Corrections to new DNB
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Corrections to new DNB
I have started a page for corrections to the new DNB here
_http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/DNB/_
(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/DNB/)
Will Johnson
_http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/DNB/_
(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/DNB/)
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Corrections to new DNB
Will Johnson wrote:
It is worth sending corrections to the Oxford University Press at this email
address:
oxforddnb@oup.com
They do deal with these (though it's a fairly slow process), and are
updating the online edition regularly.
Chris Phillips
I have started a page for corrections to the new DNB here
_http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/DNB/_
(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/DNB/)
It is worth sending corrections to the Oxford University Press at this email
address:
oxforddnb@oup.com
They do deal with these (though it's a fairly slow process), and are
updating the online edition regularly.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Corrections to new DNB
In a message dated 9/23/2005 8:11:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
It is worth sending corrections to the Oxford University Press at this email
address:
oxforddnb@oup.com
They do deal with these (though it's a fairly slow process), and are
updating the online edition regularly.
Thanks Chris I have sent them my correction.
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
It is worth sending corrections to the Oxford University Press at this email
address:
oxforddnb@oup.com
They do deal with these (though it's a fairly slow process), and are
updating the online edition regularly.
Thanks Chris I have sent them my correction.
Will Johnson
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Corrections to new DNB
Here is a copy of a correction I sent to DNB nearly 4 months ago. (Still
uncorrected)
Dear Sirs
There is a rather strange error in the biography of William de Braose
Briouze [Braose], William (III) de (d. 1211), magnate
The very last words are
"John, son of William (IV), died without heirs in 1232."
This is incorrect. John's heir was another William de Braose, well
documented as Lord of Gower and Bramber. See Complete Peerage (GEC).
Regards
Doug Thompson
uncorrected)
Dear Sirs
There is a rather strange error in the biography of William de Braose
Briouze [Braose], William (III) de (d. 1211), magnate
The very last words are
"John, son of William (IV), died without heirs in 1232."
This is incorrect. John's heir was another William de Braose, well
documented as Lord of Gower and Bramber. See Complete Peerage (GEC).
Regards
Doug Thompson
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Corrections to new DNB
Doug Thompson wrote:
If I am remembering correctly, the available version was most recently
updated in May, so that hardly gives them time to verify and incorporate
something you sent them about that time.
taf
Here is a copy of a correction I sent to DNB nearly 4 months ago. (Still
uncorrected)
If I am remembering correctly, the available version was most recently
updated in May, so that hardly gives them time to verify and incorporate
something you sent them about that time.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Corrections to new DNB
The entry for George Freville, baron of the exchequer, calls his mother
"Rose Peyton", apparently based on HoP.
Michael
"Rose Peyton", apparently based on HoP.
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Corrections to new DNB
The entry for Sir Thomas Rempston the younger (d 1458) repeats the
erroneous assertion from the original DNB article that he was a Knight
of the Order of the Garter; this was presumably a conflation with his
father's career (the elder Sir TR was admitted to the Order in 1400)
MAR
erroneous assertion from the original DNB article that he was a Knight
of the Order of the Garter; this was presumably a conflation with his
father's career (the elder Sir TR was admitted to the Order in 1400)
MAR
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Corrections to new DNB
According to my superb book on the Knights of the Garter, Sir Thomas
Rempston was nominated KG ca.1401 and he died in 1406.
And so you are quite correct picking up this error.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Corrections to new DNB
Rempston was nominated KG ca.1401 and he died in 1406.
And so you are quite correct picking up this error.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Corrections to new DNB
The entry for Sir Thomas Rempston the younger (d 1458) repeats the
erroneous assertion from the original DNB article that he was a Knight
of the Order of the Garter; this was presumably a conflation with his
father's career (the elder Sir TR was admitted to the Order in 1400)
MAR
-
Gjest
Re: Corrections to new DNB
In a message dated 9/24/2005 4:39:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
By the way, I had posted earlier a will where a collar was passed on from
grandfather to grandson. Can a position as a knight actually be something
passed on in a will ?
Thanks
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
The entry for Sir Thomas Rempston the younger (d 1458) repeats the
erroneous assertion from the original DNB article that he was a Knight
of the Order of the Garter; this was presumably a conflation with his
father's career (the elder Sir TR was admitted to the Order in 1400)
By the way, I had posted earlier a will where a collar was passed on from
grandfather to grandson. Can a position as a knight actually be something
passed on in a will ?
