Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tony Pratt
Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Dear Group,
I have recently come across an assignment of 1235 (Calendar Patent
Rolls Henry III vol 3 1232 - 1247 p125 dated April 29th 1235) where one
of the witnesses is given as "Sir E earl of Poitou and Cornwall". As
far as I can see the Earl of Cornwall in 1235 was Richard, who was also
styled Count of Poitou but not Earl. Richard had a son Edmund but the
information I can find gives him as being Earl of Cornwall 1250-1300.
I was wondering if anyone can confirm or deny the details for the Earl
of Cornwall, and if it was Richard why would a Patent Roll show his son
as Earl? Obviously I am missing something basic here, but what? Any
help available would be much appreciated.
Tony
I have recently come across an assignment of 1235 (Calendar Patent
Rolls Henry III vol 3 1232 - 1247 p125 dated April 29th 1235) where one
of the witnesses is given as "Sir E earl of Poitou and Cornwall". As
far as I can see the Earl of Cornwall in 1235 was Richard, who was also
styled Count of Poitou but not Earl. Richard had a son Edmund but the
information I can find gives him as being Earl of Cornwall 1250-1300.
I was wondering if anyone can confirm or deny the details for the Earl
of Cornwall, and if it was Richard why would a Patent Roll show his son
as Earl? Obviously I am missing something basic here, but what? Any
help available would be much appreciated.
Tony
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Dear Tony,
Some answers are to be found in CP Volume III pages 430-433.
Is it the date 1235 what counts? The son Edmund was not born until 1249
(Burke's Guide to the Royal Family) or 1250 (CP). I find it interesting that
it says of Poitou and Cornwall, why in that order? Richard became Count of
Poitou "before 18 August 1225" and became Earl of Cornwall about 21 August
1227.
Sir E could that have been a form of address used in those times? or a miss
writing? Sir Earl of Poitou and Cornwall?
As it was written in England (I presume) the clerk who wrote it up may not
have been familiar with the idea that an Earl in England is the equivalent
of a Count in France.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Pratt" <chetwynd222@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Some answers are to be found in CP Volume III pages 430-433.
Is it the date 1235 what counts? The son Edmund was not born until 1249
(Burke's Guide to the Royal Family) or 1250 (CP). I find it interesting that
it says of Poitou and Cornwall, why in that order? Richard became Count of
Poitou "before 18 August 1225" and became Earl of Cornwall about 21 August
1227.
Sir E could that have been a form of address used in those times? or a miss
writing? Sir Earl of Poitou and Cornwall?
As it was written in England (I presume) the clerk who wrote it up may not
have been familiar with the idea that an Earl in England is the equivalent
of a Count in France.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Pratt" <chetwynd222@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Dear Group,
I have recently come across an assignment of 1235 (Calendar Patent
Rolls Henry III vol 3 1232 - 1247 p125 dated April 29th 1235) where one
of the witnesses is given as "Sir E earl of Poitou and Cornwall". As
far as I can see the Earl of Cornwall in 1235 was Richard, who was also
styled Count of Poitou but not Earl. Richard had a son Edmund but the
information I can find gives him as being Earl of Cornwall 1250-1300.
I was wondering if anyone can confirm or deny the details for the Earl
of Cornwall, and if it was Richard why would a Patent Roll show his son
as Earl? Obviously I am missing something basic here, but what? Any
help available would be much appreciated.
Tony
-------------------------------
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
Re: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Leo van de Pas wrote:
< Sir E could that have been a form of address used in those times? or
a miss
< writing? Sir Earl of Poitou and Cornwall?
Wrong again, Leo. Enough of the secondary sources. It's time you
spent time in the original records.
A transcript of text in English can easily be found at the following
weblink:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0125.pdf
The English text refers to "Sir R. earl of Poitou and Cornwall."
The earl intended is Sir Richard, Earl of Poitou and Cornwall, who was
a younger son of King John. Royal princes were routinely addressed as
Sir in the medieval time period, much as Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, was
addressed as "Sir E[dmund], the King's son") [Reference: Giffard,
Reg. of Walter Giffard Lord Archbishop of York 1266-1279 (Surtees
Soc. 109) (1904): 65] .
