
English. He is so stupid he confuses and conflates two entirely
SEPARATE issues:

1. The issue of an alleged NINTH child, supposedly a son, born to
Eleanor of Aquitaine and sired by Henry II. THAT was the issue in ONE
of my posts which he cites -- as well as others he does not cite.

2. The issue of Eleanor's OWN birthdate. THAT has been the issue in
several of my OTHER posts.

Parsons is so flummoxed and bollixed he can't keep the two SEPARATE
issues SEPARATE and clear in his confused NOODLE.

Hilarious!

Perhaps he is smoking some of that same hashish that Delorial has
stashed in his boot.

| As to "petar" and "petard," Hines claims I have not responded to him
on this
| topic. I did respond to him, off list (though I admit I did not go so
far as
| to apologize). His failure to acknowledge that message to the group,
while
| he still complains that I did not answer him, gives the lie direct to
the
| "Honor" he claims in his tag line.

Twaddle.

I saw no such message.

Pogue Parsons stupidly insults me in PUBLIC and then wants to make
amends in PRIVATE?

Hilarious!

No honorable man does such a scurrilous thing. If the stupid,
sheep-ignorant INSULT is in PUBLIC -- the APOLOGY should ALSO be in
PUBLIC. Any fool should know that -- but not Pogue Parsons.

He sent a message to my spam avoider -- how stupid of him.

Pogue Parsons owes me a public apology for his stupid accusation about
PETAR, which I have put paid to -- but I don't expect to get one because
he has no cojones and no honor.

That's two more Parsons PRATFALLS!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 feb 2005 01:53:56

I wrote:

As to "petar", the word appears in this form in many (but not all)
editions of Hamlet, "to have an engineer hoist with his own petar",
meaning a kind of bomb-case.

I should add, this word doesn't even appear in all editions of Hamlet -
it is not in the First Folio, as the passage in which it occurs comes
only from the Second Quarto. Anyone who is interested can unravel these
in the splendid "Enfolded Hamlet" text, online at

http://www.global-language.com/cgi/open ... mp?type=EN

It comes from the French word "pétard", meaning nowadays both a
firecracker and someone's backside, and it appears in that form in
most English dictionaries.

I suppose the connection between explosives and posteriors is mainly
auditory - another French word from the same derivation is "pétarde",
meaning a barrage of wind issuing from a horse's arse. Spencer Hines,
in other words.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 feb 2005 03:13:23

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F6A9B86035E3CD9CFEEAEEB2740@phx.gbl...
Marion Meade cites neither authority nor source for Eleanor's age at
death. Her ultimate resource was most likely Alfred Richard, not
impossibly by way of Amy Kelly's book.

This is true: Marion Meade has certainly published some valuable work, as
John remarked, but her biography of Eleanor is not the best of her efforts.

As to her reliability on a question of precise dating, in which Spencer
Hines puts such reliance, consider this bit of infelicitous & inaccurate
plagiarism -

Amy Kelly in _Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings_ (Cambridge, Mass.,
1950) wrote (p. 152): "[Eleanor] retired to the castle of Oxford, where on
the day after Christmas she gave birth to her youngest son, whom she named
John in honor of the saint of his natal day".

Marion Meade in _Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Biography_ (New York, 1977)
miscopied & represented as her own words, without acknowledgement to Kelly
(p. 233): "[Eleanor] retired to Beaumont Palace in Oxford...There, on
Christmas Eve [sic] 1166, she gave birth to another son, whom she named John
in honor of the saint of his natal day".

Neither Christmas Eve nor Boxing Day is the saint's day in question, of
course - John the Baptist is celebrated on 24 June (the feast of his own
nativity) and 29 August (his beheading). St John the Divine's feast day is
December 27, still a further day out from Kelly's stab in the dark.

And we are STILL wating for even one of the "MANY sources" proclaimed by
Spencer Hines....

