Another site with royal genealogies

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Another site with royal genealogies

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jan 2007 19:46:02

I just found this site

_http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/genealogies/_
(http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/genealogies/)

Seems interesting at first glance. I wonder if anyone wants to comment on
it's worth?

Will Johnson

pj.evans

Re: Another site with royal genealogies

Legg inn av pj.evans » 12 jan 2007 19:49:15

Will, I got a 404 error on that one.

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I just found this site

_http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/genealogies/_
(http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/genealogies/)

Seems interesting at first glance. I wonder if anyone wants to comment on
it's worth?

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Another site with royal genealogies

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 12 jan 2007 20:38:55

In message of 12 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I just found this site

_http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/genealogies/_
(http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/genealogies/)

Seems interesting at first glance. I wonder if anyone wants to
comment on it's worth?

Nicely presented. But no references. So bin it.

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

Gjest

Re: Another site with royal genealogies

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jan 2007 21:47:51

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I just found this site

_http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/genealogies/_
(http://www.mimas.ac.uk/~zzalsaw2/genealogies/)

Seems interesting at first glance. I wonder if anyone wants to comment on
it's worth?

Will Johnson

The tree for Kent is very incomplete, and starts off with gods.

Douglas Richardson

Pretty to look at but short on accuracy

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2007 00:36:37

Dear Will ~

I just looked at the Norman and Plantagenet chart at the website you
recommended.

As stated by someone else, the material is well presented. The charts
are easy to follow and not cluttered. That's the good part.

However, I note some problems, mostly technical. The person frequently
uses Latin forms of names such as Adeliza, Adela, Cecilia, Matilda,
Theobald, Isabella (repeatedly), Philippa, Berengaria, etc., when
Alice, Cecily, Adele, Maud, Thebaud (or Thibaut), Isabel, Philippe, and
Berenguela (or Bérengère) should be used instead. There is even a
Jeanne which person was actually named Joan, and an Alfonso who was
actually Alphonse. There is a Maud/Matilda, a strange hybred if there
ever was one. The unfamiliarity with the correct name forms tells me
the person who created the chart is a copyist, and has not spent much
time in the original primary records.

The person states that Edward, 2nd Duke of York, married (1st)
"?Beatrice, daughter of Ferdinand I, King of Portugal." Edward was
betrothed to marry at Lisbon, Portugal shortly after July 1381 Beatris
of Portugal, the daughter and heiress of Fernando I, King of Portugal
and the Algarve, but the contract for marriage was dissolved in
accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Badajoz between Castile and
Portugal in August 1382.

The person refers to Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, when this man's
name was actually Richard de Arundel, never Fitzalan. This family
dropped the name, Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel two generations
previous to the earl's birth. For instances of Earl Richard using the
Arundel surname, see Lewis, Pedes Finium; or, Fines relating to the
County of Surrey (Surrey Arch. Soc. Extra Volume 1) (1894): 222;
Arch.Cambrensis, 6th Ser. 7(1) (1907): 1-34; C.P.R. 1374-1377
(1916): 25, 28, 51, 107, 243; Salzman, Feet of Fines Rel. Sussex 3
(Sussex Rec. Soc. 23) (1916): 164; Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1368-1377
(1924): 286, 339; Genealogist n.s. 16 (1899): 162.

The person refers to Edmund Crouchback, when no such person ever
existed. His name was Edmund, no Crouchback. The Crouchback part is
an old myth.

The person has Edmund Mortimer, who should be rendered Edmund de
Mortimer. And, Matthew of Flanders should probably be rendered
Mathieu, not Matthew.

The person refers to Henry Bouchier, when his name was actually Henry
Bourgchier (or Bourchier). And, John Hastings, son-in-law of King
Edward III, was actually John de Hastings.

The person states that Eleanor, wife of King Henry III of England, was
the daughter of Raymond IV, Ct.Toulouse. Actually Eleanor was
daughter and co-heiress of Raymond Bérenger V, Count and Marquis of
Provence, Count of Forcalquier.

The person states that Richard, Earl of Cornwall, married (3rd)
"Beatrice, da. ?? William de Fauquemont." Actually his third wife was
Beatrice de Falkenburg (or Fauquemont), daughter of Dietrich II de
Falkenburg, seigneur of Montjoye.

And on and on.
.. .
In short, I've found mostly small inacccuracies but, in the end, they
total up. Overall I would give the chart a B+ for presentation, and a
C- for overall accuracy. It's pretty to look at but short on
accuracy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: Pretty to look at but short on accuracy

Legg inn av taf » 13 jan 2007 03:26:55

Douglas Richardson wrote:

[rearranged to group similar complaints together]

However, I note some problems, mostly technical. The person frequently
uses Latin forms of names such as Adeliza, Adela, Cecilia, Matilda,
Theobald, Isabella (repeatedly), Philippa, Berengaria, etc., when
Alice, Cecily, Adele, Maud, Thebaud (or Thibaut), Isabel, Philippe, and
Berenguela (or Bérengère) should be used instead.

That is a personal opinion, not an indication of a problem.

There is even a
Jeanne which person was actually named Joan, and an Alfonso who was
actually Alphonse.

It is a bit anachronistic to insist that there is a correct spelling of
a name at a time when there was no such thing as correct spelling. Do
you really think, for example, that the Infanta Leonora Fernandez de
Leon y Castilla, Queen of England, used a different name for her son
(Alphonse) than for her brother (Alfonso)? I am serious about this
question. You are insisting that Leonora's son was "actually" Alphonse
rather than Alfonso, the undisputed name of her brother, and of her
uncle, and of her grandfather, and of her great grandfather. Do you
really think she "actually" gave her son a different name, or is this
simply an arbitrary distinction?

There is a Maud/Matilda, a strange hybred if there
ever was one.

Strange, perhaps, yet common in the genealogical literature.

