Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
paul bulkley

Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 20 okt 2005 04:09:01

In Horace Round's Ancient Charters, one Charter is of
some interest Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters #26 as
follows:

1164-56: Grant of Gervase de Cornhill of the lands of
Chalk, which had been held by Roger "nepos Huberti"

Round mentions that Eyton made an interesting
observation regarding the witnesses " Except for
Manasser Biset, every one of the witnesses, as well as
the grantee, was at some time or other distinguished
for hostility or opposition to the primate (Becket)

Of this list of witnesses Richard de Luci was
included. Round then remarked that the name of Richard
de Luci being before that of Earl Roger of Clare was a
very singular circumstance, especially if, as would
appear the case, he was not yet Justiciar.

I was under the impression that Richard de Luci was
appointed Chief Justiciar of England 1162, and always
assumed that he held that position for many years.

However reading The Battle Roll P199, I note that
Richard de Luci was appointed Chief Justiciar for the
second time in 1173. So presumably the holding of this
office need not have been long term, and in Richard de
Luci's case, he held the position at least twice. So
presumably Horace Round's observation would have been
correct.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley



__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 okt 2005 04:09:02

"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20051020020746.64761.qmail@web34207.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
In Horace Round's Ancient Charters, one Charter is of
some interest Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters #26 as
follows:

1164-56: Grant of Gervase de Cornhill of the lands of
Chalk, which had been held by Roger "nepos Huberti"

Round mentions that Eyton made an interesting
observation regarding the witnesses " Except for
Manasser Biset, every one of the witnesses, as well as
the grantee, was at some time or other distinguished
for hostility or opposition to the primate (Becket)

Of this list of witnesses Richard de Luci was
included. Round then remarked that the name of Richard
de Luci being before that of Earl Roger of Clare was a
very singular circumstance, especially if, as would
appear the case, he was not yet Justiciar.

I was under the impression that Richard de Luci was
appointed Chief Justiciar of England 1162, and always
assumed that he held that position for many years.

However reading The Battle Roll P199, I note that
Richard de Luci was appointed Chief Justiciar for the
second time in 1173. So presumably the holding of this
office need not have been long term, and in Richard de
Luci's case, he held the position at least twice. So
presumably Horace Round's observation would have been
correct.

Round was usually correct, while your impressions are certainly not.

Robert 'Bossu', earl of Leicester, the younger of the Beaumont twins, was
chief justiciar from 1155 until his death on 5 April 1168. Richard de Luci
was appointed as a co-justiciar in the mid-1150s, soon after the accession
of Henry II, and he continued in the office alone from April 1168 onwards.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 okt 2005 11:18:20

In message of 20 Oct, designeconomic@yahoo.com (paul bulkley) wrote:

In Horace Round's Ancient Charters, one Charter is of
some interest Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters #26 as
follows:

1164-56: Grant of Gervase de Cornhill of the lands of
Chalk, which had been held by Roger "nepos Huberti"

Round mentions that Eyton made an interesting
observation regarding the witnesses " Except for
Manasser Biset, every one of the witnesses, as well as
the grantee, was at some time or other distinguished
for hostility or opposition to the primate (Becket)

Of this list of witnesses Richard de Luci was
included. Round then remarked that the name of Richard
de Luci being before that of Earl Roger of Clare was a
very singular circumstance, especially if, as would
appear the case, he was not yet Justiciar.

I was under the impression that Richard de Luci was
appointed Chief Justiciar of England 1162, and always
assumed that he held that position for many years.

However reading The Battle Roll P199, I note that
Richard de Luci was appointed Chief Justiciar for the
second time in 1173. So presumably the holding of this
office need not have been long term, and in Richard de
Luci's case, he held the position at least twice. So
presumably Horace Round's observation would have been
correct.

Perhaps to confuse matters here's this from DNB, 2nd edition:

"When Stephen died in 1154 and was succeeded by Henry II, Richard de
Lucy moved easily into the new royal administration, and was almost
immediately named co-justiciar with Robert, earl of Leicester."

And further down:

"Richard de Lucy was left sole justiciar upon the earl of Leicester's
death in 1168."

But I am not impressed by the accuracy of this DNB, having already sent
off corrections on three separate people that I know a bit about and a
cousin of mine having found a fourth.

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

John Brandon

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 okt 2005 14:14:23

But I am not impressed by the accuracy of this DNB

At least there's one thing we agree on ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 okt 2005 23:30:38

"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5841532.1129845427659.JavaMail.root@elwamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Sent: Oct 19, 2005 11:00 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar


"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20051020020746.64761.qmail@web34207.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
In Horace Round's Ancient Charters, one Charter is of
some interest Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters #26 as
follows:

1164-56: Grant of Gervase de Cornhill of the lands of
Chalk, which had been held by Roger "nepos Huberti"

Round mentions that Eyton made an interesting
observation regarding the witnesses " Except for
Manasser Biset, every one of the witnesses, as well as
the grantee, was at some time or other distinguished
for hostility or opposition to the primate (Becket)

Of this list of witnesses Richard de Luci was
included. Round then remarked that the name of Richard
de Luci being before that of Earl Roger of Clare was a
very singular circumstance, especially if, as would
appear the case, he was not yet Justiciar.

I was under the impression that Richard de Luci was
appointed Chief Justiciar of England 1162, and always
assumed that he held that position for many years.

However reading The Battle Roll P199, I note that
Richard de Luci was appointed Chief Justiciar for the
second time in 1173. So presumably the holding of this
office need not have been long term, and in Richard de
Luci's case, he held the position at least twice. So
presumably Horace Round's observation would have been
correct.

Round was usually correct, while your impressions are certainly not.

Robert 'Bossu', earl of Leicester, the younger of the Beaumont twins, was
chief justiciar from 1155 until his death on 5 April 1168. Richard de Luci
was appointed as a co-justiciar in the mid-1150s, soon after the accession
of Henry II, and he continued in the office alone from April 1168 onwards.

Peter Stewart


Dugdale, citing Roger de Hoveden, states that Richard's 1st appointment
as justiciar occured in the eighth year of Henry II's reign (1162). The
same author, citing Assize Rolls of Jervaulx Abbey, shows that Richard's
2nd appointment as justiciar occured in 1173 (due to the King's absence
abroad). [Baronage of England 1:562, 566].

Roger of Hoveden is not the only source for this, although he may have been
Dugdale's only source.

The justiciarship was not vacant in 1162, and Richard's appointment - from
some years before then - was as a co-justiciar with the earl of Leicester.

1173 was the year of the rebellion of Henry II's sons, and it would not be
surprising if some appointments were confirmed at that time. For all I know,
it may also be that Richard de Luci had not been formally appointed as
justiciar, following the death of his senior colleague in April 1168, before
1173.

From the brief details given by Tim, I suspect that the ONDB article may
have been written by Emily Amt, or at any rate may have drawn from her paper
'Richard de Lucy, Henry II's Justiciar' in _Medieval Prosopography_ 9
(1988). I have seen no reason to doubt her findings.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 okt 2005 23:55:13

In message of 20 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

From the brief details given by Tim, I suspect that the ONDB article
may have been written by Emily Amt,

Exactly right.