Peter Stewart

John Parsons

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av John Parsons » 09 feb 2005 15:00:03

Comments interspersed below....

From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:13:23 GMT

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F6A9B86035E3CD9CFEEAEEB2740@phx.gbl...
Marion Meade cites neither authority nor source for Eleanor's age at
death. Her ultimate resource was most likely Alfred Richard, not
impossibly by way of Amy Kelly's book.

This is true: Marion Meade has certainly published some valuable work, as
John remarked, but her biography of Eleanor is not the best of her efforts.

As to her reliability on a question of precise dating, in which Spencer
Hines puts such reliance, consider this bit of infelicitous & inaccurate
plagiarism -

Amy Kelly in _Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings_ (Cambridge, Mass.,
1950) wrote (p. 152): "[Eleanor] retired to the castle of Oxford, where on
the day after Christmas she gave birth to her youngest son, whom she named
John in honor of the saint of his natal day".

Marion Meade in _Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Biography_ (New York, 1977)
miscopied & represented as her own words, without acknowledgement to Kelly
(p. 233): "[Eleanor] retired to Beaumont Palace in Oxford...There, on
Christmas Eve [sic] 1166, she gave birth to another son, whom she named
John
in honor of the saint of his natal day".

Neither Christmas Eve nor Boxing Day is the saint's day in question, of
course - John the Baptist is celebrated on 24 June (the feast of his own
nativity) and 29 August (his beheading). St John the Divine's feast day is
December 27, still a further day out from Kelly's stab in the dark.

Peter ably and appropriately draws our attention to this passage, by no
means the only such case in Meade's *Eleanor of Aquitaine*. I almost hate
to point out, however, that the St John at issue here is not the Baptist,
whose feasts are in June and August as Peter states, but the Apostle and
Evangelist (as in Gospel of, and the Apocalypse), whose feast is indeed 27
Dec.

Andy Lewis (pp. 160-65) discusses in detail the sources and competing
traditions for the date of John's birth--an "English" tradition initiated by
Bishop Stubbs for 24 December 1167 and a "French" tradition, begun by our
acquaintance Alfred Richard, for 27 December 1166. Both are erroneous.

Stubbs worked from a very old printed text of Robert of Torigny, an edition
that did not make it clear that the passage in that chronicle recording
John's birth is an interpolation, in a different hand from the body of the
text, that was written over a bare patch where the rubric for the year 1167
should have appeared. Later critical editions point out the interpolation
and also make it clear that Torigny meant the date 24 December to refer to
the appearance of 2 meteors on Christmas Eve 1167, not to John's birth. The
chronicle therefore gives us no solid information as to the date of John's
birth.

Alfred Richard reported John's birth on 27 December 1166 on the basis of a
Laon chronicle, but Lewis shows that Richard misreported the chronicle,
which states only that John was born *about* the feast of St John, not *on*
the feast itself as Richard stated.

Ralph of Diss assigns John's birth to the year 1166, and confirms this by
stating later that John was "vix bene septennis" (barely seven years old)
when betrothed to the count of Maurienne's daughter in Feb. 1173. This
indicates that he was born late in 1166, but Ralph gives no precise date.

Carefully taking into account the systems these chroniclers used to begin
the Christian year, Lewis notes that Ralph of Diss and Torigny both began
the year at Christmas. If John was born in England in December 1166, Ralph
in London could have heard of it by Christmas and thus put it in 1166. The
Torigny interpolator, in Normandy, probably did not hear the news until
after Christmas and consequently squeezed that notice into the patch left
for the 1167 rubric, making it appear to the redactor of the edition Stubbs
used that John was born in 1167.

Lewis considers the itineraries of Henry II and Queen Eleanor and concludes
that Eleanor's itinerary inclines to the conclusion that John was born late
in 1166, when Eleanor was in England, rather than 1167, when records suggest
she traveled to France in or around the month of Dec. Glancing backward to
the period when Eleanor most likely conceived John, Lewis concludes that the
king and queen were together at an appropriate time in 1166 but not in 1167.
He further notes that Eleanor did not attend the Christmas court of 1166
at Poitiers, which could be explained quite easily if she were about to
deliver a child or had just done so.

