Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Queen

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Queen

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 okt 2007 20:17:29

Dear Newsgroup ~

In earlier posts on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I presented
evidence which proved conclusively that Robert de Brus, Earl of
Carrick, lord of Annandale (afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of
Scotland) had a previously unknown second marriage by license dated 19
Sept. 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell, Knt., of
Holgate, Shropshire, and daughter of John Fitz Alan, of Clun and
Oswestry, Shropshire. In 1296 Robert de Brus and Maud sued in a plea
of dower regarding Maud's English lands. After this date, Maud
disappears from Scottish records. I presume therefore that this
marriage was terminated by divorce sometime before 1302 (date of
Robert's next marriage) on grounds of consanguinity. The two parties
were in fact near related to each other in the 4th degree of kindred,
by virtue of their common descent from Sir William Marshal, Earl of
Pembroke (died 1219). Maud Fitz Alan returned to England, where she
and her son, Edward Burnell, were sued in Michaelmas term, 6 Edward II
(1312-3) by Henry de Erdington regarding the manor of Wellington,
Shropshire. She presented to the church of Great Cheverell, Wiltshire
in 1314 and in 1315. Maud married (3rd) sometime before 19 June 1316
Simon de Criketot, who was living 7 March 1320.

In more recent time, I've learned that Maud petitioned the king and
council in England in 1302 styled as "Maud, widow of Philip Burnell."
The petition involves certain socages and burgages held in various
counties by her late husband, Philip Burnell [Reference: PRO Document,
SC 8/313/E63]. Maud was living 19 June 1316, but evidently died
sometime shortly before 17 Nov. 1326 (death date of her nephew, Edmund
de Arundel), as indicated by another petition dated c.1330 submitted
to the king and council by her daughter and son-in-law, Maud and John
de Haudlo [Reference: PRO Document, SC 8/52/2570].

As for Maud Fitz Alan's third husband, Simon de Criketot, I find that
in 1296, while with the king's army in Scotland, he was attached to
answer Robert de Escores on a plea of trespass, regarding which plea
he had licence to make an agreement, saving to the marshal his right;
they submitted themselves to the arbitration of William Talemasch and
Thomas de Hauville [Reference: Neville "A Plea Roll of Edward I's Army
in Scotland, 1296" in Miscellany of the Scottish Hist. Soc. 11
(1990)]. It is tempting to think that Simon de Criketot met Maud Fitz
Alan in 1296, when he was in Scotland. If so, perhaps the grounds for
Robert de Brus' divorce from Maud Fitz Alan was her abandonment and
adultery, not consanguinity at all. Unfortunately for us, the records
of Scottish divorces in this time period have not survived.

For interest's sake, I've copied below an abstract of the petition
dated c.1330, which concerns property Maud Fitz Alan received in
marriage from her brother, Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel. It
should be noted that following the death of Maud's brother, Earl
Richard Fitz Alan, the Fitz Alan family dropped the surname of Fitz
Alan and subsequently went exclusively by the surname (de) Arundel.
This explains why Maud's brother is called Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of
Arundel, in the petition below, whereas his son, Edmund, who was known
as Edmund de Arundel, is merely called Edmund, Earl of Arundel.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Maud Fitz Alan and her first
husband, Sir Philip Burnell.

Charles Calvert, Mary Launce, John Nelson, William & Elizabeth
Pole, Mary Johanna Somerset

For further particulars of these lines of descent and specifics
regarding the Fitz Alan/Arundel name change, please see my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), a copy of which can be obtained privately
through me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
PRO Document, SC 8/52/2570 (abstract of document available online at
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).

Petition dated c.1330 by John de Haudlo and Maud his wife to the king
and council who state that Philip Burnell and Maud his wife were
seised of certain tenements which were given in free marriage by
Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel, Maud's brother; which tenements
Maud leased to Edmund Earl of Arundel after Philip's death. Because
they ought to descend to Maud de Haudlo, daughter of Maud and Philip,
John and Maud brought a writ of formedon against Edmund after Maud's
death, but Edmund died while it was being pleaded. The tenements came
into the king's hand, and he gave them to Roger de Mortemer, formerly
Earl of March. They are now again in the king's hand through his
forfeiture, and John and Maud ask him to consider their right, and do
justice to them.

