Wife of Stephen Gay/Gai
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Wife of Stephen Gay/Gai
I find conflicting information regarding the wife of Stephen de Gay,
father of Philip who m. Cecily. Doug Richardson (18 Dec 2002) states
that she was Aline, daughter and heiress of Walter Pipard, formerly
wife of John Marshall, Hereditary Master Marshall of England.
Keats-Rohan (DD p 1029) states that John Marshall "repudiated his
first wife Adelicia or Aline abt. 1141 (possibly the daughter of Walter
Pipard). She had previously married Stephen Gay (see D. Crouch,
'Robert of Gloucester's mother', Historical Research 72, 1999,
326-7)."
The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117."
CP says, " He [John Marshall] m., 1stly Aline, who may have been the
da. and h. of Walter Pipard. He is said to have repudiated her circa
1141......." Footnote a: "This marriage to the daughter of Walter
Pipard, a minor Wiltshire Baron, is stated as a fact by Painter,
William Marshall, p 4; but this seems a rash deduction from the fact
that John paid 30 marks for Walter's land and daughter (ref: Pipe
Roll, 31 Hen. I, p 18; cf PIPARD [which I don't have]); for his son
William did not marry the Lancaster heiress granted him by the King;
cf. PEMBROKE."
It does not appear from these sources that the identity of Aline is
firmly determined.
If Aline and Stephen Gay didn't marry until 1144/5, she would not be
the mother of Philip, who was born before 1117 according to Crouch.
Have these discrepancies been resolved?
Thanks. Mardi
father of Philip who m. Cecily. Doug Richardson (18 Dec 2002) states
that she was Aline, daughter and heiress of Walter Pipard, formerly
wife of John Marshall, Hereditary Master Marshall of England.
Keats-Rohan (DD p 1029) states that John Marshall "repudiated his
first wife Adelicia or Aline abt. 1141 (possibly the daughter of Walter
Pipard). She had previously married Stephen Gay (see D. Crouch,
'Robert of Gloucester's mother', Historical Research 72, 1999,
326-7)."
The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117."
CP says, " He [John Marshall] m., 1stly Aline, who may have been the
da. and h. of Walter Pipard. He is said to have repudiated her circa
1141......." Footnote a: "This marriage to the daughter of Walter
Pipard, a minor Wiltshire Baron, is stated as a fact by Painter,
William Marshall, p 4; but this seems a rash deduction from the fact
that John paid 30 marks for Walter's land and daughter (ref: Pipe
Roll, 31 Hen. I, p 18; cf PIPARD [which I don't have]); for his son
William did not marry the Lancaster heiress granted him by the King;
cf. PEMBROKE."
It does not appear from these sources that the identity of Aline is
firmly determined.
If Aline and Stephen Gay didn't marry until 1144/5, she would not be
the mother of Philip, who was born before 1117 according to Crouch.
Have these discrepancies been resolved?
Thanks. Mardi
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Wife of Stephen Gay/Gai
Dear Mardi ~
How about we tackle this one issue at a time. Let's start with
chronology. We'll use three different measures.
l. Based on what we know of the chronology of Aline de Gay, wife of Sir
Alan Basset, what date would you estimate her father Philip de Gay to
be born? 1145 or before 1117?
2. Philip de Gay shows up as an adult in the 1170's. Again, what date
would you estimate him to be born? 1145 or before 1117?
3. Aline Basset, wife of Hugh le Despenser, was the great-granddaughter
and heiress of Philip de Gay. I assume she was born about 1230, as her
husband was born in or before 1223. If we use the 85 year rule of
thumb for three generations, we should be able to subtract 85 years
from Aline Basset's birth and arrive at the approximate birthdate for
Philip de Gay. What date do you get? 1145 or before 1117?
These estimates should be easy for you to make if you have been
following my posts.
Once you have made these three estimates, what does this do to your
opinion of the Crouch article or Keats-Rohan? What does that tell you
about historians? What is our recourse?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
How about we tackle this one issue at a time. Let's start with
chronology. We'll use three different measures.
l. Based on what we know of the chronology of Aline de Gay, wife of Sir
Alan Basset, what date would you estimate her father Philip de Gay to
be born? 1145 or before 1117?
2. Philip de Gay shows up as an adult in the 1170's. Again, what date
would you estimate him to be born? 1145 or before 1117?
3. Aline Basset, wife of Hugh le Despenser, was the great-granddaughter
and heiress of Philip de Gay. I assume she was born about 1230, as her
husband was born in or before 1223. If we use the 85 year rule of
thumb for three generations, we should be able to subtract 85 years
from Aline Basset's birth and arrive at the approximate birthdate for
Philip de Gay. What date do you get? 1145 or before 1117?
These estimates should be easy for you to make if you have been
following my posts.
Once you have made these three estimates, what does this do to your
opinion of the Crouch article or Keats-Rohan? What does that tell you
about historians? What is our recourse?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
I find conflicting information regarding the wife of Stephen de Gay,
father of Philip who m. Cecily. Doug Richardson (18 Dec 2002) states
that she was Aline, daughter and heiress of Walter Pipard, formerly
wife of John Marshall, Hereditary Master Marshall of England.
Keats-Rohan (DD p 1029) states that John Marshall "repudiated his
first wife Adelicia or Aline abt. 1141 (possibly the daughter of
Walter
Pipard). She had previously married Stephen Gay (see D. Crouch,
'Robert of Gloucester's mother', Historical Research 72, 1999,
326-7)."
The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and
presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117."
CP says, " He [John Marshall] m., 1stly Aline, who may have been the
da. and h. of Walter Pipard. He is said to have repudiated her circa
1141......." Footnote a: "This marriage to the daughter of Walter
Pipard, a minor Wiltshire Baron, is stated as a fact by Painter,
William Marshall, p 4; but this seems a rash deduction from the fact
that John paid 30 marks for Walter's land and daughter (ref: Pipe
Roll, 31 Hen. I, p 18; cf PIPARD [which I don't have]); for his son
William did not marry the Lancaster heiress granted him by the King;
cf. PEMBROKE."
It does not appear from these sources that the identity of Aline is
firmly determined.
If Aline and Stephen Gay didn't marry until 1144/5, she would not be
the mother of Philip, who was born before 1117 according to Crouch.
Have these discrepancies been resolved?
Thanks. Mardi
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Chronology of Philip de Gay
Dear Mardi ~
How about we tackle this one issue at a time. Let's start with
chronology. We'll use three different measures.
l. Based on what we know of the chronology of Aline de Gay, wife of Sir
Alan Basset, what date would you estimate her father Philip de Gay to
be born? 1145 or before 1117?
2. Philip de Gay shows up as an adult in the late 1170's. Again, what
date
would you estimate him to be born? 1145 or before 1117?
3. Aline Basset, wife of Hugh le Despenser, was the great-granddaughter
and heiress of Philip de Gay. I assume she was born about 1230, as her
husband was born in or before 1223. If we use the 85 year rule of
thumb for three generations, we should be able to subtract 85 years
from Aline Basset's birth and arrive at the approximate birthdate for
Philip de Gay. What date do you get? 1145 or before 1117?
These estimates should be easy for you to make if you have been
following my posts.
Once you have made these three estimates, what does this do to your
opinion of the Crouch article or Keats-Rohan? What does that tell us
about modern historians? What is our recourse?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
How about we tackle this one issue at a time. Let's start with
chronology. We'll use three different measures.
l. Based on what we know of the chronology of Aline de Gay, wife of Sir
Alan Basset, what date would you estimate her father Philip de Gay to
be born? 1145 or before 1117?
