C.P. Addition: Death and burial of Alice de Lusignan, wife o

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

C.P. Addition: Death and burial of Alice de Lusignan, wife o

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 07 jul 2007 18:24:00

REVISED AND EXPANDED POST

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 503-507 (sub Surrey) has a lengthy
account of Sir John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey (died 1304).
Regarding his well known marriage to Alice de Lusignan, half-sister of
King Henry III of England, the following information is provided:

"He married, in August 1247, Alice, uterine sister of the King, being
daughter of Hugh (le Brun), Count of La Marche and Lord of Lusignan
and Valence, by Isabel, widow of John, King of England, daughter of
Ademar, Count of Angouleme. She died 9 Feb. 1255/6."

Countess Alice's parentage is attested by Matthew Paris who calls her:

"Ælesia Pictavensis, soror uterina domini regis" [Reference: Matthæi
Parisiensis Monachi Sancti Albani Historia Anglorum, 3 (Rolls Ser. 44)
(1869): 25].

The source cited for Countess Alice's death is Matthew Paris, Chron.
Majora, vol. v., pg. 551 (1256). Paris, however, gives only the year
of death, not the month and day. There is, however, another record
of Countess Alice's death found in the annals kept by a monk of Lewes
Priory. This record reads as follows:

sub A.D. 1255:

"... post ea in octavis Purificationis Beate Marie [i.e., 9 February
1255/6] obiit Comitissa Alicia et posita est in terra ante magnum
altare in presencia fratris sui Adelmari electi
Wyntoniensis." [Reference: Sussex Arch. Colls. 2 (1849): 26].

An English translation of this text is:

"Afterwards, in the octaves of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [9
February] Countess Alice died and was placed in the earth before the
great altar in the presence of her brother, Aymer, [bishop] elect of
Winchester."

The octave of a feast is eight days after a feast, the feast day
itself being counted. In 1256 the Purification of Mary fell on 2nd
February. Hence the octave of the Purification of Mary in 1256 would
be the 9th of February. The statement "before the high altar"
necessarily refers to the high altar of Lewes Priory, as the annals
which recorded the Countess' death were kept by a monk of that
priory. Hence, Countess Alice died 9 February 1255/6, and was buried
before the high altar at Lewes Priory, Sussex.

Curiously, I note that Complete Peerage cites the Lewes Priory annals
as a source for the death and burial of Countess Alice's husband, but
not for Countess Alice herself. That's a rather odd lapse. Complete
Peerage states that Countess Alice's husband, John de Warenne, Earl of
Surrey, was buried before the high altar at Lewes Priory. Lewes
Priory was founded by Earl John de Warenne's ancestors, William de
Warenne, and his wife, Gundred, between 1078 and 1082.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Death and burial of Alice de Lusignan, wi

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jul 2007 18:37:14

On Jul 7, 7:24 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
REVISED AND EXPANDED POST

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 503-507 (sub Surrey) has a lengthy
account of Sir John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey (died 1304).
Regarding his well known marriage to Alice de Lusignan, half-sister of
King Henry III of England, the following information is provided:

"He married, in August 1247, Alice, uterine sister of the King, being
daughter of Hugh (le Brun), Count of La Marche and Lord of Lusignan
and Valence, by Isabel, widow of John, King of England, daughter of
Ademar, Count of Angouleme. She died 9 Feb. 1255/6."

Countess Alice's parentage is attested by Matthew Paris who calls her:

"Ælesia Pictavensis, soror uterina domini regis" [Reference: Matthæi
Parisiensis Monachi Sancti Albani Historia Anglorum, 3 (Rolls Ser. 44)
(1869): 25].

The source cited for Countess Alice's death is Matthew Paris, Chron.
Majora, vol. v., pg. 551 (1256). Paris, however, gives only the year
of death, not the month and day. There is, however, another record
of Countess Alice's death found in the annals kept by a monk of Lewes
Priory. This record reads as follows:

sub A.D. 1255:

"... post ea in octavis Purificationis Beate Marie [i.e., 9 February
1255/6] obiit Comitissa Alicia et posita est in terra ante magnum
altare in presencia fratris sui Adelmari electi
Wyntoniensis." [Reference: Sussex Arch. Colls. 2 (1849): 26].

An English translation of this text is:

"Afterwards, in the octaves of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [9
February] Countess Alice died and was placed in the earth before the
great altar in the presence of her brother, Aymer, [bishop] elect of
Winchester."

The octave of a feast is eight days after a feast, the feast day
itself being counted. In 1256 the Purification of Mary fell on 2nd
February. Hence the octave of the Purification of Mary in 1256 would
be the 9th of February. The statement "before the high altar"
necessarily refers to the high altar of Lewes Priory, as the annals
which recorded the Countess' death were kept by a monk of that
priory. Hence, Countess Alice died 9 February 1255/6, and was buried
before the high altar at Lewes Priory, Sussex.

Curiously, I note that Complete Peerage cites the Lewes Priory annals
as a source for the death and burial of Countess Alice's husband, but
not for Countess Alice herself. That's a rather odd lapse. Complete
Peerage states that Countess Alice's husband, John de Warenne, Earl of
Surrey, was buried before the high altar at Lewes Priory. Lewes
Priory was founded by Earl John de Warenne's ancestors, William de
Warenne, and his wife, Gundred, between 1078 and 1082.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Thank you for confirming that CP's statement "She died 9 Feb. 1255/6."
is absolutely correct, and thanks also to Peter Stewart for explaining
so succinctly to you and the group how the date should be calculated.

