Scolastica

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Scolastica

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2006 20:35:55

I came across a woman who fl. c.1400-1420 named Scolastica. What an
odd first name! Has any of you come across it before? What inferences
can one draw about her parents?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 jan 2006 20:59:35

Dear Gerald ~

Scolastica ia the Latin form of this given name. The modern vernacular
form is Scolastique. It appears as a given name for a daughter of the
the Counts of Champagne in the late 1100's. This woman was a grand
niece of King Stephen of England.

DR

geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
I came across a woman who fl. c.1400-1420 named Scolastica. What an
odd first name! Has any of you come across it before? What inferences
can one draw about her parents?

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 27 jan 2006 21:13:22

In article <1138391975.313723.147570@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Gerald ~

Scolastica ia the Latin form of this given name. The modern vernacular
form is Scolastique. It appears as a given name for a daughter of the
the Counts of Champagne in the late 1100's. This woman was a grand
niece of King Stephen of England.

DR

geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
I came across a woman who fl. c.1400-1420 named Scolastica. What an
odd first name! Has any of you come across it before? What inferences
can one draw about her parents?

It is uncommon but an old saint's name--Saint Scholastica, a nun, was
twin sister to Saint Benedict of Nursia (6th c.), the founder of
European monasticism. I think it means 'schooled' in the sense of
obedient, and was favored as a conventual name chosen by a nun (a name
taken as an adult separate from the lay name one was given as an
infant). I expect it was rare as a baptismal name for a laywoman
(though I do see Doug's example of Scholastica, daughter of Count Henri
I and Marie de France).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Douglas Richardson

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 jan 2006 21:41:14

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
If you go to my website http://www.genealogics.org and in Easy Name Search
enter Scholastica you will find 17 people, men and women, who had this name
in this spelling.
The Scolastique de Champagne, Richardson refers to, can be found in ES III/1
Tafel 122, ES preferred the Latin spelling, Scholastica, in France she may
well be Scholastique or Scolastique, but that doesn't make it _modern
vernacular_.
With Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Using the Latin form of a person's name like Henrietta Maria instead of
Henriette Marie is kinda silly I think. But, don't tell Pas that.

DR

Leo van de Pas

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 jan 2006 21:51:02

If you go to http://www.genealogics.org

In Easny Name Search enter Scholastica and you get 17 males and
females with that name.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <geraldrm@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:35 AM
Subject: Scolastica


I came across a woman who fl. c.1400-1420 named Scolastica. What an
odd first name! Has any of you come across it before? What inferences
can one draw about her parents?


Chris Phillips

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 27 jan 2006 22:03:59

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Scolastica ia the Latin form of this given name. The modern vernacular
form is Scolastique.

Complete Peerage, vol. 3, appendix C, p. 613, gives a list of names from "an
English version of the Calendar of the Saints which was made in 1450 for the
benefit of the nuns of Godstow who did not understand Latin". This includes
"Scolast" as the English version of Scholastica.

The editor comments that these are given "not so much as showing the best or
most accurate forms, but as showing how a man at that time dealt with
uncommon Latin words when endeavouring to English them."

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 jan 2006 22:12:07

Thank for your good post. Very informative. DR

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Scolastica ia the Latin form of this given name. The modern vernacular
form is Scolastique.

Complete Peerage, vol. 3, appendix C, p. 613, gives a list of names from "an
English version of the Calendar of the Saints which was made in 1450 for the
benefit of the nuns of Godstow who did not understand Latin". This includes
"Scolast" as the English version of Scholastica.

The editor comments that these are given "not so much as showing the best or
most accurate forms, but as showing how a man at that time dealt with
uncommon Latin words when endeavouring to English them."

Chris Phillips

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 27 jan 2006 22:19:01

In article <1138394474.389234.60570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
If you go to my website http://www.genealogics.org and in Easy Name Search
enter Scholastica you will find 17 people, men and women, who had this name
in this spelling.
The Scolastique de Champagne, Richardson refers to, can be found in ES III/1
Tafel 122, ES preferred the Latin spelling, Scholastica, in France she may
well be Scholastique or Scolastique, but that doesn't make it _modern
vernacular_.
With Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Using the Latin form of a person's name like Henrietta Maria instead of
Henriette Marie is kinda silly I think. But, don't tell Pas that.

I think this whole genre of argument is worthless, except to correct
obvious misreadings of names when quoting primary sources.

That being said, especially for a name like this, which had minimal
currency outside the circles of educated piety in medieval western
Europe, I expect that almost all users of the name would have gravitated
to the Latin form, Scholastica, both in written and spoken usage, since
its most frequent usage was within the convent. Moreover, speakers of
French in the twelfth century still often declined (in verse and likely
in speech) the endings of nouns and adjectives derived from what we call
the first & second declensions in Latin, and 'Scholastica' is one of
those. So I am quite comfortable with giving even more ordinarily
'secular' names of this type their Latin rather than modern French
endings (or leaving both Latin and moderm French endings off if the name
itself is a Germanic one consisting of undeclined roots).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Douglas Richardson

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 jan 2006 22:24:24

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
What a clever Dick is Richardson. Before venting your spleen, because that
is all you have been doing, you should have called up that list.

My name is Douglas, not Dick. But that's Pas for you. Always causing
a fuss to get attention.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry,net

Leo van de Pas

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 jan 2006 22:32:28

Why is Scolastique the _modern vernacular_ when Richardson appears to have
found only one example of someone in the late 1100's? _Modern Vernacular_?
In which country?
I would guess that Scolastique could apply to France, but what is used in
other countries?

If you go to my website http://www.genealogics.org and in Easy Name Search
enter Scholastica you will find 17 people, men and women, who had this name
in this spelling.
The Scolastique de Champagne, Richardson refers to, can be found in ES III/1
Tafel 122, ES preferred the Latin spelling, Scholastica, in France she may
well be Scholastique or Scolastique, but that doesn't make it _modern
vernacular_.
With Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: Scolastica


Dear Gerald ~

Scolastica ia the Latin form of this given name. The modern vernacular
form is Scolastique. It appears as a given name for a daughter of the
the Counts of Champagne in the late 1100's. This woman was a grand
niece of King Stephen of England.

DR

geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:
I came across a woman who fl. c.1400-1420 named Scolastica. What an
odd first name! Has any of you come across it before? What inferences
can one draw about her parents?


Leo van de Pas

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 jan 2006 22:51:02

What a clever Dick is Richardson. Before venting your spleen, because that
is all you have been doing, you should have called up that list.

In 1904 was born a man who died in 1990 his names were Karl Friedrich Franz
Xaver Joseph Aloysius Antonius Ignatius Expeditus Maria
Scholastica..............interesting how, to me, it seems this man's names
combine German and Latin forms of names.

I think we should use the form of names as we find them, not apply our
personal rule of thumb of what we would like it to be, but then I am not a
trained genealogist and historian.

If you object to Henrietta Maria, have you told Antonia Fraser she needs to
pull up her socks? In the same book she uses Henrietta Maria but calls her
daughter Henriette-Anne, how dreadfully inconsistent----according to
Richardson's rule of thumb. Have you told David Williamson? And many others?
It seems only you have it right.

Especially lately you have taken every opportunity to show how pedantic and
nasty you are, if anyone, this includes me, holds up a mirror for you to
look in, you do not have to accept it.
You should stick to the subject.

Not so long ago I suggested that you should clean the slate----only you can
do it. But you prefer to add to your slate. No wonder you are reminded,
again and again, of your petty and pedantic behaviour. You only have
yourself to blame.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Scolastica


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
If you go to my website http://www.genealogics.org and in Easy Name
Search
enter Scholastica you will find 17 people, men and women, who had this
name
in this spelling.
The Scolastique de Champagne, Richardson refers to, can be found in ES
III/1
Tafel 122, ES preferred the Latin spelling, Scholastica, in France she
may
well be Scholastique or Scolastique, but that doesn't make it _modern
vernacular_.
With Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Using the Latin form of a person's name like Henrietta Maria instead of
Henriette Marie is kinda silly I think. But, don't tell Pas that.

DR


Gjest

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2006 22:57:57

Seems I always omit vital information when I post a question. Sorry.

This woman from c.1400 was English, a minor heiress, and wife of at
least two successive men in Dorchester, Dorset. Her husbands were
burgesses of the city. She certainly wasn't a nun. Given that
background, why would her father (a burgess or minor gentry) have given
her the name of St. Benedict's sister?

jlucsoler

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av jlucsoler » 27 jan 2006 23:45:16

scholastique est un prenom assez utilisé aux XVIII et de but XIX en Provence

jl
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news: 086e01c6238d$868c9980$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Dear Nat,

First my apology for slightly disagreeing with you. You are the scholar
and I am not.

You say that the name had minimal currency ourside the circles of educated
piety in medieval Europe. Of the 17 people I have in my data base I have a
year of birth for only eleven, 1509, 1577, 1795, 1851, 1868, 1901, 1904,
1922, 1932, 1944 and 1947.

I wish I had access to primary sources for these kind of people, but not
being able should we stay away from such people and the secondary sources
we can find?

I quoted that Scholastica de Champagne came from ES III/1 Tafel 122, the
same Scholastica can be found also in ES Volume II tafel 47, in both cases
she is called Scholastica, the Latin form.

In the back of Volume II is quite a list of sources used for Tafel 46 and
47 but the most obvious seems : Erganzungen zu den Konigen von Navarra
a.d.h.Blois-Champagne von Ricardo Mateos y Sainz de Medrano/Barcelona and
Jaime de Salazar y Acha/Madrid.

Before discussing the name Scholastica should we track down those volumes
to see which primary sources they had used?

