Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Dear Newsgroup ~
A newsgroup member kindly sent me a copy of a review of Plantagenet
Ancestry which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Louisiana
Genealogical Register. The review was written by the editor, Michael
K. Smith, who occasionally posts here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Review of Plantagenet Ancestry
Source: Louisiana Genealogical Register, Vol. 52, No. 1, March 2005
Reviewer: Michael K. Smith, Editor
Even though I do not, to my knowledge, have a single drop of royal
blood in my veins, I have a longstanding interest in peerage genealogy
-- if only because the earliest surviving records concern the lineages
of European society's movers and shakers, not the yeoman farmers and
small tradesmen whose genes I carry. Richardson is well known and
widely respected in this field, having published numerous peerage
articles in the most respected journals and having been a contributor
to the last couple of editions of Weis. Those of us who hang out on the
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup have watched for years as this massive
work took shape (always keeping in mind that the level of discourse in
that venue often verges on the sophomoric). The final result is close
to being a masterpiece not only of genealogy of the traditional sort
but of comparative historiography. His purpose is to document the lines
of descent for about 190 individuals who immigrated to the North
American colonies before 1700 from the Plantagenet dynasty who ruled
England from 1154 (the accession of Henry II, Duke of Anjou) to 1485
(the defeat and death of Richard III at Bosworth Field at the hands of
Henry Tudor). He notes that his work is an expansion and major revision
of David Faris's _Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century
Colonists,_ but the new work is so very extensive, this must really be
regarded as an entirely new work; Faris considered only the descendants
of Henry III (who died in 1272), where Richardson traces the progeny of
all sixteen of Geoffrey's great-grandchildren who left descendants,
both legitimate and illegitimate. Further volumes are planned to cover
descents from Magna Carta sureties, the early feudal barons, and the
Emperor Charlemagne. (Remember that anyone who descends from a single
royal house in Britain or on the Continent will also have descents from
most of the others.)
The plan of organization is reminiscent of that devised by Frederick
Weis, with each family's listed lineage beginning at the point of
bifurcation from the previous, earlier lines; all generations are
numbered from Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, the first "Plantagenet."
Citations are very, very full, which is sure to make this a heavily
cited secondary source itself. In fact, Richardson seems to have read
everything (the bibliography is the most complete I have ever seen,
running to more than seventy-seven pages!) and obviously has thought
very carefully about what he read. A number of important discoveries
and changes to previous scholarship are included, such as the proven
parentage of both Margery de Bohun and Joan Hastings (both major
problems for decades), and the maiden name of Margaret de Mowbray
(important for descendants of Mayflower passengers). Even more
important is the discovery that the "Fair Rosamond" Clifford, mistress
of Henry II, was not the mother of William Longspée (created Earl of
Salisbury); that dubious honor now goes instead to "Countess Ida," wife
of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Nor does he consider his work to be
complete: His snail-mail and e-mail addresses are included, as well as
a website address, with the plea that new discoveries, additions, and
corrections will be submitted by readers. This oversized volume was my
birthday gift to myself this year and it already has two dozen
bookmarks tucked into it.
A newsgroup member kindly sent me a copy of a review of Plantagenet
Ancestry which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Louisiana
Genealogical Register. The review was written by the editor, Michael
K. Smith, who occasionally posts here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Review of Plantagenet Ancestry
Source: Louisiana Genealogical Register, Vol. 52, No. 1, March 2005
Reviewer: Michael K. Smith, Editor
Even though I do not, to my knowledge, have a single drop of royal
blood in my veins, I have a longstanding interest in peerage genealogy
-- if only because the earliest surviving records concern the lineages
of European society's movers and shakers, not the yeoman farmers and
small tradesmen whose genes I carry. Richardson is well known and
widely respected in this field, having published numerous peerage
articles in the most respected journals and having been a contributor
to the last couple of editions of Weis. Those of us who hang out on the
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup have watched for years as this massive
work took shape (always keeping in mind that the level of discourse in
that venue often verges on the sophomoric). The final result is close
to being a masterpiece not only of genealogy of the traditional sort
but of comparative historiography. His purpose is to document the lines
of descent for about 190 individuals who immigrated to the North
American colonies before 1700 from the Plantagenet dynasty who ruled
England from 1154 (the accession of Henry II, Duke of Anjou) to 1485
(the defeat and death of Richard III at Bosworth Field at the hands of
Henry Tudor). He notes that his work is an expansion and major revision
of David Faris's _Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century
Colonists,_ but the new work is so very extensive, this must really be
regarded as an entirely new work; Faris considered only the descendants
of Henry III (who died in 1272), where Richardson traces the progeny of
all sixteen of Geoffrey's great-grandchildren who left descendants,
both legitimate and illegitimate. Further volumes are planned to cover
descents from Magna Carta sureties, the early feudal barons, and the
Emperor Charlemagne. (Remember that anyone who descends from a single
royal house in Britain or on the Continent will also have descents from
most of the others.)
The plan of organization is reminiscent of that devised by Frederick
Weis, with each family's listed lineage beginning at the point of
bifurcation from the previous, earlier lines; all generations are
numbered from Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, the first "Plantagenet."
Citations are very, very full, which is sure to make this a heavily
cited secondary source itself. In fact, Richardson seems to have read
everything (the bibliography is the most complete I have ever seen,
running to more than seventy-seven pages!) and obviously has thought
very carefully about what he read. A number of important discoveries
and changes to previous scholarship are included, such as the proven
parentage of both Margery de Bohun and Joan Hastings (both major
problems for decades), and the maiden name of Margaret de Mowbray
(important for descendants of Mayflower passengers). Even more
important is the discovery that the "Fair Rosamond" Clifford, mistress
of Henry II, was not the mother of William Longspée (created Earl of
Salisbury); that dubious honor now goes instead to "Countess Ida," wife
of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Nor does he consider his work to be
complete: His snail-mail and e-mail addresses are included, as well as
a website address, with the plea that new discoveries, additions, and
corrections will be submitted by readers. This oversized volume was my
birthday gift to myself this year and it already has two dozen
bookmarks tucked into it.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Review Of Plantagenet Ancestry By Michael K. Smith
Congratulations, Douglas!
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115045195.881064.272940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
A newsgroup member kindly sent me a copy of a review of Plantagenet
Ancestry which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Louisiana
Genealogical Register. The review was written by the editor, Michael
K. Smith, who occasionally posts here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Review of Plantagenet Ancestry
Source: Louisiana Genealogical Register, Vol. 52, No. 1, March 2005
Reviewer: Michael K. Smith, Editor
Even though I do not, to my knowledge, have a single drop of royal
blood in my veins, I have a longstanding interest in peerage genealogy
-- if only because the earliest surviving records concern the lineages
of European society's movers and shakers, not the yeoman farmers and
small tradesmen whose genes I carry. Richardson is well known and
widely respected in this field, having published numerous peerage
articles in the most respected journals and having been a contributor
to the last couple of editions of Weis. Those of us who hang out on the
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup have watched for years as this massive
work took shape (always keeping in mind that the level of discourse in
that venue often verges on the sophomoric). The final result is close
to being a masterpiece not only of genealogy of the traditional sort
but of comparative historiography. His purpose is to document the lines
of descent for about 190 individuals who immigrated to the North
American colonies before 1700 from the Plantagenet dynasty who ruled
England from 1154 (the accession of Henry II, Duke of Anjou) to 1485
(the defeat and death of Richard III at Bosworth Field at the hands of
Henry Tudor). He notes that his work is an expansion and major revision
of David Faris's _Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century
Colonists,_ but the new work is so very extensive, this must really be
regarded as an entirely new work; Faris considered only the descendants
of Henry III (who died in 1272), where Richardson traces the progeny of
all sixteen of Geoffrey's great-grandchildren who left descendants,
both legitimate and illegitimate. Further volumes are planned to cover
descents from Magna Carta sureties, the early feudal barons, and the
Emperor Charlemagne. (Remember that anyone who descends from a single
royal house in Britain or on the Continent will also have descents from
most of the others.)
