Reviewing my communications with my friend the late and much lamented
Marshall Kirk, I came upon his response to an email conversation he and
I were having over a year ago in re: the Dennys/Stradling matter. I very
much hope Marshall wouldn't have minded this being made public. As
always, his views are of great value and deserve serious consideration.
Tony Hoskins
-----
Marshall Kirk, Brookline, Massachusetts to Anthony Hoskins, Santa
Rosa, California, 25 July 2004:
"I look at things thus: Doug has two pedigrees, dated 1623 and
~1520/30, [actually, only one - the 1623 pedigree (Hoskins)] that state
explicitly that Maurice Dennis's wife was a daughter of Sir Edward
Stradling. Against this positive evidence -- which has repeatedly been
ignored by SGM posters who declare that "there's no evidence!" ... an
assertion that, to be valid, would require adoption of the untenably
extreme position that statements made in Visitation pedigrees about
relationships of a century or two before are, on average, evidentially
worthless -- Brad brings an onomastic argument based on two kids. I
consider the onomastic argument, in this period, not weightless, but
weak. (Note that Walter Dennis had three sons, none of them named for
himself, his father, or his father-in-law. The name Walter itself was
surprisingly common in that period, and could have come from anywhere.
Edward Stradling, too, was brother-in-law of Walter Dauntsey.) If it
comes to a battle of the evidences, I'd place greater emphasis on the
pedigrees. My verdict? Not proved, but probable."
-----
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Dennys/Stadling redux: Marshall Kirk's thoughts
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Peter Stewart
Hearsay evidence [was Re: Dennys/Stadling redux: Marshall Ki
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s31d7f91.074@CENTRAL_SVR2...
I doubt that anyone said quite what Marshall represented in his e-mail
above: visitation records provide very good evidence for information
provided & unsourced, unsupported statements made to the heralds, but the
question is "How good can this be considered as evidence for the facts?".
The result of depending on unverifiable pedigrees in visitations is usually
a qualification such as "said to be". In the Stradling-Dennis matter,
Richardson tried to by-pass this kind of caution in order to claim credit
for another "discovery" that was far from proved.
The Ida de Tosny business is another case in point - when the newsgroup gets
to see a transcript of the Hundred Rolls entries, all that is likely to be
proved is that a small group of jurors in the 1270s put their heads together
and came up with the name "Ida le Tauny/de Thoney" as part of their
explanation for Henry II's having given back three manors to the Bigod
family. Whether they recognised that these manors had been previously held
by the Bigods & how much they knew about their tenure over time remains to
be seen. It appears strange that they gave a woman's full name in these
circumstances. This may indicate a well-known association between the Tosny
and Bigod families over the intervening century, or it may just be that one
of the jurors thought he knew more than the others & persuaded them of his
version, including an irrelevant and possibly unreliable detail.
Even more odd is that such a prominent publication as the 'Rotuli
hundredorum' for Norfolk, a major resource, was apparently overlooked by
genealogists throughout the 19th (from 1812 at least) and 20th centuries.
But assuming all this is resolved in favour of the conclusion by Marc
Morris, we can still only say - from this evidence - that Countess Ida was
"said to be" a member of the Tosny family.
Peter Stewart
news:s31d7f91.074@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Reviewing my communications with my friend the late and much lamented
Marshall Kirk, I came upon his response to an email conversation he and
I were having over a year ago in re: the Dennys/Stradling matter. I very
much hope Marshall wouldn't have minded this being made public. As
always, his views are of great value and deserve serious consideration.
Tony Hoskins
-----
Marshall Kirk, Brookline, Massachusetts to Anthony Hoskins, Santa
Rosa, California, 25 July 2004:
"I look at things thus: Doug has two pedigrees, dated 1623 and
~1520/30, [actually, only one - the 1623 pedigree (Hoskins)] that state
explicitly that Maurice Dennis's wife was a daughter of Sir Edward
Stradling. Against this positive evidence -- which has repeatedly been
ignored by SGM posters who declare that "there's no evidence!" ... an
assertion that, to be valid, would require adoption of the untenably
extreme position that statements made in Visitation pedigrees about
relationships of a century or two before are, on average, evidentially
worthless [....]
I doubt that anyone said quite what Marshall represented in his e-mail
above: visitation records provide very good evidence for information
provided & unsourced, unsupported statements made to the heralds, but the
question is "How good can this be considered as evidence for the facts?".
The result of depending on unverifiable pedigrees in visitations is usually
a qualification such as "said to be". In the Stradling-Dennis matter,
Richardson tried to by-pass this kind of caution in order to claim credit
for another "discovery" that was far from proved.