Endorsement: The heir of the Earl of Arundel is restored to his lands,
because of which they are to be at common law.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 nov 2007 22:10:09

[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I recently posted regarding the subsequent history of Maud Fitz Alan,
the hitherto unnoticed second wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick,
lord of Annandale (afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of Scotland).
In my earlier post copied below, I stated that this marriage was
terminated by divorce sometime before 1302, which is the date of King
Robert's next marriage. However, it appears that this marriage was
terminated by Easter term, 1299, when Maud sued in a plea of dower in
England as "Maud widow of Philip Burnell" regarding a messuage and
lands in Gunton, Norfolk [Reference: Walter Rye, Some Rough Materials
for a History of the Hundred of North Erpingham, 1 (1883): 82).

For a view of this pleading cited in Rye's work, see the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EhgHAA ... 2#PPA82,M1

Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300 written
in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
you prefer, Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnel).

Maud Fitz Alan's own document may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EhgHAA ... 2#PPA83,M1

Enjoy!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

On Oct 17, 12:17 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty
From: Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:17:29 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 17 2007 12:17 pm
Subject: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Queen
of Scotland

Dear Newsgroup ~

In earlier posts on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I presented
evidence which proved conclusively that Robert de Brus, Earl of
Carrick, lord of Annandale (afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of
Scotland) had a previously unknown second marriage by license dated 19
Sept. 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell, Knt., of
Holgate, Shropshire, and daughter of John Fitz Alan, of Clun and
Oswestry, Shropshire. In 1296 Robert de Brus and Maud sued in a plea
of dower regarding Maud's English lands. After this date, Maud
disappears from Scottish records. I presume therefore that this
marriage was terminated by divorce sometime before 1302 (date of
Robert's next marriage) on grounds of consanguinity. The two parties
were in fact near related to each other in the 4th degree of kindred,
by virtue of their common descent from Sir William Marshal, Earl of
Pembroke (died 1219). Maud Fitz Alan returned to England, where she
and her son, Edward Burnell, were sued in Michaelmas term, 6 Edward II
(1312-3) by Henry de Erdington regarding the manor of Wellington,
Shropshire. She presented to the church of Great Cheverell, Wiltshire
in 1314 and in 1315. Maud married (3rd) sometime before 19 June 1316
Simon de Criketot, who was living 7 March 1320.

In more recent time, I've learned that Maud petitioned the king and
council in England in 1302 styled as "Maud, widow of Philip Burnell."
The petition involves certain socages and burgages held in various
counties by her late husband, Philip Burnell [Reference: PRO Document,
SC 8/313/E63]. Maud was living 19 June 1316, but evidently died
sometime shortly before 17 Nov. 1326 (death date of her nephew, Edmund
de Arundel), as indicated by another petition dated c.1330 submitted
to the king and council by her daughter and son-in-law, Maud and John
de Haudlo [Reference: PRO Document, SC 8/52/2570].

As for Maud Fitz Alan's third husband, Simon de Criketot, I find that
in 1296, while with the king's army in Scotland, he was attached to
answer Robert de Escores on a plea of trespass, regarding which plea
he had licence to make an agreement, saving to the marshal his right;
they submitted themselves to the arbitration of William Talemasch and
Thomas de Hauville [Reference: Neville "A Plea Roll of Edward I's Army
in Scotland, 1296" in Miscellany of the Scottish Hist. Soc. 11
(1990)]. It is tempting to think that Simon de Criketot met Maud Fitz
Alan in 1296, when he was in Scotland. If so, perhaps the grounds for
Robert de Brus' divorce from Maud Fitz Alan was her abandonment and
adultery, not consanguinity at all. Unfortunately for us, the records
of Scottish divorces in this time period have not survived.

For interest's sake, I've copied below an abstract of the petition
dated c.1330, which concerns property Maud Fitz Alan received in
marriage from her brother, Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel. It
should be noted that following the death of Maud's brother, Earl
Richard Fitz Alan, the Fitz Alan family dropped the surname of Fitz
Alan and subsequently went exclusively by the surname (de) Arundel.
This explains why Maud's brother is called Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of
Arundel, in the petition below, whereas his son, Edmund, who was known
as Edmund de Arundel, is merely called Edmund, Earl of Arundel.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Maud Fitz Alan and her first
husband, Sir Philip Burnell.

