Dispensation for Marriage of King Fernando III of Castile an
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Dispensation for Marriage of King Fernando III of Castile an
Dear Newsgroup ~
In recent time, I posted a reference to the published abstract of the
Papal dispensation for the marriage of Fernando III, King of Castile,
and his 2nd wife, Jeanne de Dammartin, dated 31 August 1237 [Reference:
Auvray, Les registres de Grégoire IX 2 (1907): 747]. Since my
original post, I've had the opportunity to have the abstract in
question examined for me. As suspected, the dispensation specfically
states that this couple were related in the 3rd degree on Fernando's
side and in the 4th degree on Jeanne's side.
As such, there can be no question I think that Jeanne de Dammartin's
grandmother, Alice of France, was in fact the daughter of King Louis
VII of France, by his 2nd wife, Constance of Castile. This affiliation
for Alice of France would provide the specified kinship between Jeanne
de Dammartin and King Fernando III as stated in the dispensation.
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of John Dillon, on staff in the
Western European Humanities Department at Memorial Library, University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Dillon who is fluent in Latin
read the text for me at my request. The original volume is in a
fragile state and can not be copied.
What a great ending to the search for the truth about Alice of France's
parentage!
For interest's sake, I've listed below the names of the 17th Century
New World colonists who descend from King Fernando III of Castile and
his wife, Jeanne de Dammartin.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William
Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Charles Barham, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke
Beckwith, Richard & William Bernard, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William
Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile,
Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Stephen Bull, Nathaniel
Burrough, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace
Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, James & Norton Claypoole, William Clopton, St.
Leger Codd, Elizabeth Coytemore, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances,
Jane, & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland
Ellis, William Farrar, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry
Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, Muriel Gurdon, Mary Gye,
Elizabeth & John Harleston, Elizabeth Haynes, Warham Horsmanden, Anne
Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward,
Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis,
Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry,
Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Percival Lowell, Gabriel, Roger, & Sarah Ludlow,
Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield,
Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne
Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John Nelson, Philip &
Thomas Nelson, Joshua & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge,
Richard Palgrave, Richard Parker, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton,
William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade,
William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard
Saltonstall, Anthony Savage, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith,
Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Throckmorton, Samuel &
William Torrey, John & Lawrence Washington, Olive Welby, John West, Amy
Willis, Thomas Wingfield, Mary Wolseley, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
In recent time, I posted a reference to the published abstract of the
Papal dispensation for the marriage of Fernando III, King of Castile,
and his 2nd wife, Jeanne de Dammartin, dated 31 August 1237 [Reference:
Auvray, Les registres de Grégoire IX 2 (1907): 747]. Since my
original post, I've had the opportunity to have the abstract in
question examined for me. As suspected, the dispensation specfically
states that this couple were related in the 3rd degree on Fernando's
side and in the 4th degree on Jeanne's side.
As such, there can be no question I think that Jeanne de Dammartin's
grandmother, Alice of France, was in fact the daughter of King Louis
VII of France, by his 2nd wife, Constance of Castile. This affiliation
for Alice of France would provide the specified kinship between Jeanne
de Dammartin and King Fernando III as stated in the dispensation.
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of John Dillon, on staff in the
Western European Humanities Department at Memorial Library, University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Dillon who is fluent in Latin
read the text for me at my request. The original volume is in a
fragile state and can not be copied.
What a great ending to the search for the truth about Alice of France's
parentage!
For interest's sake, I've listed below the names of the 17th Century
New World colonists who descend from King Fernando III of Castile and
his wife, Jeanne de Dammartin.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William
Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Charles Barham, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke
Beckwith, Richard & William Bernard, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William
Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile,
Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Stephen Bull, Nathaniel
Burrough, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace
Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, James & Norton Claypoole, William Clopton, St.
Leger Codd, Elizabeth Coytemore, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances,
Jane, & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland
Ellis, William Farrar, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry
Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, Muriel Gurdon, Mary Gye,
Elizabeth & John Harleston, Elizabeth Haynes, Warham Horsmanden, Anne
Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward,
Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis,
Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry,
Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Percival Lowell, Gabriel, Roger, & Sarah Ludlow,
Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield,
Oliver Manwaring, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne
Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John Nelson, Philip &
Thomas Nelson, Joshua & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge,
Richard Palgrave, Richard Parker, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton,
William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade,
William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard
Saltonstall, Anthony Savage, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith,
Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Throckmorton, Samuel &
William Torrey, John & Lawrence Washington, Olive Welby, John West, Amy
Willis, Thomas Wingfield, Mary Wolseley, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
In article <1109884543.009682.168030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote:
This has been discussed on and off since at least 1996. What--I'm
curious, and don't have it handy--did Van Kerrebrouck say about Alix's
maternity?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote:
What a great ending to the search for the truth about Alice of France's
parentage!
This has been discussed on and off since at least 1996. What--I'm
curious, and don't have it handy--did Van Kerrebrouck say about Alix's
maternity?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Dispensation for Marriage of King Fernando III of Castil
As such, there can be no question I think that Jeanne de Dammartin's
grandmother, Alice of France, was in fact the daughter of King Louis
VII of France, by his 2nd wife, Constance of Castile. This affiliation
for Alice of France would provide the specified kinship between Jeanne
de Dammartin and King Fernando III as stated in the dispensation.
If there was no question you would not say "no question
I think." There are always questions when it comes
to degrees of consanguinity or affinity (you do not state
whether it was consanguinity or affinity). By the Fourth
Council of Lateran (1215) both were limited to the 4th
degree. If not stated one does not know which applied.
You pretty well have to know the family tree of both sides
(including illegitimate children) to calculate the relationship
for certainty. As you are proposing that Alice of France was
a daughter of King Louis it is clear that the family tree is
not known to us today. Thus, you are speculating and you
know it.
Best wishes!
Peter
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Jeanne de Dammartin's Castilian connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
The specific relationship between King Fernando III of Castile and his
wife, Jeanne de Dammartin, is set forth in a Spanish text which I
posted on the newsgroup quite a while ago. For interest's sake, I've
copied the source again below. The text indicates that Jeanne de
Dammartin's great-grandmother, Constance (here called Elizabeth), wife
of King Louis VII of France, was a daughter of Alfonso VII, King of
Castile. King Alfonso VII was the great-grandfather of King Fernando
III of Castile.
Ex Roderico Toletani Archiepiscopi de Rebus Hispaniae Libris IX
"Nunc as gesta Aldefonsi (VII.) Hispaniarum Regis, prout coepimus,
revertamur ... Habuit autem duas uxores, Berengariam atque Richam; ex
Berengaria genuit Sancium et Fernandum, Elisabeth et Beatiam.
Elisabeth nupsit Ludovico (VII.) Regi Francorum, ex qua genuit filiam
quae dicta fuit Adeladis, et fuit uxor Comitis de Pontivo; et illa
Comitissa genuit Mariam, quae fuit mater Joannae Reginae Castellae et
Legionis." [Reference: Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la
France, vol. 12 (1877), pg. 383].
The above information is supported by numerous other contemporary
documents culled from other English and French sources, all of which
have been posted here on the newsgroup.
Enjoy!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
The specific relationship between King Fernando III of Castile and his
wife, Jeanne de Dammartin, is set forth in a Spanish text which I
posted on the newsgroup quite a while ago. For interest's sake, I've
copied the source again below. The text indicates that Jeanne de
Dammartin's great-grandmother, Constance (here called Elizabeth), wife
of King Louis VII of France, was a daughter of Alfonso VII, King of
Castile. King Alfonso VII was the great-grandfather of King Fernando
III of Castile.
Ex Roderico Toletani Archiepiscopi de Rebus Hispaniae Libris IX
"Nunc as gesta Aldefonsi (VII.) Hispaniarum Regis, prout coepimus,
revertamur ... Habuit autem duas uxores, Berengariam atque Richam; ex
Berengaria genuit Sancium et Fernandum, Elisabeth et Beatiam.
Elisabeth nupsit Ludovico (VII.) Regi Francorum, ex qua genuit filiam
quae dicta fuit Adeladis, et fuit uxor Comitis de Pontivo; et illa
Comitissa genuit Mariam, quae fuit mater Joannae Reginae Castellae et
Legionis." [Reference: Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la
France, vol. 12 (1877), pg. 383].
The above information is supported by numerous other contemporary
documents culled from other English and French sources, all of which
have been posted here on the newsgroup.
Enjoy!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
gryphon801@aol.com
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
Van Kerrebrouck [p. 97] places Alix/Adelaide as daughter of Louis VII
by his third wife.
by his third wife.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<nathanieltaylor-DFD665.20075203032005@news1.east.earthlink.net>...
Kerrebrouck placed her (p. 97) as a daughter of her father's third
marriage, to Alix de Champagne - in notes he did not give any
conclusive authority for this.
Various sources (all of which Renia and I would agree in calling
"secondary" for the point at issue) have been adduced by Richardson
and myself indicating that she was in fact a daughter of the second
marriage, to Constance of Castile: most of these put forward by
Richardson are merely derived one from another, an elementary fact
that he (as usual) does not scruple to note.
However, Leopold Delisle - for one - who knew all the medieval
evidence far better than I do, or than Richardson and his proxies with
a smattering of Latin can claim to do - maintainted that she was born
from the third marriage, just as Kerrebrouck stated.
I have challenged Richardson to perform the basic research expected
from a trained historian and professional genealogist, to find out
what sources Delisle might have relied upon, but (as usual) he has
shirked the task over more than a year now, while trying to goad me
into doing it for him.