The unfamiliarity with the correct name forms tells me
the person who created the chart is a copyist, and has not spent much
time in the original primary records.

Well, it may tell you that, but it tells me that the compiler does not
follow the Richardson Rules of Medieval Nomenclature, which system, as
far as I can tell, simply replaces arbitrary nomenclature with a strict
application of arbitrary criteria, and which has only one adherent.

The person refers to Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, when this man's
name was actually Richard de Arundel, never Fitzalan. This family
dropped the name, Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel two generations
previous to the earl's birth.

A distinction which seems to concern you inordinantly.

The person refers to Edmund Crouchback, when no such person ever
existed. His name was Edmund, no Crouchback. The Crouchback part is
an old myth.

The person did exist, and you know exacly who he is, or you wouldn't be
able to say that the 'Crouchback' thing is an old myth. Next you can
take on all of those historical illiterates who refer to Charlemagne.

The person has Edmund Mortimer, who should be rendered Edmund de
Mortimer. And, Matthew of Flanders should probably be rendered
Mathieu, not Matthew.

More of the RRMN.

The person refers to Henry Bouchier, when his name was actually Henry
Bourgchier (or Bourchier). And, John Hastings, son-in-law of King
Edward III, was actually John de Hastings.

Nitpicking name forms does get old after a while.

The person states that Edward, 2nd Duke of York, married (1st)
"?Beatrice, daughter of Ferdinand I, King of Portugal." Edward was
betrothed to marry at Lisbon, Portugal shortly after July 1381 Beatris
of Portugal, the daughter and heiress of Fernando I, King of Portugal
and the Algarve, but the contract for marriage was dissolved in
accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Badajoz between Castile and
Portugal in August 1382.

The person states that Eleanor, wife of King Henry III of England, was
the daughter of Raymond IV, Ct.Toulouse. Actually Eleanor was
daughter and co-heiress of Raymond Bérenger V, Count and Marquis of
Provence, Count of Forcalquier.

The person states that Richard, Earl of Cornwall, married (3rd)
"Beatrice, da. ?? William de Fauquemont." Actually his third wife was
Beatrice de Falkenburg (or Fauquemont), daughter of Dietrich II de
Falkenburg, seigneur of Montjoye.

These, on the other hand, are legitimate problems. Unfortunately,
their import is diluted by all the blathering about the name forms.

In short, I've found mostly small inacccuracies but, in the end, they
total up. Overall I would give the chart a B+ for presentation, and a
C- for overall accuracy. It's pretty to look at but short on
accuracy.

Accuracy and towing your line with respect to names are not equivalent
concepts.

taf

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Pretty to look at but short on accuracy

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 13 jan 2007 03:47:01

<<Snip>> Accuracy and towing your line with respect to names are not
equivalent concepts.
taf

Well said Todd. I had to almost pick my chin up off the floor when I read
Douglas's nit-picking waffle. As you said, there was no such thing as
correct spelling in medieval times, and there are hundreds of instances like
that of Alphonse being Alphonso, and nicknames like Crouchback being applied
to distinguish one Edmund from another.
Please Douglas, concentrate on what you do well, and stop the anal
behaviour!
Merilyn

Douglas Richardson

Re: Pretty to look at but short on accuracy

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2007 08:35:18

Leo van de Pas wrote:

< If you object to one "nickname/identifier" which history and
genealogy have
< adopted, you should object to all, you cannot be selective.

If historical accuracy is our goal, and I believe it is, we most
certainly can and should be selective. The name "Edmund Crouchback" is
based on a myth. Prince Edmund wasn't deformed. He wasn't Henry III's
eldest son. He wasn't passed over in the succession. These are all
grotesque lies generated by John of Gaunt for obvious political
motives.

In the end, a lie is a lie is a lie. And simply put, "Edmund
Crouchback" is a lie.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Leo van de Pas

Re: Pretty to look at but short on accuracy

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 13 jan 2007 09:21:56

As I have said before Crouchback was meant to be Crossed back, as he had the
Crusader's Cross.

You say it was John of Gent who changed the meaning? Elizabeth Hallam
maintains it was Henry IV who changed the meaning, indeed for political
reasons.

John of Gaunt as a name is even more a lie, there is no such place as
Gaunt.-------Gent/Ghent/Gand yes.

Apparently (Elizabeth Hallam) Edmund became a crusader in 1271 and since
then he had the nickname Crossback or Crouchback.
John of Gent wasn't born until 1340.

Historical accuracy? Obviously you haven't heard the saying "it is the
victor who writes the history"?

Is there any contemporary record in which that Prince of Wales was referred
to as 'the Black Prince'? Are there contemporary records in which William
the Bastard was called 'William the Conqueror'?

You seem to be a lonely crusader to relieve Edmund from his nickname
Crossback, but it is a waste of time quoting sources who do call him
Crouchback. If I am not wrong, I did that not so long ago.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pretty to look at but short on accuracy


Leo van de Pas wrote:

If you object to one "nickname/identifier" which history and
genealogy have
adopted, you should object to all, you cannot be selective.

If historical accuracy is our goal, and I believe it is, we most
certainly can and should be selective. The name "Edmund Crouchback" is
based on a myth. Prince Edmund wasn't deformed. He wasn't Henry III's
eldest son. He wasn't passed over in the succession. These are all
grotesque lies generated by John of Gaunt for obvious political
motives.

In the end, a lie is a lie is a lie. And simply put, "Edmund
Crouchback" is a lie.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Douglas Richardson

Accurate history vs. Fish stories

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2007 10:20:58

Leo van de Pas wrote:

< You say it was John of Gent who changed the meaning? Elizabeth Hallam
< maintains it was Henry IV who changed the meaning, indeed for
< political reasons.

