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
DD correction? Mandeville, Lutgershale & Say
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: DD correction? Mandeville, Lutgershale & Say
In message of 26 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
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/
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
On Apr 26, 2:30 am, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
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
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
On 26 Apr., 10:30, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
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
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
In message of 26 Apr, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
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/
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/