Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson royala

Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 09 mai 2005 04:24:53

Dear Newsgroup ~

The information further below is taken from Chris Phillips' excellent
website regarding the train of events regarding the identification of
Countess Ida, mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury. Mr.
Phillips is accurate as to names and dates of individual researchers.
I have a few details of my own to add, however.

In 1964 Walter Lee Sheppard, FASG, published an article in which he
identified the mother of King Henry II's bastard son, William
Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, as Annabel de Baliol [Reference: TAG 40
(1964): 47-49]. The article by Mr. Sheppard was long on theory, weak
on evidence. In 1979, the historian, Vera London, published The
Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35). Contained in
that cartulary were two charters issued by William Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury, in which Earl William specifically referred to his mother as
"Countess Ida." Following the publication of that work, Charles Evans,
FSA, published an article in 1982 in which he argued that Countess Ida
was possibly Ida of Lorraine, Countess of Boulogne [Reference: The
Genealogist, vol. 3, 1982, pp. 265-266]. This article was published in
the journal edited by Neil Thompson, FASG.

After the Evans article appeared, I reviewed the available evidence and
concluded that William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida, couldn't have
been the Countess of Boulogne at all, as that woman is known to have
died childless. Rather, I believed the evidence indicated that William
Longespee's mother, Countess Ida, was the wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl
of Norfolk. At the time, I passed my identification of Countess Ida
along to Dr. David Faris for inclusion in the forthcoming 7th edition
of Ancestral Roots authored by Walter Lee Sheppard with Dr. Faris'
assistance. Dr. David Faris told me that he presented my evidence to
Mr. Sheppard in 1992 at Mr. Sheppard's own home. As they were sitting
at the kitchen table, Dr. Faris brought up the subject of my
identification of Countess Ida. Mr. Sheppard became absolutely IRATE
when confronted with the evidence. Mr. Sheppard adamantly refused to
publish my identification of Countess Ida, no doubt because it would
show that his earlier article identifying William Longespee's mother as
Annabel de Baliol was in error. When I was notified by Dr. Faris of
what Mr. Sheppard had done, I terminated all further contact with Mr.
Sheppard. Dr. Faris and I, however, remained close personal friends
and collaborators until his untimely death in 2001.

In 1993, Gary Boyd Roberts published his seminal work, The Royal
Descents of 500 Immigrants. At Mr. Roberts' request, he included my
identification of Countess Ida as the wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk in his book and gave me credit for the same. Had Mr. Roberts
not published this information, it would have taken another ten years
before I published my identification of Countess Ida under my own name
in Plantagenet Ancestry, which book was published in 2004 by
Genealogical Publishing Company. In my book, I further identified
Countess Ida as the likely daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162), of
Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret (b. c.1125, living
1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.

I know we would all like to think that accomplished genealogists such
as Mr. Sheppard are free from ego, bias, and pettiness. However, I can
attest from personal knowledge that genealogists are human beings who
make errors in judgement just like everyone else. The good news is
that Countess Ida's identity is now in print and a likely set of
parents has been assigned to her. I only regret that as a young
genealogist, I was prevented by Mr. Sheppard from publishing my
identification of Countess Ida. In this vein, much credit goes to Mr.
Roberts who published my identification of Countess Ida in his book in
1993. Mr. Roberts' collegial attitude, his willingness to share
information with all who ask, and, most of all, his candor and honesty,
are an example for all of us to follow. Surely his election as a
Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists is long overdue.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF CHRIS PHILLIPS' STATEMENTS REGARDING THE HISTORY OF THE
IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTESS IDA
{http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_salisbury.shtml).

Volume 11, page 379 (as modified by volume 14):
ELA (or ISABEL), only da. and h. [of William (of Salisbury), Earl of
Salisbury (d. 1196)], b. circa 1191, in 1196 was given by Richard I,
with the Earldom of SALISBURY, to his bastard br., WILLIAM
LONGESPEE.(f)
Note f:
Hoveden, vol. iv, p. 13. The legend that he was s. of Henry II by Fair
Rosamond is discussed by Hunt in the Dict. Nat. Biog. In the fiscal
year 1196-97 he received the 3rd penny of Wilts by the King's writ.
Charles Evans argued (in The Geneal., vol. 3, 1982, pp. 265-6) that the
Earl's mother was possibly Ida of Lorraine, suo jure Countess of
Boulogne.

Evans's suggestion was based on references by William Longespee to his
mother as "Countess Ida" in the published cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory. Douglas Richardson later put forward the alternative proposal,
that William's mother was Ida, who married Roger (le Bigod), Earl of
Norfolk (d. 1221) [G.B. Roberts, The Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants... [c.1993]].

Ida's identity, together with the chronology of William's birth, was
further discussed by Paul Reed, in The American Genealogist, vol. 77,
pp. 137-149 (April 2002).

In July 2002, Ray Phair produced proof that William's mother was the
same Ida who married Roger Bigod - in 1214, Ralph Bigod is described as
William's brother [citing J.W. Baldwin, ed., Les registres de Philippe
Augustus, miscellanea, no 13 (1992)]. See Ray Phair, "William
Longespée, Ralph Bigod, and Countess Ida" [The American Genealogist,
vol. 77, pp. 279-281].

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 mai 2005 04:43:30

The post below is a colossal huff & puff for a mere CONJECTURE that was not
in any way proved until Ray Phair discovered direct evidence.

To talk about an "identification" of Countess Ida when this entirely lacked
proof is hardly scholarly, and what's more to say she is now further
identified "as the likely daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162), of
Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret", another speculation (that
indeed isn't widely viewed as "likely" at all) is just over-egging a very
meagre pudding.

By the way, Richardson - or some other gremlin - has apparently tinkered
with the settings in his e-mails to prevent chevrons appearing on replies.
Bizarre.

Peter Stewart


<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1115609093.944562.118900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

The information further below is taken from Chris Phillips' excellent
website regarding the train of events regarding the identification of
Countess Ida, mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury. Mr.
Phillips is accurate as to names and dates of individual researchers.
I have a few details of my own to add, however.

In 1964 Walter Lee Sheppard, FASG, published an article in which he
identified the mother of King Henry II's bastard son, William
Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, as Annabel de Baliol [Reference: TAG 40
(1964): 47-49]. The article by Mr. Sheppard was long on theory, weak
on evidence. In 1979, the historian, Vera London, published The
Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35). Contained in
that cartulary were two charters issued by William Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury, in which Earl William specifically referred to his mother as
"Countess Ida." Following the publication of that work, Charles Evans,
FSA, published an article in 1982 in which he argued that Countess Ida
was possibly Ida of Lorraine, Countess of Boulogne [Reference: The
Genealogist, vol. 3, 1982, pp. 265-266]. This article was published in
the journal edited by Neil Thompson, FASG.

