DD correction? Mandeville, Lutgershale & Say

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

DD correction? Mandeville, Lutgershale & Say

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2007 07:26:52

I understood that the connection between Geoffrey Fitz Piers and the
Mandevilles, by which he obtained a recreation of the Earldom of
Essex, was that he married Beatrix, daughter of William de Say and
grand-daughter of Beatrix de Mandeville, sister of William and aunt of
Geoffrey de Mandeville (d 1144), the 1st Earl of Essex.

However, in DD, sub 'Gaufrid II de Mandeville', Keats-Rohan says that
this Geoffrey had a daughter Maud, wife firstly to Peter of
Ludgershall and secondly to Hugh II of Buckland (DD, p 566); this
claim is repeated under the latter's entry (p 330).

If this is correct, Geoffrey Fitz Piers and Beatrix de Say, his wife,
would have been second cousins once removed.

Is DD right?

MA-R

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: DD correction? Mandeville, Lutgershale & Say

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 26 apr 2007 10:30:39

In message of 26 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

I understood that the connection between Geoffrey Fitz Piers and the
Mandevilles, by which he obtained a recreation of the Earldom of
Essex, was that he married Beatrix, daughter of William de Say and
grand-daughter of Beatrix de Mandeville, sister of William and aunt of
Geoffrey de Mandeville (d 1144), the 1st Earl of Essex.

However, in DD, sub 'Gaufrid II de Mandeville', Keats-Rohan says that
this Geoffrey had a daughter Maud, wife firstly to Peter of
Ludgershall and secondly to Hugh II of Buckland (DD, p 566); this
claim is repeated under the latter's entry (p 330).

If this is correct, Geoffrey Fitz Piers and Beatrix de Say, his wife,
would have been second cousins once removed.

Is DD right?

No. This is the old K-R mistake where she misread the diagram in CP V,
between pp. 116 and 117.

Rosie Bevan's Domesday Corrections on the FMG.ac site has this listed,
if I remember correctly.

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

taf

Re: DD correction? Mandeville, Lutgershale & Say

Legg inn av taf » 26 apr 2007 18:32:05

On Apr 26, 2:30 am, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
In message of 26 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:

However, in DD, sub 'Gaufrid II de Mandeville', Keats-Rohan says that
this Geoffrey had a daughter Maud, wife firstly to Peter of
Ludgershall and secondly to Hugh II of Buckland (DD, p 566); this
claim is repeated under the latter's entry (p 330).

If this is correct, Geoffrey Fitz Piers and Beatrix de Say, his wife,
would have been second cousins once removed.

Is DD right?

No. This is the old K-R mistake where she misread the diagram in CP V,
between pp. 116 and 117.

In fairness, this is not her mistake and I doubt she was the one who
did the misreading. This error had appeared broadly for decades prior
to the publication of DD: K-R is just guilty of uncritically repeating
it.

taf

Gjest

Re: DD correction? Mandeville, Lutgershale & Say

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2007 20:52:02

On 26 Apr., 10:30, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
In message of 26 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:

I understood that the connection between Geoffrey Fitz Piers and the
Mandevilles, by which he obtained a recreation of the Earldom of
Essex, was that he married Beatrix, daughter of William de Say and
grand-daughter of Beatrix de Mandeville, sister of William and aunt of
Geoffrey de Mandeville (d 1144), the 1st Earl of Essex.

However, in DD, sub 'Gaufrid II de Mandeville', Keats-Rohan says that
this Geoffrey had a daughter Maud, wife firstly to Peter of
Ludgershall and secondly to Hugh II of Buckland (DD, p 566); this
claim is repeated under the latter's entry (p 330).

If this is correct, Geoffrey Fitz Piers and Beatrix de Say, his wife,
would have been second cousins once removed.

Is DD right?

No. This is the old K-R mistake where she misread the diagram in CP V,
between pp. 116 and 117.

Rosie Bevan's Domesday Corrections on the FMG.ac site has this listed,
if I remember correctly.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe

Thanks, Tim; I checked the site at FMG but couldn't see this
correction there. I appreciate your confirmation, and will pass
details on to Rosie FWIW.

Cheers, Michael

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: DD correction? Mandeville, Lutgershale & Say

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 26 apr 2007 21:27:04

In message of 26 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

On 26 Apr., 10:30, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
In message of 26 Apr, m...@btinternet.com wrote:

I understood that the connection between Geoffrey Fitz Piers and the
Mandevilles, by which he obtained a recreation of the Earldom of
Essex, was that he married Beatrix, daughter of William de Say and
grand-daughter of Beatrix de Mandeville, sister of William and aunt of
Geoffrey de Mandeville (d 1144), the 1st Earl of Essex.

However, in DD, sub 'Gaufrid II de Mandeville', Keats-Rohan says that
this Geoffrey had a daughter Maud, wife firstly to Peter of
Ludgershall and secondly to Hugh II of Buckland (DD, p 566); this
claim is repeated under the latter's entry (p 330).

If this is correct, Geoffrey Fitz Piers and Beatrix de Say, his wife,
would have been second cousins once removed.

Is DD right?

No. This is the old K-R mistake where she misread the diagram in CP V,
between pp. 116 and 117.

Rosie Bevan's Domesday Corrections on the FMG.ac site has this listed,
if I remember correctly.

Thanks, Tim; I checked the site at FMG but couldn't see this
correction there. I appreciate your confirmation, and will pass
details on to Rosie FWIW.

Now that I've got round to checking myself, I see that it is there, for
p. 566 of DD though perhaps obliquely, and it is also on some Oxford
University site.

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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»