If we had to there could be very little discussion on gen-med. If
Richardson had said, without quoting any source, the French form is
Scolastique/Scholastique, I would not have said a word, the only word
coming to my mind would be _agree_

On the continent, still today, we have the problem that many people have
Latinised first names, in my case I have two. Most people call me Leo but
there are also a number who call me Leonardus.

I am pleased that you agree that Scholastica seems used _secularly_ as
well as officially.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Scolastica


In article <1138394474.389234.60570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
If you go to my website http://www.genealogics.org and in Easy Name
Search
enter Scholastica you will find 17 people, men and women, who had this
name
in this spelling.
The Scolastique de Champagne, Richardson refers to, can be found in ES
III/1
Tafel 122, ES preferred the Latin spelling, Scholastica, in France she
may
well be Scholastique or Scolastique, but that doesn't make it _modern
vernacular_.
With Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Using the Latin form of a person's name like Henrietta Maria instead of
Henriette Marie is kinda silly I think. But, don't tell Pas that.

I think this whole genre of argument is worthless, except to correct
obvious misreadings of names when quoting primary sources.

That being said, especially for a name like this, which had minimal
currency outside the circles of educated piety in medieval western
Europe, I expect that almost all users of the name would have gravitated
to the Latin form, Scholastica, both in written and spoken usage, since
its most frequent usage was within the convent. Moreover, speakers of
French in the twelfth century still often declined (in verse and likely
in speech) the endings of nouns and adjectives derived from what we call
the first & second declensions in Latin, and 'Scholastica' is one of
those. So I am quite comfortable with giving even more ordinarily
'secular' names of this type their Latin rather than modern French
endings (or leaving both Latin and moderm French endings off if the name
itself is a Germanic one consisting of undeclined roots).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm



Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 27 jan 2006 23:48:36

In article <dre1u5$2h4$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Scolastica ia the Latin form of this given name. The modern vernacular
form is Scolastique.

Complete Peerage, vol. 3, appendix C, p. 613, gives a list of names from "an
English version of the Calendar of the Saints which was made in 1450 for the
benefit of the nuns of Godstow who did not understand Latin". This includes
"Scolast" as the English version of Scholastica.

The editor comments that these are given "not so much as showing the best or
most accurate forms, but as showing how a man at that time dealt with
uncommon Latin words when endeavouring to English them."


Interesting. I would be surprised if this form ever appears in a record
of a woman of that name in 15th-century England.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Leo van de Pas

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 jan 2006 23:51:02

Dear Nat,

First my apology for slightly disagreeing with you. You are the scholar and
I am not.

You say that the name had minimal currency ourside the circles of educated
piety in medieval Europe. Of the 17 people I have in my data base I have a
year of birth for only eleven, 1509, 1577, 1795, 1851, 1868, 1901, 1904,
1922, 1932, 1944 and 1947.

I wish I had access to primary sources for these kind of people, but not
being able should we stay away from such people and the secondary sources we
can find?

I quoted that Scholastica de Champagne came from ES III/1 Tafel 122, the
same Scholastica can be found also in ES Volume II tafel 47, in both cases
she is called Scholastica, the Latin form.

In the back of Volume II is quite a list of sources used for Tafel 46 and 47
but the most obvious seems : Erganzungen zu den Konigen von Navarra
a.d.h.Blois-Champagne von Ricardo Mateos y Sainz de Medrano/Barcelona and
Jaime de Salazar y Acha/Madrid.

Before discussing the name Scholastica should we track down those volumes to
see which primary sources they had used?

If we had to there could be very little discussion on gen-med. If Richardson
had said, without quoting any source, the French form is
Scolastique/Scholastique, I would not have said a word, the only word coming
to my mind would be _agree_

On the continent, still today, we have the problem that many people have
Latinised first names, in my case I have two. Most people call me Leo but
there are also a number who call me Leonardus.

I am pleased that you agree that Scholastica seems used _secularly_ as well
as officially.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Scolastica


In article <1138394474.389234.60570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
If you go to my website http://www.genealogics.org and in Easy Name
Search
enter Scholastica you will find 17 people, men and women, who had this
name
in this spelling.
The Scolastique de Champagne, Richardson refers to, can be found in ES
III/1
Tafel 122, ES preferred the Latin spelling, Scholastica, in France she
may
well be Scholastique or Scolastique, but that doesn't make it _modern
vernacular_.
With Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Using the Latin form of a person's name like Henrietta Maria instead of
Henriette Marie is kinda silly I think. But, don't tell Pas that.

I think this whole genre of argument is worthless, except to correct
obvious misreadings of names when quoting primary sources.

That being said, especially for a name like this, which had minimal
currency outside the circles of educated piety in medieval western
Europe, I expect that almost all users of the name would have gravitated
to the Latin form, Scholastica, both in written and spoken usage, since
its most frequent usage was within the convent. Moreover, speakers of
French in the twelfth century still often declined (in verse and likely
in speech) the endings of nouns and adjectives derived from what we call
the first & second declensions in Latin, and 'Scholastica' is one of
those. So I am quite comfortable with giving even more ordinarily
'secular' names of this type their Latin rather than modern French
endings (or leaving both Latin and moderm French endings off if the name
itself is a Germanic one consisting of undeclined roots).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm


Leo van de Pas

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 27 jan 2006 23:53:01

Richardson just can't help it. Even this Dutchman living in Australia knows
that _a clever Dick_ can be said about anyone, whether your name is Tom,
Dick or Harry.

I also understand that there is nothing impolite in addressing people by
their surname, try using firstnames in the army!

Who is causing a fuss to get attention? Did Richardson take notice of
anything else I have said in that e-mail? Did he stick to the subject?
Scolastica, is the subject but Richardson uses any excuse to attack whether
rightly or wrongly.

His sneers that I use Henrietta Maria instead of his preferred Mary or
Henriette Marie, but can he quote when he, the trained genealogist and
historian, wrote to Antonia Fraser?

When is he going to call John of Gaunt, John of Gent/Ghent? When is he going
to drop Plantagenet for a family of whom most would not have known the term,
let alone used it to identify themselves? These should be changed,
according to the rule of thumb of Richardson. I think we should stick to the
names _history_ gave, and these include John of Gaunt, Plantagenet and
Henrietta Maria.

But not according to our _clever Dick_ he makes exceptions whenever he wants
to try to belittle other people. That he belittles himself in the process he
does not seem to realise.
So eagerly does he grab the rope to hang himself.................very sad.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: Scolastica


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
What a clever Dick is Richardson. Before venting your spleen, because
that
is all you have been doing, you should have called up that list.

My name is Douglas, not Dick. But that's Pas for you. Always causing
a fuss to get attention.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry,net


Chris Phillips

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 28 jan 2006 00:06:20

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Interesting. I would be surprised if this form ever appears in a record
of a woman of that name in 15th-century England.

I assume Vicary Gibbs quoted the list because it provided a convenient
collection of English equivalents that wouldn't be found elsewhere without a
great deal of searching in the rare documents written in English from this
period (if I remember correctly an English chartulary from Godstow has been
published by the Early English Text Society).

For interest, here is the full list quoted in the CP appendix:

Prisca, Prisce;
Bathildis, Batylde;
Brigida, Bryde;
Agatha, Agas;
Scholastica, Scolast (Fr. Escholace);
Juliana, Julian;
Gregorius, Gregour;
Benedictus, Benett (O. Fr. Beneit);
Tiburtius, Tyburce;
Vitalis, Vital;
Pancratius, Pancrace;
Augustinus, Austin;
Petronilla, Petronyl [rectius Peronel];
Praxedes, Praxede;
Apollinaris, Appollinare;
Felix, Felyce;
Eusebius, Euseby;
Cuthberga, Cuthburge;
Hyacinthus, Jacincte;
Tecla, Tecle;
Fredeswitha, Fryswyde;
Linus, Lyne;
Lucia, Lucy.

All very interesting, as you say. But - as you also imply - I think it does
underline the futility of insisting on absolute consistency about names. I
hope no one will suggest we should re-edit our databases to eliminate
"Agatha" in favour of "Agas"!

Chris Phillips

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 28 jan 2006 00:07:51

In article <1138399077.399132.26100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:

Seems I always omit vital information when I post a question. Sorry.

This woman from c.1400 was English, a minor heiress, and wife of at
least two successive men in Dorchester, Dorset. Her husbands were
burgesses of the city. She certainly wasn't a nun. Given that
background, why would her father (a burgess or minor gentry) have given
her the name of St. Benedict's sister?

Well, saints' names were just the most common category of origin of all
names in popular use in late medieval Europe (e.g., 'John', the single
most popular man's name from the 13th century on, almost everywhere in
Europe). Scholastica is simply a rare choice from among the
constellation of saints, and I still suspect it was more frequent as a
name chosen by professed nuns than as a lay name. It is very difficult
to test this hypothesis, however--I have not seen good studies which
contrast frequencies of professed monastic names with names drawn from
the same lay populations. For your case there must have been some
personal motive for the choice (as there always is)-- perhaps a relative
also named Scholastica, or a particular tenderness for passages from the
Dialogues of Gregory the Great in which she appears. But you may never
be able to discover it.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Chris Phillips

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 28 jan 2006 00:19:39

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
For your case there must have been some
personal motive for the choice (as there always is)-- perhaps a relative
also named Scholastica, or a particular tenderness for passages from the
Dialogues of Gregory the Great in which she appears.

Or could it just have been that the lady was born on St Scholastica's Day?

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 28 jan 2006 00:28:41

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

When is he going to call John of Gaunt, John of Gent/Ghent? When is he going
to drop Plantagenet for a family of whom most would not have known the term,
let alone used it to identify themselves? These should be changed,
according to the rule of thumb of Richardson. I think we should stick to the
names _history_ gave, and these include John of Gaunt, Plantagenet and
Henrietta Maria.