Charles Calvert, Mary Launce, John Nelson, William & Elizabeth
Pole, Mary Johanna Somerset

For further particulars of these lines of descent and specifics
regarding the Fitz Alan/Arundel name change, please see my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), a copy of which can be obtained privately
through me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
PRO Document, SC 8/52/2570 (abstract of document available online at
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).

Petition dated c.1330 by John de Haudlo and Maud his wife to the king
and council who state that Philip Burnell and Maud his wife were
seised of certain tenements which were given in free marriage by
Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of Arundel, Maud's brother; which tenements
Maud leased to Edmund Earl of Arundel after Philip's death. Because
they ought to descend to Maud de Haudlo, daughter of Maud and Philip,
John and Maud brought a writ of formedon against Edmund after Maud's
death, but Edmund died while it was being pleaded. The tenements came
into the king's hand, and he gave them to Roger de Mortemer, formerly
Earl of March. They are now again in the king's hand through his
forfeiture, and John and Maud ask him to consider their right, and do
justice to them.

Endorsement: The heir of the Earl of Arundel is restored to his lands,
because of which they are to be at common law.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 nov 2007 05:53:25

Dear Denis ~

We're talking about a common constuct or phraseology in the medieval
period in England, either in Latin or French.

Today we would say "Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnell." Back then
they said "Maud who was the wife of Sir Philip Burnell." It means
the same thing. I prefer the modern rendering to the archaic one.
That's all.

However you render it, the text means that Maud Fitz Alan was formerly
the wife of Sir Philip Burnell, i.e., his widow.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 nov 2007 06:16:03

[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty].

Scots Peerage, 1 (1904): 8 (sub Kings of Scotland) assigns two wives
to Robert I [de Brus], King of Scotland. This material can be found
at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_KEKAA ... ud#PPA8,M1

Regarding Robert de Brus' first wife, Isabel of Mar, it states the
following:

"He married, first, about 1295, Isabella, daughter of Donald, tenth
Earl of Mar, by whom he had an only child." END OF QUOTE.

No documention is provided for this marriage.

In a footnote, the editor explains that this wife "is called Matilda
in a warrant by Edward I. 13 October 1296, Cal. of Docs., ii. 850."

Thus, in spite of the fact that the editor was faced with evidence
that Robert de Brus had a wife named Maud in 1296, he still morphed
Maud into the first wife Isabel of Mar. In truth, Robert de Brus had
three wives, of whom Maud Fitz Alan was the second wife. This
marriage is proven from English sources, not Scottish ones. As far as
I know, Scottish sources are completely silent about King Robert I's
marriage to Maud Fitz Alan, doubtless because the marriage was brief,
childless, and ended in divorce, and because the wife was English.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. For those not familiar with Latin name forms of this time
period, Matilda is the Latin form of Maud (or, if you prefer,
Mahaud).

John Briggs

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av John Briggs » 11 nov 2007 22:36:12

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Denis ~

We're talking about a common constuct or phraseology in the medieval
period in England, either in Latin or French.

Today we would say "Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnell." Back then
they said "Maud who was the wife of Sir Philip Burnell." It means
the same thing. I prefer the modern rendering to the archaic one.
That's all.

I'm not sure about that. Would Maud have reverted to the status of "widow"
if her second marriage was annulled? Come to that, is it more or less
misleading to talk of medieval marriages ending in "divorce" rather than
"annulment"? Which is the correct modern equivalent?

However you render it, the text means that Maud Fitz Alan was formerly
the wife of Sir Philip Burnell, i.e., his widow.

"Formerly" is imprecise - it would cover divorce as well as widowhood.
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 05:53:25

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 11, 2:36 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
< Douglas Richardson wrote:
< > Dear Denis ~
<
< > We're talking about a common constuct or phraseology in the
medieval
< > period in England, either in Latin or French.
Today we would say "Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnell." Back

then
< > they said "Maud who was the wife of Sir Philip Burnell." It
means
the same thing. I prefer the modern rendering to the archaic one.
That's all.

<
< I'm not sure about that. Would Maud have reverted to the status of
"widow"
< if her second marriage was annulled?