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

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 20 okt 2005 23:59:02

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 19, 2005 11:00 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar


"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20051020020746.64761.qmail@web34207.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
In Horace Round's Ancient Charters, one Charter is of
some interest Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters #26 as
follows:

1164-56: Grant of Gervase de Cornhill of the lands of
Chalk, which had been held by Roger "nepos Huberti"

Round mentions that Eyton made an interesting
observation regarding the witnesses " Except for
Manasser Biset, every one of the witnesses, as well as
the grantee, was at some time or other distinguished
for hostility or opposition to the primate (Becket)

Of this list of witnesses Richard de Luci was
included. Round then remarked that the name of Richard
de Luci being before that of Earl Roger of Clare was a
very singular circumstance, especially if, as would
appear the case, he was not yet Justiciar.

I was under the impression that Richard de Luci was
appointed Chief Justiciar of England 1162, and always
assumed that he held that position for many years.

However reading The Battle Roll P199, I note that
Richard de Luci was appointed Chief Justiciar for the
second time in 1173. So presumably the holding of this
office need not have been long term, and in Richard de
Luci's case, he held the position at least twice. So
presumably Horace Round's observation would have been
correct.

Round was usually correct, while your impressions are certainly not.

Robert 'Bossu', earl of Leicester, the younger of the Beaumont twins, was
chief justiciar from 1155 until his death on 5 April 1168. Richard de Luci
was appointed as a co-justiciar in the mid-1150s, soon after the accession
of Henry II, and he continued in the office alone from April 1168 onwards.

Peter Stewart


Dugdale, citing Roger de Hoveden, states that Richard's 1st appointment as justiciar occured in the eighth year of Henry II's reign (1162). The same author, citing Assize Rolls of Jervaulx Abbey, shows that Richard's 2nd appointment as justiciar occured in 1173 (due to the King's absence abroad). [Baronage of England 1:562, 566].

Kevin Bradford

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 okt 2005 02:20:25

Kevin Bradford wrote:

Your statement, "For all I know," is neither a creditable source, nor is
it a historical fact.

And of course I said this precisely in order to make clear what you
feel a need to restate as if it had some deeper meaning.

The information from Roger de Hoveden is evidently NOT a credible
source for this, as it has been pointed out that Richard de Luci was
acting as a co-justiciar before 1162 and Robert de Beaumont, earl of
Leicester, was still the justiciar until April 1168.

Richard de Luci was appointed by King Henry II, not by Roger de
Hoveden.

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 21 okt 2005 02:46:02

None of your commentary has been accompanied by a citation. You mention there are other sources, but provide no proofs.

Kevin Bradford

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 6:30 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar


"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5841532.1129845427659.JavaMail.root@elwamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Sent: Oct 19, 2005 11:00 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar


"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20051020020746.64761.qmail@web34207.mail.mud.yahoo.com...
In Horace Round's Ancient Charters, one Charter is of
some interest Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters #26 as
follows:

1164-56: Grant of Gervase de Cornhill of the lands of
Chalk, which had been held by Roger "nepos Huberti"

Round mentions that Eyton made an interesting
observation regarding the witnesses " Except for
Manasser Biset, every one of the witnesses, as well as
the grantee, was at some time or other distinguished
for hostility or opposition to the primate (Becket)

Of this list of witnesses Richard de Luci was
included. Round then remarked that the name of Richard
de Luci being before that of Earl Roger of Clare was a
very singular circumstance, especially if, as would
appear the case, he was not yet Justiciar.

I was under the impression that Richard de Luci was
appointed Chief Justiciar of England 1162, and always
assumed that he held that position for many years.

However reading The Battle Roll P199, I note that
Richard de Luci was appointed Chief Justiciar for the
second time in 1173. So presumably the holding of this
office need not have been long term, and in Richard de
Luci's case, he held the position at least twice. So
presumably Horace Round's observation would have been
correct.

Round was usually correct, while your impressions are certainly not.

Robert 'Bossu', earl of Leicester, the younger of the Beaumont twins, was
chief justiciar from 1155 until his death on 5 April 1168. Richard de Luci
was appointed as a co-justiciar in the mid-1150s, soon after the accession
of Henry II, and he continued in the office alone from April 1168 onwards.

Peter Stewart


Dugdale, citing Roger de Hoveden, states that Richard's 1st appointment
as justiciar occured in the eighth year of Henry II's reign (1162). The
same author, citing Assize Rolls of Jervaulx Abbey, shows that Richard's
2nd appointment as justiciar occured in 1173 (due to the King's absence
abroad). [Baronage of England 1:562, 566].

Roger of Hoveden is not the only source for this, although he may have been
Dugdale's only source.

The justiciarship was not vacant in 1162, and Richard's appointment - from
some years before then - was as a co-justiciar with the earl of Leicester.

1173 was the year of the rebellion of Henry II's sons, and it would not be
surprising if some appointments were confirmed at that time. For all I know,
it may also be that Richard de Luci had not been formally appointed as
justiciar, following the death of his senior colleague in April 1168, before
1173.

From the brief details given by Tim, I suspect that the ONDB article may
have been written by Emily Amt, or at any rate may have drawn from her paper
'Richard de Lucy, Henry II's Justiciar' in _Medieval Prosopography_ 9
(1988). I have seen no reason to doubt her findings.

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 21 okt 2005 02:56:02

Your statement, "For all I know," is neither a creditable source, nor is it a historical fact.

Kevin Bradford

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 6:30 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar



For all I know,
it may also be that Richard de Luci had not been formally appointed as

justiciar, following the death of his senior colleague in April 1168, before
1173.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 okt 2005 03:37:19

Kevin Bradford wrote:

For the second time, you have not provided a source for
your statement, which would help to demonstrate your point
to the newsgroup why Hovenden is not a creditable source for
this question. Your unsourced commentary ("as I pointed out")
cannot be misconstrued as evidence, without a lead to some
source which backs up what you say.

If you want to renivent the wheel over this, go ahead - but I am not
trying to do so.

I provided a citation to Emily Amt's first published study, now
complemented by an article in ONDB, that would be a good starting point
to confirm her research or to indicate where further investigations
might be made if there are any left worth undertaking. I am not
proposing to do this.

Going over sources that happen to mention such a notable personage,
piecemeal on a newsroup, when such an authority as Emily Amt is
available to consult, doesn't seem to me a very useful or profitable
way to spend time.

Maybe you could come back to us if & when you find something new to
discuss about this.

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 21 okt 2005 03:54:01

For the second time, you have not provided a source for your statement, which would help to demonstrate your point to the newsgroup why Hovenden is not a creditable source for this question. Your unsourced commentary ("as I pointed out") cannot be misconstrued as evidence, without a lead to some source which backs up what you say.

That de Lucy was appointed by Henry II is not the issue here; consequently, your attempt at sarcasm as a defense hasn't accomplished its purpose. Neither is there any "deeper meaning" to anything I've mentioned so far. I am simply assisting you to frame a better argument, while at the same time helping the newsgroup to assess the sources that have been provided. So far, the only sources provided have been those given by me.

Kevin Bradford



-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 9:20 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Kevin Bradford wrote:

Your statement, "For all I know," is neither a creditable source, nor is
it a historical fact.