Lewis concludes that John was born in December 1166 but that the exact date
cannot be known on the basis of existing evidence. John was born in
England, but (p. 160): "... there is no reliable authority for saying that
John was born at Oxford. The claim rests entirely on a late source: a
prose addition, itself of unknown date, to the verse chronicle written by
Robert of Gloucester during the reign of Edward I.... The insertion may
represent an authentic tradition; it may equally well be no more than an
echo of a similar record, found only three sentences earlier in Robert of
Gloucester's text, regarding the birth of John's older brother Richard."

And we are STILL wating for even one of the "MANY sources" proclaimed by
Spencer Hines....

Of course we are. Same like always. To date he has just sat back and
waited for others on the list to post these items, and then has sought to
appropriate them as his own by way of his lengthy comments.

Regards

John P.

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 09 feb 2005 17:20:11

Given the length of this thread, Eleanor would be flattered by the
attention.

Vickie Elam White

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 09 feb 2005 17:23:54

John C. Parsons wrote --

Ralph of Diss assigns John's birth to the year 1166, and
confirms this by stating later that John was "vix bene
septennis" (barely seven years old) when betrothed to
the count of Maurienne's daughter in Feb. 1173. This
indicates that he was born late in 1166, but Ralph gives
no precise date.

But that would have made John barely six, not barely seven,
if he was born in Dec 1166.


Vickie Elam White
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com

John Parsons

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av John Parsons » 09 feb 2005 18:30:02

In response to Vickie Elam White's query, here is the relevant passage from
Lewis (p. 162):

Ralph of Diceto, by contrast, did not write until perhaps fifteen to twenty
years after John's birth. He did, however, use older notes or records; he
was well informed and was generally careful in his work. [FN 21] Moreover,
his attribution of John's birth to 1166 is reinforced by his later remark
that John was "vix bene septenni[s]," barely seven years old, in February
1173 when Henry II betrothed him to the daughter of the count of Maurienne.
[FN 22]

FN 21. Stubbs, preface to Ralph of Diss, *Opera Historica*, 2: xv-xvi.
FN 22. Ralph of Diss, *Opera Historica*, 1:353.

If we allow for a completed 7th year by February 1173 (the correct year for
the betrothal), John's birth would be pushed back to 1165, which is
chronologically impossible given the birth of Eleanor's daughter Joan in
Oct. of that year.

As Lewis demonstrates, the year 1167 is also impossible for John's birth
since in that year, Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine were likely on
opposite sides of the Channel at the time John would most probably have been
conceived. In any event, if John were born in 1167 it would be even less
accurate to describe him as "vix bene septennis" than if he were born in
1166.

Eleanor's itinerary in 1166 favors the conclusion that John was born in that
year, while her journey to France ca. Dec. 1167 argues forcefully against
the possiblity that she could have borne a child in that month.

The prohibitive likelihood is that John was born in 1166.

The phrase "vix bene septenni[s]" can also be translated "barely in his
seventh year."

Regards

John P.



From: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:23:54 GMT

John C. Parsons wrote --

Ralph of Diss assigns John's birth to the year 1166, and
confirms this by stating later that John was "vix bene
septennis" (barely seven years old) when betrothed to
the count of Maurienne's daughter in Feb. 1173. This
indicates that he was born late in 1166, but Ralph gives
no precise date.

But that would have made John barely six, not barely seven,
if he was born in Dec 1166.


Vickie Elam White
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com




Steve Barnhoorn

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 09 feb 2005 18:57:23

"John Parsons" wrote:

As Lewis demonstrates, the year 1167 is also impossible for John's
birth
since in that year, Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine were likely on
opposite sides of the Channel at the time John would most probably
have been
conceived. In any event, if John were born in 1167 it would be even
less
accurate to describe him as "vix bene septennis" than if he were born
in
1166.