After the Evans article appeared, I reviewed the available evidence and
concluded that William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida, couldn't have
been the Countess of Boulogne at all, as that woman is known to have
died childless. Rather, I believed the evidence indicated that William
Longespee's mother, Countess Ida, was the wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl
of Norfolk. At the time, I passed my identification of Countess Ida
along to Dr. David Faris for inclusion in the forthcoming 7th edition
of Ancestral Roots authored by Walter Lee Sheppard with Dr. Faris'
assistance. Dr. David Faris told me that he presented my evidence to
Mr. Sheppard in 1992 at Mr. Sheppard's own home. As they were sitting
at the kitchen table, Dr. Faris brought up the subject of my
identification of Countess Ida. Mr. Sheppard became absolutely IRATE
when confronted with the evidence. Mr. Sheppard adamantly refused to
publish my identification of Countess Ida, no doubt because it would
show that his earlier article identifying William Longespee's mother as
Annabel de Baliol was in error. When I was notified by Dr. Faris of
what Mr. Sheppard had done, I terminated all further contact with Mr.
Sheppard. Dr. Faris and I, however, remained close personal friends
and collaborators until his untimely death in 2001.

In 1993, Gary Boyd Roberts published his seminal work, The Royal
Descents of 500 Immigrants. At Mr. Roberts' request, he included my
identification of Countess Ida as the wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk in his book and gave me credit for the same. Had Mr. Roberts
not published this information, it would have taken another ten years
before I published my identification of Countess Ida under my own name
in Plantagenet Ancestry, which book was published in 2004 by
Genealogical Publishing Company. In my book, I further identified
Countess Ida as the likely daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162), of
Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret (b. c.1125, living
1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.

I know we would all like to think that accomplished genealogists such
as Mr. Sheppard are free from ego, bias, and pettiness. However, I can
attest from personal knowledge that genealogists are human beings who
make errors in judgement just like everyone else. The good news is
that Countess Ida's identity is now in print and a likely set of
parents has been assigned to her. I only regret that as a young
genealogist, I was prevented by Mr. Sheppard from publishing my
identification of Countess Ida. In this vein, much credit goes to Mr.
Roberts who published my identification of Countess Ida in his book in
1993. Mr. Roberts' collegial attitude, his willingness to share
information with all who ask, and, most of all, his candor and honesty,
are an example for all of us to follow. Surely his election as a
Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists is long overdue.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF CHRIS PHILLIPS' STATEMENTS REGARDING THE HISTORY OF THE
IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTESS IDA
{http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_salisbury.shtml).

Volume 11, page 379 (as modified by volume 14):
ELA (or ISABEL), only da. and h. [of William (of Salisbury), Earl of
Salisbury (d. 1196)], b. circa 1191, in 1196 was given by Richard I,
with the Earldom of SALISBURY, to his bastard br., WILLIAM
LONGESPEE.(f)
Note f:
Hoveden, vol. iv, p. 13. The legend that he was s. of Henry II by Fair
Rosamond is discussed by Hunt in the Dict. Nat. Biog. In the fiscal
year 1196-97 he received the 3rd penny of Wilts by the King's writ.
Charles Evans argued (in The Geneal., vol. 3, 1982, pp. 265-6) that the
Earl's mother was possibly Ida of Lorraine, suo jure Countess of
Boulogne.

Evans's suggestion was based on references by William Longespee to his
mother as "Countess Ida" in the published cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory. Douglas Richardson later put forward the alternative proposal,
that William's mother was Ida, who married Roger (le Bigod), Earl of
Norfolk (d. 1221) [G.B. Roberts, The Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants... [c.1993]].

Ida's identity, together with the chronology of William's birth, was
further discussed by Paul Reed, in The American Genealogist, vol. 77,
pp. 137-149 (April 2002).

In July 2002, Ray Phair produced proof that William's mother was the
same Ida who married Roger Bigod - in 1214, Ralph Bigod is described as
William's brother [citing J.W. Baldwin, ed., Les registres de Philippe
Augustus, miscellanea, no 13 (1992)]. See Ray Phair, "William
Longespée, Ralph Bigod, and Countess Ida" [The American Genealogist,
vol. 77, pp. 279-281].

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 mai 2005 06:52:14

John Higgins wrote:

Hmmm....does "all of us" include DR?

It never has to this point, John, but you never know - one day he might
climb down from his high horse and realise it never left the stable
yard of his own ego, that is now eye-deep in equine ordure.

Peter Stewart

John Higgins

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess

Legg inn av John Higgins » 09 mai 2005 07:50:08

It's perhaps worth noting that, although GBR in RD500 gave Mr. Richardson
SHARED credit for this identification, citing "a forthcoming Countess Ida
monograph" [never published] by Mr. Richardson as well as the Evans and
London articles mentioned by Richardson, GBR in RD600 published last year
removed the reference to Richardson and instead cites the Paul Reed article
in TAG in 2002 mentioned by Chris Phillips below (but, strangely, not the
Ray Phair article of the same year, which clinched the identification).

Mr. Richardson also unfairly characterizes the the conclusions of Walter Lee
Sheppard regarding the identifcation of the mother of William Longespee.
It's easy to see in AR7 that Sheppard was NOT stubbornly holding to his
hypothesis of 1964 that Annabel de Baliol was the mother, as Richardson
implies - Sheppard specifically says "natural son of Henry II by an unknown
mistress, perhaps Alix de Porhoët". One can wonder about Richardson's
characterization of Sheppard's response to Richardson's hypothesis - but
it's now all hearsay and the parties involved are dead (except DR!), so
we'll never know....

It's certainly tempting, but probably a waste of words, to comment on Mr.
Richardson's remarks that "genealogists are human beings who make errors in
judgement just like everyone else" [maybe only SOME genealogists make
errors - certainly not DR!!] or that "Mr. Roberts' collegial attitude...
and, most of all, his candor and honesty, are an example for all of us to
follow". Hmmm....does "all of us" include DR?

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:24 PM
Subject: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida


Dear Newsgroup ~

The information further below is taken from Chris Phillips' excellent
website regarding the train of events regarding the identification of
Countess Ida, mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury. Mr.
Phillips is accurate as to names and dates of individual researchers.
I have a few details of my own to add, however.

In 1964 Walter Lee Sheppard, FASG, published an article in which he
identified the mother of King Henry II's bastard son, William
Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, as Annabel de Baliol [Reference: TAG 40
(1964): 47-49]. The article by Mr. Sheppard was long on theory, weak
on evidence. In 1979, the historian, Vera London, published The
Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35). Contained in
that cartulary were two charters issued by William Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury, in which Earl William specifically referred to his mother as
"Countess Ida." Following the publication of that work, Charles Evans,
FSA, published an article in 1982 in which he argued that Countess Ida
was possibly Ida of Lorraine, Countess of Boulogne [Reference: The
Genealogist, vol. 3, 1982, pp. 265-266]. This article was published in
the journal edited by Neil Thompson, FASG.