Thanks
Will
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Corrections to new DNB
I would say, no, a position as Knight of the Garter is conferred only by
election.
This wonderful book I have does not have a wonderful index. as Rempston,
Thomas is not to be found in the index
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Corrections to new DNB
election.
This wonderful book I have does not have a wonderful index. as Rempston,
Thomas is not to be found in the index
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Corrections to new DNB
In a message dated 9/24/2005 4:39:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
The entry for Sir Thomas Rempston the younger (d 1458) repeats the
erroneous assertion from the original DNB article that he was a Knight
of the Order of the Garter; this was presumably a conflation with his
father's career (the elder Sir TR was admitted to the Order in 1400)
By the way, I had posted earlier a will where a collar was passed on from
grandfather to grandson. Can a position as a knight actually be something
passed on in a will ?
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Corrections to new DNB
No, in the UK there are no hereditary knighthoods (other than
baronetcies, and - after a fashion - the KG that the Prince of Wales
received automatically).
According to 'The Order of the Garter: Its Knight and Stall Plates
1348-1984' by Grace Holmes, sometime Archivist to the Dean and Chapter
at Windsor:
Rempston, Thomas #101 nominated c1401; died 31 October 1406.
This work does include biographies in alphabetical order, which serves
as an index per se.
baronetcies, and - after a fashion - the KG that the Prince of Wales
received automatically).
According to 'The Order of the Garter: Its Knight and Stall Plates
1348-1984' by Grace Holmes, sometime Archivist to the Dean and Chapter
at Windsor:
Rempston, Thomas #101 nominated c1401; died 31 October 1406.
This work does include biographies in alphabetical order, which serves
as an index per se.
-
Gjest
Re: Corrections to new DNB
He is in the index of Shaw's _The Knights of England_. There is a "?" for
the date for a number of KG's made at this time, Shaw gives him as after 1400,
May 21. He replaced number 83, John Bourchier 2nd Ld B who died on this
date - 1400, May 21
regards,
Adrian
I would say, no, a position as Knight of the Garter is conferred only by
election.
This wonderful book I have does not have a wonderful index. as Rempston,
Thomas is not to be found in the index
Leo
the date for a number of KG's made at this time, Shaw gives him as after 1400,
May 21. He replaced number 83, John Bourchier 2nd Ld B who died on this
date - 1400, May 21
regards,
Adrian
I would say, no, a position as Knight of the Garter is conferred only by
election.
This wonderful book I have does not have a wonderful index. as Rempston,
Thomas is not to be found in the index
Leo
-
Gjest
Re: Corrections to new DNB
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
have actual proofs to hand I'll put them here for inspection.
1. In the entry for Ralph de Monthermer (d.1325), sometime earl of
Gloucester, it states that he was father, by his second wife Isabella
Despencer, of Margaret who married John de Montagu. (She is surely his
grand daughter, being daughter of his son of his previous marriage. I
have the birthdate 1329 for her, if right it would conclusively rule
out their version.)
2. In the articles both on Robert I, king of Scots, and the family of
the earls of Ross, it states that the Maud Bruce who married Hugh, 4th
earl of Ross (d.1333) was the king's daughter, who had previously
married Thomas Isaac. (She is more usually given as the king's sister;
the Ross article says she was dead 1329, when Hugh had dispensation to
marry Margaret Graham. The king's daughter Maud, who married Thomas
Isaac, I had as dying in 1353.)
I have started a page for corrections to the new DNB here
_http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/DNB/_
(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/DNB/)
Will Johnson
Here are a couple of things which look like mistakes, but as I don't
have actual proofs to hand I'll put them here for inspection.
1. In the entry for Ralph de Monthermer (d.1325), sometime earl of
Gloucester, it states that he was father, by his second wife Isabella
Despencer, of Margaret who married John de Montagu. (She is surely his
grand daughter, being daughter of his son of his previous marriage. I
have the birthdate 1329 for her, if right it would conclusively rule
out their version.)
2. In the articles both on Robert I, king of Scots, and the family of
the earls of Ross, it states that the Maud Bruce who married Hugh, 4th
earl of Ross (d.1333) was the king's daughter, who had previously
married Thomas Isaac. (She is more usually given as the king's sister;
the Ross article says she was dead 1329, when Hugh had dispensation to
marry Margaret Graham. The king's daughter Maud, who married Thomas
Isaac, I had as dying in 1353.)