So the truth behind this question has not been satisfactorily "ënded"
yet, in a "great" fashion or otherwise, except in the wishful thinking
of Richardson.
Peter Stewart
In article <1109884543.009682.168030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
wrote:
What a great ending to the search for the truth about Alice of France's
parentage!
This has been discussed on and off since at least 1996. What--I'm
curious, and don't have it handy--did Van Kerrebrouck say about Alix's
maternity?
Kerrebrouck placed her (p. 97) as a daughter of her father's third
marriage, to Alix de Champagne - in notes he did not give any
conclusive authority for this.
Various sources (all of which Renia and I would agree in calling
"secondary" for the point at issue) have been adduced by Richardson
and myself indicating that she was in fact a daughter of the second
marriage, to Constance of Castile: most of these put forward by
Richardson are merely derived one from another, an elementary fact
that he (as usual) does not scruple to note.
However, Leopold Delisle - for one - who knew all the medieval
evidence far better than I do, or than Richardson and his proxies with
a smattering of Latin can claim to do - maintainted that she was born
from the third marriage, just as Kerrebrouck stated.
I have challenged Richardson to perform the basic research expected
from a trained historian and professional genealogist, to find out
what sources Delisle might have relied upon, but (as usual) he has
shirked the task over more than a year now, while trying to goad me
into doing it for him.
So the truth behind this question has not been satisfactorily "ënded"
yet, in a "great" fashion or otherwise, except in the wishful thinking
of Richardson.
Peter Stewart
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
In article <88abeaa.0503040120.1910d7a0@posting.google.com>,
p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote:
Whatever one might think of Mr. Richardson's skills, methods, and
personality, we now have this dispensation on the table, involving
consanguinity of a descendant of this Alix and a Castilian/Leonese king.
Certainly Richardson has exaggerated the level of 'ending' of this
'search for truth'. Perhaps a little logic would help him restate the
issue more correctly. So:
1. Can it be demonstrated that the mother of Alix is the only link
through which consanguinity between the spouses could have existed--or
could have been believed to exist--in the degrees shown in the
dispensation?
2. If so, can one assume that those seeking the dispensation must have
been correctly informed as to that particular link, or might the seekers
of the dispensation simply have been guessing (or assuming, or believing
falsely) that Constance was the bride's ancestress?
I would say that for no. 2, the burden would be on the side suggesting
that the parties seeking the dispensation were acting on incorrect
information. Are there precedents for this--i.e. surviving
dispensations where the consanguinity alleged is now known to have been
untrue? I would not include dispensations granted for marriage by
parties who might later discover some (as yet unknown) impediment,
including consanguinity--I have seen blanket dispensations of this type
before, but that's a different animal.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote:
In article <1109884543.009682.168030@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
wrote:
What a great ending to the search for the truth about Alice of France's
parentage!
Various sources (all of which Renia and I would agree in calling
"secondary" for the point at issue) have been adduced by Richardson
and myself indicating that she was in fact a daughter of the second
marriage, to Constance of Castile: most of these put forward by
Richardson are merely derived one from another, an elementary fact
that he (as usual) does not scruple to note.
However, Leopold Delisle - for one ... maintainted that she was born
from the third marriage, just as Kerrebrouck stated.
Whatever one might think of Mr. Richardson's skills, methods, and
personality, we now have this dispensation on the table, involving
consanguinity of a descendant of this Alix and a Castilian/Leonese king.
Certainly Richardson has exaggerated the level of 'ending' of this
'search for truth'. Perhaps a little logic would help him restate the
issue more correctly. So:
1. Can it be demonstrated that the mother of Alix is the only link
through which consanguinity between the spouses could have existed--or
could have been believed to exist--in the degrees shown in the
dispensation?
2. If so, can one assume that those seeking the dispensation must have
been correctly informed as to that particular link, or might the seekers
of the dispensation simply have been guessing (or assuming, or believing
falsely) that Constance was the bride's ancestress?
I would say that for no. 2, the burden would be on the side suggesting
that the parties seeking the dispensation were acting on incorrect
information. Are there precedents for this--i.e. surviving
dispensations where the consanguinity alleged is now known to have been
untrue? I would not include dispensations granted for marriage by
parties who might later discover some (as yet unknown) impediment,
including consanguinity--I have seen blanket dispensations of this type
before, but that's a different animal.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
It is not necessary for Nat Taylor to tell us his opinion of me or my
personality when he's discussing the marriage dispensation of King
Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne de Dammartin. The dispensation
speaks for itself thank you.
For Nat to personalize the discussion is grossly unprofessional. It
taints everything which he has to say, now and in the future. This
maneuver shows extremely poor judgement on his part.
When debating, it is important for one to stick to the facts. You
only get personal when you're losing the argument. 'Nuff said.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Whatever one might think of Mr. Richardson's skills, methods, and
personality, ...
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
It is not necessary for Nat Taylor to tell us his opinion of me or my
personality when he's discussing the marriage dispensation of King
Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne de Dammartin. The dispensation
speaks for itself thank you.
For Nat to personalize the discussion is grossly unprofessional. It
taints everything which he has to say, now and in the future. This
maneuver shows extremely poor judgement on his part.
When debating, it is important for one to stick to the facts. You
only get personal when you're losing the argument. 'Nuff said.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
Nat Taylor made some interesting and important observations about the
matter, whereas in his opening line he makes it clear that different people
may have differing opinions about Richardson, without giving his own
opinion. Nat's substance was genealogy, something Richardson ignored, he
ignored as he might have to acknowledge he is on thin ice. I think his
opening remark is perfectly apt as it implies Richardson MAY well have gone
about matters the wrong way, but then Nat is not the only person who have
given this warning.
If you want from Richardson a genealogical answer to a genealogical question
on a genealogical group, he still stands by his "buy my book". How collegial
is that?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
matter, whereas in his opening line he makes it clear that different people
may have differing opinions about Richardson, without giving his own
opinion. Nat's substance was genealogy, something Richardson ignored, he
ignored as he might have to acknowledge he is on thin ice. I think his
opening remark is perfectly apt as it implies Richardson MAY well have gone
about matters the wrong way, but then Nat is not the only person who have
given this warning.
If you want from Richardson a genealogical answer to a genealogical question
on a genealogical group, he still stands by his "buy my book". How collegial
is that?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Whatever one might think of Mr. Richardson's skills, methods, and
personality, ...
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
It is not necessary for Nat Taylor to tell us his opinion of me or my
personality when he's discussing the marriage dispensation of King
Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne de Dammartin. The dispensation
speaks for itself thank you.
For Nat to personalize the discussion is grossly unprofessional. It
taints everything which he has to say, now and in the future. This
maneuver shows extremely poor judgement on his part.
When debating, it is important for one to stick to the facts. You
only get personal when you're losing the argument. 'Nuff said.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Not to worry...
That's just typical of Nat Taylor's snide and somewhat slippery and
slithering style ---- oft used when he is beginning a post.
Nat thinks it's:
COOL
SOPHISTICATED
MAGISTERIAL
And:
AUTHORITATIVE....
Whereas in reality it is just snide, slippery and slithering.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000401c520fd$11054560$c3b4fea9@email...
| Nat Taylor made some interesting and important observations about the
| matter, whereas in his opening line he makes it clear that different
| people may have differing opinions about Richardson, without giving
| his own opinion.
That's just typical of Nat Taylor's snide and somewhat slippery and
slithering style ---- oft used when he is beginning a post.
Nat thinks it's:
COOL
SOPHISTICATED
MAGISTERIAL
And:
AUTHORITATIVE....
Whereas in reality it is just snide, slippery and slithering.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000401c520fd$11054560$c3b4fea9@email...
| Nat Taylor made some interesting and important observations about the
| matter, whereas in his opening line he makes it clear that different
| people may have differing opinions about Richardson, without giving
| his own opinion.
-
Gjest
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
However, in your own database you have Alix of France's mother as
Constance of Castile, so you accept what Doug says. In fact, I used
your wonderful database to see if there were any other way for Jeanne
de Dammartin and Fernando III to be related. It is clear that the
Castilian connection is the only way.
Even though you may disagree with people from time to time, isn't it
only proper to give credit when credit is due?
Constance of Castile, so you accept what Doug says. In fact, I used
your wonderful database to see if there were any other way for Jeanne
de Dammartin and Fernando III to be related. It is clear that the
Castilian connection is the only way.
Even though you may disagree with people from time to time, isn't it
only proper to give credit when credit is due?
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
My website is flexible, I ask for corrections and additions. I may seem to
agree with Doug at the moment, if the correct arguments come along I will
change and that will be visible on my website when updates occur. I found
Nat Taylor's observations very interesting as he pointed out several things
Doug seems to have left out of the solving of the problem.
I think Nat should be given the credit he is due.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mhollick@mac.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
agree with Doug at the moment, if the correct arguments come along I will
change and that will be visible on my website when updates occur. I found
Nat Taylor's observations very interesting as he pointed out several things
Doug seems to have left out of the solving of the problem.
I think Nat should be given the credit he is due.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mhollick@mac.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
However, in your own database you have Alix of France's mother as
Constance of Castile, so you accept what Doug says. In fact, I used
your wonderful database to see if there were any other way for Jeanne
de Dammartin and Fernando III to be related. It is clear that the
Castilian connection is the only way.
Even though you may disagree with people from time to time, isn't it
only proper to give credit when credit is due?