After the Evans article appeared, I reviewed the available evidence and
concluded that William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida, couldn't have
been the Countess of Boulogne at all, as that woman is known to have
died childless. Rather, I believed the evidence indicated that William
Longespee's mother, Countess Ida, was the wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl
of Norfolk. At the time, I passed my identification of Countess Ida
along to Dr. David Faris for inclusion in the forthcoming 7th edition
of Ancestral Roots authored by Walter Lee Sheppard with Dr. Faris'
assistance. Dr. David Faris told me that he presented my evidence to
Mr. Sheppard in 1992 at Mr. Sheppard's own home. As they were sitting
at the kitchen table, Dr. Faris brought up the subject of my
identification of Countess Ida. Mr. Sheppard became absolutely IRATE
when confronted with the evidence. Mr. Sheppard adamantly refused to
publish my identification of Countess Ida, no doubt because it would
show that his earlier article identifying William Longespee's mother as
Annabel de Baliol was in error. When I was notified by Dr. Faris of
what Mr. Sheppard had done, I terminated all further contact with Mr.
Sheppard. Dr. Faris and I, however, remained close personal friends
and collaborators until his untimely death in 2001.

In 1993, Gary Boyd Roberts published his seminal work, The Royal
Descents of 500 Immigrants. At Mr. Roberts' request, he included my
identification of Countess Ida as the wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk in his book and gave me credit for the same. Had Mr. Roberts
not published this information, it would have taken another ten years
before I published my identification of Countess Ida under my own name
in Plantagenet Ancestry, which book was published in 2004 by
Genealogical Publishing Company. In my book, I further identified
Countess Ida as the likely daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162), of
Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret (b. c.1125, living
1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.

I know we would all like to think that accomplished genealogists such
as Mr. Sheppard are free from ego, bias, and pettiness. However, I can
attest from personal knowledge that genealogists are human beings who
make errors in judgement just like everyone else. The good news is
that Countess Ida's identity is now in print and a likely set of
parents has been assigned to her. I only regret that as a young
genealogist, I was prevented by Mr. Sheppard from publishing my
identification of Countess Ida. In this vein, much credit goes to Mr.
Roberts who published my identification of Countess Ida in his book in
1993. Mr. Roberts' collegial attitude, his willingness to share
information with all who ask, and, most of all, his candor and honesty,
are an example for all of us to follow. Surely his election as a
Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists is long overdue.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF CHRIS PHILLIPS' STATEMENTS REGARDING THE HISTORY OF THE
IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTESS IDA
{http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_salisbury.shtml).

Volume 11, page 379 (as modified by volume 14):
ELA (or ISABEL), only da. and h. [of William (of Salisbury), Earl of
Salisbury (d. 1196)], b. circa 1191, in 1196 was given by Richard I,
with the Earldom of SALISBURY, to his bastard br., WILLIAM
LONGESPEE.(f)
Note f:
Hoveden, vol. iv, p. 13. The legend that he was s. of Henry II by Fair
Rosamond is discussed by Hunt in the Dict. Nat. Biog. In the fiscal
year 1196-97 he received the 3rd penny of Wilts by the King's writ.
Charles Evans argued (in The Geneal., vol. 3, 1982, pp. 265-6) that the
Earl's mother was possibly Ida of Lorraine, suo jure Countess of
Boulogne.

Evans's suggestion was based on references by William Longespee to his
mother as "Countess Ida" in the published cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory. Douglas Richardson later put forward the alternative proposal,
that William's mother was Ida, who married Roger (le Bigod), Earl of
Norfolk (d. 1221) [G.B. Roberts, The Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants... [c.1993]].

Ida's identity, together with the chronology of William's birth, was
further discussed by Paul Reed, in The American Genealogist, vol. 77,
pp. 137-149 (April 2002).

In July 2002, Ray Phair produced proof that William's mother was the
same Ida who married Roger Bigod - in 1214, Ralph Bigod is described as
William's brother [citing J.W. Baldwin, ed., Les registres de Philippe
Augustus, miscellanea, no 13 (1992)]. See Ray Phair, "William
Longespée, Ralph Bigod, and Countess Ida" [The American Genealogist,
vol. 77, pp. 279-281].


Brad Verity

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 09 mai 2005 08:35:19

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:


[snip]
After the Evans article appeared, I reviewed the available evidence
and
concluded that William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida, couldn't
have
been the Countess of Boulogne at all, as that woman is known to have
died childless.

Did you contact Charles Evans at that point, or the publication ('The
Genealogist') that printed the article? The serious researchers I've
dealt with have been grateful to be given new evidence regarding their
published articles.

Rather, I believed the evidence indicated that William
Longespee's mother, Countess Ida, was the wife of Roger le Bigod,
Earl
of Norfolk.

What evidence led you to this conclusion? Was it that she was the only
other Countess Ida alive at the time?

At the time, I passed my identification of Countess Ida
along to Dr. David Faris for inclusion in the forthcoming 7th edition
of Ancestral Roots authored by Walter Lee Sheppard with Dr. Faris'
assistance.

OK.

Dr. David Faris told me that he presented my evidence to
Mr. Sheppard in 1992 at Mr. Sheppard's own home. As they were
sitting
at the kitchen table, Dr. Faris brought up the subject of my
identification of Countess Ida. Mr. Sheppard became absolutely IRATE
when confronted with the evidence. Mr. Sheppard adamantly refused to
publish my identification of Countess Ida, no doubt because it would
show that his earlier article identifying William Longespee's mother
as
Annabel de Baliol was in error.

I only know of Walter Lee Sheppard as the man who, in the early 1960s,
brought the 1334 Driby final concord that identified the father of Amie
de Gaveston, to the attention of John G. Hunt, who had researched Driby
and Amie and published on them in TAG. Hunt then published a third
article on the matter, incorporating the final concord. Granted, this
was 30 years prior to the conversation in the kitchen with Dr. Faris,
and people can change over time, but the reaction from Mr. Sheppard
that you describe seems out of step.

When I was notified by Dr. Faris of
what Mr. Sheppard had done, I terminated all further contact with Mr.
Sheppard.

Why didn't you try to talk to Sheppard yourself, especially as you
indicate that you had had some prior contact with him.

Dr. Faris and I, however, remained close personal friends
and collaborators until his untimely death in 2001.

Yes, you collaborated with him on PA2.

In 1993, Gary Boyd Roberts published his seminal work, The Royal
Descents of 500 Immigrants. At Mr. Roberts' request, he included my
identification of Countess Ida as the wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk in his book and gave me credit for the same.

That's nice. So, turned down by Sheppard in 1992, it saw print the
next year. It only had to languish, unrevealed, for a few months.

Had Mr. Roberts
not published this information, it would have taken another ten years
before I published my identification of Countess Ida under my own
name
in Plantagenet Ancestry, which book was published in 2004 by
Genealogical Publishing Company.

Don't be so modest, Douglas, you need to give yourself much more
credit. After rejection in 1992, the identification was published only
a year later. I'm sure if Gary Boyd Roberts hadn't put it in his 1993
book, you would have found a way to bring it to view by 1994, at the
latest.

In my book, I further identified
Countess Ida as the likely daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162),
of
Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret (b. c.1125, living
1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.

Great. I haven't seen your book, but I hoped you laid out the evidence
for that identification clearly, rather than bunching it all in with
other non-related sources at the end.

I know we would all like to think that accomplished genealogists such
as Mr. Sheppard are free from ego, bias, and pettiness.

Thanks for clearing up that notion for any of us who held it. At the
expense of Mr. Sheppard of course.