The plan of organization is reminiscent of that devised by Frederick
Weis, with each family's listed lineage beginning at the point of
bifurcation from the previous, earlier lines; all generations are
numbered from Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, the first "Plantagenet."
Citations are very, very full, which is sure to make this a heavily
cited secondary source itself. In fact, Richardson seems to have read
everything (the bibliography is the most complete I have ever seen,
running to more than seventy-seven pages!) and obviously has thought
very carefully about what he read. A number of important discoveries
and changes to previous scholarship are included, such as the proven
parentage of both Margery de Bohun and Joan Hastings (both major
problems for decades), and the maiden name of Margaret de Mowbray
(important for descendants of Mayflower passengers). Even more
important is the discovery that the "Fair Rosamond" Clifford, mistress
of Henry II, was not the mother of William Longspée (created Earl of
Salisbury); that dubious honor now goes instead to "Countess Ida," wife
of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Nor does he consider his work to be
complete: His snail-mail and e-mail addresses are included, as well as
a website address, with the plea that new discoveries, additions, and
corrections will be submitted by readers. This oversized volume was my
birthday gift to myself this year and it already has two dozen
bookmarks tucked into it.
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115045195.881064.272940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
A newsgroup member kindly sent me a copy of a review of Plantagenet
Ancestry which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Louisiana
Genealogical Register. The review was written by the editor, Michael
K. Smith, who occasionally posts here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Review of Plantagenet Ancestry
Source: Louisiana Genealogical Register, Vol. 52, No. 1, March 2005
Reviewer: Michael K. Smith, Editor
Even though I do not, to my knowledge, have a single drop of royal
blood in my veins, I have a longstanding interest in peerage genealogy
-- if only because the earliest surviving records concern the lineages
of European society's movers and shakers, not the yeoman farmers and
small tradesmen whose genes I carry. Richardson is well known and
widely respected in this field, having published numerous peerage
articles in the most respected journals and having been a contributor
to the last couple of editions of Weis. Those of us who hang out on the
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup have watched for years as this massive
work took shape (always keeping in mind that the level of discourse in
that venue often verges on the sophomoric). The final result is close
to being a masterpiece not only of genealogy of the traditional sort
but of comparative historiography. His purpose is to document the lines
of descent for about 190 individuals who immigrated to the North
American colonies before 1700 from the Plantagenet dynasty who ruled
England from 1154 (the accession of Henry II, Duke of Anjou) to 1485
(the defeat and death of Richard III at Bosworth Field at the hands of
Henry Tudor). He notes that his work is an expansion and major revision
of David Faris's _Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century
Colonists,_ but the new work is so very extensive, this must really be
regarded as an entirely new work; Faris considered only the descendants
of Henry III (who died in 1272), where Richardson traces the progeny of
all sixteen of Geoffrey's great-grandchildren who left descendants,
both legitimate and illegitimate. Further volumes are planned to cover
descents from Magna Carta sureties, the early feudal barons, and the
Emperor Charlemagne. (Remember that anyone who descends from a single
royal house in Britain or on the Continent will also have descents from
most of the others.)
The plan of organization is reminiscent of that devised by Frederick
Weis, with each family's listed lineage beginning at the point of
bifurcation from the previous, earlier lines; all generations are
numbered from Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, the first "Plantagenet."
Citations are very, very full, which is sure to make this a heavily
cited secondary source itself. In fact, Richardson seems to have read
everything (the bibliography is the most complete I have ever seen,
running to more than seventy-seven pages!) and obviously has thought
very carefully about what he read. A number of important discoveries
and changes to previous scholarship are included, such as the proven
parentage of both Margery de Bohun and Joan Hastings (both major
problems for decades), and the maiden name of Margaret de Mowbray
(important for descendants of Mayflower passengers). Even more
important is the discovery that the "Fair Rosamond" Clifford, mistress
of Henry II, was not the mother of William Longspée (created Earl of
Salisbury); that dubious honor now goes instead to "Countess Ida," wife
of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Nor does he consider his work to be
complete: His snail-mail and e-mail addresses are included, as well as
a website address, with the plea that new discoveries, additions, and
corrections will be submitted by readers. This oversized volume was my
birthday gift to myself this year and it already has two dozen
bookmarks tucked into it.
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
On 2 May 2005 07:46:35 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
[Rest snipped except for following quote]
How could someone place any trust in a "review" which includes such
false and misleading statements. The fact that Rosamond was not
William's mother has been known by scholars for a long time (although
less knowledgeable novices have included such nonsense in their
databases on numerous occasions), and is certainly not a discovery
which can be attributed to RPA, as the reviewer seems to be implying.
In addition, although the identification of "Countess Ida" as the wife
of Roger Bigod is new in the sense of being only a few years old, the
proof of this is due to Raymond Phair, and it is extremely misleading
to mention this discovery in such a way that appears to give credit to
RPA for the discovery.
An assumption of ignorance seems to be the best way to let the writer
of this "review" off the hook for the above falsehood, but in any case
the "review" itself is revealed as a worthless puff piece. As for the
reposting of such falsehoods written by others, without any kind of
qualification, and with the clear intent of boosting sales, should we
not assume that the author was familiar enough with the matter at hand
to know that statements being reposted were false and misleading?
Stewart Baldwin
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
A newsgroup member kindly sent me a copy of a review of Plantagenet
Ancestry which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Louisiana
Genealogical Register. The review was written by the editor, Michael
K. Smith, who occasionally posts here on the newsgroup.
[Rest snipped except for following quote]
... Even more
important is the discovery that the "Fair Rosamond" Clifford, mistress
of Henry II, was not the mother of William Longspée (created Earl of
Salisbury); that dubious honor now goes instead to "Countess Ida," wife
of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk.
How could someone place any trust in a "review" which includes such
false and misleading statements. The fact that Rosamond was not
William's mother has been known by scholars for a long time (although
less knowledgeable novices have included such nonsense in their
databases on numerous occasions), and is certainly not a discovery
which can be attributed to RPA, as the reviewer seems to be implying.
In addition, although the identification of "Countess Ida" as the wife
of Roger Bigod is new in the sense of being only a few years old, the
proof of this is due to Raymond Phair, and it is extremely misleading
to mention this discovery in such a way that appears to give credit to
RPA for the discovery.