I also might mention that the original text in Latin would use the word
"dominus" for "Sir."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Sir E could that have been a form of address used in those times? or
a miss
< writing? Sir Earl of Poitou and Cornwall?
Wrong again, Leo. Enough of the secondary sources. It's time you
spent time in the original records.
A transcript of text in English can easily be found at the following
weblink:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0125.pdf
The English text refers to "Sir R. earl of Poitou and Cornwall."
The earl intended is Sir Richard, Earl of Poitou and Cornwall, who was
a younger son of King John. Royal princes were routinely addressed as
Sir in the medieval time period, much as Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, was
addressed as "Sir E[dmund], the King's son") [Reference: Giffard,
Reg. of Walter Giffard Lord Archbishop of York 1266-1279 (Surtees
Soc. 109) (1904): 65] .
I also might mention that the original text in Latin would use the word
"dominus" for "Sir."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
[Cross-post to a second newsgroup removed]
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1168996763.368017.317960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What a ludicrous & nasty effusion of hyspocrisy: Leo was making a
suggestion, expressed interrogatively, not an assertion like your own recent
nonsenses & falsehoods that when shown to be incorrect you have failed to
acknowledge as wrong.
This is another of your bullying obsessions based only on your own
intuition, that has led you astray.
The style of a king's son called "dominus N" would normally be translated as
"Lord N", not "Sir N". Knighthood was not the be-all and end-all of their
claims to rank. Have you never heard of Edward I called "the Lord Edward"
before he became king? (No reputable - indeed no properly "trained" -
historian ever refers to him as "Sir Edward"). This was his style when given
the lordship over dukedoms and earldoms but without the specific titles that
conventionally went with these territories.
The style "dominus"/"lord" for kings' sons came to be overtaken later by
"prince", that was thought to be distinctly un-English by many when
eventually formalised. The style "Lord N" survives to the present for the
younger sons of dukes and marquesses.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1168996763.368017.317960@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Sir E could that have been a form of address used in those times? or
a miss
writing? Sir Earl of Poitou and Cornwall?
Wrong again, Leo. Enough of the secondary sources. It's time you
spent time in the original records.
What a ludicrous & nasty effusion of hyspocrisy: Leo was making a
suggestion, expressed interrogatively, not an assertion like your own recent
nonsenses & falsehoods that when shown to be incorrect you have failed to
acknowledge as wrong.
A transcript of text in English can easily be found at the following
weblink:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0125.pdf
The English text refers to "Sir R. earl of Poitou and Cornwall."
The earl intended is Sir Richard, Earl of Poitou and Cornwall, who was
a younger son of King John. Royal princes were routinely addressed as
Sir in the medieval time period, much as Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, was
addressed as "Sir E[dmund], the King's son") [Reference: Giffard,
Reg. of Walter Giffard Lord Archbishop of York 1266-1279 (Surtees
Soc. 109) (1904): 65] .
I also might mention that the original text in Latin would use the word
"dominus" for "Sir."
This is another of your bullying obsessions based only on your own
intuition, that has led you astray.
The style of a king's son called "dominus N" would normally be translated as
"Lord N", not "Sir N". Knighthood was not the be-all and end-all of their
claims to rank. Have you never heard of Edward I called "the Lord Edward"
before he became king? (No reputable - indeed no properly "trained" -
historian ever refers to him as "Sir Edward"). This was his style when given
the lordship over dukedoms and earldoms but without the specific titles that
conventionally went with these territories.
The style "dominus"/"lord" for kings' sons came to be overtaken later by
"prince", that was thought to be distinctly un-English by many when
eventually formalised. The style "Lord N" survives to the present for the
younger sons of dukes and marquesses.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Digitised versions of 19th century English transcripts are not
"original records".
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Sir E could that have been a form of address used in those times? or
a miss
writing? Sir Earl of Poitou and Cornwall?
Wrong again, Leo. Enough of the secondary sources. It's time you
spent time in the original records.
A transcript of text in English can easily be found at the following
weblink:
Digitised versions of 19th century English transcripts are not
"original records".
