Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Chris Phillips

Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 04 jun 2006 18:51:36

Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition of the work has
recently been made available there:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm

This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material. The results are presented in
narrative form and are organised geographically. The files, in HTML format,
are freely available on the Foundation's website (note that some of the
files are very large and may take a while to download through slow
connections).

The geographical area covered is Europe together with adjacent regions of
Asia and Africa, and the time period is roughly 500-1500. Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. In the current version,
most data are available for Germany, Northern France, Lombardy and
Anglo-Saxon England, and for the earliest 600 years of the medieval period.
Statements not yet documented from primary sources are indicated in some
parts by [...], and in others by the absence of source citations.

Work on the project is continuing, and it is hoped to produce a more fully
documented second edition in due course. However, as it stands now the work
contains a tremendous amount of information, and I'm sure people will find
it an extremely useful resource.

Chris Phillips

Sutliff

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Sutliff » 04 jun 2006 19:27:17

I do hope that people here will keep in mind that this new project is a work
in progress and realize that it already contains errors. Ultimately the
success and value of the data will depend on the sources used. I must admit
I am troubled to see Alison Weir used as a source.

For example, the four younger sons attributed to Henry III and his wife of
Eleanor of Provence (Richard, John, Henry and William) were disproved by
Margaret Howell some years ago. The alleged son William was actually proved
to be Henry III's half-brother William de Valence and the original pedigree
had been misread.

Also, John Carmi Parsons, who used to post here frequently, through sources
like the Household accounts, was able to completely revise the listing of
the children of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile by adding previously
unlisted children and subtracting children (Beatrice & Blanche) after Edward
II as there was no evidence Eleanor was pregnant after her last son.

This is an ambitious project so it is hoped that eventually these and other
similar errors will be corrected.

HS


"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e5v6d4$7rg$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition of the work has
recently been made available there:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm

This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material. The results are presented in
narrative form and are organised geographically. The files, in HTML
format,
are freely available on the Foundation's website (note that some of the
files are very large and may take a while to download through slow
connections).

The geographical area covered is Europe together with adjacent regions of
Asia and Africa, and the time period is roughly 500-1500. Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. In the current version,
most data are available for Germany, Northern France, Lombardy and
Anglo-Saxon England, and for the earliest 600 years of the medieval
period.
Statements not yet documented from primary sources are indicated in some
parts by [...], and in others by the absence of source citations.

Work on the project is continuing, and it is hoped to produce a more fully
documented second edition in due course. However, as it stands now the
work
contains a tremendous amount of information, and I'm sure people will find
it an extremely useful resource.

Chris Phillips



Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 04 jun 2006 22:08:52

In message of 4 Jun, "Sutliff" <suthen@redshift.com> wrote:

I do hope that people here will keep in mind that this new project is
a work in progress and realize that it already contains errors.
Ultimately the success and value of the data will depend on the
sources used. I must admit I am troubled to see Alison Weir used as
a source.

For example, the four younger sons attributed to Henry III and his
wife of Eleanor of Provence (Richard, John, Henry and William) were
disproved by Margaret Howell some years ago. The alleged son William
was actually proved to be Henry III's half-brother William de
Valence and the original pedigree had been misread.

Also, John Carmi Parsons, who used to post here frequently, through
sources like the Household accounts, was able to completely revise
the listing of the children of Edward I and Eleanor of Castile by
adding previously unlisted children and subtracting children
(Beatrice & Blanche) after Edward II as there was no evidence
Eleanor was pregnant after her last son.

This is an ambitious project so it is hoped that eventually these and
other similar errors will be corrected.

I saw the presentation too and was most impressed. One thing that
Charles Cawley made clear was that he had done no research on the
English Sovereigns and major landholders. He had just copied an
outline from known secondary sources.

What we can see now is the first edition. He is already working on the
second edition, so it is likely that the first edition will not be
revised. He made one methodological point: he has now decided on a
policy of putting all unresearched, or hearsay, material in square
brackets; but this policy has not been fully implemented in the first
edition. He said that, correctly now, all the English material should
be in square brackets. Perhaps the advantage of the English major
landowners is that they are already very well researched in Complete
Peerage and its Amendments so there is no urgency for this to be done
yet.

In addition his principal attraction is that he is referencing all
known facts to published source documents. This can be seen for
instance in the article on the "Nobility in Flanders" in the Northern
France section within France within Medieval Lands data by Region. So if
you find an article without square brackets which also lacks these
reference numbers, it is not to be relied on. (I wonder if we can also
go as far as to say that if you find a fact without a reference number,
that too is not to be relied on?)

To me the totally commendable target is that of relying solely on
(mainly published) primary documents. His explicit and stated intention
is to do away with any reliance on any secondary documents. I wish him
every success in the long process of completing this massive work.
Particularly for continental European genealogy this should satisfy a
long felt need for properly referenced information in English (for our
blinkered race of non-linguists) on the early major landed families and
their rulers.

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

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 05 jun 2006 05:36:59

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:51:36 +0100, "Chris Phillips"
<cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition of the work has
recently been made available there:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm

After looking at some of the places where the above project overlaps
my own work (which is quite a bit), I would give the site mixed
reviews based on what I have seen so far. Although it is clear that
there is much useful material on the website, I think that that much
more care than what we see now is going to be required if the site is
to live up to its stated ambitions. As an example, here is a quote
from the website's Introduction regarding "new discoveries":

"The "back-to-basics" approach to source material has
produced many surprises. It has enabled numerous new
discoveries to be made and many challenges to
traditionally accepted family relationships to be
proposed. By way of example, browse for Æthelberht
King of Wessex (ANGLO-SAXON Kings), the wives of
Péter Orseolo King of Hungary (HUNGARY), and the wife
of Guy I Comte de Mâcon (BURGUNDY Duchy, Nobility).
The approach has also highlighted many cases where no
supporting source material has so far been found,
despite extensive research. Of particular interest is
the example of Emma, wife of Ludwig II "der Deutsche"
King of the East Franks (GERMANY, Kings): the primary
source reference to her supposed Welf origin has so
far proved elusive. Hopefully a reader will be able
to provide the correct reference."

Now, I would expect that items pointed out in such an introduction
would be ones on which a reasonable amount of thoroughness and care
had been exercised, but that is clearly not the case with one of the
above items, the supposed wife of Guy I de Mâcon. The "solution"
given is that Guy is married off to the sister of his grandmother
Gerberge, which results from confusing Guy's son Otto with Guy's
father Otte-Guillaume (making both Guy's wife and his paternal
grandmother Gerberge daughters of Lambert of Chalon).

As for the others, I am not familiar with the Hungarian case, but I do
recall that Todd Farmerie has mentioned the problem with Æthelberht of
Wessex in this newsgroup before.

As for Emma's parentage, it can be found in Annales Xantenses, MGH SS
2: 225: "Anno 827. ..., et Ludewicus rex accepit in coniugum sororem
Iudith imperatricis."


I also noticed a tendancy to use late sources which make some of the
accounts very unreliable in places. Two clear examples are the
treatment of origin legends for Anjou (Tertulle, etc.) and Flanders
(Lideric, etc.) as if they might be historical, using late sources
which contradict earlier, more reliable sources. Also, there are very
serious problems with the early Scandinavian lines, using sources like
Heimskringla and even Saxo(!) as sources for periods much earlier than
they can be seriously considered as reliable. The account of the
early Danish kings, which has been built using ES's awful "Haithabu"
chart as the framework, is a complete mess.

The plan seems to have been to start with ES (and perhaps some other
secondary sources) as a start, and then to insert various
documentation as it was found (often from other secondary sources).
The result is that it is often not clear whether or not sufficient
documentation has yet been added, sometimes making the reliability of
a randomly chosen account difficult to decide without checking the
sources given.

Stewart Baldwin

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 05 jun 2006 10:19:05

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
After looking at some of the places where the above project overlaps
my own work (which is quite a bit), I would give the site mixed
reviews based on what I have seen so far. Although it is clear that
there is much useful material on the website, I think that that much
more care than what we see now is going to be required if the site is
to live up to its stated ambitions.

I should have mentioned that Charles Cawley gave a presentation on "Medieval
Lands" at the Annual General Meeting of the FMG in London on Saturday, which
is where some of my information came from. But there's also some detailed
information and guidance (PDF file) here:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.pdf

It's evident that he has devoted an enormous amount of work to the project
and is very serious about getting things right, so I'm sure he will welcome
constructive criticism and suggestions.

Obviously what he is doing is tremendously ambitious, and my feeling is that
one of the hardest aspects is to use scholarly secondary sources effectively
without sacrificing the emphasis on primary sources. In what little I've
done on Complete Peerage corrections, I've always been very conscious that
I'm "standing on the shoulders of giants", whose help is needed to get the
framework right, and to evaluate and interpret the primary sources
correctly.

It's worth repeating what Tim said - that for some parts of the work
undocumented material is indicated by square brackets, but that in others
it's not explicitly indicated, and has to be judged from the nature of the
citations given. If I understand correctly, the parts covering England after
the Norman Conquest are generally documented from secondary sources only.

Chris Phillips

Carl H. Jones

RE: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Carl H. Jones » 05 jun 2006 16:33:01

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Baldwin [mailto:sbaldw@mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:37 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

<snip>

After looking at some of the places where the above project overlaps
my own work (which is quite a bit), I would give the site mixed
reviews based on what I have seen so far. Although it is clear that
there is much useful material on the website, I think that that much
more care than what we see now is going to be required if the site is
to live up to its stated ambitions.

<snip>

Now, I would expect that items pointed out in such an introduction
would be ones on which a reasonable amount of thoroughness and care
had been exercised, but that is clearly not the case with one of the
above items, the supposed wife of Guy I de Mâcon. The "solution"
given is that Guy is married off to the sister of his grandmother
Gerberge, which results from confusing Guy's son Otto with Guy's
father Otte-Guillaume (making both Guy's wife and his paternal
grandmother Gerberge daughters of Lambert of Chalon).

As for the others, I am not familiar with the Hungarian case, but I do
recall that Todd Farmerie has mentioned the problem with Æthelberht of
Wessex in this newsgroup before.

As for Emma's parentage, it can be found in Annales Xantenses, MGH SS
2: 225: "Anno 827. ..., et Ludewicus rex accepit in coniugum sororem
Iudith imperatricis."


I also noticed a tendancy to use late sources which make some of the
accounts very unreliable in places. Two clear examples are the
treatment of origin legends for Anjou (Tertulle, etc.) and Flanders
(Lideric, etc.) as if they might be historical, using late sources
which contradict earlier, more reliable sources. Also, there are very
serious problems with the early Scandinavian lines, using sources like
Heimskringla and even Saxo(!) as sources for periods much earlier than
they can be seriously considered as reliable. The account of the
early Danish kings, which has been built using ES's awful "Haithabu"
chart as the framework, is a complete mess.

The plan seems to have been to start with ES (and perhaps some other
secondary sources) as a start, and then to insert various
documentation as it was found (often from other secondary sources).
The result is that it is often not clear whether or not sufficient
documentation has yet been added, sometimes making the reliability of
a randomly chosen account difficult to decide without checking the
sources given.

Stewart Baldwin

Stewart,
Since this work overlaps your own (as you mention in the above quote), and
since apparently both you and Charles Cawley wish this work to be accurate,
and since the work is so monumental in scope and historical significance,
why not offer to assist Mr. Cawley in this undertaking??

This should insure a work that can be a cornerstone for genealogical
research for years, if not decades, to come.

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 05 jun 2006 20:44:50

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:31:59 +0000 (UTC), cjones28@bellsouth.net ("Carl
H. Jones") wrote:

Stewart,
Since this work overlaps your own (as you mention in the above quote), and
since apparently both you and Charles Cawley wish this work to be accurate,
and since the work is so monumental in scope and historical significance,
why not offer to assist Mr. Cawley in this undertaking??

This should insure a work that can be a cornerstone for genealogical
research for years, if not decades, to come.

There is a problem here which involves what is apparently a complete
difference in opinion regarding quality control. My own approach is
to TRY (recognizing that I will never be completely successful) to
prevent errors from appearing in the first place, at least in items
presented for public consumption. A good look at the genealogical
literature will show that I am hardly alone in that approach to
genealogy.

On the other hand, another common approach, completely different, has
been to enter everything found in various secondary sources, and then
to try and add documentation and eliminate errors. This is clearly
the approach followed by Mr. Cawley's database. The source which
forms the apparent core of this database, ES, is very deficient in the
early medieval time period, with the result that the database has
started off with a large number of errors, and finding all of these
errors and correcting them in the process of adding documentation will
be a monumental effort. These errors will continue to mislead the
unwary until they are corrected (if ever).

Thus, since I am currently working on a project of my own (for which,
see http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/provis.htm), I see no
reason to abandon it to help with a project using an approach about
which I am skeptical.

Stewart Baldwin

Roger LeBlanc

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Roger LeBlanc » 06 jun 2006 00:18:01

I am as excited as anyone with the appearance of a new internet
resource, but it strikes me as odd that for the individuals that can be
found in Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project there should be discrepancies.
Is it that the author's of the new website are ignorant of its existence
(?) or are they willfully disregarding it. I suppose either possibility
speaks to their credibility. How many times does the wheel have to be
re-invented?
The Baldwin pages are excellently documented as to their sources, and
alternate theories are often explored. Any criticisms of the information
presented can be discussed right here on this forum, and necessary
updates are made. For me the Henry Project is the cornerstone of
internet genealogy and is the first place I look with regard to the
individuals included there.
At first glance I don't know that the information available at "Medieval
Lands" goes much beyond say the Roglo database-which does get updated.
I'm sure we don't need another Hull database at this juncture either.

Roger LeBlanc

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 06 jun 2006 01:09:35

Stewart Baldwin wrote:

I also noticed a tendancy to use late sources which make some of the
accounts very unreliable in places. Two clear examples are the
treatment of origin legends for Anjou (Tertulle, etc.) and Flanders
(Lideric, etc.) as if they might be historical, using late sources
which contradict earlier, more reliable sources. Also, there are very
serious problems with the early Scandinavian lines, using sources like
Heimskringla and even Saxo(!) as sources for periods much earlier than
they can be seriously considered as reliable. The account of the
early Danish kings, which has been built using ES's awful "Haithabu"
chart as the framework, is a complete mess.

I note that with the Iberian material, it is a curious mix of modern
research and discredited material, in some cases showing more caution
than most modern writers, in other cases following 17th century fantasy
(derivation of Guzman) or 20th century excess ingenuity (illegitimacy of
Vermudo II).

taf

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 06 jun 2006 09:57:56

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
On the other hand, another common approach, completely different, has
been to enter everything found in various secondary sources, and then
to try and add documentation and eliminate errors. This is clearly
the approach followed by Mr. Cawley's database.

As far as his intentions go, this is not what I understood from his
presentation at the weekend, and it's not what I understand from the online
documentation.

What he says is that Europaische Stammtafeln has been used to provide a
framework, and that primary sources are being used to verify and supplement
the material from ES. Clearly some other secondary sources have been used
too, but the overriding emphasis is on documenting everything from primary
sources.

I suspect that some of the problems that have been identified here have
arisen because of the desire to _minimise_ dependence on secondary sources -
the author has perhaps taken a flawed framework from ES rather than doing a
more extensive survey of the secondary literature. But after all, given the
scope of the work, a complete survey of the secondary literature would be a
life's work in itself, and the point of the project is to document things
from primary sources. In principle, if everything is being verified against
primary sources, flaws in the framework itself would eventually be
corrected.

The source which
forms the apparent core of this database, ES, is very deficient in the
early medieval time period, with the result that the database has
started off with a large number of errors, and finding all of these
errors and correcting them in the process of adding documentation will
be a monumental effort. These errors will continue to mislead the
unwary until they are corrected (if ever).

Again, as I understand it, in the best documented parts of the database the
author has tried to indicate unverified material from secondary sources by
putting it in square brackets. I realise that this isn't the case for the
whole work, and that in other parts of it the reader has to try to
distinguish between primary and secondary source citations. I think it would
be very helpful if the distinction could be made explicit throughout, or a
more prominent caveat displayed.

Thus, since I am currently working on a project of my own (for which,
see http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/provis.htm), I see no
reason to abandon it to help with a project using an approach about
which I am skeptical.

I'm not sure the suggestion was that other people should abandon their own
work and devote themselves to "Medieval Lands". I would hope people will
help as they are able, and that this can be done in ways that aren't
necessarily time-consuming - perhaps just by sending the occasional email to
say "There is an up-to-date scholarly study of family X in such-and-such a
journal", or "A correction to the ES table on family Y is described at
http://whatever".

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 06 jun 2006 10:10:42

Roger LeBlanc wrote:
I am as excited as anyone with the appearance of a new internet
resource, but it strikes me as odd that for the individuals that can be
found in Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project there should be discrepancies.
Is it that the author's of the new website are ignorant of its existence
(?) or are they willfully disregarding it. I suppose either possibility
speaks to their credibility. How many times does the wheel have to be
re-invented?

As already discussed, the point is that the author has made limited use of
secondary sources to provide a framework, but has concentrated on looking at
primary sources. If the Henry Project pages are not referred to, that is
probably the reason, though another possible reason is that the version of
"Medieval Lands" just released has taken at least four years to prepare
(about the same time as the Henry Project has been in progress), so parts of
it will have been written before the relevant "Henry" pages appeared.

As I thought had also been made clear, "Medieval Lands" is the work of only
one man, Charles Cawley. I think that, and the tremendous scope of the
project, should be borne in mind when criticising it.

At first glance I don't know that the information available at "Medieval
Lands" goes much beyond say the Roglo database-which does get updated.
I'm sure we don't need another Hull database at this juncture either.

Perhaps it would be worth giving it more than just a "glance" before passing
judgment. I haven't used the Roglo database, but the comparison with the
Hull database is so ludicrous that it makes me wonder whether you have
looked at "Medieval Lands" at all!

Chris Phillips

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 jun 2006 14:57:46

In message of 5 Jun, leblancr@mts.net (Roger LeBlanc) wrote:

I am as excited as anyone with the appearance of a new internet
resource, but it strikes me as odd that for the individuals that can be
found in Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project there should be discrepancies.
Is it that the author's

If this is a grocer's plural, there is but one author.

of the new website are ignorant of its existence (?) or are they
willfully disregarding it.

I asked him about it and he was well aware of it. The only comment he
made was that it did not cover the same areas as he was trying to cover,
which were all of Europe.

I suppose either possibility
speaks to their credibility. How many times does the wheel have to be
re-invented?
The Baldwin pages are excellently documented as to their sources, and
alternate theories are often explored. Any criticisms of the information
presented can be discussed right here on this forum, and necessary
updates are made. For me the Henry Project is the cornerstone of
internet genealogy and is the first place I look with regard to the
individuals included there.

Of course.

At first glance I don't know that the information available at "Medieval
Lands" goes much beyond say the Roglo database-which does get updated.
I'm sure we don't need another Hull database at this juncture either.