An assumption of ignorance seems to be the best way to let the writer
of this "review" off the hook for the above falsehood, but in any case
the "review" itself is revealed as a worthless puff piece. As for the
reposting of such falsehoods written by others, without any kind of
qualification, and with the clear intent of boosting sales, should we
not assume that the author was familiar enough with the matter at hand
to know that statements being reposted were false and misleading?
Stewart Baldwin
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
Thank you for taking the trouble to read through the posted "review",
Stewart - the gushing reflex-action response to this by DSH
("Congratulations, Douglas!") was enough to put me off.
I trust that Ray Phair's important SGM post on the sons of Countess Ida
and the subsequent article in TAG (that I haven't seen) about his
discovery have been adequately and clearly acknowledged in the book.
The real reviews, for instance in TAG and NEHGR, will of course be more
interesting to SGM readers. Does anyone know when these are expected to
be published?
Peter Stewart
How could someone place any trust in a "review" which includes
such false and misleading statements. The fact that Rosamond
was not William's mother has been known by scholars for a long
time (although less knowledgeable novices have included such
nonsense in their databases on numerous occasions), and is
certainly not a discovery which can be attributed to RPA, as the
reviewer seems to be implying. In addition, although the
identification of "Countess Ida" as the wife of Roger Bigod is new
in the sense of being only a few years old, the proof of this is due
to Raymond Phair, and it is extremely misleading to mention this
discovery in such a way that appears to give credit to RPA for the
discovery.
Thank you for taking the trouble to read through the posted "review",
Stewart - the gushing reflex-action response to this by DSH
("Congratulations, Douglas!") was enough to put me off.
I trust that Ray Phair's important SGM post on the sons of Countess Ida
and the subsequent article in TAG (that I haven't seen) about his
discovery have been adequately and clearly acknowledged in the book.
The real reviews, for instance in TAG and NEHGR, will of course be more
interesting to SGM readers. Does anyone know when these are expected to
be published?
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In message of 9 May, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Having ordered PA3 I can tell you that while Ray Phair gets an explicit
reference to his correction of CP's data of Ralph V de Tony's marriage
to Margaret, his only mention in the section on Longespée's mother (p.
457) is being mentioned in the usual long list of amorphous references,
this time in a clutch of two from TAG:
"... TAG 40 (1965): 47-49 (incorrectly identifies William Longespée's
mother as Annabel de Baliol); 77 (2002): 137-149, 279-280(article bt
Ray Phair, citing Philippe II of France Les Registres de Philippe
Auguste 1 (Recueil des Historiens de la France. Docs. Financiers et
Administratifs 7) (1992): miscellania no. 13."
One notes of course both the collegial swipe with details of crime at
the author of TAG 40 and the lack of compliment with details of his
major contribution for Ray Phair.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
How could someone place any trust in a "review" which includes
such false and misleading statements. The fact that Rosamond
was not William's mother has been known by scholars for a long
time (although less knowledgeable novices have included such
nonsense in their databases on numerous occasions), and is
certainly not a discovery which can be attributed to RPA, as the
reviewer seems to be implying. In addition, although the
identification of "Countess Ida" as the wife of Roger Bigod is new
in the sense of being only a few years old, the proof of this is due
to Raymond Phair, and it is extremely misleading to mention this
discovery in such a way that appears to give credit to RPA for the
discovery.
Thank you for taking the trouble to read through the posted "review",
Stewart - the gushing reflex-action response to this by DSH
("Congratulations, Douglas!") was enough to put me off.
I trust that Ray Phair's important SGM post on the sons of Countess Ida
and the subsequent article in TAG (that I haven't seen) about his
discovery have been adequately and clearly acknowledged in the book.
Having ordered PA3 I can tell you that while Ray Phair gets an explicit
reference to his correction of CP's data of Ralph V de Tony's marriage
to Margaret, his only mention in the section on Longespée's mother (p.
457) is being mentioned in the usual long list of amorphous references,
this time in a clutch of two from TAG:
"... TAG 40 (1965): 47-49 (incorrectly identifies William Longespée's
mother as Annabel de Baliol); 77 (2002): 137-149, 279-280(article bt
Ray Phair, citing Philippe II of France Les Registres de Philippe
Auguste 1 (Recueil des Historiens de la France. Docs. Financiers et
Administratifs 7) (1992): miscellania no. 13."
One notes of course both the collegial swipe with details of crime at
the author of TAG 40 and the lack of compliment with details of his
major contribution for Ray Phair.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In message of 8 May, Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:
While you are totally right that as long ago as 1887, as many have
pointed out, the DNB included in Rosamund's article:
"Rosamond is commonly reported to have had two sons by Henry II, viz.
Geoffrey, archbishop of York, and William Longsword, earl of
Salisbury. This statement does not seem to reach further back than
the end of the sixteenth or beginning of the seventeenth century.
Apparently it is unknown to any English chronicler or historian
before the publication of Speed's "History of Great Britain" in 1611."
however, and this is in defence of DR, as recently as 1996 the then
Somerset herald, of the London College of Arms, did some research for my
father and included in it that the mother of William Longspee was none
other than "Fair Rosamund"!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
On 2 May 2005 07:46:35 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
A newsgroup member kindly sent me a copy of a review of Plantagenet
Ancestry which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Louisiana
Genealogical Register. The review was written by the editor, Michael
K. Smith, who occasionally posts here on the newsgroup.
[Rest snipped except for following quote]
... Even more
important is the discovery that the "Fair Rosamond" Clifford, mistress
of Henry II, was not the mother of William Longspée (created Earl of
Salisbury); that dubious honor now goes instead to "Countess Ida," wife
of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk.
How could someone place any trust in a "review" which includes such
false and misleading statements. The fact that Rosamond was not
William's mother has been known by scholars for a long time (although
less knowledgeable novices have included such nonsense in their
databases on numerous occasions), and is certainly not a discovery
which can be attributed to RPA, as the reviewer seems to be implying.
While you are totally right that as long ago as 1887, as many have
pointed out, the DNB included in Rosamund's article:
"Rosamond is commonly reported to have had two sons by Henry II, viz.
Geoffrey, archbishop of York, and William Longsword, earl of
Salisbury. This statement does not seem to reach further back than
the end of the sixteenth or beginning of the seventeenth century.
Apparently it is unknown to any English chronicler or historian
before the publication of Speed's "History of Great Britain" in 1611."
however, and this is in defence of DR, as recently as 1996 the then
Somerset herald, of the London College of Arms, did some research for my
father and included in it that the mother of William Longspee was none
other than "Fair Rosamund"!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
To err is human
Dear Tim ~
It was Dr. Faris' custom to mention when there was a discrepancy
between sources. He didn't do it for every source; he was somewhat
haphazard. He certainly didn't mean it as a swipe to anyone. He often
stated things like "contains error" or "generation omitted" following a
given citation. Usually the author in question was long since dead.
I've tried to follow Dr. Faris' suit and keep my comments strictly
objective in my books. However, in the countless published sources
that I've checked, I find that I'm constantly finding discrepancies,
misstatements, and errors in the literature. In fact, I could write an
entire book just discussing all the errors and omissions that I've
found in Complete Peerage alone. Objectivity aside, it's simply not
possible to comment on all mistakes I've found in the literature in my
books.
