C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Peverel
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Peverel
Dear Newsgroup ~
Checking around for information regarding Count Roger of the 1094
charter, I have encountered the record in Complete Peerage regarding
William Peverel the younger, of Nottingham, and his second wife, Avice
de Lancaster. Here is what Complete Peerage says:
"William Peverel the younger, one of the principal supporters of King
Stephen, was a commander at the battle of the Standard, and was taken
prisoner at the battle of Lincoln. His estates were forfeited for a
time, and his castle of Nottingham was committed by the Empress to the
custody of William Paynel. He recovered it in 1143. His wives were
(1) Oddona, and (2) Avice de Lancaster, who was presumably a daughter
of Count Roger (cognomine Pictaviensis), Lord of the honour of
Lancaster, by his wife, Aumodis, Countess of La Marche. He had a son,
Henry, and a daughter, Margaret, eventually, or in her issue, his heir,
and wife of Robert, Earl of Ferrieres." [Reference: Complete Peerage,
4 (1916): 762 (sub Appendix I)].
As seen above, Complete Peerage makes no indication which wife was the
mother of William Peverel's children. The son Henry, however, was
almost certainly the son of the first wife, Oddona, as he is mentioned
with Oddona in a charter to Lenton issued by King Stephen printed by
Complete Peerage [see Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 762 (sub Appendix
I)].
Elsewhere, Complete Peerage presents an abstract of a charter of Avice
de Lancaster, 2nd wife of William Peverel the younger:
"(iv) Avicia de Lancastria uxor W. Peverel Walterus Cestrensi Episcopo
et omnibus sancte ecclesie filiis salutem. Sciatis consensu viri mei
me dedisse cononicis de Derb' ecclesiam de Bollisovere cum terra
secundum divisam assignatam juxta silvam cum veteri sede molendini
reficiendi et hominem quendam Chetelbaruu' [sic] nomine perpetuam
elemosinam ad constuendam ibi religionem liberam et quietam ab omni
servitio preter orationes Testibus ... (Cartulary of Darley - Cotton
MSS., Titus, C 9 - f. 116v.)." [Reference: Complete Peerage, 4 (1916):
763 (sub Appendix I)].
In a chart of the Peverel family following on pg. 771 , it is stated
that Avice de Lancaster was living in 1149, and her husband, William
Peverel, was living in 1155. Although the dates are doubtless correct,
no references are given for these dates.
Given that Count Roger (cognomine Pictaviensis) lost his land holdings
in England in 1102 and then went into permanent exile, it seems
difficult to accept that Avice de Lancaster, living 1149, wife of
William Peverel of Nottingham, is his daughter. I find this especially
unlikely since Count Roger's honour of Lancaster had been lost to the
his family from 1102. Surely Avice would have had a different style in
her charter if she was Count Roger's daughter.
Who then was Avice de Lancaster? I can only guess at this point, but
it seems a more likely family in which to place her would be as a
sister or daughter of William (Fitz Gilbert) de Lancaster I. William
(Fitz Gilbert) de Lancaster I was Avice's contemporary.
Elsewhere I see in the newsgroup archives, I see that J.C.B. Sharp
posted in 2000 that Avice de Lancaster apparently married firstly
William Peverel and secondly Richard de Morville, see: Judith Green,
Earl Ranulf II and Lancashire, Journal of the Chester Archaeological
Society, lxxi, 1991, p 107. J.C.B. says he "finds the argument there
unconvincing but considering all of the evidence I think the conclusion
is correct." If this information is correct, then Avice de Lancaster
would presumably be the daughter of William (Fitz Gilbert) de Lancaster
I, as Avice wife of Richard de Morville is usually assigned as one of
William I's children. If so, then Avice de Lancaster would have to
have been born no later than say 1134, if she was the wife of William
Peverel the younger in 1149. Avice de Lancaster, wife of Richard de
Morville, is the maternal grandmother of well known Alan Fitz Roland,
lord of Galloway.
Lastly, I note that in Avice de Lancaster's charter to Darley Priory
copied above, she refers to an individual named Chetelbaruu'. Does
anyone know who this person is?