Following Sir Philip Burnell's death, Maud Fitz Alan would have have
remained his widow the rest of her remaining life. Her remarriage and
divorce from Robert de Brus did not affect her position as Sir Philip
Burnell's widow. The same is true of her third marriage to Simon de
Criketot. I believe you are applying modern values to the medieval
period. That is ill advised.

<Come to that, is it more or less
< misleading to talk of medieval marriages ending in "divorce" rather
than
< "annulment"? Which is the correct modern equivalent?

The marriage between Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan doubtless ended
in divorce. The chief cause of divorce in this time period was
consanguinity (that is, near kinship betwen the two parties). In this
case, Maud Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus were related within the
prohibited degrees by their common descent frrom Sir William Marshal
(died 1219), Earl of Pembroke, hereditary Marshal of England.

< John Briggs

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Margaret

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Margaret » 12 nov 2007 12:37:45

Changing "wife" to "widow" was unnecessary, arbitrary and
anachronistic (attribution of a custom, event, etc. to a period to
which it does not belong). (Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300 written
in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
you prefer, Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnel)." )

The writer of the text wrote "qe fu la femme". There's nothing
difficult in translating this as "who was the wife". But you claim
"widow", your preferred interpretation, means the same thing. But it
doesn't now and it didn't then. In this particular case it may (or may
not - who knows what evidence is lurking somewhere?) amount to the
same thing. But do you use this same "I prefer" (and it is I, not you,
see above) formula generally, in other cases? What other words,
customs and terms do you prefer to "modernise"? And why?

By the by, I think it's silly to insist everyone use only modern
names. What makes you think people can't cope with the vagaries of
medieval names, terms, etc.? Anyway it's all part of the fun of it,
mental gymnastics are good for us and getting to grips with Latin
forms does no one any harm.

You say you prefer the "modern rendering", but oddly, later on, in
response to a straightforward question you say the questioner's use of
what you call "modern values" is "ill advised". Do you think modern
values have nothing to do with modern renderings?

Reading your posts I often feel you are using your influential (and
privileged) position to create a dead hand layer of obfuscation
between the past and present, "rewriting" medieval genealogy in stone.
If everyone obeyed your instructions, it would only be rendered
according to your values, views, suppositions and preferences.
Yours
Margaret

On Nov 12, 5:53 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 11, 2:36 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:< Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Denis ~

We're talking about a common constuct or phraseology in the
medieval
period in England, either in Latin or French.

Today we would say "Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnell." Back
then
they said "Maud who was the wife of Sir Philip Burnell." It
means> > the same thing. I prefer the modern rendering to the archaic one.

That's all.

I'm not sure about that. Would Maud have reverted to the status of
"widow"
if her second marriage was annulled?

Following Sir Philip Burnell's death, Maud Fitz Alan would have have
remained his widow the rest of her remaining life. Her remarriage and
divorce from Robert de Brus did not affect her position as Sir Philip
Burnell's widow. The same is true of her third marriage to Simon de
Criketot. I believe you are applying modern values to the medieval
period. That is ill advised.

Come to that, is it more or less
misleading to talk of medieval marriages ending in "divorce" rather
than
"annulment"? Which is the correct modern equivalent?

The marriage between Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan doubtless ended
in divorce. The chief cause of divorce in this time period was
consanguinity (that is, near kinship betwen the two parties). In this
case, Maud Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus were related within the
prohibited degrees by their common descent frrom Sir William Marshal
(died 1219), Earl of Pembroke, hereditary Marshal of England.

John Briggs

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 20:08:13

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 12, 4:37 am, Margaret <marschb...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
< Changing "wife" to "widow" was unnecessary, arbitrary and
< anachronistic (attribution of a custom, event, etc. to a period to
< which it does not belong). (Douglas Richardson wrote:
< "Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300
written
< in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
< this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
< you prefer, Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnel)." )
<
The writer of the text wrote "qe fu la femme". There's nothing
difficult in translating this as "who was the wife". But you claim

< "widow", your preferred interpretation, means the same thing. But it
< doesn't now and it didn't then.

The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
the modern construct "the widow of." If you prefer a strict, literal
rendering of all things medieval, please be my guest. However,
it'simpossible to give a strict rendering of everything written in
medieval Latin or medieval French into modern English. Expressions,
customs, laws, etc. change over time. Even modern translators have to
fudge a bit when they are translating one modern language into another
one. And, occasionally I've noticed they make changes in subtitles
in movies from what is spoken on the screen.