King Charles I's wife was Henriette Marie de Bourbon, or, if you prefer
Marie Henriette de Bourbon, or simply Mary. Henrietta Maria is the
Latin form of her name.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Ginny Wagner

RE: Scolastica

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 28 jan 2006 00:54:01

I'm guessing her maiden name was Bacon! LOL.

Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com


-----Original Message-----
From: geraldrm@earthlink.net
[mailto:geraldrm@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 3:58 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Scolastica


Seems I always omit vital information when I post
a question. Sorry.

This woman from c.1400 was English, a minor
heiress, and wife of at
least two successive men in Dorchester, Dorset.
Her husbands were
burgesses of the city. She certainly wasn't a
nun. Given that
background, why would her father (a burgess or
minor gentry) have given
her the name of St. Benedict's sister?

Leo van de Pas

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 28 jan 2006 01:51:40

Your ignorance is just incredible. Do you think it could have been Marie
Henriette?
Let me use a Hinesian expression....."Hilarious" ....obviously you do not
know who Marie Henriette de Bourbon was. Marie Henriette de Bourbon was
born_also_ in 1609 and _also_ was a daughter of Henri IV, king of France.
Do you really think that the Queen would have appreciated to be named the
same as her bastard half-sister? Do you really think Henri IV would give two
daughters born in the same year the same name?

If you go to my website and ask only for Henrietta, the system will tell you
the limit is 1000 implying there are more than 1000 women called Henrietta,
I even spotted an Australian with that name. I do not think there is a Dutch
equivalent for Leo or Leonardus, what should I call myself?.....don't answer
that one :-)

I have given a list in a previous e-mail where I found Henrietta Maria's
name. You can say 1000 times that her name Henrietta Maria is Latin, so
what? People refer to her by that name. If you want to be the odd one
out----you are welcome.

Now we are finished with Henrietta Maria (I hope) what are you going to do
about Plantagenet?


---- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Scolastica


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

When is he going to call John of Gaunt, John of Gent/Ghent? When is he
going
to drop Plantagenet for a family of whom most would not have known the
term,
let alone used it to identify themselves? These should be changed,
according to the rule of thumb of Richardson. I think we should stick to
the
names _history_ gave, and these include John of Gaunt, Plantagenet and
Henrietta Maria.

King Charles I's wife was Henriette Marie de Bourbon, or, if you prefer
Marie Henriette de Bourbon, or simply Mary. Henrietta Maria is the
Latin form of her name.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Dora Smith

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 28 jan 2006 02:08:01

I just realized I haven't made one reply to the list.

This name was not rare outside of educated piety in Europe. It was fairly
common among French Canadian farmers. I've encountered it repeatedly among
my brother in law's ancestors.

What does the name mean? Was it a saint's name? Did it mean scholar or
intelligent?

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
villandra@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: Scolastica


In article <1138394474.389234.60570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
If you go to my website http://www.genealogics.org and in Easy Name
Search
enter Scholastica you will find 17 people, men and women, who had this
name
in this spelling.
The Scolastique de Champagne, Richardson refers to, can be found in ES
III/1
Tafel 122, ES preferred the Latin spelling, Scholastica, in France she
may
well be Scholastique or Scolastique, but that doesn't make it _modern
vernacular_.
With Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Using the Latin form of a person's name like Henrietta Maria instead of
Henriette Marie is kinda silly I think. But, don't tell Pas that.

I think this whole genre of argument is worthless, except to correct
obvious misreadings of names when quoting primary sources.

That being said, especially for a name like this, which had minimal
currency outside the circles of educated piety in medieval western
Europe, I expect that almost all users of the name would have gravitated
to the Latin form, Scholastica, both in written and spoken usage, since
its most frequent usage was within the convent. Moreover, speakers of
French in the twelfth century still often declined (in verse and likely
in speech) the endings of nouns and adjectives derived from what we call
the first & second declensions in Latin, and 'Scholastica' is one of
those. So I am quite comfortable with giving even more ordinarily
'secular' names of this type their Latin rather than modern French
endings (or leaving both Latin and moderm French endings off if the name
itself is a Germanic one consisting of undeclined roots).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Brad Verity

Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 28 jan 2006 02:53:32

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

I think we should stick to the
names _history_ gave, and these include John of Gaunt, Plantagenet and
Henrietta Maria.

Douglas Richardson wrote:

King Charles I's wife was Henriette Marie de Bourbon, or, if you prefer
Marie Henriette de Bourbon, or simply Mary. Henrietta Maria is the
Latin form of her name.

People have the right to call an individual anything they want in their
database. Scholars however should stick with referring to a historical
individual by the name which the person is known and studied today, in
the present 21st century, in the language the scholar is writing or
otherwise communicating.

So for scholars who read and write in English, the correct way of
referring today to the woman who was married to Charles I, king of
England is as 'Henrietta Maria, queen of England'. This is how she is
referred in Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Oxford DNB and other
authoritative online sources in English.

For scholars reading and writing in French, she would be 'Henriette
Marie, la reine d'Angleterre'. If there are any scholars still reading
and writing in Latin, I'll defer to them as to how to refer to her
today.

As for Maryland, according to the website of the Maryland State
Archives, the territory was named "Terra Mariae" or "Maryland" in honor
of Henrietta Maria. However, the 1632 charter of Charles I granting
the territory as a province ("Mary land") to Cecilius Calvert, 2nd Lord
Baltimore, makes no reference to the then queen within it.

There is also Cape Henrietta Maria, in Ontario, Canada, named for
Henrietta Maria, queen of England.

If a scholar writing in English references a 17th-century letter, or
other kind of document, calling the wife of Charles I "Queen Mary", an
explanation should be given that this refers to Henrietta Maria, as
that is the standardized name by which she is known and studied today.

Cheers, --------Brad

Leo van de Pas

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 28 jan 2006 03:49:02

Dear Brad,
Hope you remember that Richardson forcefully suggested I change the entry
into my computer system, and when that obviously was not going to happen, I
was accused of trying to re-write history. Sadly Richardson skips the real
subjects of messages and attacks on irrelvant points.

He still wants to be taken seriously, he should behave a little more
seriously, in my opinion.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Henrietta Maria


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

I think we should stick to the
names _history_ gave, and these include John of Gaunt, Plantagenet and
Henrietta Maria.

Douglas Richardson wrote:

King Charles I's wife was Henriette Marie de Bourbon, or, if you prefer
Marie Henriette de Bourbon, or simply Mary. Henrietta Maria is the
Latin form of her name.

People have the right to call an individual anything they want in their
database. Scholars however should stick with referring to a historical
individual by the name which the person is known and studied today, in
the present 21st century, in the language the scholar is writing or
otherwise communicating.

So for scholars who read and write in English, the correct way of
referring today to the woman who was married to Charles I, king of
England is as 'Henrietta Maria, queen of England'. This is how she is
referred in Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Oxford DNB and other
authoritative online sources in English.

For scholars reading and writing in French, she would be 'Henriette
Marie, la reine d'Angleterre'. If there are any scholars still reading
and writing in Latin, I'll defer to them as to how to refer to her
today.

As for Maryland, according to the website of the Maryland State
Archives, the territory was named "Terra Mariae" or "Maryland" in honor
of Henrietta Maria. However, the 1632 charter of Charles I granting
the territory as a province ("Mary land") to Cecilius Calvert, 2nd Lord
Baltimore, makes no reference to the then queen within it.

There is also Cape Henrietta Maria, in Ontario, Canada, named for
Henrietta Maria, queen of England.

If a scholar writing in English references a 17th-century letter, or
other kind of document, calling the wife of Charles I "Queen Mary", an
explanation should be given that this refers to Henrietta Maria, as
that is the standardized name by which she is known and studied today.

Cheers, --------Brad

Douglas Richardson

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 jan 2006 05:24:19

Brad Verity wrote:
So for scholars who read and write in English, the correct way of
referring today to the woman who was married to Charles I, king of
England is as 'Henrietta Maria, queen of England'. This is how she is
referred in Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Oxford DNB and other
authoritative online sources in English.

For scholars reading and writing in French, she would be 'Henriette
Marie, la reine d'Angleterre'. If there are any scholars still reading
and writing in Latin, I'll defer to them as to how to refer to her
today.

In virtually all of Queen Henriette Marie's letters which I have seen,
both those in French AND in English, the queen signs her name Henriette
Marie, Henriette-Marie, or H.-M. She does not employ the Latin form of
her name, Henrietta Maria, in anything I have seen so far. I've also
found that the queen signed one letter as Marie Henriette, which is the
way her name is given on her daughter's tomb. I've posted references
to all of these records on the newsgroup already, which anyone can
readily consult by clicking on the weblinks I provided.

If you wish to use the Latin form of this woman's name, well and good.
But, I simply ask that you be consistent. To call her husband Charles
(the vernancular English) but his wife Henrietta Maria (the Latin form
of her name) is being irregular. I can't support such an inconsistent
approach to people's names. And, what ever happened to calling her
Queen Mary, as she was known to her English contemporaries?

However, if the name, Henriette Marie, distresses you so much, I
sincerely recommend you find the queen's bones, shake them vigourously
a few times, and demand that she tell you why she couldn't get her own
name straight. I doubt the queen will give you any satisfaction.

Cheers, --------Brad

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City,. Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 29 jan 2006 06:17:18

Douglas Richardson wrote:
If you wish to use the Latin form of this woman's name, well and good.

[More on this below.]

But, I simply ask that you be consistent.

No, you simply ask that everyone follows your whims. Brad detailed a
consistent rule for usage (a utilitarian one). Your objection is that
it does not match your strictly formulaic usage.

