The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence (?)
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Clagett, Brice
The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence (?)
Aren't the anagrams inconsistent with Douglas Richardson's
theory that the house of Arundel had completely
abandoned the surname Fitzalan during this period?
theory that the house of Arundel had completely
abandoned the surname Fitzalan during this period?
-
John Brandon
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
"Clagett, Brice" wrote:
Two of the strings of words Miss Seaton found were "A(L)IS Ar(V)N(D).,
FISALAn, CHE--TO., POWIS" and "ALIS FIsA-AN A-UN(D)E.," so maybe the
names were still interchangeable at this period.
But who knows ...
Aren't the anagrams inconsistent with Douglas Richardson's
theory that the house of Arundel had completely
abandoned the surname Fitzalan during this period?
Two of the strings of words Miss Seaton found were "A(L)IS Ar(V)N(D).,
FISALAn, CHE--TO., POWIS" and "ALIS FIsA-AN A-UN(D)E.," so maybe the
names were still interchangeable at this period.
But who knows ...
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
John Brandon wrote:
That, or it means that with a large enough data set and enough degrees
of freedom (in terms of acceptable variation) you can find an 'anagram'
for anything you look for.
taf
"Clagett, Brice" wrote:
Aren't the anagrams inconsistent with Douglas Richardson's
theory that the house of Arundel had completely
abandoned the surname Fitzalan during this period?
Two of the strings of words Miss Seaton found were "A(L)IS Ar(V)N(D).,
FISALAn, CHE--TO., POWIS" and "ALIS FIsA-AN A-UN(D)E.," so maybe the
names were still interchangeable at this period.
That, or it means that with a large enough data set and enough degrees
of freedom (in terms of acceptable variation) you can find an 'anagram'
for anything you look for.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
Dear Brice ~
Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.
I'm unable to comment on the matter of the alleged anagrams in Sir
Richard Roos' poetry, as I haven't seen the text in question. So, I'll
take a pass on that part of your question.
Speaking of the surname employed by the Fitz Alan family, Nicolas, the
well known antiquarian, states: "This family presents a singular
instance of adopting the name of their title as the surname of the
family, for after the marriage of John Fitz-Alan, Lord of Clun, with
Isabel, the sister and co-heir of Hugh D'Albini, Earl of Arundel, all
the descendants called themslves Arundel instead of Fitz-Alan"
[Reference: Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 105].
My findings agree with Mr. Nicolas as to the name change from Fitz Alan
to Arundel. Available records indicate that the name change was
gradual at first, but complete about 1313.
However, this was not the only family which underwent such a name
change. The historian David Walker notes that family of the early
Earls of Hereford used the style "of Gloucester" until Miles was
created first earl of Hereford in 1141; thereafter they adopted the
style "of Hereford." [Reference: David Walker ed. "Charters of
the Earldom of Hereford, 1095-1201 in Camden Miscellany 22 (Camden
Soc. 4th Ser. 1) (1964): 1, footnote 2]. For examples of Earl Miles'
sons, Walter, Henry, and Mahel, all using the style "of Hereford,"
see Walker, ibid., 42-51. For examples of Earl Miles' daughter,
Lucy, using the style "of Hereford," see J. S. Brewer ed. Registrum
Malmesburiense (or The Register of Malmesbury Abbey) 2 (Rolls Ser. 72)
(London, 1880): 11-12, 57-58, 65-67; Walker, ibid., 74-75.
As with surname change from Fitz Alan to Arundel, there is much
confusion in modern genealogical record keeping caused by the surname
change from Gloucester to Hereford by the family of the Earls of
Hereford. For example, Leo's great website (http://www.genealogics.org) shows
five children of Earl Miles of Hereford with the surname "of
Gloucester," but two with the surname "of Hereford." [Reference:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO].
As per Mr. Walker, however, all seven children should be "of Hereford."
My findings support Mr. Walker's conclusions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Clagett, Brice" wrote:
Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.
I'm unable to comment on the matter of the alleged anagrams in Sir
Richard Roos' poetry, as I haven't seen the text in question. So, I'll
take a pass on that part of your question.
Speaking of the surname employed by the Fitz Alan family, Nicolas, the
well known antiquarian, states: "This family presents a singular
instance of adopting the name of their title as the surname of the
family, for after the marriage of John Fitz-Alan, Lord of Clun, with
Isabel, the sister and co-heir of Hugh D'Albini, Earl of Arundel, all
the descendants called themslves Arundel instead of Fitz-Alan"
[Reference: Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 105].