2. Philip de Gay shows up as an adult in the late 1170's. Again, what
date
would you estimate him to be born? 1145 or before 1117?
3. Aline Basset, wife of Hugh le Despenser, was the great-granddaughter
and heiress of Philip de Gay. I assume she was born about 1230, as her
husband was born in or before 1223. If we use the 85 year rule of
thumb for three generations, we should be able to subtract 85 years
from Aline Basset's birth and arrive at the approximate birthdate for
Philip de Gay. What date do you get? 1145 or before 1117?
These estimates should be easy for you to make if you have been
following my posts.
Once you have made these three estimates, what does this do to your
opinion of the Crouch article or Keats-Rohan? What does that tell us
about modern historians? What is our recourse?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
I find conflicting information regarding the wife of Stephen de Gay,
father of Philip who m. Cecily. Doug Richardson (18 Dec 2002) states
that she was Aline, daughter and heiress of Walter Pipard, formerly
wife of John Marshall, Hereditary Master Marshall of England.
Keats-Rohan (DD p 1029) states that John Marshall "repudiated his
first wife Adelicia or Aline abt. 1141 (possibly the daughter of
Walter
Pipard). She had previously married Stephen Gay (see D. Crouch,
'Robert of Gloucester's mother', Historical Research 72, 1999,
326-7)."
The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and
presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117."
CP says, " He [John Marshall] m., 1stly Aline, who may have been the
da. and h. of Walter Pipard. He is said to have repudiated her circa
1141......." Footnote a: "This marriage to the daughter of Walter
Pipard, a minor Wiltshire Baron, is stated as a fact by Painter,
William Marshall, p 4; but this seems a rash deduction from the fact
that John paid 30 marks for Walter's land and daughter (ref: Pipe
Roll, 31 Hen. I, p 18; cf PIPARD [which I don't have]); for his son
William did not marry the Lancaster heiress granted him by the King;
cf. PEMBROKE."
It does not appear from these sources that the identity of Aline is
firmly determined.
If Aline and Stephen Gay didn't marry until 1144/5, she would not be
the mother of Philip, who was born before 1117 according to Crouch.
Have these discrepancies been resolved?
Thanks. Mardi
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay (and a DD Correction)
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
When you obviously think you know the answer and she apparently missed
it, why not tell her rather than asking her? (After all, given the
vagueries of internet propagation and archiving, let alone the demands
on those of us with 'real lives', one cannot assume that another
participant has read one's entire posting history.)
You cannot estimate age based on a single vague appearance date. (Or by
"shows up" do you mean "first appears" - even so, you have not provided
sufficient information here to allow an accurate evaluation.)
It is sort of begging the question to arbitrarily intentionally make
Aline 7 years younger than her husband so that when you subtract the
inexact 85 years of your rule of thumb you get exactly the date you are
aiming for. (Hmm, if we add 85 to 1145 we get 1230, so let's estimate
she was born in 1230 and see what we get when we subtract 85 from 1230 .
.. . . I wonder . . . .) This is trying too hard by half. (Or is
assuming brides are exactly about 7 years younger than their husbands
another unstated rule of thumb?)
I seem to recall it being argued here how unfair it is to evaluate an
author based on a problem with a single entry within a large
compilation, rather than taking the sum total of the work into account.
It seems that consideration is not being afforded Dr. Keats-Rohan here.
That modern historians, (ranging from trained historians and
genealogists to amateur enthusiasts) are not free from error, and should
not try to convince others or themselves otherwise.
Well, one could investigate the situation, looking at available
references and pointing out the discrepencies in order to make others
aware, thereby engendering discussion and hopefully resolution, as Marti
did. One could likewise provide useful answers when someone else asks
such a question.
You might want to also look at DD under "Pipard, Filia Walteri", p.
1076, "Gai, Adelicia Uxor Stephani", and "Gai, Stephan", p. 991, where
in each case she is said to have married John first and Stephen second.
It would seem that you have happenned upon the odd man out.
Unfortunately, we can never tell if one was a simple error, or a
correction that did not get fully propagated through all relevant
entires. Given, though, that she cites here a source that states the
opposite, it would appear that the Marshall entry is simply erroneous in
this regard. As this is the only conflict, this seemingly resolves the
issue of the marriage order.
Which last appears to be at odds with the chronology presented above -
is any reference given by Crouch for this date?
Note that Keats-Rohan is also cautious about this parentage in the
Pipard entry, and says nothing about her parentage in either Gai entry
taf
Dear Mardi ~
How about we tackle this one issue at a time. Let's start with
chronology. We'll use three different measures.
l. Based on what we know of the chronology of Aline de Gay, wife of Sir
Alan Basset, what date would you estimate her father Philip de Gay to
be born? 1145 or before 1117?
When you obviously think you know the answer and she apparently missed
it, why not tell her rather than asking her? (After all, given the
vagueries of internet propagation and archiving, let alone the demands
on those of us with 'real lives', one cannot assume that another
participant has read one's entire posting history.)
2. Philip de Gay shows up as an adult in the late 1170's. Again, what
date
would you estimate him to be born? 1145 or before 1117?
You cannot estimate age based on a single vague appearance date. (Or by
"shows up" do you mean "first appears" - even so, you have not provided
sufficient information here to allow an accurate evaluation.)
3. Aline Basset, wife of Hugh le Despenser, was the great-granddaughter
and heiress of Philip de Gay. I assume she was born about 1230, as her
husband was born in or before 1223. If we use the 85 year rule of
thumb for three generations, we should be able to subtract 85 years
from Aline Basset's birth and arrive at the approximate birthdate for
Philip de Gay. What date do you get? 1145 or before 1117?
It is sort of begging the question to arbitrarily intentionally make
Aline 7 years younger than her husband so that when you subtract the
inexact 85 years of your rule of thumb you get exactly the date you are
aiming for. (Hmm, if we add 85 to 1145 we get 1230, so let's estimate
she was born in 1230 and see what we get when we subtract 85 from 1230 .
.. . . I wonder . . . .) This is trying too hard by half. (Or is
assuming brides are exactly about 7 years younger than their husbands
another unstated rule of thumb?)
Once you have made these three estimates, what does this do to your
opinion of the Crouch article or Keats-Rohan?
I seem to recall it being argued here how unfair it is to evaluate an
author based on a problem with a single entry within a large
compilation, rather than taking the sum total of the work into account.
It seems that consideration is not being afforded Dr. Keats-Rohan here.
What does that tell us
about modern historians?
That modern historians, (ranging from trained historians and
genealogists to amateur enthusiasts) are not free from error, and should
not try to convince others or themselves otherwise.
What is our recourse?
Well, one could investigate the situation, looking at available
references and pointing out the discrepencies in order to make others
aware, thereby engendering discussion and hopefully resolution, as Marti
did. One could likewise provide useful answers when someone else asks
such a question.
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
I find conflicting information regarding the wife of Stephen de Gay,
father of Philip who m. Cecily. Doug Richardson (18 Dec 2002) states
that she was Aline, daughter and heiress of Walter Pipard, formerly
wife of John Marshall, Hereditary Master Marshall of England.
Keats-Rohan (DD p 1029) states that John Marshall "repudiated his
first wife Adelicia or Aline abt. 1141 (possibly the daughter of
Walter
Pipard). She had previously married Stephen Gay (see D. Crouch,
'Robert of Gloucester's mother', Historical Research 72, 1999,
326-7)."
You might want to also look at DD under "Pipard, Filia Walteri", p.
1076, "Gai, Adelicia Uxor Stephani", and "Gai, Stephan", p. 991, where
in each case she is said to have married John first and Stephen second.