The Hull database is noteworthy for the lack of references in its text,
for the fact that its author states that it is not a genealogy project
and because the author refuses to deal with gross mistakes that have
been passed on to him. Perhaps this comparison is odious?

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

the_verminator@comcast.ne

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av the_verminator@comcast.ne » 06 jun 2006 16:47:32

Chris Phillips wrote:
Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition of the work has
recently been made available there:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm

This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material. The results are presented in
narrative form and are organised geographically. The files, in HTML format,
are freely available on the Foundation's website (note that some of the
files are very large and may take a while to download through slow
connections).

The geographical area covered is Europe together with adjacent regions of
Asia and Africa, and the time period is roughly 500-1500. Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. In the current version,
most data are available for Germany, Northern France, Lombardy and
Anglo-Saxon England, and for the earliest 600 years of the medieval period.
Statements not yet documented from primary sources are indicated in some
parts by [...], and in others by the absence of source citations.

Work on the project is continuing, and it is hoped to produce a more fully
documented second edition in due course. However, as it stands now the work
contains a tremendous amount of information, and I'm sure people will find
it an extremely useful resource.

Chris Phillips

Might I suggest that all data which has not been verified from primary
source material be deleted and added to the project only when it is so
verified?

Much less confusion that way as to what is and is not "real".

--
The Verminator

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 jun 2006 19:21:03

In message of 6 Jun, "the_verminator@comcast.net"
<the_verminator@comcast.net> wrote:

Chris Phillips wrote:
Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition of the work has
recently been made available there:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm

This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material. The results are presented in
narrative form and are organised geographically. The files, in HTML format,
are freely available on the Foundation's website (note that some of the
files are very large and may take a while to download through slow
connections).

The geographical area covered is Europe together with adjacent regions of
Asia and Africa, and the time period is roughly 500-1500. Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. In the current version,
most data are available for Germany, Northern France, Lombardy and
Anglo-Saxon England, and for the earliest 600 years of the medieval period.
Statements not yet documented from primary sources are indicated in some
parts by [...], and in others by the absence of source citations.

Work on the project is continuing, and it is hoped to produce a more fully
documented second edition in due course. However, as it stands now the work
contains a tremendous amount of information, and I'm sure people will find
it an extremely useful resource.

Chris Phillips

Might I suggest that all data which has not been verified from primary
source material be deleted and added to the project only when it is so
verified?

Much less confusion that way as to what is and is not "real".

Quite.

But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and
would much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of
Edition 1 as that would delay him significantly. And he had firmly
decided on a recent policy change to enclose all non-primary-referenced
items in square brackets, presumably intending to implement this in
Edition 2; in this context he said (or I thought I heard him say) the
whole of the English material should be in square brackets. Though he
did say he would be glad to hear of genealogical corrections.

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

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 06 jun 2006 20:06:00

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:57:56 +0100, "Chris Phillips"
<cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
On the other hand, another common approach, completely different, has
been to enter everything found in various secondary sources, and then
to try and add documentation and eliminate errors. This is clearly
the approach followed by Mr. Cawley's database.

As far as his intentions go, this is not what I understood from his
presentation at the weekend, and it's not what I understand from the online
documentation.

What he says is that Europaische Stammtafeln has been used to provide a
framework, and that primary sources are being used to verify and supplement
the material from ES. Clearly some other secondary sources have been used
too, but the overriding emphasis is on documenting everything from primary
sources.

That may be the stated intention, but I don't see it being put into
practice in the parts that I have examined. Some examples:

1. The part on the counts of Gâtinais (in the Central France section)
has the appearance of being largely documented from primary sources,
until you look at the footnotes and see that they are all indirect
citations via the articles of Saint-Phalle and Settipani which
appeared in Onomastique et Parenté.

2. The section on the counts of Luxemburg has rejected the general
consensus that Siegfried of Luxemburg and Adalbero of Metz were
brothers (at least through their mother), and has instead adopted a
proposal of Donald Jackman which appears on the latter's internet site
(a source which I know because I am familiar with it, although you
would not know that it is a website from the footnote, and it does not
appear in the list of sources).

3. I see poor judgement being used with regard to the choice of
sources. For example, the account of the early counts of Anjou is
heavily based on the very unreliable "Gesta Consulum Andegavorum".
This uncritical use of primary sources has resulted in ADDING errors
to the ES framework.

4. There seems to be ample space devoted to modern unproven theories,
such as #2 above, or to theories about "Poppa" (in this case not even
mentioning the main primary source, Dudo, while mentioning later ones
like Orderic).

I suspect that some of the problems that have been identified here have
arisen because of the desire to _minimise_ dependence on secondary sources -
the author has perhaps taken a flawed framework from ES rather than doing a
more extensive survey of the secondary literature. But after all, given the
scope of the work, a complete survey of the secondary literature would be a
life's work in itself, and the point of the project is to document things
from primary sources. In principle, if everything is being verified against
primary sources, flaws in the framework itself would eventually be
corrected.

But how long will "eventually" be, with all of those errors just
sitting there ready to be copied, along with just enough source
citations to mislead the unwary into believing that the facts have
been carefully checked. As I pointed out above, I think that the
theory and practice are two different things. One of the reasons that
I posted my Baldwin I of Flanders page in its present state is because
it is an example of something which I have done almost entirely from
primary sources. I will discuss this example in more detail in a
later posting.

Stewart Baldwin

Douglas Richardson

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 jun 2006 21:55:14

Dear Newsgroup ~

Having some free time on my hands the night before last, I decided to
examine Charles Cawley's newly released medieval database. Based on
the ringing endorsement posted by Chris Phillips, I expected a "major
new online resource." What I found was a database on a level with the
scorned and heavily criticized Hull Project, with a few secondary
sources thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship.
After encountering the hundreth major error, my eyes glazed over, I
closed down my computer, and went to bed.

Due to the number of glaring errors, both of omission and commission,
which I found in the Cawley database, I strongly disagree with Mr.
Phillips' assessment that people will find this database "an extremely
useful resource." Rather, I believe that people will find this work of
extremely limited value.

Regardless, I extend Mr. Cawley my personal wishes for much success in
this endeavor. Hopeully future editions of this database will improve
over time and come to help many people searching for answers in the
mists of the medieval past.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 06 jun 2006 21:58:02

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
[I wrote]
What he says is that Europaische Stammtafeln has been used to provide a
framework, and that primary sources are being used to verify and
supplement
the material from ES. Clearly some other secondary sources have been used
too, but the overriding emphasis is on documenting everything from
primary
sources.

That may be the stated intention, but I don't see it being put into
practice in the parts that I have examined. Some examples:

1. The part on the counts of Gâtinais (in the Central France section)
has the appearance of being largely documented from primary sources,
until you look at the footnotes and see that they are all indirect
citations via the articles of Saint-Phalle and Settipani which
appeared in Onomastique et Parenté.

2. The section on the counts of Luxemburg has rejected the general
consensus that Siegfried of Luxemburg and Adalbero of Metz were
brothers (at least through their mother), and has instead adopted a
proposal of Donald Jackman which appears on the latter's internet site
(a source which I know because I am familiar with it, although you
would not know that it is a website from the footnote, and it does not
appear in the list of sources).

Frankly, I'm not familiar enough with the Continental material to comment on
it sensibly in any detail (or the material on Anglo-Saxon England, for that
matter). But as a general point of principle, I'm more reassured than
otherwise if recent scholarly work has been taken into account. (If you were
suggesting it had been used inappropriately, that would be a different
matter.)

But I am curious to know whether your impression is really that the emphasis
is _not_ on primary sources (as your comments seem to suggest). Certainly in
the bibliography primary sources outnumber secondary ones by a very wide
margin. From an admittedly superficial look through the account of
Anglo-Saxon England, the same seems to be true of the sources actually cited
on that page.

3. I see poor judgement being used with regard to the choice of
sources. For example, the account of the early counts of Anjou is
heavily based on the very unreliable "Gesta Consulum Andegavorum".
This uncritical use of primary sources has resulted in ADDING errors
to the ES framework.

Of course, if the sources have been used uncritically, that's a cause for
concern. But surely it's an essentially different question from the one
about the balance between primary and secondary sources.

4. There seems to be ample space devoted to modern unproven theories,
such as #2 above, or to theories about "Poppa" (in this case not even
mentioning the main primary source, Dudo, while mentioning later ones
like Orderic).

I must admit I couldn't even find the discussion of #2 - no doubt owing to
my ignorance about the subject matter. I have to say that as far as I can
see all but one sentence of the entry on "Poppa" is concerned with quoting
primary sources, not discussion.

I suspect that some of the problems that have been identified here have
arisen because of the desire to _minimise_ dependence on secondary
sources -
the author has perhaps taken a flawed framework from ES rather than doing
a
more extensive survey of the secondary literature. But after all, given
the
scope of the work, a complete survey of the secondary literature would be
a
life's work in itself, and the point of the project is to document things
from primary sources. In principle, if everything is being verified
against
primary sources, flaws in the framework itself would eventually be
corrected.

But how long will "eventually" be, with all of those errors just
sitting there ready to be copied, along with just enough source
citations to mislead the unwary into believing that the facts have
been carefully checked.

Well, I did say "in principle", and I do understand the danger.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that a high priority should be to
make the distinction between verified and unverified material explicit and
clear throughout the web pages.

(Incidentally, I'm still not sure everyone appreciates the sheer volume of
material involved, and the huge amount of work that has gone into even the
final stage of making it available through the Internet - chiefly by Joe
Edwards of the FMG. One poster has suggested "all the unverified data should
be deleted". My own idea was that it could perhaps be colour-coded. Whatever
happens it is going to involve a lot of work and won't happen instantly.)

One of the reasons that
I posted my Baldwin I of Flanders page in its present state is because
it is an example of something which I have done almost entirely from
primary sources. I will discuss this example in more detail in a
later posting.

At least one thing everyone seems to agree about is the exceptional value of
the work you are doing in the "Henry Project". But I think we have to accept
that it is just not possible to address the whole of medieval European
royalty and nobility in the same depth and with the same meticulous
standards, in anything less than several dozen lifetimes.

My hope is that people will be supportive of this project and offer
constructive criticism. I plan to offer such help as I'm able with the
later-medieval English part, peripheral though it is at the moment.

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 06 jun 2006 22:17:52

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Having some free time on my hands the night before last, I decided to
examine Charles Cawley's newly released medieval database. Based on
the ringing endorsement posted by Chris Phillips, I expected a "major
new online resource." What I found was a database on a level with the
scorned and heavily criticized Hull Project, with a few secondary
sources thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship.
After encountering the hundreth major error, my eyes glazed over, I
closed down my computer, and went to bed.

Thank you for your opinion.

Perhaps you can explain in what sense you think "Medieval Lands" is similar
to the Hull database (as I've already said, I think the comparison is a
ludicrous one, but I'm always interested to hear assertions backed up).

Or perhaps you can share with us some of the errors you spotted?

Chris Phillips

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 06 jun 2006 22:58:05

In article <1149627314.299517.238280@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Having some free time on my hands the night before last, I decided to
examine Charles Cawley's newly released medieval database. Based on
the ringing endorsement posted by Chris Phillips, I expected a "major
new online resource." What I found was a database on a level with the
scorned and heavily criticized Hull Project, with a few secondary
sources thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship.
After encountering the hundreth major error, my eyes glazed over, I
closed down my computer, and went to bed.

Due to the number of glaring errors, both of omission and commission,
which I found in the Cawley database, I strongly disagree with Mr.
Phillips' assessment that people will find this database "an extremely
useful resource." Rather, I believe that people will find this work of
extremely limited value.

Regardless, I extend Mr. Cawley my personal wishes for much success in
this endeavor. Hopeully future editions of this database will improve
over time and come to help many people searching for answers in the
mists of the medieval past.

It's interesting that Douglas would take the time to post this
high-handed dismissal of the Cawley site, with an ill-founded and
misleading comparison to the Hull database, while at the same time
Douglas's much-touted books regularly include citations to Miroslav
Marek's website, genealogy.euweb.cz, whose pages are totally without
source citations and therefore a poor shadow of the new Cawley work.

Perhaps someone could post (with his and/or with FMG's approval) a
sample portion of Cawley's work on a particular lineage or patrimony,
for group discussion? Perhaps such an excerpt could be paired
side-by-side with similar coverage from other on-line sources?

Nat Taylor

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 jun 2006 08:39:20

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Having some free time on my hands the night before last, I decided to
examine Charles Cawley's newly released medieval database. Based on
the ringing endorsement posted by Chris Phillips, I expected a "major
new online resource." What I found was a database on a level with the
scorned and heavily criticized Hull Project, with a few secondary
sources thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship.

That is a completely unwarranted comparison, specious from the start.
Hull was never even intended to convey information, but rather to study
how people used a database. Further, the the detail of the information
and the level of documentation is completely different. While you can
argue about the choice of sources and the conclusions reached, which I
myself have done, the Medieval Lands pages give specific in-line
citations for many of the statements (unlike certain books I could
mention, which only cluster references, relevant and irrelevant,
confirmatory and contradictory alike, at the end).

As to another comparison with Hull, only time will tell how willing the
compiler is to make corrections or entertain alternatives. The Hull
compiler can't be bothered (after all, it is not about the information,
but how people access the information). Other authors of web pages and
books would be more than happy to make corrections, but can never admit
to having been wrong. I guess we shall see.

taf

Leo van de Pas

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 07 jun 2006 10:11:01

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

<snip>

.. Other authors of web pages and
books would be more than happy to make corrections, but can never admit to
having been wrong. I guess we shall see.

taf

What do you mean by this? On my website is a request to have errors or

omissions pointed out. I always reply to the person if they send only one
message, there are some who send me many. The correstions are made as
quickly as possible and they show up when the site is updated. How can you
imagine that anyone_not even Richardson_ would say they are never wrong?
Leo

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 07 jun 2006 23:22:19

I wrote:
At least one thing everyone seems to agree about is the exceptional value
of
the work you are doing in the "Henry Project". But I think we have to
accept
that it is just not possible to address the whole of medieval European
royalty and nobility in the same depth and with the same meticulous
standards, in anything less than several dozen lifetimes.

At the risk of pursuing a conversation with myself, I've had a few more
thoughts on this question.

I think it's instructive to consider the Complete Peerage, which is rightly
viewed as a triumph of what J. H. Round used to describe as "scientific
genealogy" - that is, genealogy worked out logically from contemporary
evidence.

What we think of as CP is, of course, itself a revision of "G.E.C.'s" first
edition published in the 1880s and 1890s, and was the work of numerous
editors and innumerable individual contributors, over a period of nearly 50
years (1910-1959). The final publication was a volume of corrections and
additions by Peter Hammond in 1998 (111 years after Cokayne's first volume
appeared).

I think it's absolutely right that CP is viewed as a genealogical triumph,
but of course we know that - even after more than a century of effort by the
most eminent British genealogists - hundreds upon hundreds of errors still
remained. Nor are these errors just trifling ones. For example, Tony
Ingham's work has shown that CP got pretty much the whole of the genealogy
of Heron of Ford wrong, including the principal male line. Similarly, the
account of Say not only muddled the 12th-century wives, but proposed a
chronology that was out by about a generation.

Nor were the errors confined to the "small fry" of the peerage. Rosie Bevan
has demonstrated a similar muddle over the wives of the early earls of
Warwick (I'm pleased to see that Charles Cawley has noted this recent
correction). Another serious blunder was the misplacement of Robert de
Quency, husband of Hawise, Countess of Lincoln, even though the evidence
proving his identity had been in print since the 17th century (and I'm also
pleased to see that Charles Cawley has also noted this correction).

No doubt there are many more such errors in CP, some still waiting to be
discovered.

What this brings home to me is that wide-ranging genealogical compilations
simply have to be judged by different standards from in-depth studies
covering limited areas. Perhaps this is just a rather long-winded way of
stating the obvious, but I think in the discussion of "Medieval Lands" it
should be borne in mind that this is the work of only one man who is trying
to cover an enormous territory.

Chris Phillips

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 09 jun 2006 01:56:11

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:58:05 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

[snip]

Perhaps someone could post (with his and/or with FMG's approval) a
sample portion of Cawley's work on a particular lineage or patrimony,
for group discussion? Perhaps such an excerpt could be paired
side-by-side with similar coverage from other on-line sources?

In fact, since this is a work in progress which is obviously far from
complete in places, perhaps the author could identify for us a
particular section of the current version which he regards as being
more complete and closer to what is intended for the project as a
whole.

Stewart Baldwin

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 09 jun 2006 02:29:08

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:58:02 +0100, "Chris Phillips"
<cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

[snip]

The more I think about it, the more I feel that a high priority should be to
make the distinction between verified and unverified material explicit and
clear throughout the web pages.

It is certainly very important to have some sort of clear indication
along these lines, and I suspect that the author's evident failure to
do this in a consistent way is going to cause him headaches along the
line as he adds more information.

It was exactly to deal with such things that I chose to have a
"Commentary section" on my Henry Project pages whenever lack of
verification (or falsehood) was an issue. It has proved to be a very
useful feature in the compilation stage too. Early versions of my
pages (which others don't get to see) will often have "uncertain"
children or parents in the commentary section until I find the
documentation. Regardless of the format, researchers compiling data
on this kind of material need to have some consistent way of dealing
with the problem of unverified information.

(Incidentally, I'm still not sure everyone appreciates the sheer volume of
material involved, and the huge amount of work that has gone into even the
final stage of making it available through the Internet - chiefly by Joe
Edwards of the FMG. One poster has suggested "all the unverified data should
be deleted". My own idea was that it could perhaps be colour-coded. Whatever
happens it is going to involve a lot of work and won't happen instantly.)

As someone who has worked on a project covering only a small fraction
of what appears to be the intended goal, I have a very good idea of
what is involved. My impression is that the stated scope of the
project is simply too much for one person to take on.

Stewart Baldwin

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 09 jun 2006 09:08:46

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
As someone who has worked on a project covering only a small fraction
of what appears to be the intended goal, I have a very good idea of
what is involved.

Yes - that comment wasn't directed at you, but at some of those who appeared
to be writing the whole thing off "at first glance", or implying that it
would be a trivial matter to remove all the material not documented from
primary sources.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 jun 2006 04:00:55

I did not intend to post in this newsgroup again, and much less did I expect
to return in support of Douglas Richardson.

However, I second his remarks copied below - with only the reservation that
I have not looked at the Hull Project database and know nothing about it
beyond the comments that have appeared in this forum. I don't believe that
SGM has ever been told of errors in it as gross as Charles Cawley has
committed in his misconceived and misguided effort at scholarship. Also I
think Douglas Richardson probably meant to write "a few primary sources
thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship" - the veneer of
having "reconstructed" the lineages from medieval records is demonstrably
untrue.

Much of it is unexceptionable, since it is simply a rehash of the tables in
ES with a few (and in proportion to the details given far too few) snippets
from sources thrown in: these are often ill-chosen, from much later sources
or someimtes contradicting better evidence that has been overlooked. The
scope of the work is impracticable, yet the amount of work that has actually
gone into it is not all that impressive. Many people, including Douglas
Richardson, have more voluminous - and more accurate - notes on wide swathes
of medieval genealogy and sources than are offered in the Medieval Lands
database.