And of course I said this precisely in order to make clear what you
feel a need to restate as if it had some deeper meaning.

The information from Roger de Hoveden is evidently NOT a credible
source for this, as it has been pointed out that Richard de Luci was
acting as a co-justiciar before 1162 and Robert de Beaumont, earl of
Leicester, was still the justiciar until April 1168.

Richard de Luci was appointed by King Henry II, not by Roger de
Hoveden.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 okt 2005 04:59:27

I wrote:

Maybe you could come back to us if & when you find something
new to discuss about this.

Kevin Bradford replied:

Perhaps you might, if it interests you sufficiently.

How many times do I need to say that I am not proposing to research
this?

I had _already_ provided the citation to Emily Amt's work before you
complained that I hadn't, and before the post that prompted your
misguided "Now it looks like you got the point. Thank you."

If you are not interested enough even to read the posts you are
responding to, then it's a wonder that you are trying to goad someone
else into researching the matter.

Emily Amt is a very competent historian, I see no reason to doubt the
rationale she offered for the chronology of Richard de Luci's
justiciarship, and no genealogical question has been raised about this
anyway.

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 21 okt 2005 05:16:03

Oh yes, and those by the original poster of this thread, which not coincidentally happen to agree with Dugdale's statements.

K

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 9:52 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

For the second time, you have not provided a source for your statement, which would help to demonstrate your point to the newsgroup why Hovenden is not a creditable source for this question. Your unsourced commentary ("as I pointed out") cannot be misconstrued as evidence, without a lead to some source which backs up what you say.

That de Lucy was appointed by Henry II is not the issue here; consequently, your attempt at sarcasm as a defense hasn't accomplished its purpose. Neither is there any "deeper meaning" to anything I've mentioned so far. I am simply assisting you to frame a better argument, while at the same time helping the newsgroup to assess the sources that have been provided. So far, the only sources provided have been those given by me.

Kevin Bradford



-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 9:20 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Kevin Bradford wrote:

Your statement, "For all I know," is neither a creditable source, nor is
it a historical fact.

And of course I said this precisely in order to make clear what you
feel a need to restate as if it had some deeper meaning.

The information from Roger de Hoveden is evidently NOT a credible
source for this, as it has been pointed out that Richard de Luci was
acting as a co-justiciar before 1162 and Robert de Beaumont, earl of
Leicester, was still the justiciar until April 1168.

Richard de Luci was appointed by King Henry II, not by Roger de
Hoveden.

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 21 okt 2005 05:16:03

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 10:37 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Kevin Bradford wrote:

For the second time, you have not provided a source for
your statement, which would help to demonstrate your point
to the newsgroup why Hovenden is not a creditable source for
this question. Your unsourced commentary ("as I pointed out")
cannot be misconstrued as evidence, without a lead to some
source which backs up what you say.

If you want to renivent the wheel over this, go ahead - but I am not
trying to do so.


You've apparently missed the point.

<I provided a citation to Emily Amt's first published study, now
complemented by an article in ONDB, that would be a good starting point
to confirm her research or to indicate where further investigations
might be made if there are any left worth undertaking.

Now it looks like you got the point. Thank you.

<I am not
proposing to do this.

That's good to know.

Going over sources that happen to mention such a notable personage,
piecemeal on a newsroup, when such an authority as Emily Amt is
available to consult, doesn't seem to me a very useful or profitable
way to spend time.

<Maybe you could come back to us if & when you find something new to
discuss about this.

Perhaps you might, if it interests you sufficiently.

Best,
Kevin Bradford

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 21 okt 2005 06:44:02

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 20, 2005 11:59 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

I wrote:

Maybe you could come back to us if & when you find something
new to discuss about this.

Kevin Bradford replied:

Perhaps you might, if it interests you sufficiently.

How many times do I need to say that I am not proposing to research
this?


The whining here is almost audible.

I had _already_ provided the citation to Emily Amt's work before you
complained that I hadn't, and before the post that prompted your

misguided "Now it looks like you got the point. Thank you."

If you are not interested enough even to read the posts you are
responding to, then it's a wonder that you are trying to goad someone

else into researching the matter.

Additional display of peevishness.

I've read the posts, thank you.

One of the reasons I try to limit sources in my bibliography to only those I have personally seen and can pull up for study, is when I field questions such as this in other online venues. With proper preparation, you shouldn't have had to "research" this question at all. It appears as though you haven't ready access to the source you cite, playing the "you're goading me" game to avoid the responsibility to adequately support your statement. In your zeal to play the wronged, harried expert, you apparently have forgotten that I'm not the originator of this question. I pointed to a source, *and provided direct statements from same*.

Kevin Bradford

Gjest

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 okt 2005 06:53:02

In a message dated 21/10/05 1:04:15 AM GMT Daylight Time,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com writes:
SW4gbWVzc2FnZSBvZiAyMCBPY3QsICJQZXRlciBTdGV3YXJ0IiA8cF9tX3N0ZXdhcnRAbXNu
LmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4gRnJvbSB0aGUgYnJpZWYgZGV0YWlscyBnaXZlbiBieSBUaW0s
IEkgc3VzcGVjdCB0aGF0IHRoZSBPTkRCIGFydGljbGUNCj4gbWF5ICBoYXZlIGJlZW4gd3Jp
dHRlbiBieSBFbWlseSBBbXQsDQoNCkV4YWN0bHkgcmlnaHQuDQoNCi0tIA0KVGltIFBvd3lz
LUx5YmJloKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgdGltQHBv
d3lzLm9yZw0KoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoEZvciBhIG1pc2NlbGxhbnkgb2YgYnlnb25lczogaHR0
cDovL3Bvd3lzLm9yZw0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18

Tim, I think maybe there is something wrong with your mailer (unless of
course it is mine that is not working properly). The above quote shows how your
latest posting appeared in my mailbox
Best regards
MM

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 okt 2005 07:01:17

Kevin Bradford wrote:

It appears as though you haven't ready access to the source
you cite, playing the "you're goading me" game to avoid the
responsibility to adequately support your statement.

Rubbish - there is no "game" being played and nothing to be
"adequately" supported by me. I pointed out the chronology of Richard
de Luci's justiciarship as this is set out by Emily Amt, who has
studied the matter. I have a copy of her article.

Bradford quoted Roger de Hoveden, as if it is worth trawling without
prior reference to Amt's work through any & every source that may have
given information, right, wrong, contradictory, misleading or otherwise
about this personage. What is the point of historians publishing their
work if it has to be recreated laboriously on Usenet newsgroups?

In your zeal to play the wronged, harried expert, you apparently
have forgotten that I'm not the originator of this question.

Far from "playing the expert", I have simply and truthfully said that
as far as I know there is no reason to doubt the findings of the
acknowledged expert on this subject, that make perfect and
self-explanatory sense. I have no idea what motivates Bradford to
misrepresent me in this juvenile way, but it won't stand.

I pointed to a source, *and provided direct statements from same*.