As I recall, it was a petition of John of Gaunt to Parliament that
contained the lies about Edmund, Earl of Lancaster. The petition
maintained that Prince Edmund was Henry III's eldest son, that he was
deformed, and that he was passed over for the succession by his younger
brother, Edward, due to his deformity. These were all patent lies.
John of Gaunt made these outrageous claims in order to bolster his
argument that his son and heir, Henry (who was Edmund's heir through
his mother), was the legitimate heir to the English throne, after his
nephew, King Richard II, of course.

< Apparently (Elizabeth Hallam) Edmund became a crusader in 1271 and
since
< then he had the nickname Crossback or Crouchback.
< John of Gent wasn't born until 1340.

I haven't encountered any statement in contemporary records or any
chronicle which indicates that Prince Edmund had a nickname or that he
had a deformity. In fact, just the opposite. As far as I can tell,
if you are quoting her correctly, Ms. Hallam's statement about Prince
Edmund having a nickname is historically inaccurate.

< You seem to be a lonely crusader to relieve Edmund from his nickname
< Crossback, but it is a waste of time quoting sources who do call him
< Crouchback. If I am not wrong, I did that not so long ago.

Feel free to quote all the contemporary primary records about Earl
Edmund you want. However, quoting from secondary sources such as
Hallam only clouds the real issue. If Hallam can't get her facts
straight, then neither can you quoting from her. Ditto the numerous
other secondary sources you rely on.

Accurate history depends first and foremost on primary documentation,
not on secondary sourcework or inaccurate charts found on the internet.
If we fail to document our statements with contemporary records, then
we might as well be telling fish stories to our children and
grandchildren.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 13 jan 2007 11:28:07

Douglas Richardson a écrit :

<...>
Accurate history depends first and foremost on primary documentation,
not on secondary sourcework or inaccurate charts found on the internet.
If we fail to document our statements with contemporary records, then
we might as well be telling fish stories to our children and
grandchildren.

Too bad you have not followed that rule in the past yourself. Have I to
recall you some specific instances in which you were find using second
hand sources or unable to use the first hand sources? Your arrogance is
unbelievable.

Pierre

Douglas Richardson

A big fish tale - and getting bigger

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2007 12:59:28

Leo van de Pas wrote:
< I can't wait to hear from you about the primary sources mentioning
< Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, and all the others.

It's not necessary to change the subject, Leo. If you have primary
evidence to support your claim regarding Prince Edmund's alleged
nickname, by all means, please post it. If you don't, admit it.

As best I can tell, the Crouchback nickname is nothing more than a fish
tale ... a big fish tale at that.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Pot, kettle, fish

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 jan 2007 13:02:24

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:

<Your arrogance is unbelievable.
<
< Pierre

Pot, kettle, fish, eh Peter.

Or, is that pot, kettle, fish tale?

DR

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: A big fish tale - and getting bigger

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 13 jan 2007 13:34:37

Douglas Richardson a écrit :
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I can't wait to hear from you about the primary sources mentioning
Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, and all the others.

It's not necessary to change the subject, Leo. If you have primary
evidence to support your claim regarding Prince Edmund's alleged
nickname, by all means, please post it. If you don't, admit it.

I don't know if Leo changes subject (as you often do) but at least he
answers objections. You do not.

As best I can tell, the Crouchback nickname is nothing more than a fish
tale

Considering that you have shown many times n the past to be completely
incompetent an illiterate to the point you are not able to read
correctly two lines of Latin, your expertise in matter of Medieval
sources is of little weight.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: A big fish tale - and getting bigger

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 13 jan 2007 13:34:45

Douglas Richardson a écrit :
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I can't wait to hear from you about the primary sources mentioning
Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, and all the others.

It's not necessary to change the subject, Leo. If you have primary
evidence to support your claim regarding Prince Edmund's alleged
nickname, by all means, please post it. If you don't, admit it.

I don't know if Leo changes subject (as you often do) but at least he
answers objections. You do not.

As best I can tell, the Crouchback nickname is nothing more than a fish
tale

Considering that you have shown many times in the past to be completely
incompetent an illiterate to the point you are not able to read
correctly two lines of Latin, your expertise in matter of Medieval
sources is of little weight.

Pierre

Leo van de Pas

Put up or shut up was Re: A big fish tale - and getting big

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 13 jan 2007 14:26:20

Sorry, did I read your messages correctly? You demand primary sources, I
have never done so.

You maintain that a a nickname can only be used if there is a primary source
that has done so,
and so it is up to you to provide these in the cases when YOU have PUBLISHED
nicknames.

Black Prince, start here..........

If you cannot provide it-------admit it----- to use your own pathetic
rhetoric.


it ----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:59 PM
Subject: A big fish tale - and getting bigger


Leo van de Pas wrote:
I can't wait to hear from you about the primary sources mentioning
Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, and all the others.

It's not necessary to change the subject, Leo. If you have primary
evidence to support your claim regarding Prince Edmund's alleged
nickname, by all means, please post it. If you don't, admit it.

As best I can tell, the Crouchback nickname is nothing more than a fish
tale ... a big fish tale at that.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Another site with royal genealogies

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jan 2007 10:48:26

There is a bibliography on the "notes" page. By comparing the tables
with those in the works cited, the source can be discovered.

For example, the chart for Denmark stops abruptly with Frederick VIII.
This is because that section has been copied from Lines of Succession,
by Louda & Maclagan, and their Table 20 ends with Frederick VIII. Weeks
simply hasn't bothered to copy out the further generations on the
following page.

Douglas Richardson

Nice debating trick but no soap

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 jan 2007 01:33:37

taf wrote:

It is a bit anachronistic to insist that there is a correct spelling of
a name at a time when there was no such thing as correct spelling.

Mmmmm .... for starters, I never said there was a "correct" spelling in
the medieval time period. Nice debating trick, though. But no soap.