I will write a detailed review of this when time permits, in conjunction
with a review of Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project. The latter work is vastly
better than Charles Cawley's, of course, but both are vitiated by some of
the same faults and neither in my view comes up to the standard that would
(or at any rate should) be required of peer-reviewed scholarly work.

Nonetheless Stewart Baldwin's work is more reliable than Charles Cawley's by
a far greater degree than his field of study is smaller.

To give one example for the time being, as a warning to people who may wish
to copy information from the Medieval Lands database - or to endorse this as
worthy of presentation to the public in its current form, apparently without
having evaluated it thoroughly - please consider the following:

In the Introduction the reader is told: 'The "back-to-basics" approach to
source material...has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many
challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By
way of example, browse for...the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary'. On
the HUNGARY page under the second marriage, after a derivative and
unintersting discussion of the first that hasn't even taken into account the
standard scholarship on this subject, Charles Cawley writes: 'The marriage
is not mentioned in Wegener, although he refers cryptically to "Lui von
Frizberg, I. Tuta Regina. II. Judith von Schweinfurt" [282]. Should this
reference be interpreted to mean that Lui von Frizberg (to whom no other
reference has been found) married firstly (as her second husband) Tuta von
Formbach, and secondly (also as her second husband) Judith von Schweinfurt?'

Endnote 282 reads 'Wegener, pp. 80 and 141 footnote 2, the latter quoting a
manuscript "Haus Frizberg (Post Wildon) 1955, S. 1-26".'

First, as anyone using _Genealogische Tafeln zur mitteleuropäischen
Geschichte_ (Göttingen, 1962-1969) ought to realise, Wilhelm Wegener was the
editor of this but NOT the author of the bulk of it including pages 80 and
141 that were written by Franz Tyroller.

Secondly, Lui von Frizberg was an amateur historian who self-published two
papers on the wives of Peter Orseolo in 1955.

I don't beleive that the Hull database, or indeed Roderick Stuart at his
worst, ever confounded a citation in a footnote with a genealogical
conjecture, or crazily imagined that a modern author might have been a
shadowy medieval figure with a most unlikely name who married two ex-wives
of a famous king of Hungary in succession while remaining so obscure that no
other reference to him could be found.

Peter Stewart



"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1149627314.299517.238280@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Having some free time on my hands the night before last, I decided to
examine Charles Cawley's newly released medieval database. Based on
the ringing endorsement posted by Chris Phillips, I expected a "major
new online resource." What I found was a database on a level with the
scorned and heavily criticized Hull Project, with a few secondary
sources thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship.
After encountering the hundreth major error, my eyes glazed over, I
closed down my computer, and went to bed.

Due to the number of glaring errors, both of omission and commission,
which I found in the Cawley database, I strongly disagree with Mr.
Phillips' assessment that people will find this database "an extremely
useful resource." Rather, I believe that people will find this work of
extremely limited value.

Regardless, I extend Mr. Cawley my personal wishes for much success in
this endeavor. Hopeully future editions of this database will improve
over time and come to help many people searching for answers in the
mists of the medieval past.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 11 jun 2006 02:39:01

Dear Peter
Nice to have you back, even if it's just briefly. Please stay.
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: Peter Stewart
Date: 06/10/06 12:39:08
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

I did not intend to post in this newsgroup again, and much less did I expect
to return in support of Douglas Richardson.

However, I second his remarks copied below - with only the reservation that
I have not looked at the Hull Project database and know nothing about it
beyond the comments that have appeared in this forum. I don't believe that
SGM has ever been told of errors in it as gross as Charles Cawley has
committed in his misconceived and misguided effort at scholarship. Also I
think Douglas Richardson probably meant to write "a few primary sources
thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship" - the veneer of
having "reconstructed" the lineages from medieval records is demonstrably
untrue.

Much of it is unexceptionable, since it is simply a rehash of the tables in
ES with a few (and in proportion to the details given far too few) snippets
from sources thrown in: these are often ill-chosen, from much later sources
or someimtes contradicting better evidence that has been overlooked. The
scope of the work is impracticable, yet the amount of work that has actually
gone into it is not all that impressive. Many people, including Douglas
Richardson, have more voluminous - and more accurate - notes on wide swathes
of medieval genealogy and sources than are offered in the Medieval Lands
database.

I will write a detailed review of this when time permits, in conjunction
with a review of Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project. The latter work is vastly
better than Charles Cawley's, of course, but both are vitiated by some of
the same faults and neither in my view comes up to the standard that would
(or at any rate should) be required of peer-reviewed scholarly work.

Nonetheless Stewart Baldwin's work is more reliable than Charles Cawley's by
a far greater degree than his field of study is smaller.

To give one example for the time being, as a warning to people who may wish
to copy information from the Medieval Lands database - or to endorse this as
worthy of presentation to the public in its current form, apparently without
having evaluated it thoroughly - please consider the following:

In the Introduction the reader is told: 'The "back-to-basics" approach to
source material...has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many
challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By
way of example, browse for...the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary'. On
the HUNGARY page under the second marriage, after a derivative and
unintersting discussion of the first that hasn't even taken into account the
standard scholarship on this subject, Charles Cawley writes: 'The marriage
is not mentioned in Wegener, although he refers cryptically to "Lui von
Frizberg, I. Tuta Regina. II. Judith von Schweinfurt" [282]. Should this
reference be interpreted to mean that Lui von Frizberg (to whom no other
reference has been found) married firstly (as her second husband) Tuta von
Formbach, and secondly (also as her second husband) Judith von Schweinfurt?'

Endnote 282 reads 'Wegener, pp. 80 and 141 footnote 2, the latter quoting a
manuscript "Haus Frizberg (Post Wildon) 1955, S. 1-26".'

First, as anyone using _Genealogische Tafeln zur mitteleuropäischen
Geschichte_ (Göttingen, 1962-1969) ought to realise, Wilhelm Wegener was the
editor of this but NOT the author of the bulk of it including pages 80 and
141 that were written by Franz Tyroller.

Secondly, Lui von Frizberg was an amateur historian who self-published two
papers on the wives of Peter Orseolo in 1955.

I don't beleive that the Hull database, or indeed Roderick Stuart at his
worst, ever confounded a citation in a footnote with a genealogical
conjecture, or crazily imagined that a modern author might have been a
shadowy medieval figure with a most unlikely name who married two ex-wives
of a famous king of Hungary in succession while remaining so obscure that no
other reference to him could be found.

Peter Stewart



"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1149627314.299517.238280@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Having some free time on my hands the night before last, I decided to
examine Charles Cawley's newly released medieval database. Based on
the ringing endorsement posted by Chris Phillips, I expected a "major
new online resource." What I found was a database on a level with the
scorned and heavily criticized Hull Project, with a few secondary
sources thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship.
After encountering the hundreth major error, my eyes glazed over, I
closed down my computer, and went to bed.

Due to the number of glaring errors, both of omission and commission,
which I found in the Cawley database, I strongly disagree with Mr.
Phillips' assessment that people will find this database "an extremely
useful resource." Rather, I believe that people will find this work of
extremely limited value.

Regardless, I extend Mr. Cawley my personal wishes for much success in
this endeavor. Hopeully future editions of this database will improve
over time and come to help many people searching for answers in the
mists of the medieval past.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Roger LeBlanc

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Roger LeBlanc » 11 jun 2006 02:53:02

My sentiments exactly.
Roger LeBlanc

Merilyn Pedrick wrote:

Dear Peter
Nice to have you back, even if it's just briefly. Please stay.
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: Peter Stewart
Date: 06/10/06 12:39:08
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"



message snipped

Gjest

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jun 2006 09:03:26

Dear Peter,

If you are back that's Charles Cawley's biggest achievment.

Regards,
Francisco


Peter Stewart escreveu:
I did not intend to post in this newsgroup again, and much less did I expect
to return in support of Douglas Richardson.

However, I second his remarks copied below - with only the reservation that
I have not looked at the Hull Project database and know nothing about it
beyond the comments that have appeared in this forum. I don't believe that
SGM has ever been told of errors in it as gross as Charles Cawley has
committed in his misconceived and misguided effort at scholarship. Also I
think Douglas Richardson probably meant to write "a few primary sources
thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship" - the veneer of
having "reconstructed" the lineages from medieval records is demonstrably
untrue.

Much of it is unexceptionable, since it is simply a rehash of the tables in
ES with a few (and in proportion to the details given far too few) snippets
from sources thrown in: these are often ill-chosen, from much later sources
or someimtes contradicting better evidence that has been overlooked. The
scope of the work is impracticable, yet the amount of work that has actually
gone into it is not all that impressive. Many people, including Douglas
Richardson, have more voluminous - and more accurate - notes on wide swathes
of medieval genealogy and sources than are offered in the Medieval Lands
database.

I will write a detailed review of this when time permits, in conjunction
with a review of Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project. The latter work is vastly
better than Charles Cawley's, of course, but both are vitiated by some of
the same faults and neither in my view comes up to the standard that would
(or at any rate should) be required of peer-reviewed scholarly work.

Nonetheless Stewart Baldwin's work is more reliable than Charles Cawley's by
a far greater degree than his field of study is smaller.

To give one example for the time being, as a warning to people who may wish
to copy information from the Medieval Lands database - or to endorse this as
worthy of presentation to the public in its current form, apparently without
having evaluated it thoroughly - please consider the following:

In the Introduction the reader is told: 'The "back-to-basics" approach to
source material...has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many
challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By
way of example, browse for...the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary'. On
the HUNGARY page under the second marriage, after a derivative and
unintersting discussion of the first that hasn't even taken into account the
standard scholarship on this subject, Charles Cawley writes: 'The marriage
is not mentioned in Wegener, although he refers cryptically to "Lui von
Frizberg, I. Tuta Regina. II. Judith von Schweinfurt" [282]. Should this
reference be interpreted to mean that Lui von Frizberg (to whom no other
reference has been found) married firstly (as her second husband) Tuta von
Formbach, and secondly (also as her second husband) Judith von Schweinfurt?'

Endnote 282 reads 'Wegener, pp. 80 and 141 footnote 2, the latter quoting a
manuscript "Haus Frizberg (Post Wildon) 1955, S. 1-26".'

First, as anyone using _Genealogische Tafeln zur mitteleuropäischen
Geschichte_ (Göttingen, 1962-1969) ought to realise, Wilhelm Wegener was the
editor of this but NOT the author of the bulk of it including pages 80 and
141 that were written by Franz Tyroller.

Secondly, Lui von Frizberg was an amateur historian who self-published two
papers on the wives of Peter Orseolo in 1955.

I don't beleive that the Hull database, or indeed Roderick Stuart at his
worst, ever confounded a citation in a footnote with a genealogical
conjecture, or crazily imagined that a modern author might have been a
shadowy medieval figure with a most unlikely name who married two ex-wives
of a famous king of Hungary in succession while remaining so obscure that no
other reference to him could be found.

Peter Stewart



"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1149627314.299517.238280@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Having some free time on my hands the night before last, I decided to
examine Charles Cawley's newly released medieval database. Based on
the ringing endorsement posted by Chris Phillips, I expected a "major
new online resource." What I found was a database on a level with the
scorned and heavily criticized Hull Project, with a few secondary
sources thrown in to give the database a thin patina of scholarship.
After encountering the hundreth major error, my eyes glazed over, I
closed down my computer, and went to bed.

Due to the number of glaring errors, both of omission and commission,
which I found in the Cawley database, I strongly disagree with Mr.
Phillips' assessment that people will find this database "an extremely
useful resource." Rather, I believe that people will find this work of
extremely limited value.

Regardless, I extend Mr. Cawley my personal wishes for much success in
this endeavor. Hopeully future editions of this database will improve
over time and come to help many people searching for answers in the
mists of the medieval past.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 11 jun 2006 12:41:20

"Merilyn Pedrick" a écrit :

Dear Peter
Nice to have you back, even if it's just briefly. Please stay.
Merilyn

I second.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 11 jun 2006 14:19:46

Chris Phillips a écrit :

Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition of the work has
recently been made available there:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm

This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material. The results are presented in
narrative form and are organised geographically. The files, in HTML format,
are freely available on the Foundation's website (note that some of the
files are very large and may take a while to download through slow
connections).

The geographical area covered is Europe together with adjacent regions of
Asia and Africa, and the time period is roughly 500-1500. Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. In the current version,
most data are available for Germany, Northern France, Lombardy and
Anglo-Saxon England, and for the earliest 600 years of the medieval period.
Statements not yet documented from primary sources are indicated in some
parts by [...], and in others by the absence of source citations.

Work on the project is continuing, and it is hoped to produce a more fully
documented second edition in due course. However, as it stands now the work
contains a tremendous amount of information, and I'm sure people will find
it an extremely useful resource.

I have browsed through the genealogy of the Palaiologoi: it seem to
contain a myriad of inexactnesses but, compared to other websites,
relatively few blatant errors. Its major problem is the use of a
bibliography which is scarce, dated (Runciman), not absolutely (Nicol)
or even not at all (Sturdza) reliable, and of course almost exclusively
in English. The page shows almost no effort to use primary sources. At
least, some pieces of information (but not all) have a footnote with a
bibliography, which can make a little less uneasy to find the actual
primary source hidden (or not) behind: that at least makes this page a
bit more useful than the other Palaiologoi genealogies available on
line. There is also an effort to distinguish between dates which are
deduced and dates which are in the sources.

Pierre

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 11 jun 2006 14:36:14

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
<<
I have browsed through the genealogy of the Palaiologoi:
....
The page shows almost no effort to use primary sources.

As I mentioned, the geographical areas for which there are most data from
primary sources are Germany, Northern France, Lombardy and Anglo-Saxon
England.

As I understand it, the remainder does come mainly from secondary sources
and should be regarded as unverified.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 12:24:31

Since Chris Phillips needs reminding, below is his original announcement
interspersed with extracts from my advice to the FMG on 26 July 2005 that
was copied to him:

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e5v6d4$7rg$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of medieval
European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the website of the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition of the work has
recently been made available there:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm

"Cawley has skimmed over many sources rather than making a close study of
the lineages or geographic areas included. The result is not a systematic
prosopography of the ruling class, kindred or individuals"

This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material.

"he contents himself with giving a source or two (some not the most
proximate or plausible) for the details he has found".

The results are presented in narrative form and are organised
geographically.
The files, in HTML format, are freely available on the Foundation's
website
(note that some of the files are very large and may take a while to
download
through slow connections).

The geographical area covered is Europe together with adjacent regions of
Asia and Africa, and the time period is roughly 500-1500. Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources.

"Unfortunately Cawley has deprived himself of benefits from a great deal of
modern scholarship by using 19th-century editions, mainly Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, when more recent ones are to be preferred for many -
usually the most important - sources. The way he uses what he has found in
isolation sometimes from what he would have found by further research of his
own, or in editorial glosses, is unsatisfactory by scholarly standards. His
use of cartularia and narrative sources tends to be uncritical and even
careless."

In the current version, most data are available for Germany, Northern
France, Lombardy and Anglo-Saxon England, and for the earliest 600
years of the medieval period.

[Unknown to me last July, but reportedly emerging from the presentation at
the annual general meeting of the FMG, the entirety of material relating to
England is as yet unverified from primary sources - yet according to the
"factual" presentation of Phillips afterwards, this is among the sections of
this project allegedly drawing from primary sources with most data
available.]

Statements not yet documented from primary sources are indicated in some
parts by [...], and in others by the absence of source citations.

Work on the project is continuing, and it is hoped to produce a more fully
documented second edition in due course. However, as it stands now the
work
contains a tremendous amount of information, and I'm sure people will find
it an extremely useful resource.

"The availability of this kind of work would be a useful addition to online
resources for many people, However, it's apparent from the scope of the
project and from the example provided that Cawley has skimmed over many
sources rather than making a close study of the lineages or geographic areas
included."

I am at a loss to know how useful it may be to be told that a count of Macon
was married to his paternal grandmother's sister, or to read a conjecture
that two queens of Hungary might have been married to a modern historian who
wrote about them. And these are two of the three "new discoveries"
highlighted by the author in his Introduction!

This is a "major resource" in the same way as a guano deposit might be so
called, except that crops would not be fertilised by Cawley's work nearly as
well as by old bird poo.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 12:33:43

Peter Stewart wrote:
[Unknown to me last July, but reportedly emerging from the presentation at
the annual general meeting of the FMG, the entirety of material relating
to
England is as yet unverified from primary sources - yet according to the
"factual" presentation of Phillips afterwards, this is among the sections
of
this project allegedly drawing from primary sources with most data
available.]

My understanding from the presentation was precisely as I posted - that
_Anglo-Saxon_ England was among those areas more fully covered

And this is confirmed by the online introduction:
"Much new information is contained in the documents which cover Germany, the
northern half of France, the Italian Lombard kingdom and principalities, and
the Anglo-Saxon kings and nobles."
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.pdf

Your information about the AGM seems to be incorrect. Where did it come
from?

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 13:08:50

Peter Stewart wrote:
I am at a loss to know how useful it may be to be told that a count of
Macon
was married to his paternal grandmother's sister, or to read a conjecture
that two queens of Hungary might have been married to a modern historian
who
wrote about them. And these are two of the three "new discoveries"
highlighted by the author in his Introduction!

I think you have misunderstood. Surely this is not what he is referring to
in the Introduction as a "discovery". He is referring to the identity of the
second wife of King Peter, isn't he?

I realise you are eager to ridicule the work, but in fairness it should be
pointed out that what you call a "conjecture" is actually a note about a
footnote he couldn't understand, and a query about its possible meaning. It
wasn't anything that was included in the genealogical structure of the work,
even provisionally.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 13:13:30

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6u4nl$9ao$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
[Unknown to me last July, but reportedly emerging from the presentation
at
the annual general meeting of the FMG, the entirety of material relating
to
England is as yet unverified from primary sources - yet according to the
"factual" presentation of Phillips afterwards, this is among the sections
of
this project allegedly drawing from primary sources with most data
available.]

My understanding from the presentation was precisely as I posted - that
_Anglo-Saxon_ England was among those areas more fully covered

And this is confirmed by the online introduction:
"Much new information is contained in the documents which cover Germany,
the
northern half of France, the Italian Lombard kingdom and principalities,
and
the Anglo-Saxon kings and nobles."
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.pdf

Your information about the AGM seems to be incorrect. Where did it come
from?

Tim Powys-Lybbe's post of 7 June, as folllows:

"But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and would
much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of Edition 1
as that would delay him significantly. And he had firmly decided on a
recent policy change to enclose all non-primary-referenced items in square
brackets, presumably intending to implement this in Edition 2; in this
context he said (or I thought I heard him say) the whole of the English
material should be in square brackets."