I've concluded that people are human. They make mistakes. Complete
accuracy is our goal, but few if any attain it. The drama we
constantly see here on the newsgroup about people making errors is a
bit overblown I think. What human being dosn't make errors? I do draw
the line, however, at posters who demand that books (and newsgroup
posts for that matter) be perfect, otherwise they have no value. They
pick at tiny mistakes (or imagined ones), creating the impression that
the entire product is seriously flawed. I think that line of reasoning
is absurb. On the other hand, I believe in praising work well done.
As you well know, I frequently thank and praise people here on the
newsgroup, because that is the right thing to do. I've probably
thanked and praised you from time to time.
Incidentally, I might note that Mr. Phair is mentioned with further
attribution in my introduction to Plantagenet Ancestry, pp. xx, besides
the reference you cited on page 457. When you have a moment, you might
enjoy reading my comments. Besides my acknowledgement of Mr. Phair, I
also state that someone named Douglas Richardson identified William
Longespee's mother as Ida, wife of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, in
1993. I cite the source.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
It was Dr. Faris' custom to mention when there was a discrepancy
between sources. He didn't do it for every source; he was somewhat
haphazard. He certainly didn't mean it as a swipe to anyone. He often
stated things like "contains error" or "generation omitted" following a
given citation. Usually the author in question was long since dead.
I've tried to follow Dr. Faris' suit and keep my comments strictly
objective in my books. However, in the countless published sources
that I've checked, I find that I'm constantly finding discrepancies,
misstatements, and errors in the literature. In fact, I could write an
entire book just discussing all the errors and omissions that I've
found in Complete Peerage alone. Objectivity aside, it's simply not
possible to comment on all mistakes I've found in the literature in my
books.
I've concluded that people are human. They make mistakes. Complete
accuracy is our goal, but few if any attain it. The drama we
constantly see here on the newsgroup about people making errors is a
bit overblown I think. What human being dosn't make errors? I do draw
the line, however, at posters who demand that books (and newsgroup
posts for that matter) be perfect, otherwise they have no value. They
pick at tiny mistakes (or imagined ones), creating the impression that
the entire product is seriously flawed. I think that line of reasoning
is absurb. On the other hand, I believe in praising work well done.
As you well know, I frequently thank and praise people here on the
newsgroup, because that is the right thing to do. I've probably
thanked and praised you from time to time.
Incidentally, I might note that Mr. Phair is mentioned with further
attribution in my introduction to Plantagenet Ancestry, pp. xx, besides
the reference you cited on page 457. When you have a moment, you might
enjoy reading my comments. Besides my acknowledgement of Mr. Phair, I
also state that someone named Douglas Richardson identified William
Longespee's mother as Ida, wife of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, in
1993. I cite the source.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Having ordered PA3 I can tell you that while Ray Phair gets an
explicit
reference to his correction of CP's data of Ralph V de Tony's
marriage
to Margaret, his only mention in the section on Longespée's mother
(p.
457) is being mentioned in the usual long list of amorphous
references,
this time in a clutch of two from TAG:
"... TAG 40 (1965): 47-49 (incorrectly identifies William
Longespée's
mother as Annabel de Baliol); 77 (2002): 137-149, 279-280(article
bt
Ray Phair, citing Philippe II of France Les Registres de Philippe
Auguste 1 (Recueil des Historiens de la France. Docs. Financiers et
Administratifs 7) (1992): miscellania no. 13."
One notes of course both the collegial swipe with details of crime at
the author of TAG 40 and the lack of compliment with details of his
major contribution for Ray Phair.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: To err is human
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To comment on all mistakes, no, but when the sources cided disagree with
the conclusion you are using it to support, it seems somewhat misleading
not to include some indication of this (as was done with the Sheppard
citation). If done consistently (and not gratuitously), this is not a
backhanded slight, but simply full disclosure. It allows the reader to
distinguish between citations given for historical perspectve on the
questions, vs. citations actually supporting the conclusion presented.
taf
Dear Tim ~
It was Dr. Faris' custom to mention when there was a discrepancy
between sources. He didn't do it for every source; he was somewhat
haphazard. He certainly didn't mean it as a swipe to anyone. He often
stated things like "contains error" or "generation omitted" following a
given citation. Usually the author in question was long since dead.
I've tried to follow Dr. Faris' suit and keep my comments strictly
objective in my books. However, in the countless published sources
that I've checked, I find that I'm constantly finding discrepancies,
misstatements, and errors in the literature. In fact, I could write an
entire book just discussing all the errors and omissions that I've
found in Complete Peerage alone. Objectivity aside, it's simply not
possible to comment on all mistakes I've found in the literature in my
books.
To comment on all mistakes, no, but when the sources cided disagree with
the conclusion you are using it to support, it seems somewhat misleading
not to include some indication of this (as was done with the Sheppard
citation). If done consistently (and not gratuitously), this is not a
backhanded slight, but simply full disclosure. It allows the reader to
distinguish between citations given for historical perspectve on the
questions, vs. citations actually supporting the conclusion presented.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Dear Tim ~
Your experience with the London College of Arms doesn't surprise me.
Old myths usually die hard. Someone approached me recently and asked
about my Plantagenet Ancestry book. The person wanted to know if the
evidence had been located to prove "Fair Rosamond Clifford" was the
mother of William Longespee. They were devastated when I said no.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Your experience with the London College of Arms doesn't surprise me.
Old myths usually die hard. Someone approached me recently and asked
about my Plantagenet Ancestry book. The person wanted to know if the
evidence had been located to prove "Fair Rosamond Clifford" was the
mother of William Longespee. They were devastated when I said no.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 8 May, Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:
On 2 May 2005 07:46:35 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
A newsgroup member kindly sent me a copy of a review of
Plantagenet
Ancestry which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Louisiana
Genealogical Register. The review was written by the editor,
Michael
K. Smith, who occasionally posts here on the newsgroup.
[Rest snipped except for following quote]
... Even more
important is the discovery that the "Fair Rosamond" Clifford,
mistress
of Henry II, was not the mother of William Longspée (created Earl
of
Salisbury); that dubious honor now goes instead to "Countess Ida,"
wife
of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk.
How could someone place any trust in a "review" which includes such
false and misleading statements. The fact that Rosamond was not
William's mother has been known by scholars for a long time
(although
less knowledgeable novices have included such nonsense in their
databases on numerous occasions), and is certainly not a discovery
which can be attributed to RPA, as the reviewer seems to be
implying.
While you are totally right that as long ago as 1887, as many have
pointed out, the DNB included in Rosamund's article:
"Rosamond is commonly reported to have had two sons by Henry II,
viz.
Geoffrey, archbishop of York, and William Longsword, earl of
Salisbury. This statement does not seem to reach further back than
the end of the sixteenth or beginning of the seventeenth century.