David

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Death and burial of Alice de Lusignan, wi

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jul 2007 22:42:57

On 7 Jul., 18:24, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
REVISED AND EXPANDED POST

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 503-507 (sub Surrey) has a lengthy
account of Sir John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey (died 1304).
Regarding his well known marriage to Alice de Lusignan, half-sister of
King Henry III of England, the following information is provided:

"He married, in August 1247, Alice, uterine sister of the King, being
daughter of Hugh (le Brun), Count of La Marche and Lord of Lusignan
and Valence, by Isabel, widow of John, King of England, daughter of
Ademar, Count of Angouleme. She died 9 Feb. 1255/6."

Countess Alice's parentage is attested by Matthew Paris who calls her:

"Ælesia Pictavensis, soror uterina domini regis" [Reference: Matthæi
Parisiensis Monachi Sancti Albani Historia Anglorum, 3 (Rolls Ser. 44)
(1869): 25].

The source cited for Countess Alice's death is Matthew Paris, Chron.
Majora, vol. v., pg. 551 (1256). Paris, however, gives only the year
of death, not the month and day. There is, however, another record
of Countess Alice's death found in the annals kept by a monk of Lewes
Priory. This record reads as follows:

sub A.D. 1255:

"... post ea in octavis Purificationis Beate Marie [i.e., 9 February
1255/6] obiit Comitissa Alicia et posita est in terra ante magnum
altare in presencia fratris sui Adelmari electi
Wyntoniensis." [Reference: Sussex Arch. Colls. 2 (1849): 26].

An English translation of this text is:

"Afterwards, in the octaves of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [9
February] Countess Alice died and was placed in the earth before the
great altar in the presence of her brother, Aymer, [bishop] elect of
Winchester."

The octave of a feast is eight days after a feast, the feast day
itself being counted. In 1256 the Purification of Mary fell on 2nd
February. Hence the octave of the Purification of Mary in 1256 would
be the 9th of February. The statement "before the high altar"
necessarily refers to the high altar of Lewes Priory, as the annals
which recorded the Countess' death were kept by a monk of that
priory. Hence, Countess Alice died 9 February 1255/6, and was buried
before the high altar at Lewes Priory, Sussex.

Curiously, I note that Complete Peerage cites the Lewes Priory annals
as a source for the death and burial of Countess Alice's husband, but
not for Countess Alice herself. That's a rather odd lapse. Complete
Peerage states that Countess Alice's husband, John de Warenne, Earl of
Surrey, was buried before the high altar at Lewes Priory. Lewes
Priory was founded by Earl John de Warenne's ancestors, William de
Warenne, and his wife, Gundred, between 1078 and 1082.

Curiously, this post does not give the credit to Peter Stewart for
having identified the glaring error in Douglas's original post, which
has now been removed (but can still be seen in Peter's reply).
Unfortunately, manipulating the record in an attempt to hide
embarrasing mistakes, and failing to give due credit is not an odd
lapse in this case.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Death and burial of Alice de Lusignan, wi

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jul 2007 23:25:42

On 7 Jul., 22:42, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 7 Jul., 18:24, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Curiously, I note that Complete Peerage cites the Lewes Priory annals
as a source for the death and burial of Countess Alice's husband, but
not for Countess Alice herself. That's a rather odd lapse. Complete
Peerage states that Countess Alice's husband, John de Warenne, Earl of
Surrey, was buried before the high altar at Lewes Priory. Lewes
Priory was founded by Earl John de Warenne's ancestors, William de
Warenne, and his wife, Gundred, between 1078 and 1082.

Curiously, this post does not give the credit to Peter Stewart for
having identified the glaring error in Douglas's original post, which
has now been removed (but can still be seen in Peter's reply).
Unfortunately, manipulating the record in an attempt to hide
embarrasing mistakes, and failing to give due credit is not an odd
lapse in this case.


I have been contacted off-list by an mwelch8442, apparently in
relation to this issue. Unfortunately, his or her first email to me
is blank, and the second is gibberish.

If Mr or Ms welch8442 has a useful contribution to make, I suggest
that this public forum is the best place to do it.

Kind regards, Michael Andrews-Reading

Peter Stewart

Re: C.P. Addition: Death and burial of Alice de Lusignan, wi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 jul 2007 01:34:10

Well done, you have actually removed your own crossposting to another
newsgroup for once, presumably not wishing to broadcast your own error - if
so, it may be a significant advance on this occasion that you realise the
fundamental incompetence of your first attempt.

Now, however, you are only part of the way to understanding:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1183829040.765617.324140@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
REVISED AND EXPANDED POST

<snip>

The octave of a feast is eight days after a feast, the feast day
itself being counted. In 1256 the Purification of Mary fell on 2nd
February. Hence the octave of the Purification of Mary in 1256 would
be the 9th of February.

Um...not quite. The Purification, or Candlemas, falls on 2 February every
year, not just in 1256 - it is not a moveable feast - and its octave is
consequently always on 9 February.

And this is not "eight days after" the feast day, but rather the eighth day
with "the feast day itself being counted" , i.e. seven days later.

As I said, it is the same principle as in music. Try reciting the sol-fa
scale, "doh, ray, me, fah, soh, lah, te, DOH". Doh is the tonic, and its
octave, so that it recurs seven notes later. In the same way, Monday is the
octave of Monday - and perhaps you remember that a week is seven days:
Monday recurs seven (not eight) days after another Monday; next Monday, 9
July, is the eighth day from the last, 2 July, counted as the first of the
octave - but NOT, as misstated by you, the first day after itself.

How this can pose a conceptual difficulty to someone claiming to have
studied medieval records over many years is a mystery, since most dating is
calculated similarly by ordinals, the count starting with the reference
point (kalends, ides, nones, feast day or whatever).

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»