You will surely note that I wrote "reportedly", because I was not present.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 13:21:50

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6u6pg$3tl$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
I am at a loss to know how useful it may be to be told that a count of
Macon
was married to his paternal grandmother's sister, or to read a conjecture
that two queens of Hungary might have been married to a modern historian
who
wrote about them. And these are two of the three "new discoveries"
highlighted by the author in his Introduction!

I think you have misunderstood. Surely this is not what he is referring to
in the Introduction as a "discovery". He is referring to the identity of
the
second wife of King Peter, isn't he?

I realise you are eager to ridicule the work, but in fairness it should be
pointed out that what you call a "conjecture" is actually a note about a
footnote he couldn't understand, and a query about its possible meaning.
It
wasn't anything that was included in the genealogical structure of the
work,
even provisionally.

There is absolutely NOTHING new in Cawley's work regarding the second wife
of King Peter Orseolo. He absurdly chooses to quote Annalista Saxo about the
matter, when the passage in question was lifted word for word from the
earlier and more proximate chronicle written by Cosmas of Prague - and that
is compromisingly included in Cawley's bibliography, yet not consulted on
this cardinal point of evidence given in it.

If you don't have the wherwithal to assess Cawley's work properly, or can't
be bothered doing so, why do you choose to bandy words about it?

The eagerness to ridicule is not on my part - I can substantiate everything
I have to say, unlike you who are clearly floundering.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 13:25:33

Peter Stewart wrote:
There is absolutely NOTHING new in Cawley's work regarding the second wife
of King Peter Orseolo.

Perhaps not, but I think it's clear that the identification of the second
wife was what he was highlighting in his Introduction, not the query about
"Lui von Frizberg".

If you don't have the wherwithal to assess Cawley's work properly, or
can't
be bothered doing so, why do you choose to bandy words about it?

I make no claim to be an expert in Hungarian genealogy, but at least I can
understand plain English.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 13:36:52

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6u6pg$3tl$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
I am at a loss to know how useful it may be to be told that a count of
Macon
was married to his paternal grandmother's sister, or to read a conjecture
that two queens of Hungary might have been married to a modern historian
who
wrote about them. And these are two of the three "new discoveries"
highlighted by the author in his Introduction!

I think you have misunderstood. Surely this is not what he is referring to
in the Introduction as a "discovery". He is referring to the identity of
the
second wife of King Peter, isn't he?

PS The single detail that Annalista Saxo adds to Cosmas of Prague is an
explicit statement of King Peter Orseolo's second wife's family, by
definitively naming her brother - yet this interesting detail is completely
overlooked by Cawley.

And he doesn't even manage to expound the very simple rationale for King
Peter's HAVING a first wife before her.

If he can't work these things out for himself, Phillips might do better to
curb his incontinent desire to criticise me over details, and wait for my
review of the Medieval Lands database.

Meanwhile he might tell us if he sticks to his original endorsement of this
in general, and why. This is not an order from me, but an imperative from
commonsense & honesty.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 13:39:30

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6u7or$thd$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
There is absolutely NOTHING new in Cawley's work regarding the second
wife
of King Peter Orseolo.

Perhaps not, but I think it's clear that the identification of the second
wife was what he was highlighting in his Introduction, not the query about
"Lui von Frizberg".

If you don't have the wherwithal to assess Cawley's work properly, or
can't
be bothered doing so, why do you choose to bandy words about it?

I make no claim to be an expert in Hungarian genealogy, but at least I can
understand plain English.

WRONG again, in plain English - the identity of the second wife is not and
NEVER HAS BEEN in question. Whether or not she really married him HAS been
questioned, but Cawley offers NOTHING new whatsoever on this issue.

You don't need to be an expert in Hungarian genealogy to have the sense to
shut up about what you don't know.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 13:52:41

Peter Stewart wrote:
You don't need to be an expert in Hungarian genealogy to have the sense to
shut up about what you don't know.

I think you are still missing the point.

I am pointing out to you that when Charles Cawley speaks in his introduction
of a discovery concerning "the wives of Peter Orseolo King of Hungary", it
is clear that he is referring to the information he has found in Annalista
Saxo concerning Peter's second marriage, and not to the query about "Lui von
Frizberg" as you claimed. The text makes it clear that he sees the
information about Judith as an addition to the information in the volume
edited by Wegener (but written by Tyroller according to you), and as
providing extra chronological information about the first marriage.

You have pointed out that this is not in fact new, but that doesn't change
the facts that he clearly thought it was, and that this is what he was
referring to in the Introduction.

I really think you need to calm down, stop flinging around insults and
posting in capital letters, and try to be objective about all this.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jun 2006 14:17:56

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6u9bo$b3t$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
You don't need to be an expert in Hungarian genealogy to have the sense
to
shut up about what you don't know.

I think you are still missing the point.

I am pointing out to you that when Charles Cawley speaks in his
introduction
of a discovery concerning "the wives of Peter Orseolo King of Hungary", it
is clear that he is referring to the information he has found in Annalista
Saxo concerning Peter's second marriage, and not to the query about "Lui
von
Frizberg" as you claimed. The text makes it clear that he sees the
information about Judith as an addition to the information in the volume
edited by Wegener (but written by Tyroller according to you), and as
providing extra chronological information about the first marriage.

You have pointed out that this is not in fact new, but that doesn't change
the facts that he clearly thought it was, and that this is what he was
referring to in the Introduction.

I really think you need to calm down, stop flinging around insults and
posting in capital letters, and try to be objective about all this.

Once again, this is rot - I am trying to get through to you that there is
NOTHING new in Calwey's account of Peter Orseolo's wives apart from the
absurdity about Lui von Frizburg.

No matter how much you resist this straightforward fact, it remains a fact.

The essential ponts are not even made by Cawley, but nothing newer than 1125
is adduced for the second wife.

It is you who need to calm down, and stop trying to manufacture quibbles out
of hot air. The _objective_ reality is that Cawley has done even worse with
Peter Orseolo of Hungary than he did with Otto II of Macon. He CANNOT have
read the primary and secondary sources he cited (NOT of the appropriate ones
for the relevant points in either case) and still have imagined that his
discussion of the second wife was a "new discovery".

How many times do you need to be advised to keep your total ignorance on
these matters to yourself? No wonder you made (and astonishingly continue to
make) a travesty of interpreting my straightforward advice to the FMG last
year.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 14:47:49

Peter Stewart wrote:
How many times do you need to be advised to keep your total ignorance on
these matters to yourself? No wonder you made (and astonishingly continue
to
make) a travesty of interpreting my straightforward advice to the FMG last
year.

OK. Once more.

All I am pointing out is that he is not referring in the Introduction to
what you claimed he was - "Lui von Frizberg". I am not saying any more or
less than that.

Do you agree, or not?

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jun 2006 22:06:32

Chris Phillips wrote:
This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy and
biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material.

Insufficient consideration has been given to the reliability of the
sources used. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was compiled in 891, yet it is
used as a primary source for events that supposedly happened four
centuries earlier. This fictional material has then been garnished with
the fanciful elaborations of mediaeval story tellers such as Henry of
Huntington.

The results are farcical. For example, we are told that Ælle landed in
Sussex in 477 with his three sons, one of whom supposedly died in 590,
making him in excess of 113 years old at the time of his death. How
probable is that? None of this is real: Cissa has been quarried out of
Chichester and his death date is stolen from Cealwin of Wessex.

An Ecgwald is introduced as a King of Sussex on the basis of S230
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=seek&query=S+230. But that
charter is a forgery concocted in the tenth century.

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 jun 2006 22:54:22

paulvheath@gmail.com wrote:
<<
Insufficient consideration has been given to the reliability of the
sources used. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was compiled in 891, yet it is
used as a primary source for events that supposedly happened four
centuries earlier. This fictional material has then been garnished with
the fanciful elaborations of mediaeval story tellers such as Henry of
Huntington.

The results are farcical. For example, we are told that Ælle landed in
Sussex in 477 with his three sons, one of whom supposedly died in 590,
making him in excess of 113 years old at the time of his death. How
probable is that? None of this is real: Cissa has been quarried out of
Chichester and his death date is stolen from Cealwin of Wessex.

Thanks for pointing out this error. It seems that obviously inconsistent
information has been accepted incautiously from very late sources here. I
shall pass on the details to the author.


<<
An Ecgwald is introduced as a King of Sussex on the basis of S230
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=seek&query=S+230. But that
charter is a forgery concocted in the tenth century.

Judging from the web page you cite, opinions have differed about the
authenticity of the charter, though the three most recent "votes" seem to be
against genuineness. Would you particularly recommend any of these opinions
to the author?

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 01:13:48

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6ucj3$1om$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
How many times do you need to be advised to keep your total ignorance on
these matters to yourself? No wonder you made (and astonishingly continue
to
make) a travesty of interpreting my straightforward advice to the FMG
last
year.

OK. Once more.

All I am pointing out is that he is not referring in the Introduction to
what you claimed he was - "Lui von Frizberg". I am not saying any more or
less than that.

Do you agree, or not?

Once more: there is nothing else besides the "Lui von Frizburg" nonsense in
the material on Peter Orseolo's wives that could conceivably be regarded as
"new". Consequently you are on a hiding to nothing with this failed defense
of Cawley.

However, it is an improvement that you are at least trying to address the
problems in specific terms.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 02:08:53

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0PHkg.10657$ap3.1231@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Once more: there is nothing else besides the "Lui von Frizburg" nonsense
in the material on Peter Orseolo's wives that could conceivably be
regarded as "new".

In fact, the discussion of Peter Orseolo's presumed first wife, the famous
Tuta regina, is markedly "old" precisely because Cawley had not found his
way to Lui von Frizburg's work.

If he had, he would have discovered some good reasons for concluding that
she was not the daughter of Heinrich I (Hesso) of Formbach after all, but
rather his siter-in-law of unknown family. If he had bothered to read
Szabolcs de Vajay on the subject, he would have come across the proposal
that she belonged either to the Babenberg family or to that of the
castellans of Regensburg.

This is not "new", dating from 1955 and 1962 respectively, but it is
certainly newer than the less plausible theory presented by Cawley.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 jun 2006 08:56:07

Peter Stewart wrote:
Once more: there is nothing else besides the "Lui von Frizburg" nonsense
in
the material on Peter Orseolo's wives that could conceivably be regarded
as
"new". Consequently you are on a hiding to nothing with this failed
defense
of Cawley.

Are you really saying you honestly believe that Charles Cawley was referring
in his Introduction to his noted query about what a "cryptic" footnote
meant, and presenting this as a major new discovery? Of course he couldn't
have considered that a new discovery - it was a footnote written in the
1960s! The idea is absolutely absurd.

He was clearly referring to the information he had found in a primary source
about the marriage to Judith, which he believed was new.

It's sheer nonsense to say it could not "conceivably" be regarded as new.
How many times on this newsgroup have we had discussions about facts people
have regarded as new discoveries, which have turned out not to be?

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 09:46:12

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e70cbj$1bl$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Once more: there is nothing else besides the "Lui von Frizburg" nonsense
in
the material on Peter Orseolo's wives that could conceivably be regarded
as
"new". Consequently you are on a hiding to nothing with this failed
defense
of Cawley.

Are you really saying you honestly believe that Charles Cawley was
referring
in his Introduction to his noted query about what a "cryptic" footnote
meant, and presenting this as a major new discovery? Of course he couldn't
have considered that a new discovery - it was a footnote written in the
1960s! The idea is absolutely absurd.

He was clearly referring to the information he had found in a primary
source
about the marriage to Judith, which he believed was new.

It's sheer nonsense to say it could not "conceivably" be regarded as new.
How many times on this newsgroup have we had discussions about facts
people
have regarded as new discoveries, which have turned out not to be?

O dear - if you WON'T be told, perhaps you can be shown. You are starting
from the false premise that Cawley is somehow not quite as deeply foolish as
he demonstrably is.

Cawley's full remarks on the second wife of Peter Orseolo are as follows:

"m [secondly] (Apr 1055) as her second husband, JUDITH von Schweinfurt,
widow of BRETISLAV I Duke of the Bohemians, daughter of HEINRICH von
Schweinfurt Markgraf auf dem Nordgau & his wife Gerberga [von Gleisberg]
([1010/15] [endnote 280: Her first child by her first marriage was born in
1031.]-2 Aug 1058, bur Prague St Veit). According to the Annalista Saxo,
Judith was expelled from Bohemia by her son Duke Spytihnev after his
father's death and married "Petri regi Ungariorum" to spite her son [endnote
281: AS 1058]. The marriage is not mentioned in Wegener, although he refers
cryptically to "Lui von Frizberg, I. Tuta Regina. II. Judith von
Schweinfurt" [endnote 282: Wegener, pp. 80 and 141 footnote 2, the latter
quoting a manuscript "Haus Frizberg (Post Wildon) 1955, S. 1-26"]. Should
this reference be interpreted to mean that Lui von Frizberg (to whom no
other reference has been found) married firstly (as her second husband) Tuta
von Formbach, and secondly (also as her second husband) Judith von
Schweinfurt?"

Now the only way that Cawley could imagine there is a "new discovery" here
apart from the risible stuff about Lui von Frizberg would be if he were
idiotic enough to suppose that no-one had read Annalista Saxo before him.
This is one of the major narrative sources of the time, and contains no
secret or undiscovered information. In fact, as I said earlier, it isn't
even the appropriate source for this, which came from Cosmas of Prague's
chronicle. The relevant passage was copied a decade or so later by the
annalist, word for word, adding to it only the name of Judith's brother that
Cawley has inexplicably failed to mention - so that I wonder if he even
looked at Annalist Saxo, or just found this cited in a secondary work
somewhere & copied the reference.

Just where do you suppose Cawley can have found the added details for which
he gives no source - "m [secondly] (Apr 1055)...", "Her first child by her
first marriage was born in 1031", "-2 Aug 1058, bur Prague St Veit" - if not
in secondary material that DOES include the marriage of Judith to Peter
Orseolo? Do you think he made up "Apr 1055" for the event out of thin air,
and this fabrication was his "new discovery"? He can't have got the detail
from Tyroller, misnamed Wegener, because he says the marriage is not
mentioned in that work: but this cannot mean it is "new" since the marriage
in April 1055 must be included in ES or wherever else Cawley found the
purported (and, of course, unsupported) dating for it.

Peter Stewart

So that leaves "Lui von Frizberg". Get over it.

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 jun 2006 10:14:18

Peter Stewart wrote:
Now the only way that Cawley could imagine there is a "new discovery" here
apart from the risible stuff about Lui von Frizberg would be if he were
idiotic enough to suppose that no-one had read Annalista Saxo before him.
This is one of the major narrative sources of the time, and contains no
secret or undiscovered information. In fact, as I said earlier, it isn't
even the appropriate source for this, which came from Cosmas of Prague's
chronicle.

That's plain silly. Don't you remember how many hundred times people on this
newsgroup have claimed new discoveries on the basis of published primary
sources?

It's certainly a lot more credible than that anyone would claim a new
discovery on the basis of a footnote in a work published in the 1960s, as
you are suggesting!


Just where do you suppose Cawley can have found the added details for
which
he gives no source - "m [secondly] (Apr 1055)...", "Her first child by her
first marriage was born in 1031", "-2 Aug 1058, bur Prague St Veit" - if
not
in secondary material that DOES include the marriage of Judith to Peter
Orseolo? Do you think he made up "Apr 1055" for the event out of thin air,
and this fabrication was his "new discovery"? He can't have got the detail
from Tyroller, misnamed Wegener, because he says the marriage is not
mentioned in that work: but this cannot mean it is "new" since the
marriage
in April 1055 must be included in ES or wherever else Cawley found the
purported (and, of course, unsupported) dating for it.

You have only to click a hyperlink to go to the account of her first
marriage, and you can see where most of the information comes from - it
comes from Cosmas of Prague, funnily enough, which is also cited there for
her marriage to King Peter.

The marriage is dated "after Jan 1055" in the section on Bohemia, which
suggests to me that the date given under Hungary is just an estimate, based
on the date of the death of her first husband, given as 10 January 1055.

At any rate, it's obvious that the date doesn't come from ES, because Cawley
makes the point that if King Peter's second marriage was in 1055, his first
wife "must have died many years before the "after 1070" which is suggested
by Europäische Stammtafeln".

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 10:21:50

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ojPkg.10923$ap3.3634@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

Cawley's full remarks on the second wife of Peter Orseolo are as follows:

"m [secondly] (Apr 1055) as her second husband, JUDITH von Schweinfurt,
widow of BRETISLAV I Duke of the Bohemians, daughter of HEINRICH von
Schweinfurt Markgraf auf dem Nordgau & his wife Gerberga [von Gleisberg]
([1010/15] [endnote 280: Her first child by her first marriage was born in
1031.]-2 Aug 1058, bur Prague St Veit). According to the Annalista Saxo,
Judith was expelled from Bohemia by her son Duke Spytihnev after his
father's death and married "Petri regi Ungariorum" to spite her son
[endnote 281: AS 1058]. The marriage is not mentioned in Wegener,
although he refers cryptically to "Lui von Frizberg, I. Tuta Regina. II.
Judith von Schweinfurt" [endnote 282: Wegener, pp. 80 and 141 footnote 2,
the latter quoting a manuscript "Haus Frizberg (Post Wildon) 1955, S.
1-26"]. Should this reference be interpreted to mean that Lui von
Frizberg (to whom no other reference has been found) married firstly (as
her second husband) Tuta von Formbach, and secondly (also as her second
husband) Judith von Schweinfurt?"

Now the only way that Cawley could imagine there is a "new discovery" here
apart from the risible stuff about Lui von Frizberg would be if he were
idiotic enough to suppose that no-one had read Annalista Saxo before him.
This is one of the major narrative sources of the time, and contains no
secret or undiscovered information. In fact, as I said earlier, it isn't
even the appropriate source for this, which came from Cosmas of Prague's
chronicle. The relevant passage was copied a decade or so later by the
annalist, word for word, adding to it only the name of Judith's brother
that Cawley has inexplicably failed to mention - so that I wonder if he
even looked at Annalist Saxo, or just found this cited in a secondary work
somewhere & copied the reference.

I checked the MGH SS edition that Cawleys lists in his bibliography, and
this suggests more strongly that he never looked it up for himself: the
relevant passage is printed in a smaller font, the conventional way to
indicate derivative text, and the source is clearly given in the margin
beside it as Cosmas. The chronicle of Cosmas of Prague is also listed by
Cawley as one of the primary sources he used, so that there would be no
excuse for his failure to find the original source in this instance if he
had actually looked at the page he cited in Annalista Saxo, under 1058.

And of course 1058 is not April 1055 anyway, so that Cawley obviously had
information from elsewhere. Sure enough, in ES I/1 table 88 the second
marriage of Judith is given, to Peter Orseolo king of Hungary, in April
1055.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 10:25:53

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e70cbj$1bl$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Once more: there is nothing else besides the "Lui von Frizburg" nonsense
in
the material on Peter Orseolo's wives that could conceivably be regarded
as
"new". Consequently you are on a hiding to nothing with this failed
defense
of Cawley.