However, I can
attest from personal knowledge that genealogists are human beings who
make errors in judgement just like everyone else.

I'm sure you can.

The good news is
that Countess Ida's identity is now in print and a likely set of
parents has been assigned to her.

"Now in print"? Hasn't it been in print since the 1993 Roberts book?
It's the "likely set of parents" that's "now in print".

I only regret that as a young
genealogist, I was prevented by Mr. Sheppard from publishing my
identification of Countess Ida.

I only hope that by sharing this tale with all of us, none of whom
asked you for it (though my guess is that it was your response to the
points Stewart Baldwin brought up in an earlier thread), the burden
you've been carrying for, lo, these past 10 years, has been eased
somewhat.

As Katharine Hepburn [Eleanor of Aquitaine] says to Peter O'Toole
[Henry II] in 'The Lion In Winter': "Shoulder it yourself."

In this vein, much credit goes to Mr.
Roberts who published my identification of Countess Ida in his book
in
1993.

And what about Ray Phair, who actually found the evidence that proved
the identification?

Mr. Roberts' collegial attitude, his willingness to share
information with all who ask,

His willingness to publish information for any who provide him some...

and, most of all, his candor and honesty,
are an example for all of us to follow. Surely his election as a
Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists is long overdue.

Well, as this last paragraph reminds me of nothing as much as Eve
Harrington's acceptance speech in 'All About Eve', I'd say your receipt
of the Sarah Siddons Award is long overdue.

Thanks for this amusing distraction, Douglas.

Cheers, ------Brad

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 09 mai 2005 10:16:55

In message of 9 May, "Brad Verity" <batruth@hotmail.com> wrote:

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

<snip>

In my book, I further identified Countess Ida as the likely
daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162), of Flamstead,
Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret (b. c.1125, living 1185),
daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.

Great. I haven't seen your book, but I hoped you laid out the evidence
for that identification clearly, rather than bunching it all in with
other non-related sources at the end.

I happen to have bought a copy of PA3 so perhaps I can help. On p. 457
it ends:

"... Thus, naming patterns, familial and political associations give
strong evidence that William Longspée's mother, countess Ida, was a
Tony. Conclusive evidence of her parentage, however, is still
lacking."

Most (none?) of the references in the preceding account are not relevant
to the case but there is a startling difference in that the references
are included in the text instead of being lumped together at the end as
the rest of the references on Wm Longespée are.

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 mai 2005 11:56:40

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:080746684d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 9 May, "Brad Verity" <batruth@hotmail.com> wrote:

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

snip

In my book, I further identified Countess Ida as the likely
daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162), of Flamstead,
Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret (b. c.1125, living 1185),
daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.

Great. I haven't seen your book, but I hoped you laid out the evidence
for that identification clearly, rather than bunching it all in with
other non-related sources at the end.

I happen to have bought a copy of PA3 so perhaps I can help. On p. 457
it ends:

"... Thus, naming patterns, familial and political associations give
strong evidence that William Longspée's mother, countess Ida, was a
Tony. Conclusive evidence of her parentage, however, is still
lacking."

It seems to me that "strong" evidence for this is conspicuously lacking.
What "naming patterns" are adduced to support this claim? And what "familial
associations"?

Other allegiances are not much in the way of evidence for bloodlines,
certainly not "strong" if this means some community of interests.

Is Paul Reed's paper in TAG cited for this?

Peter Stewart

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 09 mai 2005 18:28:16

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

I only regret that as a young
genealogist, I was prevented by Mr. Sheppard from publishing my
identification of Countess Ida.

This is not fair. What did he do, get a restaining order? Mr. Sheppard
did not prevent you from publishing anything - he just chose not to put
the information in HIS book (one of the benefits to writing a book - you
get to decide what apears in it). Further, given that your novel
identification (i.e. that Ida was the wife of Bigod - that she was
mother of William Longespee being someone else's discovery and already
published) was an unsupported guess, I don't see why you consider it his
responsibility to include it. Do you include in your book every wild
guess someone brings to your attention, particularly when it is in
conflict with your own hypotheses? Still, you could have gone
elsewhere, TAG, NEHGR, TG, GM, and within a year you did, finding
someone else to put it in their book. He prevented nothing.

As an aside, I also sent novel information to Mr. Sheppard,
significantly correcting one of his lines, and it did appear, but with
the sole attribution, "It has been brought to my attention . . . ".
Perhaps his not having published your guess was a blessing in disguise,
if credit is important to you.

taf

John Brandon

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av John Brandon » 09 mai 2005 18:57:26

As an aside, I also sent novel information to Mr. Sheppard,
significantly correcting one of his lines, and it did appear, but with

the sole attribution, "It has been brought to my attention . . . ".
Perhaps his not having published your guess was a blessing in disguise,
if credit is important to you.

Frankly I don't understand the obsession of most who work in this field
with having their name chalked up beside every last insignificant thing
they find. There's little or no money to be made in genealogy, and the
world at large finds the subject terminally dull (if not completely
meaningless). Perhaps fifty people in existence truly appreciate an
article that has appeared in one of the genealogical journals.

(I suppose the fewer things one has found, the greater the desire to
have every little thing 'acknowledged.')

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 09 mai 2005 20:16:19

Dear Mr. Farmerie ~

You asked what did Mr. Sheppard do? He knowingly and willingly
suppressed information which he knew was correct, in order to avoid the
embarrassment of his own article being shown in error. That was an
inappropriate thing to do. I might add that Mr. Sheppard omitted my
identification of Countess Ida over Dr. Faris' strenuous objection.
Hats off to Dr. Faris.

What can I say? Mr. Sheppard had an ego. He was afraid his reputation
would suffer if his own article was disproven. He was more interested
in being right than having the truth be told. I think this means he
was a human being. So, aren't we all human beings, you and me
included?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

I only regret that as a young
genealogist, I was prevented by Mr. Sheppard from publishing my
identification of Countess Ida.

This is not fair. What did he do, get a restaining order? Mr.
Sheppard
did not prevent you from publishing anything - he just chose not to
put
the information in HIS book (one of the benefits to writing a book -
you
get to decide what apears in it). Further, given that your novel
identification (i.e. that Ida was the wife of Bigod - that she was
mother of William Longespee being someone else's discovery and
already
published) was an unsupported guess, I don't see why you consider it
his
responsibility to include it. Do you include in your book every wild

guess someone brings to your attention, particularly when it is in
conflict with your own hypotheses? Still, you could have gone
elsewhere, TAG, NEHGR, TG, GM, and within a year you did, finding
someone else to put it in their book. He prevented nothing.

As an aside, I also sent novel information to Mr. Sheppard,
significantly correcting one of his lines, and it did appear, but
with
the sole attribution, "It has been brought to my attention . . . ".
Perhaps his not having published your guess was a blessing in
disguise,
if credit is important to you.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Identification Of William Longespee's Mother, Countess

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 09 mai 2005 20:43:36

Interesting...

That tells us a Great Deal about Walter Sheppard.

YES, credit should be given where credit is due -- that's important in
Genealogy -- and indeed in any valid SCHOLARSHIP.

It's a matter of Fundamental Scholarly Integrity.