To call her husband Charles
(the vernancular English) but his wife Henrietta Maria (the Latin form
of her name) is being irregular.

I think you would have a hard time arguing that Henrietta is not a valid
vernacular _English_ form as opposed to Henriette, which you seem to
prefer. In the 1881 census of the first page of names to come up, a
handful are Hetty or Hettie, such that you can't tell the form, while
better than 40 are Henrietta, and _one_ (1) is Henriette. Thus
Henrietta _is_ the preferred English form by a sizable margin, the fact
that is is the Latin form notwithstanding. As to Marie over Maria, this
too is misplaced, as Mary is clearly the most common English form,
although Marie and Maria are both found in modern vernacular English
naming. If you are to force your formula to apply here in an unbiased
manner, Henrietta Mary would be the result, yet you insist on the
_French_ Henriette Marie as the "correct English vernacular" form.

If you are getting such results by applying your strict formula, I don't
see it as being any less arbitrary than a utilitarian approach.

taf

Leo van de Pas

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 jan 2006 07:22:38

Somehow I feel Richardson is back in cloud-coocoo land.
Are we going to call historical people by how they signed their letters? Not
by the names historical people are known by in history? Lovely mess.......

To be generous to Richardson, we should disallow private letters as people
often would sign letters with terms of endearment. Would that remove all her
letters? Or do we have to be selective? This letter yes, no to that one?

To quote Richardson "To call her husband Charles (the vernacular English)
but his wife Henrietta Maria (the Latin form of her name) is being
irregular." Someone pointed out that the male Henriettus and the female
Henrietta were not used by the Romans, and so Henrietta cannot be the Latin
form of anything. And I thought Richardson knew Latin?

Elizabeth Hamilton wrote "Henrietta Maria", first American edition 1976 SBN
698-10713-6
As far as the index is concerned there is no Henriette Marie, but in the
cover description and the first chapter it is indicated that she was called
Henriette Marie after both her parents. But as soon as England becomes
involved it is Henrietta Maria----"By the age of sixteen Henrietta Maria was
married to Charles I of England..." Henriette Marie disappears. How she
signed her letters is neither here nor there.....

But applying Richardson's rule of thumb, we have to remove entries for
Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great and many more.

Richardson is just being Richardson----thinking he is displaying his sense
of humour. It is funny alright, funny redicilous more like it.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Henrietta Maria


Brad Verity wrote:

So for scholars who read and write in English, the correct way of
referring today to the woman who was married to Charles I, king of
England is as 'Henrietta Maria, queen of England'. This is how she is
referred in Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Oxford DNB and other
authoritative online sources in English.

For scholars reading and writing in French, she would be 'Henriette
Marie, la reine d'Angleterre'. If there are any scholars still reading
and writing in Latin, I'll defer to them as to how to refer to her
today.

In virtually all of Queen Henriette Marie's letters which I have seen,
both those in French AND in English, the queen signs her name Henriette
Marie, Henriette-Marie, or H.-M. She does not employ the Latin form of
her name, Henrietta Maria, in anything I have seen so far. I've also
found that the queen signed one letter as Marie Henriette, which is the
way her name is given on her daughter's tomb. I've posted references
to all of these records on the newsgroup already, which anyone can
readily consult by clicking on the weblinks I provided.

If you wish to use the Latin form of this woman's name, well and good.
But, I simply ask that you be consistent. To call her husband Charles
(the vernancular English) but his wife Henrietta Maria (the Latin form
of her name) is being irregular. I can't support such an inconsistent
approach to people's names. And, what ever happened to calling her
Queen Mary, as she was known to her English contemporaries?

However, if the name, Henriette Marie, distresses you so much, I
sincerely recommend you find the queen's bones, shake them vigourously
a few times, and demand that she tell you why she couldn't get her own
name straight. I doubt the queen will give you any satisfaction.

Cheers, --------Brad

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City,. Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Brad Verity

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 29 jan 2006 21:01:32

Dear Douglas,

Comments interspersed.

Douglas Richardson wrote:

In virtually all of Queen Henriette Marie's letters which I have seen,

You have seen none of her letters. You have seen transcriptions of her
letters in published works, and are relying that the editors/authors of
those works transcribed them correctly.

both those in French AND in English, the queen signs her name Henriette
Marie, Henriette-Marie, or H.-M.

Wonderful. Keep looking - you may find a transcribed letter with the
signature "HM" and can report to the newsgroup the earth-shattering
fact that she left out the hyphen and periods.

And you've found a transcription of one letter of hers in English. All
the others you've linked to were in French.

It is worth pointing out that the author, Jacob Abbott, of "History of
King Charles II of England", who transcribed the letter of Henrietta
Maria written in English, refers to her as "Queen Henrietta" throughout
the text.

She does not employ the Latin form of
her name, Henrietta Maria, in anything I have seen so far.

Why would she? She wasn't writing in Latin, she was writing in French,
and, in one instance, in (not very literate) English.

I've also
found that the queen signed one letter as Marie Henriette, which is the
way her name is given on her daughter's tomb.

The daughter's tomb is in St. Cloud in France, and the inscription is
written completely in French.

I've posted references
to all of these records on the newsgroup already, which anyone can
readily consult by clicking on the weblinks I provided.

Yes. You have become a skillful surfer of Google Books.

If you wish to use the Latin form of this woman's name, well and good.

You have not established that 'Henrietta Maria' was the name she was
known by in Latin. You have not posted a link to any document or
transcription in Latin.

As for my using 'Henrietta Maria', it has nothing to do with Latin. It
is the standardized name in English by which this woman is known and
studied today.

But, I simply ask that you be consistent. To call her husband Charles
(the vernancular English) but his wife Henrietta Maria (the Latin form
of her name) is being irregular. I can't support such an inconsistent
approach to people's names.

I'm sorry that the standardized 'Henrietta Maria' that is employed by
today's scholars writing in English goes against your (own,
self-taught) rules of language and naming. Perhaps, if you wrote in
French, some of your irritation over irregularity could be alleviated.
The French scholars call her 'Henriette Marie' and so are apparently
more consistent with how she signed her name.

And, what ever happened to calling her
Queen Mary, as she was known to her English contemporaries?

I have no idea. You are the self-proclaimed expert in this area.
Research it and find out.

However, if the name, Henriette Marie, distresses you so much, I
sincerely recommend you find the queen's bones, shake them vigourously
a few times, and demand that she tell you why she couldn't get her own
name straight. I doubt the queen will give you any satisfaction.

Oh, I'll let Henrietta Maria rest in peace. Just as I do - I haven't
lost a wink of sleep over this. You are the one who found it important
enough to share with the newsgroup that the names by which the queen is
known and studied today, close to four centuries later, are each off by
a vowel/syllable from how she signed her letters. You can wake her up
and bring it to her attention.

You know, my late grandmother's first name was 'Mildred' on all
official documents (driver's licence, social security, etc.). She was
known by the nickname 'Mimi' to close friends and family. I recently
obtained her birth certificate and her given name on that is 'Minnie'.
My world did not fall apart over the irregularity, nor did I notify my
family that we needed to stop referring to her as 'Mildred' and switch
to 'Minnie', her official birth name. I simply made a footnote in my
database, and kept the name by which we all knew her.

Cheers, -----------Brad

Douglas Richardson

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 jan 2006 21:31:56

My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
< Somehow I feel Richardson is back in cloud-coocoo land.
< Are we going to call historical people by how they signed their
letters?

What a novel idea, Pas! To call someone by the name they choose to go
by! Or, do you make up names for people as you go along?

< by the names historical people are known by in history?

Historians and genealogists make mistakes, as Pas loves to point out to
us.

< Lovely mess.......

Not at all ... It's called being accurate.

To be generous to Richardson, we should disallow private letters as people
often would sign letters with terms of endearment. Would that remove all her
letters? Or do we have to be selective? This letter yes, no to that one?

I believe it is correct to employ the name the queen chose to use in
official records AND private correspondence. In this case, that name
is Henriette Marie, Henrette-Marie, or Marie Henriette. And, it is
clear now that she was informally known as Mary. Take your pick from
these names. But, the Latin form should be avoided.

To quote Richardson "To call her husband Charles (the vernacular English)
but his wife Henrietta Maria (the Latin form of her name) is being
irregular." Someone pointed out that the male Henriettus and the female
Henrietta were not used by the Romans, and so Henrietta cannot be the Latin
form of anything. And I thought Richardson knew Latin?

Using the Latin form of Queen Henriette Marie's name seems klinda silly
to me. How Pas justifes using it is beyond me.

Elizabeth Hamilton wrote "Henrietta Maria", first American edition 1976 SBN
698-10713-6
As far as the index is concerned there is no Henriette Marie, but in the
cover description and the first chapter it is indicated that she was called
Henriette Marie after both her parents. But as soon as England becomes
involved it is Henrietta Maria----"By the age of sixteen Henrietta Maria was
married to Charles I of England..." Henriette Marie disappears. How she
signed her letters is neither here nor there.....

I've posted references to records generated by Queen Henriette Marie,
before, during, and after she lived in England. These records can be
consulted by clicking on the weblinks that I have provided. Surely Ms.
Hamilton consulted these same records in the course of her research.
I found no use of the Latin form Henrietta Maria in any of these
records. Rather, the queen was Henriette Marie (or Henriette-Marie or
H.-M.) in all records, except once when she signed as Marie Henriette.
She is also called Marie Henriette on her daughter's tomb. Unless I
missed something (which is possible), Ms. Hamilton is grossly in error
in stating that the name "Henriette Marie" disappeared when the queen
came to England. The records show just the opposite. The queen was
known consistently as Henriette Marie throughout her entire adult life!
Sacre bleu!