Apparently it is unknown to any English chronicler or historian
before the publication of Speed's "History of Great Britain" in
1611."
however, and this is in defence of DR, as recently as 1996 the then
Somerset herald, of the London College of Arms, did some research for
my
father and included in it that the mother of William Longspee was
none
other than "Fair Rosamund"!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: To err is human
In message of 9 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
But what did Dr Faris have to do with the book that you wrote? Surely
you revised it and even changed the name of the title? Are you also
somewhat haphazard?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Dear Tim ~
It was Dr. Faris' custom to mention when there was a discrepancy
between sources. He didn't do it for every source; he was somewhat
haphazard. He certainly didn't mean it as a swipe to anyone. He often
stated things like "contains error" or "generation omitted" following a
given citation. Usually the author in question was long since dead.
But what did Dr Faris have to do with the book that you wrote? Surely
you revised it and even changed the name of the title? Are you also
somewhat haphazard?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In message of 10 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
If, as we seem to be agreed, it was an old myth debunked well over a
hundred years ago, why did you not say so instead of introducing it as a
straw man to knock down so easily?
I don't believe they were devastated. It is not something that any sane
person would get devastated over. Might they have been pulling your leg?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Tim ~
Your experience with the London College of Arms doesn't surprise me.
Old myths usually die hard.
If, as we seem to be agreed, it was an old myth debunked well over a
hundred years ago, why did you not say so instead of introducing it as a
straw man to knock down so easily?
Someone approached me recently and asked about my Plantagenet Ancestry
book. The person wanted to know if the evidence had been located to prove
"Fair Rosamond Clifford" was the mother of William Longespee. They were
devastated when I said no.
I don't believe they were devastated. It is not something that any sane
person would get devastated over. Might they have been pulling your leg?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Brendan Wilson
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In The book " The House of Clifford" by Hugh Clifford 1987
he states " Williams mother is far from certain. He refers to her in
two documents as Comitissa Ida, mater mea, and while the word mater is
usually taken to mean mother, it is somtimes used loosely to mean
mother in law. Ida has been identified with Ida, Countess of Boulogne,
another of Henry II mistresses."
it also states " Geoffrey, Walter Map,whose knowledge of court life
and gossip was intimate, says that his mother's name was Ykenai or
Hikenai, and it is a fact that William later laid claim to the estates
of a Sir Roger de Akeney a name close enough to Ykenai to be
significant" end of quote page 23/24
Brendan Wilson
On Mon, 09 May 2005 10:56:55 +0100, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org>
wrote:
he states " Williams mother is far from certain. He refers to her in
two documents as Comitissa Ida, mater mea, and while the word mater is
usually taken to mean mother, it is somtimes used loosely to mean
mother in law. Ida has been identified with Ida, Countess of Boulogne,
another of Henry II mistresses."
it also states " Geoffrey, Walter Map,whose knowledge of court life
and gossip was intimate, says that his mother's name was Ykenai or
Hikenai, and it is a fact that William later laid claim to the estates
of a Sir Roger de Akeney a name close enough to Ykenai to be
significant" end of quote page 23/24
Brendan Wilson
On Mon, 09 May 2005 10:56:55 +0100, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org>
wrote:
In message of 8 May, Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:
On 2 May 2005 07:46:35 -0700, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
A newsgroup member kindly sent me a copy of a review of Plantagenet
Ancestry which appeared in the March 2005 issue of Louisiana
Genealogical Register. The review was written by the editor, Michael
K. Smith, who occasionally posts here on the newsgroup.
[Rest snipped except for following quote]
... Even more
important is the discovery that the "Fair Rosamond" Clifford, mistress
of Henry II, was not the mother of William Longspée (created Earl of
Salisbury); that dubious honor now goes instead to "Countess Ida," wife
of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk.
How could someone place any trust in a "review" which includes such
false and misleading statements. The fact that Rosamond was not
William's mother has been known by scholars for a long time (although
less knowledgeable novices have included such nonsense in their
databases on numerous occasions), and is certainly not a discovery
which can be attributed to RPA, as the reviewer seems to be implying.
While you are totally right that as long ago as 1887, as many have
pointed out, the DNB included in Rosamund's article:
"Rosamond is commonly reported to have had two sons by Henry II, viz.
Geoffrey, archbishop of York, and William Longsword, earl of
Salisbury. This statement does not seem to reach further back than
the end of the sixteenth or beginning of the seventeenth century.
Apparently it is unknown to any English chronicler or historian
before the publication of Speed's "History of Great Britain" in 1611."
however, and this is in defence of DR, as recently as 1996 the then
Somerset herald, of the London College of Arms, did some research for my
father and included in it that the mother of William Longspee was none
other than "Fair Rosamund"!
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
No, Tim, I did not say the Rosamond Clifford myth was debunked over a
hundred years ago. It can hardly have been debunked if the College of
Arms was still referring to it as fact in 1996! Your comment about the
London College of Arms does give one pause.
As for the person who asked me about my book, they earnestly believed
that "Fair Rosamond Clifford" was the mother of William Longespee.
They even started to argue the point with me. This was 2005. So, no,
the myth of Fair Rosamond as William Longespee's mother has not
disappeared. It's still very much alive.
By the way, I understand Hollywood plans to make a movie of Rosamond's
life this year depicting her affair with King Henry II and the birth of
their son, William Longespee. Just kidding.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
hundred years ago. It can hardly have been debunked if the College of
Arms was still referring to it as fact in 1996! Your comment about the
London College of Arms does give one pause.
As for the person who asked me about my book, they earnestly believed
that "Fair Rosamond Clifford" was the mother of William Longespee.
They even started to argue the point with me. This was 2005. So, no,
the myth of Fair Rosamond as William Longespee's mother has not
disappeared. It's still very much alive.
By the way, I understand Hollywood plans to make a movie of Rosamond's
life this year depicting her affair with King Henry II and the birth of
their son, William Longespee. Just kidding.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 10 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Tim ~
Your experience with the London College of Arms doesn't surprise
me.
Old myths usually die hard.
If, as we seem to be agreed, it was an old myth debunked well over a
hundred years ago, why did you not say so instead of introducing it
as a
straw man to knock down so easily?
Someone approached me recently and asked about my Plantagenet
Ancestry
book. The person wanted to know if the evidence had been located
to prove
"Fair Rosamond Clifford" was the mother of William Longespee. They
were
devastated when I said no.
I don't believe they were devastated. It is not something that any
sane
person would get devastated over. Might they have been pulling your
leg?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In message of 10 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
The point about the College of Arms is that their prime research is into
the documents they posess - and don't get me wrong: even I have had to
employ them to give me details of some of those documents as they were
the only people to hold them. They will only go outside that frame if
someone particularly requests them to do so. So they keep on coming up
with odd-balls about medieval people as they hardly have any significant
documents, rolls of arms apart, from before 1400. Their major
genealogical resource is the originals of many of the visitations and we
are all aware that these are not reliable for early generations of many
families.
So they don't listen to historians or genealogists. Why do you think
Round was so engagingly caustic about them - and this was around 1900
too - if not because of their unsatisfactory genealogy?
By 1900 the facts were known, and debunked, amongst the historians and
genealogists. It is just that the College of Arms was in its own
time-warp. (How Cokayne survived there is beyond conjecture!)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
No, Tim, I did not say the Rosamond Clifford myth was debunked over a
hundred years ago. It can hardly have been debunked if the College of
Arms was still referring to it as fact in 1996! Your comment about the
London College of Arms does give one pause.