Are you really saying you honestly believe that Charles Cawley was
referring
in his Introduction to his noted query about what a "cryptic" footnote
meant, and presenting this as a major new discovery? Of course he couldn't
have considered that a new discovery - it was a footnote written in the
1960s! The idea is absolutely absurd.

He was clearly referring to the information he had found in a primary
source
about the marriage to Judith, which he believed was new.

It's sheer nonsense to say it could not "conceivably" be regarded as new.
How many times on this newsgroup have we had discussions about facts
people
have regarded as new discoveries, which have turned out not to be?

We await the apologetic retraction by Phillips of his supercilious and
fatuous remarks above about my "absolutely absurd" idea and "sheer
nonsense", that prove to be correct.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 10:32:17

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e70h12$jjf$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Now the only way that Cawley could imagine there is a "new discovery"
here
apart from the risible stuff about Lui von Frizberg would be if he were
idiotic enough to suppose that no-one had read Annalista Saxo before him.
This is one of the major narrative sources of the time, and contains no
secret or undiscovered information. In fact, as I said earlier, it isn't
even the appropriate source for this, which came from Cosmas of Prague's
chronicle.

That's plain silly. Don't you remember how many hundred times people on
this
newsgroup have claimed new discoveries on the basis of published primary
sources?

It's certainly a lot more credible than that anyone would claim a new
discovery on the basis of a footnote in a work published in the 1960s, as
you are suggesting!

STILL you don't get it: how dense are you?

Cawley thought that "Wegener" didn't put two and two together, since he had
not included the marraige of either Judith or Tuta to Peter Orseolo but had
referred in a footnote to them both in connection with Lui von Frizburg. So
Cawley thought he was the first to twig to this double - or quadruple -
nexus of marriages.

That is why in his Introduction he highlighted "the wives of Peter Orseolo",
plural, as one of his "new discoveries", NOT just the second wife.

When it finally comes, your apology WILL be accepted.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 10:51:24

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e70h12$jjf$1@nntp.aioe.org...

<snip>

At any rate, it's obvious that the date doesn't come from ES, because
Cawley
makes the point that if King Peter's second marriage was in 1055, his
first
wife "must have died many years before the "after 1070" which is suggested
by Europäische Stammtafeln".

"Obvious"?

ES is perfectly capable of contradicting one table in another. Most readers
are sharp enough to work this out for themselves, let alone when claiming to
have made "new discoveries".

Even Cawley isn't perceptibly sillier than Chris Phillips on this matter.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 jun 2006 12:10:38

Peter Stewart wrote:
Cawley thought that "Wegener" didn't put two and two together, since he
had
not included the marraige of either Judith or Tuta to Peter Orseolo but
had
referred in a footnote to them both in connection with Lui von Frizburg.
So
Cawley thought he was the first to twig to this double - or quadruple -
nexus of marriages.

I'm sorry, but I still can't see that this makes any sense at all. Far from
giving any prominence at all to the query about the meaning of the footnote,
Cawley doesn't even incorporate "Lui von Frizberg" into the structure of the
database. There is no indication that he takes the suggested interpretation
seriously. It is clearly inconsistent with the rest of the information he
gives in the entry. Clearly he believes King Peter's first marriage ended
with the death of Tuta, and that Judith's second husband was Peter, not
"Lui".

Having said that, if the marriage of Peter and Judith is mentioned elsewhere
in ES, that means _all_ the marriages mentioned come from the secondary
literature, and it is difficult to see what the discovery is meant to be. I
don't see that this is any justification for your jumping to the most
damaging conclusion, when the appearances are so much against it.

As a matter of interest, which family is covered by the ES table, "ES I/1
table 88", in which the marriage is shown?

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 12:50:08

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e70no9$hqo$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Cawley thought that "Wegener" didn't put two and two together, since he
had
not included the marraige of either Judith or Tuta to Peter Orseolo but
had
referred in a footnote to them both in connection with Lui von Frizburg.
So
Cawley thought he was the first to twig to this double - or quadruple -
nexus of marriages.

I'm sorry, but I still can't see that this makes any sense at all. Far
from
giving any prominence at all to the query about the meaning of the
footnote,
Cawley doesn't even incorporate "Lui von Frizberg" into the structure of
the
database. There is no indication that he takes the suggested
interpretation
seriously. It is clearly inconsistent with the rest of the information he
gives in the entry. Clearly he believes King Peter's first marriage ended
with the death of Tuta, and that Judith's second husband was Peter, not
"Lui".

Having said that, if the marriage of Peter and Judith is mentioned
elsewhere
in ES, that means _all_ the marriages mentioned come from the secondary
literature, and it is difficult to see what the discovery is meant to be.
I
don't see that this is any justification for your jumping to the most
damaging conclusion, when the appearances are so much against it.

O blimey, this is flat dishonesty on your part if you are not a complete
moron: THERE IS NO OTHER CONCLUSION TO BE REACHED.

The ONLY matter covering BOTH WIVES of Peter Orseolo is the nonsense about
Lui von Frizberg. Cawley wrote of a "new discovery" regarding the "wives" of
Peter Orseolo.

I have shown you that the salient details about Judith of Schweinfurt APART
FROM the Lui von Frizberg cadenza, that is unique to Cawley, are given in
ES.

"April 1055" is NOT 1058 as in Annalista Saxo, who provides no warrant at
all for the earlier month and year. ES gives April 1055. That is where
Cawley found the date, and OF COURSE he knew that copying this marriage and
its purported timing from ES was not a "new discovery" of his own.

He remarked that "Wegener" (acutally Tyroller) had NOT GIVEN the marriages
of either Tuta or Judith to Peter Orseolo, then puzzled over the reference
to Lui von Frizberg indicated, as he thought, in sequential marriages with
each of these two ladies. Presumably he thought that Tuta might have been
divorced from one or other husband in order to marry again, as he was
perhaps "discovering", and apparently that Judith must have been too since
Cawley chooses to believe that Peter Orseolo outlived her (however, this is
a probable error in a Polish source, that he has not picked up on).

There is nowhere to scurry next over this: NOTHING that Cawley has to say in
the section about Tuta is new, indeed it has been out of date for more than
40 years, and NOTHING that he says about Judith is new in the Medieval Lands
account EXCEPT the bizarre howler about Lui von Frizberg THAT ALONE APPLIES
TO BOTH WIVES.

If you can't bring yourself to admit this plain, inescapable fact &
apologise, then kindly refrain from trying to lecture other people about
manners since you are no sort of gentleman, indeed you are a very stupid
and/or lying poltroon.

As a matter of interest, which family is covered by the ES table, "ES I/1
table 88", in which the marriage is shown?

Judith of Schweinfurt's own family.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 jun 2006 13:23:13

Peter Stewart wrote:
If you can't bring yourself to admit this plain, inescapable fact &
apologise, then kindly refrain from trying to lecture other people about
manners since you are no sort of gentleman, indeed you are a very stupid
and/or lying poltroon.

You can insult me just as much as you like, but I really do not believe that
Charles Cawley would highlight, as a "new discovery" resulting from a "Back
to Basics" approach concentrating on primary source material, a noted query
about the meaning of a footnote he didn't understand, from a work published
in the 1960s, when the suggested interpretation was not included even
provisionally in the structure of the database, and was clearly inconsistent
with the rest of his article on the family.

I am not _pretending_ I don't believe it. I just don't believe it, that's
all.

There is nowhere to scurry next over this: NOTHING that Cawley has to say
in
the section about Tuta is new, indeed it has been out of date for more
than
40 years, and NOTHING that he says about Judith is new in the Medieval
Lands
account EXCEPT the bizarre howler about Lui von Frizberg THAT ALONE
APPLIES
TO BOTH WIVES.

But the point is, as I've already pointed out at least half a dozen times,
the author did _not_ think that was new, because it came from a footnote in
a book published in the 1960s.

Do you not see how inconsistent your argument is? You argue that he could
not have been referring to Judith's marriage to Peter as a "discovery",
because it is in ES. But by exactly the same logic, he could not have been
referring to "Lui von Frizberg" because it is in Tyroller.

I can only guess what the explanation is, but presumably when he described
this as a new discovery, he had forgotten one of these facts.

It does not seem likely to me that he had forgotten that "Lui von Frizberg"
came from Tyroller, because it is right there in the article, and equally it
does not seem likely he would give it prominence as a discovery stemming
from his "Back to Basics" approach, because it didn't even come from a
primary source, because he acknowledged he wasn't even sure what it meant,
and because he therefore hadn't incorporated it into his database, even
provisionally.

Perhaps he had forgotten that Judith's marriage to Peter was in a different
table in ES? I don't know, but I find it a far more plausible explanation
than the assumption you are trying to force on everyone as a "plain,
inescapable fact".

(By the way, the reason that the Judith identification would affect both
wives is that it also implies a substantial correction to the ES chronology
for Tuta. Perhaps you missed this when I pointed it out before.)

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jun 2006 13:39:31

Dear Newsgroup ~

Since the discussion regarding the Cawley/Foundations database has
continued unabated here on the newsgroup, I decided give the database
yet another look to see if other sections of the database which I had
not yet examined might rise to anything credible by modern scholarly
standards. As such, I went through several additional sections of the
database tonight involving various English earldoms, several English
kings, and some Anglo-Norman families such as Gournay and Tony.

My overall impression of the Cawley/Foundations database can be
described in two words: utterly wretched. Moreover, as I went through
the database, the handling of the English material repeatedly reminded
me of Burke's Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages, which
work was published in 1883. While I personally like Burke's work, it
is obviously quite dated. One gets the decided impression, however,
that Mr. Cawley is completely unaware that what was acceptable content
back in 1883 is not at all acceptable in 2006. Be that as it may, once
one accepts this serious flaw, it becomes obvious that this work is
neither major, nor new, but only extremely dated material with a 2006
copyright slapped on it.

Lastly, and most telling of all, I saw no evidence or hint that Mr.
Cawley had even the slightest familiarity with medieval primary sources
for English families. I saw no flashes of insight, no probity, and no
depth. Although "new discoveries" were promised in Mr. Cawley's online
introduction, NONE whatsover were found in ANY section I examined.
Rather, I found section after section replete with errors, omissions,
half truths, and misstatements. As such, I believe this work is beyond
redemption and recommend its withdrawal.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 jun 2006 13:45:22

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Lastly, and most telling of all, I saw no evidence or hint that Mr.
Cawley had even the slightest familiarity with medieval primary sources
for English families.

Perhaps you didn't read my initial message, or various follow-ups, in which
it was pointed out that the post-Conquest sections for England are taken
from mainly secondary sources, and are not among those the author considers
well-documented.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 14:36:43

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e70s0c$7do$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
If you can't bring yourself to admit this plain, inescapable fact &
apologise, then kindly refrain from trying to lecture other people about
manners since you are no sort of gentleman, indeed you are a very stupid
and/or lying poltroon.

You can insult me just as much as you like, but I really do not believe
that
Charles Cawley would highlight, as a "new discovery" resulting from a
"Back
to Basics" approach concentrating on primary source material, a noted
query
about the meaning of a footnote he didn't understand, from a work
published
in the 1960s, when the suggested interpretation was not included even
provisionally in the structure of the database, and was clearly
inconsistent
with the rest of his article on the family.

I am not _pretending_ I don't believe it. I just don't believe it, that's
all.

Then more fool you - the blind prejudice you are demonstrating in favour of
Cawley's having commonsense and competence, in light of all you have been
told about his work since July 2005, is truly astonishing obtuseness.

There is nowhere to scurry next over this: NOTHING that Cawley has to
say
in
the section about Tuta is new, indeed it has been out of date for more
than
40 years, and NOTHING that he says about Judith is new in the Medieval
Lands
account EXCEPT the bizarre howler about Lui von Frizberg THAT ALONE
APPLIES
TO BOTH WIVES.

But the point is, as I've already pointed out at least half a dozen times,
the author did _not_ think that was new, because it came from a footnote
in
a book published in the 1960s.

And the point I have been making is that the book published in the 1960s
DIDN"T PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER the way Cawley imagines that he might have
done in his utterly absurd postulation about Lui von Frizberg AND THE WIVES
OF PETER ORSEOLO. "Wegener" in his view had only realised that these two
women were wives of Lui von Frizberg, and had NOT given them as wives of
Peter Orseolo. Combining the two streams of evidence and mistaken conjecture
was, in Cawley's warped and ignorant view of things, a "new discovery" on
his part. That is perfectly plain, cut & dried.

Do you not see how inconsistent your argument is? You argue that he could
not have been referring to Judith's marriage to Peter as a "discovery",
because it is in ES. But by exactly the same logic, he could not have been
referring to "Lui von Frizberg" because it is in Tyroller.

BUT Judith's marriage to Peter Orseolo is NOT in Tyroller. Cawley thought
that HE would have the credit of first putting these disparate elements
together into a "new discovery", presented interrogatively becasue he didn't
know enough German to be sure of himself.

I can only guess what the explanation is, but presumably when he described
this as a new discovery, he had forgotten one of these facts.

It does not seem likely to me that he had forgotten that "Lui von
Frizberg"
came from Tyroller, because it is right there in the article, and equally
it
does not seem likely he would give it prominence as a discovery stemming
from his "Back to Basics" approach, because it didn't even come from a
primary source, because he acknowledged he wasn't even sure what it meant,
and because he therefore hadn't incorporated it into his database, even
provisionally.

Perhaps he had forgotten that Judith's marriage to Peter was in a
different
table in ES? I don't know, but I find it a far more plausible explanation
than the assumption you are trying to force on everyone as a "plain,
inescapable fact".

You are trying to come up with any explanation that will satisfy your need
to go on trusting in the broken reed of Cawley's work.

(By the way, the reason that the Judith identification would affect both
wives is that it also implies a substantial correction to the ES
chronology
for Tuta. Perhaps you missed this when I pointed it out before.)

No I didn't. There is no such thing as "the Judith identification": from the
first source reporting her marriage to Peter Orseolo (Cosmas of Prague, who
was around 10 years old when this happened) there has been no question over
who she was, only about whether Cosmas is reliable on the matter.

The ES chronology for Tuta is inconsistent, but that is not the burden of
Cawley's "discovery". We know that Judith can't have married Peter until
after her first husband died in January 1055, so that Tuta (presumbably,
remembering that HER identification is not definite) was either dead or
divorced by then - but naturally this has been recognised for many centuries
now. Cawley is so ignorant about the evidence for Tuta, so incompetent at
reading German, and so lazy at checking things for himself, that he has made
a hash of the chronology, but this cannot be regarded as something
"discovered" about the wives anyway. Judith died in 1058, as Cosmas and
Annalista Saxo identically relate, so that obviously her marriage to Peter
fell between 1055 & 1058 and the previous wife was out of the way before
1059 or 1070. No-one could seriously propose this as a "new discovery".

All we know for sure is that Tuta founded Suben abbey in 1040, that she was
apparently married to Peter Orseolo before November/December 1046 (somebody
was, and she is the prime candidate), that it is most likely she was married
to him between October 1031 and August 1038 (forget Cawley's bumbling
analysis - the probability is that St Stephen and his Bavarian wife Gisela
arranged this marriage for his heir with a Bavarian noblewoman from a
powerful family), and that she was dead before 1055, perhaps soon after 1046
as a result of the privations inflicted on her and Peter after his downfall
(related by Hermannus Contractus, but again overlooked by Cawley who goes
off into a pointless disquisition about whether or not he left Hungary).

Cawley, pretending to familiarity with German and the relevant sources,
wrote: "Archbishop Eberhard (von Sulzbach) names "Tuta" (in a document dated
1153, more than a century after the events) as "die Gründerin von Suben,
Königin", and that in an even later document from the monastery she is
called "Königin von Ungarn", although it cannot be concluded from these
documents that she was queen at the date she founded the monastery."

This is misleading. The 1153 privilege of Archbishop Eberhard actually says
"Subensem ecclesiam a quadam regina Tuta nomine...primo fundatam" (Suben
abbey, first established by a certain queen named Tuta), which is not in
German and does indeed suggest that Tuta was a queen at the time of the
foundation: The "even later document" calling her "Tuota" and describing her
as regina Hungariae is actually not medieval and not "from the monastery"at
all, but a preface written by a German editor of the Suben abbey muniments
and published in 1765. This is not of any value as supporting evidence, but
probably correct as a guess (if that's what it was). Cawley has not taken
the trouble to get his thick head around the evidence, direct or indirect.
He has merely repeated ES and paraphrased from other secondary works for the
important points, apparently borrowing even the few ill-chosen and
ill-understood sources from other people's research.

Ludicrous and nonsensical as it is on Cawley's part, the only conclusion
available to be drawn is that he meant to bring the "Lui von Frizberg"
conjecture to attention as one of his "new discoveries".

There is no mystery about this: the man is totally incapable of doing the
work he set himself, has done it very badly, and doesn't know enough to
realise his own shortcomings. Phillips on the other hand has been told more
than enough to see all this, time & again, and yet refuses to acknowledge
it.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 14:37:59

Hear, hear. Well said.

Peter Stewart

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150547971.810377.77880@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

Since the discussion regarding the Cawley/Foundations database has
continued unabated here on the newsgroup, I decided give the database
yet another look to see if other sections of the database which I had
not yet examined might rise to anything credible by modern scholarly
standards. As such, I went through several additional sections of the
database tonight involving various English earldoms, several English
kings, and some Anglo-Norman families such as Gournay and Tony.

My overall impression of the Cawley/Foundations database can be
described in two words: utterly wretched. Moreover, as I went through
the database, the handling of the English material repeatedly reminded
me of Burke's Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages, which
work was published in 1883. While I personally like Burke's work, it
is obviously quite dated. One gets the decided impression, however,
that Mr. Cawley is completely unaware that what was acceptable content
back in 1883 is not at all acceptable in 2006. Be that as it may, once
one accepts this serious flaw, it becomes obvious that this work is
neither major, nor new, but only extremely dated material with a 2006
copyright slapped on it.

Lastly, and most telling of all, I saw no evidence or hint that Mr.
Cawley had even the slightest familiarity with medieval primary sources
for English families. I saw no flashes of insight, no probity, and no
depth. Although "new discoveries" were promised in Mr. Cawley's online
introduction, NONE whatsover were found in ANY section I examined.
Rather, I found section after section replete with errors, omissions,
half truths, and misstatements. As such, I believe this work is beyond
redemption and recommend its withdrawal.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 jun 2006 14:47:38

Peter Stewart wrote:
And the point I have been making is that the book published in the 1960s
DIDN"T PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER the way Cawley imagines that he might have
done in his utterly absurd postulation about Lui von Frizberg AND THE
WIVES
OF PETER ORSEOLO. "Wegener" in his view had only realised that these two
women were wives of Lui von Frizberg, and had NOT given them as wives of
Peter Orseolo. Combining the two streams of evidence and mistaken
conjecture
was, in Cawley's warped and ignorant view of things, a "new discovery" on
his part. That is perfectly plain, cut & dried.