Richardson is just being Richardson----thinking he is displaying his sense
of humour. It is funny alright, funny redicilous more like it.

I'm glad to hear that Pas likes my sense of humor. I was beginning to
think he was humorless.

Best always, Douglas Richartdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Sutliff

Re: Scolastica

Legg inn av Sutliff » 29 jan 2006 21:41:42

Another example of this name being used is in the Grendon family of Grendon
and Shenstone, Staffordshire. Alesia de Grendon, wife of Sir Robert de
Banastre d. 1289-93 of Molington Banastre, Cheshire, was the sister of
Robert de Grendon who left two daughters Scolastica and Elysote. VCH Lancs
VI:291.

The feast day of St. Scolastica is 10 February.

HS


<geraldrm@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1138399077.399132.26100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Seems I always omit vital information when I post a question. Sorry.

This woman from c.1400 was English, a minor heiress, and wife of at
least two successive men in Dorchester, Dorset. Her husbands were
burgesses of the city. She certainly wasn't a nun. Given that
background, why would her father (a burgess or minor gentry) have given
her the name of St. Benedict's sister?

Leo van de Pas

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 jan 2006 22:56:06

Richardson, again, is showing what a waste of time he is.

Henriette Marie calls herself Henriette Marie and therefor Richardson
demands that we do the same. There goes Charlemagne, William the Conqueror
and all those others. You request people to be consistent, now it is your
turn, quote a few letters signed by William the Conqueror, Henry the Fowler,
Heinrich das Kind von Hessen, Catherine the Great, and then demand that
everything is re-written to qualify to the Richardson rule-of-thumb.

Todd Farmerie pointed out that Henrietta Maria is perfectly good _English
Vernacular_ someone else has pointed out that Henrietta or Henriette are NOT
names used by the Romans and so do not qualify to be tagged as Latin. But
Richardson continues to call it the Latin version, can't he read?

In your imagination you make some quite spectacular jumps, probably quite
breathtakingly stupid though. In one message Richardson placed between
brackets that she was known as Queen Mary. Then someone queries this and
Richardson, not being able to back up his claim, asks publicly for anyone to
help him out and, fool me, I directed him to David Williamson. But now, to
quote Richardson "And, it is clear now that she was informally known as
Mary". Clear to who? From what?

Now again the grandstanding Richardson : Using the Latin of Queen Henriette
Marie's name seems kinda silly to me. How Pas justifies using it is beyond
me.

Don Quichote Richardson, my goodness, you have quite a crusade on your
hands. You have to clean up more than 300 years of historical writing. It is
not me who is proclaiming her to be Henrietta Maria, but all those acclaimed
historians and genealogists now and in the past.

Sorry to disappoint you, no I do not like your sense of humour, or what you
think is humour. Yes, I have a sense for the rediculous, and my goodness you
qualify, if you had any sense, you would have stopped this rediculous
crusade a long time ago, or even should not have started it.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: Henrietta Maria


My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Somehow I feel Richardson is back in cloud-coocoo land.
Are we going to call historical people by how they signed their
letters?

What a novel idea, Pas! To call someone by the name they choose to go
by! Or, do you make up names for people as you go along?

by the names historical people are known by in history?

Historians and genealogists make mistakes, as Pas loves to point out to
us.

Lovely mess.......

Not at all ... It's called being accurate.

To be generous to Richardson, we should disallow private letters as
people
often would sign letters with terms of endearment. Would that remove all
her
letters? Or do we have to be selective? This letter yes, no to that one?

I believe it is correct to employ the name the queen chose to use in
official records AND private correspondence. In this case, that name
is Henriette Marie, Henrette-Marie, or Marie Henriette. And, it is
clear now that she was informally known as Mary. Take your pick from
these names. But, the Latin form should be avoided.

To quote Richardson "To call her husband Charles (the vernacular English)
but his wife Henrietta Maria (the Latin form of her name) is being
irregular." Someone pointed out that the male Henriettus and the female
Henrietta were not used by the Romans, and so Henrietta cannot be the
Latin
form of anything. And I thought Richardson knew Latin?

Using the Latin form of Queen Henriette Marie's name seems klinda silly
to me. How Pas justifes using it is beyond me.

Elizabeth Hamilton wrote "Henrietta Maria", first American edition 1976
SBN
698-10713-6
As far as the index is concerned there is no Henriette Marie, but in the
cover description and the first chapter it is indicated that she was
called
Henriette Marie after both her parents. But as soon as England becomes
involved it is Henrietta Maria----"By the age of sixteen Henrietta Maria
was
married to Charles I of England..." Henriette Marie disappears. How she
signed her letters is neither here nor there.....

I've posted references to records generated by Queen Henriette Marie,
before, during, and after she lived in England. These records can be
consulted by clicking on the weblinks that I have provided. Surely Ms.
Hamilton consulted these same records in the course of her research.
I found no use of the Latin form Henrietta Maria in any of these
records. Rather, the queen was Henriette Marie (or Henriette-Marie or
H.-M.) in all records, except once when she signed as Marie Henriette.
She is also called Marie Henriette on her daughter's tomb. Unless I
missed something (which is possible), Ms. Hamilton is grossly in error
in stating that the name "Henriette Marie" disappeared when the queen
came to England. The records show just the opposite. The queen was
known consistently as Henriette Marie throughout her entire adult life!
Sacre bleu!

Richardson is just being Richardson----thinking he is displaying his
sense
of humour. It is funny alright, funny redicilous more like it.

I'm glad to hear that Pas likes my sense of humor. I was beginning to
think he was humorless.

Best always, Douglas Richartdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Douglas Richardson

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 jan 2006 23:13:54

My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
< Richardson, again, is showing what a waste of time he is.

If it is such a waste of time, it begs the question: Why are you
posting, Pas? Clearly you think it is important enough to answer
these posts.

< Henriette Marie calls herself Henriette Marie and therefor Richardson

< demands that we do the same.

I "recommend," not demand, that she be called Henriette Marie. I think
using the Latin form of her name is kinda silly.

< There goes Charlemagne, William the Conqueror
< and all those others. You request people to be consistent, now it is
your
< turn, quote a few letters signed by William the Conqueror, Henry the
Fowler,
< Heinrich das Kind von Hessen, Catherine the Great, and then demand
that
< everything is re-written to qualify to the Richardson rule-of-thumb.

I "recommend" that the Latin forms of these historic figures be
avoided. I see that you have referred to all these people by the
modern vernacular forms of their names, not the Latin forms. That is
the accepted practice. But you have deviated with Queen Henriette
Marie. Why is that?

< Todd Farmerie pointed out that Henrietta Maria is perfectly good
_English
< Vernacular_ someone else has pointed out that Henrietta or Henriette
are NOT
< names used by the Romans and so do not qualify to be tagged as Latin.
But
< Richardson continues to call it the Latin version, can't he read?

Queen Henriette Marie was perfectly capable of signing her name as
Henrietta Maria if she so chose, but she didn't. This is true when she
was in England and when she was in France. If Pas maintains that
Henrietta Maria is the correct form of this woman's name, he should
show us some contemporary examples to prove his case. Until then, Pas
is full of hot air.

< In your imagination you make some quite spectacular jumps, probably
quite
< breathtakingly stupid though. In one message Richardson placed
between
< brackets that she was known as Queen Mary. Then someone queries this
and
< Richardson, not being able to back up his claim, asks publicly for
anyone to
< help him out and, fool me, I directed him to David Williamson.

Actually Williamson is where I read that she was known as Queen Mary to
her contemporaries. I have a copy of Williamson's book by my
nightstand.

If you were aware of Williamson's statement, then why don't you mention
that she was known as Queen Mary to her contemporaries in your
database?

< But now, to quote Richardson "And, it is clear now that she was
informally known as
Mary". Clear to who? From what?

We have seen some examples posted here on the newsgroup.

Now again the grandstanding Richardson : Using the Latin of Queen Henriette
Marie's name seems kinda silly to me. How Pas justifies using it is beyond
me.

Again, Pas is being silly to demand that we employ the Latin form of
this queen's name.

Don Quichote Richardson, my goodness, you have quite a crusade on your
hands. You have to clean up more than 300 years of historical writing. It is
not me who is proclaiming her to be Henrietta Maria, but all those acclaimed
historians and genealogists now and in the past.

If the historian Elizabeth Hamilton lied about Queen Henriette Marie's
name as it occurs in the contemporary records, who else has done so?
Deliberately falsifying the original records is bad form for a
historian.

Sorry to disappoint you, no I do not like your sense of humour, or what you
think is humour. Yes, I have a sense for the rediculous, and my goodness you
qualify, if you had any sense, you would have stopped this rediculous
crusade a long time ago, or even should not have started it.

No crusade here. You're welcome to call Queen Henriette Marie what you
wish. But don't tell us that Henrietta Maria is the correct form,
unless you can cite some contemporary examples to support its use. So
far you've made the incredible statement that contemporarty records are
"neither here nor there." Is that the new Hamilton Doctrine? Making
up history as we go along? If so, I can't subscribe to it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt :Lake City.Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Leo van de Pas

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 30 jan 2006 00:09:01

Richardson suffers from a very convenient eye problem, he does not see what
he does not want to see. And I thought Todd Farmerie, for one, had expelled
the notion that Henrietta Maria had anything to do with the Latin language.

Yes, I think it is a waste of time. We are here to learn from each other and
we cannot learn anything from Richardson, he does not want to accept what
other, better qualified, people have to offer and I do not place myself
amongst those. I try to apply common sense.

Your hectoring to use Henriette Marie equals demand, in my opinion. And
again, for the umpteenth time, Henrietta Maria is _not_ a Latin version of
her name but a perfectly acceptable English version.