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Checking around for information regarding Count Roger of the 1094
charter, I have encountered the record in Complete Peerage regarding
William Peverel the younger, of Nottingham, and his second wife, Avice
de Lancaster. Here is what Complete Peerage says:
"William Peverel the younger, one of the principal supporters of King
Stephen, was a commander at the battle of the Standard, and was taken
prisoner at the battle of Lincoln. His estates were forfeited for a
time, and his castle of Nottingham was committed by the Empress to the
custody of William Paynel. He recovered it in 1143. His wives were
(1) Oddona, and (2) Avice de Lancaster, who was presumably a daughter
of Count Roger (cognomine Pictaviensis), Lord of the honour of
Lancaster, by his wife, Aumodis, Countess of La Marche. He had a son,
Henry, and a daughter, Margaret, eventually, or in her issue, his heir,
and wife of Robert, Earl of Ferrieres." [Reference: Complete Peerage,
4 (1916): 762 (sub Appendix I)].
As seen above, Complete Peerage makes no indication which wife was the
mother of William Peverel's children. The son Henry, however, was
almost certainly the son of the first wife, Oddona, as he is mentioned
with Oddona in a charter to Lenton issued by King Stephen printed by
Complete Peerage [see Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 762 (sub Appendix
I)].
Elsewhere, Complete Peerage presents an abstract of a charter of Avice
de Lancaster, 2nd wife of William Peverel the younger:
"(iv) Avicia de Lancastria uxor W. Peverel Walterus Cestrensi Episcopo
et omnibus sancte ecclesie filiis salutem. Sciatis consensu viri mei
me dedisse cononicis de Derb' ecclesiam de Bollisovere cum terra
secundum divisam assignatam juxta silvam cum veteri sede molendini
reficiendi et hominem quendam Chetelbaruu' [sic] nomine perpetuam
elemosinam ad constuendam ibi religionem liberam et quietam ab omni
servitio preter orationes Testibus ... (Cartulary of Darley - Cotton
MSS., Titus, C 9 - f. 116v.)." [Reference: Complete Peerage, 4 (1916):
763 (sub Appendix I)].
In a chart of the Peverel family following on pg. 771 , it is stated
that Avice de Lancaster was living in 1149, and her husband, William
Peverel, was living in 1155. Although the dates are doubtless correct,
no references are given for these dates.
Given that Count Roger (cognomine Pictaviensis) lost his land holdings
in England in 1102 and then went into permanent exile, it seems
difficult to accept that Avice de Lancaster, living 1149, wife of
William Peverel of Nottingham, is his daughter. I find this especially
unlikely since Count Roger's honour of Lancaster had been lost to the
his family from 1102. Surely Avice would have had a different style in
her charter if she was Count Roger's daughter.
Who then was Avice de Lancaster? I can only guess at this point, but
it seems a more likely family in which to place her would be as a
sister or daughter of William (Fitz Gilbert) de Lancaster I. William
(Fitz Gilbert) de Lancaster I was Avice's contemporary.
Elsewhere I see in the newsgroup archives, I see that J.C.B. Sharp
posted in 2000 that Avice de Lancaster apparently married firstly
William Peverel and secondly Richard de Morville, see: Judith Green,
Earl Ranulf II and Lancashire, Journal of the Chester Archaeological
Society, lxxi, 1991, p 107. J.C.B. says he "finds the argument there
unconvincing but considering all of the evidence I think the conclusion
is correct." If this information is correct, then Avice de Lancaster
would presumably be the daughter of William (Fitz Gilbert) de Lancaster
I, as Avice wife of Richard de Morville is usually assigned as one of
William I's children. If so, then Avice de Lancaster would have to
have been born no later than say 1134, if she was the wife of William
Peverel the younger in 1149. Avice de Lancaster, wife of Richard de
Morville, is the maternal grandmother of well known Alan Fitz Roland,
lord of Galloway.
Lastly, I note that in Avice de Lancaster's charter to Darley Priory
copied above, she refers to an individual named Chetelbaruu'. Does
anyone know who this person is?
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I note that in a posting of April 23, 1998 entitled "Roger of Poitou,"
you stated that you did not "think" that Avice de Lancaster was a
daughter of Roger. You gave no source, though, just offered your
opinion.
Do you agree with me, or disagree? If so, why? Please provide your
sources. Thank you!
DR
This claimed daughter was mentioned and dismissed by Chandler in her
account of Roger and his brother Arnulf. Again the wheel is reinvented.