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
In article <1109972408.829306.131820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
[to Leo]
From what I see in the archives, Richard Smyth was the first to post a
lengthy and interesting argument for assigning Constance as mother of
Alix, on 29 Jan 2003, though others had expressed an opinion that this
was so, here, as early as 1996.
I'm interested in the dispensation that Douglas has posted (I have a
particular interest in dispensations and consanguinity questions), and
Douglas deserves praise for having tracked it down and posted it. I
believe this document is noteworthy support for the reassignment, though
the second question I posed in my previous post is still open for
discussion, so, as I said, I do not believe the question as closed as
has been represented.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
[to Leo]
However, in your own database you have Alix of France's mother as
Constance of Castile, so you accept what Doug says. In fact, I used
your wonderful database to see if there were any other way for Jeanne
de Dammartin and Fernando III to be related. It is clear that the
Castilian connection is the only way.
Even though you may disagree with people from time to time, isn't it
only proper to give credit when credit is due?
From what I see in the archives, Richard Smyth was the first to post a
lengthy and interesting argument for assigning Constance as mother of
Alix, on 29 Jan 2003, though others had expressed an opinion that this
was so, here, as early as 1996.
I'm interested in the dispensation that Douglas has posted (I have a
particular interest in dispensations and consanguinity questions), and
Douglas deserves praise for having tracked it down and posted it. I
believe this document is noteworthy support for the reassignment, though
the second question I posed in my previous post is still open for
discussion, so, as I said, I do not believe the question as closed as
has been represented.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
The nearest thing to an alternative possibility I can see in Leo's database
is that the wife of Jeanne's great grandfather, Aubri/Alberic I, Comte de
Dammartin-en-Goele, is shown only as "(Mathilde?)".
In theory the stated consanguinity could be alternatively be explained if
this wife was a sibling, or half-sibling, of one of Fernando's grandparents.
But given their rank, it seems rather unlikely that such a marriage would
have gone unnoticed.
Chris Phillips
However, in your own database you have Alix of France's mother as
Constance of Castile, so you accept what Doug says. In fact, I used
your wonderful database to see if there were any other way for Jeanne
de Dammartin and Fernando III to be related. It is clear that the
Castilian connection is the only way.
The nearest thing to an alternative possibility I can see in Leo's database
is that the wife of Jeanne's great grandfather, Aubri/Alberic I, Comte de
Dammartin-en-Goele, is shown only as "(Mathilde?)".
In theory the stated consanguinity could be alternatively be explained if
this wife was a sibling, or half-sibling, of one of Fernando's grandparents.
But given their rank, it seems rather unlikely that such a marriage would
have gone unnoticed.
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Dispensation ... (maternity of Alix of France)
Chris Phillips wrote:
Dear Chris ~
I concur with your statement. Your probity is exemplar.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
In theory the stated consanguinity could be alternatively be
explained if
this wife was a sibling, or half-sibling, of one of Fernando's
grandparents.
But given their rank, it seems rather unlikely that such a marriage
would
have gone unnoticed.
Chris Phillips
Dear Chris ~
I concur with your statement. Your probity is exemplar.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
MUCH better behavior and posting style by Nat Taylor....
Nat generally responds quite well to a sharp blow upside the head with a
2 by 4 -- like most Harvard boys.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-79A22B.17020804032005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
| I'm interested in the dispensation that Douglas has posted (I have a
| particular interest in dispensations and consanguinity questions), and
| Douglas deserves praise for having tracked it down and posted it. I
| believe this document is noteworthy support for the reassignment,
though
| the second question I posed in my previous post is still open for
| discussion, so, as I said, I do not believe the question as closed as
| has been represented.
|
| Nat Taylor
|
| a genealogist's sketchbook:
| http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Nat generally responds quite well to a sharp blow upside the head with a
2 by 4 -- like most Harvard boys.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-79A22B.17020804032005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
| I'm interested in the dispensation that Douglas has posted (I have a
| particular interest in dispensations and consanguinity questions), and
| Douglas deserves praise for having tracked it down and posted it. I
| believe this document is noteworthy support for the reassignment,
though
| the second question I posed in my previous post is still open for
| discussion, so, as I said, I do not believe the question as closed as
| has been represented.
|
| Nat Taylor
|
| a genealogist's sketchbook:
| http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
But what about Harvard professors ... even if the sharp
blow is delivered by their very own institution's President?
What a response!
Doug McDonald
MUCH better behavior and posting style by Nat Taylor....
Nat generally responds quite well to a sharp blow upside the head with a
2 by 4 -- like most Harvard boys.
But what about Harvard professors ... even if the sharp
blow is delivered by their very own institution's President?
What a response!
Doug McDonald
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
<G>
Harvard's President is thoroughly emasculated at present -- the faculty
are simply enjoying kicking him about the Yard. <g>
Will you be attending Garman Harbottle's talk on 12 April?
"Before Columbus? The Mystery of the Vinland Map"
| April 12, 2005
| Tuesday, 4:00 p.m.
| Knight Auditorium, Spurlock Museum
| 600 South Gregory, Urbana
| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
|
| Garman Harbottle
| Senior Chemist, Brookhaven National Laboratory"
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:d0ar12$rg5$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > MUCH better behavior and posting style by Nat Taylor....
| >
| > Nat generally responds quite well to a sharp blow upside the head
| > with a 2 by 4 -- like most Harvard boys.
|
| But what about Harvard professors ... even if the sharp
| blow is delivered by their very own institution's President?
|
| What a response!
|
| Doug McDonald
Harvard's President is thoroughly emasculated at present -- the faculty
are simply enjoying kicking him about the Yard. <g>
Will you be attending Garman Harbottle's talk on 12 April?
"Before Columbus? The Mystery of the Vinland Map"
| April 12, 2005
| Tuesday, 4:00 p.m.
| Knight Auditorium, Spurlock Museum
| 600 South Gregory, Urbana
| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
|
| Garman Harbottle
| Senior Chemist, Brookhaven National Laboratory"
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:d0ar12$rg5$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > MUCH better behavior and posting style by Nat Taylor....
| >
| > Nat generally responds quite well to a sharp blow upside the head
| > with a 2 by 4 -- like most Harvard boys.
|
| But what about Harvard professors ... even if the sharp
| blow is delivered by their very own institution's President?
|
| What a response!
|
| Doug McDonald
-
gryphon801@aol.com
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
You know that Turton, among others, posted that Alix was a daughter of
Louis VII by the second marriage ]p. 13] as long ago as 1928. Where
then is the discovery in a dispensation which might prove him right and
Van Kerrebrouck wrong?
Louis VII by the second marriage ]p. 13] as long ago as 1928. Where
then is the discovery in a dispensation which might prove him right and
Van Kerrebrouck wrong?
-
Gjest
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
The difference is researcher's flapping in the wind their opinions and
someone doing the hard work of finding primary source material to prove
a point. Why didn't Turton look for a dispensation? Why didn't anyone
else since 1928? If you have a discrepancy you need to do real
research and come up with the proof.
All in all the difference in not in the discovery of the fact that Alix
of France was a daughter of Constance of Castile, but discovery of
proof of that fact.
someone doing the hard work of finding primary source material to prove
a point. Why didn't Turton look for a dispensation? Why didn't anyone
else since 1928? If you have a discrepancy you need to do real
research and come up with the proof.
All in all the difference in not in the discovery of the fact that Alix
of France was a daughter of Constance of Castile, but discovery of
proof of that fact.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Well said, Martin. Well said.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
The difference is researcher's flapping in the wind their opinions
and
someone doing the hard work of finding primary source material to
prove
a point. Why didn't Turton look for a dispensation? Why didn't
anyone
else since 1928? If you have a discrepancy you need to do real
research and come up with the proof.
All in all the difference in not in the discovery of the fact that
Alix
of France was a daughter of Constance of Castile, but discovery of
proof of that fact.
Well said, Martin. Well said.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Anonymous (mholl....) wrote:
<snip>
Quite true - and the problem remains that appropriate research on the
glaring discrepancy in the record has been neglected in this instance
by the consummate "professional" who wants an answer to the question.
The fact isn't absolutely proved by the dispensation alone, but in any
case this has certainly not been "discovered" just now - it wasn't
hidden or unknown beforehand, and citations to it can be found in the
literature since 1907 when it was published in France. We already know
there were plausible accounts - including one by the archbishop of
Toledo, whose report might have reached Rome before the dispensation -
giving Constance as mother to Alix who became countess of Ponthieu. The
question is: was this correct, as it appears to be, or an error that
circulated early on?
The specific problem that has been overlooked & still requires to be
cleared up is the basis - or lack of any basis - for Pere Anselme's
statement that Constance of Castile's daughter Alix died soon after her
mother (who had died giving borth to her in 1160). If this is so, then
Countess Alix of Ponthieu cannot have been the same: Constance did not
die giving birth to homonymous twins.
Leopold Delisle edited most of the texts that have been adduced to
support the view that Constance was mother to Countess Alix, and yet he
maintained that Alix of Champagne was in fact her mother.
So is there an obituary or burial record or other source stating that
Constance's baby of 1160 died soon after her mother, or not? If there
is, was this information more proximate to the event and more credible
than the somewhat later and distanced reports to the contrary?
Historians are trained for the purpose of resolving such questions, not
to rely on other people's opinions and citations.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
If you have a discrepancy you need to do real
research and come up with the proof.
Quite true - and the problem remains that appropriate research on the
glaring discrepancy in the record has been neglected in this instance
by the consummate "professional" who wants an answer to the question.