It would seem that you have happenned upon the odd man out.
Unfortunately, we can never tell if one was a simple error, or a
correction that did not get fully propagated through all relevant
entires. Given, though, that she cites here a source that states the
opposite, it would appear that the Marshall entry is simply erroneous in
this regard. As this is the only conflict, this seemingly resolves the
issue of the marriage order.
The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and
presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117."
Which last appears to be at odds with the chronology presented above -
is any reference given by Crouch for this date?
CP says, " He [John Marshall] m., 1stly Aline, who may have been the
da. and h. of Walter Pipard. He is said to have repudiated her circa
1141......." Footnote a: "This marriage to the daughter of Walter
Pipard, a minor Wiltshire Baron, is stated as a fact by Painter,
William Marshall, p 4; but this seems a rash deduction from the fact
that John paid 30 marks for Walter's land and daughter (ref: Pipe
Roll, 31 Hen. I, p 18; cf PIPARD [which I don't have]); for his son
William did not marry the Lancaster heiress granted him by the King;
cf. PEMBROKE."
It does not appear from these sources that the identity of Aline is
firmly determined.
Note that Keats-Rohan is also cautious about this parentage in the
Pipard entry, and says nothing about her parentage in either Gai entry
taf
-
Louise Staley
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay (and a DD Correction)
See below
According to a report of the IPMs of Philip Basset in 1271, Aline was
said to be anything between 30 and more (born in or before 1241) and 22
and more (so born in or before 1249). This is from Carl Boyer in
"Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans" as reported by Mike
Lysell in a post-em to Jim Weber's Rootsweb database (see person ID I03322).
I am therefore curious as to where the suggestion Aline was born in 1230
comes from. Is there a source for this?
<snip>
The question over the identity of Aline as a Pipard does not appear to
have been addressed in any of the three measures put forward by Douglas
to resolve Mardi's questions. It seems CP and Keats Rohan are not
certain she was the daughter of Walter Pipard yet Douglas is. This would
seem to be a worthwhile question to ask and one to which no answer has
been suggested.
Louise
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Mardi ~
How about we tackle this one issue at a time. Let's start with
chronology. We'll use three different measures.
l. Based on what we know of the chronology of Aline de Gay, wife of Sir
Alan Basset, what date would you estimate her father Philip de Gay to
be born? 1145 or before 1117?
When you obviously think you know the answer and she apparently missed
it, why not tell her rather than asking her? (After all, given the
vagueries of internet propagation and archiving, let alone the demands
on those of us with 'real lives', one cannot assume that another
participant has read one's entire posting history.)
2. Philip de Gay shows up as an adult in the late 1170's. Again, what
date
would you estimate him to be born? 1145 or before 1117?
You cannot estimate age based on a single vague appearance date. (Or by
"shows up" do you mean "first appears" - even so, you have not provided
sufficient information here to allow an accurate evaluation.)
3. Aline Basset, wife of Hugh le Despenser, was the great-granddaughter
and heiress of Philip de Gay. I assume she was born about 1230, as her
husband was born in or before 1223. If we use the 85 year rule of
thumb for three generations, we should be able to subtract 85 years
from Aline Basset's birth and arrive at the approximate birthdate for
Philip de Gay. What date do you get? 1145 or before 1117?
It is sort of begging the question to arbitrarily intentionally make
Aline 7 years younger than her husband so that when you subtract the
inexact 85 years of your rule of thumb you get exactly the date you are
aiming for. (Hmm, if we add 85 to 1145 we get 1230, so let's estimate
she was born in 1230 and see what we get when we subtract 85 from 1230 .
. . . I wonder . . . .) This is trying too hard by half. (Or is
assuming brides are exactly about 7 years younger than their husbands
another unstated rule of thumb?)
According to a report of the IPMs of Philip Basset in 1271, Aline was
said to be anything between 30 and more (born in or before 1241) and 22
and more (so born in or before 1249). This is from Carl Boyer in
"Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans" as reported by Mike
Lysell in a post-em to Jim Weber's Rootsweb database (see person ID I03322).
I am therefore curious as to where the suggestion Aline was born in 1230
comes from. Is there a source for this?
Once you have made these three estimates, what does this do to your
opinion of the Crouch article or Keats-Rohan?
I seem to recall it being argued here how unfair it is to evaluate an
author based on a problem with a single entry within a large
compilation, rather than taking the sum total of the work into account.
It seems that consideration is not being afforded Dr. Keats-Rohan here.
What does that tell us
about modern historians?
That modern historians, (ranging from trained historians and
genealogists to amateur enthusiasts) are not free from error, and should
not try to convince others or themselves otherwise.
What is our recourse?
Well, one could investigate the situation, looking at available
references and pointing out the discrepencies in order to make others
aware, thereby engendering discussion and hopefully resolution, as Marti
did. One could likewise provide useful answers when someone else asks
such a question.
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
It does not appear from these sources that the identity of Aline is
firmly determined.
The question over the identity of Aline as a Pipard does not appear to
have been addressed in any of the three measures put forward by Douglas
to resolve Mardi's questions. It seems CP and Keats Rohan are not
certain she was the daughter of Walter Pipard yet Douglas is. This would
seem to be a worthwhile question to ask and one to which no answer has
been suggested.
Note that Keats-Rohan is also cautious about this parentage in the
Pipard entry, and says nothing about her parentage in either Gai entry
taf
Louise
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
Dear Mr. Farmerie ~
Mardi politely asked if it was possible to resolve obvious
discrepancies she found in the published sources regarding the
chronology and parentage of Philip de Gay. I suggested she examine
Philip de Gay's own chronology, that of his daughter, and his
great-grandgranddaughter. This is standard research technique for work
in this time period. My suggestions were specifically directed to
Mardi, not to you. Please let her answer for herself.
Now, Mardi, where we were? Please continue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Mardi politely asked if it was possible to resolve obvious
discrepancies she found in the published sources regarding the
chronology and parentage of Philip de Gay. I suggested she examine
Philip de Gay's own chronology, that of his daughter, and his
great-grandgranddaughter. This is standard research technique for work
in this time period. My suggestions were specifically directed to
Mardi, not to you. Please let her answer for herself.
Now, Mardi, where we were? Please continue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Mardi ~
How about we tackle this one issue at a time. Let's start with
chronology. We'll use three different measures.
l. Based on what we know of the chronology of Aline de Gay, wife of
Sir
Alan Basset, what date would you estimate her father Philip de Gay
to
be born? 1145 or before 1117?
When you obviously think you know the answer and she apparently
missed
it, why not tell her rather than asking her? (After all, given the
vagueries of internet propagation and archiving, let alone the
demands
on those of us with 'real lives', one cannot assume that another
participant has read one's entire posting history.)
2. Philip de Gay shows up as an adult in the late 1170's. Again,
what
date
would you estimate him to be born? 1145 or before 1117?
You cannot estimate age based on a single vague appearance date. (Or
by
"shows up" do you mean "first appears" - even so, you have not
provided
sufficient information here to allow an accurate evaluation.)
3. Aline Basset, wife of Hugh le Despenser, was the
great-granddaughter
and heiress of Philip de Gay. I assume she was born about 1230, as
her
husband was born in or before 1223. If we use the 85 year rule of
thumb for three generations, we should be able to subtract 85 years
from Aline Basset's birth and arrive at the approximate birthdate
for
Philip de Gay. What date do you get? 1145 or before 1117?
It is sort of begging the question to arbitrarily intentionally make
Aline 7 years younger than her husband so that when you subtract the
inexact 85 years of your rule of thumb you get exactly the date you
are
aiming for. (Hmm, if we add 85 to 1145 we get 1230, so let's
estimate
she was born in 1230 and see what we get when we subtract 85 from
1230 .