The Ida de Tosny business is another case in point - when the newsgroup gets
to see a transcript of the Hundred Rolls entries, all that is likely to be
proved is that a small group of jurors in the 1270s put their heads together
and came up with the name "Ida le Tauny/de Thoney" as part of their
explanation for Henry II's having given back three manors to the Bigod
family. Whether they recognised that these manors had been previously held
by the Bigods & how much they knew about their tenure over time remains to
be seen. It appears strange that they gave a woman's full name in these
circumstances. This may indicate a well-known association between the Tosny
and Bigod families over the intervening century, or it may just be that one
of the jurors thought he knew more than the others & persuaded them of his
version, including an irrelevant and possibly unreliable detail.
Even more odd is that such a prominent publication as the 'Rotuli
hundredorum' for Norfolk, a major resource, was apparently overlooked by
genealogists throughout the 19th (from 1812 at least) and 20th centuries.
But assuming all this is resolved in favour of the conclusion by Marc
Morris, we can still only say - from this evidence - that Countess Ida was
"said to be" a member of the Tosny family.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Hearsay evidence [was Re: Dennys/Stadling redux: Marshal
I wrote:
I take back this last comment - on reading the two 'Rotuli Hundredorum'
entries naming Ida that were cited by Marc Morris, I think the evidence
given is about as convincing as word of mouth can be after a century
has elapsed & with no direct documentary support from the earlier time.
Thanks to someone much more knowledgeable than me about this, and
judging from their selection by the commissioners in the first place,
it appears that the six jurors involved were men who would have been
familiar with the history of the greater Norfolk families and their
manors.
The name of Ida le Tauny/de Thoney is in fact the main RELEVANT detail
that they were able to provide - along with the local notoriety that
doubtless went with this, unspoken in their evidence. They were not
able to answer fully the questions about transfer from royal hands &
current tenure of the three manors under review, but they clearly
linked the matter to Henry II giving Ida as wife to Roger Bigod. Such a
restoration of one familiy's fortunes in the county, on the way to
regaining comital status, and the union with another notable house
whose daughter had become embroiled with the king & with him ancestress
also of the celebrated Longespee family, were the kind of history not
likely to be forgotten by interested neighbours over 100 years.
This part remains incredible to me - the Hundred Rolls are important
and readily available, and must have been studied by a considerable
number of historians & genealogists who realised that Countess Ida's
family was not identified elsewhere. The only set in Melbourne (apart
from microfilm copies, a production that is widely distributed) has
been consulted often, for instance. Volume 1 was misshelved last time
out in 2003, and it has taken several days to track this down. On
looking at the book today I find that a neat fold in the page has been
made at the first mention of Ida's name. It will be astounding if
modern reports of this evidence don't turn up sooner or later.
Peter Stewart
The Ida de Tosny business is another case in point - when the newsgroup
gets to see a transcript of the Hundred Rolls entries, all that is likely to be
proved is that a small group of jurors in the 1270s put their heads together
and came up with the name "Ida le Tauny/de Thoney" as part of their
explanation for Henry II's having given back three manors to the Bigod
family. Whether they recognised that these manors had been previously
held by the Bigods & how much they knew about their tenure over time
remains to be seen. It appears strange that they gave a woman's full name
in these circumstances. This may indicate a well-known association
between the Tosny and Bigod families over the intervening century, or it
may just be that one of the jurors thought he knew more than the others
& persuaded them of his version, including an irrelevant and possibly
unreliable detail.
I take back this last comment - on reading the two 'Rotuli Hundredorum'
entries naming Ida that were cited by Marc Morris, I think the evidence
given is about as convincing as word of mouth can be after a century
has elapsed & with no direct documentary support from the earlier time.
Thanks to someone much more knowledgeable than me about this, and
judging from their selection by the commissioners in the first place,
it appears that the six jurors involved were men who would have been
familiar with the history of the greater Norfolk families and their
manors.
The name of Ida le Tauny/de Thoney is in fact the main RELEVANT detail
that they were able to provide - along with the local notoriety that
doubtless went with this, unspoken in their evidence. They were not
able to answer fully the questions about transfer from royal hands &
current tenure of the three manors under review, but they clearly
linked the matter to Henry II giving Ida as wife to Roger Bigod. Such a
restoration of one familiy's fortunes in the county, on the way to
regaining comital status, and the union with another notable house
whose daughter had become embroiled with the king & with him ancestress
also of the celebrated Longespee family, were the kind of history not
likely to be forgotten by interested neighbours over 100 years.
Even more odd is that such a prominent publication as the 'Rotuli
hundredorum' for Norfolk, a major resource, was apparently
overlooked by genealogists throughout the 19th (from 1812 at least)
and 20th centuries.
This part remains incredible to me - the Hundred Rolls are important
and readily available, and must have been studied by a considerable
number of historians & genealogists who realised that Countess Ida's
family was not identified elsewhere. The only set in Melbourne (apart
from microfilm copies, a production that is widely distributed) has
been consulted often, for instance. Volume 1 was misshelved last time
out in 2003, and it has taken several days to track this down. On
looking at the book today I find that a neat fold in the page has been
made at the first mention of Ida's name. It will be astounding if
modern reports of this evidence don't turn up sooner or later.
Peter Stewart