Count Roger de Poitou

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Count Roger de Poitou

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 10 des 2005 23:49:01

As Richardson, trained genealogist and historian, blindy accepted the website he referred to, I had a look.

The website is by Hall of Names International Inc, in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

You are invited to "Visit our Gift Gallery for some Coat of Arms gift ideas".

In the article about "Lancashire and the Domesday book" you find mention of "the seignior (sic) of Montgomerii (sic)" this is not inspiring trust in the information.

As a result I sent an e-mail to them and am hoping they will reply and then either change their page or substantiate their information.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: Leo van de Pas
To: traceit@traceit.com
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:03 AM


You have an interesting site but I would like to ask you to change your first page, or else explain
where the information for "Lancashire and the Domesday Book" came from.

More than once, a Count Roger de Poitou is mentioned. In that time the Count of Poitou was also Duke of Aquitaine a completely different family and they used the name Guillaume/William, not Roger.

These Rogers, father and son, were French and apparently their surname was spelled de Montgommery-----not Montgomerii or Montgomery.

Roger "Poictevin" (Pictavinus, which is only a nickname) before 1091 married Almodis and with her, in 1113 became Comte de La Marche. Where did you find the reference of Poitou?

As you are advertising "Visit our Gift Gallery for some Coat of Arms Gift Ideas", you should inspire confidence in your knowledge not raise questions about how correct the information is.

With Best wishes,
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Gjest

Count Roger de Poitou

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2005 10:29:28

Yesterday I purchased a book " William the Conqueror" by David C.
Douglas
page 237

it goes on to say " In 1077 or the spring of 1078 Robert son of the
Conqueror demanded from his father that he should henceforth have
independant control of Normandy and Maine...... William was forced to
quell a brawl which broke out at Laige between the followers of Robert
and those of his other sons William & Henry...........Roberts
followers Chief amoung these was Robert of Belleme, Son of Roger of
Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury,and with him was assosiated his brother
in law,Hugh of Chateauneuf-en-Thimerais, at this time the rebels were
joined by Willaim of Breteuil, eldest son of William fits Osbern,
whose brother Roger had forfeited his English earldom after the
rebellion of 1075 and who still lingushed in prison"

Since Roger of Montgomery was the only Roger mentioned in the above
passage Does this mean Roger of Montgomery lost his lands in 1075 due
to a rebellion. and is in prison.


page 238

" Yves and Aubrey, sons of Hugh of Grandmesnil, likewise formed part
of this company as did also some time Roger the son of Richard fitz
Gilbert, lord of Tonbridge and Clare"


page 361

" The Conqueror was here following the established practice of the
Norman aristocracy which was that the Norman lands of a family (the
lands of inheritance) should pass to the eldest son, whereas the
English lands ( the lands of the conquest) should devolve on the
second son." 2

the note (2) on the bottom of the page says "The instances of fitz
Osbern,Montgomery,Harcourt and Montford-sur-Risle come to mind"

hope this helps

Brendan Wilson
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Count Roger de Poitou

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 11 des 2005 11:46:35

wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz wrote:
Yesterday I purchased a book " William the Conqueror" by David C.
Douglas
page 237

it goes on to say " In 1077 or the spring of 1078 Robert son of the
Conqueror demanded from his father that he should henceforth have
independant control of Normandy and Maine...... William was forced to
quell a brawl which broke out at Laige between the followers of Robert
and those of his other sons William & Henry...........Roberts
followers Chief amoung these was Robert of Belleme, Son of Roger of
Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury,and with him was assosiated his brother
in law,Hugh of Chateauneuf-en-Thimerais, at this time the rebels were
joined by Willaim of Breteuil, eldest son of William fits Osbern,
whose brother Roger had forfeited his English earldom after the
rebellion of 1075 and who still lingushed in prison"

Since Roger of Montgomery was the only Roger mentioned in the above
passage Does this mean Roger of Montgomery lost his lands in 1075 due
to a rebellion. and is in prison.

As written, it was Roger de Breteuil, younger brother of William de
Breteuil, who lost his land, but it would be William who was still in
prison (the last "and who" would relate to the same person as the
subject of "whose brother"). However, this makes no sense - if he was
still in prison he couldn't have joined them. The intent is probably
that Roger both lost his land and was still in prison.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»