Anyhow, it is curious that you conclude she surely would have had a
different style, when it was the 'style' "de Lancastria" that originally
led to the hypothesis that Roger was her father.
taf
I note that in a posting of April 23, 1998 entitled "Roger of Poitou,"
you stated that you did not "think" that Avice de Lancaster was a
daughter of Roger. You gave no source, though, just offered your
opinion.
Do you agree with me, or disagree? If so, why? Please provide your
sources. Thank you!
DR
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Yes, that is how one should present their opinion - making it clear that
it is opinion, rather than masking opinions in the form of bold
statements of fact or obfuscating by demanding sources of those who
disagree while providing none of your own. You were welcome at the time
to inquire further.
And this just goes to show what I meant about reinventing the wheel.
It's been discussed in the past by authors and posters alike. Old news
- hardly fitting the grandiose pronouncement it has been given as if it
was a novel discovery.
If you are talking about Alice's parentage, I agree with Chandler, as
indicated by my earlier statement from seven years ago. You appear now,
years later, to have reached the same conclusion. Not that it matters,
but does that mean I agree with you, or the other way around?
On the other hand, if you are asking whether I agree that if Roger had a
daughter Alice she would not necessarily have been named de Lancastria,
no, I don't agree with you.
If so, why? Please provide your
As soon as you provide you sources that no daughter of Roger would have
been named "de Lancastria". The point is, you stated an opinion, and
now you are saying that if I disagree with that opinion, I need sources.
A nice standard, if you can get away with it, but I'm not playing.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
This claimed daughter was mentioned and dismissed by Chandler in her
account of Roger and his brother Arnulf. Again the wheel is reinvented.
Anyhow, it is curious that you conclude she surely would have had a
different style, when it was the 'style' "de Lancastria" that originally
led to the hypothesis that Roger was her father.
I note that in a posting of April 23, 1998 entitled "Roger of Poitou,"
you stated that you did not "think" that Avice de Lancaster was a
daughter of Roger. You gave no source, though, just offered your
opinion.
Yes, that is how one should present their opinion - making it clear that
it is opinion, rather than masking opinions in the form of bold
statements of fact or obfuscating by demanding sources of those who
disagree while providing none of your own. You were welcome at the time
to inquire further.
And this just goes to show what I meant about reinventing the wheel.
It's been discussed in the past by authors and posters alike. Old news
- hardly fitting the grandiose pronouncement it has been given as if it
was a novel discovery.
Do you agree with me, or disagree?
If you are talking about Alice's parentage, I agree with Chandler, as
indicated by my earlier statement from seven years ago. You appear now,
years later, to have reached the same conclusion. Not that it matters,
but does that mean I agree with you, or the other way around?
On the other hand, if you are asking whether I agree that if Roger had a
daughter Alice she would not necessarily have been named de Lancastria,
no, I don't agree with you.
If so, why? Please provide your
sources. Thank you!
As soon as you provide you sources that no daughter of Roger would have
been named "de Lancastria". The point is, you stated an opinion, and
now you are saying that if I disagree with that opinion, I need sources.
A nice standard, if you can get away with it, but I'm not playing.
taf
-
CED
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Todd:
A great answer to a foolish challenge!
CED
Todd:
A great answer to a foolish challenge!
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
This claimed daughter was mentioned and dismissed by Chandler in her
account of Roger and his brother Arnulf. Again the wheel is reinvented.
Anyhow, it is curious that you conclude she surely would have had a
different style, when it was the 'style' "de Lancastria" that originally
led to the hypothesis that Roger was her father.
I note that in a posting of April 23, 1998 entitled "Roger of Poitou,"
you stated that you did not "think" that Avice de Lancaster was a
daughter of Roger. You gave no source, though, just offered your
opinion.
Yes, that is how one should present their opinion - making it clear that
it is opinion, rather than masking opinions in the form of bold
statements of fact or obfuscating by demanding sources of those who
disagree while providing none of your own. You were welcome at the time
to inquire further.
And this just goes to show what I meant about reinventing the wheel.
It's been discussed in the past by authors and posters alike. Old news
- hardly fitting the grandiose pronouncement it has been given as if it
was a novel discovery.
Do you agree with me, or disagree?
If you are talking about Alice's parentage, I agree with Chandler, as
indicated by my earlier statement from seven years ago. You appear now,
years later, to have reached the same conclusion. Not that it matters,
but does that mean I agree with you, or the other way around?