My findings agree with Mr. Nicolas as to the name change from Fitz Alan
to Arundel. Available records indicate that the name change was
gradual at first, but complete about 1313.
However, this was not the only family which underwent such a name
change. The historian David Walker notes that family of the early
Earls of Hereford used the style "of Gloucester" until Miles was
created first earl of Hereford in 1141; thereafter they adopted the
style "of Hereford." [Reference: David Walker ed. "Charters of
the Earldom of Hereford, 1095-1201 in Camden Miscellany 22 (Camden
Soc. 4th Ser. 1) (1964): 1, footnote 2]. For examples of Earl Miles'
sons, Walter, Henry, and Mahel, all using the style "of Hereford,"
see Walker, ibid., 42-51. For examples of Earl Miles' daughter,
Lucy, using the style "of Hereford," see J. S. Brewer ed. Registrum
Malmesburiense (or The Register of Malmesbury Abbey) 2 (Rolls Ser. 72)
(London, 1880): 11-12, 57-58, 65-67; Walker, ibid., 74-75.
As with surname change from Fitz Alan to Arundel, there is much
confusion in modern genealogical record keeping caused by the surname
change from Gloucester to Hereford by the family of the Earls of
Hereford. For example, Leo's great website (http://www.genealogics.org) shows
five children of Earl Miles of Hereford with the surname "of
Gloucester," but two with the surname "of Hereford." [Reference:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO].
As per Mr. Walker, however, all seven children should be "of Hereford."
My findings support Mr. Walker's conclusions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Clagett, Brice" wrote:
Aren't the anagrams inconsistent with Douglas Richardson's
theory that the house of Arundel had completely
abandoned the surname Fitzalan during this period?
-
John Brandon
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
That, or it means that with a large enough data set and enough degrees
of freedom (in terms of acceptable variation) you can find an 'anagram'
for anything you look for.
taf
Well, there is that aspect of it, but this form of anagrams is not
unknown as a literary device, Seaton was a somewhat respected critic (I
gather), and Rupert Hart-Davis (her publisher) was a reputable firm.
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
Yes, but it appears that this particular book and its methodologies
were roundly trounced. I received the following from a member of
Chaucernet:
=========================================
"...the contents were roundly trounced long ago because of her system
of how she found the anagrams: it was no system but a theory that bent
the facts and fluidly shifted 'method' to suit its purpose. This was a
surprise, because all her previous work was highly regarded. Only 1
poem still remains ascribed to Roos: La Belle Dame sans Mercy.
That said, there certainly were anagrams. Osbern Bokenham uses the
initials of the chapters of his Mappula Angliae to spell out his name.
A manuscript now in unknown private hands (so far as I know) that was a
prayer book "of Elizabeth of York" (which one is unknown) has an
opening dedicatory verse that spells out
E L I S A B E T H A T I M W A W
whatever that might be (Elisabeth Atimwaw, Elisabetha Timwaw,
Elisabeth at Imwaw...); this item is IMEV Supp. #735.5.
ABC poems--such as Chaucer's--might also count, here."
============================================
Hence, the good news: there is preliminary evidence to suggest that
anagrams in literature might have been used to indicated the names of
individuals in the medieval period (Bokenham was born ca. 1393).
The bad news: Seaton seems to have tarnished an otherwise distinguished
career in trying to force solutions of identity in a peom by a minor
writer, and, the worst, it turns out it probably wasn't even his poem
to begin with, hence any other Lancastrian-related 'evidence' which
Seaton may have found with respect to Roos as a writer showing his
Lancastrian connections in poetry becomes irrelevant.
Anagrams are thus clearly not of the same evidentiary caliber as ouija
boards, but probably not a genealogical solution in this particular
case.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
were roundly trounced. I received the following from a member of
Chaucernet:
=========================================
"...the contents were roundly trounced long ago because of her system
of how she found the anagrams: it was no system but a theory that bent
the facts and fluidly shifted 'method' to suit its purpose. This was a
surprise, because all her previous work was highly regarded. Only 1
poem still remains ascribed to Roos: La Belle Dame sans Mercy.
That said, there certainly were anagrams. Osbern Bokenham uses the
initials of the chapters of his Mappula Angliae to spell out his name.
A manuscript now in unknown private hands (so far as I know) that was a
prayer book "of Elizabeth of York" (which one is unknown) has an
opening dedicatory verse that spells out
E L I S A B E T H A T I M W A W
whatever that might be (Elisabeth Atimwaw, Elisabetha Timwaw,
Elisabeth at Imwaw...); this item is IMEV Supp. #735.5.