. . . I wonder . . . .) This is trying too hard by half. (Or is
assuming brides are exactly about 7 years younger than their husbands
another unstated rule of thumb?)
Once you have made these three estimates, what does this do to your
opinion of the Crouch article or Keats-Rohan?
I seem to recall it being argued here how unfair it is to evaluate an
author based on a problem with a single entry within a large
compilation, rather than taking the sum total of the work into
account.
It seems that consideration is not being afforded Dr. Keats-Rohan
here.
What does that tell us
about modern historians?
That modern historians, (ranging from trained historians and
genealogists to amateur enthusiasts) are not free from error, and
should
not try to convince others or themselves otherwise.
What is our recourse?
Well, one could investigate the situation, looking at available
references and pointing out the discrepencies in order to make others
aware, thereby engendering discussion and hopefully resolution, as
Marti
did. One could likewise provide useful answers when someone else
asks
such a question.
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
I find conflicting information regarding the wife of Stephen de
Gay,
father of Philip who m. Cecily. Doug Richardson (18 Dec 2002)
states
that she was Aline, daughter and heiress of Walter Pipard, formerly
wife of John Marshall, Hereditary Master Marshall of England.
Keats-Rohan (DD p 1029) states that John Marshall "repudiated his
first wife Adelicia or Aline abt. 1141 (possibly the daughter of
Walter
Pipard). She had previously married Stephen Gay (see D. Crouch,
'Robert of Gloucester's mother', Historical Research 72, 1999,
326-7)."
You might want to also look at DD under "Pipard, Filia Walteri", p.
1076, "Gai, Adelicia Uxor Stephani", and "Gai, Stephan", p. 991,
where
in each case she is said to have married John first and Stephen
second.
It would seem that you have happenned upon the odd man out.
Unfortunately, we can never tell if one was a simple error, or a
correction that did not get fully propagated through all relevant
entires. Given, though, that she cites here a source that states the
opposite, it would appear that the Marshall entry is simply erroneous
in
this regard. As this is the only conflict, this seemingly resolves
the
issue of the marriage order.
The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and
presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117."
Which last appears to be at odds with the chronology presented above
-
is any reference given by Crouch for this date?
CP says, " He [John Marshall] m., 1stly Aline, who may have been
the
da. and h. of Walter Pipard. He is said to have repudiated her
circa
1141......." Footnote a: "This marriage to the daughter of Walter
Pipard, a minor Wiltshire Baron, is stated as a fact by Painter,
William Marshall, p 4; but this seems a rash deduction from the
fact
that John paid 30 marks for Walter's land and daughter (ref: Pipe
Roll, 31 Hen. I, p 18; cf PIPARD [which I don't have]); for his son
William did not marry the Lancaster heiress granted him by the
King;
cf. PEMBROKE."
It does not appear from these sources that the identity of Aline is
firmly determined.
Note that Keats-Rohan is also cautious about this parentage in the
Pipard entry, and says nothing about her parentage in either Gai
entry
taf
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay (and a DD Correction)
Dear Louise ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
Complete Peerage doesn't give a birthdate for Aline Basset. It only
states that her husband, Hugh le Despenser, was born "in or before
1223," and that they married "in or before 1260." [Reference: C.P., 4
(1916): 259-261 (sub Despenser)]. I likewise have Paget's Baronage
account of the Basset family of Wycombe, Buckinghamshire in front of
me. He likewise provides no birthdate for Aline Basset.
The 1230 date of birth I offered for Aline Basset in my post was
intended to be an approximate date only. If you have better
particulars, such as the IPM of her father, that's wonderful. If Aline
was 30 and more in 1271, that would peg her birth as being 1231/41. In
any case, your offering appears to be a new addition for the Despenser
account in Complete Peerage. This should be of keen interest to Chris
Phillips.
In any event, either 1230 or 1231/41 should work for Mardi's purposes
to resolve the discrepancies in the earlier Gay family chronology.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
Complete Peerage doesn't give a birthdate for Aline Basset. It only
states that her husband, Hugh le Despenser, was born "in or before
1223," and that they married "in or before 1260." [Reference: C.P., 4
(1916): 259-261 (sub Despenser)]. I likewise have Paget's Baronage
account of the Basset family of Wycombe, Buckinghamshire in front of
me. He likewise provides no birthdate for Aline Basset.
The 1230 date of birth I offered for Aline Basset in my post was
intended to be an approximate date only. If you have better
particulars, such as the IPM of her father, that's wonderful. If Aline
was 30 and more in 1271, that would peg her birth as being 1231/41. In
any case, your offering appears to be a new addition for the Despenser
account in Complete Peerage. This should be of keen interest to Chris
Phillips.
In any event, either 1230 or 1231/41 should work for Mardi's purposes
to resolve the discrepancies in the earlier Gay family chronology.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Private letters in a public place - was Chronology of Philip
In message of 28 Apr, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
I think this is bad reasoning. If you publish a letter in a public
place, then you are addressing it to all to see and comment on. If you
really wish to specifically address a letter to one person, you should
write to them privately.
Mind you I think that addressing a note to a person and then putting it
on a newsgroup for the world and its oyster to digest is a bit of a
nonsense in the first place. It all gives the impression of a cozy
clique and discourages others from participating.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Farmerie ~
Mardi politely asked if it was possible to resolve obvious
discrepancies she found in the published sources regarding the
chronology and parentage of Philip de Gay. I suggested she examine
Philip de Gay's own chronology, that of his daughter, and his
great-grandgranddaughter. This is standard research technique for work
in this time period. My suggestions were specifically directed to
Mardi, not to you. Please let her answer for herself.
I think this is bad reasoning. If you publish a letter in a public
place, then you are addressing it to all to see and comment on. If you
really wish to specifically address a letter to one person, you should
write to them privately.
Mind you I think that addressing a note to a person and then putting it
on a newsgroup for the world and its oyster to digest is a bit of a
nonsense in the first place. It all gives the impression of a cozy
clique and discourages others from participating.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
No, Tim, you are wrong. I directed my comments specifically to Mardi,
not to anyone else. I think I made this clear. Please let her reply
first, then if anyone wishes to say something, by all means, jump in.
All the same, I do appreciate Louise's post regarding a more accurate
birthdate for Aline Basset. Thanks again, Louise.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
not to anyone else. I think I made this clear. Please let her reply
first, then if anyone wishes to say something, by all means, jump in.
All the same, I do appreciate Louise's post regarding a more accurate
birthdate for Aline Basset. Thanks again, Louise.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 28 Apr, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Farmerie ~
Mardi politely asked if it was possible to resolve obvious
discrepancies she found in the published sources regarding the
chronology and parentage of Philip de Gay. I suggested she examine
Philip de Gay's own chronology, that of his daughter, and his
great-grandgranddaughter. This is standard research technique for
work
in this time period. My suggestions were specifically directed to
Mardi, not to you. Please let her answer for herself.
I think this is bad reasoning. If you publish a letter in a public
place, then you are addressing it to all to see and comment on. If
you
really wish to specifically address a letter to one person, you
should
write to them privately.
Mind you I think that addressing a note to a person and then putting
it
on a newsgroup for the world and its oyster to digest is a bit of a
nonsense in the first place. It all gives the impression of a cozy
clique and discourages others from participating.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
In message of 28 Apr, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Rubbish. You published this in a public place which is open for
everyone to reply as and when they will. That is how newsgroups work.