On the other hand, if you are asking whether I agree that if Roger had a
daughter Alice she would not necessarily have been named de Lancastria,
no, I don't agree with you.
If so, why? Please provide your
sources. Thank you!
As soon as you provide you sources that no daughter of Roger would have
been named "de Lancastria". The point is, you stated an opinion, and
now you are saying that if I disagree with that opinion, I need sources.
A nice standard, if you can get away with it, but I'm not playing.
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Oops. I lost track of where I was going in this sentence. What I
meant: the expressed opinion was that de Lancastria would be out of
place for a daughter of Roger le Poitevin, and I do not agree that this
is necessarily the case.
On the other hand, if you are asking whether I agree that if Roger had a
daughter Alice she would not necessarily have been named de Lancastria,
no, I don't agree with you.
Oops. I lost track of where I was going in this sentence. What I
meant: the expressed opinion was that de Lancastria would be out of
place for a daughter of Roger le Poitevin, and I do not agree that this
is necessarily the case.
-
CED
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Poor Richardson,
Making claims as a genealogist
of wide repute,
Merely an inventive copyist,
inventions of great dispute,
As were the monks of yore,
to fill abbeys with loot.
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Checking around for information regarding Count Roger of the 1094
charter, I have encountered the record in Complete Peerage regarding
William Peverel the younger, of Nottingham, and his second wife, Avice
de Lancaster. Here is what Complete Peerage says:
"William Peverel the younger, one of the principal supporters of King
Stephen, was a commander at the battle of the Standard, and was taken
prisoner at the battle of Lincoln. His estates were forfeited for a
time, and his castle of Nottingham was committed by the Empress to the
custody of William Paynel. He recovered it in 1143. His wives were
(1) Oddona, and (2) Avice de Lancaster, who was presumably a daughter
of Count Roger (cognomine Pictaviensis), Lord of the honour of
Lancaster, by his wife, Aumodis, Countess of La Marche. He had a son,
Henry, and a daughter, Margaret, eventually, or in her issue, his heir,
and wife of Robert, Earl of Ferrieres." [Reference: Complete Peerage,
4 (1916): 762 (sub Appendix I)].
Elsewhere, Complete Peerage presents an abstract of a charter of Avice
de Lancaster, 2nd wife of William Peverel the younger:
"(iv) Avicia de Lancastria uxor W. Peverel Walterus Cestrensi Episcopo
Given that Count Roger (cognomine Pictaviensis) lost his land holdings
in England in 1102 and then went into permanent exile, it seems
difficult to accept that Avice de Lancaster, living 1149, wife of
William Peverel of Nottingham, is his daughter. I find this especially
unlikely since Count Roger's honour of Lancaster had been lost to the
his family from 1102. Surely Avice would have had a different style in
her charter if she was Count Roger's daughter.
This claimed daughter was mentioned and dismissed by Chandler in her
account of Roger and his brother Arnulf. Again the wheel is reinvented.
To the Newsgroup:
Poor Richardson,
Making claims as a genealogist
of wide repute,
Merely an inventive copyist,
inventions of great dispute,
As were the monks of yore,
to fill abbeys with loot.
CED
Anyhow, it is curious that you conclude she surely would have had a
different style, when it was the 'style' "de Lancastria" that originally
led to the hypothesis that Roger was her father.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
It is extremely doubtful that a daughter of Count Roger would use the
surname "de Lancaster," when Roger lost his Lancashire lands 50 years
beforehand.
DR
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
surname "de Lancaster," when Roger lost his Lancashire lands 50 years
beforehand.
DR
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
On the other hand, if you are asking whether I agree that if Roger had a
daughter Alice she would not necessarily have been named de Lancastria,
no, I don't agree with you.
Oops. I lost track of where I was going in this sentence. What I
meant: the expressed opinion was that de Lancastria would be out of
place for a daughter of Roger le Poitevin, and I do not agree that this
is necessarily the case.
-
John Brandon
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
CED wrote:
This is a lousy poem, Ceddie...
To the Newsgroup:
Poor Richardson,
Making claims as a genealogist
of wide repute,
Merely an inventive copyist,
inventions of great dispute,
As were the monks of yore,
to fill abbeys with loot.
CED
This is a lousy poem, Ceddie...
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
You made up the 50 years date. You know that she died about 50 years
later. You don't know that she was calling herself that at the moment
of death.