So you keep saying. But in truth, you have no evidence for any of this
supposition about what you imagine might have been in Charles Cawley's mind.

Anyway, it occurs to me that there is a rather easy way of settling the
question. The next time I am in touch with him, I'll ask him what he meant.

Chris Phillips

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 17 jun 2006 14:57:35

In message of 17 Jun, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Lastly, and most telling of all, I saw no evidence or hint that Mr.
Cawley had even the slightest familiarity with medieval primary
sources for English families.

Perhaps you didn't read my initial message, or various follow-ups, in
which it was pointed out that the post-Conquest sections for England
are taken from mainly secondary sources, and are not among those the
author considers well-documented.

I think I have said before that I even remember Charles Crawley saying
that he was embarrassed to say that the English Lands section had no
research behind it. Further he said that with his new editorial style -
for the second edition, in all likelihood - he would put the whole of
it in square brackets to indicate this. Finally I even recollect him
asking for assistance in doing the English landowners.

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2006 15:03:14

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e710ul$bfl$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
And the point I have been making is that the book published in the 1960s
DIDN"T PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER the way Cawley imagines that he might have
done in his utterly absurd postulation about Lui von Frizberg AND THE
WIVES
OF PETER ORSEOLO. "Wegener" in his view had only realised that these two
women were wives of Lui von Frizberg, and had NOT given them as wives of
Peter Orseolo. Combining the two streams of evidence and mistaken
conjecture
was, in Cawley's warped and ignorant view of things, a "new discovery" on
his part. That is perfectly plain, cut & dried.

So you keep saying. But in truth, you have no evidence for any of this
supposition about what you imagine might have been in Charles Cawley's
mind.

Anyway, it occurs to me that there is a rather easy way of settling the
question. The next time I am in touch with him, I'll ask him what he
meant.

And you'll be fool enough to believe him, no doubt, or at least to say so,
as if he won't have even more compelling motive than you to scramble for
excuses.

You are giving the SGM community a most unedifying chance to see how little
intelligence and integrity you have when it comes to some obvious but
uncomfortable truths. This is the most disgraceful episode of futile &
self-interested denial that I can remember on the newsgroup, bar none.

So much for caring about medieval genealogy: clearly you place ignorant
pride before it.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jun 2006 16:14:48

Dear Newsgroup ~

With respect to the Cawley/Foundations database, I've noticed one other
problem which requires my comment. So far I've determined that Mr.
Cawley has added at least three corrections and additions to his
database which are either drawn from posts here on the newsgroup, or
from articles published in the FMG's own journal, Foundations. In none
of these instances, however, does Mr. Cawley give the person who found
this information credit or acknowledgement, nor does he cite the
Foundations article in question.

One case in point. In his section on the Fitz Alan/Arundel family
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH ... eldied1390),
Mr. Cawley provides the following information regarding the
identification of Alice de Arundel, wife of Stephen de Segrave:

"ALICE [Alasia] (-7 Feb 1340). Her existence is proved by (1) Calendar
of Inquisitiones post mortem[18] which states that the wardship of two
parts of a messuage in Upton, Shropshire was "in the hands of Alesia
the said Earl's daughter by his gift" and (2) the registers of
Chaucombe Priory[19] which note that Alice's brother Edmund Earl of
Arundel settled property on her and her husband Stephen de Segrave and
also give Alice's date of death. m STEPHEN de Segrave, son of JOHN de
Segrave Lord Segrave & his wife Christiane de Plessis (-before 12 Dec
1325, bur Chautcombe Priory)." END OF QUOTE.

The two sources Mr. Cawley cites for Alice de Arundel's identity are
given in his footnotes 18 and 19 as follows:

[18] Calendar of Inquisitiones post mortem Vol. 4, 1917, p. 53.

[19] Registers of Chaucombe Priory, abstract printed by Nichols
Miscellania Genealogica et Heraldica 5th Series 9 (1935-1937), p. 166.

Mr. Cawley appears to have lifted this information directly from one of
my earlier posts here on the newsgroup dated 2001, which post I've
copied below. If I am the source of the information, it would be nice
to be acknowledged by Mr. Cawley either by reference to my original
2001 post, or by reference to the Fitz Alan account in my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, published in 2004.

I should note that elsewhere Chris Phillips has referenced the same
information from my post on his website
(http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_segrave.shtml), which
database I'm certain that Mr. Cawley has seen. Mr. Phillips kindly
acknowledged me as the source of the Arundel-Segrave information.
Likewise, in his online database, Hal Bradley cited my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, as one of his sources of information for Alice de
Arundel.

Two further comments for Mr. Cawley. Since 2001, I've learned that
the names Alasia and Alesia are Latin forms of the given name, Alice,
in English records. They are not alternative spellings of this woman's
given name, although modern editors sometimes treat these forms as
such. Lastly, I believe Calendar of IPM's, vol. 4, was published in
1913, as I stated in my original post, not 1917 as stated in your
database quoted above.

I should hasten to add that it is not my purpose in this post of
accusing Mr. Cawley of intellectual theft. Rather, I'm simply advising
him that he should be more careful when citing another person's
research. I also recommend that he should spend more time
understanding the medieval Latin forms of English given names.
Finally, I urge that he be more careful when creating his bibliographic
citations to make sure that he gets the correct publication date, page
numbers, etc. Accuracy is difficult with bibliographic citations but
usually achievable. Even so, I find errors still creep in.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

From: Douglas Richardson
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2001 8:12 am
Email: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)

Dear Newsgroup:

The parentage of Alice (or Alesia) de Arundel, wife of Stephen de
Segrave, is not identified in the account of the Segrave family found
in Complete Peerage. However, as I stated in a post made earlier this
week, it appears she was a hitherto unnoticed daughter of Richard Fitz
Alan, Earl of Arundel, died 1302, by his wife, Alice (or Alesia) di
Saluzzo.

Proof of Alice's existence is found in Calendar of Inquisitions Post
Mortem, vol. 4 (1913), pg. which specifically states that the wardship
of two parts of a messuage in Upton, Shropshire was "in the hand of
Alesia the said earl's daughter by his gift."

Alice's maiden name is found in the Register of Chaucombe Priory, an
abstract of which is printed by Nichols. Miscellanea Genealogica et
Heraldica, 5th series, 9 (1935-1937), pp. 166 notes that Alice's
brother, Edmund, Earl of Arundel, settled property on Alice and her
husband, Stephen de Segrave [see also Calendar of IPM, 6 (1910): 429].

The property in question was the manor of Flecknoe (in Wolfhamcote),
co. Warwick, which property previously served as the maritagium of
Alice's great-grandmother, Maud de Verdun, daughter of Rohese de
Verdun. A record of the descent of Flecknoe from Nicholas de Verdun
down to John de Segrave, 4th Lord Segrave, is shown below. The
references cited show the ownership of Flecknoe as reflected in
contemporary sources.

1. Nicholas de Verdun [Reference: Book of Fees, vol. 1 (1920): 39].

2. Rohese de Verdun, married Theobald le Boteler [Reference: Book of
Fees, vol. 1 (1920), pp. 507].

3. Maud de Verdun, wife of John Fitz Alan, Baron of Clun and Oswestry,
Shropshire, died c. 1267 [Reference: Calendar IPM, 4 (1913), pg. 53].

4. John Fitz Alan, Baron of Clun and Oswestry, Shropshire, died 1272,
married Isabel de Mortimer.

5. Richard Fitz Alan, Knt., Earl of Arundel, died 1302, married Alice
(or Alesia) di Saluzzo [Reference: Calendar IPM, 4 (1913), pg. 53].

6. Alice (or Alesia) de Arundel, died 7 February 1340, married Stephen
de Segrave, 3rd Lord Segrave [References: Calendar IPM, 6 (1910): 429,
432].

7. John de Segrave, Knt., 4th Lord Segrave, died 1353, married
Margaret of Brotherton [References: Calendar IPM, 10 (1921): 108;
Ethel Stokes, Warwickshire Feet of Fines, 2 (1939), pp. 200-201].

Further reference to Alice, wife of Stephen de Segrave, may be found
in Index of Placita de Banco, 1327-1328 (PRO, London, Lists and
Indexes, No. 32) (repr. 1963) 1:88, 276; 2:693, 726. She died 7
February 1340, as per the Register of Chaucombe Priory. This date is
not given in Complete Peerage.

By way of her grandmother, Isabel de Mortimer, Alice de Arundel is
descended from Gladys Dhu, wife of Ralph de Mortimer, daughter of
Llywelyn ap Iowerth, Prince of North Wales. Alice's maiden name,
Arundel, reflects the fact that the Fitz Alan family changed their
name to Arundel during Alice's lifetime. I've provided a list of the
colonial immigrants who descend from Alice de Arundel below.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royalances...@msn.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2006 03:20:37

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:17716d384e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 17 Jun, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Lastly, and most telling of all, I saw no evidence or hint that Mr.
Cawley had even the slightest familiarity with medieval primary
sources for English families.

Perhaps you didn't read my initial message, or various follow-ups, in
which it was pointed out that the post-Conquest sections for England
are taken from mainly secondary sources, and are not among those the
author considers well-documented.

I think I have said before that I even remember Charles Crawley saying
that he was embarrassed to say that the English Lands section had no
research behind it. Further he said that with his new editorial style -
for the second edition, in all likelihood - he would put the whole of
it in square brackets to indicate this. Finally I even recollect him
asking for assistance in doing the English landowners.

Readers need to be wary of the claims even in this respect: the square
bracketing in sections that are supposedly better documented is highly
erratic, not to say inaccurate and deceptive.

Take the Peter Orseolo section again, that Cawley was pleased with enough to
single it out for readers' attention.

I quote: "PIETRO Orseolo ([Venice] [1010/15]- Székesfehérvár [30 Aug]
[1060], bur Pécs, St Peter's Cathedral)".

This indicates that Peter's birth in Venice and the date range 1010/15 for
this are not verified. Cawley immediately goes on to quote from Hermannus
Contractus that Peter was "de Venetia natum" (a native of Venice, or a
Venetian by birth). This might not be literally true, but since his father
was doge in Venice from 1009, and throughout the years from 1010 to 1015,
there is no apparent reason to doubt it.

The place of death is given unequivocally as Székesfehérvár, the royal
capital in Hungary, where several later sources say or imply that Peter was
kept as a prisoner and died. Cawley evidently accepts this as sound for his
death, but manufactures a specious doubt as to whether Peter lived out his
days after blinding in Hungary or went abroad. The only basis for this is
Cawley's misunderstanding of a Latin source.

He writes: "According to the Hildesheim Annals, he [King Peter] was expelled
from the country after he was blinded." Well, not quite - the statement that
Cawley cites but does not comprehend is: "Petrus rex Ungariorum a quodam
tyranno Pannonico captus et caccatus, ille qui eum expulerat regnare coepit"
(Peter king of the Hungarians was captured and mutilated by a certain
Pannonian (i.e. Magyar) despot, and this man who had expelled him began to
rule). The last part means only "expelled him [from his stead] and began to
rule [in his stead]". There is no good reason to insist that this meant
"expel him from his kingdom of Hungary" - "expulerat" could mean ejected
from his office, court or throne, not necessarily from his country. It is
hardly likely that Peter's opponents would have made the mistake of allowing
him to return to Germany when he had been restored by the emperor after
fleeing there earlier.

The Annales Altahenses maiores, that Cawley has not adduced for the point,
actually state that he was blinded IN CASE he should escape with his full
faculties into Germany and then cause renewed strife: "oculorum illum lumine
privaverant, quod nunquam regio nomini accidisse audierant, ne, si in regnum
Teutonicum sanus effugeret, inde sibi bellum recidivum et clades bellica
succresceret". According to Hermannus Contractus under 1046, Peter and his
then wife were kept short of food after he was blinded, "Petrum
regem.postremo oculis privant, et in quendam locum cum eadem coniuge sua
alendum deputant", which does not suggest an intention to let them go in a
hurry. Hermannus adds that Emperor Heinrich at the time had just set out
with a strong force into Italy and could not divert from this expedition in
spite of his chagrin at hearing of Peter's woes, "Quo comperto, rex
Heinricus, qui iam valido exercitu congregato in Italiam iter coeperat,
nimis indoluit; sed tamen coeptam expeditionem non deseruit".

Cawley misleadingly goes on to state: "The Annales Magdeburgenses also
record the expulsion of "Petrus Ungarariorum [sic] rex" after being captured
and blinded" but this is an example of his constant misuse of primary
sources: there is no "also" about it, the suggestion of independent evidence
in the Magdeburg annals is flatly wrong. The statement (MGH SS XVI 172) is
copied word for word from the annals of Saint Alban, Mainz (called Annales
Wirziburgenses, see MGH SS II 244 under 1047, overlooked by Cawley) that was
the original also of this section of the Hildesheim annals: "Petrus rex
Ungariorum a quodam tyranno Pannonico captus et cecatus, ille qui eum
expulerat regnare cepit".

The date given for Peter's death, 30 August, in enclosed in square brackets
despite being uncontested in the record. He occurs in the necrology of St
Emmeran at Regensburg on this date, as Cawley mentions, so why the
indication of doubt?

The year given in square brackets, 1060, is indeed dubious, yet not for the
reason that Cawley apparently thinks but has not bothered to expound. He
writes: "It is hard to be certain about the year of King Péter's death. It
does not appear, from the sources cited above, that he succumbed when he was
blinded, although the Annales Altahenses are silent on the point. Apart
from the report of his death in the Annales Cracoviensis, the only
subsequent reference to ex-king Péter is the Annalista Saxo's record of his
second marriage (see below) which, if correct, must have taken place after
Jan 1055". (NB As I have already explained, the "subsequent reference" was
by the younger contemporary Cosmas of Prague, NOT original to Annalista
Saxo. The extant Annales Cracoviensis were not contemporary with either of
these.)

Given the report from Crakow placing Peter's death in 1060, the reader would
be unable to account for Cawley's difficulty with the year since no contrary
evidence is offered. In fact, ES gives 1059 instead - following Szabolcs de
Vajay, whom Cawley has not troubled to read for this section.

Vajay considered, more-or-less on a hunch, that Peter probably died in 1059
because the Polish record he cited giving 1060 was inaccurate by a year or
so with other events in Hungary: for instance, according to Annales Capituli
Cracoviensis (MGH SS XIX 587, not cited by Vajay) Peter Orseolo's uncle St
Stephen died in 1039 ("Stephanus rex Hungarorum obiit"), whereas his death
really occurred in 1038. Vajay noted the similar discrepancy in Annales
Sandivogii (MGH SS XXIX 426), where Peter's death is also recorded under
1060, with St Stephen's placed in 1040. Both of these documents were
compiled centuries later. The entries for Peter and St Stephen have exactly
the same wording in both, as they were both derived from the same original,
the lost annals compiled at Crakow for the Polish rulers in the 11th
century. Although Vajay does not mention the point, it is worth noting that
the far more important Hungarian King Andras the Catholic died in 1060 and
does not appear (under his own name at least) in these Polish annals - there
seems very little likelihood that King Peter's death would be considered
noteworthy in Poland so many years after his downfall, whereas the death of
Andras I was certainly news all over Eastern Europe: consequently, the
identical records may both simply have been copied, accurately and perhaps
independently, from an original giving the wrong king's name under the right
year. This is the only substantial reason to doubt 1060, but Cawley has no
idea of it.

For King Peter's first wife, Cawley writes: "m [firstly] TUTA [von Formbach,
daughter of HEINRICH [Hesso] I Graf & his wife Himiltrud ---] (-14 Mar
[after 1070])".

Note that the only detail NOT enclosed in square brackets is the date of her
death, "14 March". This flatly contradicts the primary source given by
Cawley below, as follows: "The existence of a "Queen Tuta" is confirmed by
the necrology of Regensburg Monastery which records the death "IV Non Feb"
of "Tuta regina"". 2 February is NOT 14 March. Once again, Cawley has been
misled by ES, his true source that is far from being a primary one,
following Szabolcs de Vajay.

Vajay wrongly identified the name Tuta as a variant of Judith (it isn't, but
rather of Doda) and then linked Peter's wife Tuta with the Queen Judith who
died on 14 March. But the record cited for this in the necrology of St
Emmeram at Regensburg refers instead to the wife of King Salman of Hungary,
later second wife of Duke Wladyslaw Herman of Poland, who was daughter of
Emperor Heinrich III and Agnes of Poitou. Vajay sought to correct Gombos on
this, and has been accepted by almost everyone since, but he was mistaken.
The point is clarified in the necrology of Speyer cathedral (Overham codex),
where the family of Queen Judith is spelled out "Pridie. 2. Idus
Martii...Iudita regina, Agnetis imperatricis filia, obiit". All the
countless secondary sources giving 14 March for Tuta's death are wrong, and
Cawley is one of the more peculiar of these in that he actually gives the
right date but promptly ignores it.

By the way, Chris Phillips is apparently cowering in the long grass today,
but he might like to give us his take on the following:

In the Introduction Cawley says: 'The "back-to-basics" approach to source
material...has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many
challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By
way of example, browse for...the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary'.

The ONLY proposal relating to BOTH WIVES of Peter Orseolo AND TO THE
TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTEED FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS is the nonsensical suggestion
about Lui von Frizberg. Anyone having tried & failed to argue against this,
with insults directed at another, and who is not a low fool or a liar would
admit as much now, without deferring for consultation with the man who wrote
himself into this partricular tight corner.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2006 03:33:38

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:VL2lg.11274$ap3.3653@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>

For King Peter's first wife, Cawley writes: "m [firstly] TUTA [von
Formbach, daughter of HEINRICH [Hesso] I Graf & his wife Himiltrud ---]
(-14 Mar [after 1070])".

For the benefit of Phillips, I should add that the ONLY reason Cawley could
have for preferring to place Tuta's doubtful year of death "[after 1070]",
when her husband remarried soon after January 1055, is his idea that Tuta
might have lived on, being remarried to Lui von Frizberg.

There is simply NO rationale for her surviving beyond 1055 except for this,
IF the marriage of Peter to Judith is accepted. Cawley found "after 1070" in
a secondary source that did NOT include the second marriage of Peter, and
kept it despite contrary indications because of his absurd "new discovery"
that alone could make it appear plausible to him.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 09:17:34

Peter Stewart wrote:
By the way, Chris Phillips is apparently cowering in the long grass today,
but he might like to give us his take on the following:

As I have already said, I will ask Charles Cawley what he was referring to,
so the continued speculation on your part is rather superfluous.

Chris Phillips

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 18 jun 2006 09:37:13

In message of 18 Jun, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:17716d384e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 17 Jun, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Lastly, and most telling of all, I saw no evidence or hint that Mr.
Cawley had even the slightest familiarity with medieval primary
sources for English families.

Perhaps you didn't read my initial message, or various follow-ups, in
which it was pointed out that the post-Conquest sections for England
are taken from mainly secondary sources, and are not among those the
author considers well-documented.