If you wish, we can discuss prevalent or dominant spellings, but not
"correct" spellings. In fact, I'm not sure the medieval man would even
have grasped the meaning of "correct" spelling, as they had no
dictionaries at the time.

As you are well aware, most of the surviving medieval English documents
are written in Latin and French. Due to the foreign languages
involved, these documents of necessity have to be translated into
English by archivists. I find something is usually lost in such
translations, be it a document which has become illegible due to age,
or a Latin word such as "dominus" being mistranslated as "lord" rather
than "Sir," which error I find happens occasionally. Even so, I know
archivists do the best they can, and for that they have our indebted
gratitude.

Striving for accuracy in history is a fleeting goal at best, even for
trained historians. Even so, it's certainly better than the
alternative. We may differ in how to achieve that accuracy. But, in
the end, I say making friends is always preferable to winning an
argument.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jan 2007 06:57:58

Comments interspersed:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1168680056.348449.63870@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Leo van de Pas wrote:

You say it was John of Gent who changed the meaning? Elizabeth Hallam
maintains it was Henry IV who changed the meaning, indeed for
political reasons.

As I recall, it was a petition of John of Gaunt to Parliament that
contained the lies about Edmund, Earl of Lancaster. The petition
maintained that Prince Edmund was Henry III's eldest son, that he was
deformed, and that he was passed over for the succession by his younger
brother, Edward, due to his deformity. These were all patent lies.
John of Gaunt made these outrageous claims in order to bolster his
argument that his son and heir, Henry (who was Edmund's heir through
his mother), was the legitimate heir to the English throne, after his
nephew, King Richard II, of course.

There was no petition along these lines from John of Gaunt - this is a mere
"fish story".

We have two less than reliable sources connecting John to the fiction:

The first of these was a 15th-century continuation of a chronicle written at
Malmesbury in the 1360s, alleging that in a parliament of the 1390s
(supposedly in January 1394, but the narrative is confused and places it
before John was made duke of Aquitaine in March 1390) John of Gaunt made
this claim on behalf of his son only to be contradicted immediately by the
earl of March before both men were told to shut up by Richard II himself.
This anonymous writer knew so little about it that he made Edmund out to be
John of Gaunt's father-in-law (instead of his first wife's
great-grandfather). John is said to have asserted that Edmund's back was
broken, not that he was born with a deformity.

The second was an account also written in the 15th century, by the forger
John Hardyng, a stooge of the Percys, where John is supposed to have made
the crazy claim to inherit the throne even more absurdly on his own behalf.
In this version Edmund is supposed to have been deformed at birth. Both
are - and were at the time - readily demonstreted to be entirely false, and
there is no evidence to back up linking the silly lie to John of Gaunt. His
son Henry IV may have advanced the nonsense in private conversation later,
but it was never the official basis for his claim to the crown.

There is a more reliable & disinterested account, by Adam of Usk, simply
reporting that the commision of clerics & lawyers who had investigated Henry
IV's claims to the throne duscussed and rejected the invention - and of
course John of Gaunt had nothing to do with this, being dead at the time.

Apparently (Elizabeth Hallam) Edmund became a crusader in 1271 and
since
then he had the nickname Crossback or Crouchback.
John of Gent wasn't born until 1340.

I haven't encountered any statement in contemporary records or any
chronicle which indicates that Prince Edmund had a nickname or that he
had a deformity. In fact, just the opposite. As far as I can tell,
if you are quoting her correctly, Ms. Hallam's statement about Prince
Edmund having a nickname is historically inaccurate.

Obviously Edmund had the nickname "Crouchback" before the fiction was
created around it, otherwise they would never have made up quite the wrong
word in the first place. In English locution a deformed spine has always
been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back, or at a stretch "crook-back", while
the human body can only be said to "crouch" at the knees. On the other hand,
any medievalist claiming to know something about this matter ought to be
aware of "crouch" indicating a cross on the apparel, as in the "Crouched
friars", especially for men like Edmund who had taken the vow to go on
Crusade.

You seem to be a lonely crusader to relieve Edmund from his nickname
Crossback, but it is a waste of time quoting sources who do call him
Crouchback. If I am not wrong, I did that not so long ago.

Feel free to quote all the contemporary primary records about Earl
Edmund you want. However, quoting from secondary sources such as
Hallam only clouds the real issue. If Hallam can't get her facts
straight, then neither can you quoting from her. Ditto the numerous
other secondary sources you rely on.

Hallam does have her facts straight about the derivation of "Crouchback".
Edmund was not the only individual this was applied to, and historians from
the 17th century have accepted the high probability that he was so called in
his own time due to his dedication to Crusade. This may not be proved in a
contemporary written source, but then nor is the assertion about John of
Gaunt's participation in the lies. The silence of 13th-century sources is
hardly surprising, since the byname only became remarkable when it was
misinterpreted much later.

Richardson is presumably just fishing again - not knowing when the byname
"Crouchback" first occurred for Edmund, he is hoping that someone will post
this information in response to his jibes.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

The place of political propaganda in our history books

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 jan 2007 08:24:10

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart wrote:
< The second was an account also written in the 15th century, by the
< forger John Hardyng, a stooge of the Percys, where John is supposed
< to have made the crazy claim to inherit the throne even more absurdly
< on his own behalf. In this version Edmund is supposed to have been
< deformed at birth. Both are - and were at the time - readily
< demonstreted to be entirely false, and there is no evidence to back
< up linking the silly lie to John of Gaunt. His son Henry IV may have
< advanced the nonsense in private conversation later, but it was never
< the official basis for his claim to the crown.

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, is alleged to have
stated that if a lie is repeated enough times it would become widely
accepted as truth. And, so it has with Edmund "Crouchback."