All in all the difference in not in the discovery of the fact that
Alix of France was a daughter of Constance of Castile, but
discovery of proof of that fact.
The fact isn't absolutely proved by the dispensation alone, but in any
case this has certainly not been "discovered" just now - it wasn't
hidden or unknown beforehand, and citations to it can be found in the
literature since 1907 when it was published in France. We already know
there were plausible accounts - including one by the archbishop of
Toledo, whose report might have reached Rome before the dispensation -
giving Constance as mother to Alix who became countess of Ponthieu. The
question is: was this correct, as it appears to be, or an error that
circulated early on?
The specific problem that has been overlooked & still requires to be
cleared up is the basis - or lack of any basis - for Pere Anselme's
statement that Constance of Castile's daughter Alix died soon after her
mother (who had died giving borth to her in 1160). If this is so, then
Countess Alix of Ponthieu cannot have been the same: Constance did not
die giving birth to homonymous twins.
Leopold Delisle edited most of the texts that have been adduced to
support the view that Constance was mother to Countess Alix, and yet he
maintained that Alix of Champagne was in fact her mother.
So is there an obituary or burial record or other source stating that
Constance's baby of 1160 died soon after her mother, or not? If there
is, was this information more proximate to the event and more credible
than the somewhat later and distanced reports to the contrary?
Historians are trained for the purpose of resolving such questions, not
to rely on other people's opinions and citations.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Peter Stewart wrote:
Dear Peter ~
Reading your words above and in your earlier posts, you make it clear
that you're relying on the opinion of Leopold Delisle to help you
decide this matter, NOT on the many original records that I've posted
here on the newsgroup (all of which records stand in complete
agreement, I might add).
You tell us above a trained historian is not supposed to "rely on other
people's opinions and citations." Yet, it's obvious that you're doing
this very thing. Didn't Delisle merely express his opinion? If so,
this is surely a very tiny fig leaf to hide behind, Peter.
Unless, of course, Delisle published evidence we haven't yet seen. Did
he? If you have such evidence cited by Delisle, by all means, please
post it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Leopold Delisle edited most of the texts that have been adduced to
support the view that Constance was mother to Countess Alix, and yet
he
maintained that Alix of Champagne was in fact her mother.
Historians are trained for the purpose of resolving such questions,
not
to rely on other people's opinions and citations.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
Reading your words above and in your earlier posts, you make it clear
that you're relying on the opinion of Leopold Delisle to help you
decide this matter, NOT on the many original records that I've posted
here on the newsgroup (all of which records stand in complete
agreement, I might add).
You tell us above a trained historian is not supposed to "rely on other
people's opinions and citations." Yet, it's obvious that you're doing
this very thing. Didn't Delisle merely express his opinion? If so,
this is surely a very tiny fig leaf to hide behind, Peter.
Unless, of course, Delisle published evidence we haven't yet seen. Did
he? If you have such evidence cited by Delisle, by all means, please
post it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
That can't prove that all are not wrong.
You are quite wrong in supposing that I agree with Delisle - I have
never said anything of the sort - or that I am somehow guided by him.
Rather I have consistently pointed out that YOU need to take account of
him and of Pere Anselme if you are proposing to go into print
correcting them on a point about which they knew far more than you do.
Your ham-fisted attempts at researching this point have shown up a
complete & disgraceful absence of professionalism. For over a year now
you have followed indiscriminately from one citation in a secondary
work to another, while harping at me to do the real work for you,
without once looking into the sources that could clarify the matter.
You haven't reported any evidence or lack of it in the charters of Alix
herself, or in the various obituaries & other records telling of
Constance's death & perhaps the fate of her second daughter.
Consequently you cannot know whether or not there is a sound basis for
the "opinion" of Anselme & his succeeding editors or of the
Benedictines of Saint-Maur & later Delisle. These experts are not to be
disregarded lightly.
Far from hiding behind Delisle, I happen to disagree with him on this.
Your elementary reading & comprehension skills have let you down yet
again.
However, unlike you I have taken the trouble to find reasons for this,
which I am not going to provide you gratis in respnose to any crude
goadings. I am not about to publish on the question, but may of course
do so at some future date, especially if it should become necessary to
correct some futile effort of yours to settle the question arbitrarily.
As you blithely said to Todd in referring him to your forthcoming book
on another issue, you may then find what I think about it in print.
Meanwhile you will have to do your own work, and it's high time you
amde a sensible start.
Peter Stewart
Reading your words above and in your earlier posts, you
make it clear that you're relying on the opinion of Leopold
Delisle to help you decide this matter, NOT on the many
original records that I've posted here on the newsgroup
(all of which records stand in complete agreement, I might
add).
That can't prove that all are not wrong.
You are quite wrong in supposing that I agree with Delisle - I have
never said anything of the sort - or that I am somehow guided by him.
Rather I have consistently pointed out that YOU need to take account of
him and of Pere Anselme if you are proposing to go into print
correcting them on a point about which they knew far more than you do.
Your ham-fisted attempts at researching this point have shown up a
complete & disgraceful absence of professionalism. For over a year now
you have followed indiscriminately from one citation in a secondary
work to another, while harping at me to do the real work for you,
without once looking into the sources that could clarify the matter.
You haven't reported any evidence or lack of it in the charters of Alix
herself, or in the various obituaries & other records telling of
Constance's death & perhaps the fate of her second daughter.
Consequently you cannot know whether or not there is a sound basis for
the "opinion" of Anselme & his succeeding editors or of the
Benedictines of Saint-Maur & later Delisle. These experts are not to be
disregarded lightly.
Far from hiding behind Delisle, I happen to disagree with him on this.
Your elementary reading & comprehension skills have let you down yet
again.
However, unlike you I have taken the trouble to find reasons for this,
which I am not going to provide you gratis in respnose to any crude
goadings. I am not about to publish on the question, but may of course
do so at some future date, especially if it should become necessary to
correct some futile effort of yours to settle the question arbitrarily.
As you blithely said to Todd in referring him to your forthcoming book
on another issue, you may then find what I think about it in print.
Meanwhile you will have to do your own work, and it's high time you
amde a sensible start.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
At 05:56 AM 05/03/2005, Peter Stewart wrote:
Don't fret Peter. Webster includes: leech 2. a person who clings to
another for personal gain. Does this not apply to a person who
always says either 1) prove it to me by giving me a source or
2) buy my book? On the other hand, Mr. Richardson may be getting
the message as he did go to a source of published abstracts and he
did credit John Dillon for doing some research for him. In time he
may realize that this is much satisfaction and appreciation for having
put together a monumental compendium of lineages than in rushing
to purport discovery of a lineage.
Best wishes!
Peter
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Reading your words above and in your earlier posts, you
make it clear that you're relying on the opinion of Leopold
Delisle to help you decide this matter, NOT on the many
original records that I've posted here on the newsgroup
(all of which records stand in complete agreement, I might
add).
That can't prove that all are not wrong.
You are quite wrong in supposing that I agree with Delisle - I have
never said anything of the sort - or that I am somehow guided by him.
Rather I have consistently pointed out that YOU need to take account of
him and of Pere Anselme if you are proposing to go into print
correcting them on a point about which they knew far more than you do.
Your ham-fisted attempts at researching this point have shown up a
complete & disgraceful absence of professionalism. For over a year now
you have followed indiscriminately from one citation in a secondary
work to another, while harping at me to do the real work for you,
without once looking into the sources that could clarify the matter.
You haven't reported any evidence or lack of it in the charters of Alix
herself, or in the various obituaries & other records telling of
Constance's death & perhaps the fate of her second daughter.
Consequently you cannot know whether or not there is a sound basis for
the "opinion" of Anselme & his succeeding editors or of the
Benedictines of Saint-Maur & later Delisle. These experts are not to be
disregarded lightly.
Far from hiding behind Delisle, I happen to disagree with him on this.
Your elementary reading & comprehension skills have let you down yet
again.
However, unlike you I have taken the trouble to find reasons for this,
which I am not going to provide you gratis in respnose to any crude
goadings. I am not about to publish on the question, but may of course
do so at some future date, especially if it should become necessary to
correct some futile effort of yours to settle the question arbitrarily.
As you blithely said to Todd in referring him to your forthcoming book
on another issue, you may then find what I think about it in print.
Meanwhile you will have to do your own work, and it's high time you
amde a sensible start.
Peter Stewart
Don't fret Peter. Webster includes: leech 2. a person who clings to
another for personal gain. Does this not apply to a person who
always says either 1) prove it to me by giving me a source or
2) buy my book? On the other hand, Mr. Richardson may be getting
the message as he did go to a source of published abstracts and he
did credit John Dillon for doing some research for him. In time he
may realize that this is much satisfaction and appreciation for having
put together a monumental compendium of lineages than in rushing
to purport discovery of a lineage.
Best wishes!
Peter
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
In article <1110002993.048127.291420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote:
Of course Douglas likes what Martin said, because it makes it sound as
if the work is done: but it is not yet done. My questions, and Peter's,
about how much trust we may place in the independent evidence of the
dispensation on this point, remain unanswered.
Again:
1. What is the likely source for the genealogical knowledge of the
parties seeking the dispensation, of the person granting it?
2. Can anyone demonstrate dispensations whose genealogical bases are
demonstrably wrong?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote:
mhollick@mac.com wrote:
All in all the difference in not in the discovery of the fact that
Alix of France was a daughter of Constance of Castile, but
discovery of proof of that fact.
Well said, Martin. Well said.