Bully for you - there are many sources for Richard de Luci, and Emily
Amt has studied them all. Try her.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 21 okt 2005 10:26:40

In message of 21 Oct, Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 21/10/05 1:04:15 AM GMT Daylight Time,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com writes:
SW4gbWVzc2FnZSBvZiAyMCBPY3QsICJQZXRlciBTdGV3YXJ0IiA8cF9tX3N0ZXdhcnRAbXNu
LmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4gRnJvbSB0aGUgYnJpZWYgZGV0YWlscyBnaXZlbiBieSBUaW0s
IEkgc3VzcGVjdCB0aGF0IHRoZSBPTkRCIGFydGljbGUNCj4gbWF5ICBoYXZlIGJlZW4gd3Jp
dHRlbiBieSBFbWlseSBBbXQsDQoNCkV4YWN0bHkgcmlnaHQuDQoNCi0tIA0KVGltIFBvd3lz
LUx5YmJloKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgdGltQHBv
d3lzLm9yZw0KoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoEZvciBhIG1pc2NlbGxhbnkgb2YgYnlnb25lczogaHR0
cDovL3Bvd3lzLm9yZw0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18

Tim, I think maybe there is something wrong with your mailer (unless of
course it is mine that is not working properly). The above quote
shows how your latest posting appeared in my mailbox

(I presume the Tim address is me, as I know I have put two short
postings to this thread?)

This problem would be confirmed if this was how it appeared to me via
the news feed that I use to accees this group. However the latest
posting I made on this subject was a one-liner that got through OK. So
my conclusion is that the problem is between the news feed that Rootsweb
accesses and what fell onto your doormat (so to speak) via e-mail from
Rootsweb. I doubt your mail reader had a problem as you would notice
is with other e-mail.

Might I add that I don't use a mailer at all to access this group, I use
a newsreader program. And others use web-browsers.

You might try looking in the Rootsweb archives to see what they have
stored for this posting?

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 okt 2005 13:33:21

"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2740969.1129869774179.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net...

<snip>

One of the reasons I try to limit sources in my bibliography to only
those I have personally seen and can pull up for study, is when I field
questions such as this in other online venues. With proper preparation,
you shouldn't have had to "research" this question at all. It appears as
though you haven't ready access to the source you cite, playing the
"you're goading me" game to avoid the responsibility to adequately
support your statement. In your zeal to play the wronged, harried
expert, you apparently have forgotten that I'm not the originator of this
question. I pointed to a source, *and provided direct statements from
same*.

The "source" that Kevin Bradford refers to is, presumably, Roger de Hoveden,
that he has "personally seen": otherwise he can only be opposing Dugdale's
unverified report of a single medieval source to Emily Amt's comprehensive
study of Richard de Luci's biography.

In either case, perhaps he could be so kind as to tell us where in the cited
contemporary source it is claimed or implied that Richard de Luci was
appointed justiciar in 1162.

Due to a question from a correspondent off-list, I checked and couldn't find
this. Richard de Luci is not mentioned at all under 1162, but first occurs
under 1164 already in the role of a justiciar, when Becket cited him amongst
others on a disputed matter. The king sent the earls of Cornwall and
Leicester (the latter being "chief" justiciar at the time) to make his
judgement known to the recalcitrant archbishop. There is an inaccurate note
by the editor, William Stubbs, stating that Richard de Luci held the office
of "chief justice" from 1155 to 1179.

After this he appears several times recording that he was excommunicated in
1165, followed by a few other mentions up to and including his retirement
and death after Easter 1179, all without reference to his (first or second)
appointment as justiciar or to 1162.

I have never claimed to this newsgroup that I am an "expert" on anything,
despite Kevin Bradford's assumptions, but whenever I represent that I have
"personally" seen a source, I make the effort to report accurately on
whatever it does or does not contain relevant to the point at issue. I trust
that Kevin Bradford does so too, when he "fields questions" on such
matters - as a professed "expert" or in any other capacity - and that he
will clarify this one for us now.

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 21 okt 2005 16:05:02

You've already been given the specifics of the information I cited. This is a 2-part question, with Hoveden for the earlier date, and Jervaulx Abbey for the second. These are citations from Dugdale. Please show where in my communications that I claim I've "personally seen" Hoveden as you claim. You need to be more careful.

There's nothing more to add, unless you'd like a scan of Baronage so that you may see that what I've given on the matter is, indeed, as I have reported it. I didn't write the charters and rolls, I reported Dugdale's comments about them. You haven't shown any logical reason why these should not be admissable.

I should be interested in your pointing out to me where, in my communications in this thread, I have pronounced myself an "expert" as you claim. Again, you need to be more careful.

No doubt Amt is an excellent resource, though I'm equally sure the originator of this question isn't familiar with it. Amt is as capable of error as CP, Keats-Rohan, Dugdale, Faris, and Richardson. While the statements regarding de Lucy's service may well be as you claim (I've never argued they weren't), the fact of the matter is you've committed to a position, have stuck to it, and are arguing from the "professional fallacy" (e.g., if Amt said it, it's true, and we don't need any further look into it as you won't be "goaded").

If you've personally seen the source, as you claim, yet you still haven't reported what Amt says about this matter (direct quote or paraphrase). Neither have you cited the reference(s) that particular author used (perhaps this is far more important to the question, as it would enable us to see Amt's sourcing), something that should be relatively painless to do. That would take far less time than the efforts you've put forth to dodge the question, insult the newsgroup's intelligence, twist my intentions and statements, and otherwise make yourself appear as less the professional that you are.

Kevin Bradford

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 21, 2005 8:33 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar


"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2740969.1129869774179.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net...

<snip>

One of the reasons I try to limit sources in my bibliography to only
those I have personally seen and can pull up for study, is when I field
questions such as this in other online venues. With proper preparation,
you shouldn't have had to "research" this question at all. It appears as
though you haven't ready access to the source you cite, playing the
"you're goading me" game to avoid the responsibility to adequately
support your statement. In your zeal to play the wronged, harried
expert, you apparently have forgotten that I'm not the originator of this
question. I pointed to a source, *and provided direct statements from
same*.

The "source" that Kevin Bradford refers to is, presumably, Roger de Hoveden,
that he has "personally seen": otherwise he can only be opposing Dugdale's
unverified report of a single medieval source to Emily Amt's comprehensive
study of Richard de Luci's biography.

In either case, perhaps he could be so kind as to tell us where in the cited
contemporary source it is claimed or implied that Richard de Luci was
appointed justiciar in 1162.

Due to a question from a correspondent off-list, I checked and couldn't find
this. Richard de Luci is not mentioned at all under 1162, but first occurs
under 1164 already in the role of a justiciar, when Becket cited him amongst
others on a disputed matter. The king sent the earls of Cornwall and
Leicester (the latter being "chief" justiciar at the time) to make his
judgement known to the recalcitrant archbishop. There is an inaccurate note
by the editor, William Stubbs, stating that Richard de Luci held the office
of "chief justice" from 1155 to 1179.

After this he appears several times recording that he was excommunicated in
1165, followed by a few other mentions up to and including his retirement
and death after Easter 1179, all without reference to his (first or second)
appointment as justiciar or to 1162.