If you don't want that to happen, you should reply privately.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
No, Tim, you are wrong. I directed my comments specifically to Mardi,
not to anyone else. I think I made this clear.
Rubbish. You published this in a public place which is open for
everyone to reply as and when they will. That is how newsgroups work.
If you don't want that to happen, you should reply privately.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
CED
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
To the Newsgroup:
Is Mr. Richardson assuming the role of a moderator?
Or, is it the role of a school teacher controlling the class?
CED
Is Mr. Richardson assuming the role of a moderator?
Or, is it the role of a school teacher controlling the class?
CED
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
No, Tim, you are wrong again. Quite wrong.
I'm trying to help, Mardi, not you. I directed my comments
specifically to her. Please allow her the opportunity to make her own
reply. After she answers, you are welcome to say what you wish. That
should be easy enough for you to do.
Once again, I wish to thank Louise Staley for her addition to Complete
Peerage. Much appreciated, Louise.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
I'm trying to help, Mardi, not you. I directed my comments
specifically to her. Please allow her the opportunity to make her own
reply. After she answers, you are welcome to say what you wish. That
should be easy enough for you to do.
Once again, I wish to thank Louise Staley for her addition to Complete
Peerage. Much appreciated, Louise.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 28 Apr, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
No, Tim, you are wrong. I directed my comments specifically to
Mardi,
not to anyone else. I think I made this clear.
Rubbish. You published this in a public place which is open for
everyone to reply as and when they will. That is how newsgroups
work.
If you don't want that to happen, you should reply privately.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
At Doug's suggestiion I have looked again at my sources. In a more
careful reading of Crouch's article 'Robert of Gloucester's mother',
Historical Research 72, 1999, I find on p 324 the following: "In the
Gloucester version of the Worcester chronicle known by the name of its
supposed author, 'Florence', Philip is mentioned as active in the
rebellion against King Stephen in 1138." This obviously places
Philip's birth well before 1144/5.
Mardi
careful reading of Crouch's article 'Robert of Gloucester's mother',
Historical Research 72, 1999, I find on p 324 the following: "In the
Gloucester version of the Worcester chronicle known by the name of its
supposed author, 'Florence', Philip is mentioned as active in the
rebellion against King Stephen in 1138." This obviously places
Philip's birth well before 1144/5.
Mardi
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Mardi ~
Do you think the Philip de Gay living in 1138 is the same person as the
Philip de Gay living in the late 1170's who was the father of Aline de
Gay, wife of Sir Alan Basset? If you examine the chronology issues I
raised in my last reply to you, you should be able to answer this
question without my help.
If I recall correctly, the Crouch article you've cited gives specific
evidence which proves that Philip de Gay (father of Aline Basset) was
the son of Stephen de Gay and his wife, Aline. Since you have Mr.
Crouch's article handy, I'd appreciate it greatly if you would post the
part of his article which gives this evidence, along with his source of
information. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
At Doug's suggestiion I have looked again at my sources. In a more
careful reading of Crouch's article 'Robert of Gloucester's mother',
Historical Research 72, 1999, I find on p 324 the following: "In the
Gloucester version of the Worcester chronicle known by the name of
its
supposed author, 'Florence', Philip is mentioned as active in the
rebellion against King Stephen in 1138." This obviously places
Philip's birth well before 1144/5.
Mardi
Dear Mardi ~
Do you think the Philip de Gay living in 1138 is the same person as the
Philip de Gay living in the late 1170's who was the father of Aline de
Gay, wife of Sir Alan Basset? If you examine the chronology issues I
raised in my last reply to you, you should be able to answer this
question without my help.
If I recall correctly, the Crouch article you've cited gives specific
evidence which proves that Philip de Gay (father of Aline Basset) was
the son of Stephen de Gay and his wife, Aline. Since you have Mr.
Crouch's article handy, I'd appreciate it greatly if you would post the
part of his article which gives this evidence, along with his source of
information. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Richardson ~
You posted your message to a public group. If you meant to carry out a
private conversation, email would have been the better medium.
Best always, etc.
Dear Mr. Farmerie ~
Mardi politely asked if it was possible to resolve obvious
discrepancies she found in the published sources regarding the
chronology and parentage of Philip de Gay. I suggested she examine
Philip de Gay's own chronology, that of his daughter, and his
great-grandgranddaughter. This is standard research technique for work
in this time period. My suggestions were specifically directed to
Mardi, not to you. Please let her answer for herself.
Now, Mardi, where we were? Please continue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Dear Mr. Richardson ~
You posted your message to a public group. If you meant to carry out a
private conversation, email would have been the better medium.
Best always, etc.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay (and a DD Correction)
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Intended to be 85 years after 1145, it would seem.
This is not the case. 30 and more in an ipm means 30 and more (bef.
1241), not 30-39. I have seen people called 30 and more and 50 and more
in two contemporary ipms - you cannot assume an upper limit in age
because of the decade bracket used.
taf
The 1230 date of birth I offered for Aline Basset in my post was
intended to be an approximate date only.
Intended to be 85 years after 1145, it would seem.
If you have better
particulars, such as the IPM of her father, that's wonderful. If Aline
was 30 and more in 1271, that would peg her birth as being 1231/41.
This is not the case. 30 and more in an ipm means 30 and more (bef.
1241), not 30-39. I have seen people called 30 and more and 50 and more
in two contemporary ipms - you cannot assume an upper limit in age
because of the decade bracket used.
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Or to translate out of the pseudo-Socratic mode he has adopted of late,
he thinks, based on several indirect arguments and assumptions already
outlined, that Philip father of Aline Basset was born much later, and
hence that the Philip in question is not the same person.
It would, of course, be useful to see exactly what the Worcester
chronicler (now thought to have been John and not Florence) actually
said. Perhaps if you, Mardi, don't have access to the recent new
edition of this chronicle someone else with access could look it up for
you. The only place I know has it is the Univ. Utah library, so maybe
there is someone in Salt Lake City who is interested in being helpful.
(Adopting the form which Mr. Richardson appears to prefer as of late, .
.. . .)
Dear Douglas ~ (meaning no one else can answer these questions)
Do you think that a couple married at the date Crouch suggests could be
parents of someone born when Crouch has Philip born? How does this
relate to Crouch's conclusion that Philip must have been a widower at
the time of his marriage to Aline? Based on this, is it likely that the
Crouch article gives evidence which proves that Philip, father of Aline
Basset was son of Stephen and Aline?
These conclusions should be easy for you to reach if you have been
following Mardi's posts.
Best always, etc.
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
At Doug's suggestiion I have looked again at my sources. In a more
careful reading of Crouch's article 'Robert of Gloucester's mother',
Historical Research 72, 1999, I find on p 324 the following: "In the
Gloucester version of the Worcester chronicle known by the name of
its
supposed author, 'Florence', Philip is mentioned as active in the
rebellion against King Stephen in 1138." This obviously places
Philip's birth well before 1144/5.
Mardi
Dear Mardi ~
Do you think the Philip de Gay living in 1138 is the same person as the
Philip de Gay living in the late 1170's who was the father of Aline de
Gay, wife of Sir Alan Basset? If you examine the chronology issues I
raised in my last reply to you, you should be able to answer this
question without my help.
Or to translate out of the pseudo-Socratic mode he has adopted of late,
he thinks, based on several indirect arguments and assumptions already
outlined, that Philip father of Aline Basset was born much later, and
hence that the Philip in question is not the same person.
It would, of course, be useful to see exactly what the Worcester
chronicler (now thought to have been John and not Florence) actually
said. Perhaps if you, Mardi, don't have access to the recent new
edition of this chronicle someone else with access could look it up for
you. The only place I know has it is the Univ. Utah library, so maybe
there is someone in Salt Lake City who is interested in being helpful.