Of course Douglas likes what Martin said, because it makes it sound as
if the work is done: but it is not yet done. My questions, and Peter's,
about how much trust we may place in the independent evidence of the
dispensation on this point, remain unanswered.
Again:
1. What is the likely source for the genealogical knowledge of the
parties seeking the dispensation, of the person granting it?
2. Can anyone demonstrate dispensations whose genealogical bases are
demonstrably wrong?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
I suppose I should ... the Spurlock Museum is a 30 second
walk from my parking place.
Doug McDonald
Will you be attending Garman Harbottle's talk on 12 April?
"Before Columbus? The Mystery of the Vinland Map"
| April 12, 2005
| Tuesday, 4:00 p.m.
| Knight Auditorium, Spurlock Museum
| 600 South Gregory, Urbana
| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
|
| Garman Harbottle
| Senior Chemist, Brookhaven National Laboratory"
D. Spencer Hines
I suppose I should ... the Spurlock Museum is a 30 second
walk from my parking place.
Doug McDonald
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
"I am not about to publish on the question, but may of course do so at
some future date, especially if it should become necessary to correct
some futile effort of yours to settle the question arbitrarily."
"As you blithely said to Todd in referring him to your forthcoming book
on another issue, you may then find what I think about it in print."
Peter Stewart
-------------------------
Stewart decides he will play "Gotcha Genealogy".
He refuses to reveal genealogical information he has in hand because he
wants to wait until another party has already published something and
THEN jump on his bones with the new information.
Bad Show.
Dog in the manger.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
some future date, especially if it should become necessary to correct
some futile effort of yours to settle the question arbitrarily."
"As you blithely said to Todd in referring him to your forthcoming book
on another issue, you may then find what I think about it in print."
Peter Stewart
-------------------------
Stewart decides he will play "Gotcha Genealogy".
He refuses to reveal genealogical information he has in hand because he
wants to wait until another party has already published something and
THEN jump on his bones with the new information.
Bad Show.
Dog in the manger.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Please do!
Spencer Hines
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:d0cm80$bee$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > Will you be attending Garman Harbottle's talk on 12 April?
| >
| > "Before Columbus? The Mystery of the Vinland Map"
| >
| > | April 12, 2005
| > | Tuesday, 4:00 p.m.
| > | Knight Auditorium, Spurlock Museum
| > | 600 South Gregory, Urbana
| > | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
| > |
| > | Garman Harbottle
| > | Senior Chemist, Brookhaven National Laboratory"
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
|
|
| I suppose I should ... the Spurlock Museum is a 30 second
| walk from my parking place.
|
| Doug McDonald
Spencer Hines
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:d0cm80$bee$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > Will you be attending Garman Harbottle's talk on 12 April?
| >
| > "Before Columbus? The Mystery of the Vinland Map"
| >
| > | April 12, 2005
| > | Tuesday, 4:00 p.m.
| > | Knight Auditorium, Spurlock Museum
| > | 600 South Gregory, Urbana
| > | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
| > |
| > | Garman Harbottle
| > | Senior Chemist, Brookhaven National Laboratory"
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
|
|
| I suppose I should ... the Spurlock Museum is a 30 second
| walk from my parking place.
|
| Doug McDonald
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Spencer Hines wrote:
Obviously, comprehensively false.
I am encouraging Richardson to do his research properly, for once, so
that there will be no "gotcha" opportunity. And I won't be looking for
this anyway - I will only find out what Richardson might have published
from reports, since I'm not mug enough to buy his books. If he doesn't
heed my warnings to do some actual research for himself, he (and his
yap-dog Hines) can't very well blame me.
Moreover there is no "new" information to be had: the issues are over
what sources were available to Pere Anselme in the 17th century, and
over how he interpreted or misinterpreted these, and whether this or
different considerations influenced later historians such as Leopold
Delisle and some (but not all) others down to the present.
Peter Stewart
Stewart decides he will play "Gotcha Genealogy".
He refuses to reveal genealogical information he has in hand
because he wants to wait until another party has already
published something and THEN jump on his bones with the
new information.
Obviously, comprehensively false.
I am encouraging Richardson to do his research properly, for once, so
that there will be no "gotcha" opportunity. And I won't be looking for
this anyway - I will only find out what Richardson might have published
from reports, since I'm not mug enough to buy his books. If he doesn't
heed my warnings to do some actual research for himself, he (and his
yap-dog Hines) can't very well blame me.
Moreover there is no "new" information to be had: the issues are over
what sources were available to Pere Anselme in the 17th century, and
over how he interpreted or misinterpreted these, and whether this or
different considerations influenced later historians such as Leopold
Delisle and some (but not all) others down to the present.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Peter Stewart wrote:
No, Peter, the issue is not what sources were available to Pere Anselme
in the 17th Century. The issue is what contemporary and near
contemporary sources are available to us today.
What sources do exist (and there are many) all speak in unison:
Alice of France is the daughter of Constance of Castile.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Spencer Hines wrote:
Moreover there is no "new" information to be had: the issues are over
what sources were available to Pere Anselme in the 17th century, and
over how he interpreted or misinterpreted these, and whether this or
different considerations influenced later historians such as Leopold
Delisle and some (but not all) others down to the present.
Peter Stewart
No, Peter, the issue is not what sources were available to Pere Anselme
in the 17th Century. The issue is what contemporary and near
contemporary sources are available to us today.
What sources do exist (and there are many) all speak in unison:
Alice of France is the daughter of Constance of Castile.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Even by Richardson standards this isn't nearly good enough.
Time, and especially the French Revolution, have swept away many
medieval sources that can only be known to us through the reports of
such earlier scholars as Pere Anselme.
For an amateur genealogist it may do quite well to rely on sources
cited in secondary works to illustrate general or different points
about the family of Louis VII, but for an allegedly trained medievalist
& professional genealogist up against a long-standing discrepancy in
the record this isn't satisfactory.
If you have never encountered contemporary and/or near-contemporary
sources that were wrong, and wrong in unison, you can't have studied
medieval history & genealogy (or indeed modern life & human ways) even
as much as I would have given you credit for, which is little.
Peter Stewart
No, Peter, the issue is not what sources were available to
Pere Anselme in the 17th Century. The issue is what
contemporary and near contemporary sources are available
to us today.
What sources do exist (and there are many) all speak in unison:
Alice of France is the daughter of Constance of Castile.
Even by Richardson standards this isn't nearly good enough.
Time, and especially the French Revolution, have swept away many
medieval sources that can only be known to us through the reports of
such earlier scholars as Pere Anselme.
For an amateur genealogist it may do quite well to rely on sources
cited in secondary works to illustrate general or different points
about the family of Louis VII, but for an allegedly trained medievalist
& professional genealogist up against a long-standing discrepancy in
the record this isn't satisfactory.
If you have never encountered contemporary and/or near-contemporary
sources that were wrong, and wrong in unison, you can't have studied
medieval history & genealogy (or indeed modern life & human ways) even
as much as I would have given you credit for, which is little.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Dear Peter ~
Please lighten up and be collegial. I merely posted a dispensation.
It is not necessary to attack my personality, my books, my research
skills, my mother-in-law, my dog, or whatever when discussing this one
record. Please stick to discussing the facts. That will suffice.
The facts are that ALL contemporary and near contemporary records in
France, England, and Spain indicate that Alice of France was the
daughter of Constance of Castile. I believe this is what they call a
"no brainer."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Please lighten up and be collegial. I merely posted a dispensation.
It is not necessary to attack my personality, my books, my research
skills, my mother-in-law, my dog, or whatever when discussing this one
record. Please stick to discussing the facts. That will suffice.
The facts are that ALL contemporary and near contemporary records in
France, England, and Spain indicate that Alice of France was the
daughter of Constance of Castile. I believe this is what they call a
"no brainer."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
No, Peter, the issue is not what sources were available to
Pere Anselme in the 17th Century. The issue is what
contemporary and near contemporary sources are available
to us today.
What sources do exist (and there are many) all speak in unison:
Alice of France is the daughter of Constance of Castile.
Even by Richardson standards this isn't nearly good enough.
Time, and especially the French Revolution, have swept away many
medieval sources that can only be known to us through the reports of
such earlier scholars as Pere Anselme.
For an amateur genealogist it may do quite well to rely on sources
cited in secondary works to illustrate general or different points
about the family of Louis VII, but for an allegedly trained
medievalist
& professional genealogist up against a long-standing discrepancy in
the record this isn't satisfactory.
If you have never encountered contemporary and/or near-contemporary
sources that were wrong, and wrong in unison, you can't have studied
medieval history & genealogy (or indeed modern life & human ways)
even
as much as I would have given you credit for, which is little.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
That you have applied "no brains" to the question is right, but the
rest is guesswork: you CAN'T know what you are talking about, because
you haven't even looked into "ALL contemporary and near contemporary
records", but are relying on those you have found cited for other
purposes and mere assumptions about what this indicates.
I tell you once again: Pere Anselme and Leopold Delisle are not to be
trifled with. The knew vastly more than you do about the sources for
12th-century royalty in France. If they considered and rejected the
evidence you have come across, you need to do some further checking. If
you sit back and make unwarranted claims about the certainty of your
opinions without doing this, you are behaving like a self-satisfied
beginner.
And if you accuse me of bringing your mother-in-law into it, you are
barking. My remarks were all about your method - or rather lack of it -
not about your family. The current problem, that as always you brought
on yourself, is the overwheening & quite unsubstantiated claim of
finality that you attached to the dispensation without stopping to
consider what circumstances & other known (and as yet unproven)
source/s might have informed it.