The point about the College of Arms is that their prime research is into
the documents they posess - and don't get me wrong: even I have had to
employ them to give me details of some of those documents as they were
the only people to hold them. They will only go outside that frame if
someone particularly requests them to do so. So they keep on coming up
with odd-balls about medieval people as they hardly have any significant
documents, rolls of arms apart, from before 1400. Their major
genealogical resource is the originals of many of the visitations and we
are all aware that these are not reliable for early generations of many
families.
So they don't listen to historians or genealogists. Why do you think
Round was so engagingly caustic about them - and this was around 1900
too - if not because of their unsatisfactory genealogy?
By 1900 the facts were known, and debunked, amongst the historians and
genealogists. It is just that the College of Arms was in its own
time-warp. (How Cokayne survived there is beyond conjecture!)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Dear Tim ~
Frankly, I'm shocked to hear you say that College of Arms is in "its
own time-warp." What an odd thing to say. The late Sir Anthony Wagner
(died 1995), Garter King of Arms, the chief herald of Britain, was
certainly in no time-warp. He was an distinguished genealogist and a
noted author in his field. I've found Sir Anthony's work to be quite
excellent. I've also enjoyed his writings very much. The College of
Arms' own website says Sir Anthony was "the most eminent scholar at the
College of Arms in the last two hundred years." Why you would
disparage the reputation of Sir Anthony Wagner and his fellows in such
a manner is beyond me. Please apologize at once.
First you say the College of Arms accepted Rosamond Clifford as William
Longespee's mother in 1996, then in the next breath, you "claim" this
connection was thoroughly debunked by 1900. It either was or it
wasn't, Tim. You can't have it both ways. But, you're certainly
trying.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Frankly, I'm shocked to hear you say that College of Arms is in "its
own time-warp." What an odd thing to say. The late Sir Anthony Wagner
(died 1995), Garter King of Arms, the chief herald of Britain, was
certainly in no time-warp. He was an distinguished genealogist and a
noted author in his field. I've found Sir Anthony's work to be quite
excellent. I've also enjoyed his writings very much. The College of
Arms' own website says Sir Anthony was "the most eminent scholar at the
College of Arms in the last two hundred years." Why you would
disparage the reputation of Sir Anthony Wagner and his fellows in such
a manner is beyond me. Please apologize at once.
First you say the College of Arms accepted Rosamond Clifford as William
Longespee's mother in 1996, then in the next breath, you "claim" this
connection was thoroughly debunked by 1900. It either was or it
wasn't, Tim. You can't have it both ways. But, you're certainly
trying.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
By 1900 the facts were known, and debunked, amongst the historians
and
genealogists. It is just that the College of Arms was in its own
time-warp. (How Cokayne survived there is beyond conjecture!)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115787315.655489.294580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Doubtless Tim's brain has developed to (and far beyond) the point at which
he can distinguish between (1) Sir Anthony Wagner and (2) the College of
Arms.
An observation about (2) the College is not a comment on (1) Wagner, who had
his own exasperations with colleagues - not on the same scale as ours in
SGM, of course, but I guess the more ignorant heralds could be very trying
nonetheless.
What a herald out to earn his crust was prepared to peddle in 1996 has
little to do with what might or might not have been known by 1900.
Peter Stewart
news:1115787315.655489.294580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Tim ~
Frankly, I'm shocked to hear you say that College of Arms is in "its
own time-warp." What an odd thing to say. The late Sir Anthony Wagner
(died 1995), Garter King of Arms, the chief herald of Britain, was
certainly in no time-warp. He was an distinguished genealogist and a
noted author in his field. I've found Sir Anthony's work to be quite
excellent. I've also enjoyed his writings very much. The College of
Arms' own website says Sir Anthony was "the most eminent scholar at the
College of Arms in the last two hundred years." Why you would
disparage the reputation of Sir Anthony Wagner and his fellows in such
a manner is beyond me. Please apologize at once.
First you say the College of Arms accepted Rosamond Clifford as William
Longespee's mother in 1996, then in the next breath, you "claim" this
connection was thoroughly debunked by 1900. It either was or it
wasn't, Tim. You can't have it both ways. But, you're certainly
trying.
Doubtless Tim's brain has developed to (and far beyond) the point at which
he can distinguish between (1) Sir Anthony Wagner and (2) the College of
Arms.
An observation about (2) the College is not a comment on (1) Wagner, who had
his own exasperations with colleagues - not on the same scale as ours in
SGM, of course, but I guess the more ignorant heralds could be very trying
nonetheless.
What a herald out to earn his crust was prepared to peddle in 1996 has
little to do with what might or might not have been known by 1900.
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Douglas Richardson wrote:
It was certainly debunked long before 1996. Complete Peerage vol. 11,
published in 1949, dismisses it as a "legend" and refers to the 19th-century
account in the Dictionary of National Biography that Tim has already quoted.
The College's acceptance of Rosamond as William's mother is striking
evidence of the fallibility of the heralds - or more likely their research
assistants - even in the modern day.
Chris Phillips
First you say the College of Arms accepted Rosamond Clifford as William
Longespee's mother in 1996, then in the next breath, you "claim" this
connection was thoroughly debunked by 1900. It either was or it
wasn't, Tim. You can't have it both ways. But, you're certainly
trying.
It was certainly debunked long before 1996. Complete Peerage vol. 11,
published in 1949, dismisses it as a "legend" and refers to the 19th-century
account in the Dictionary of National Biography that Tim has already quoted.
The College's acceptance of Rosamond as William's mother is striking
evidence of the fallibility of the heralds - or more likely their research
assistants - even in the modern day.
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Dear Chris ~
I'm on my way out the door right now to speak this weekend at the
Southern California Genealogical Society's Jamboree in Burbank,
California. As such, I don't have the time just now to discuss the
matter of Rosamond Clifford and William Longespee. On my return,
however, I hope to examine this issue in depth. My preliminary
investigations indicate Rosamond Clifford's placement as William
Longespee's mother is still extremely popular among the pedigree charts
of living genealogists. Far from being debunked, I can assure you that
the legend is still very much alive.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Chris Phillips wrote:
I'm on my way out the door right now to speak this weekend at the
Southern California Genealogical Society's Jamboree in Burbank,
California. As such, I don't have the time just now to discuss the
matter of Rosamond Clifford and William Longespee. On my return,
however, I hope to examine this issue in depth. My preliminary
investigations indicate Rosamond Clifford's placement as William
Longespee's mother is still extremely popular among the pedigree charts
of living genealogists. Far from being debunked, I can assure you that
the legend is still very much alive.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
First you say the College of Arms accepted Rosamond Clifford as
William
Longespee's mother in 1996, then in the next breath, you "claim"
this
connection was thoroughly debunked by 1900. It either was or it
wasn't, Tim. You can't have it both ways. But, you're certainly
trying.
It was certainly debunked long before 1996. Complete Peerage vol. 11,
published in 1949, dismisses it as a "legend" and refers to the
19th-century
account in the Dictionary of National Biography that Tim has already
quoted.