< There is a more reliable & disinterested account, by Adam of Usk,
simply
< reporting that the commision of clerics & lawyers who had
investigated Henry
< IV's claims to the throne duscussed and rejected the invention - and
of
< course John of Gaunt had nothing to do with this, being dead at the
time.

You're a bit off on your chronology. John of Gaunt died in 1399,
shortly before his son, Henry, became king. If "the invention" as you
call it was circulating at the time Henry became king, it could well
have arisen from John of Gaunt hinself, just as the chronicler John
Hardyng has indicated.

< Obviously Edmund had the nickname "Crouchback" before the fiction was
created around it.

He did? What evidence do you have to support this statement?

< Hallam does have her facts straight about the derivation of
< "Crouchback."

I think your nose grew at least a couple of feet when you wrote this.
If Hallam based her explanation of Edmund's alleged nickname on
guesswork (as appears to be the case), she can hardly have "her facts
straight." She merely rendered her opinion, not a statement based on
facts. There is a wide difference between the two, although sadly the
difference is often overlooked here on soc.genealogy.medieval.

History is an interpretation of past events. It must always be based
on factual accounts of the actual events, otherwise it is of little or
no value. Political propaganda be it derived from Joseph Goebbels or
John of Gaunt has no serious place in our history books.

Peter Stewart

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: The place of political propaganda in our history books

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jan 2007 08:55:40

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1168845850.237050.322590@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart wrote:
The second was an account also written in the 15th century, by the
forger John Hardyng, a stooge of the Percys, where John is supposed
to have made the crazy claim to inherit the throne even more absurdly
on his own behalf. In this version Edmund is supposed to have been
deformed at birth. Both are - and were at the time - readily
demonstreted to be entirely false, and there is no evidence to back
up linking the silly lie to John of Gaunt. His son Henry IV may have
advanced the nonsense in private conversation later, but it was never
the official basis for his claim to the crown.

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, is alleged to have
stated that if a lie is repeated enough times it would become widely
accepted as truth. And, so it has with Edmund "Crouchback."

No-one accepted this lie as truth - not at the time, not since, not
"widely", and not now. Once again you are trying to make a gigantic straw
man, attempting to pose as the hero of historical accuracy over a brou-haha
of your own making.

There is a more reliable & disinterested account, by Adam of Usk,
simply
reporting that the commision of clerics & lawyers who had
investigated Henry
IV's claims to the throne duscussed and rejected the invention - and
of
course John of Gaunt had nothing to do with this, being dead at the
time.

You're a bit off on your chronology. John of Gaunt died in 1399,
shortly before his son, Henry, became king. If "the invention" as you
call it was circulating at the time Henry became king, it could well
have arisen from John of Gaunt hinself, just as the chronicler John
Hardyng has indicated.

It's your chronology that is askew - John of Gaunt was not alive when Henry
IV became king, and we have no reliable evidence that the lie in question
had arisen before that happened. So now you, the panjandrum of accuracy, are
assuming that because a false rumour _might_ have been in circulation before
a good source tells us that it was aired, then it _might_ also be traced
back to a man who had a supposed interest in it. No matter that he had a
definite interest in his own reputation, and unlike you was not keen to make
a laughing stock of himself at every opportunity - and then some.

Obviously Edmund had the nickname "Crouchback" before the fiction was
created around it.

He did? What evidence do you have to support this statement?

You just silently snipped it away: the byname itself was common enough in
the 13th century, and used for an order of friars apart from many Crusaders.
Or do you imagine that these friars were all bent by spinal deformity? Or
that the liars at the end of the 14th century liars were witless enough to
use a word that was by then obsolete but never meant what they claimed? Just
to make their case more credible, I suppose, by being so much less
plausible. Your own habits of dishonesty evidently disqualify you from
making sensible judgements in such matters.

Hallam does have her facts straight about the derivation of
"Crouchback."

I think your nose grew at least a couple of feet when you wrote this.
If Hallam based her explanation of Edmund's alleged nickname on
guesswork (as appears to be the case), she can hardly have "her facts
straight." She merely rendered her opinion, not a statement based on
facts. There is a wide difference between the two, although sadly the
difference is often overlooked here on soc.genealogy.medieval.

The fact is that "crouch" meant "cross", not "hunch". Hallam was not
suggesting anything new, but following the consensus of historians over
several centuries before her. Similarly, when Evelyn Waugh gave the surname
"Crouchback" to the hero of his war trilogy, representing him as inspired by
a crusader ancestor, he knew that educated readers would understand the
derivation.

History is an interpretation of past events. It must always be based
on factual accounts of the actual events, otherwise it is of little or
no value. Political propaganda be it derived from Joseph Goebbels or
John of Gaunt has no serious place in our history books.

But of course the existence of this lie is remarked in "our history books",
where it is proper to be discussed. No-one is suggesting that the rubbish is
true just because it is noticed.

No-one believes it, so you are not doing anyone a service by carrying on
about it in your attempt to solicit further information.

Your efforts to appear superior are so crass as to be self-defeating in any
forum, much less in this one populated by asture readers.

Peter Stewart

gbh

Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories

Legg inn av gbh » 15 jan 2007 16:10:13

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 05:57:58 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Obviously Edmund had the nickname "Crouchback" before the fiction was
created around it, otherwise they would never have made up quite the wrong
word in the first place. In English locution a deformed spine has always
been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back, or at a stretch "crook-back", while
the human body can only be said to "crouch" at the knees. On the other hand,
any medievalist claiming to know something about this matter ought to be
aware of "crouch" indicating a cross on the apparel, as in the "Crouched
friars", especially for men like Edmund who had taken the vow to go on
Crusade.


You say that 'a deformed spine has always been called a "hunch-" or
"hump-" back, or at a stretch "crook-back" as if that rules out all
the other ways of referring to hunchbacks in English.