Peter Stewart
Please lighten up and be collegial. I merely posted a dispensation.
It is not necessary to attack my personality, my books, my research
skills, my mother-in-law, my dog, or whatever when discussing this
one record. Please stick to discussing the facts. That will
suffice.
The facts are that ALL contemporary and near contemporary
records in France, England, and Spain indicate that Alice of
France was the daughter of Constance of Castile. I believe
this is what they call a "no brainer."
That you have applied "no brains" to the question is right, but the
rest is guesswork: you CAN'T know what you are talking about, because
you haven't even looked into "ALL contemporary and near contemporary
records", but are relying on those you have found cited for other
purposes and mere assumptions about what this indicates.
I tell you once again: Pere Anselme and Leopold Delisle are not to be
trifled with. The knew vastly more than you do about the sources for
12th-century royalty in France. If they considered and rejected the
evidence you have come across, you need to do some further checking. If
you sit back and make unwarranted claims about the certainty of your
opinions without doing this, you are behaving like a self-satisfied
beginner.
And if you accuse me of bringing your mother-in-law into it, you are
barking. My remarks were all about your method - or rather lack of it -
not about your family. The current problem, that as always you brought
on yourself, is the overwheening & quite unsubstantiated claim of
finality that you attached to the dispensation without stopping to
consider what circumstances & other known (and as yet unproven)
source/s might have informed it.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Dear Peter ~
It is not necessary to attack me personally when you are discussing the
marriage dispensation of King Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne de
Dammartin. Please keep your posts in civil and friendly. Also, once
again, I ask that you stick to the facts, and not raise side issues
that are irrelevant. Name calling and deragatory personal remarks only
damage your reputation further.
If you have a personal issue with me, I suggest you take it up with me
by private e-mail. Thank you.
Sincerely yours, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
It is not necessary to attack me personally when you are discussing the
marriage dispensation of King Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne de
Dammartin. Please keep your posts in civil and friendly. Also, once
again, I ask that you stick to the facts, and not raise side issues
that are irrelevant. Name calling and deragatory personal remarks only
damage your reputation further.
If you have a personal issue with me, I suggest you take it up with me
by private e-mail. Thank you.
Sincerely yours, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
That you have applied "no brains" to the question is right, but the
rest is guesswork: you CAN'T know what you are talking about, because
you haven't even looked into "ALL contemporary and near contemporary
records", but are relying on those you have found cited for other
purposes and mere assumptions about what this indicates.
I tell you once again: Pere Anselme and Leopold Delisle are not to be
trifled with. The knew vastly more than you do about the sources for
12th-century royalty in France. If they considered and rejected the
evidence you have come across, you need to do some further checking.
If
you sit back and make unwarranted claims about the certainty of your
opinions without doing this, you are behaving like a self-satisfied
beginner.
And if you accuse me of bringing your mother-in-law into it, you are
barking. My remarks were all about your method - or rather lack of it
-
not about your family. The current problem, that as always you
brought
on yourself, is the overwheening & quite unsubstantiated claim of
finality that you attached to the dispensation without stopping to
consider what circumstances & other known (and as yet unproven)
source/s might have informed it.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
To a very large extent, Peter Stewart just can't HELP it -- because of
that MAGGOT in his brain -- eating away inexorably, every day --
attributable to his youthful foolishness on the motorcycle at Oxford.
It makes him acerbic, dyspeptic, prone to violent outbursts, vociferous,
hyperbolic, mercurial ---- and VASTLY entertaining.
If Stewart weren't here, we'd have to INVENT or RECRUIT someone like him
in order to fill out the Peanut Gallery.
So, look at Peter Stewart as a BLESSING in disguise, a moral lesson in
the wages of sin and youthful foolishness.
"There but for the grace of God go I" is an apposite response.
Now, back to Genealogy.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110126495.029064.257090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Peter ~
|
| It is not necessary to attack me personally when you are discussing
| the marriage dispensation of King Fernando III of Castile and
| Jeanne de Dammartin. Please keep your posts civil and friendly.
| Also, once again, I ask that you stick to the facts, and not raise
| side issues that are irrelevant. Name-calling and derogatory
| personal remarks only damage your reputation further.
|
| If you have a personal issue with me, I suggest you take it up with me
| by private e-mail. Thank you.
|
| Sincerely yours, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
that MAGGOT in his brain -- eating away inexorably, every day --
attributable to his youthful foolishness on the motorcycle at Oxford.
It makes him acerbic, dyspeptic, prone to violent outbursts, vociferous,
hyperbolic, mercurial ---- and VASTLY entertaining.
If Stewart weren't here, we'd have to INVENT or RECRUIT someone like him
in order to fill out the Peanut Gallery.
So, look at Peter Stewart as a BLESSING in disguise, a moral lesson in
the wages of sin and youthful foolishness.
"There but for the grace of God go I" is an apposite response.
Now, back to Genealogy.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110126495.029064.257090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Peter ~
|
| It is not necessary to attack me personally when you are discussing
| the marriage dispensation of King Fernando III of Castile and
| Jeanne de Dammartin. Please keep your posts civil and friendly.
| Also, once again, I ask that you stick to the facts, and not raise
| side issues that are irrelevant. Name-calling and derogatory
| personal remarks only damage your reputation further.
|
| If you have a personal issue with me, I suggest you take it up with me
| by private e-mail. Thank you.
|
| Sincerely yours, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Renia
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
<chop>
No, we wouldn't. We have already have you.
Renia
<chop>
It makes him acerbic, dyspeptic, prone to violent outbursts, vociferous,
hyperbolic, mercurial ---- and VASTLY entertaining.
If Stewart weren't here, we'd have to INVENT or RECRUIT someone like him
in order to fill out the Peanut Gallery.
No, we wouldn't. We have already have you.
Renia
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Renia Medusa often gets tongue-tied -- especially when she is angry and
discombobulated.
Hilarious!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:d0fi96$jbs$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
| No, we wouldn't. We have already have you. [sic]
|
| Renia
discombobulated.
Hilarious!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:d0fi96$jbs$1@newsmaster.pub.dc.hol.net...
| No, we wouldn't. We have already have you. [sic]
|
| Renia
-
Renia
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
D. Spencer Hines often gets tongue-tied -- especially when he is angry and
discombobulated. He should see his vet about it.
Hilarious!
Renia
discombobulated. He should see his vet about it.
Hilarious!
Renia
-
Renia
Re: Dispensation -- (Maternity Of Alix Of France)
Renia wrote:
P.S. How come I apparently replied to his latest 14 minutes before he
wrote his own? Someone needs to get his clock fixed.
D. Spencer Hines often gets tongue-tied -- especially when he is angry and
discombobulated. He should see his vet about it.
Hilarious!
Renia
P.S. How come I apparently replied to his latest 14 minutes before he
wrote his own? Someone needs to get his clock fixed.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castilian connection
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message news:<1109913168.310755.319020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
Once again Richardson illustrates for us that he knows nothing of
Latin or of the sources he is so clumsily trying to use.
Whatever "Nunc as gesta Aldefonsi" may mean to Richardson, the
preposition of course is "ad", the opening words meaning "Now with
regard to the deeds of Alfonso..." Anyone attempting to learn Latin
would necessarily know this after the first few lessons.
The edition misquoted above is available online at
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?D ... NUMM-50130.
The conventional practice of scholars, trained historians and
professional genealogists is to seek out standard, dedicated & recent
editions of any sources upon which they set store. In the case of
Rodrigo el Toledano this is _Roderici Ximenii de Rada opera omnia,
pars I. Historia de rebus Hispanie, sive Historia Gothica_, edited by
Juan Fernández Valverde, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis
LXXII (Turnhout, 1987). The relevant text is as follows:
"Helisabeth nupsit Lodouico regi Francorum, ex qua genuit filiam, que
dicta fuit Adeledis et fuit uxor comitis de Pontino; et illa comitissa
genuit Mariam, que fuit mater Iohanne regine Castelle et Legionis."
Note that the archbishop of Toledo thought Constance had been named
Elizabeth and apparently that she had only one daughter by Louis VII,
on both of which points he was mistaken, as with the name of Ponthieu
(giving "Pontino", not "Pontivo")
This may be the source of information used in framing the dispensation
that Richardson was wagging at us so thoughtlessly, but it is NOT the
source that any competent historian would adduce to establish the
veracity of its contents. As I have said several times, this passage
was taken from an earlier Spanish chronicler.
If Richardson wants to make a serious attempt to get to the bottom of
this matter & provide citations professionally, he had better start by
checking the same details in Lucas de Tuy's _Chronicon mundi_. The
only edition of this I have seen, some time ago, is in _Hispaniae
illustratae_, edited by Andreas Schott, 4 vols (Frankfurt-am-Main,
1603-1608) IV p. 103. However, there is a new edition in the Corpus
Christianorum series that should be available in Salt Lake City by
now.
Peter Stewart
Dear Newsgroup ~
The specific relationship between King Fernando III of Castile and his
wife, Jeanne de Dammartin, is set forth in a Spanish text which I
posted on the newsgroup quite a while ago. For interest's sake, I've
copied the source again below. The text indicates that Jeanne de
Dammartin's great-grandmother, Constance (here called Elizabeth), wife
of King Louis VII of France, was a daughter of Alfonso VII, King of
Castile. King Alfonso VII was the great-grandfather of King Fernando
III of Castile.