Eleanor's itinerary in 1166 favors the conclusion that John was born
in that
year, while her journey to France ca. Dec. 1167 argues forcefully
against
the possiblity that she could have borne a child in that month.


John:

What's a great source for Eleanor's itinerary for the 1166-1167 period?

Regards,

SB

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 09 feb 2005 20:01:03

Well-Spotted.

Yes, John Parsons is obviously not very good at maths, even simple
arithmetic and using single-digit numbers.

He also has a marked propensity to savage female scholars and seems to
take undue pleasure and delight in it.

Parsons has now savaged Amy Kelly, Marion Meade and Alison Weir -- as
well as taking a guttersnipe swipe at Regine Pernoud.

Parsons even goes after DECEASED female scholars who cannot reply -- as
he has done with Amy Kelly.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uOqOd.29232$8H2.7340@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

| John C. Parsons wrote --
|
| >Ralph of Diss assigns John's birth to the year 1166, and
| >confirms this by stating later that John was "vix bene
| >septennis" (barely seven years old) when betrothed to
| >the count of Maurienne's daughter in Feb. 1173. This
| >indicates that he was born late in 1166, but Ralph gives
| >no precise date.
|
| But that would have made John barely six, not barely seven,
| if he was born in Dec 1166.
|
|
| Vickie Elam White
| VEWhite@nycap.rr.com

Vickie Elam White

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 09 feb 2005 23:10:22

John,

That translation, "barely in his seventh year", certainly does
seem to be more accurate. Thanks.


Vickie Elam White
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com



""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F1890D8986216171EEEBDDEB2750@phx.gbl...
In response to Vickie Elam White's query, here is the relevant
passage from
Lewis (p. 162):

Ralph of Diceto, by contrast, did not write until perhaps fifteen
to twenty
years after John's birth. He did, however, use older notes or
records; he
was well informed and was generally careful in his work. [FN 21]
Moreover,
his attribution of John's birth to 1166 is reinforced by his
later remark
that John was "vix bene septenni[s]," barely seven years old, in
February
1173 when Henry II betrothed him to the daughter of the count of
Maurienne.
[FN 22]

FN 21. Stubbs, preface to Ralph of Diss, *Opera Historica*, 2:
xv-xvi.
FN 22. Ralph of Diss, *Opera Historica*, 1:353.

If we allow for a completed 7th year by February 1173 (the
correct year for
the betrothal), John's birth would be pushed back to 1165, which
is
chronologically impossible given the birth of Eleanor's daughter
Joan in
Oct. of that year.

As Lewis demonstrates, the year 1167 is also impossible for
John's birth
since in that year, Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine were likely
on
opposite sides of the Channel at the time John would most
probably have been
conceived. In any event, if John were born in 1167 it would be
even less
accurate to describe him as "vix bene septennis" than if he were
born in
1166.

Eleanor's itinerary in 1166 favors the conclusion that John was
born in that
year, while her journey to France ca. Dec. 1167 argues forcefully
against
the possiblity that she could have borne a child in that month.

The prohibitive likelihood is that John was born in 1166.

The phrase "vix bene septenni[s]" can also be translated "barely
in his
seventh year."

Regards

John P.



From: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:23:54 GMT

John C. Parsons wrote --

Ralph of Diss assigns John's birth to the year 1166, and
confirms this by stating later that John was "vix bene
septennis" (barely seven years old) when betrothed to
the count of Maurienne's daughter in Feb. 1173. This
indicates that he was born late in 1166, but Ralph gives
no precise date.

But that would have made John barely six, not barely seven,
if he was born in Dec 1166.


Vickie Elam White
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com




Vickie Elam White

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 09 feb 2005 23:10:22

Spencer,

Put a sock in it. John was quoting someone else, his
"maths" are just fine.