DSH

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:d5o6jq$r38$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...

| As an aside, I also sent novel information to Mr. Sheppard,
| significantly correcting one of his lines, and it did appear, but with
| the sole attribution, "It has been brought to my attention . . . ".
| Perhaps his not having published your guess was a blessing in
| disguise, if credit is important to you.
|
| taf

R. Battle

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av R. Battle » 09 mai 2005 21:13:42

On Mon, 9 May 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
<snip>
You asked what did Mr. Sheppard do? He knowingly and willingly
suppressed information which he knew was correct, in order to avoid the
embarrassment of his own article being shown in error.
snip


But how can that be considered a possible motivation if he no longer
supported his article's identification in AR7 anyway?

-Robert Battle

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 09 mai 2005 21:28:35

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Farmerie ~

You asked what did Mr. Sheppard do? He knowingly and willingly
suppressed information which he knew was correct, in order to avoid the
embarrassment of his own article being shown in error. That was an
inappropriate thing to do.

He failed to present the cartulary evidence that William's mother was
named Ida. That information should certainly have been included. This
was NOT your discovery though, and he did not, as you claimed, prevent
you from publishing your hypothesis that this Ida was the same as
Bigod's wife. He had no responsibility to put that unproven speculation
into his book.

Further, as has been discussed here before, while premature publication
of an unsupported speculation may allow the speculator to claim priority
of discovery when it proves correct, when it is wrong a disservice is
done to the reader. By its very nature a correction is viewed as being
more correct that that which it replaces. In at least three places,
Sheppard added "corrections" to his last edition that were wrong, and he
is to blame for this. He is to blame for excluding the correct name of
Longespee's mother, which was well proven at the time. He was not to
blame for not publishing your undocumented assertion if he did not feel
it was sufficiently proven - this is the job of an editor/compiler.
Further it is ridiculous to claim that he had a monopoly on publications
such that in refusing to include your speculation, he prevented you from
publishing it.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification Of William Longespee's Mother, Countess

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 mai 2005 23:15:14

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:StOfe.458$Q15.4914@eagle.america.net...
Interesting...

That tells us a Great Deal about Walter Sheppard.

YES, credit should be given where credit is due -- that's important in
Genealogy -- and indeed in any valid SCHOLARSHIP.

It's a matter of Fundamental Scholarly Integrity.

DSH

In that case, will you tell us why you greeted Richardsons's post
compounding his offense in this regard with an unqualified "Congratulations,
Douglas!"?

Peter Stewart

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: Identification Of William Longespee's Mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 10 mai 2005 01:32:10

Talk about a pile-on, here. Geesh! At least Douglas has written and
published a superior book. Which more than can be said for those
trolls waiting in the tall grass to strike.

Congrats again, Douglas!

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Identification Of William Longespee's Mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 10 mai 2005 01:59:10

Steve Barnhoorn wrote:
Talk about a pile-on, here. Geesh! At least Douglas has written and
published a superior book. Which more than can be said for those
trolls waiting in the tall grass to strike.

With all due respect, this thread has not been discussing Mr.
Richardson's book, and the quality of that work is only of peripheral
relevance. Rather, we have been addressing the responsibilities of Mr.
Sheppard toward Douglas and the genealogical community as a whole with
respect to the genealogical issue of the maternity of William Longespee.
What contribution do you have to make toward this issue, or were you
just piling on (if only with the intention of ballancing the pile)?

Oh, and setting aside the issue of your evaluation of said book for the
time being, there is more to evaluating the quality of various
statements than whether or not their author has written a "superior
book". Mr. Sheppard also compiled what for its time was a "superior
book", but that doesn't absolve him from fault in some of his actions.
Likewise, the fact that another author of a modern "superior book" finds
fault with Mr. Sheppard's actions need not imply that Sheppard acted
improperly. Finally, there are those who have not compiled a "superior
book" because they don't have the time, interest, or a broad enough
knowledge to make the work marketable, but whose expertise on a specific
issue makes their opinions more trustworthy than those of published
authors. The production of a "superior book" is simply not a foolproof
benchmark for accuracy or good judgement.

Finally, what criteria are you using to evaluate Mr. Richardson's book?
Do not read anything more into this than it says - I am not hinting
through this question that I either agree or disagree with your
evaluation. I am just curious as to the basis for your conclusion -
what aspects of the book do you find exceptional, what servicable, and
what suboptimal?

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 mai 2005 08:53:27

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115661446.109404.52150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
As an aside, I also sent novel information to Mr. Sheppard,
significantly correcting one of his lines, and it did appear, but with
the sole attribution, "It has been brought to my attention . . . ".
Perhaps his not having published your guess was a blessing in disguise,
if credit is important to you.

Frankly I don't understand the obsession of most who work in this field
with having their name chalked up beside every last insignificant thing
they find. There's little or no money to be made in genealogy, and the
world at large finds the subject terminally dull (if not completely
meaningless). Perhaps fifty people in existence truly appreciate an
article that has appeared in one of the genealogical journals.

(I suppose the fewer things one has found, the greater the desire to
have every little thing 'acknowledged.')

There are other practical considerations around this, apart from vainglory -
mainly that if the provenance of information is not adequately cited, and
some new evidence should turn up later contradicting it or casting a
sidelight on it, researchers can waste time back-tracking to make sure that
an earlier, unacknowledged scholar was relying only on the same source/s in
the first place.

The convention is to cite the earlier secondary work/s that gave adequate
reference for the conclusion/s also accepted by the writer, and then to add
or amend the earlier findings if necessary.

In this case, hiding the import of Ray Phair's discovery in a list of
undifferentiated citations is woefully inadequate by any scholarly
standards. Dishing up a review that further obfuscates the issue of
"identifying" Countess Ida (meaning rather a guess at her possible identity)
is dishonest.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 mai 2005 08:59:14

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:d5o6jq$r38$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

I only regret that as a young
genealogist, I was prevented by Mr. Sheppard from publishing my
identification of Countess Ida.

This is not fair. What did he do, get a restaining order? Mr. Sheppard
did not prevent you from publishing anything - he just chose not to put
the information in HIS book (one of the benefits to writing a book - you
get to decide what apears in it). Further, given that your novel
identification (i.e. that Ida was the wife of Bigod - that she was mother
of William Longespee being someone else's discovery and already published)
was an unsupported guess, I don't see why you consider it his
responsibility to include it. Do you include in your book every wild
guess someone brings to your attention, particularly when it is in
conflict with your own hypotheses? Still, you could have gone elsewhere,
TAG, NEHGR, TG, GM, and within a year you did, finding someone else to put
it in their book. He prevented nothing.

As an aside, I also sent novel information to Mr. Sheppard, significantly
correcting one of his lines, and it did appear, but with the sole
attribution, "It has been brought to my attention . . . ". Perhaps his not
having published your guess was a blessing in disguise, if credit is
important to you.

The difference here is telling - Sheppard was not trying to imply that he
had made someone else's discovery for himself, as explicitly another person
had brought a matter to his attention. He was denying credit to Todd,
perhpas, but not arrogating this to himself.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 mai 2005 23:27:56

In message of 9 May, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:080746684d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...