You seem to be suggesting that she would have changed names when the
family fell from grace. Do you know of any such cases where a medieval
woman not using her husband's name changed the name she was using when
her paternal family was disgraced?
taf
It is extremely doubtful that a daughter of Count Roger would use the
surname "de Lancaster," when Roger lost his Lancashire lands 50 years
beforehand.
You made up the 50 years date. You know that she died about 50 years
later. You don't know that she was calling herself that at the moment
of death.
You seem to be suggesting that she would have changed names when the
family fell from grace. Do you know of any such cases where a medieval
woman not using her husband's name changed the name she was using when
her paternal family was disgraced?
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Dear Todd ~
I believe that the historian, Judith Green, has correctly identified
Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Peverel the younger, as the
daughter of William de Lancaster I. Avice apparently married (1st)
William Peverel the younger, of Nottingham (living 1155), and (2nd)
Richard de Morville (died 1189), Constable of Scotland. Avice died in
1191.
Thanks to Judith Green, yes, this would be a new correction to Complete
Peerage.
There is no evidence that anyone in Count Roger of Poitou's family ever
used the surname, de Lancaster, either during Count Roger's lifetime or
anytime afterwards.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I believe that the historian, Judith Green, has correctly identified
Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Peverel the younger, as the
daughter of William de Lancaster I. Avice apparently married (1st)
William Peverel the younger, of Nottingham (living 1155), and (2nd)
Richard de Morville (died 1189), Constable of Scotland. Avice died in
1191.
Thanks to Judith Green, yes, this would be a new correction to Complete
Peerage.
There is no evidence that anyone in Count Roger of Poitou's family ever
used the surname, de Lancaster, either during Count Roger's lifetime or
anytime afterwards.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that she would have changed names when the
family fell from grace. Do you know of any such cases where a medieval
woman not using her husband's name changed the name she was using when
her paternal family was disgraced?
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
What surnames did Roger's children use? Adelbert comes, Boso comes, Odo
comes, while Roger appears there as Roger comes. I guess their surname
must have been Count, but Almodis used a different surname - Countess.
Given that all of his documented children are known only from a La
Marche context (which in and of itself is perhaps applicable to the
question, as is their given names) where surname practice differed AND
where they were the ruling family, that is not the strongest argument.
One can hardly make informed suppositions about what surname these
children would have used in an Anglo-Norman context, were they ever to
use a surname, were they ever to have appeared in this context.
taf
There is no evidence that anyone in Count Roger of Poitou's family ever
used the surname, de Lancaster, either during Count Roger's lifetime or
anytime afterwards.
What surnames did Roger's children use? Adelbert comes, Boso comes, Odo
comes, while Roger appears there as Roger comes. I guess their surname
must have been Count, but Almodis used a different surname - Countess.
Given that all of his documented children are known only from a La
Marche context (which in and of itself is perhaps applicable to the
question, as is their given names) where surname practice differed AND
where they were the ruling family, that is not the strongest argument.
One can hardly make informed suppositions about what surname these
children would have used in an Anglo-Norman context, were they ever to
use a surname, were they ever to have appeared in this context.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Saying that Count Roger of Poitou or his family could have used the
surname de Lancaster doesn't mean they did. In fact, contemporary
records indicate that they didn't employ this surname. This isn't a
supposition. This is fact.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
surname de Lancaster doesn't mean they did. In fact, contemporary
records indicate that they didn't employ this surname. This isn't a
supposition. This is fact.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
There is no evidence that anyone in Count Roger of Poitou's family ever
used the surname, de Lancaster, either during Count Roger's lifetime or
anytime afterwards.
What surnames did Roger's children use? Adelbert comes, Boso comes, Odo
comes, while Roger appears there as Roger comes. I guess their surname
must have been Count, but Almodis used a different surname - Countess.
Given that all of his documented children are known only from a La
Marche context (which in and of itself is perhaps applicable to the
question, as is their given names) where surname practice differed AND
where they were the ruling family, that is not the strongest argument.
One can hardly make informed suppositions about what surname these
children would have used in an Anglo-Norman context, were they ever to
use a surname, were they ever to have appeared in this context.
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Which rather misses the point. They never appear in a context where
they would have used one. Had Boso settled in England, what surname
would he have used? That it wouldn't have been de Lancastria is
likewise supposition. You have no data on which to base any guess what
would or would not have been an appropriate surname for them.