ABC poems--such as Chaucer's--might also count, here."
============================================
Hence, the good news: there is preliminary evidence to suggest that
anagrams in literature might have been used to indicated the names of
individuals in the medieval period (Bokenham was born ca. 1393).
The bad news: Seaton seems to have tarnished an otherwise distinguished
career in trying to force solutions of identity in a peom by a minor
writer, and, the worst, it turns out it probably wasn't even his poem
to begin with, hence any other Lancastrian-related 'evidence' which
Seaton may have found with respect to Roos as a writer showing his
Lancastrian connections in poetry becomes irrelevant.
Anagrams are thus clearly not of the same evidentiary caliber as ouija
boards, but probably not a genealogical solution in this particular
case.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
John Brandon wrote:
A few years ago, the most reputable scientific journal on the planet
published an article by a scientist of some past prominence, with the
editor himself admitting in an accompanying commentary that he thought
the result being reported was absolute rubish (in this he was in
agreement with virtually the entire scientific community with the
exception of the author). To preserve the integrity of the process he
refused to reject it just because he and all the reviewers thought it
was obviously wrong, but couldn't identify the flaw or fraud.
Likewise, respected publishers have frequently printed what could be
called 'fringe' theories, just to rock the boat a little (and to sell
books/periodicals). Thus these are not foolproof criteria.
As has been pointed out, there is a long history of finding 'hidden'
codes in texts. Such patterns can look quite convincing. The problem
is that such patterns _will_ emerge in random (or rather, non-intended)
texts. I remember someone going through one of these 'secret code'
texts and finding the names of various Looney Tunes characters (e.g. B.
BuNy, Don DUC, etc). While I assume it is not easy to intentionally
encode a layer of irrelevant information into metre and rhyme, from what
you posted it looks like Seaton was quite liberal in the amount of
variation she was willing to allow the author, and in how much text was
searched to find these gems. One wonders what other names (using 'close
enough' as the benchmark) might be found if one looks. Even if these
names were intentionally put there by the author, do we know it
represents a genealogical collection of names and not simply a
prosopological one ("I will sneak in a bunch of people from high
society" rather than "I will encode a family group connected
genealogically").
There is even debate as to the value of Liber Vitae entries as
genealogical sources, and I would say this evidence is at least two
steps further removed, in that we can't know the encoded names represent
a family group, nor that it is all not coincidence to begin with.
taf
That, or it means that with a large enough data set and enough degrees
of freedom (in terms of acceptable variation) you can find an 'anagram'
for anything you look for.
Well, there is that aspect of it, but this form of anagrams is not
unknown as a literary device, Seaton was a somewhat respected critic (I
gather), and Rupert Hart-Davis (her publisher) was a reputable firm.
A few years ago, the most reputable scientific journal on the planet
published an article by a scientist of some past prominence, with the
editor himself admitting in an accompanying commentary that he thought
the result being reported was absolute rubish (in this he was in
agreement with virtually the entire scientific community with the
exception of the author). To preserve the integrity of the process he
refused to reject it just because he and all the reviewers thought it
was obviously wrong, but couldn't identify the flaw or fraud.
Likewise, respected publishers have frequently printed what could be
called 'fringe' theories, just to rock the boat a little (and to sell
books/periodicals). Thus these are not foolproof criteria.
As has been pointed out, there is a long history of finding 'hidden'
codes in texts. Such patterns can look quite convincing. The problem
is that such patterns _will_ emerge in random (or rather, non-intended)
texts. I remember someone going through one of these 'secret code'
texts and finding the names of various Looney Tunes characters (e.g. B.
BuNy, Don DUC, etc). While I assume it is not easy to intentionally
encode a layer of irrelevant information into metre and rhyme, from what
you posted it looks like Seaton was quite liberal in the amount of
variation she was willing to allow the author, and in how much text was
searched to find these gems. One wonders what other names (using 'close
enough' as the benchmark) might be found if one looks. Even if these
names were intentionally put there by the author, do we know it
represents a genealogical collection of names and not simply a
prosopological one ("I will sneak in a bunch of people from high
society" rather than "I will encode a family group connected
genealogically").
There is even debate as to the value of Liber Vitae entries as
genealogical sources, and I would say this evidence is at least two
steps further removed, in that we can't know the encoded names represent
a family group, nor that it is all not coincidence to begin with.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
taf wrote:
<snip>
I agree completely about the problem of pinning down what - if anything
- this kind of "evidence" can tell us once its presence in a text has
been established.