In message of 9 May, "Brad Verity" <batruth@hotmail.com> wrote:

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

snip

In my book, I further identified Countess Ida as the likely
daughter of Ralph V de Tony (died 1162), of Flamstead,
Hertfordshire, by his wife, Margaret (b. c.1125, living 1185),
daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.

Great. I haven't seen your book, but I hoped you laid out the
evidence for that identification clearly, rather than bunching it
all in with other non-related sources at the end.

I happen to have bought a copy of PA3 so perhaps I can help. On p.
457 it ends:

"... Thus, naming patterns, familial and political associations give
strong evidence that William Longspée's mother, countess Ida, was a
Tony. Conclusive evidence of her parentage, however, is still
lacking."

It seems to me that "strong" evidence for this is conspicuously
lacking. What "naming patterns" are adduced to support this claim?
And what "familial associations"?

Gosh, I suppose I'll really have to put finger to keyboard and then
check, check and double-check to ensure that I get it mostly right.
Here goes on naming patterns:

"First countess Ida and her husband, Roger Bigod, are known to have
named children, Ralph and Margaret, presumably in honour of Ida's
parents, Ralph and Margaret de Tony [see A.H. Thompson "Liber Vitae
Ecclesiae Dunelmus" (Surtees Soc. 136) (1923): f. 63b, for a
contemporary list of the Bigod children]. Countess Ida was herself
evidently named in honour of Ralph V de Tony's mother, Ida of
Hainault."

And on familial associations:

"Next, William Longspee and his descendants had a long standing
association with the family of Roger of Akeny, of Garsington,
Oxfordshire, which Roger was a younger brother of Ralph V de Tony
(died 1162) [see C.P. 8 (1932): chart foll. 464; 14 (1998): 614; L.C.
Loyd "Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Fams." (1951): 2; V.C.H. Oxford 5
(1957): 138; C Harper-Bill "Dodnash Priory Charters" (1998): 34-37,
39-40, 72-73; "Fam. Hist." 18 (1997): 47-64, 19 (1998): 125-129."

Other allegiances are not much in the way of evidence for bloodlines,
certainly not "strong" if this means some community of interests.

Is Paul Reed's paper in TAG cited for this?

No, can't see it on a fairly thorough examination. But this revealed
an interesting contrast to the nondescript reference to Ray Phair in
this other striking reference:

"G.B. Roberts "Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants (1993): 347 (1st
identification of William Longspée's mother as Countess Ida Bigod,
identification based on original research by Douglas Richardson)."

Haphazard?

E&OE

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 mai 2005 01:43:10

Thanks, Tim.

Odd that there is no discussion of the fact that Countess Ida's husband
Roger Bigod was a grandson of Alice de Tosny, so that a connection
between these families already existed. The duplication of (perhaps)
two common names and an unsupported assumption about where's Ida's came
from hardly amount to "strong" evidence from "naming patterns".

As to the alleged "familial associations", Paul Reed's article is an
essential reference that no competent researcher publishing after it
can have overlooked.

The repeated (and indeed highlighted) claims that Coutess Ida had been
"identified" by Richardson himself and that this was from his "original
research" are simply preposterous.

Does anyone suppose that Charles Evans would not have considered the
other "Countess Ida" if there was evidence known to link William
Longespee to the Bigods? Or that nominating her as an alternative guess
in the absence of such evidence amounts to an "identification"?

What about following up her son William Longespee's descendants for
"familial associations", in particular the crusading career of his
famous son and the "naming patterns" discernible in that lineage?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 mai 2005 02:53:40

Tuesday, 10 May, 2005


Dear Peter,

Earlier this p.m. [US time] you wrote:

' Odd that there is no discussion of the fact that Countess Ida's
husband Roger Bigod was a grandson of Alice de Tosny, so that a
connection between these families already existed. The duplication of
(perhaps) two common names and an unsupported assumption about
where's Ida's came from hardly amount to "strong" evidence from
"naming patterns". '

This gives the erroneous impression that Alice (or Adeliza) de
Tosny, grandmother of Roger le Bigod (d. 1221 or before), would have
provided a close connection to the Tosny family of Flamstead,
Hertfordshire. Other than the similarity of the name, there is no
such close connection between the two families de Tosny that has been
discovered to date. Have you found such a link?

Robert de Tosny, of Belvoir, co. Leicester, was the father of
Adeliza (or Alice), among others. He was the founder of Belvoir
priory with his wife Adelais, ca. 1085, and as 'Robertus de Todeni'
is identified as a major tenant in chief at Domesday Book, 1086 [see
Keats-Rohan's Domesday People, re: Robert, his alleged brother
Berengar and his children]. His sons died sine prole, so that his
daughters (incl. Adeliza) were heirs to Belvoir, Aslackby and the
other holdings of this family.

Contemporaneous with Robert above, we find Ralph 'III' de Tosny,
who is usually styled Ralph de Conches. He was a supporter of Duke
William ('the Conqueror') of Normandy against France, 1054, and is
identified as a participant in the Battle of Hastings [D.C. Douglas,
William the Conqueror; also CP XII:758, sub Tony, and Vol XII,
Appendix L, pp. 47-48]. He was a major landholder at Domesday Book,
with manors at Flamstead, co. Herts., Clifford, co. Hereford, and
other holdings in Berks., Essex, Gloucester, Norfolk and Worcester.
Ralph (grandfather of Roger de Tosny, husband of Ida of Hainault)
had a brother Robert 'de Stafort', who being the ancestor of the de
Stafford family is clearly not identical to the Bigod ancestor Robert
de Tosny mentioned above.

If you have uncovered a documented connection between these two
families, I for one would be pleased to hear of same.

Cheers,

John *



* John P. Ravilious

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 mai 2005 03:51:21

I'm not talking about "two" Tosny families - they were all descended from
the same stock with the same surname, with notable ancestors named Ralph,
and "familial associations" in the medieval period were by no means confined
to immediate kin. The family of Alice included the distinctive names
Berengar and Vuasco, her father was named Robert and she also had a brother
named Geoffrey. None of these names took root in the Bigod family. The
Flamstead Tosny family included men named Baldwin and Simon, also not
appearing in the Bigod lineage. Establishing "naming patterns" requires more
than a coincidence with such a common name as Ralph and a possible further
one with Margaret/Margery.

The "impression" you took from my post is somewhat creative.

Peter Stewart


<therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115776420.165697.211020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tuesday, 10 May, 2005


Dear Peter,

Earlier this p.m. [US time] you wrote:

' Odd that there is no discussion of the fact that Countess Ida's
husband Roger Bigod was a grandson of Alice de Tosny, so that a
connection between these families already existed. The duplication of
(perhaps) two common names and an unsupported assumption about
where's Ida's came from hardly amount to "strong" evidence from
"naming patterns". '

This gives the erroneous impression that Alice (or Adeliza) de
Tosny, grandmother of Roger le Bigod (d. 1221 or before), would have
provided a close connection to the Tosny family of Flamstead,
Hertfordshire. Other than the similarity of the name, there is no
such close connection between the two families de Tosny that has been
discovered to date. Have you found such a link?