I have never claimed to this newsgroup that I am an "expert" on anything,
despite Kevin Bradford's assumptions, but whenever I represent that I have
"personally" seen a source, I make the effort to report accurately on
whatever it does or does not contain relevant to the point at issue. I trust
that Kevin Bradford does so too, when he "fields questions" on such
matters - as a professed "expert" or in any other capacity - and that he
will clarify this one for us now.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 okt 2005 00:29:29

"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:15107450.1129901347623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
You've already been given the specifics of the information I cited.
This is a 2-part question, with Hoveden for the earlier date, and
Jervaulx Abbey for the second. These are citations from Dugdale.
Please show where in my communications that I claim I've
"personally seen" Hoveden as you claim. You need to be more
careful.

No, that's your problem: I wrote 'The "source" that Kevin Bradford refers to
is, presumably, Roger de Hoveden, that he has "personally seen": otherwise
he can only be opposing Dugdale's unverified report of a single medieval
source to Emily Amt's comprehensive study of Richard de Luci's biography.'

Apparently you need to look up the meaning of 'otherwise'.

There's nothing more to add, unless you'd like a scan of
Baronage so that you may see that what I've given on the matter
is, indeed, as I have reported it. I didn't write the charters and
rolls, I reported Dugdale's comments about them. You haven't
shown any logical reason why these should not be admissable.

Um, read Emily Amt according to whom Richard de Luci was co-justiciar before
1162, there was no vacancy in the office of 'chief' justiciar in that year,
and he assumed the latter role from April 1168. Add to this that Roger de
Hoveden does NOT state or imply an appointment in 1162 as you say Dugdale
affirmed, and you ought to see enough reason to question the source of your
information.

I should be interested in your pointing out to me where, in my
communications in this thread, I have pronounced myself an
"expert" as you claim. Again, you need to be more careful.

No, once again YOU need to read more carefully: I did not 'claim' that you
had 'pronounced' yourself an expert, but I restated your own words about
'fielding questions' adding 'as a professed "expert" or in any other
capacity'. Your statement 'when I field questions such as this in other
online venues' implies that people come to you for answers or at least set
store by these, which in turn implies real or at least imaginary expertise.
But it is not a 'pronouncement' of this, and I didn't make it out to be so.

No doubt Amt is an excellent resource, though I'm equally sure
the originator of this question isn't familiar with it. Amt is as
capable of error as CP, Keats-Rohan, Dugdale, Faris, and
Richardson. While the statements regarding de Lucy's service
may well be as you claim (I've never argued they weren't), the
fact of the matter is you've committed to a position, have
stuck to it, and are arguing from the "professional fallacy"
(e.g., if Amt said it, it's true, and we don't need any further
look into it as you won't be "goaded").

This is pretentious and untrue, indeed complete tommyrot.

Amt has not made a passing error, as apparently Dugdale did in citing Roger
de Hoveden for a specific point of interest in his vastly larger work, but
rather she has studied the whole of Richard de Luci's career in its
historical context. The chronology of his justiciarship is not a mere
detail.

I commented at the start of this thread on an unsourced 'impression' about a
non-genealogical matter, with a brief statement of unexceptionable fact
about Robert, earl of Leicester holding the office in question during years
when this was supposed to belong to Richard de Luci. This is not a
controversial 'position' of mine, and doesn't require to be 'argued' from
any point of view that has been raised here.

Whether there is a need for anyone else to look into it further is neither
here nor there for me: I don't intend to do so, and that's my prerogative. I
have seen no skerrick of information that causes me to doubt the facts
extablished by real experts - not including myself - and this does not in
any respect mean that everything Emily Amt says is 'true' but only that in
this particular instance her findings appear to be entirely satisfactory.

If you've personally seen the source, as you claim, yet you still
haven't reported what Amt says about this matter (direct quote
or paraphrase).

I HAVE. Again, you appear to be neglecting to read the thread you insist on
continuing. In this case you actually responded to my post of yesterday,
copied below, obviously paraphrasing Amt's findings:

Roger of Hoveden is not the only source for this, although he may have been
Dugdale's only source.

The justiciarship was not vacant in 1162, and Richard's appointment - from
some years before then - was as a co-justiciar with the earl of Leicester.

1173 was the year of the rebellion of Henry II's sons, and it would not be
surprising if some appointments were confirmed at that time. For all I know,
it may also be that Richard de Luci had not been formally appointed as
justiciar, following the death of his senior colleague in April 1168, before
1173.

From the brief details given by Tim, I suspect that the ONDB article may
have been written by Emily Amt, or at any rate may have drawn from her paper
'Richard de Lucy, Henry II's Justiciar' in _Medieval Prosopography_ 9
(1988). I have seen no reason to doubt her findings.

Neither have you cited the reference(s) that particular author used
(perhaps
this is far more important to the question, as it would enable us to see
Amt's sourcing), something that should be relatively painless to do.

But something I have no intention of doing: it's not even an issue of
genealogical significance, much less of pressing importance, and I have
given a complete citation that you can pursue at leisure. You are assuming
that there is a brief extractable quotation from Amt that can resolve your
difficulties. There isn't.

That would take far less time than the efforts you've put forth to dodge
the question, insult the newsgroup's intelligence, twist my intentions
and statements, and otherwise make yourself appear as less the
professional that you are.

I am NOT a 'professional' and have stated this many times. There is no
question for me to answer, let alone 'dodge', on this matter: I have told
you where to look if you wish to follow it further but I am not going to
spoon-feed you from the work of another person. And the newsgroup's
intelligence is being vexed only by your obtuseness and refusal to take
responsibility for your own statements and posturings.

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 22 okt 2005 06:20:03

Comments interspliced.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 21, 2005 7:29 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar


"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:15107450.1129901347623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
You've already been given the specifics of the information I cited.
This is a 2-part question, with Hoveden for the earlier date, and
Jervaulx Abbey for the second. These are citations from Dugdale.
Please show where in my communications that I claim I've
"personally seen" Hoveden as you claim. You need to be more
careful.

No, that's your problem: I wrote 'The "source" that Kevin Bradford refers to
is, presumably, Roger de Hoveden, that he has "personally seen": otherwise
he can only be opposing Dugdale's unverified report of a single medieval
source to Emily Amt's comprehensive study of Richard de Luci's biography.'

It's your problem that you are apparently unable to comprehend simple, typed text in the English language. Your presumptions about the source material I brought to this question, as you were informed in the last posting, are incorrect. I've read from Dugdale's Baronage only. I'll say it again, slowly...I have read from Dugdale's Baronage only.

Apparently you need to look up the meaning of 'otherwise'.

The only matter I am "otherwise" commenting on is your obtuseness.

There's nothing more to add, unless you'd like a scan of
Baronage so that you may see that what I've given on the matter
is, indeed, as I have reported it. I didn't write the charters and
rolls, I reported Dugdale's comments about them. You haven't
shown any logical reason why these should not be admissable.

Um, read Emily Amt according to whom Richard de Luci was co-justiciar before
1162, there was no vacancy in the office of 'chief' justiciar in that year,
and he assumed the latter role from April 1168. Add to this that Roger de
Hoveden does NOT state or imply an appointment in 1162 as you say Dugdale
affirmed, and you ought to see enough reason to question the source of your
information.