If I recall correctly, the Crouch article you've cited gives specific
evidence which proves that Philip de Gay (father of Aline Basset) was
the son of Stephen de Gay and his wife, Aline.
(Adopting the form which Mr. Richardson appears to prefer as of late, .
.. . .)
Dear Douglas ~ (meaning no one else can answer these questions)
Do you think that a couple married at the date Crouch suggests could be
parents of someone born when Crouch has Philip born? How does this
relate to Crouch's conclusion that Philip must have been a widower at
the time of his marriage to Aline? Based on this, is it likely that the
Crouch article gives evidence which proves that Philip, father of Aline
Basset was son of Stephen and Aline?
These conclusions should be easy for you to reach if you have been
following Mardi's posts.
Best always, etc.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Wife of Stephen Gay/Gai
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Apparently because the chronicle formerly thought to have been the work
of Florence of Worcester reports that _A_ Philip de Gai was active in 1138.
taf
In a message dated 4/27/05 8:34:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mardicar@yahoo.com writes:
The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117."
Why does Philip have to have been born before 1117 ?
Apparently because the chronicle formerly thought to have been the work
of Florence of Worcester reports that _A_ Philip de Gai was active in 1138.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
I appreciate the concern and support from all of you after the
startling response to my initial post. I presented the discrepancies
to this group in the hopes that a discussion might solve the
difficulties. I am not interested in a private excange on the subject.
I find nothing in the Crouch article that says Philip is son of Stephen
and Aline (Crouch calls her Adeline). It only says that they married
presumably in 1144/5 and that Stephen was probably a widower. I take
this to imply that Crouch believes that Philip was son of a previous
wife since he indicates adult activities as early at 1138. There is no
reason to believe, from the article, that there other men by the name
of Philip Gay.
Crouch also says that Philip "succeeded his father in the manor of
Northbrook after 1154, and married late to one Hilda, whose parentage
is unknown. She was still holding Northbrook in dower as late as 1192,
fifteen years after his death [Pipe Rolls of 3-4 Richard I, pp.
273-4]." Doug, in a post 18 Dec 2002, cited Publications of the Pipe
Roll Soc., vol. 14 (1891), pg. 89 as giving the name of Philip's wife
as "Sedzilia." Is it possible that Crouch perceived this name as
Hilda? If someone could check the Pipe Rolls as cited by Crouch that
might be helpful. I have no access from where I sit.
Thanks. Mardi
startling response to my initial post. I presented the discrepancies
to this group in the hopes that a discussion might solve the
difficulties. I am not interested in a private excange on the subject.
I find nothing in the Crouch article that says Philip is son of Stephen
and Aline (Crouch calls her Adeline). It only says that they married
presumably in 1144/5 and that Stephen was probably a widower. I take
this to imply that Crouch believes that Philip was son of a previous
wife since he indicates adult activities as early at 1138. There is no
reason to believe, from the article, that there other men by the name
of Philip Gay.
Crouch also says that Philip "succeeded his father in the manor of
Northbrook after 1154, and married late to one Hilda, whose parentage
is unknown. She was still holding Northbrook in dower as late as 1192,
fifteen years after his death [Pipe Rolls of 3-4 Richard I, pp.
273-4]." Doug, in a post 18 Dec 2002, cited Publications of the Pipe
Roll Soc., vol. 14 (1891), pg. 89 as giving the name of Philip's wife
as "Sedzilia." Is it possible that Crouch perceived this name as
Hilda? If someone could check the Pipe Rolls as cited by Crouch that
might be helpful. I have no access from where I sit.
Thanks. Mardi
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Dear Mr. Farmerie ~
I believe that Mardi is capable of answering this question. Once
again, I request nicely that you let her reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
mardi...@yahoo.com wrote:
At Doug's suggestiion I have looked again at my sources. In a more
careful reading of Crouch's article 'Robert of Gloucester's
mother',
Historical Research 72, 1999, I find on p 324 the following: "In
the
Gloucester version of the Worcester chronicle known by the name of
its
supposed author, 'Florence', Philip is mentioned as active in the
rebellion against King Stephen in 1138." This obviously places
Philip's birth well before 1144/5.
Mardi
Dear Mardi ~
Do you think the Philip de Gay living in 1138 is the same person as
the
Philip de Gay living in the late 1170's who was the father of Aline
de
Gay, wife of Sir Alan Basset? If you examine the chronology issues
I
raised in my last reply to you, you should be able to answer this
question without my help.
Or to translate out of the pseudo-Socratic mode he has adopted of
late,
he thinks, based on several indirect arguments and assumptions
already
outlined, that Philip father of Aline Basset was born much later, and
hence that the Philip in question is not the same person.
Dear Mr. Farmerie ~
I believe that Mardi is capable of answering this question. Once
again, I request nicely that you let her reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: Wife of Stephen Gay/Gai
In a message dated 4/27/05 8:34:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mardicar@yahoo.com writes:
<< The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117." >>
Why does Philip have to have been born before 1117 ?
Will Johnson
mardicar@yahoo.com writes:
<< The cited article by Crouch states, "John's ex-wife Adlina, was
remarried to......Stephen Gay......the father of Philip and presumably
in 1144-5 a widower, for Philip has to have been born before 1117." >>
Why does Philip have to have been born before 1117 ?
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Wife of Stephen Gay/Gai
In a message dated 4/28/05 1:04:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Apparently because the chronicle formerly thought to have been the work
of Florence of Worcester reports that _A_ Philip de Gai was active in 1138.
taf >>
http://manybooks.net/support/a/adamsgeo ... 0.exp.html
Says that Philip Gay was son of Robert of Gloucester.
"Whether the insurrection in the south and west had become somewhat general
before, or was encouraged by it to begin, the chief event connected with it was
the formal notice which Robert of Gloucester served on the king, by
messengers from Normandy, who reached Stephen about the middle of June, that his
allegiance was broken off.... The lands of the king and of his supporters were
systematically laid waste. Cattle were driven off, movable property carried away,
and men subjected to ingenious tortures to force them to give up the valuables
they had concealed. Robert's son, Philip Gai, acquired the reputation of a
skilful inventor of new cruelties. "
Will Johnson
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Apparently because the chronicle formerly thought to have been the work
of Florence of Worcester reports that _A_ Philip de Gai was active in 1138.
taf >>
http://manybooks.net/support/a/adamsgeo ... 0.exp.html
Says that Philip Gay was son of Robert of Gloucester.
"Whether the insurrection in the south and west had become somewhat general
before, or was encouraged by it to begin, the chief event connected with it was
the formal notice which Robert of Gloucester served on the king, by
messengers from Normandy, who reached Stephen about the middle of June, that his
allegiance was broken off.... The lands of the king and of his supporters were
systematically laid waste. Cattle were driven off, movable property carried away,
and men subjected to ingenious tortures to force them to give up the valuables
they had concealed. Robert's son, Philip Gai, acquired the reputation of a
skilful inventor of new cruelties. "
Will Johnson
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Douglas ~
I believe that email is the appropriate forum for one-on-one discussions.
I also believe that asking (essentially rhetorical) condescending
questions and then insisting that be the last word on the issue
unless/until the insulted individual deigns to humble themselves by
responding is errant knavery.
Once again, I request "nicely" that you don't tell members of this list
when, and in response to what, they may post.
"Best always", etc.
I believe that Mardi is capable of answering this question. Once
again, I request nicely that you let her reply.
Dear Douglas ~
I believe that email is the appropriate forum for one-on-one discussions.