Robert de Tosny, of Belvoir, co. Leicester, was the father of
Adeliza (or Alice), among others. He was the founder of Belvoir
priory with his wife Adelais, ca. 1085, and as 'Robertus de Todeni'
is identified as a major tenant in chief at Domesday Book, 1086 [see
Keats-Rohan's Domesday People, re: Robert, his alleged brother
Berengar and his children]. His sons died sine prole, so that his
daughters (incl. Adeliza) were heirs to Belvoir, Aslackby and the
other holdings of this family.

Contemporaneous with Robert above, we find Ralph 'III' de Tosny,
who is usually styled Ralph de Conches. He was a supporter of Duke
William ('the Conqueror') of Normandy against France, 1054, and is
identified as a participant in the Battle of Hastings [D.C. Douglas,
William the Conqueror; also CP XII:758, sub Tony, and Vol XII,
Appendix L, pp. 47-48]. He was a major landholder at Domesday Book,
with manors at Flamstead, co. Herts., Clifford, co. Hereford, and
other holdings in Berks., Essex, Gloucester, Norfolk and Worcester.
Ralph (grandfather of Roger de Tosny, husband of Ida of Hainault)
had a brother Robert 'de Stafort', who being the ancestor of the de
Stafford family is clearly not identical to the Bigod ancestor Robert
de Tosny mentioned above.

If you have uncovered a documented connection between these two
families, I for one would be pleased to hear of same.

Cheers,

John *



* John P. Ravilious

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 mai 2005 09:04:33

<therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115776420.165697.211020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tuesday, 10 May, 2005


Dear Peter,

Earlier this p.m. [US time] you wrote:

' Odd that there is no discussion of the fact that Countess Ida's
husband Roger Bigod was a grandson of Alice de Tosny, so that a
connection between these families already existed. The duplication of
(perhaps) two common names and an unsupported assumption about
where's Ida's came from hardly amount to "strong" evidence from
"naming patterns". '

This gives the erroneous impression that Alice (or Adeliza) de
Tosny, grandmother of Roger le Bigod (d. 1221 or before), would have
provided a close connection to the Tosny family of Flamstead,
Hertfordshire. Other than the similarity of the name, there is no
such close connection between the two families de Tosny that has been
discovered to date. Have you found such a link?

On rereading John's post I see that the point needs to be explained a bit
more fully than in my first reply.

I said that it was "odd" to omit a discussion of the Tosny grandmother of
someone (Roger Bigod) who is conjecturally married off to another Tosny. As
to the distance between the two branches of the Tosny family, although we
don't know HOW they were related that does not bring into question IF they
were: there was only one Norman family of Tosny at the time, as they would
have seen things, and not two English ones. The first seigneur, in the 10th
century, was Ralph I - no trace exists of an earlier family dispossessed of
Tosny but retaining this for a surname, and the fief could not support two
separate families of baronial rank.

Robert who became lord of Belvoir was grandson of a count of Barcelona,
clearly connected by blood to the senior branch and not some jumped-up
vassal or neighbour of the Tosny family who had appropriated their surname.
He was not more distantly related to the Flamstead branch than as a second
cousin of Ralph III who became lord of Flamstead, since Tosny had come into
possession of the latter's great-grandfather Ralph I in circumstances that
we know, and his father in turn was surnamed Cavalcamp, not Tosny. This
would mean that at the _most_ distant, Roger Bigod's mother Alice was a
third cousin of Roger II de Tosny, of Flamstead, who married Ida of Hainaut,
and consequently Roger Bigod would have been at least a fourth cousin once
removed to a namesake granddaughter of Ida.

I find it odd that this would be left out of consideration. It is not
necessary to find a documented connection between the Tosny ladies to work
out that this matter should be discussed in making the case proposed by
Douglas Richardson. He may reach a different conclusion from mine, but still
he is obliged to aim for one of his own in this context.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 mai 2005 09:57:37

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:l0jge.9430$31.8538@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

This would mean that at the _most_ distant, Roger Bigod's mother Alice
was a third cousin of Roger II de Tosny, of Flamstead, who married Ida
of Hainaut, and consequently Roger Bigod would have been at least a
fourth cousin once removed to a namesake granddaughter of Ida.

Make that "Roger Bigod's grandmother Alice....and consequently Roger Bigod
would have been at least a fifth cousin to a namesake ganddaughter of Ida" -
I lost track of the count despite having enough fingers on one hand (I think
& hope).

Peter Stewart

Gordon Banks

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 11 mai 2005 21:20:02

According to Weis 7th ed. line 6-3, Hugh Bigod, the Magna Carta sureity
had a son Sir Simon Bigod, married to Maud de Felbrigg.

On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 02:51 +0000, Peter Stewart wrote:
I'm not talking about "two" Tosny families - they were all descended from
the same stock with the same surname, with notable ancestors named Ralph,
and "familial associations" in the medieval period were by no means confined
to immediate kin. The family of Alice included the distinctive names
Berengar and Vuasco, her father was named Robert and she also had a brother
named Geoffrey. None of these names took root in the Bigod family. The
Flamstead Tosny family included men named Baldwin and Simon, also not
appearing in the Bigod lineage. Establishing "naming patterns" requires more
than a coincidence with such a common name as Ralph and a possible further
one with Margaret/Margery.

The "impression" you took from my post is somewhat creative.

Peter Stewart


therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115776420.165697.211020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tuesday, 10 May, 2005


Dear Peter,

Earlier this p.m. [US time] you wrote:

' Odd that there is no discussion of the fact that Countess Ida's
husband Roger Bigod was a grandson of Alice de Tosny, so that a
connection between these families already existed. The duplication of
(perhaps) two common names and an unsupported assumption about
where's Ida's came from hardly amount to "strong" evidence from
"naming patterns". '

This gives the erroneous impression that Alice (or Adeliza) de
Tosny, grandmother of Roger le Bigod (d. 1221 or before), would have
provided a close connection to the Tosny family of Flamstead,
Hertfordshire. Other than the similarity of the name, there is no
such close connection between the two families de Tosny that has been
discovered to date. Have you found such a link?

Robert de Tosny, of Belvoir, co. Leicester, was the father of
Adeliza (or Alice), among others. He was the founder of Belvoir
priory with his wife Adelais, ca. 1085, and as 'Robertus de Todeni'
is identified as a major tenant in chief at Domesday Book, 1086 [see
Keats-Rohan's Domesday People, re: Robert, his alleged brother
Berengar and his children]. His sons died sine prole, so that his
daughters (incl. Adeliza) were heirs to Belvoir, Aslackby and the
other holdings of this family.

Contemporaneous with Robert above, we find Ralph 'III' de Tosny,
who is usually styled Ralph de Conches. He was a supporter of Duke
William ('the Conqueror') of Normandy against France, 1054, and is
identified as a participant in the Battle of Hastings [D.C. Douglas,
William the Conqueror; also CP XII:758, sub Tony, and Vol XII,
Appendix L, pp. 47-48]. He was a major landholder at Domesday Book,
with manors at Flamstead, co. Herts., Clifford, co. Hereford, and
other holdings in Berks., Essex, Gloucester, Norfolk and Worcester.
Ralph (grandfather of Roger de Tosny, husband of Ida of Hainault)
had a brother Robert 'de Stafort', who being the ancestor of the de
Stafford family is clearly not identical to the Bigod ancestor Robert
de Tosny mentioned above.