Vickie Elam White
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6tOd.237$Df3.3667@eagle.america.net...
Well-Spotted.

Yes, John Parsons is obviously not very good at maths, even
simple
arithmetic and using single-digit numbers.

He also has a marked propensity to savage female scholars and
seems to
take undue pleasure and delight in it.

Parsons has now savaged Amy Kelly, Marion Meade and Alison
Weir -- as
well as taking a guttersnipe swipe at Regine Pernoud.

Parsons even goes after DECEASED female scholars who cannot
reply -- as
he has done with Amy Kelly.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uOqOd.29232$8H2.7340@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

| John C. Parsons wrote --
|
| >Ralph of Diss assigns John's birth to the year 1166, and
| >confirms this by stating later that John was "vix bene
| >septennis" (barely seven years old) when betrothed to
| >the count of Maurienne's daughter in Feb. 1173. This
| >indicates that he was born late in 1166, but Ralph gives
| >no precise date.
|
| But that would have made John barely six, not barely seven,
| if he was born in Dec 1166.
|
|
| Vickie Elam White
| VEWhite@nycap.rr.com

Peter Stewart

Birthdate and Naming of King John [was: Re: Eleanor Of Aquit

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 feb 2005 03:38:15

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F2F3743D1D13D980698635B2750@phx.gbl...
Comments interspersed below....

From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:13:23 GMT

<snip>

Amy Kelly in _Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings_ (Cambridge, Mass.,
1950) wrote (p. 152): "[Eleanor] retired to the castle of Oxford, where on
the day after Christmas she gave birth to her youngest son, whom she named
John in honor of the saint of his natal day".

Marion Meade in _Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Biography_ (New York, 1977)
miscopied & represented as her own words, without acknowledgement to Kelly
(p. 233): "[Eleanor] retired to Beaumont Palace in Oxford...There, on
Christmas Eve [sic] 1166, she gave birth to another son, whom she named
John in honor of the saint of his natal day".

Neither Christmas Eve nor Boxing Day is the saint's day in question, of
course - John the Baptist is celebrated on 24 June (the feast of his own
nativity) and 29 August (his beheading). St John the Divine's feast day is
December 27, still a further day out from Kelly's stab in the dark.

Peter ably and appropriately draws our attention to this passage, by no
means the only such case in Meade's *Eleanor of Aquitaine*. I almost hate
to point out, however, that the St John at issue here is not the Baptist,
whose feasts are in June and August as Peter states, but the Apostle and
Evangelist (as in Gospel of, and the Apocalypse), whose feast is indeed 27
Dec.

I wasn't going to write further about this, but I have been quizzed off-list
by someone who had read posts of mine to SGM about the naming of John and to
the FMG discussion site about his birthdate.

The latter (copied below) was written in answer to a question, and before I
had read the paper by Andrew Lewis covering the same ground in more detail.
John Parsons has summarised his findings accurately, and now it's worthwhile
to clarify briefly a minor point of disagreement between us. (I intend to
publish an article about this & some related matters later.)

The source stating that John was so named because he was born around the
feast of St John was a canon of Laon, writing in the following century, as
follows: "quia circa festum beati Johannis natus fuit, Johannem eum
appellaverunt" [_Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis, von 1154 bis zum
Schluss (1219)_, edited by Alexander Cartellieri & Wolf Stechele (Leipzig &
Paris, 1909), p. 14.

Nothing here identifies the St John who was meant, although references that
were not more specific usually referred to St John the Baptist. His nativity
was celbrated on 24 June, and this became popularly known as "summer St
John's day", with 27 December called "winter St John's". It is rare to find
St John the Divine (the Evangelist, as John noted) called simply "St John"
when there might be confusion with the Baptist whose feast day stood out far
more in the calendar, not overshadowed by the proximity of a more important
day, Christmas.