The College's acceptance of Rosamond as William's mother is striking
evidence of the fallibility of the heralds - or more likely their
research
assistants - even in the modern day.
Chris Phillips
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Many things that have been debunked can still be found in 'newspapers'
like the Weekly World News (I recall the headline, "Aliens hid Iraq
WMDs"). That it appears broadly in unscholarly sources is not evidence
that it hasn't been debunked, only that such sources are a century or
more behind the curve.
taf
Dear Chris ~
I'm on my way out the door right now to speak this weekend at the
Southern California Genealogical Society's Jamboree in Burbank,
California. As such, I don't have the time just now to discuss the
matter of Rosamond Clifford and William Longespee. On my return,
however, I hope to examine this issue in depth. My preliminary
investigations indicate Rosamond Clifford's placement as William
Longespee's mother is still extremely popular among the pedigree charts
of living genealogists. Far from being debunked, I can assure you that
the legend is still very much alive.
Many things that have been debunked can still be found in 'newspapers'
like the Weekly World News (I recall the headline, "Aliens hid Iraq
WMDs"). That it appears broadly in unscholarly sources is not evidence
that it hasn't been debunked, only that such sources are a century or
more behind the curve.
taf
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In message of 11 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
I am sorry to hear you are shocked. But the progress of any knowledge
has to take into account different views. They should be reasoned about
not emotionally reacted to. Being shocked is not a genealogical
statement.
There is no need to apologise. If some members produce documents that
are clearly faulty and this case of the Fair Rosamund is not the only
fault, then there is something wrong. An examination of other documents
emanating from the College, such as the tables on pp. 231-254 of John
Maclean's "Memoirs of the Family of Poyntz" and of several extensive
armorial achievements in Fox-Davies' "Armorial Families" shows these
errors being repeated time and again, almost certainly all from the same
sources.
If other members get things right through their own researches,
probably taking themselves outside the purviews of the College, then
good for them. Certainly the most illustrious member, in my opinion,
was G E Cokayne; he has left behind a marvellous memorial of scholarly
standards that will live on in spite of the occasional failure of him
and his successors to find documents that even more modern scholarship has
made plain.
Why not? The College of Arms had not read what the scholarly world was
saying. They were locked in their own time warp of curious pedigree
documents rather than evidence surviving from the periods concerned.
And have succeeded.
What I am talking of here is a whole step change of methodology.
The practice of the visitations and of Burke and of the College of Arms
were all to rely on pedigrees handed down on pieces of parchment as
manna from heaven. This style was generally accepted amongst the
gentry of England, as it was by my father for whom the College's word
was enough, if not sacrosanct. (I hasten to add that my father was not
a genealogist, he had more exciting pursuits.)
But as any student of genealogy knows, there was another methodology.
This was to find documents from the times concerned that reported in
some manner or other on the families concerned. Exponents of this new
methodology (that I have come across and I am not a scholar) include
Smyth in the early seventeenth century, Ormerod in the early 19th
century, Round and Cokayne in the late 19th century. Obviously they
wer not 100% successful as they did not have access to all surviving
documents. But the methodology was established and has been radical in
improving our genealogical knowledge over recent years, centuries even.
Long may the process continue!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Tim ~
Frankly, I'm shocked to hear you say that College of Arms is in "its
own time-warp."
I am sorry to hear you are shocked. But the progress of any knowledge
has to take into account different views. They should be reasoned about
not emotionally reacted to. Being shocked is not a genealogical
statement.
What an odd thing to say. The late Sir Anthony
Wagner (died 1995), Garter King of Arms, the chief herald of Britain,
was certainly in no time-warp. He was an distinguished genealogist
and a noted author in his field. I've found Sir Anthony's work to be
quite excellent. I've also enjoyed his writings very much. The
College of Arms' own website says Sir Anthony was "the most eminent
scholar at the College of Arms in the last two hundred years." Why
you would disparage the reputation of Sir Anthony Wagner and his
fellows in such a manner is beyond me. Please apologize at once.
There is no need to apologise. If some members produce documents that
are clearly faulty and this case of the Fair Rosamund is not the only
fault, then there is something wrong. An examination of other documents
emanating from the College, such as the tables on pp. 231-254 of John
Maclean's "Memoirs of the Family of Poyntz" and of several extensive
armorial achievements in Fox-Davies' "Armorial Families" shows these
errors being repeated time and again, almost certainly all from the same
sources.
If other members get things right through their own researches,
probably taking themselves outside the purviews of the College, then
good for them. Certainly the most illustrious member, in my opinion,
was G E Cokayne; he has left behind a marvellous memorial of scholarly
standards that will live on in spite of the occasional failure of him
and his successors to find documents that even more modern scholarship has
made plain.
First you say the College of Arms accepted Rosamond Clifford as
William Longespee's mother in 1996, then in the next breath, you
"claim" this connection was thoroughly debunked by 1900. It either
was or it wasn't, Tim. You can't have it both ways.
Why not? The College of Arms had not read what the scholarly world was
saying. They were locked in their own time warp of curious pedigree
documents rather than evidence surviving from the periods concerned.
But, you're certainly trying.
And have succeeded.
What I am talking of here is a whole step change of methodology.
The practice of the visitations and of Burke and of the College of Arms
were all to rely on pedigrees handed down on pieces of parchment as
manna from heaven. This style was generally accepted amongst the
gentry of England, as it was by my father for whom the College's word
was enough, if not sacrosanct. (I hasten to add that my father was not
a genealogist, he had more exciting pursuits.)
But as any student of genealogy knows, there was another methodology.
This was to find documents from the times concerned that reported in
some manner or other on the families concerned. Exponents of this new
methodology (that I have come across and I am not a scholar) include
Smyth in the early seventeenth century, Ormerod in the early 19th
century, Round and Cokayne in the late 19th century. Obviously they
wer not 100% successful as they did not have access to all surviving
documents. But the methodology was established and has been radical in
improving our genealogical knowledge over recent years, centuries even.
Long may the process continue!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In message of 11 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Which living genealogists (College of Arms apart and I question whether
they are genealogists)?
I agree that a quick Google search on "Longespee Rosamund" (without the
quote marks) turns up quite a few sites that reckon Rosamund Clifford
was the mother of William Longspée. But it also turns up a few that
that say she wasn't.
Surely on this newsgroup we have advanced beyond doing internet lookups
as the authoritative source for our genealogy?
Surely we have learnt to look up respected sources?
The question is whether is is alive amongst competent genealogists.
It is dead to all who have read CP (Complete Peerage). Though CP is, I
agree, not very commonly found much as it is vital to anyone doing any
serious work on English medieval genealogy (combined with Chris Phillips
corrigenda of course).
It is dead to all who have read DNB (Dictionary of National Biography).
At least in England this set of volumes is to be found in all reasonable
reference libraries, not just the 'good' ones. I cannot answer for the
rest of the world but if you are to study English genealogy, then is
makes sense to gain access to well accepted reference books and DNB is
certainly one of those.