"There is no evidence, but they wouldn't have used de Lancastria, and
this is proven because there is no evidence."
taf
Saying that Count Roger of Poitou or his family could have used the
surname de Lancaster doesn't mean they did. In fact, contemporary
records indicate that they didn't employ this surname. This isn't a
supposition. This is fact.
Which rather misses the point. They never appear in a context where
they would have used one. Had Boso settled in England, what surname
would he have used? That it wouldn't have been de Lancastria is
likewise supposition. You have no data on which to base any guess what
would or would not have been an appropriate surname for them.
"There is no evidence, but they wouldn't have used de Lancastria, and
this is proven because there is no evidence."
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
<Had Boso settled in England, what surname would he have used?
< taf
That's a good question. What surname or title did he use in France?
By the way, Boso is the Latin form of his name. Boson would be the
correct form in French.
DR
<Had Boso settled in England, what surname would he have used?
< taf
That's a good question. What surname or title did he use in France?
By the way, Boso is the Latin form of his name. Boson would be the
correct form in French.
DR
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
He appears as Count Boso - do try to keep up.
I am not posting in French.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Had Boso settled in England, what surname would he have used?
taf
That's a good question. What surname or title did he use in France?
He appears as Count Boso - do try to keep up.
By the way, Boso is the Latin form of his name. Boson would be the
correct form in French.
I am not posting in French.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Dear Todd ~
We went over the correct name in a previous thread in the newsgroup
archives. Perhaps you missed it. Boso is Latin, Boson is French.
This individual was a French noble. Hence it is appropriate to call
him Count Boson, or, if you prefer Comte Boson.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
< Douglas Richardson wrote:
< > Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
< >
< > <Had Boso settled in England, what surname would he have used?
< > < taf
< >
< > By the way, Boso is the Latin form of his name. Boson would be the
< > correct form in French.
<
< taf
We went over the correct name in a previous thread in the newsgroup
archives. Perhaps you missed it. Boso is Latin, Boson is French.
This individual was a French noble. Hence it is appropriate to call
him Count Boson, or, if you prefer Comte Boson.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
< Douglas Richardson wrote:
< > Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
< >
< > <Had Boso settled in England, what surname would he have used?
< > < taf
< >
That's a good question. What surname or title did he use in France?
He appears as Count Boso - do try to keep up.
< > By the way, Boso is the Latin form of his name. Boson would be the
< > correct form in French.
I am not posting in French.
<
< taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Was that thread in French?
As to "correct" name, please cite the international agreement or law,
the Report of the International Committee on the Standardization of
Nomenclature for Medieval Individuals, that defines this 'correctness'.
No, I just missed the indication of who put you in charge, such that
your personal preference on the matter would of any interest to me.
And I use neither when I post.
Again, nothing escapes you, does it?
Thank you for your permission. I will bear it in mind, with warm
sentiments, every time I call him Count Boso.
taf
Dear Todd ~
We went over the correct name in a previous thread in the newsgroup
archives.
Was that thread in French?
As to "correct" name, please cite the international agreement or law,
the Report of the International Committee on the Standardization of
Nomenclature for Medieval Individuals, that defines this 'correctness'.
Perhaps you missed it.
No, I just missed the indication of who put you in charge, such that
your personal preference on the matter would of any interest to me.
Boso is Latin, Boson is French.
And I use neither when I post.
This individual was a French noble.
Again, nothing escapes you, does it?
Hence it is appropriate to call
him Count Boson, or, if you prefer Comte Boson.
Thank you for your permission. I will bear it in mind, with warm
sentiments, every time I call him Count Boso.
taf
-
CED
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Whether in Latin or in French, the name is pronounced almost the same
in both languages. the 'n' in this case is not heard when pronounced in
French.
Why does Richardson insist on French names when we are using English?
We translate whole sentences from Latin or Old French into English,
then put names into French.
What an affectation!
CED
Dear Todd ~
We went over the correct name in a previous thread in the newsgroup
archives. Perhaps you missed it. Boso is Latin, Boson is French.
This individual was a French noble. Hence it is appropriate to call
him Count Boson, or, if you prefer Comte Boson.
Whether in Latin or in French, the name is pronounced almost the same
in both languages. the 'n' in this case is not heard when pronounced in
French.
Why does Richardson insist on French names when we are using English?
We translate whole sentences from Latin or Old French into English,
then put names into French.