Ex Roderico Toletani Archiepiscopi de Rebus Hispaniae Libris IX
"Nunc as gesta Aldefonsi (VII.) Hispaniarum Regis, prout coepimus,
revertamur ... Habuit autem duas uxores, Berengariam atque Richam; ex
Berengaria genuit Sancium et Fernandum, Elisabeth et Beatiam.
Elisabeth nupsit Ludovico (VII.) Regi Francorum, ex qua genuit filiam
quae dicta fuit Adeladis, et fuit uxor Comitis de Pontivo; et illa
Comitissa genuit Mariam, quae fuit mater Joannae Reginae Castellae et
Legionis." [Reference: Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la
France, vol. 12 (1877), pg. 383].
The above information is supported by numerous other contemporary
documents culled from other English and French sources, all of which
have been posted here on the newsgroup.
Once again Richardson illustrates for us that he knows nothing of
Latin or of the sources he is so clumsily trying to use.
Whatever "Nunc as gesta Aldefonsi" may mean to Richardson, the
preposition of course is "ad", the opening words meaning "Now with
regard to the deeds of Alfonso..." Anyone attempting to learn Latin
would necessarily know this after the first few lessons.
The edition misquoted above is available online at
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?D ... NUMM-50130.
The conventional practice of scholars, trained historians and
professional genealogists is to seek out standard, dedicated & recent
editions of any sources upon which they set store. In the case of
Rodrigo el Toledano this is _Roderici Ximenii de Rada opera omnia,
pars I. Historia de rebus Hispanie, sive Historia Gothica_, edited by
Juan Fernández Valverde, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis
LXXII (Turnhout, 1987). The relevant text is as follows:
"Helisabeth nupsit Lodouico regi Francorum, ex qua genuit filiam, que
dicta fuit Adeledis et fuit uxor comitis de Pontino; et illa comitissa
genuit Mariam, que fuit mater Iohanne regine Castelle et Legionis."
Note that the archbishop of Toledo thought Constance had been named
Elizabeth and apparently that she had only one daughter by Louis VII,
on both of which points he was mistaken, as with the name of Ponthieu
(giving "Pontino", not "Pontivo")
This may be the source of information used in framing the dispensation
that Richardson was wagging at us so thoughtlessly, but it is NOT the
source that any competent historian would adduce to establish the
veracity of its contents. As I have said several times, this passage
was taken from an earlier Spanish chronicler.
If Richardson wants to make a serious attempt to get to the bottom of
this matter & provide citations professionally, he had better start by
checking the same details in Lucas de Tuy's _Chronicon mundi_. The
only edition of this I have seen, some time ago, is in _Hispaniae
illustratae_, edited by Andreas Schott, 4 vols (Frankfurt-am-Main,
1603-1608) IV p. 103. However, there is a new edition in the Corpus
Christianorum series that should be available in Salt Lake City by
now.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castilian connection
Dear Peter ~
I know this is asking a lot. But, please do keep it friendly. The
lack of civility in your post below displays an unconscious wish to
gain undeserved attention at the expense of the rest of us newsgroup
members. This is not the place to be a drama queen, Peter. If you
have emotional issues, please see a physician.
As for specifics in your post, I note that you left off the first
sentence of the text I supplied for Archbishop Rodrigo of Toledo. Was
that deliberate, or an simple error? I've shown the first sentence
correctly in ALL my posts. Are you suppressing vital information
because it doesn't agree with your pet theories? If so, I recommend
you not do this again.
You want to try posting the text again and restore the missing
sentence? I'd appreciate it very much.
Remember - keep it collegial, and keep it on topic. And, all will go
well. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
news:<1109913168.310755.319020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
I know this is asking a lot. But, please do keep it friendly. The
lack of civility in your post below displays an unconscious wish to
gain undeserved attention at the expense of the rest of us newsgroup
members. This is not the place to be a drama queen, Peter. If you
have emotional issues, please see a physician.
As for specifics in your post, I note that you left off the first
sentence of the text I supplied for Archbishop Rodrigo of Toledo. Was
that deliberate, or an simple error? I've shown the first sentence
correctly in ALL my posts. Are you suppressing vital information
because it doesn't agree with your pet theories? If so, I recommend
you not do this again.
You want to try posting the text again and restore the missing
sentence? I'd appreciate it very much.
Remember - keep it collegial, and keep it on topic. And, all will go
well. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
wrote in message
news:<1109913168.310755.319020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
The specific relationship between King Fernando III of Castile and
his
wife, Jeanne de Dammartin, is set forth in a Spanish text which I
posted on the newsgroup quite a while ago. For interest's sake,
I've
copied the source again below. The text indicates that Jeanne de
Dammartin's great-grandmother, Constance (here called Elizabeth),
wife
of King Louis VII of France, was a daughter of Alfonso VII, King of
Castile. King Alfonso VII was the great-grandfather of King
Fernando
III of Castile.
Ex Roderico Toletani Archiepiscopi de Rebus Hispaniae Libris IX
"Nunc as gesta Aldefonsi (VII.) Hispaniarum Regis, prout coepimus,
revertamur ... Habuit autem duas uxores, Berengariam atque Richam;
ex
Berengaria genuit Sancium et Fernandum, Elisabeth et Beatiam.
Elisabeth nupsit Ludovico (VII.) Regi Francorum, ex qua genuit
filiam
quae dicta fuit Adeladis, et fuit uxor Comitis de Pontivo; et illa
Comitissa genuit Mariam, quae fuit mater Joannae Reginae Castellae
et
Legionis." [Reference: Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la
France, vol. 12 (1877), pg. 383].
The above information is supported by numerous other contemporary
documents culled from other English and French sources, all of
which
have been posted here on the newsgroup.
Once again Richardson illustrates for us that he knows nothing of
Latin or of the sources he is so clumsily trying to use.
Whatever "Nunc as gesta Aldefonsi" may mean to Richardson, the
preposition of course is "ad", the opening words meaning "Now with
regard to the deeds of Alfonso..." Anyone attempting to learn Latin
would necessarily know this after the first few lessons.
The edition misquoted above is available online at
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?D ... NUMM-50130.
The conventional practice of scholars, trained historians and
professional genealogists is to seek out standard, dedicated & recent
editions of any sources upon which they set store. In the case of
Rodrigo el Toledano this is _Roderici Ximenii de Rada opera omnia,
pars I. Historia de rebus Hispanie, sive Historia Gothica_, edited by
Juan Fernández Valverde, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio
Mediaeualis
LXXII (Turnhout, 1987). The relevant text is as follows:
"Helisabeth nupsit Lodouico regi Francorum, ex qua genuit filiam, que
dicta fuit Adeledis et fuit uxor comitis de Pontino; et illa
comitissa
genuit Mariam, que fuit mater Iohanne regine Castelle et Legionis."
Note that the archbishop of Toledo thought Constance had been named
Elizabeth and apparently that she had only one daughter by Louis VII,
on both of which points he was mistaken, as with the name of Ponthieu
(giving "Pontino", not "Pontivo")
This may be the source of information used in framing the
dispensation
that Richardson was wagging at us so thoughtlessly, but it is NOT the
source that any competent historian would adduce to establish the
veracity of its contents. As I have said several times, this passage
was taken from an earlier Spanish chronicler.
If Richardson wants to make a serious attempt to get to the bottom of
this matter & provide citations professionally, he had better start
by
checking the same details in Lucas de Tuy's _Chronicon mundi_. The
only edition of this I have seen, some time ago, is in _Hispaniae
illustratae_, edited by Andreas Schott, 4 vols (Frankfurt-am-Main,
1603-1608) IV p. 103. However, there is a new edition in the Corpus
Christianorum series that should be available in Salt Lake City by
now.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castilian connection
Douglas Richardson wrote:
<snip>
As I said, I was giving just the relevant text - this discussion is not
about Constance's father or his wives & other children, and the
material you are fretting over has no value anyway as being merely
derived from Lucas de Tuy.
No, you now have twice posted "Nunc as gesta...", which is nonsense;
and in any case this first sentence of your quotation has no particular
importance. You are fishing for me to give the whole text as it appears
in the edition I cited, to save you from looking it up yourself since I
didn't give the page reference for you to cadge.
Anyone reading your post who hasn't even followed the thread will be
able to see from the context how fathomlessly silly this suggestion is.
No, seek it out for yourself if you want it so much, though it has no
relevance whatsoever to this discussion - if done properly your
research DOESN'T start with Rodrigo el Toledano anyway, as I'm tired of
trying to get through to you. He took the name "Helisabeth", as well as
other details of the family and much besides from his fellow bishop,
Lucas de Tuy, whose work you should consult in imitation of an honest
scholar, rather than pestering me for assistance.
And I am not your colleague or friend, but only someone who replies -
exactly as you deserve - without respect.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
As for specifics in your post, I note that you left off the first
sentence of the text I supplied for Archbishop Rodrigo of
Toledo. Was that deliberate, or an simple error?
As I said, I was giving just the relevant text - this discussion is not
about Constance's father or his wives & other children, and the
material you are fretting over has no value anyway as being merely
derived from Lucas de Tuy.
I've shown the first sentence correctly in ALL my posts.
No, you now have twice posted "Nunc as gesta...", which is nonsense;
and in any case this first sentence of your quotation has no particular
importance. You are fishing for me to give the whole text as it appears
in the edition I cited, to save you from looking it up yourself since I
didn't give the page reference for you to cadge.
Are you suppressing vital information because it doesn't agree with
your pet theories? If so, I recommend you not do this again.