Richardson maintains I "have deviated with Queen Henriette Marie. Why is
that?" A simple question in reply, "Who hasn't?"

"Queen Henriette Marie was perfectly capable of signing her name, etc." Back
to the repeated question, "How did William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great,
Iwan the Terrible, sign their letters?

How dishonest is Richardson, "Actually Williamson is where I read that she
was known as Queen Mary..." Who pointed you into that direction? Why did you
have to ask gen-med for a reference if you have the book by your nightstand?
Isn't that wasting everybody's time if you knew all along?

You dare ask "If you were aware of Williamson's statement, then why don't
you mention that she was known as Queen Mary to her contemporaries in your
database?" Why? I believe there are about 70 versions, if not more, of the
surname Raleigh, no, I have no intention to even start mentioning the other
versions.

"Again, Pas is silly to demand that we employ the Latin form of the queen's
name."
Where do I demand anything? Have I said "thou shalt"? And for the umpteenth
time, Henrietta Maria is not a Latin form.

How dare you accuse Elizabeth Hamilton of lying? (about Henriette Marie's
name) "Who else had done so?" Again, who hasn't?

Richardson has asked people to be consistent-----Richardson be consistent,
drop Plantagenet as, with the exception of some belonging to the House of
York, Plantagenet was not used as a surname by anyone. The Black Prince? Not
in his lifetime, and so that term has to go. William the Conqueror?

I cannot subscribe to Richardson's consistency.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Henrietta Maria


My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Richardson, again, is showing what a waste of time he is.

If it is such a waste of time, it begs the question: Why are you
posting, Pas? Clearly you think it is important enough to answer
these posts.

Henriette Marie calls herself Henriette Marie and therefor Richardson

demands that we do the same.

I "recommend," not demand, that she be called Henriette Marie. I think
using the Latin form of her name is kinda silly.

There goes Charlemagne, William the Conqueror
and all those others. You request people to be consistent, now it is
your
turn, quote a few letters signed by William the Conqueror, Henry the
Fowler,
Heinrich das Kind von Hessen, Catherine the Great, and then demand
that
everything is re-written to qualify to the Richardson rule-of-thumb.

I "recommend" that the Latin forms of these historic figures be
avoided. I see that you have referred to all these people by the
modern vernacular forms of their names, not the Latin forms. That is
the accepted practice. But you have deviated with Queen Henriette
Marie. Why is that?

Todd Farmerie pointed out that Henrietta Maria is perfectly good
_English
Vernacular_ someone else has pointed out that Henrietta or Henriette
are NOT
names used by the Romans and so do not qualify to be tagged as Latin.
But
Richardson continues to call it the Latin version, can't he read?

Queen Henriette Marie was perfectly capable of signing her name as
Henrietta Maria if she so chose, but she didn't. This is true when she
was in England and when she was in France. If Pas maintains that
Henrietta Maria is the correct form of this woman's name, he should
show us some contemporary examples to prove his case. Until then, Pas
is full of hot air.

In your imagination you make some quite spectacular jumps, probably
quite
breathtakingly stupid though. In one message Richardson placed
between
brackets that she was known as Queen Mary. Then someone queries this
and
Richardson, not being able to back up his claim, asks publicly for
anyone to
help him out and, fool me, I directed him to David Williamson.

Actually Williamson is where I read that she was known as Queen Mary to
her contemporaries. I have a copy of Williamson's book by my
nightstand.

If you were aware of Williamson's statement, then why don't you mention
that she was known as Queen Mary to her contemporaries in your
database?

But now, to quote Richardson "And, it is clear now that she was
informally known as
Mary". Clear to who? From what?

We have seen some examples posted here on the newsgroup.

Now again the grandstanding Richardson : Using the Latin of Queen
Henriette
Marie's name seems kinda silly to me. How Pas justifies using it is
beyond
me.

Again, Pas is being silly to demand that we employ the Latin form of
this queen's name.

Don Quichote Richardson, my goodness, you have quite a crusade on your
hands. You have to clean up more than 300 years of historical writing. It
is
not me who is proclaiming her to be Henrietta Maria, but all those
acclaimed
historians and genealogists now and in the past.

If the historian Elizabeth Hamilton lied about Queen Henriette Marie's
name as it occurs in the contemporary records, who else has done so?
Deliberately falsifying the original records is bad form for a
historian.

Sorry to disappoint you, no I do not like your sense of humour, or what
you
think is humour. Yes, I have a sense for the rediculous, and my goodness
you
qualify, if you had any sense, you would have stopped this rediculous
crusade a long time ago, or even should not have started it.

No crusade here. You're welcome to call Queen Henriette Marie what you
wish. But don't tell us that Henrietta Maria is the correct form,
unless you can cite some contemporary examples to support its use. So
far you've made the incredible statement that contemporarty records are
"neither here nor there." Is that the new Hamilton Doctrine? Making
up history as we go along? If so, I can't subscribe to it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt :Lake City.Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Douglas Richardson

Agnes Strickland's comments on Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2006 00:19:39

Dear Newsgroup

Below are the comments of the historian, Agnes Strickland, regarding
the name of Queen Henriette Marie, both in France and in England. This
material can be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... 8&pg=PA186

Ms. Strickland indicates that the queen was baptized as Henrietta Maria
by the Papal nuncio at Paris, and "was known as Henriette in France."
Upon her marriage to King Charles I of England, the king insisted that
she be called Mary. So, Ms. Strickland makes it clear what she called
Henriette in France and Mary in England by her husband and at court.
To those comments, I might add that my cursive research indicates that
the queen signed her name as Henriette Marie throughout her entire
life, both in France and England, with one exception where she used the
name, Marie Henriette.

Here are Ms. Strickland's comments:

Source: Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, vol. 5
(1885):

pg. 186 "Meantime the infant had a great baptism. She was presented
at the font by the ... Maffeo Barbarin, the papal nuncio at Paris,
afterwards the celebrated pope Urban VIII, who was one of the most
learned men in Italy, and an elegant poet. He gave the princess the
name of Henrietta Maria, called in France Henriette Marie."

pp. 219-220: "The queen of Charles I is known to all readers of
history by the name of Henrietta Maria; but she was not called so by
her husband, or at her own court,. It is true that, as as soon as her
marriage was announced in England, she was prayed for in the royal
chapel by the strange appellation of 'queen Henry,' the French
pronounciation oif 'Henriette' being unintelligible to English ears,
and, perhaps, unattainable to English organs. The next Sunday the king
ordered thhe name oif 'queen Henry' to be changed to 'queen Mary;' and
when thoise in his household remomonstrated with him that this name,
owing to the Marian persecutions, had become very unpopular in England,
he still persisted in calling his bride ''Mary,' declaring that the
land should find blessings connected with her name that would
counteract all previous evils." END OF QUOTE

So, where did the name Henrietta Maria come from? This is purely a
guess. Strickland, pg. 188, indicates that there was a book entitled
"Memors of the Life and Death of Henrietta Maria, Queen of Charles I,"
published shortly after the queen's death in 1671. Quite possibly the
author of this work chose to use the Latin form of the Queen's name and
somehow this form gained traction with historians. Hoiwver, perhaps
someone else has a better explanation for the name change.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Ernst Hoffmann

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Ernst Hoffmann » 30 jan 2006 00:42:02

And for what it is worth:

There is a government sponsored link on the web: Well UK-government,
I should maybe add:


http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page74.asp


The first two lines of text read


"Portrait of King Charles I, Queen Henrietta Maria and their two eldest"


Probably one could argue: Why they should know ?


Ernst

Douglas Richardson

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2006 00:46:07

My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
< Richardson suffers from a very convenient eye problem, he does not
see what
he does not want to see. And I thought Todd Farmerie, for one, had expelled
the notion that Henrietta Maria had anything to do with the Latin language.

In this instance, Mr. Farmerie is wrong. The well known royal
historian, Agnes Strickland, states that Queen Henriette Marie was
baptized as "Henrietta Maria." This is surely the Latin form of her
name given to her by the Papal nuncio at Paris. Strickland makes it
equally clear that she was known in France as Henriette Marie, and
known in England as Mary. No surprises there, Pas.

< Your hectoring to use Henriette Marie equals demand, in my opinion.
And
< again, for the umpteenth time, Henrietta Maria is _not_ a Latin
version of
< her name but a perfectly acceptable English version.

So now you're a victim? We knew you'd get around to that. Poor, poor
Pas. He can't provide any contemporary examples of the form, Henrietta
Maria. And, it's all Richardson's fault! When the going gets tough,
you blame someone else.

< Richardson maintains I "have deviated with Queen Henriette Marie. Why
is
< that?" A simple question in reply, "Who hasn't?"

I'll repeat the question. Why have you deviated with Queen Henriette
Marie?

< How dare you accuse Elizabeth Hamilton of lying? (about Henriette
Marie's
< name)

If Hamilton says that Henriette Marie became Henrietta Maria when she
arrived in England, she has misrepresented the contemporary records.
Agnes Strickland makes it clear that the queen was known as Henriette
Marie in France and known as Mary in England. I believe Strickland is
right. In fact, Strickland makes a point of saying that the queen was
NOT known as Henrietta Maria!

If you think Hamilton is right, then provide us some examples of Queen
Henriette Marie in contemporary records as Henrietta Maria.

< I cannot subscribe to Richardson's consistency.

That's a shame, Pas.

Best always,. Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 30 jan 2006 00:58:12

Douglas Richardson wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Richardson suffers from a very convenient eye problem, he does not
see what
he does not want to see. And I thought Todd Farmerie, for one, had expelled
the notion that Henrietta Maria had anything to do with the Latin language.