-
Douglas Richardson
Royal princes then and now are properly addressed as "Sir"
Peter Stewart wrote:
< The style of a king's son called "dominus N" would normally be
translated as
< "Lord N", not "Sir N".
I'm sorry, Pierre. You're quite incorrect.
As far as it goes, I've seen many, many instances of English royal
princes being address as "Sir" in the medieval records. In fact, royal
princes then and now are properly addressed as "Sir." And the word in
Latin for "Sir" is dominus.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< The style of a king's son called "dominus N" would normally be
translated as
< "Lord N", not "Sir N".
I'm sorry, Pierre. You're quite incorrect.
As far as it goes, I've seen many, many instances of English royal
princes being address as "Sir" in the medieval records. In fact, royal
princes then and now are properly addressed as "Sir." And the word in
Latin for "Sir" is dominus.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Royal princes then and now are properly addressed as "Si
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169026569.813474.123490@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
No, I am not wrong - and I am not "Pierre", just as Pierre Aronax is not
"Peter"; or any more than your juvenile squibs are witty.
The Latin term equivalent to the English knight is strictly "miles". Lacking
an honorific unique to this condition, knights adopted that belonging to the
next rank above themselves, that is lords who in Latin were termed "domini".
Sons of kings are most certainly addressed as "Sir", but not as "Sir Name" -
the conferring of a knighthood on someone who already outranks a knight
makes no difference to correct address. A prince is quite properly called
"Sir" to his face from birth, not just from his being knighted. He is never
called "Sir", with or without his forename, in writing.
Following corrct form, if you spoke to the prince of Wales you should first
call him "Your Royal Highness" and thereafter "Sir" but NOT "Sir Charles" at
any time. If you wrote about him, "Sir" should not come into it.
If the younger son of a duke or marquess, called "Lord Name", is made a
knight of the realm he is still called "Lord Name", NOT "Sir Name", because
his courtesy title outranks a knight. Even if he is made a knight of the
Garter, the sign of this is in the letters KG written after his name, not in
the title used before it. Likewise princes, who outrank everyone in the
realm apart from the king and whose style reflected this fact in the
medieval era.
What you have seen are instances where "Sir" was used not to mean a knight
as such but rather to designate a lord before rules about this were
formalised and generally understood, "Dominus" is the Latin term for "lord"
or "baron" in English, as for "seigneur" in French, etc. Confining the word
to translation as "Sir" is simply, patently absurd.
Some antiquarians, who tended to love quaint, different or high camp
locutions, used to refer to all sorts of people as "Sir", and even Sir Duke"
and "Sir King" can be found. This is not a pattern for sensible historians
and genealogists to follow, especially when "Sir Name" is so useful to
designate someone who was "Mr Name" until knighted.
If you want to establish a legitimate point about usage, you would need to
analyse all the instances of princes being named before and after they were
knighted, to show that "dominus" was only used after the fact and never
before. Mere assertion of yet another Richardson rule of thumb is not
sufficient.
Peter Stewart
news:1169026569.813474.123490@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
The style of a king's son called "dominus N" would normally be
translated as
"Lord N", not "Sir N".
I'm sorry, Pierre. You're quite incorrect.
As far as it goes, I've seen many, many instances of English royal
princes being address as "Sir" in the medieval records. In fact, royal
princes then and now are properly addressed as "Sir." And the word in
Latin for "Sir" is dominus.
No, I am not wrong - and I am not "Pierre", just as Pierre Aronax is not
"Peter"; or any more than your juvenile squibs are witty.
The Latin term equivalent to the English knight is strictly "miles". Lacking
an honorific unique to this condition, knights adopted that belonging to the
next rank above themselves, that is lords who in Latin were termed "domini".
Sons of kings are most certainly addressed as "Sir", but not as "Sir Name" -
the conferring of a knighthood on someone who already outranks a knight
makes no difference to correct address. A prince is quite properly called
"Sir" to his face from birth, not just from his being knighted. He is never
called "Sir", with or without his forename, in writing.