I think I have said before that I even remember Charles Crawley saying
that he was embarrassed to say that the English Lands section had no
research behind it. Further he said that with his new editorial style -
for the second edition, in all likelihood - he would put the whole of
it in square brackets to indicate this. Finally I even recollect him
asking for assistance in doing the English landowners.

Readers need to be wary of the claims even in this respect: the square
bracketing in sections that are supposedly better documented is highly
erratic, not to say inaccurate and deceptive.

Yes, Charles Crawley said that these square brackets were a new policy
and that it was not followed, save in one or two instances, in the first
edition.

What I suspect we are seeing in the first edition is in fact two
entirely separate stages. First there is this non-referenced and
non-researched account of everyone which you have identified to be
taken from ES (I daren't try to spell this freehand); this propbably
pre-dates the second stage by a large margin. The second stage is to
re-do the whole thing from some near-primary sources which happen mostly
to be those documents which are available on-line. Probably it was
soon found that the second stage did not fit well inside the structure
of the first stage and so the whole thing was abandoned. Unfortunately
the introduction refers to the second stage and does not account for
this first stage, causing serious confusion.

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2006 09:38:42

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e731vn$31a$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
By the way, Chris Phillips is apparently cowering in the long grass
today,
but he might like to give us his take on the following:

As I have already said, I will ask Charles Cawley what he was referring
to,
so the continued speculation on your part is rather superfluous.

It's not "speculation" but the inescapable exposition of what he said and
what he meant.

And I've already said it will have no value to anyone who isn't as foolish &
churlish as you if Cawley denies what he said and what he inescapably meant.

An apology delayed is an apology diminished.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 12:04:52

Peter Stewart wrote:
It's not "speculation" but the inescapable exposition of what he said and
what he meant.

An opinion doesn't become a fact through being repeated over and over again.

I don't find your view at all plausible, for the reasons I have explained a
number of times. It's obvious you find it difficult to tolerate people
having different views from yours, but in this case you'll just have to put
up with it, at least for the time being.

As I have said, I shall ask Charles Cawley "what he meant", and then we
shall know who is right.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2006 12:12:01

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:5ff2d3384e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 18 Jun, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:17716d384e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 17 Jun, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Lastly, and most telling of all, I saw no evidence or hint that Mr.
Cawley had even the slightest familiarity with medieval primary
sources for English families.

Perhaps you didn't read my initial message, or various follow-ups, in
which it was pointed out that the post-Conquest sections for England
are taken from mainly secondary sources, and are not among those the
author considers well-documented.

I think I have said before that I even remember Charles Crawley saying
that he was embarrassed to say that the English Lands section had no
research behind it. Further he said that with his new editorial style -
for the second edition, in all likelihood - he would put the whole of
it in square brackets to indicate this. Finally I even recollect him
asking for assistance in doing the English landowners.

Readers need to be wary of the claims even in this respect: the square
bracketing in sections that are supposedly better documented is highly
erratic, not to say inaccurate and deceptive.

Yes, Charles Crawley said that these square brackets were a new policy
and that it was not followed, save in one or two instances, in the first
edition.

What I suspect we are seeing in the first edition is in fact two
entirely separate stages. First there is this non-referenced and
non-researched account of everyone which you have identified to be
taken from ES (I daren't try to spell this freehand); this propbably
pre-dates the second stage by a large margin. The second stage is to
re-do the whole thing from some near-primary sources which happen mostly
to be those documents which are available on-line. Probably it was
soon found that the second stage did not fit well inside the structure
of the first stage and so the whole thing was abandoned. Unfortunately
the introduction refers to the second stage and does not account for
this first stage, causing serious confusion.

Perhaps so - except that it's the second stage that has been so badly done.

Cawley is no doubt competent to copy from ES into his chosen format,
identified as the first stage, but then who wouldn't be?

I can't see why it should be difficult then to substantiate and/or amend the
relationships & details from primary sources in this structure that after
all was (well-) devised for narrative elaborations with footnotes, although
obviously this is more than a lifetime's work for such a vast number &
spread of lineages.

The problems are all in the methodology: Cawley is not expert in the various
lands and families that he covers, not in all of them & quite obviously not
in any of them. Again, this should not be a particular problem because skill
in identifying, reading and extracting from primary sources became the main
requirement when he chose to do the work without getting up to speed &
keeping there with secondary literature. I would find the result a
worthwhile starting point for discussion, consultation & gradual improvement
if only this had been done adequately to the preliminary stage now reached.

However, the entire project has been fatally undermined as it progressed so
far, due to the inability of Cawley to understand Latin texts, and to find &
evaluate the appropriate ones in the first place. He wasn't limited to
online resources, as he used the IHR library. Moreover, in many important
cases he didn't bother to use the best editions available online, something
that Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project also suffers from (but to a _far_
lesser degree).

The fact that at the end of four years exertion Cawley was capable of
drawing attention to his howling errors over Otto II of Macon and Peter
Orseolo, while still pretentiously claiming that the scrappy work amounts to
a "prosopography" of the ruling class in geographic areas, strongly
indicates that he has learned next-to-nothing to date, and consequently that
in all probability he never will.

Still it would be acceptable as a demonstration of what an untutored amateur
might come up with after a lot of work done in earnest, if only the author
and others involved in the presentation had taken the advice that the FMG
asked for last year, and set their ambitions to win credit in proportion to
the meagre & unscholarly product they were touting. Instead they came out
with trumpets blaring about a "major new resource", "back-to-basics"
reconstruction from primary sources and all the rest of the rubbish we have
heard.

And then having the grace & good sense to accept trenchant criticism, rather
than call it "plain silly" or "absolutely absurd" to point out the
inexorable truth about Cawley's follies, might have lessened their
humiliation. But no, Phillips in his overwheening self-estimate can "guess"
at a better explanation that he won't tell us, in a subject about which he
clearly knows nothing & thinks even less.

I can't see where any sympathy is deserved in this sorry episode. The best
outcome for now would be for the database to be withdrawn, as Douglas
Richardson and I have suggested, while help is invited privately for a
second edition (or rather a second start from scratch) if they want to try
again. I doubt that anyone who could help to achieve what they are aiming
for would wish to be involved, but the longer they go on exposing the
travesty to public view the less likely it is that knowledgeable people will
volunteer to associate themselves with Medieval Lands, or with the FMG.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2006 12:33:53

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e73bpc$psb$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
It's not "speculation" but the inescapable exposition of what he said and
what he meant.

An opinion doesn't become a fact through being repeated over and over
again.

It has not been repeated, it has been amplified and augmented from different
angles because you (alone) fail to recognise the obvious.

I don't find your view at all plausible, for the reasons I have explained
a
number of times. It's obvious you find it difficult to tolerate people
having different views from yours, but in this case you'll just have to
put
up with it, at least for the time being.

You haven't explained anything, apart from you view that the single
logically admissable interpretation of Cawley's own words is "plain silly"
and "absolute nonsense".

As I have said, I shall ask Charles Cawley "what he meant", and then we
shall know who is right.

Only if he admits what must be true.

Has it not yet occurred to you that the "Lui von Frizberg" absurdity would
be hardly any less gross if the Introduction pointing to it didn't even
exist?

The idiocy & incompetence are staggering in someone who pretends to have
consulted dozens of German works, and even scatters his narratives with
German for verisimilitude. This has got nothing to do with the
Introduction - all that adds to the embarrassment Cawley and you ought to be
feeling now is the extra sting of his having boasted about a howler.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 12:44:53

Peter Stewart wrote:
This has got nothing to do with the
Introduction - all that adds to the embarrassment Cawley and you ought to
be
feeling now is the extra sting of his having boasted about a howler.

I have made it clear to you several times that _all_ I was arguing was that
I did not believe he was referring to "Lui von Frizberg" in the
Introduction.

That is the only point at issue. And it can easily be settled, by asking the
author what he was referring to.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2006 13:01:47

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e73e4f$b5v$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This has got nothing to do with the
Introduction - all that adds to the embarrassment Cawley and you ought to
be
feeling now is the extra sting of his having boasted about a howler.

I have made it clear to you several times that _all_ I was arguing was
that
I did not believe he was referring to "Lui von Frizberg" in the
Introduction.

But why is such a small additional ineptitude worth your arguing over, as if
there is something to be gained? Do you think it helps if Cawley was
absent-mindedly forgetting or actually unaware there is nothing new in the
Peter Orseolo section when he pointed to this?

You really are making a prize fool of yourself over what is in the remarks
at issue, that are not debatable anyway, apparently just to avoid coming to
grips with the enormity of the misstatements in the rest of the
Introduction.

That is the only point at issue. And it can easily be settled, by asking
the
author what he was referring to.

Yes, if he is truthful - and that will leave you in an even more invidious
position from having so brazenly resisted the inevitable.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 13:10:12

Peter Stewart wrote:
But why is such a small additional ineptitude worth your arguing over, as
if
there is something to be gained?

You are the one who is posting message after message after message about it!

I keep telling you, in every message, that it's a waste of time to keep
arguing about it when the issue can easily be settled by asking the author.
Please stop, by all means.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2006 13:46:20

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e73fju$pal$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
But why is such a small additional ineptitude worth your arguing over, as
if
there is something to be gained?

You are the one who is posting message after message after message about
it!

I keep telling you, in every message, that it's a waste of time to keep
arguing about it when the issue can easily be settled by asking the
author.
Please stop, by all means.

Of course, I should stop before you do.

For everyone else but you the matter is settled already by the only logical
conclusion, that I have expounded with proofs.

I go on responding to your stone-walling and pig-headedness because every
kind of falsehood & complicity in falsehood need to be exposed in this field
if the study of medieval genealogy - one peculiarly open to frauds - is to
improve.

By carrying on with this nonsense and by not admitting that you misspoke
badly in advocating a "major new resource" to the newsgroup you are neatly &
repeatedly showing yourself not to be worthy of the unquestioning trust that
some SGM readers have placed in your intelligence & integrity.

If they are more circumspect from now on in attending to your posts and in
using your website and the FMG's, that is a worthwhile outcome.

Peter Stewart

Tony Ingham

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 18 jun 2006 14:47:02

Douglas Richardson,

How audacious of you to accuse Mr. Crawley of a lack of probity,
especially as you were talking of mediaeval primary sources in the same
breath.

You declined to use primary sources in your publications after being
advised many, many months before publication that your data was flawed
in several pedigrees. I assumed it was probably due to your lack of
familiarity with primary sources which precluded you from taking 30
minutes to prove that the primary sources which I quoted to you were in
fact accurate. But alas, here we have a self proclaimed expert in
primary sources having a go at Mr. Crawley.

I have no interest in Mr. Crawley's work or his perceived lack of
'flashes of insight' and 'probity'. I do, however, deplore the fact that
you of all people would dare to publicly criticize him.

You say :

I found section after section replete with errors, omissions, half truths, and misstatements.


Funny about that I had a similar problem with your works.

Tony Ingham









Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~



Lastly, and most telling of all, I saw no evidence or hint that Mr.
Cawley had even the slightest familiarity with medieval primary sources
for English families. I saw no flashes of insight, no probity, and no
depth. Although "new discoveries" were promised in Mr. Cawley's online
introduction, NONE whatsover were found in ANY section I examined.
Rather, I found section after section replete with errors, omissions,
half truths, and misstatements. As such, I believe this work is beyond
redemption and recommend its withdrawal.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net



Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 jun 2006 15:33:39

Peter Stewart wrote:
By carrying on with this nonsense and by not admitting that you misspoke
badly in advocating a "major new resource" to the newsgroup you are neatly
&
repeatedly showing yourself not to be worthy of the unquestioning trust
that
some SGM readers have placed in your intelligence & integrity.

If you are going to go on and on about this, you might at least manage to
quote me accurately, particularly considering what I wrote is staring you in
the face as the subject line of this thread.

I have lost count of the number of times that I've explained to you that my
announcement was intended to be a factual description of Charles Cawley's
work, not a comment on its accuracy either way.

If there is a factual error there, please point it out. If you can't do
that, please look to your own integrity rather than trying to attack mine by
smear and innuendo.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 00:31:22

Chris Phillips wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
By carrying on with this nonsense and by not admitting that you misspoke
badly in advocating a "major new resource" to the newsgroup you are neatly
&
repeatedly showing yourself not to be worthy of the unquestioning trust
that
some SGM readers have placed in your intelligence & integrity.

If you are going to go on and on about this, you might at least manage to
quote me accurately, particularly considering what I wrote is staring you in
the face as the subject line of this thread.

I have lost count of the number of times that I've explained to you that my
announcement was intended to be a factual description of Charles Cawley's
work, not a comment on its accuracy either way.

If there is a factual error there, please point it out. If you can't do
that, please look to your own integrity rather than trying to attack mine by
smear and innuendo.

Chris Phillips

I'll leave your name attached to your own blatant lie.

What do you imagine people will think when you challenge my integrity
for saying that you advocated a "major new resource" to the newsgroup
"particularly considering what I [Phillips] wrote is staring you in the
face as the subject line of this thread"?

YOU are responsible for the subject line of this thread, and it is
'Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"'. If you are seriously
trying to imply that leaving out the word "online" amounts to "smear
and innuendo" (when in any case my comments have been extremely frank &
forthright from the start), while maintaining that the headline
description of Medieval Lands as a "major new online resource" was
simply factual and not an endorsement, then you are either barmy or the
most incompetent liar I have come across.

As I have said several times, this is the most disgraceful episode of
hypocrisy and wishful denial of the obvious that I can recall on SGM.
You have degraded yourself in front of everyone for the sake of
clinging to your dishonest presentation of a product that I advised you
11 months ago to be nothing like the claims made for it.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 00:32:02

Chris Phillips wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
By carrying on with this nonsense and by not admitting that you misspoke
badly in advocating a "major new resource" to the newsgroup you are neatly
&
repeatedly showing yourself not to be worthy of the unquestioning trust
that
some SGM readers have placed in your intelligence & integrity.

If you are going to go on and on about this, you might at least manage to
quote me accurately, particularly considering what I wrote is staring you in
the face as the subject line of this thread.

I have lost count of the number of times that I've explained to you that my
announcement was intended to be a factual description of Charles Cawley's
work, not a comment on its accuracy either way.

If there is a factual error there, please point it out. If you can't do
that, please look to your own integrity rather than trying to attack mine by
smear and innuendo.

Chris Phillips

I'll leave your name attached to your own blatant lie.

What do you imagine people will think when you challenge my integrity
for saying that you advocated a "major new resource" to the newsgroup
"particularly considering what I [Phillips] wrote is staring you in the
face as the subject line of this thread"?

YOU are responsible for the subject line of this thread, and it is
'Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"'. If you are seriously
trying to imply that leaving out the word "online" amounts to "smear
and innuendo" (when in any case my comments have been extremely frank &
forthright from the start), while maintaining that the headline
description of Medieval Lands as a "major new online resource" was
simply factual and not an endorsement, then you are either barmy or the
most incompetent liar I have come across.

As I have said several times, this is the most disgraceful episode of
hypocrisy and wishful denial of the obvious that I can recall on SGM.
You have degraded yourself in front of everyone for the sake of
clinging to your dishonest presentation of a product that I advised you
11 months ago to be nothing like the claims made for it.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 19 jun 2006 07:47:18

Peter Stewart wrote:
I'll leave your name attached to your own blatant lie.
....
If you are seriously
trying to imply that leaving out the word "online" amounts to "smear
and innuendo" (when in any case my comments have been extremely frank &
forthright from the start), while maintaining that the headline
description of Medieval Lands as a "major new online resource" was
simply factual and not an endorsement, then you are either barmy or the
most incompetent liar I have come across.

Of course I was not talking about your _misquotation_ as "smear and
innuendo" (though obviously the word you repeatedly omitted was
significant).

I was talking about the fact that you keep implying that what I said is
untrue, when it is a simple factual statement about the scope and extent of
the database, as the dictionary definition shows. As I have repeatedly
pointed out, my initial post here was an attempt to describe the database
factually, with no comment either way about its accuracy.

I have been responding to your stream of vitriolic personal attacks and
insults with as much patience as I've been able to muster, but we all have
our limits. I've reached my limit, and I just don't have the patience to
continue responding politely while you keep insulting me. Obviously it was a
mistake to try. I should have ignored you from the start.

So I am not going to post any more here on this subject. It's very sad that
it's no longer possible to take part in discussions here without being
called a liar and a hundred other names, and I must admit I don't have much
appetite for any further participation in this forum. But I'll think about
that.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 09:31:02

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e75h2c$p8g$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
I'll leave your name attached to your own blatant lie.
...
If you are seriously
trying to imply that leaving out the word "online" amounts to "smear
and innuendo" (when in any case my comments have been extremely frank &
forthright from the start), while maintaining that the headline
description of Medieval Lands as a "major new online resource" was
simply factual and not an endorsement, then you are either barmy or the
most incompetent liar I have come across.

Of course I was not talking about your _misquotation_ as "smear and
innuendo" (though obviously the word you repeatedly omitted was
significant).

Online? A resource is a resource, however it is accessed. The files were
offered by you for download - once printed these are in hard copy and no
longer online. Does that mean they cease to be a "major resource"?

I was talking about the fact that you keep implying that what I said is
untrue, when it is a simple factual statement about the scope and extent
of
the database, as the dictionary definition shows. As I have repeatedly
pointed out, my initial post here was an attempt to describe the database
factually, with no comment either way about its accuracy.

So you are now saying that by "major" you meant only "relatively big"? And
yet you failed to clarify this absurdity during a week of bitter
controversy? No, plain as a pikestaff this is just more opportunistic
dishonesty on your part. I have posted already today exposing each separate
falsehood in your original remarks. Answer that, in equally specific terms,
if you can.

I have been responding to your stream of vitriolic personal attacks and
insults with as much patience as I've been able to muster, but we all have
our limits. I've reached my limit, and I just don't have the patience to
continue responding politely while you keep insulting me. Obviously it was
a
mistake to try. I should have ignored you from the start.

But you can't ignore me because I have insistently posted with substantial,
and openly substantiated, criticism. The insults were all provoked by your
hypocrisy and dishonesty, and were specific to each provocation. The record
is there for you or anyone else to check this, and as I said earlier to
Merilyn if anyone can show that I have spoken out of turn, that an insult
was unwarranted, I will withdraw it & apologise. Your assertions of
untouchability don't cut it.

So I am not going to post any more here on this subject. It's very sad
that
it's no longer possible to take part in discussions here without being
called a liar and a hundred other names, and I must admit I don't have
much
appetite for any further participation in this forum. But I'll think about
that.

I hope you will think more efficiently & sensibly than you have been doing
so far on this topic, or over the past 11 months about the Medieval Lands
database.

The refain you have been harping on is basically that of the Pharisee, "I
Chris Phillips cannot be wrong, cannot do wrong, and therefore any
suggestion that I have bungled & lied must be a smear from someone with
another agenda that I don't understand".

The fact - not my opinion, but demonstrable - that you carefully edit away
some of the most difficult or compromising points & fail to answer these,
while consistently quoting back other people's remarks and your own out of
context, in order to twist these to suit yourself, is enough to warrant the
observations I have made on your integrity.