In this instance, Mr. Farmerie is wrong. The well known royal
historian, Agnes Strickland, states that Queen Henriette Marie was
baptized as "Henrietta Maria." This is surely the Latin form of her
name given to her by the Papal nuncio at Paris.

This is absolutely inane. So if someone appears as Richard or Robert in
French sources, these are the "French forms" and should not be used in
English? Being the form used in her baptism need not prevent Henrietta
from being the vernacular English form of the name.

John Higgins

Re: Agnes Strickland's comments on Henriette Marie

Legg inn av John Higgins » 30 jan 2006 01:15:02

Mr. Richardson has certainly worried this insignificant issue to death, but
he has come up finally with a useful piece of information. In 1671, two
years after her death, the Queen of Charles I was referred to in an English
publication, presumably in England, as "Henrietta Maria". That's pretty
close to contemporaneous, I would say.

As several others have pointed out, the fact that this was supposedly a
Latin form of the name is irrelevant - it clearly became quickly recognized
as an acceptable form in the English vernacular, and has continued to be the
accepted form of the name.

I don't understand the need to belabor this at such length - unless it's
just a ploy to start another fight....in which case it seems to be working
unfortunately too well....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: Agnes Strickland's comments on Henriette Marie


Dear Newsgroup

Below are the comments of the historian, Agnes Strickland, regarding
the name of Queen Henriette Marie, both in France and in England. This
material can be found at the following weblink:


http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... LCTalzBUHU

C&dq=Henriette+Marie+England&vq=henrietta&prev=http://books.google.com/books
%3Fq%3DHenriette%2BMarie%2BEngland%26lr%3D&lpg=PA188&pg=PA186
Ms. Strickland indicates that the queen was baptized as Henrietta Maria
by the Papal nuncio at Paris, and "was known as Henriette in France."
Upon her marriage to King Charles I of England, the king insisted that
she be called Mary. So, Ms. Strickland makes it clear what she called
Henriette in France and Mary in England by her husband and at court.
To those comments, I might add that my cursive research indicates that
the queen signed her name as Henriette Marie throughout her entire
life, both in France and England, with one exception where she used the
name, Marie Henriette.

Here are Ms. Strickland's comments:

Source: Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, vol. 5
(1885):

pg. 186 "Meantime the infant had a great baptism. She was presented
at the font by the ... Maffeo Barbarin, the papal nuncio at Paris,
afterwards the celebrated pope Urban VIII, who was one of the most
learned men in Italy, and an elegant poet. He gave the princess the
name of Henrietta Maria, called in France Henriette Marie."

pp. 219-220: "The queen of Charles I is known to all readers of
history by the name of Henrietta Maria; but she was not called so by
her husband, or at her own court,. It is true that, as as soon as her
marriage was announced in England, she was prayed for in the royal
chapel by the strange appellation of 'queen Henry,' the French
pronounciation oif 'Henriette' being unintelligible to English ears,
and, perhaps, unattainable to English organs. The next Sunday the king
ordered thhe name oif 'queen Henry' to be changed to 'queen Mary;' and
when thoise in his household remomonstrated with him that this name,
owing to the Marian persecutions, had become very unpopular in England,
he still persisted in calling his bride ''Mary,' declaring that the
land should find blessings connected with her name that would
counteract all previous evils." END OF QUOTE

So, where did the name Henrietta Maria come from? This is purely a
guess. Strickland, pg. 188, indicates that there was a book entitled
"Memors of the Life and Death of Henrietta Maria, Queen of Charles I,"
published shortly after the queen's death in 1671. Quite possibly the
author of this work chose to use the Latin form of the Queen's name and
somehow this form gained traction with historians. Hoiwver, perhaps
someone else has a better explanation for the name change.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Agnes Strickland's comments on Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2006 01:32:07

"John Higgins" wrote:
... the fact that this was supposedly a Latin form of the name is

irrelevant

It is?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestryt.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: Agnes Strickland's comments on Henriette Marie


Dear Newsgroup

Below are the comments of the historian, Agnes Strickland, regarding
the name of Queen Henriette Marie, both in France and in England. This
material can be found at the following weblink:


http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... LCTalzBUHU
C&dq=Henriette+Marie+England&vq=henrietta&prev=http://books.google.com/books
%3Fq%3DHenriette%2BMarie%2BEngland%26lr%3D&lpg=PA188&pg=PA186

Ms. Strickland indicates that the queen was baptized as Henrietta Maria
by the Papal nuncio at Paris, and "was known as Henriette in France."
Upon her marriage to King Charles I of England, the king insisted that
she be called Mary. So, Ms. Strickland makes it clear what she called
Henriette in France and Mary in England by her husband and at court.
To those comments, I might add that my cursive research indicates that
the queen signed her name as Henriette Marie throughout her entire
life, both in France and England, with one exception where she used the
name, Marie Henriette.

Here are Ms. Strickland's comments:

Source: Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, vol. 5
(1885):

pg. 186 "Meantime the infant had a great baptism. She was presented
at the font by the ... Maffeo Barbarin, the papal nuncio at Paris,
afterwards the celebrated pope Urban VIII, who was one of the most
learned men in Italy, and an elegant poet. He gave the princess the
name of Henrietta Maria, called in France Henriette Marie."

pp. 219-220: "The queen of Charles I is known to all readers of
history by the name of Henrietta Maria; but she was not called so by
her husband, or at her own court,. It is true that, as as soon as her
marriage was announced in England, she was prayed for in the royal
chapel by the strange appellation of 'queen Henry,' the French
pronounciation oif 'Henriette' being unintelligible to English ears,
and, perhaps, unattainable to English organs. The next Sunday the king
ordered thhe name oif 'queen Henry' to be changed to 'queen Mary;' and
when thoise in his household remomonstrated with him that this name,
owing to the Marian persecutions, had become very unpopular in England,
he still persisted in calling his bride ''Mary,' declaring that the
land should find blessings connected with her name that would
counteract all previous evils." END OF QUOTE

So, where did the name Henrietta Maria come from? This is purely a
guess. Strickland, pg. 188, indicates that there was a book entitled
"Memors of the Life and Death of Henrietta Maria, Queen of Charles I,"
published shortly after the queen's death in 1671. Quite possibly the
author of this work chose to use the Latin form of the Queen's name and
somehow this form gained traction with historians. Hoiwver, perhaps
someone else has a better explanation for the name change.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Leo van de Pas

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 30 jan 2006 01:56:01

The dishonesty of Richardson becomes just amusing.

Today he seems to claim that he knew all along that David Williamson had
called her "Queen Mary", why then did he ask for a quote?

Now look at the bottom of this message.

I had
Richardson has asked people to be consistent---Richardson be consistent,
drop Plantagenet as, with the exception of some belonging to the House of
York, Plantagenet was not used as a surname by anyone. The Black Prince? Not
in his lifetime, and so that term has to go. William the Conqueror?

I cannot subscribe to Richardson's consistency.

What does he do? He drops my reasoning and keeps the one sentence and then
maintains it is a shame that I cannot subscribe to his consistency.

Now it becomes relevant : Richardson what is your _rule of thumb_ with the
names of Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Iwan the terrible, and so on?
Be consistent, if you can.

I think Richardson has had his chance to show his value, and I think he
has----the lack of it that is.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Henrietta Maria


My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Richardson suffers from a very convenient eye problem, he does not
see what
he does not want to see. And I thought Todd Farmerie, for one, had
expelled
the notion that Henrietta Maria had anything to do with the Latin
language.

In this instance, Mr. Farmerie is wrong. The well known royal
historian, Agnes Strickland, states that Queen Henriette Marie was
baptized as "Henrietta Maria." This is surely the Latin form of her
name given to her by the Papal nuncio at Paris. Strickland makes it
equally clear that she was known in France as Henriette Marie, and
known in England as Mary. No surprises there, Pas.

Your hectoring to use Henriette Marie equals demand, in my opinion.
And
again, for the umpteenth time, Henrietta Maria is _not_ a Latin
version of
her name but a perfectly acceptable English version.

So now you're a victim? We knew you'd get around to that. Poor, poor
Pas. He can't provide any contemporary examples of the form, Henrietta
Maria. And, it's all Richardson's fault! When the going gets tough,
you blame someone else.

Richardson maintains I "have deviated with Queen Henriette Marie. Why
is
that?" A simple question in reply, "Who hasn't?"

I'll repeat the question. Why have you deviated with Queen Henriette
Marie?

How dare you accuse Elizabeth Hamilton of lying? (about Henriette
Marie's
name)

If Hamilton says that Henriette Marie became Henrietta Maria when she
arrived in England, she has misrepresented the contemporary records.
Agnes Strickland makes it clear that the queen was known as Henriette
Marie in France and known as Mary in England. I believe Strickland is
right. In fact, Strickland makes a point of saying that the queen was
NOT known as Henrietta Maria!

If you think Hamilton is right, then provide us some examples of Queen
Henriette Marie in contemporary records as Henrietta Maria.

I cannot subscribe to Richardson's consistency.

That's a shame, Pas.

Best always,. Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Douglas Richardson

The name of Queen Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2006 03:36:34

The issue is not Richardson, much as Pas would like to make it. The
issue is what name did Queen Henriette Marie, wife of King Charles I of
England, employ during her own lifetime. The answer to that question
has been rather easy to find. When young, the queen was known as
Henriette Marie in France and, in England following her marriage, she
was known as Mary, Henriette Marie, and Marie Henriette. There is
nothing inconsistent here. The plain facts speak for themselves.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Leo van de Pas

Re: The name of Queen Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 30 jan 2006 04:27:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:36 PM
Subject: The name of Queen Henriette Marie


The issue is not Richardson, much as Pas would like to make it. The
issue is what name did Queen Henriette Marie, wife of King Charles I of
England, employ during her own lifetime.
===========Twisting and turning, this is not the issue, you wanted me to

change the entry in my data base. In my data base I try to have people
recognisable and findable. And Henriette Marie (also Mary) will not do for
most of the people.