Amt's sourcing would be useful here (as I have previously mentioned), but as you say further below, there is no direct extractable quote for the above information she presents (one can presume, then, that there's no citation within that work for her claims on these specific dates of justiciarship as well, but you are in a better position to let the newsgroup know that, since you've seen her account).

Additionally, since you have just said that Hoveden "does NOT state or imply an appointment in 1162" (as Dugdale says he does), there can be no other conclusion than that you've read Hoveden's account on the subject of de Lucy's justiciarship. If that's actually the case, there's no reason not to have revealed this knowledge at the outset of this thread. Certainly you chose an odd juxtaposition to insert such cogent information...

I should be interested in your pointing out to me where, in my
communications in this thread, I have pronounced myself an
"expert" as you claim. Again, you need to be more careful.

No, once again YOU need to read more carefully: I did not 'claim' that you
had 'pronounced' yourself an expert, but I restated your own words about
'fielding questions' adding 'as a professed "expert" or in any other
capacity'.

The restatement you made re: "expert" is from your own words; this term was neither expressed or implied by myself.

Your statement 'when I field questions such as this in other
online venues' implies that people come to you for answers or at least set
store by these, which in turn implies real or at least imaginary expertise.

Incorrect. All that this implies is that I have accessed sources that have assisted others with answering their questions. The position of "expert" on my part is nowhere implied, but is your own faulty interpretation. The choice of a definition for the word "expert" that you use therefore necessarily includes all of those persons who answer questions in forums and newsgroups. That's alot of experts now, isn't it?

No doubt Amt is an excellent resource, though I'm equally sure
the originator of this question isn't familiar with it. Amt is as
capable of error as CP, Keats-Rohan, Dugdale, Faris, and
Richardson. While the statements regarding de Lucy's service
may well be as you claim (I've never argued they weren't), the
fact of the matter is you've committed to a position, have
stuck to it, and are arguing from the "professional fallacy"
(e.g., if Amt said it, it's true, and we don't need any further
look into it as you won't be "goaded").

This is pretentious and untrue, indeed complete tommyrot.

Since here in your last message you finally stooped to answer my question (after tossing and frothing about in your peevishness), I agree that my statement about your feeling goaded is now untrue ("You are assuming that there is a brief extractable quotation from Amt that can resolve your difficulties. There isn't.").

Amt has not made a passing error, as apparently Dugdale did in citing Roger
de Hoveden for a specific point of interest in his vastly larger work,


How do you know this was a passing error? Amt gives us no source citation for her facts with which we can work--at least according to you. And I believe you when you say there's no source citation for her statements about Richard's justiciarship dates.

I commented at the start of this thread on an unsourced 'impression' about a
non-genealogical matter, with a brief statement of unexceptionable fact

about Robert, earl of Leicester holding the office in question during years
when this was supposed to belong to Richard de Luci. This is not a
controversial 'position' of mine, and doesn't require to be 'argued' from
any point of view that has been raised here.

Agreed. I'd hardly think the question was controversial (I here reiterate, that in this matter I neither supported or denigrated Dugdale's Hoveden or Jervaulx Abbey accounts; I was attempting to get at the bottom of the sources so that a comparison could be better made). I find it curious why you brought the word "controversial" into this discussion. "Controversial" may better describe your "bedside manner" when approached with information contrary to that which you supplied. Nonetheless, when provided information that disagreed with your favored source, you clearly stated your support of Amt's reckoning of de Luci's justiciarship dates. Then you stated your opposition to Dugdale's reckoning, charging the latter with a false interpretation of Hoveden's writing. Both of these actions you took are essentials of logical argument.

Whether there is a need for anyone else to look into it further is neither
here nor there for me: I don't intend to do so, and that's my prerogative.

Apparently, you are so involved in your own prerogatives that you haven't yet comprehended that you answered the questions I had. You can calm down now.

I
have seen no skerrick of information that causes me to doubt the facts
extablished by real experts

Dugdale's _Monasticon_ (and to a lesser extent, his _Baronage_) is cited by many contemporary authors. Despite the limitations Dugdale faced, modern professional genealogists (not just those who haunt this newsgroup) utilize his comments frequently in support of their arguments.

- not including myself - and this does not in
any respect mean that everything Emily Amt says is 'true' but only that in
this particular instance her findings appear to be entirely satisfactory.

Perhaps so. But since these facts (that you detail below) are apparently not referenced in the work you cite, we have only the option of taking Amt at her word.

Roger of Hoveden is not the only source for this, although he may have been
Dugdale's only source.

If Hoveden is not the only source stating a different set of dates than those found in Amt's account (our original poster provided the same set of dates that Dugdale has), how is it that these multiple sources are somehow trumped by a scholar who hasn't cited all her facts?

Neither have you cited the reference(s) that particular author used
(perhaps
this is far more important to the question, as it would enable us to see
Amt's sourcing), something that should be relatively painless to do.

But something I have no intention of doing: it's not even an issue of
genealogical significance, much less of pressing importance,

It's a wonder, then, why you posted to this thread in the first place, and even more of a wonder why you continue to equivocate on the subject.

and I have
given a complete citation that you can pursue at leisure. You are assuming
that there is a brief extractable quotation from Amt that can resolve your
difficulties. There isn't.

Thank you for this cogent observation. What took you so long?

That would take far less time than the efforts you've put forth to dodge
the question, insult the newsgroup's intelligence, twist my intentions
and statements, and otherwise make yourself appear as less the
professional that you are.

I am NOT a 'professional' and have stated this many times.

Here, in the midst of your shouting, you are assuming that I implied you were a "professional genealogist." I would never make that mistake. Apparently you need to look up the meaning of the word "professional."

There is no
question for me to answer, let alone 'dodge', on this matter:


Oh but indeed there was, though it would appear that you are too wrapped up in your own pique to recognize that you just answered the questions I had about Amt's quotes and sourcing.

I have told
you where to look if you wish to follow it further


Since (according to you) Amt's work does not include a source citation for Richard de Luci's dates of justiciarship, there would be little use in pursuing same.

All the best,

Kevin Bradford
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 okt 2005 06:57:14

This is quite unbelievably stubborn stupidity from Bradford - next he will
be telling us that Richard de Luci was son of Richard de Crevequer. Comments
interspersed:

"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1827814.1129947577346.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
Comments interspliced.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Sent: Oct 21, 2005 7:29 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar


"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:15107450.1129901347623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
You've already been given the specifics of the information I cited.
This is a 2-part question, with Hoveden for the earlier date, and
Jervaulx Abbey for the second. These are citations from Dugdale.
Please show where in my communications that I claim I've
"personally seen" Hoveden as you claim. You need to be more
careful.

No, that's your problem: I wrote 'The "source" that Kevin Bradford refers
to
is, presumably, Roger de Hoveden, that he has "personally seen": otherwise
he can only be opposing Dugdale's unverified report of a single medieval
source to Emily Amt's comprehensive study of Richard de Luci's biography.'

It's your problem that you are apparently unable to comprehend simple,
typed
text in the English language. Your presumptions about the source material
I
brought to this question, as you were informed in the last posting, are
incorrect.
I've read from Dugdale's Baronage only. I'll say it again, slowly...I
have read
from Dugdale's Baronage only.