However, I think the findings and reputation of Ethel Seaton are being
unfairly belittled by some recent posts.
She found far too many examples in the work ascribed to Roos, and some
of these far too concentrated, for the play of logogriphs to be
dismissable as mere co-incidence. Also she had published similar
findings previously about other poets, as I said in reporting the
inadequacy of her response in a controversy with military
cryptographers over French verse of the same era.
People played all sorts of literary parlour games through the
centuries, many of these even emptier & much sillier than hiding a
string of apparently connected names in the first, or first two,
letters of lines or following the caesura in a line. Plain acrostics
are the best known, most widespread and I suppose long-lasting of
these, still practised freely (and often set, for instance, in magazine
competitions) today.
In the fifteenth century people of literary bent enjoyed sharing verse,
in manuscript, to entertain each other - not unlike the more prosaic
pastime of an internet newsgroup nowadays. The degree of virtuosity
that could be shown in planting the names of group members was part of
the fun for them. They didn't have TV with the sleuthing of Miss Marple
or Hercule Poirot to occupy their time, and Agatha Christie's writing
skills to criticise, so they made up their own detective games.
The fact remains that the names, or name parts, uncovered by Seaton,
even if we accept them all (as I do not), can tell us nothing beyond
the identities who may have shared in or become the subjects of such
private jokes or gossip, not even whether they were simply listed at
random & out of boredom. We can have no idea if they were placed
together without revealing any particular social much less genealogical
connection, rather like an e-mail distribution list, just because they
were all corresponding at the time & were all to be sent copies of the
verses in question.
People were vain, and reading was a fairly elite skill. The most that
Seaton's findings can tell us about Jane Stradling is that the lady
could evidently read, so that whoever her parents were they had not
completely neglected her education. Not exactly worth a lot of hoo-hah.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
As has been pointed out, there is a long history of finding 'hidden'
codes in texts. Such patterns can look quite convincing.
The problem is that such patterns _will_ emerge in random (or
rather, non-intended) texts. I remember someone going through
one of these 'secret code' texts and finding the names of various
Looney Tunes characters (e.g. B. BuNy, Don DUC, etc). While
I assume it is not easy to intentionally encode a layer of irrelevant
information into metre and rhyme, from what you posted it looks
like Seaton was quite liberal in the amount of variation she was
willing to allow the author, and in how much text was searched to
find these gems. One wonders what other names (using 'close
enough' as the benchmark) might be found if one looks. Even if
these names were intentionally put there by the author, do we
know it represents a genealogical collection of names and not
simply a prosopological one ("I will sneak in a bunch of people
from high society" rather than "I will encode a family group
connected genealogically").
I agree completely about the problem of pinning down what - if anything
- this kind of "evidence" can tell us once its presence in a text has
been established.
However, I think the findings and reputation of Ethel Seaton are being
unfairly belittled by some recent posts.
She found far too many examples in the work ascribed to Roos, and some
of these far too concentrated, for the play of logogriphs to be
dismissable as mere co-incidence. Also she had published similar
findings previously about other poets, as I said in reporting the
inadequacy of her response in a controversy with military
cryptographers over French verse of the same era.
People played all sorts of literary parlour games through the
centuries, many of these even emptier & much sillier than hiding a
string of apparently connected names in the first, or first two,
letters of lines or following the caesura in a line. Plain acrostics
are the best known, most widespread and I suppose long-lasting of
these, still practised freely (and often set, for instance, in magazine
competitions) today.
In the fifteenth century people of literary bent enjoyed sharing verse,
in manuscript, to entertain each other - not unlike the more prosaic
pastime of an internet newsgroup nowadays. The degree of virtuosity
that could be shown in planting the names of group members was part of
the fun for them. They didn't have TV with the sleuthing of Miss Marple
or Hercule Poirot to occupy their time, and Agatha Christie's writing
skills to criticise, so they made up their own detective games.
The fact remains that the names, or name parts, uncovered by Seaton,
even if we accept them all (as I do not), can tell us nothing beyond
the identities who may have shared in or become the subjects of such
private jokes or gossip, not even whether they were simply listed at
random & out of boredom. We can have no idea if they were placed
together without revealing any particular social much less genealogical
connection, rather like an e-mail distribution list, just because they
were all corresponding at the time & were all to be sent copies of the
verses in question.
People were vain, and reading was a fairly elite skill. The most that
Seaton's findings can tell us about Jane Stradling is that the lady
could evidently read, so that whoever her parents were they had not
completely neglected her education. Not exactly worth a lot of hoo-hah.
Peter Stewart