If you have uncovered a documented connection between these two
families, I for one would be pleased to hear of same.

Cheers,

John *



* John P. Ravilious


--

Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>

Peter Stewart

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 mai 2005 23:23:47

"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1115838619.19835.5.camel@localhost.localdomain...
According to Weis 7th ed. line 6-3, Hugh Bigod, the Magna Carta sureity
had a son Sir Simon Bigod, married to Maud de Felbrigg.

What is the evidence for this?

Peter Stewart

Nathaniel Taylor

Bigod-Felbrigg (was Re: Identification ...)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 12 mai 2005 02:19:58

In article <TBvge.75$E7.26@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1115838619.19835.5.camel@localhost.localdomain...
According to Weis 7th ed. line 6-3, Hugh Bigod, the Magna Carta sureity
had a son Sir Simon Bigod, married to Maud de Felbrigg.

What is the evidence for this?

This additional son of Hugh Bigod has circulated in the American
medieval-descent literature for a while.

Roberts' RD500 (the 1993 ed.), p. 425-6 and 427-8, shows two lines from
grandsons of this Sir Simon Bigod, husband of Maud de Felbrigg, whose
descendants for a couple of generations were called 'Bigod alias
Felbrigg'.

For this Sir Simon Bigod Roberts cites Francis Blomefield & Charles
Parkin, _An Essay Toward a Topographical History of the County of
Norfolk_, 2d ed., 11 vols. (1805-10): 8 (1808), 107-11. Weis (AR, 7th
ed., line 232, p. 192) cites the first edition of the same work (5
vols., 1739-75), 4:305-7.

I don't know whether anything probative is buried there which has since
been overlooked, or whether it was just an incautious claim
irresponsibly resurrected by wishful-thinkers.

A few years ago Paul Reed posted a discussion of the likely descent
Bigod of Settrington, Yorks. (another controversial offshoot of the
early baronial Bigods) which didn't mention Simon and the Bigod alias
Felbriggs.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Hal Bradley

RE: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 12 mai 2005 02:41:01

Blomfield's "History of Norfolk", 8:89 makes the same assertion. I do not
have Blomfield at hand, so cannot say what the evidence was.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:24 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida


"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1115838619.19835.5.camel@localhost.localdomain...
According to Weis 7th ed. line 6-3, Hugh Bigod, the Magna Carta sureity
had a son Sir Simon Bigod, married to Maud de Felbrigg.

What is the evidence for this?

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Identification Of William Longespee's Mother, Countess I

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 mai 2005 03:10:38

Adams and Weis mention this Simon Bigod but CP does not.

DSH

""Hal Bradley"" <hw.bradley@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:000001c5568a$8b6058f0$326a1b04@scandiamjn924p...

| Blomfield's "History of Norfolk", 8:89 makes the same assertion. I do
not
| have Blomfield at hand, so cannot say what the evidence was.
|
| Hal Bradley
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
| Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:24 PM
| To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| Subject: Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess
Ida
|
|
| "Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
| news:1115838619.19835.5.camel@localhost.localdomain...

| > According to Weis 7th ed. line 6-3, Hugh Bigod, the Magna Carta
sureity
| > had a son Sir Simon Bigod, married to Maud de Felbrigg.
|
| What is the evidence for this?
|
| Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Bigod-Felbrigg (was Re: Identification ...)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 mai 2005 04:10:07

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-0B3F32.21224711052005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
In article <TBvge.75$E7.26@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1115838619.19835.5.camel@localhost.localdomain...
According to Weis 7th ed. line 6-3, Hugh Bigod, the Magna Carta sureity
had a son Sir Simon Bigod, married to Maud de Felbrigg.

What is the evidence for this?

This additional son of Hugh Bigod has circulated in the American
medieval-descent literature for a while.

Roberts' RD500 (the 1993 ed.), p. 425-6 and 427-8, shows two lines from
grandsons of this Sir Simon Bigod, husband of Maud de Felbrigg, whose
descendants for a couple of generations were called 'Bigod alias
Felbrigg'.

For this Sir Simon Bigod Roberts cites Francis Blomefield & Charles
Parkin, _An Essay Toward a Topographical History of the County of
Norfolk_, 2d ed., 11 vols. (1805-10): 8 (1808), 107-11. Weis (AR, 7th
ed., line 232, p. 192) cites the first edition of the same work (5
vols., 1739-75), 4:305-7.

I don't know whether anything probative is buried there which has since
been overlooked, or whether it was just an incautious claim
irresponsibly resurrected by wishful-thinkers.

A few years ago Paul Reed posted a discussion of the likely descent
Bigod of Settrington, Yorks. (another controversial offshoot of the
early baronial Bigods) which didn't mention Simon and the Bigod alias
Felbriggs.

As Spencer wrote, he is not mentioned in CP - Charles Moor in 'The Bygods,
Earls of Norfolk', _Yorkshire Archaeological Journal_ 32 (1936) pp. 173-4
named Earl Hugh II's sons by Maud Marshal as Roger, Hugh, John and Ralph
"who in 1236 bore their mother to her grave in Tintern Abbey; and there may
also have been Simon, ancestor of Bygod of Felbridge". That doesn't sound as
if the evidence is strong.

However, Moor also noted that J.R. Planché in 'The Earls of East Anglia'
named the sons of Earl Hugh I, father-in-law of Countess Ida, as "Roger,
Baldwin, Hugh, Simon and Nicholas" - so that, if correct, both the names
Simon and Baldwin were already current in the Bigod family before Ida could
have brought these into a new "naming pattern".

Nicholas also occurred in the Longespee family, of course - once you start
looking for patterns with common names, especially those from popular
saints, you can make all the patterns of a kaleidoscope and still get
nowhere.

Peter Stewart

Doug Thompson

Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess I

Legg inn av Doug Thompson » 12 mai 2005 18:02:09

In Blomefield's Norfolk, Vol 4 p292 he states

"William, son of Richard de Felbrigg, dying sans issue, Maud, his sister,
was found to be his heir; and, as appears by a fine, in the 41 of Henry III.
was then the widow of Simon le Bigod, of Happing, 3d son of Roger Bigod,
earl of Norfolk, by Maud, his wife, daughter of William Mareschall, earl of
Pembroke."

Doug

in article 000001c5568a$8b6058f0$326a1b04@scandiamjn924p, "Hal Bradley" at
hw.bradley@verizon.net wrote on 12/5/05 1:35 am:

Blomfield's "History of Norfolk", 8:89 makes the same assertion. I do not
have Blomfield at hand, so cannot say what the evidence was.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:24 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Identification of William Longespee's mother, Countess Ida


"Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:1115838619.19835.5.camel@localhost.localdomain...
According to Weis 7th ed. line 6-3, Hugh Bigod, the Magna Carta sureity
had a son Sir Simon Bigod, married to Maud de Felbrigg.

What is the evidence for this?

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»