Anyone reading your post who hasn't even followed the thread will be
able to see from the context how fathomlessly silly this suggestion is.
You want to try posting the text again and restore the missing
sentence? I'd appreciate it very much.
No, seek it out for yourself if you want it so much, though it has no
relevance whatsoever to this discussion - if done properly your
research DOESN'T start with Rodrigo el Toledano anyway, as I'm tired of
trying to get through to you. He took the name "Helisabeth", as well as
other details of the family and much besides from his fellow bishop,
Lucas de Tuy, whose work you should consult in imitation of an honest
scholar, rather than pestering me for assistance.
And I am not your colleague or friend, but only someone who replies -
exactly as you deserve - without respect.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castilian connection
I know this is asking a lot. But, please do keep it friendly. The
lack of civility in your post below displays an unconscious wish to
gain undeserved attention at the expense of the rest of us newsgroup
members. This is not the place to be a ***drama queen, Peter.*** If ***you
have emotional issues***, please see a physician.
I think most on the list are desiring civility in their posts.
I have heard this noble sentiment and I suspect you
are hearing it as well. It would help if you (and others
desiring the same goal) did not request a civil response
the same time you are giving more underhanded attacks
(note my asterisks). Civility breeds civility (the opposite
applies as well). Please take this post as the former
as I am hoping to conform to the group's wishes.
Best wishes!
Peter
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castilian connection
In message of 7 Mar, 7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca ("Peter A. Kincaid") wrote:
<Removes scholarly hat>
Surely this is all a bit like Sumo Wrestling, with giants leaping about
thumping on the stage? And we can be hugely entertained by wondering
who is going to squash the latest gnat and how, not to mention the
creative language involved. I enjoy a good belly laugh anyhow.
<Replaces scholarly hat>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I know this is asking a lot. But, please do keep it friendly. The
lack of civility in your post below displays an unconscious wish to
gain undeserved attention at the expense of the rest of us newsgroup
members. This is not the place to be a ***drama queen, Peter.***
If ***you have emotional issues***, please see a physician.
I think most on the list are desiring civility in their posts.
I have heard this noble sentiment and I suspect you
are hearing it as well. It would help if you (and others
desiring the same goal) did not request a civil response
the same time you are giving more underhanded attacks
(note my asterisks). Civility breeds civility (the opposite
applies as well). Please take this post as the former
as I am hoping to conform to the group's wishes.
<Removes scholarly hat>
Surely this is all a bit like Sumo Wrestling, with giants leaping about
thumping on the stage? And we can be hugely entertained by wondering
who is going to squash the latest gnat and how, not to mention the
creative language involved. I enjoy a good belly laugh anyhow.
<Replaces scholarly hat>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castillian Connection
More "Gotcha Genealogy" from Peter Stewart.
Shameful!
Any honest, straightforward, competent person does not quote something
without citing the source.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110190423.285260.283580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| ...You are fishing for me to give the whole text as it appears
| in the edition I cited, to save you from looking it up yourself since
| I didn't give the page reference for you to cadge.
Shameful!
Any honest, straightforward, competent person does not quote something
without citing the source.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110190423.285260.283580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| ...You are fishing for me to give the whole text as it appears
| in the edition I cited, to save you from looking it up yourself since
| I didn't give the page reference for you to cadge.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castillian Connection
More "Gotcha Genealogy" from Peter Stewart.
Shameful!
Any honest, straightforward, competent person does not quote something
without providing a complete citation.
A high-school kid writing his first paper should know that and comply --
but not Peter Stewart.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110190423.285260.283580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| ...You are fishing for me to give the whole text as it appears
| in the edition I cited, to save you from looking it up yourself since
| I didn't give the page reference for you to cadge.
Shameful!
Any honest, straightforward, competent person does not quote something
without providing a complete citation.
A high-school kid writing his first paper should know that and comply --
but not Peter Stewart.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1110190423.285260.283580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| ...You are fishing for me to give the whole text as it appears
| in the edition I cited, to save you from looking it up yourself since
| I didn't give the page reference for you to cadge.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castillian Connection
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Um, I didn't quote anything without citing the source - so that no
"gotcha" opportunity is available or was ever contemplated. Do you
suppose that Richardson can't use an index or otherwise locate a
passage for himself when directed to a particular book?
Once again for the Hawaiian dim-wit, who clearly can't tell what is
going on in front of him: I am trying to coach Richardson in the basic
discipline of evaluating his sources.
I am trying to get him to check these, and left out a page reference
from a perfectly adequate citation in the first instance so that he
can't coast on the quoted text & simply filch the citation (a
longstanding & indeed shameful habit of his, as all SGM readers ought
to realise) without checking further; and I gave no quotation at all
from the second, Lucas de Tuy, where much of the information originated
but which Richardson has mulishly neglected altogether.
The first source was cited above my quotation from it, Spencer, but for
your sole benefit I repeat: _Roderici Ximenii de Rada opera omnia,
pars I. Historia de rebus Hispanie, sive Historia Gothica_, edited by
Juan Fernández Valverde, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis
LXXII (Turnhout, 1987).
Peter Stewart
More "Gotcha Genealogy" from Peter Stewart.
Shameful!
Any honest, straightforward, competent person does not
quote something without citing the source.
Um, I didn't quote anything without citing the source - so that no
"gotcha" opportunity is available or was ever contemplated. Do you
suppose that Richardson can't use an index or otherwise locate a
passage for himself when directed to a particular book?
Once again for the Hawaiian dim-wit, who clearly can't tell what is
going on in front of him: I am trying to coach Richardson in the basic
discipline of evaluating his sources.
I am trying to get him to check these, and left out a page reference
from a perfectly adequate citation in the first instance so that he
can't coast on the quoted text & simply filch the citation (a
longstanding & indeed shameful habit of his, as all SGM readers ought
to realise) without checking further; and I gave no quotation at all
from the second, Lucas de Tuy, where much of the information originated
but which Richardson has mulishly neglected altogether.
The first source was cited above my quotation from it, Spencer, but for
your sole benefit I repeat: _Roderici Ximenii de Rada opera omnia,
pars I. Historia de rebus Hispanie, sive Historia Gothica_, edited by
Juan Fernández Valverde, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis
LXXII (Turnhout, 1987).
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Jeanne de Dammartin's Castillian Connection
Spencer Hines wrote
Spencer's revision of his initial frothing at the mouth at least shows
that he may not be quite not as thick-skinned about his follies as
Richardson.
My post in reply to the first effort appears to have gone missing, so I
shall copy it below, adding only that SGM readers can judge for
themselves whether I am more or less scrupulous than others when it
comes to providing and citing sources. Spencer Hines, on the other
hand, rarely offers any solid information to back up his erratic
opinions, and usually comes unstuck when he tries.
The earlier post mentioned above was as follows:
Um, I didn't quote anything without citing the source - so that no
"gotcha" opportunity is available or was ever contemplated. Do you
suppose that Richardson can't use an index or otherwise locate a
passage for himself when directed to a particular book?
Once again for the Hawaiian dim-wit, who clearly can't tell what is
going on in front of him: I am trying to coach Richardson in the basic
discipline of evaluating his sources.
I am trying to get him to check these, and left out a page reference
from a perfectly adequate citation in the first instance so that he
can't coast on the quoted text & simply filch the citation (a
longstanding & shameful habit of his, as all SGM readers ought to
realise) without checking further; and I gave no quotation at all from
the second, Lucas de Tuy, where much of the information originated but
which Richardson has mulishly neglected altogether.
The first source was cited above my quotation from it, Spencer, but for
your sole benefit I repeat: _Roderici Ximenii de Rada opera omnia, pars
I. Historia de rebus Hispanie, sive Historia Gothica_, edited by Juan
Fernández Valverde, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis
LXXII (Turnhout, 1987).
Peter Stewart
More "Gotcha Genealogy" from Peter Stewart.
Shameful!
Any honest, straightforward, competent person does not quote
something without providing a complete citation.
A high-school kid writing his first paper should know that and
comply -- but not Peter Stewart.
Spencer's revision of his initial frothing at the mouth at least shows
that he may not be quite not as thick-skinned about his follies as
Richardson.
My post in reply to the first effort appears to have gone missing, so I
shall copy it below, adding only that SGM readers can judge for
themselves whether I am more or less scrupulous than others when it
comes to providing and citing sources. Spencer Hines, on the other
hand, rarely offers any solid information to back up his erratic
opinions, and usually comes unstuck when he tries.
The earlier post mentioned above was as follows:
Um, I didn't quote anything without citing the source - so that no
"gotcha" opportunity is available or was ever contemplated. Do you
suppose that Richardson can't use an index or otherwise locate a
passage for himself when directed to a particular book?
Once again for the Hawaiian dim-wit, who clearly can't tell what is
going on in front of him: I am trying to coach Richardson in the basic
discipline of evaluating his sources.
I am trying to get him to check these, and left out a page reference
from a perfectly adequate citation in the first instance so that he
can't coast on the quoted text & simply filch the citation (a
longstanding & shameful habit of his, as all SGM readers ought to
realise) without checking further; and I gave no quotation at all from
the second, Lucas de Tuy, where much of the information originated but
which Richardson has mulishly neglected altogether.
The first source was cited above my quotation from it, Spencer, but for
your sole benefit I repeat: _Roderici Ximenii de Rada opera omnia, pars
I. Historia de rebus Hispanie, sive Historia Gothica_, edited by Juan
Fernández Valverde, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis
LXXII (Turnhout, 1987).
Peter Stewart