The Oxford English Dictionary, a useful tool for medievalists, and
widely considered to be quite authoritative, has several examples of
the adjective "crouch-backed, crutch-backed" and the noun
"crouch-back, crutch-back" used in precisely this sense:

Holland, 1606: A man very low of stature and withall crowchbacked
Godwyn, 1630: Crouch-backed Mary [married] to Martin Kayes, groom
Porter
Johnson, 1592: Aesope, for all his crutchback, had a quick wit.

None of these are likely to mean "bearing a cross on the back". (Aesop
couldn't have been a Christian.)

While the unrelated adjective "crouched" or "crutched" certainly means
"wearing a cross", as in "crouched friars", that is never recorded in
the compound form "crouch-back" (possibly because crosses were worn on
the breast?).

Further, the Oxford English Dictionary says:
"As a cognomen of Edmund, brother of Edward I, it was contended by
some 17th c. writers that Crouchback meant 'crossed-back', as in
crouched friars; but this is not compatible with the form CROOK-BACK,
which goes back to the 15th c., and answers to the 'Edmundus dorsum
habuit fractum', attributed to John of Gaunt in the Continuatio
Eulogii (Rolls, 1863) III. 369."

Neither I nor the OED claim that John of Gaunt actually said that.
Note the word "attributed".

gbh

Matt Tompkins

Re: The place of political propaganda in our history books

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 15 jan 2007 18:00:54

Peter Stewart wrote:
Obviously Edmund had the nickname "Crouchback" before the fiction was
created around it.

He did? What evidence do you have to support this statement?

You just silently snipped it away: the byname itself was common enough in
the 13th century, and used for an order of friars apart from many Crusaders.
Or do you imagine that these friars were all bent by spinal deformity?


The Crutched Friars were so called because of their order's name - the
Friars of the Holy Cross - not because they wore a cross on their back
(in point of fact they wore their cross on the breast of their habit).
Nor was Crouchback a common byname in the thirteenth century - if it
existed at all it was extremely rare. What were common were bynames
like Crouch, atte Crouch, Croucher, usually supposed to have derived
from residence near a cross.

The fact is that "crouch" meant "cross", not "hunch".

It is correct that in Middle English the noun 'crouch' meant 'cross',
but it was also a verb meaning 'to stoop, bend, crouch', so it could
well have been used in a compound formation like crouchback to mean
hunchback.

Matt Tompkins

Martin

Re: Nice debating trick but no soap

Legg inn av Martin » 15 jan 2007 19:33:00

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1168821217.868230.297320@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
taf wrote:

It is a bit anachronistic to insist that there is a correct spelling of
a name at a time when there was no such thing as correct spelling.

Mmmmm .... for starters, I never said there was a "correct" spelling in
the medieval time period. Nice debating trick, though. But no soap.

If you wish, we can discuss prevalent or dominant spellings, but not
"correct" spellings. In fact, I'm not sure the medieval man would even
have grasped the meaning of "correct" spelling, as they had no
dictionaries at the time.

As you are well aware, most of the surviving medieval English documents
are written in Latin and French. Due to the foreign languages
involved, these documents of necessity have to be translated into
English by archivists. I find something is usually lost in such
translations, be it a document which has become illegible due to age,
or a Latin word such as "dominus" being mistranslated as "lord" rather
than "Sir," which error I find happens occasionally. Even so, I know
archivists do the best they can, and for that they have our indebted
gratitude.

Striving for accuracy in history is a fleeting goal at best, even for
trained historians. Even so, it's certainly better than the
alternative. We may differ in how to achieve that accuracy. But, in
the end, I say making friends is always preferable to winning an
argument.

A nice sentiment.

You have a good point about 'standard spelling' there, in the days before it
didn't exist. People sometimes spelt their actual names differently from time to
time, as well as the names of towns, cities and countries.

I personally think we lost a lot when standard spelling became the rule and the
norm. If you read medieval documents out loud, you can 'hear' the accent of
whoever wrote it come through sometimes, which is not only a fascinating
pleasure, but can be a means of detecting forgeries and 'interference' by
revisionists under certain circumstances. Not infallible of course, as many used
scribes and dictation, so it is the scribes accent that comes down to us, not
his or her employer, and scribes are replaceable. Even so, for some purposes it
can be as reliable as handwriting in identifying some people.

Standard spelling is an elitist enforcement IMO, the result of the snobbery of
those who were 'properly educated' against those who were not. It reduces
expression and depersonalises correspondence and communication, which is seldom
a good thing. Imagine Robbie Burns had rigorously stuch to standard spelling...
what a loss!

I fink we shood forget all abowt it and just right like we talk, so nobody can
tell if you're posh or you aint, and judge y'on ya riting style. When it cums
darn to it, yer accent'll alwoys give ya awy in the end, if it cums to meetin'
up... unless of course one is capable of adopting 'correct form' in all forms of
communication, when and if required. And has a supply of Old Etonian, Harrovian,
House of Lords and suitable Masonic ties, and a £500+ suit (all bought from
charity shops for under a fiver).

Cheers
Martin

taf

Re: Nice debating trick but no soap

Legg inn av taf » 15 jan 2007 23:22:00

Douglas Richardson wrote:
taf wrote:

It is a bit anachronistic to insist that there is a correct spelling of
a name at a time when there was no such thing as correct spelling.

Mmmmm .... for starters, I never said there was a "correct" spelling in
the medieval time period.


Of course you didn't, and I never said you did, AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW
IT.

What you did say is that there is a right way and a wrong way to render
medieval names, and that in rendering them the 'wrong' way, it
represents innacuracy. That is, of course, silly, because these rules
are nothing but your own unique personal preferences, preferences that
would have come as quite a surprise to the people in question.

Nice debating trick, though. But no soap.

You should talk, given the above.

If you wish, we can discuss prevalent or dominant spellings, but not
"correct" spellings. In fact, I'm not sure the medieval man would even
have grasped the meaning of "correct" spelling, as they had no
dictionaries at the time.