As Lewis and I agree, there are no solid grounds for placing John Lackland's
birth at the very end of the year, where the record of this event was
interpolated in a single manuscript. This would at any rate have meant
Christmas Eve, and by the normal reckoning of that time 27 December would be
the third day of the following year anyway.

A birthdate in December 1166 is plausible, for reasons set out by Lewis and
less amply by me in the post copied below. However, if the canon of Laon is
to be believed, it should be noted that a date in late June is not
impossible either.

When I get round to an article on the subject, I shall discuss a number of
reasons why I think the explanation of the prince's name due to a birthdate
"circa" either of these St John's days (24 June or 27 December) is not
entirely plausible - whether he was actually born near either date or
otherwise - and several different possible reasons for the (then) rather
unusual name John that I think considerably more likely.

Peter Stewart

*************************

FMG post (I can't remember the date, and it isn't there any more to check):



The birthdate usually given for John is ill-founded. He was probably born in
December 1166, not on Christmas Eve of the following year.



WL Warren and Ralph V Turner - like other modern biographers and the Royal
Historical Society - seem not to have checked the sources for this point,
for which they don't give a reference.



The mistaken certainty about the birth on 24 December 1167 can be traced to
Kate Norgate's _John Lackland_ (London, 1902), which was for a long time the
standard biography. She took the date from a brief footnote in the preface
to volume II of _The Historical Collections of Walter of Coventry_ edited by
William Stubbs, Rolls Series 58 (London, 1873).



However, the reasoning behind this is shaky at best. Ralph de Diceto placed
John's birth in 1166, at the end of his account of that year: "Alienor
regina peperit filium quem vocavit Johannem" (trans: Queen Eleanor gave
birth to a son whom she named John) ['Ymagines historiarum', _The Historical
Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, Dean of London_ edited by William Stubbs,
Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876), vol I p 325].



Ralph de Diceto is a reliable authority for such matters. It's interesting
that he described the naming of John as by Eleanor herself - if it was her
sole choice, this may suggest that King Henry wasn't present. In any case,
"John" had never been a royal name in England or France before this time. A
possible source is the legend of Prester John, which had become a public
mania in the mid-1160s following a letter supposedly sent to the pope by
that mythical Christian emperor, and giving details of his magnificent court
somewhere in Asia.



But this doesn't help in fixing the date. Stubbs noted that other medieval
writers followed Ralph de Diceto (e.g. the annals of Burton, Worcester and
Dunstable in _Annales monastici_, edited by Henry Richards Luard, 5 vols,
Rolls Series 36 (London, 1864-69), vols I p 187, III p 19 and IV p 381
respectively). Nevertheless he considered that Robert de Torigni was to be
preferred, giving instead under 1167: "Natus est Johannes filius regis
Anglorum" (trans: John, son of the king of Englnad, was born) ['The
Chronicle of Robert of Torigni', _Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry
II and Richard I_ edited by Richard Howlett, Rolls Series 82 (London, 1889),
vol IV p 233].



Stubbs thought that this was more credible than Ralph de Diceto, because
Robert de Torigni had just remarked on Eleanor's return to England: "Regina
Alienor transfretavit in Angliam, ducens secum filiam suam Mathildem"
(trans: Queen Eleanor crossed to England, bringing her daughter Matilda with
her). This is followed by the statement that two brilliant fiery stars were
seen in the West on Christmas Eve, then by the notice of John's birth
already quoted. Since 24 December was the last day of the year for Robert de
Torigni, the assmuption was made that John's birth can only have taken place
on that day - taken further, the logical conclusion would be that he was
born late at night, after the stars appeared.



But Stubbs failed to note that the sentence about John's birth was an
interpolation - according to Howlett, the later editor, this was added to
the manuscript in the space left at the end of the year, in a "fantastic"
handwriting. In other words, whatever superior authority Robert de Torigni
may have over Ralph de Diceto (a dubious point anyway) is quite lacking for
this detail.