Following corrct form, if you spoke to the prince of Wales you should first
call him "Your Royal Highness" and thereafter "Sir" but NOT "Sir Charles" at
any time. If you wrote about him, "Sir" should not come into it.
If the younger son of a duke or marquess, called "Lord Name", is made a
knight of the realm he is still called "Lord Name", NOT "Sir Name", because
his courtesy title outranks a knight. Even if he is made a knight of the
Garter, the sign of this is in the letters KG written after his name, not in
the title used before it. Likewise princes, who outrank everyone in the
realm apart from the king and whose style reflected this fact in the
medieval era.
What you have seen are instances where "Sir" was used not to mean a knight
as such but rather to designate a lord before rules about this were
formalised and generally understood, "Dominus" is the Latin term for "lord"
or "baron" in English, as for "seigneur" in French, etc. Confining the word
to translation as "Sir" is simply, patently absurd.
Some antiquarians, who tended to love quaint, different or high camp
locutions, used to refer to all sorts of people as "Sir", and even Sir Duke"
and "Sir King" can be found. This is not a pattern for sensible historians
and genealogists to follow, especially when "Sir Name" is so useful to
designate someone who was "Mr Name" until knighted.
If you want to establish a legitimate point about usage, you would need to
analyse all the instances of princes being named before and after they were
knighted, to show that "dominus" was only used after the fact and never
before. Mere assertion of yet another Richardson rule of thumb is not
sufficient.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
< Digitised versions of 19th century English transcripts are not
"original records".
To be specific, the English transcripts in question were published in
1906. So they would actually be 20th Century texts. Did I forget to
say they were digitalized? My apologies.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Digitised versions of 19th century English transcripts are not
"original records".
To be specific, the English transcripts in question were published in
1906. So they would actually be 20th Century texts. Did I forget to
say they were digitalized? My apologies.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Tony Pratt
Re: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Hi Douglas,
I am coverd in embarassment, if I had transcribed the record
accurately I wouldn't have posted at all as "Sir R " etc is correct of
course. My sincere apologies to all for my lack of care, and I am
sorry that my mistake led to such angst and spleen..... I will try to
be more carefull in future sigh.
But serious thanks to everyone who contributed and helped.
Tony
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Sir E could that have been a form of address used in those times? or
a miss
writing? Sir Earl of Poitou and Cornwall?
Wrong again, Leo. Enough of the secondary sources. It's time you
spent time in the original records.
A transcript of text in English can easily be found at the following
weblink:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0125.pdf
The English text refers to "Sir R. earl of Poitou and Cornwall."
The earl intended is Sir Richard, Earl of Poitou and Cornwall, who was
a younger son of King John. Royal princes were routinely addressed as
Sir in the medieval time period, much as Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, was
addressed as "Sir E[dmund], the King's son") [Reference: Giffard,
Reg. of Walter Giffard Lord Archbishop of York 1266-1279 (Surtees
Soc. 109) (1904): 65] .
I also might mention that the original text in Latin would use the word
"dominus" for "Sir."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hi Douglas,
I am coverd in embarassment, if I had transcribed the record
accurately I wouldn't have posted at all as "Sir R " etc is correct of
course. My sincere apologies to all for my lack of care, and I am
sorry that my mistake led to such angst and spleen..... I will try to
be more carefull in future sigh.
But serious thanks to everyone who contributed and helped.
Tony
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Earls of Cornwall and Poitou
Dear Tony ~
You asked a good question. I value your interest and your input.
Please post again - and frequently.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
You asked a good question. I value your interest and your input.
Please post again - and frequently.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: Royal princes then and now are properly addressed as "Si
Douglas Richardson a écrit :
To be styled ≠to be addressed (Mr Richardson ≠Sir)
Pierre
Peter Stewart wrote:
The style of a king's son called "dominus N" would normally be
translated as
"Lord N", not "Sir N".
I'm sorry, Pierre. You're quite incorrect.
As far as it goes, I've seen many, many instances of English royal
princes being address as "Sir" in the medieval records. In fact, royal
princes then and now are properly addressed as "Sir." And the word in
Latin for "Sir" is dominus.
To be styled ≠to be addressed (Mr Richardson ≠Sir)
Pierre