Sort of my point, isn't it? Yet you insist that one representation is
right, and the other is wrong.

Striving for accuracy in history is a fleeting goal at best, even for
trained historians. Even so, it's certainly better than the
alternative. We may differ in how to achieve that accuracy.

Which is all a red herring, because you are arguing rules for
consistency, and then inaccurately implyng that consistency is the same
as accuracy, when the two are distinct concepts.

You complained about another poster not answering questions put to him,
and yet I don't see you answering my question. Let me remind you:

Did Leonora de Leon and Castilla, Queen of England, use a different
name for her son (who you insist should be Alphonse) than for her
brother (Alfonso)?

But, in
the end, I say making friends is always preferable to winning an
argument.

That's right, you frequently _say_ that making friends is preferable,
but in this same post you distort, you distract, and you ignore a
question put to you. Thus you say one thing and act completely
differently. There is a name for that.

taf

Douglas Richardson

A glove without a hand: Exposing the myth of Edmund Crouchba

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 jan 2007 18:19:31

Dear gbh ~

Great post. Much appreciated.

For all concerned, I will state it again. To date, I've found no
contemporary or near contemporary references to Edmund, Earl of
Lancaster (younger son of King Henry III) being called "Edmund
Crouchback." From what I can tell, the "Crouchback" myth comes from
political propaganda circulating at the time King Henry IV (son of John
of Gaunt) became king. Moreover, as the historian Hicks has said of
Prince Edmund, "for all that we know of him points to his having been
both handsome and skilled in arms." [Reference: Hicks, Who's Who in
Late Medieval England (1991): 7-9]. Simply put, political propaganda
has no place in our history books, except as a footnote to show its
falsehood.

I think it goes without syaing that genealogists have relied way too
long on unreliable secondary sources. It's past time we based
genealogical accounts on accurate and reliable contemporary primary
records, not on gedcoms or late date secondary works. Genealogy
without a firm foundation on accurate history is like a glove without a
hand.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when you'r

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 jan 2007 18:43:38

taf wrote:

< Of course you didn't, and I never said you did, AND YOU DAMN WELL
< KNOW IT.

Dear Todd ~

It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you when you're
screaming. When you've settled down and taken your meds, I suggest you
try this post again.

And, please quote me correctly. I have never said that "there is right
way and a wrong way to render medieval names." (your words, not mine).
I have said that there is a preferred way. For example, I believe
cognates forms of Robert should be rendered Robert. The
standardization and modernization of ancient name forms is a convention
adopted by modern historians. I didn't invent it. But, I do agree
with it. I also believe Latin forms should be avoided whenever or
whereever possible, unless we're writing in Latin, of course.

So no to Adeliza, Adela, Cecilia, Matilda, Theobald[us], Isabella,
Philippa, Berengaria, etc., and yes to Alice, Cecily, Adele, Maud,
Thebaud (or Thibaut), Isabel, Philippe, and Berenguela (or
Bérengère).

Got it?

Your friend, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Brad Verity

Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 16 jan 2007 19:25:58

Douglas Richardson wrote:

taf wrote:

Of course you didn't, and I never said you did, AND YOU DAMN WELL
KNOW IT.

Dear Todd ~

It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you when you're
screaming.

Douglas,

Since you've made this debate public, I'll comment from the peanut
gallery and say that it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion
with you, period.

When you've settled down and taken your meds, I suggest you
try this post again.

Do you actually think that above statement is reasonable?

And, please quote me correctly. I have never said that "there is right
way and a wrong way to render medieval names." (your words, not mine).

Yes you have, from your post that started this:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Will ~

However, I note some problems, mostly technical. The person frequently
uses Latin forms of names such as Adeliza, Adela, Cecilia, Matilda,
Theobald, Isabella (repeatedly), Philippa, Berengaria, etc., when
Alice, Cecily, Adele, Maud, Thebaud (or Thibaut), Isabel, Philippe, and
Berenguela (or Bérengère) should be used instead. There is even a
Jeanne which person was actually named Joan, and an Alfonso who was
actually Alphonse.

You indicated that the way the website had those names caused "some
problems", and that your way "should be used instead". You rendered an
(unwarranted) authoritative judgment on name use, and though you didn't
use the terms 'right' and 'wrong', the way you phrased your opinion
implied those meanings.

I have said that there is a preferred way.

No, you haven't, not until now. The words "preferred way" are not in
your previous posts. Nor have you acknowledged that the only one who
prefers the way is you.

For example, I believe
cognates forms of Robert should be rendered Robert.

What?

The
standardization and modernization of ancient name forms is a convention
adopted by modern historians.

Yes, I'm sure Todd is already aware of this.

I didn't invent it.

Which is no doubt why it works, consistently and easily.

But, I do agree
with it.

Then use it.

I also believe Latin forms should be avoided whenever or
whereever possible, unless we're writing in Latin, of course.

That's your own, personal, belief. You are in no position to impose it
on anyone else. I'm grateful for that because I find it ridiculous.

So no to Adeliza, Adela, Cecilia, Matilda, Theobald[us], Isabella,
Philippa, Berengaria, etc.,

So Simon and Garfunkel should change their lyrics to "Cecily, you're
breaking my heart, you're shaking my confidence daily. Oh Cecily, I'm
down on my knees, I'm begging you please to come home"?

and yes to Alice, Cecily, Adele, Maud,
Thebaud (or Thibaut), Isabel, Philippe, and Berenguela (or
Bérengère).

Got it?

Thanks for once again providing me with a big laugh. You trot this
nonsense out every three months or so, and it just gets more and more
humorous, basically because you seem so oblivious.