I also believe that asking (essentially rhetorical) condescending
questions and then insisting that be the last word on the issue
unless/until the insulted individual deigns to humble themselves by
responding is errant knavery.
Once again, I request "nicely" that you don't tell members of this list
when, and in response to what, they may post.
"Best always", etc.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Private letters in a public place - was Chronology of Ph
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
This is a reasonable point. However, a few regular posters make a
cheery habit of addressing by name everyone who has taken part in the
thread to which they are contributing, as in a circular letter, and
this is surely just a harmless idiosyncrasy that wouldn't deter others
from joining the discussion.
Telling people that they may not even post a reply, or in what
chronological order they may offer opinions, is a different matter.
This is "collegial" behaviour, apparently, by the supreme & relentless
authority on that subject. One colleague at a time, of his choosing....
Peter Stewart
Mind you I think that addressing a note to a person and
then putting it on a newsgroup for the world and its oyster
to digest is a bit of a nonsense in the first place. It all
gives the impression of a cozy clique and discourages
others from participating.
This is a reasonable point. However, a few regular posters make a
cheery habit of addressing by name everyone who has taken part in the
thread to which they are contributing, as in a circular letter, and
this is surely just a harmless idiosyncrasy that wouldn't deter others
from joining the discussion.
Telling people that they may not even post a reply, or in what
chronological order they may offer opinions, is a different matter.
This is "collegial" behaviour, apparently, by the supreme & relentless
authority on that subject. One colleague at a time, of his choosing....
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Private Note for Peter Stewart
Private note to Peter Stewart ~
If someone addressed questions directly to you on the newsgroup and I
attempted to answer them for you, I'm sure you would scream bloody
murder. You wouldn't be saying "how collegial of Mr. Richardson to
speak for me." No one would believe your words if you said such a dumb
thing.
This is not one colleague at a time, at one's choosing either. Mardi
(not me) addressed an issue which directly involved comments I
previously posted on the newsgroup. Her post was civil, polite and
collegial. I chose to reply to her post. My response consisted of
three questions for her to answer in order to assist her in solving her
own problem.
I could have chosen other methods of response (including a direct
answer), or no response at all. But, I believe Mardi is an intelligent
person who doesn't need me to resolve the apparent discrepancies. I
chose to ask her three questions so that she could focus on the issues
at hand and sort through the problem areas. To date she has made a
good effort. She has determined that the Philip de Gay who Mr. Crouch
mentioned in his article was born well before 1144/5. So far, so good.
Between the two families, the Gay and Marshal families are ancestral to
virtually everyone who posts here on the newsgroup with English noble
ancestry. The connection between Aline (de Gay) Basset and her
grandmother, Aline (Pipard) (le Marshal) de Gay, is real and can be
proven. Yet, strangely, to my knowledge no one has presented any
evidence for such a connection here on the newsgroup. It's also been
overlooked by Complete Peerage, Keats-Rohan, Crouch, the Victoria
County History, etc. - ALL the published authorities.
Why do you think that is so?
That is a private question for you, Peter. Answer it, if you can.
Myself, I believe you lack the appropriate background and training in
English records in this period to answer the question. I know I'm
being a bit blunt here, Peter. But we're start to get to the heart of
the issue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
If someone addressed questions directly to you on the newsgroup and I
attempted to answer them for you, I'm sure you would scream bloody
murder. You wouldn't be saying "how collegial of Mr. Richardson to
speak for me." No one would believe your words if you said such a dumb
thing.
This is not one colleague at a time, at one's choosing either. Mardi
(not me) addressed an issue which directly involved comments I
previously posted on the newsgroup. Her post was civil, polite and
collegial. I chose to reply to her post. My response consisted of
three questions for her to answer in order to assist her in solving her
own problem.
I could have chosen other methods of response (including a direct
answer), or no response at all. But, I believe Mardi is an intelligent
person who doesn't need me to resolve the apparent discrepancies. I
chose to ask her three questions so that she could focus on the issues
at hand and sort through the problem areas. To date she has made a
good effort. She has determined that the Philip de Gay who Mr. Crouch
mentioned in his article was born well before 1144/5. So far, so good.
Between the two families, the Gay and Marshal families are ancestral to
virtually everyone who posts here on the newsgroup with English noble
ancestry. The connection between Aline (de Gay) Basset and her
grandmother, Aline (Pipard) (le Marshal) de Gay, is real and can be
proven. Yet, strangely, to my knowledge no one has presented any
evidence for such a connection here on the newsgroup. It's also been
overlooked by Complete Peerage, Keats-Rohan, Crouch, the Victoria
County History, etc. - ALL the published authorities.
Why do you think that is so?
That is a private question for you, Peter. Answer it, if you can.
Myself, I believe you lack the appropriate background and training in
English records in this period to answer the question. I know I'm
being a bit blunt here, Peter. But we're start to get to the heart of
the issue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Mind you I think that addressing a note to a person and
then putting it on a newsgroup for the world and its oyster
to digest is a bit of a nonsense in the first place. It all
gives the impression of a cozy clique and discourages
others from participating.
This is a reasonable point. However, a few regular posters make a
cheery habit of addressing by name everyone who has taken part in the
thread to which they are contributing, as in a circular letter, and
this is surely just a harmless idiosyncrasy that wouldn't deter
others
from joining the discussion.
Telling people that they may not even post a reply, or in what
chronological order they may offer opinions, is a different matter.
This is "collegial" behaviour, apparently, by the supreme &
relentless
authority on that subject. One colleague at a time, of his
choosing....
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Private Note for Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1114798833.093026.195350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Rubbish - once again projecting your own thoughts onto someone else with not
a scrap of evidence to support this. I have never once complained about your
posting at a particular time in a particular thread, or in response to any
other post, but only about the imbecilic & deceitful contents of so many of
your posts, like this one.
You can say whatever you like when ever you like, but you will never be able
to "answer" for me or prevent me (as your offsider Baxter once tried) from
answerin for myself. Once again, you are deluded.
<snip>
No idea, no interest - I haven't been following this argument.
It's not a private matter, but on the contrary quite plain to anyone who
reads my posts that I don't claim or imply expertise in English records of
this period or any records from anywhere else at any time. I simply share
here my findings & opinions. The study of English families & manorial
records frankly bores me to stone, and if I require information I can
happily rely on real experts such as Rosie Bevan, Paul Reed and others, or
undertake ad hoc research of my own as necessary. Nothing would induce me to
take your word for any point - especially now that you apparently consider
there is some specific "training" to be had in English records. If there is
and you had it, what a bust....
And if you think this is the "heart of the issue" rather than your execrable
judgment, you are merely displaying more of the same.
Peter Stewart
news:1114798833.093026.195350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Private note to Peter Stewart ~
If someone addressed questions directly to you on the newsgroup and I
attempted to answer them for you, I'm sure you would scream bloody
murder. You wouldn't be saying "how collegial of Mr. Richardson to
speak for me." No one would believe your words if you said such a dumb
thing.
Rubbish - once again projecting your own thoughts onto someone else with not
a scrap of evidence to support this. I have never once complained about your
posting at a particular time in a particular thread, or in response to any
other post, but only about the imbecilic & deceitful contents of so many of
your posts, like this one.
You can say whatever you like when ever you like, but you will never be able
to "answer" for me or prevent me (as your offsider Baxter once tried) from
answerin for myself. Once again, you are deluded.
<snip>
Why do you think that is so?
No idea, no interest - I haven't been following this argument.
That is a private question for you, Peter. Answer it, if you can.