There are other problems with the account. Matilda cannot have travelled to
England with Eleanor within the few months before December 1167 as Stubbs
believed: she was already there along with the queen in July 1167 when
envoys arrived from Saxony to escort her back to marry their duke. Matilda
left England with them for Germany in September 1167 [see _Court, Household
and Itinerary of King Henry II_ by RW Eyton (London, 1878, reprinted
Hildesheim & New York, 1974), pp 108-9]. She was married at Minden on 1
February 1168 to Duke Henry the Lion. Evidently the trip back to England on
which she had accompanied her mother was actually in October or November
1166 (Eyton cited a Pipe Roll entry confirming Eleanor's whereabouts at that
time).



Furthermore, Henry and Eleanor were probably not together at any stage in
the period around nine months before Christmas 1167, whereas we know that
they had been reunited in March 1166 [Eyton p 98]. Henry spent Christmas
1166 in Poitou, so that Eleanor would have been free of his influence or
authority to name their child born in England around that time, as Ralph de
Diceto stated that she did. They appear to have spent Christmas 1167
together at Argentan in Normandy [Eyton p 112], not in England where John
was born.



The direct basis for placing John's birth exactly on Christmas Eve is a
marginal entry under 1166 in another chronicle, by Robert of Gloucester,
which was apparently taken from Robert de Torigni's vaguer account, with the
two stars appearing on that date and John's birth interpolated by another
hand immediately afterwards.



The safest conclusion is that John was born at the end of 1166, with the
actual date uncertain.


Peter Stewart

John Parsons

Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine

Legg inn av John Parsons » 10 feb 2005 12:21:02

No problem, Vickie. You're entirely welcome.

Regards

John P.


From: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:10:22 GMT

John,

That translation, "barely in his seventh year", certainly does
seem to be more accurate. Thanks.


Vickie Elam White
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com



""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY7-F1890D8986216171EEEBDDEB2750@phx.gbl...
In response to Vickie Elam White's query, here is the relevant
passage from
Lewis (p. 162):

Ralph of Diceto, by contrast, did not write until perhaps fifteen
to twenty
years after John's birth. He did, however, use older notes or
records; he
was well informed and was generally careful in his work. [FN 21]
Moreover,
his attribution of John's birth to 1166 is reinforced by his
later remark
that John was "vix bene septenni[s]," barely seven years old, in
February
1173 when Henry II betrothed him to the daughter of the count of
Maurienne.
[FN 22]

FN 21. Stubbs, preface to Ralph of Diss, *Opera Historica*, 2:
xv-xvi.
FN 22. Ralph of Diss, *Opera Historica*, 1:353.

If we allow for a completed 7th year by February 1173 (the
correct year for
the betrothal), John's birth would be pushed back to 1165, which
is
chronologically impossible given the birth of Eleanor's daughter
Joan in
Oct. of that year.

As Lewis demonstrates, the year 1167 is also impossible for
John's birth
since in that year, Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine were likely
on
opposite sides of the Channel at the time John would most
probably have been
conceived. In any event, if John were born in 1167 it would be
even less
accurate to describe him as "vix bene septennis" than if he were
born in
1166.

Eleanor's itinerary in 1166 favors the conclusion that John was
born in that
year, while her journey to France ca. Dec. 1167 argues forcefully
against
the possiblity that she could have borne a child in that month.

The prohibitive likelihood is that John was born in 1166.

The phrase "vix bene septenni[s]" can also be translated "barely
in his
seventh year."

Regards

John P.



From: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eleanor Of Aquitaine
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:23:54 GMT

John C. Parsons wrote --

Ralph of Diss assigns John's birth to the year 1166, and
confirms this by stating later that John was "vix bene
septennis" (barely seven years old) when betrothed to
the count of Maurienne's daughter in Feb. 1173. This
indicates that he was born late in 1166, but Ralph gives
no precise date.

But that would have made John barely six, not barely seven,
if he was born in Dec 1166.


Vickie Elam White
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com






Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»