Cheers, --------Brad

Julian Richards

Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y

Legg inn av Julian Richards » 16 jan 2007 21:33:35

My old .sig used to be

"Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can
converse with people that you would never want in your house."
--

Julian Richards

http://www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 jan 2007 23:37:04

taf a écrit :
Douglas Richardson wrote:
taf wrote:

Of course you didn't, and I never said you did, AND YOU DAMN WELL
KNOW IT.

Dear Todd ~

It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you when you're
screaming. When you've settled down and taken your meds, I suggest you
try this post again.

This from the person who just said, "I say making friends is always
preferable to winning an argument." Then you make an ad hominem attack
such as this. Your stated preference in terms of behavior is at odds
with your actual behavior. This is usually due to one of three causes:
cynical hypocracy, a completely distorted self-awareness or simply a
weakness of will. I will leave it to the reader to judge.

Can it be the three at the same time?

Pierre

Tony Ingham

Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 18 jan 2007 00:53:38

As far as Richardson is concerned none of your references below is
mutually exclusive.

Tony Ingham

taf wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

taf wrote:

Of course you didn't, and I never said you did, AND YOU DAMN WELL
KNOW IT.

Dear Todd ~

It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you when you're
screaming. When you've settled down and taken your meds, I suggest you
try this post again.


This from the person who just said, "I say making friends is always
preferable to winning an argument." Then you make an ad hominem attack
such as this. Your stated preference in terms of behavior is at odds
with your actual behavior. This is usually due to one of three causes:
cynical hypocracy, a completely distorted self-awareness or simply a
weakness of will. I will leave it to the reader to judge.



And, please quote me correctly. I have never said that "there is right
way and a wrong way to render medieval names." (your words, not mine).

I have said that there is a preferred way.


Umm, if you want others to quote you correctly, you could at least
quote yourself correctly. What you actually said was:

"However, I note some problems, mostly technical."

Note: "problems". Not "difference in preference", but problems. To
continue:

"The person frequently uses Latin forms of names such as
Adeliza,
Adela, Cecilia, Matilda, Theobald, Isabella (repeatedly),
Philippa,
Berengaria, etc., when Alice, Cecily, Adele, Maud, Thebaud (or
Thibaut), Isabel, Philippe, and Berenguela (or Bérengère)
should
be used instead."

Note: "should be used instead". Not "I might have prefered a different
form", but _should be used_. In common language, "should" implies that
there is a right and wrong way, not just that they have done it
differently than you might have. To continue:

"There is even a Jeanne which person was actually named Joan,
and an Alfonso who was actually Alphonse."

Note: "was actually". Twice. This isn't a preference. Actually is
defined as indicating fact. "In fact" his name was Alphonse, and hence
any other form is factually incorrect. Right vs. wrong.

"There is a Maud/Matilda, a strange hybred if there ever was
one.
The unfamiliarity with the correct name forms tells me the
person
who created the chart is a copyist, and has not spent much time
in the original primary records."

Note: "correct name forms". "Correct" is not a preference either. It
indicates that some forms are correct (i.e. right) and by implication,
others are incorrect (i.e. wrong).

"The person refers to Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, when
this
man's name was actually Richard de Arundel, never Fitzalan."

"The person has Edmund Mortimer, who should be rendered Edmund
de Mortimer. And, Matthew of Flanders should probably be
rendered
Mathieu, not Matthew."

"The person refers to Henry Bouchier, when his name was actually

Henry Bourgchier (or Bourchier). And, John Hastings, son-in-law
of
King Edward III, was actually John de Hastings."

More "actually"s and "should"s.

Now let's compare this with one of your statements of factual
genealogical relationship:

"The person states that Eleanor, wife of King Henry III of
England,
was the daughter of Raymond IV, Ct.Toulouse. Actually Eleanor
was daughter and co-heiress of Raymond Bérenger V, Count and
Marquis of Provence, Count of Forcalquier."

Here you have also used "actually". Were you expressing a preference,
or were you indicating that Raymond of Toulouse is wrong, and that
Raymond of Provence is right? You can't have it both ways. If
"actually" only implies preference, then it is hardly an appropriate
word to use in presenting a factual correction, yet if it indicates
fact, then it certainly does not apply to a simple preference.

I will leave it to the reader to determine who has more accurately
represented your statement, whether "problems", "should", "actually",
and "correct" are more accurately summarized by my "right" and "wrong",
or by your "prefered way".



The
standardization and modernization of ancient name forms is a convention
adopted by modern historians. I didn't invent it.


It is _a_ convention. It is neither uniformly applied, nor uniformly
accepted. Just as an example, many Anglo-Saxonists prefer to render
names by their standardized AS roots, such as Eadmund, AElfred,
AEthelmaer and Eadgifu rather than their modern equivalents of Edmund,
Alfred, Elmer and Edith.

As to you inventing it, you may not have invented the concept of
standardization and modernizations, but you have clearly developed your
own unique rules for this process, and we have seen ad hoc corollaries
develop as well as much waffling and dicking of questions as you have
found that a form you prefer is not justified by the rules you have
claimed to be applying.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that you can't use whatever system
you find useful. I am saying that you should have no reasonable
expectation that others conform to your preference.


I also believe Latin forms should be avoided whenever or
whereever possible, unless we're writing in Latin, of course.


A preference, plain and simple.


So no to Adeliza, Adela, Cecilia, Matilda, Theobald[us], Isabella,
Philippa, Berengaria, etc., and yes to Alice, Cecily, Adele, Maud,
Thebaud (or Thibaut), Isabel, Philippe, and Berenguela (or
Bérengère).

Got it?


I understood what you were saying from the start. I just don't agree
with it, nor do I think you are justified in your pontification when
others who don't follow your arbitrary rules.


And you still haven't answered the question: Do you think Leonora de
Leon and Castilla, Queen of England, used a different name (which "was
actually Alphonse") for her son than for her brother Alfonso X?


taf


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message



Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»