Myself, I believe you lack the appropriate background and training in
English records in this period to answer the question. I know I'm
being a bit blunt here, Peter. But we're start to get to the heart of
the issue.
It's not a private matter, but on the contrary quite plain to anyone who
reads my posts that I don't claim or imply expertise in English records of
this period or any records from anywhere else at any time. I simply share
here my findings & opinions. The study of English families & manorial
records frankly bores me to stone, and if I require information I can
happily rely on real experts such as Rosie Bevan, Paul Reed and others, or
undertake ad hoc research of my own as necessary. Nothing would induce me to
take your word for any point - especially now that you apparently consider
there is some specific "training" to be had in English records. If there is
and you had it, what a bust....
And if you think this is the "heart of the issue" rather than your execrable
judgment, you are merely displaying more of the same.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Private Note For Peter Stewart
But your arbitrary statements won't establish credibility for anything that
you wish to misrepresent, Spencer - try tackling the substance of my remarks
with logic instead of your own blustering hissy fit.
You've made a significant fool of yourself, yet again, and can't get a
semblance of righteous indignation for yourself through baseless, unhinged
insults.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RpAce.148$fE4.978@eagle.america.net...
you wish to misrepresent, Spencer - try tackling the substance of my remarks
with logic instead of your own blustering hissy fit.
You've made a significant fool of yourself, yet again, and can't get a
semblance of righteous indignation for yourself through baseless, unhinged
insults.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RpAce.148$fE4.978@eagle.america.net...
This WAS [before I snipped all the codswallop below] a Vintage Example
of Pogue Stewart's penchant for slipping into:
Grand Hissy Fit....
[Think Grand Mal Attack -- and you'll have the proper resonance.]
At frequent intervals....
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rdAce.33648$5F3.25802@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| Rubbish - once again projecting your own thoughts onto someone else...
baldersnip
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Private Note For Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RpAce.148$fE4.978@eagle.america.net...
Now here's a direct challenge for you, Spencer:
You are normally a proponent of free speech and the free market of ideas.
The "codswallop" of mine that you whine about was in opposition to Douglas
Richardson's attempt to put words into my mouth AGAINST the right to free
speech.
I consider that everyone, including Richardson and Hines, has an
untrammelled right to post here on whatever point may be at issue, in
whatever order the posts should happen to come. Todd in replying to
Richardson did not prevent Mardi from doing the same, and couldn't even know
whether or not she might pre-empt him unless they were in correspondence
off-list, in which case she had the opportunity to say privately if she
wanted the field left to her for some reason. Her remarks later suggest that
this was not the case.
So Spencer, pray tell us how you reconcile your earlier & customary position
with calling my remarks now "codswallop" and a "hissy fit".
Peter Stewart
news:RpAce.148$fE4.978@eagle.america.net...
This WAS [before I snipped all the codswallop below] a Vintage Example
of Pogue Stewart's penchant for slipping into:
Now here's a direct challenge for you, Spencer:
You are normally a proponent of free speech and the free market of ideas.
The "codswallop" of mine that you whine about was in opposition to Douglas
Richardson's attempt to put words into my mouth AGAINST the right to free
speech.
I consider that everyone, including Richardson and Hines, has an
untrammelled right to post here on whatever point may be at issue, in
whatever order the posts should happen to come. Todd in replying to
Richardson did not prevent Mardi from doing the same, and couldn't even know
whether or not she might pre-empt him unless they were in correspondence
off-list, in which case she had the opportunity to say privately if she
wanted the field left to her for some reason. Her remarks later suggest that
this was not the case.
So Spencer, pray tell us how you reconcile your earlier & customary position
with calling my remarks now "codswallop" and a "hissy fit".
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Private Note For Peter Stewart
This WAS [before I snipped all the codswallop below] a Vintage Example
of Pogue Stewart's penchant for slipping into:
Grand Hissy Fit....
[Think Grand Mal Attack -- and you'll have the proper resonance.]
At frequent intervals....
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rdAce.33648$5F3.25802@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| Rubbish - once again projecting your own thoughts onto someone else...
<baldersnip>
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
of Pogue Stewart's penchant for slipping into:
Grand Hissy Fit....
[Think Grand Mal Attack -- and you'll have the proper resonance.]
At frequent intervals....
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rdAce.33648$5F3.25802@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| Rubbish - once again projecting your own thoughts onto someone else...
<baldersnip>
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Private Note For Peter Stewart
And this is your logical explanation of the irrational knots you have tied
yourself in, trying to achieve an insult that is beyond your powers?
Excellent, now we can all see your total stupidity & dishonesty summarised
neatly in a lame evasion.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xbBce.157$fE4.1046@eagle.america.net...
yourself in, trying to achieve an insult that is beyond your powers?
Excellent, now we can all see your total stupidity & dishonesty summarised
neatly in a lame evasion.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xbBce.157$fE4.1046@eagle.america.net...
Stewart definitely needs to take three fingers of brandy in a cup of hot
milk -- and a LONG NAP.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Private Note For Peter Stewart
Stewart definitely needs to take three fingers of brandy in a cup of hot
milk -- and a LONG NAP.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
milk -- and a LONG NAP.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Private Note for Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rdAce.33648$5F3.25802@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Before any of our poisonous twisters of words gets to work on this, let me
emphasise that I don't hold up my interests as the standard for others, and
I don't find the studies of the others named above boring on any subject.
But as to ploughing through records of the English gentry for myself, I
would rather be ploughed under...
Peter Stewart
news:rdAce.33648$5F3.25802@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
The study of English families & manorial records frankly bores
me to stone, and if I require information I can happily rely on real
experts such as Rosie Bevan, Paul Reed and others
Before any of our poisonous twisters of words gets to work on this, let me
emphasise that I don't hold up my interests as the standard for others, and
I don't find the studies of the others named above boring on any subject.
But as to ploughing through records of the English gentry for myself, I
would rather be ploughed under...
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Chronology of Philip de Gay (and a DD Correction)
Louise Staley wrote:
Douglas Richardson replied:
I'm just working my way through a backlog of potential Complete Peerage
corrections and additions, and came on these messages from last month.
In this case, CP does mention the evidence about Aline's age from
inquisitions post mortem. CP says [vol. 4, p. 261, note i]:
"In the inquisitions taken in Nov. 1271, after the death of Philip Basset,
she is said to be his da. and h., and then aged 22 and more, 24 and more,
26, or 30 and more. (Ch. Inq. p.m., Hen. III, file 41, no. 20)."
Chris Phillips
According to a report of the IPMs of Philip Basset in 1271, Aline was
said to be anything between 30 and more (born in or before 1241) and 22
and more (so born in or before 1249). This is from Carl Boyer in
"Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans" as reported by Mike
Lysell in a post-em to Jim Weber's Rootsweb database (see person ID
I03322).
Douglas Richardson replied:
The 1230 date of birth I offered for Aline Basset in my post was
intended to be an approximate date only. If you have better
particulars, such as the IPM of her father, that's wonderful. If Aline
was 30 and more in 1271, that would peg her birth as being 1231/41. In
any case, your offering appears to be a new addition for the Despenser
account in Complete Peerage. This should be of keen interest to Chris
Phillips.
I'm just working my way through a backlog of potential Complete Peerage
corrections and additions, and came on these messages from last month.
In this case, CP does mention the evidence about Aline's age from
inquisitions post mortem. CP says [vol. 4, p. 261, note i]:
"In the inquisitions taken in Nov. 1271, after the death of Philip Basset,
she is said to be his da. and h., and then aged 22 and more, 24 and more,
26, or 30 and more. (Ch. Inq. p.m., Hen. III, file 41, no. 20)."
Chris Phillips