What an affectation!
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Had Boso settled in England, what surname would he have used?
taf
That's a good question. What surname or title did he use in France?
He appears as Count Boso - do try to keep up.
By the way, Boso is the Latin form of his name. Boson would be the
correct form in French.
I am not posting in French.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Dear Todd ~
You're free to call Count Boson whatever you wish.
If you're more comfortable with the Latin form, Boso, that is fine.
You just need to be consistent. If you want to use Boso and Ivo,
great. But then be sure to use Rogero, Willelmo, and Avicia which you
haven't.
It's your lack of consistency that is troubling me, not what form you
use.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
You're free to call Count Boson whatever you wish.
If you're more comfortable with the Latin form, Boso, that is fine.
You just need to be consistent. If you want to use Boso and Ivo,
great. But then be sure to use Rogero, Willelmo, and Avicia which you
haven't.
It's your lack of consistency that is troubling me, not what form you
use.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Todd ~
We went over the correct name in a previous thread in the newsgroup
archives.
Was that thread in French?
As to "correct" name, please cite the international agreement or law,
the Report of the International Committee on the Standardization of
Nomenclature for Medieval Individuals, that defines this 'correctness'.
Perhaps you missed it.
No, I just missed the indication of who put you in charge, such that
your personal preference on the matter would of any interest to me.
Boso is Latin, Boson is French.
And I use neither when I post.
This individual was a French noble.
Again, nothing escapes you, does it?
Hence it is appropriate to call
him Count Boson, or, if you prefer Comte Boson.
Thank you for your permission. I will bear it in mind, with warm
sentiments, every time I call him Count Boso.
taf
-
Chris Phillips
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Except that, of course, consistency would dictate using the nominative
case - "Rogerus" and "Willelmus" - not the ablative.
Is there any chance you could some time explain why you disagree with Dr
Thompson's opinions about the charter we were discussing previously?
Chris Phillips
If you're more comfortable with the Latin form, Boso, that is fine.
You just need to be consistent. If you want to use Boso and Ivo,
great. But then be sure to use Rogero, Willelmo, and Avicia which you
haven't.
It's your lack of consistency that is troubling me, not what form you
use.
Except that, of course, consistency would dictate using the nominative
case - "Rogerus" and "Willelmus" - not the ablative.
Is there any chance you could some time explain why you disagree with Dr
Thompson's opinions about the charter we were discussing previously?
Chris Phillips
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Quite.
Again, I am not writing this post in Latin.
No, I don't - I just need to be understood, and even then it is not a
need but self-interest.
Why should I? I use Roger, William and Avice, and no one but you seems
confused by my choice. Anyhow, it is not like using modern French is
any less arbitrary, yet that is what you have been using for "Roger le
Poitevin", even though we know the Norman-French form differed, as does
the English and Latin. If you are basing it on the modern country which
contains the territory where the person died, then we have to come up
with a Hebrew form for Godfrey de Bouillon - and no one will know who we
are talking about. Standardization at the expense of comprehension is
counterproductive, and if you have comprehension, then standardization
is unnecessary. Arbitrary - yes, but at least I admit it.
I am sure you will get over it, Douglasio. How about this - if you
don't know to which name the form I use refers, feel free to ask.
taf
You're free to call Count Boson whatever you wish.
Quite.
If you're more comfortable with the Latin form, Boso, that is fine.
Again, I am not writing this post in Latin.
You just need to be consistent.
No, I don't - I just need to be understood, and even then it is not a
need but self-interest.
If you want to use Boso and Ivo,
great. But then be sure to use Rogero, Willelmo, and Avicia which you
haven't.
Why should I? I use Roger, William and Avice, and no one but you seems
confused by my choice. Anyhow, it is not like using modern French is
any less arbitrary, yet that is what you have been using for "Roger le
Poitevin", even though we know the Norman-French form differed, as does
the English and Latin. If you are basing it on the modern country which
contains the territory where the person died, then we have to come up
with a Hebrew form for Godfrey de Bouillon - and no one will know who we
are talking about. Standardization at the expense of comprehension is
counterproductive, and if you have comprehension, then standardization
is unnecessary. Arbitrary - yes, but at least I admit it.
It's your lack of consistency that is troubling me, not what form you
use.
I am sure you will get over it, Douglasio. How about this - if you
don't know to which name the form I use refers, feel free to ask.
taf