Clearly rereading my remarks (if you had actually read them the first time)
hasn't helped your comprehension of the word OTHERWISE: this marks an
alternative, of two possibilities, either that you were claiming to have
"personally seen" Roger de Hoveden OR that failing this you were relying on
Dugdale's alleged report that is not correct.

Apparently you need to look up the meaning of 'otherwise'.

The only matter I am "otherwise" commenting on is your obtuseness.

You are only succeeding in demonstrating your own - you can't re-invent my
meaning, as it was plain to everyone else the first time, and the second
time, and now the third time.....

There's nothing more to add, unless you'd like a scan of
Baronage so that you may see that what I've given on the matter
is, indeed, as I have reported it. I didn't write the charters and
rolls, I reported Dugdale's comments about them. You haven't
shown any logical reason why these should not be admissable.

Um, read Emily Amt according to whom Richard de Luci was co-justiciar
before
1162, there was no vacancy in the office of 'chief' justiciar in that
year,
and he assumed the latter role from April 1168. Add to this that Roger de
Hoveden does NOT state or imply an appointment in 1162 as you say Dugdale
affirmed, and you ought to see enough reason to question the source of
your
information.

Amt's sourcing would be useful here (as I have previously mentioned), but
as you
say further below, there is no direct extractable quote for the above
information
she presents (one can presume, then, that there's no citation within that
work for
her claims on these specific dates of justiciarship as well, but you are
in a better
position to let the newsgroup know that, since you've seen her account).

Could anyone be slower on the uptake? The date of Richard de Luci's
appointment as a co-justiciar IS NOT KNOWN, but he was acting in this role
from ealy in the rign of Henry II, from the mid-150s as has been stated, and
before 1162.

Additionally, since you have just said that Hoveden "does NOT state or
imply
an appointment in 1162" (as Dugdale says he does), there can be no other
conclusion than that you've read Hoveden's account on the subject of de
Lucy's justiciarship. If that's actually the case, there's no reason not
to have
revealed this knowledge at the outset of this thread. Certainly you chose
an
odd juxtaposition to insert such cogent information...

Are you making an attempt on a record for thickness? What on earth makes you
suppose that Roger de Hoveden gave an "account" of Richard de Luci's
justiciarship? He didn't. I have already summarised the mentions of this
person in Roger de Hoveden's chronicle, starting from a first occurrence in
1164 NOT 1162.

I should be interested in your pointing out to me where, in my
communications in this thread, I have pronounced myself an
"expert" as you claim. Again, you need to be more careful.

No, once again YOU need to read more carefully: I did not 'claim' that you
had 'pronounced' yourself an expert, but I restated your own words about
'fielding questions' adding 'as a professed "expert" or in any other
capacity'.

The restatement you made re: "expert" is from your own words; this term
was neither expressed or implied by myself.

Your statement 'when I field questions such as this in other
online venues' implies that people come to you for answers or at least set
store by these, which in turn implies real or at least imaginary
expertise.

Incorrect. All that this implies is that I have accessed sources that
have
assisted others with answering their questions. The position of "expert"
on my part is nowhere implied, but is your own faulty interpretation. The
choice of a definition for the word "expert" that you use therefore
necessarily includes all of those persons who answer questions in forums
and newsgroups. That's alot of experts now, isn't it?

No, this is more twisting and turning to avoid responsibility for your own
words. You wrote about 'when I field questions such as this in other online
venues', that clearly implies just what I said it does, in YOUR words, not
mine. People who 'field' questions are not casual pariticipants in newsgroup
discussions - the metaphor is from sports where a player is responsible for
retrieving and returning a ball hit in his or her direction. Spectators and
bystanders, even athletic or well-read ones, don't 'field' balls or
questions, since this is a task for designated players or experts, in this
context clearly implying a personal responsiblity on your part to share your
knowledge.

No doubt Amt is an excellent resource, though I'm equally sure
the originator of this question isn't familiar with it. Amt is as
capable of error as CP, Keats-Rohan, Dugdale, Faris, and
Richardson. While the statements regarding de Lucy's service
may well be as you claim (I've never argued they weren't), the
fact of the matter is you've committed to a position, have
stuck to it, and are arguing from the "professional fallacy"
(e.g., if Amt said it, it's true, and we don't need any further
look into it as you won't be "goaded").

This is pretentious and untrue, indeed complete tommyrot.

Since here in your last message you finally stooped to answer
my question (after tossing and frothing about in your peevishness),
I agree that my statement about your feeling goaded is now untrue
("You are assuming that there is a brief extractable quotation from
Amt that can resolve your difficulties. There isn't.").

Why don'y you simply read Amt for yourself and have done with it?

Amt has not made a passing error, as apparently Dugdale did in citing
Roger de Hoveden for a specific point of interest in his vastly larger
work,

How do you know this was a passing error?

Golly, do you think Dugdale's _Baronage_ is all about Richard de Luci? The
date at which he became justiciar has only a passing interest for a scholar
dealing with his rank as a baron.

Amt gives us no source citation for her facts with which we can work
--at least according to you. And I believe you when you say there's no
source citation for her statements about Richard's justiciarship dates.

At last a glimmer of understanding: there is NO SOURCE for the date of
Richard de Luci's appointment as a justiciar, but only records of his
performing that role in conjunction with Robert de Beaumont from the
mid-1150s and then alone from April 1168 until his retirement after Easter
1179.

I really can't be bothered reading any further: this is very much ado about
next-to-nothing. Richard de Luci was NOT stated by Hoveden to have become
"chief" justiciar in 1162, that's all there is to it. Vapourings about
Dugdale make NO difference: if he stated this he got it WRONG.

Roger de Hoveden's chronocle is available online, at Gallica, and all the
occurrences of Richard de Luci can be found in volumes 1 and 2 of the
edition by Stubbs. Read these for yourself, they are not a secret. I looked
them up after receiving an INTERESTING question off-list, not due to the
unintelligent, boring & unhelpful blathering in this pointless thread.

Peter Stewart

Kevin Bradford

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 22 okt 2005 18:33:02

Comments within...

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Sent: Oct 22, 2005 1:57 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

This is quite unbelievably stubborn stupidity from Bradford - next he will
be telling us that Richard de Luci was son of Richard de Crevequer.

Another pathetic attempt at a personal attack goes flat. How convenient to ignore the last comments I posted in that old thread. Unless you missed them, but I would never accuse you of being so sloppy and careless.


It's your problem that you are apparently unable to comprehend simple,
typed
text in the English language. Your presumptions about the source material
I
brought to this question, as you were informed in the last posting, are
incorrect.
I've read from Dugdale's Baronage only. I'll say it again, slowly...I
have read
from Dugdale's Baronage only.

you can't re-invent my
meaning

Right, that's a technique only you seem familiar with.

, as it was plain to everyone else the first time, and the second
time, and now the third time.....

The only person your meaning is clear to, is yourself. You've twisted my statements around so much they don't even remotely resemble what I actually said.

Amt's sourcing would be useful here (as I have previously mentioned), but
as you
say further below, there is no direct extractable quote for the above
information
she presents (one can presume, then, that there's no citation within that
work for
her claims on these specific dates of justiciarship as well, but you are
in a better
position to let the newsgroup know that, since you've seen her account).