I do hope that we are talking of what the reasonably interested
students of genealogy might study. I simply cannot believe that anyone
who has done some serious studies and who has taken an interest in the
parentage of Wm Longspée will not be very well aware that the Rosamund
Clifford myth is well and truly debunked.
Except that I am not, I might say "I am shocked" at the suggestion that
the Rosamund Clifford myth is taken seriously by anyone who pretends to
understand genealogy.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
I'm on my way out the door right now to speak this weekend at the
Southern California Genealogical Society's Jamboree in Burbank,
California. As such, I don't have the time just now to discuss the
matter of Rosamond Clifford and William Longespee. On my return,
however, I hope to examine this issue in depth. My preliminary
investigations indicate Rosamond Clifford's placement as William
Longespee's mother is still extremely popular among the pedigree charts
of living genealogists.
Which living genealogists (College of Arms apart and I question whether
they are genealogists)?
I agree that a quick Google search on "Longespee Rosamund" (without the
quote marks) turns up quite a few sites that reckon Rosamund Clifford
was the mother of William Longspée. But it also turns up a few that
that say she wasn't.
Surely on this newsgroup we have advanced beyond doing internet lookups
as the authoritative source for our genealogy?
Surely we have learnt to look up respected sources?
Far from being debunked, I can assure you that the legend is still very
much alive.
The question is whether is is alive amongst competent genealogists.
It is dead to all who have read CP (Complete Peerage). Though CP is, I
agree, not very commonly found much as it is vital to anyone doing any
serious work on English medieval genealogy (combined with Chris Phillips
corrigenda of course).
It is dead to all who have read DNB (Dictionary of National Biography).
At least in England this set of volumes is to be found in all reasonable
reference libraries, not just the 'good' ones. I cannot answer for the
rest of the world but if you are to study English genealogy, then is
makes sense to gain access to well accepted reference books and DNB is
certainly one of those.
I do hope that we are talking of what the reasonably interested
students of genealogy might study. I simply cannot believe that anyone
who has done some serious studies and who has taken an interest in the
parentage of Wm Longspée will not be very well aware that the Rosamund
Clifford myth is well and truly debunked.
Except that I am not, I might say "I am shocked" at the suggestion that
the Rosamund Clifford myth is taken seriously by anyone who pretends to
understand genealogy.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In a message dated 5/11/05 5:38:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:
<< It is dead to all who have read DNB (Dictionary of National Biography).
At least in England this set of volumes is to be found in all reasonable
reference libraries, not just the 'good' ones. I cannot answer for the
rest of the world but if you are to study English genealogy, then is
makes sense to gain access to well accepted reference books and DNB is
certainly one of those. >>
And I would like to add that although CP is not, DNB *is* available to browse
on http://www.ancestry.com with an appropriate subscription to the English records
collection, which I think is about $40 a year.
Other than DNB, it also includes Burke's Baronetage and Peerage and various
other things. But those two caught my eye especially.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< It is dead to all who have read DNB (Dictionary of National Biography).
At least in England this set of volumes is to be found in all reasonable
reference libraries, not just the 'good' ones. I cannot answer for the
rest of the world but if you are to study English genealogy, then is
makes sense to gain access to well accepted reference books and DNB is
certainly one of those. >>
And I would like to add that although CP is not, DNB *is* available to browse
on http://www.ancestry.com with an appropriate subscription to the English records
collection, which I think is about $40 a year.
Other than DNB, it also includes Burke's Baronetage and Peerage and various
other things. But those two caught my eye especially.
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Will Johnson wrote:
This must be the first edition of DNB from the late 19th century, now
obviously rather outdated. The revised edition has just been published, both
on paper and online (details are available at http://www.oxforddnb.com/).
Chris Phillips
And I would like to add that although CP is not, DNB *is* available to
browse
on http://www.ancestry.com with an appropriate subscription to the English
records
collection, which I think is about $40 a year.
This must be the first edition of DNB from the late 19th century, now
obviously rather outdated. The revised edition has just been published, both
on paper and online (details are available at http://www.oxforddnb.com/).
Chris Phillips
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
In message of 12 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
$99.95 according to their site. One day, and when it it at least a year
since my last (free) access to Ancestry.com so that there is new info, I
really must take out a subscription but it's not cheap.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
And I would like to add that although CP is not, DNB *is* available
to browse on http://www.ancestry.com with an appropriate subscription to
the English records collection, which I think is about $40 a year.
$99.95 according to their site. One day, and when it it at least a year
since my last (free) access to Ancestry.com so that there is new info, I
really must take out a subscription but it's not cheap.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Renia
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry by Michael K. Smith
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
For a one-namer, like me, I'm afraid to admit ancestry.com has been a
boon. It now has most English and Welsh census data from 1841-1901 where
you can view the original documents. Ditto for many USA censuses. And
much else besides. Trouble is, it give me far too much work to do.
Renia
In message of 12 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
And I would like to add that although CP is not, DNB *is* available
to browse on http://www.ancestry.com with an appropriate subscription to
the English records collection, which I think is about $40 a year.
$99.95 according to their site. One day, and when it it at least a year
since my last (free) access to Ancestry.com so that there is new info, I
really must take out a subscription but it's not cheap.
For a one-namer, like me, I'm afraid to admit ancestry.com has been a
boon. It now has most English and Welsh census data from 1841-1901 where
you can view the original documents. Ditto for many USA censuses. And
much else besides. Trouble is, it give me far too much work to do.
Renia
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Review Of Plantagenet Ancestry By Michael K. Smith
Hilarious!
"One namers" are indeed an amusing group of people.
If they didn't exist we'd have to invent some.
DSH
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:d60jl2$5ph$1@usenet.otenet.gr...
| Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
|
| > In message of 12 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
| >
| >
| >>And I would like to add that although CP is not, DNB *is* available
| >>to browse on http://www.ancestry.com with an appropriate subscription to
| >>the English records collection, which I think is about $40 a year.
| >
| >
| > $99.95 according to their site. One day, and when it it at least a
year
| > since my last (free) access to Ancestry.com so that there is new
info, I
| > really must take out a subscription but it's not cheap.
|
| For a one-namer, like me, I'm afraid to admit ancestry.com has been a
| boon. It now has most English and Welsh census data from 1841-1901
where
| you can view the original documents. Ditto for many USA censuses. And
| much else besides. Trouble is, it give me far too much work to do.
|
| Renia
"One namers" are indeed an amusing group of people.
If they didn't exist we'd have to invent some.
DSH
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:d60jl2$5ph$1@usenet.otenet.gr...
| Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
|
| > In message of 12 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
| >
| >
| >>And I would like to add that although CP is not, DNB *is* available
| >>to browse on http://www.ancestry.com with an appropriate subscription to
| >>the English records collection, which I think is about $40 a year.
| >
| >
| > $99.95 according to their site. One day, and when it it at least a
year
| > since my last (free) access to Ancestry.com so that there is new
info, I
| > really must take out a subscription but it's not cheap.
|
| For a one-namer, like me, I'm afraid to admit ancestry.com has been a
| boon. It now has most English and Welsh census data from 1841-1901
where
| you can view the original documents. Ditto for many USA censuses. And
| much else besides. Trouble is, it give me far too much work to do.
|
| Renia