King's kinsmen: William, Earl of Gloucester, and Bishop Raou

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson royala

King's kinsmen: William, Earl of Gloucester, and Bishop Raou

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 08 mai 2005 20:54:15

Dear Newsgroup ~

In recent time, we've seen it alleged here on the newsgroup that the
word "cognatus" had the "quite usual" meaning of "brother-in-law" in
medieval England. In my research, I don't recall seeing a single
instance of the word "cognatus" meaning "brother-in-law" in records
after 1200. Rather, as best I can determine, the word is correctly
translated in this period as "kinsman."

Here are two examples of the word "cognatus" from the time period in
question. In the index to the book, Recueil des actes de Henri II,
roi d'Angleterre et duc de Normandie, pg. 136, the editor indicates
that King Henry II of England refers to two men as his "cognatus" in
his known charters. These two men are identified in the index as
William, Earl of Gloucester, and an unnamed Bishop of Angers. Neither
man is King Henry II's brother-in-law. Rather, both individuals appear
to be the King's first cousin on his mother's side.

William, Earl of Gloucester, is the well known son of Robert, Earl of
Gloucester, the bastard son of King Henry I of England.

The Bishop of Angers intended is surely Raoul de Beaumont, Bishop of
Angers, the well known son of Roscelin, Vicomte of Beaumont, by
Constance, illegitmate daughter of King Henry I of England. Raoul de
Beaumont was elected Bishop of Angers in 1178, and died in 1197.

Elsewhere, I find that Bishop Raoul de Beaumont witnessed a charter
with King Henry II in 1183 at Angers [Reference: Mélanges offerts à
Szabolcs de Vajay à l'occasion de son Cinquantième Anniversaire
(1971), pg. 188, 189 (footnote 9)]. Curiously, this charter is not
included in the Receuil des actes de Henri II series.

In any event, we have two instances of "cognatus" here. Neither
reference to "cognatus" means "brother-in-law." Rather, in both cases,
it clearly means "kinsman."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: King's kinsmen: William, Earl of Gloucester, and Bishop

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 08 mai 2005 21:19:06

In message of 8 May, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

In recent time, we've seen it alleged here on the newsgroup that the
word "cognatus" had the "quite usual" meaning of "brother-in-law" in
medieval England. In my research, I don't recall seeing a single
instance of the word "cognatus" meaning "brother-in-law" in records
after 1200. Rather, as best I can determine, the word is correctly
translated in this period as "kinsman."

Here are two examples of the word "cognatus" from the time period in
question. In the index to the book, Recueil des actes de Henri II,
roi d'Angleterre et duc de Normandie, pg. 136, the editor indicates
that King Henry II of England refers to two men as his "cognatus" in
his known charters.

Somehow I doubt that Henry II would have delineated the precise words.
Much more likely he would have told a lawyer to get on with it and then
commanded that his seal be affixed when other underlings had said it
looked OK.

So this sentence should start:

"King Henry II's scribe refers ..."

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

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: King's kinsmen: William, Earl of Gloucester, and Bishop

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 08 mai 2005 22:08:40

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

In any event, we have two instances of "cognatus" here. Neither
reference to "cognatus" means "brother-in-law." Rather, in both cases,
it clearly means "kinsman."

There is nothing new here. You continue to argue as if single soecific
cases can ever prove false a generalized possibility: they can't.
Setting aside that as often as you have tried to recast the
counterargument one would think there would be a run on straw with which
to make the men you are constructing, this habit of presenting a single
instance as if it provided general proof has been run out and shot down
before.

If you want to prove a general rule, it takes a statistical analysis of
numerous entries in a range of sources (as many as are readily
available): not just two instances. If you want to prove an absolute
rule (which you seem to be trying by implication) it takes an analysis
of even more - every entry in every source you have available may not be
enough. Two examples doesn't scratch the surface. This is like saying
that coins can't have a buffalo on the back, since I have two in my
pocket that don't. (Alternatively, to prove a possibility, it takes but
one example, and that has been provided, although the cited usage lies
outside your arbitrary limits for the period of interest.)

More importantly, it is tedious that every time you and Mr. Stewart get
into a flame war, you parade out a new thread presenting one or two
(meaningless, for the reasons above) examples where _cognatus_ does not
mean "brother-in-law" (as when we disagree, you are likely to crosspost,
just because I have suggested that you not do it as it is more likely to
disrupt the group than more limited forms of childishness). You seem to
be intend on demonstrating the need for a moderated list by your own
actions.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: King's kinsmen: William, Earl of Gloucester, and Bishop

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 mai 2005 23:26:48

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115582055.887910.200140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<chomp>

In any event, we have two instances of "cognatus" here. Neither
reference to "cognatus" means "brother-in-law." Rather, in both cases,
it clearly means "kinsman."

Stop the traffic! Pulp the dictionaries!

Richardson has spotted two instances of a meaning that no dictionary has
denied, and nor have I.

So clearly every lexicographer that ever lived needs to be insulted and
their works should be discarded instantly. The oracle has spoken, from both
ends at once, to tell us about two major pieces of what is evidently news to
him.

Yet still he doesn't appear to have read the work of Bullough and
Guerreau-Jalabert on the very subject that he wishes to make his own. Rum.

But par for the course, of course.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: King's kinsmen: William, Earl of Gloucester, and Bishop

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 mai 2005 23:44:48

I don't know what happened to the "reply" chevrons in my post below - the
first paragraph ('In any event...it clearly means "kinsman."' [sic] was a
quote from Richardson's earlier post, and the rest was mine.

Peter Stewart


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Imwfe.7031$31.4809@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115582055.887910.200140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

chomp

In any event, we have two instances of "cognatus" here. Neither
reference to "cognatus" means "brother-in-law." Rather, in both cases,
it clearly means "kinsman."

Stop the traffic! Pulp the dictionaries!

Richardson has spotted two instances of a meaning that no dictionary has
denied, and nor have I.

So clearly every lexicographer that ever lived needs to be insulted and
their works should be discarded instantly. The oracle has spoken, from
both ends at once, to tell us about two major pieces of what is evidently
news to him.

Yet still he doesn't appear to have read the work of Bullough and
Guerreau-Jalabert on the very subject that he wishes to make his own. Rum.

But par for the course, of course.

Peter Stewart



Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»