I on the other hand have given specific reasons to back up everything I have
said about Cawley, the FMG and you. It is open to you to offer disproof of
anything & everything I have said: and you haven't managed to do this even
once, on even the most minor (i.e. relatively less important, not less big)
point.

SGM will lose nothing but a passenger if you do depart.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 09:43:11

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ahtlg.11890$ap3.4133@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip - addressed to Chris Phillips>

SGM will lose nothing but a passenger if you do depart.

But be sure not to go away before you pass on Charles Cawley's version of
his "new discovery" regarding Peter Orseolo's wives.

I'm sure the readers of SGM would prefer not to think that this is a ploy to
get out before you have no choice but to admit your were wrong & apologise.

Peter Stewart

Matt Tompkins

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 19 jun 2006 11:41:17

Chris Phillips wrote:

I have been responding to your stream of vitriolic personal attacks and
insults with as much patience as I've been able to muster, but we all have
our limits. I've reached my limit, and I just don't have the patience to
continue responding politely while you keep insulting me. Obviously it was a
mistake to try. I should have ignored you from the start.

So I am not going to post any more here on this subject. It's very sad that
it's no longer possible to take part in discussions here without being
called a liar and a hundred other names, and I must admit I don't have much
appetite for any further participation in this forum. But I'll think about
that.


I have never seen a post from Chris that did not show him to be a very
knowledgeable, immensely decent, honest and gentlemanly list member who
has never strayed from discussion of the genealogical/historical points
in debate to indulge in personal attacks.

It's a great pity he has had to endure such a stream of abuse from a
man who is clearly only one of those things.

Matt Tompkins

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 13:28:21

"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1150713676.941472.146530@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Chris Phillips wrote:

I have been responding to your stream of vitriolic personal attacks and
insults with as much patience as I've been able to muster, but we all
have
our limits. I've reached my limit, and I just don't have the patience to
continue responding politely while you keep insulting me. Obviously it
was a
mistake to try. I should have ignored you from the start.

So I am not going to post any more here on this subject. It's very sad
that
it's no longer possible to take part in discussions here without being
called a liar and a hundred other names, and I must admit I don't have
much
appetite for any further participation in this forum. But I'll think
about
that.


I have never seen a post from Chris that did not show him to be a very
knowledgeable, immensely decent, honest and gentlemanly list member who
has never strayed from discussion of the genealogical/historical points
in debate to indulge in personal attacks.

It's a great pity he has had to endure such a stream of abuse from a
man who is clearly only one of those things.

Ah yes, the waffle defense. I wondered how long that would take to appear.

If there is any more to your thinking than stodgy confection, please do
Phillips a favour and explain to the rest of us how the comments above apply
to his original post introducing the Medieval Lands database, given what you
now know about the advice he had received last year, and to his insistence
on an inadmissable rationale (that he can't explain) regarding Peter
Orseolo's wives.

Or have you just posted something that you would like to believe, & go on
believing, in spite of the evidence?

Peter Stewart

RJM

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av RJM » 19 jun 2006 15:24:54

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1150713676.941472.146530@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Chris Phillips wrote:

I have been responding to your stream of vitriolic personal attacks and
insults with as much patience as I've been able to muster, but we all
have
our limits. I've reached my limit, and I just don't have the patience to
continue responding politely while you keep insulting me. Obviously it
was a
mistake to try. I should have ignored you from the start.

So I am not going to post any more here on this subject. It's very sad
that
it's no longer possible to take part in discussions here without being
called a liar and a hundred other names, and I must admit I don't have
much
appetite for any further participation in this forum. But I'll think
about
that.


I have never seen a post from Chris that did not show him to be a very
knowledgeable, immensely decent, honest and gentlemanly list member who
has never strayed from discussion of the genealogical/historical points
in debate to indulge in personal attacks.

It's a great pity he has had to endure such a stream of abuse from a
man who is clearly only one of those things.

Ah yes, the waffle defense. I wondered how long that would take to appear.

If there is any more to your thinking than stodgy confection, please do
Phillips a favour and explain to the rest of us how the comments above apply
to his original post introducing the Medieval Lands database, given what you
now know about the advice he had received last year, and to his insistence
on an inadmissable rationale (that he can't explain) regarding Peter
Orseolo's wives.

Or have you just posted something that you would like to believe, & go on
believing, in spite of the evidence?

Peter Stewart

I can see nothing in Matt Tompkins posting that justifies it being
called "the waffle defense", nor anything that I would call "stodgy
confection". No doubt you will respond by insulting me. So be it.

John Matthews

Gjest

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 15:30:58

I have never seen a post from Chris that did not show him to be a very
knowledgeable, immensely decent, honest and gentlemanly list member ...

Peter Stewart devoted himself to the study of medieval families and
their relationships with a depth and expertise without equal in this
newgroup.
Stewart Baldwin, went to the extreme of learning latin to guarantee an
even better quality to his admirable Henry Project.
Leo van de Pas has the easiest, the most amiable and better sourced
database and spends all his time improving it.
Douglas Richardson did a tremendous amount of work and even some of his
worst critics have admitted that he made information easier to access
and his sources, even if not presented scholarly were more openly and
honestly used than Medieval Lands's.

Todd Farmerie already gave his opinion on the Iberian section of
Medieval Lands. I will only say that I have looked for 10 to 15 minutes
to the Portuguese Kings section and was truly disappointed. Names
written sometimes in portuguese, other times in spanish, other times in
what a german or an english could imagine spanish should be translated
to portuguese. I had to read loud some names trying english, german or
french accents to realise wich places were meant; some I could not
identify.
I did not immediately saw major errors but I am pretty sure that they
exist because I have recognized minor errors that I remember associated
with others not so minor.
Medieval Lands will help another generation of Debbies(1) calling king
Dom Sancho I 'Martino' and 'o Poblador' or king Dom Afonso III called
'o Restaurador', an error of *only* four centuries.
Being a Debbie myself, out of the Portuguese Section I can only imagine
the worse by what I saw there.

So when Chris Phillips presented Medieval Lands the way he did, to me -
and to others - was just a disappointment but - whatever the motives -
it hurted the feelings of the four people I first mentioned and that
was patent in their posts (Stewart Baldwin's *Henry Project Comments*
sounded louder to my ears than any of Peter Stewart's posts).
At that point, Chris Phillips could have easily made an amendment but
instead choosed to *put oil into the fire" jumping to the defense of
Medieval Lands and after cornered, of himself. Both very
ungentlemanlike.

Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

(1) I also admired Debbie post and think we have similarities not only
for both living in Iberia.
F.






Matt Tompkins escreveu:
Chris Phillips wrote:

I have been responding to your stream of vitriolic personal attacks and
insults with as much patience as I've been able to muster, but we all have
our limits. I've reached my limit, and I just don't have the patience to
continue responding politely while you keep insulting me. Obviously it was a
mistake to try. I should have ignored you from the start.

So I am not going to post any more here on this subject. It's very sad that
it's no longer possible to take part in discussions here without being
called a liar and a hundred other names, and I must admit I don't have much
appetite for any further participation in this forum. But I'll think about
that.


I have never seen a post from Chris that did not show him to be a very
knowledgeable, immensely decent, honest and gentlemanly list member who
has never strayed from discussion of the genealogical/historical points
in debate to indulge in personal attacks.

It's a great pity he has had to endure such a stream of abuse from a
man who is clearly only one of those things.

Matt Tompkins

Douglas Richardson

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 jun 2006 16:51:13

Dear Newsgroup ~

As I stated in a previous post, in reviewing Charles Cawley's database
(now being called a "framework" by Mr. Phillips), I've encountered a
serious problem in how Mr. Cawley cites other people's work without
giving proper credit. I provide yet another example below.

In Mr. Cawley's section on the Earls of Lancaster, he provides the
following information regarding King Henry III's grandson, John of
Lancaster:

"3. JOHN of Lancaster (before May 1286-in France before 1327). He
succeeded his mother in May 1302 as Seigneur de Beaufort-en-Champagne
et de Nogent-Lartauld. m (before Jul 1312) as her second husband, ALIX
de Joinville, widow of JEAN Sire d'Arcies-sur-Aube et de Chacenay,
daughter of JEAN de Joinville, Sénéchal de Champagne, historian of
Louis IX King of France & his second wife Alix de Risnel (-after Mar
1336). Delaborde refers to a grant of masses in Jul 1312 by "Jean de
Lancastre, Seigneur de Beaufort, et sa femme Alix de Joinville" to the
abbey of la Chapelle-aux-Planches, and other documents which shows that
Alix was living in Mar 1336 as "dame de Beaufort"[351]. No children."
END OF QUOTE.

The only source Mr. Cawley cites for John of Lancaster and his wife,
Alix de Joinville, is given in his footnote 351 as follows:

Delaborde, H. F. (1894) Jean de Joinville et les seigneurs de
Joinville, p. 409, consulted at <http://gallica.bnf.fr>.

In this instance, Mr. Cawley appears to have lifted his information
directly from an earlier post of mine here on the newsgroup dated 2003.
A more expanded form of my post with additional material was
subsequently published in FMG's own journal, Foundations, Vol. 1, No. 3
(see http://fmg.ac/FMG/Journal/01-03.htm for a brief abstract of my
article). I likewise published the same information in my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004).

As with my earlier post, I'm not accusing Mr. Cawley of "intellectual
theft." However, it seems clear to me that he has tried to create the
impression that his material on John of Lancaster is based on his own
research, while in truth it is not. A proper citation should have
included a reference either to my earlier post, to my article in
Foundations, or to my book, Plantagenet Ancestry. Any of these three
references would have been acceptable.

The irrregularity in the way Mr. Cawley has cited his sources is of
extreme concern to me, as it should be to the editor of Foundations.
In this case, he has appropriated material from Foundations' own jounal
without giving proper credit to the journal. If Mr. Cawley has done
this with my work and with Foundations' journal, I'm sure he has done
it with other authors and periodicals elsewhere in his database. That
this little "problem" of Mr. Cawley should have been missed by FMG is,
well, astonishing.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

+ + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups:
soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
Subject: Complete Peerage Correction: Henry, Earl of Lancaster's
marriage to Alix de Joinville
Date: 23 Sep 2003 10:15:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <5cf47a19.0309230915.34ea06c@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.234.237.216
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1064337314 17445 127.0.0.1 (23 Sep 2003
17:15:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Sep 2003 17:15:14 GMT

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 396-401 (sub Lancaster) gives an excellent
account of the life of Henry of Lancaster, Knt., Earl of Lancaster and
Leicester (died 1345), a grandson of King Henry III of England. Earl
Henry was an important man in his time period. Describing his
character, the Dictionary of National Biography says of Henry that he
was "courteous and kind-hearted, of sound judgement, religious, and
apparently of high principle" [Reference: D.N.B. 9 (1908): 551-552].
He is chiefly noted as the person who arrested his cousin, King Edward
II, in 1326, which arrest eventually led to King Edward II's untimely
death the following year, though not at Earl Henry's hands.

Complete Peerage provides two marriages for Henry of Lancaster, one to
Maud de Chaworth, the other to Alix de Joinville. It is the second
marriage which interests us in this post. Regarding this marriage,
Complete Peerage states the following:

"He married, 2ndly, as her 2nd husband, Alix, who in 1307 was widow of
Jean, Sieur d'Arcies sub Aube et de Chacenay, and daughter of John
Joinville, Seneschal of Champagne, historian of St. Louis, by his 2nd
wife, Alix de Risnel, daughter and heiress of Gautier, Seigneur de
Risnel." END OF QUOTE.

Complete Peerage cites two sources for this marriage, one of them
being "Anselme, vol. vi, p. 695." Pere Anselme's work, Histoire de la
Maison Royale de France, is available on line on the helpful gallica
website (http://gallica.bnf.fr). Pere Anselme states the following
regarding the marriage of Alix de Joinville and Henry of Lancaster on
the volume and page cited by Complete Peerage:

"Alix de Joinville, mariée (1) par traité pallé à Joinville le jour
de
l'Invention de Sainte Croix 1300. à Jean seigneur d'Arcies sur Aube et
de Chacenay; (2) avant 1316 à Henry d'Angleterre comte de Lancastre,
seigneur de Montmouth, de Beaufort et de Nogent. Le dimanche aprés la
S. Martin d'hyver 1316, se qualifiant dame de Beaufort, elle promit
faire hommage de sa terre de Chacenay à l'évêque de Langres, si
c'étoit la coutume de Champagne. Catulaire de Langres, p. 189." END
OF QUOTE.

As we can see, Pere Anselme makes no qualification regarding Alix de
Joinville's marriage to Henry of Lancaster, which he places as having
taken place before 1316.

In truth, Alix de Joinville actually married before July 1312 Henry of
Lancaster's younger brother, John of Lancaster, seigneur of Beaufort
(present day Montmorency, Aube, arrond. d'Arcis-sur Aube, canton de
Chavanges) and Nogent-l'Artaud (Aisne, arrond. de Château-Thierry,
canton de Charly). Little is known of his life. John of Lancaster
was born before May 1286. He was living July 1312, died in France
before 1327. He evidently had no issue. For information on his seal
and coat of arms, see Coat of Arms 7 (1962): 18-24.

The evidence that John of Lancaster's wife was Alix de Joinville is
found in the book, Jean de Joinville et les seigneurs de Joinville, by
H.-F. Delaborde, published in 1894. This work can be found on line on
the gallica website cited above. On page 409, the following document
is presented:

No. 733
Date: July 1312

"Jean de Lancastre, seigneur de Beaufort, et sa femme Alix de
Joinville font à l'abbaye de la Chapelle-aux-Planches une fondation de
quatre messes par semaine. Arch. de la Haute-Marne, La
Chapelle-aux-Planches, folio 27 r." END OF QUOTE.

The Joinville book presents several other documents relating to Alix
de Joinville which shows that she was living as late as 31 March 1336.
In the documents which date after 1312, Alix is styled simply as
"dame de Beaufort," never as Countess of Lancaster.

Further details of John of Lancaster and his wife, Alix de Joinville,
will be found in my forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry, which I
antipate will be available for shipping sometime in late December.
Please contact me at my e-mail address below if interested in
obtaining a copy of the book.

As for John of Lancaster's holdings, the castles of Beaufort and
Nogent-l'Artaud, they eventually fell by inheritance to John of
Lancaster's great niece, Blanche of Lancaster, whose husband, John of
Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, leased them in 1365 to John Wyn for ten
years at a yearly rental of £100 sterling.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royalances...@msn.com

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 23:38:03

"RJM" <rjmatsleepers@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150727094.873443.302660@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1150713676.941472.146530@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Chris Phillips wrote:

I have been responding to your stream of vitriolic personal attacks
and
insults with as much patience as I've been able to muster, but we all
have
our limits. I've reached my limit, and I just don't have the patience
to
continue responding politely while you keep insulting me. Obviously it
was a
mistake to try. I should have ignored you from the start.

So I am not going to post any more here on this subject. It's very sad
that
it's no longer possible to take part in discussions here without being
called a liar and a hundred other names, and I must admit I don't have
much
appetite for any further participation in this forum. But I'll think
about
that.


I have never seen a post from Chris that did not show him to be a very
knowledgeable, immensely decent, honest and gentlemanly list member who
has never strayed from discussion of the genealogical/historical points
in debate to indulge in personal attacks.

It's a great pity he has had to endure such a stream of abuse from a
man who is clearly only one of those things.

Ah yes, the waffle defense. I wondered how long that would take to
appear.

If there is any more to your thinking than stodgy confection, please do
Phillips a favour and explain to the rest of us how the comments above
apply
to his original post introducing the Medieval Lands database, given what
you
now know about the advice he had received last year, and to his
insistence
on an inadmissable rationale (that he can't explain) regarding Peter
Orseolo's wives.

Or have you just posted something that you would like to believe, & go on
believing, in spite of the evidence?

Peter Stewart

I can see nothing in Matt Tompkins posting that justifies it being
called "the waffle defense", nor anything that I would call "stodgy
confection". No doubt you will respond by insulting me. So be it.

No, your certainty about this is quite wrong, John - I insult people whom I
do not respect, after careful observation of their posting behaviour, and I
have no reason at all to regard you in this way.

Matt Tompkins posted some pious generalities that don't fit the facts
transpiring here over the past week. That is why I challenged him to repeat
his opinions with instances. He wishes to maintain that he has "never seen a
post from Chris that did not show him to be a very knowledgeable, immensely
decent, honest and gentlemanly list member" etc, something that SGM readers
have seen repeatedly over the past week. If this is somehow an
hallucination, Matt Tompkins would be doing Phillips and the rest of us a
favour to prove it. It is generally considered the obligation of posters to
back up their statements of opinion when these are queried.

As opposed to this, merely mouthing off without specific reasoning is
commonly known as waffle.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 23:50:08

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150732273.169034.301550@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

The irrregularity in the way Mr. Cawley has cited his sources is of
extreme concern to me, as it should be to the editor of Foundations.
In this case, he has appropriated material from Foundations' own jounal
without giving proper credit to the journal. If Mr. Cawley has done
this with my work and with Foundations' journal, I'm sure he has done
it with other authors and periodicals elsewhere in his database. That
this little "problem" of Mr. Cawley should have been missed by FMG is,
well, astonishing.

Indeed it is. The excuse that the Foundations editor made at the outset was
that he was not knowledgeable in the field, and so he sought out a group of
advisers to help. As one of them, I have already posted about my
dissatisfaction with the results, and the allowance I kept making until the
offenses went to far with Medieval Lands. Advice was taken selectively, or
not at all, and propoer citation was not insisted on in a case I have
described where the facts were plainly visible to the editor.

Douglas Richardson has every right to be especially concerned about this,
since the post-conquest English material that he has examined falls squarely
into the area where he has been at work extending knowledge over many years.
A look at the corrections & additions to CP collated by Chris Phillips
confirms that others are content to coast on his results - in fact I can't
recall the last time Phillips initiated such a correction from his own
research & shared this with the newsgroup.

I have my own very serious differences with Douglas Richardson, but these
are over raising the standards of research in the field as I see them, and
not over the dedicated effort that he puts into it. He deserves credit
wherever due.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jun 2006 00:51:13

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message

<snip>

I have my own very serious differences with Douglas Richardson, but these
are over raising the standards of research in the field as I see them, and
not over the dedicated effort that he puts into it. He deserves credit
wherever due.

In this context I should have written "I have my own very serious
differences with Douglas Richardson, but these are over raising the
standards of research and citation practice in the field as I see them,
and not over the dedicated effort that he puts into it".

Everyone deserves credit for results achieved, including the pot that
calls the kettle black.

I should also add that from the excerpts and discussion I have seen,
readers are safer putting their trust in Douglas Richardson's work than
in Charles Cawley's.

By the way, it's taking an awfully long time for Phillips to ask this
man a simple question. It is scarcely respectful of the newsgroup to
drag his feet over something he has put so much of his own stock into
with this forum.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»