The answer to that question
has been rather easy to find. When young, the queen was known as
Henriette Marie in France and, in England following her marriage, she
was known as Mary, Henriette Marie, and Marie Henriette. There is
nothing inconsistent here. The plain facts speak for themselves.
=====Start speaking plain facts about Plantagenet, William the Conqueror,

Charlemagne, Ivan the Terrible, then you are consistent.

At the moment you are as inconsistent as you are dishonest.



Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Douglas Richardson

Re: The name of Queen Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2006 04:46:06

My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

< Twisting and turning, this is not the issue, you wanted me to change
< the entry in my data base.

Not at all, Pas. You are free to call Queen Henriette Marie whatever
you wish. Just be consistent. If you call her Henrietta Maria, then
be sure to call her husband Carolus. Everyone will understand .... I
think.

< In my data base I try to have people recognisable and findable. And
< Henriette Marie (also Mary) will not do for most of the people.

You apparently assume most people are less intelligent than you. That
point is debatable, Pas.

< At the moment you are as inconsistent as you are dishonest.

The facts speak for themselves ... even if you do not like them, Pas.

What's wrong with Queen Mary anyhow? Mary is a lovely name.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2006 09:03:57

Dear Newsgroup ~

The following records range in date from 1628 to 1667, all of which
involve Queen Henriette Marie. In the first record, the autograph of
Henriette Marie R[egina] is specifically mentioned.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry@msn.com

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: A2A Catalogue
(http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxs ... esheet=xsl\A2A_doc.xsl&i=1&com=1&nbKey=1&keyword=hENRIETTE+mARIE&properties=0601).

Item #1:
Worcestershire Record Office: Worcester City Library Collection
Reference: 899:749/8782/68/39
Creation dates: 1628

Scope and Content

'An Establishment of ordinarie Wages Fees Allowances and Penc[i]ons
yeerelie allowed by us to o[ur] Officers and Servants of o[ur] Chamber,
and other of o[ur] houshold And to the Officers and servants of o[ur]
Revenue'. With autograph of Henriette Marie R. Also holograph statement
of Ro. Ayston, with autograph of Henriette Marie R, concerning the
payment of the aforesaid monies. Dated 4 May 1628.

Item #2:
Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies Service: VERNON
COLLECTION (Reference: DVE/1/M IX/19
Creation dates: 3. July. 6. Car. I

Scope and Content

Grant by Queen Henriette Marie to Peter Venables Esq of the reversion
of the Fee Farm and Office of Chamberlain of the Town of Middlewich
then in lease. [...] large leaf.

Item #3.
Nottinghamshire Archives: Portland of Welbeck (4th Deposit): Estate
Papers
Reference: DD/4P/28/88
Creation dates: 13 July 1640

Scope and Content

Indenture, lease.

1) Queen Henriette Marie.

2) Officers of her household.

3) William, Earl of Newcastle.

Reciting demise by Eliz. I to Earl of Shrewsbury, now for ?120 (1)
and (2) to (3) agistment and pannage of Pontefract Park, and pasture in
Park called Vicars Close; pasture rights for (1)'s deer reserved. For
18 yrs., after end of term of Shrewsbury; ?4 3s. 4d. p.a. (3) to
repair the lodges, and may take timber for same. Pigs to be ringed.

Sig. and frag. seal of (1).

Sigs. and armorial seals of (2).

Parch. Stained and largely mouse-eaten.

Item #4:
Sheffield Archives: Spencer Stanhope Muniments
Reference: SpSt/164/2
Lease

Creation dates: 17 Sep 1661

Scope and Content

Henriette Marie, Queen of England, and mother of the King: Rt. Hon.
Henry, Earl of St. Albans, Master of the Queen's Horse: Sir Keneline
Digby, Chancellor and Keeper of the Great Seal: Sir John Wintour,
knight, principal secretary to the Queen: Sir Charles Harbord, knight,
surveyor general: Robert Long, esq, surveyor general: Sir Peter Ball,
knight, attorney general: Sir Henry Wood, knight and bart, clerk of the
greencloth of the King's household, to Michael Anne of Broughwallis,
Yorks, Esq.

Reciting that the parties of the first part, are seized of the Manor of
Cowicke and Snaith.

A parcel of land or moor called Kings Moore, abutting on the common
pasture called Ditch Marsh (south), and on the River Eyre (east), being
parcel of the Honour of Tickhill, and assigned to Queen Henriette
Marie, as part of her jointure, which was previously assigned to Robert
Stapleton, on 19 Nov 1641, for 21 years.

This present lease is to run for 20? years, from the expiry of the
previous lease.

For ?120, and ?1 13/- p.a. rent.

Item #5:
Nottinghamshire Archives: Portland of Welbeck (4th Deposit): Estate
Papers
Reference: DD/4P/28/91
Creation dates: 25 April 1667

Scope and Content

Indenture, lease.

1) Henriette Marie, Queen Mother.

Officers of her household.

2) William, Duke of Newcastle.

For ?1000 (1) to (2) Pontefract Park and Vicars Close therein, "in
the late troubles disparked and destroyed and converted into arrable,
meadow and pasture"; 1317a., boundaries given; 413a. being enclosed and
rest common from 1st May to Michaelmas. Also coal mines, 2 lodges and 3
cottages. As leased to (2) on 13 July 1640. Timber, and other minerals
reserved. For 21 yrs. after end of previous term; ?4 3s. 4d. p.a. for
previously leased premises and 16s. 8d. for residue.

Sig., Great Seal and portrait of H.M.; sigs. and seals of officers.
Dates of drawing up, etc., given. 25 April 19 Chas. II. Parch.

Endorsed memo. of enrolment.

Chris Phillips

Re: The name of Queen Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 30 jan 2006 10:53:48

Douglas Richardson wrote:
The issue is not Richardson, much as Pas would like to make it. The
issue is what name did Queen Henriette Marie, wife of King Charles I of
England, employ during her own lifetime.


But in a previous post when Leo mentioned "William the Conqueror, Henry the
Fowler, Heinrich das Kind von Hessen, Catherine the Great", you commented "I
see that you have referred to all these people by the modern vernacular
forms of their names, not the Latin forms. That is the accepted practice".

In three of these cases at least (setting aside the glaring inconsistency of
the other one), by "modern vernacular forms", you presumably meant "modern
English forms".

So are you now telling us that the modern English form of the Latin
Henrietta is "Henriette"?

I'm afraid you are just as inconsistent as anyone else, unless you are going
to start referring to kings Guillaume I, Henri II and Harry V of England.
And the moral is that consistency is impossible, and these endless
discussions are a waste of time, no matter how pedantic one tries to be.

Chris Phillips

Brad Verity

Re: Agnes Strickland's comments on Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 02 feb 2006 03:10:21

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Ms. Strickland indicates that the queen was baptized as Henrietta Maria
by the Papal nuncio at Paris, and "was known as Henriette in France."
Upon her marriage to King Charles I of England, the king insisted that
she be called Mary. So, Ms. Strickland makes it clear what she called
Henriette in France and Mary in England by her husband and at court.

So she was never called (by anyone other than herself) 'Henriette
Marie' in England.

And Ms. Strickland herself in her biography (titled 'Henrietta Maria'),
refers to the queen as 'Henriette' in the first part set in France,
then as 'Henrietta' once she marries and arrives in England.

To those comments, I might add that my cursive research

Your 'cursive' research? You have made a study of the queen's
handwriting? Quite a feat, since you haven't seen one of her original
letters. Perhaps you meant to say 'cursory' (ie., 'hasty',
'superficial') research, which it is. Or perhaps, in some way, you
meant to combine 'cursory' with 'furtive' (ie., 'done by stealth',
'sly', 'stolen'), but that may be my psychology degree intruding.

indicates that
the queen signed her name as Henriette Marie throughout her entire
life, both in France and England, with one exception where she used the
name, Marie Henriette.

Nice. No one is disputing your above conclusion arrived at from your
'cursive' research. What has been pointed out to you is that
'Henrietta' and 'Maria' are the standardized, modern English versions
of her names.

So, where did the name Henrietta Maria come from?

From her parents, presumably. She was then baptized with those names.

This is purely a
guess.

Fine.

Strickland, pg. 188, indicates that there was a book entitled
"Memors of the Life and Death of Henrietta Maria, Queen of Charles I,"
published shortly after the queen's death in 1671.

OK.

Quite possibly the
author of this work chose to use the Latin form of the Queen's name

Why would the author choose the Latin form of the queen's name, when he
was writing in English?

and
somehow this form gained traction with historians. Hoiwver, perhaps
someone else has a better explanation for the name change.

How about this: there was no name change. The names Henrietta Maria
became perfectly acceptable in 17th century English, and have remained
acceptable English names down to the present day.

And in the spirit of brand new adjectives, I'd like to coin one for
this entire topic of 'research': 'pedfeintic'. A combination of
'pedantic' (ie., 'pedestrian', 'unimaginative') and 'feign' (ie., 'to
give a false appearance', 'to assert as if true').

Cheers, -----------Brad

Douglas Richardson

Re: Agnes Strickland's comments on Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 02 feb 2006 05:58:42

Brad Verity wrote:

< Perhaps you meant to say 'cursory' research.

< Brad

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

Yes, I meant cursory. My cursory search indicates that the queen
called herself Henriette Marie or Marie Henriette. I checked several
contemporary sources, not one.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»