Could anyone be slower on the uptake? The date of Richard de Luci's
appointment as a co-justiciar IS NOT KNOWN, but he was acting in this role
from ealy in the rign of Henry II, from the mid-150s as has been stated, and
before 1162.

That de Luci may have been acting as a co-justiciar is anything but clear in the comments you've made about the subject. That his name is on one, or more, documents mentioned by Amt is no indication that he had already been promoted to the official rank of justiciar.

Again, If Hoveden is not the only source stating a different set of dates than those found in Amt's account (our original poster provided the same set of dates that Dugdale has), how is it that these multiple sources are somehow trumped by a scholar who hasn't cited all her facts?

I'll get to the text eventually (see my later comments).

Additionally, since you have just said that Hoveden "does NOT state or
imply
an appointment in 1162" (as Dugdale says he does), there can be no other
conclusion than that you've read Hoveden's account on the subject of de
Lucy's justiciarship. If that's actually the case, there's no reason not
to have
revealed this knowledge at the outset of this thread. Certainly you chose
an
odd juxtaposition to insert such cogent information...

Are you making an attempt on a record for thickness? What on earth makes you
suppose that Roger de Hoveden gave an "account" of Richard de Luci's
justiciarship? He didn't. I have already summarised the mentions of this
person in Roger de Hoveden's chronicle, starting from a first occurrence in
1164 NOT 1162.

Since you mention it, where in Hoveden's text is this date found? I'll check it, but only when you provide the proper citation. That is, if you've read it for yourself.

Ignoring your feeble attempt at insult, an easier response for you here would have been, "Yes, I read Hoveden, this resource is online at Gallica and here's the URL with the book and chapter citation, etc." But you weren't done with your hissy fits yet. So much bile requires an obligatory purge.

I should be interested in your pointing out to me where, in my
communications in this thread, I have pronounced myself an
"expert" as you claim. Again, you need to be more careful.

No, once again YOU need to read more carefully: I did not 'claim' that you
had 'pronounced' yourself an expert, but I restated your own words about
'fielding questions' adding 'as a professed "expert" or in any other
capacity'.

The restatement you made re: "expert" is from your own words; this term
was neither expressed or implied by myself.

Your statement 'when I field questions such as this in other
online venues' implies that people come to you for answers or at least set
store by these, which in turn implies real or at least imaginary
expertise.

Incorrect. All that this implies is that I have accessed sources that
have
assisted others with answering their questions. The position of "expert"
on my part is nowhere implied, but is your own faulty interpretation. The
choice of a definition for the word "expert" that you use therefore
necessarily includes all of those persons who answer questions in forums
and newsgroups. That's alot of experts now, isn't it?

No, this is more twisting and turning to avoid responsibility for your own
words. You wrote about 'when I field questions such as this in other online
venues', that clearly implies just what I said it does, in YOUR words, not
mine. People who 'field' questions are not casual pariticipants in newsgroup
discussions

No, all this says is that they are frequent participants.

- the metaphor is from sports where a player is responsible for
retrieving and returning a ball hit in his or her direction. Spectators and
bystanders, even athletic or well-read ones, don't 'field' balls or
questions, since this is a task for designated players or experts, in this
context clearly implying a personal responsiblity on your part to share your
knowledge.

Wow, your obsession with the term "expert" (which of course I am not) has now reached the sublime. Let it go, breathe, take the dog for a walk, pet your cat, say a mantra.

Since here in your last message you finally stooped to answer
my question (after tossing and frothing about in your peevishness),
I agree that my statement about your feeling goaded is now untrue
("You are assuming that there is a brief extractable quotation from
Amt that can resolve your difficulties. There isn't.").

Why don'y you simply read Amt for yourself and have done with it?

Read the last two quoted lines above your question, and then the end of the next paragraph, for the answer.

Golly, do you think Dugdale's _Baronage_ is all about Richard de Luci? The
date at which he became justiciar has only a passing interest for a scholar
dealing with his rank as a baron.

In his Baronage, Dugdale frequently focuses on an entire collection of facts about the persons he treats. His accounts of individuals are not confined to strict details concerning baronial activities only. He is, however, prone to error. Looks like I need to remind you, again, that I don't support his work over other scholars in every instance, and I'm not necessarily doing so here. That's not what my commentary has been about; it is, rather, about getting to the bottom, if possible, of the original sources each author (Amt, Dugdale) has been using. You have the luxury of having the Amt book close at hand (either that, or your off-newsgroup buddy does); I live 95 miles away from a repository that contains this monograph. I'm sure others who live in smaller cities have the same hurdles to deal with, and, like myself, find such attitudes as you are displaying here, pathetic and off-putting.

Because someone outside your usual circle of cronies has called on you to dig a bit deeper with your statements, to examine the sources a bit closer, does not grant you license to display phlegm. I know it's difficult, but do try to be humble. It helps to make what you say believable.

Amt gives us no source citation for her facts with which we can work
--at least according to you. And I believe you when you say there's no
source citation for her statements about Richard's justiciarship dates.

At last a glimmer of understanding: there is NO SOURCE for the date of
Richard de Luci's appointment as a justiciar, but only records of his
performing that role in conjunction with Robert de Beaumont from the
mid-1150s and then alone from April 1168 until his retirement after Easter
1179.

I really can't be bothered reading any further: this is very much ado about
next-to-nothing.

Again, I am left to wonder, then why do you?

<Richard de Luci was NOT stated by Hoveden to have become
"chief" justiciar in 1162, that's all there is to it. Vapourings about
Dugdale make NO difference: if he stated this he got it WRONG.

Roger de Hoveden's chronocle is available online, at Gallica, and all the
occurrences of Richard de Luci can be found in volumes 1 and 2 of the
edition by Stubbs. Read these for yourself, they are not a secret.

How lovingly condescending of you to mention that. This resource may not be a secret to *you.* It would have been helpful to have mentioned this fact, say, about 6 or 7 postings (read: rantings) ago. You see, I am not an *expert*.

I looked
them up after receiving an INTERESTING question off-list, not due to the
unintelligent, boring & unhelpful blathering in this pointless thread.

Indeed so. Your trucculence and obnoxious shouting has been most boring, blathering and unhelpful. But you get something out of the exchange, or you would not be continuing [DSM-IV, code 301.81, I assume you know where to find that]. Had you been truly helpful with the original question and the data from Dugdale, at the near beginning of this thread you could have pointed to Hoveden's manuscript at Gallica online (not assuming others knew that--people of all walks of life come and go here continually and if it bores and pains you to refer an old familiar source to someone new, find another newsgroup), & to the fact that Amt's words on the subject, while probably accurate, aren't directly cited, and left it at that.

Kevin Bradford

Peter Stewart

Re: Richard de Luci - Chief Justiciar

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 okt 2005 04:10:19

"Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:18929746.1129998675666.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net...
Comments within...

Unread by me - a glance is enough to see that Kevin Bradford has adopted the
technique of Paul Bulkley and Robert Todd: he doesn't care how deeply
foolish, ignorant and tedious he appears to SGM readers, as long as he can
hope to get spoon-fed with the information he wants but is too lazy and
cheap to obtain for himself.

It won't work.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»