But do you use this same "I prefer" (and it is I, not you,
see above) formula generally, in other cases? What other words,
customs and terms do you prefer to "modernise"? And why?

I follow conventions currently used by modern historians. Pick up any
history book on medieval times. You'll notice several conventions
that are being followed if you pay close attention. They're usually
quite easy to spot.

By the by, I think it's silly to insist everyone use only modern names.

Standardizing and modernizing names have a great advantage. But, for
the record, I "insist" on nothing. You are free to do what you wish.
All I say is that you should be consistent in your approach to names,
dates, titles, etc. If you have men's names all rendered in modern
spellings, then you should render the women's names that way as well.

A case in point. I just visited an online medieval genealogical
database. On the page in question, you can find the extended ancestry
of a certain invididual. Reviewing the extended ancestry, I found the
following "inconsistencies."

INCONSISTENCY #1:

I see Amicia, Eva, Egidia, and Sibilla used for women (all Latrin
forms) but Hugh, Roger, Robert, Walter, and Richard for men (modern
standardized forms). The modern standardized forms for the women's
names would be Amice, Eve, Gille (or Giles), and Sibyl.

INCONSISTENCY #2:

I see the forms Maud, Maude, and Matilda (Maud) all used. "Matilda
(Maud)" is used in several instances as if these women had a double
name. Actually Maud is the modern standardized form. Matilda is the
Latin form. There is no double name.

INCONSISTENCY #3:

I see 'Robert VI" used for someone whose name was "Robert de Brus."
And, no he wasn't a king. Ordinal numbers are not assigned to men in
other families. Some members of the de Brus family also have the
surname spelled "Brus," and some have the surname spelled "Bruce."

INCONSISTENCY #4:

I see "Hawise of Beaumont" and "Ida of Toeni" used, as well as
"William de Burgh" and "Walter de Lacy." The person should use
either "de" or "of" but not both. I only use "of" when the person is
a member of a ducal, comital, or royal family (for example, Elizabeth
of England, Isabel of France) . I try to be consistent. It can be
difficult at times.

INCONSISTENCY #5:

I see "Geoffrey Earl of Essex" used for a man's name, when the man's
name was actually "Geoffrey Fitz Peter" His title was Earl of Essex,
not his name.

INCONSISTENCY #6:

I see "Maud (Matilda) St. Hilaire" with no "de." In this case, the
name "Saint Hilaire" takes a "de."

I could cite more examples, but you get my point. The person who
generated this database is all over the map and follows no consistent
approach for how they treat names or titles. Sometimes they uses
"de," sometimes "of," something nothing. Sometimes they use Latin,
sometimes not. Sometimes they assisgn ordinals, sometimes not.
Sometimes they incorporate a title as part of the name, sometimes they
exclude the title completely. Sometimes they use a modern spelling of
a surname, sometimes not. And so forth and so on.

All I tell people is to be consistent.. From there I figure you're
smart enough to fill in your own blanks. Now if we can just get our
ancestors to be consistent.

< What makes you think people can't cope with the vagaries of
< medieval names, terms, etc.? Anyway it's all part of the fun of it,
< mental gymnastics are good for us and getting to grips with Latin
< forms does no one any harm.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you explain yourself
better?

< You say you prefer the "modern rendering", but oddly, later on, in
< response to a straightforward question you say the questioner's use
of
< what you call "modern values" is "ill advised". Do you think modern
< values have nothing to do with modern renderings?

You're misquoting me, or have misunderstood me, or both. Or, perhaps
I failed to make myself clear. Either way you're not saying what I
would say.

Reading your posts I often feel you are using your influential (and
privileged) position to create a dead hand layer of obfuscation
between the past and present, "rewriting" medieval genealogy in stone.
If everyone obeyed your instructions, it would only be rendered
according to your values, views, suppositions and preferences.

You're free to be as consistent or inconsistent as you wish in your
genealogical records, or, for that matter, in your personal life.
Common sense, however, tells us you get further when you have order in
your life, as opposed to utter chaos.

Regardless, my personal views are just that. My personal views.
You're entitled to express your opinion as I am mine. I value your
right to express yourself freely.

In any event, I hardly have an influential (or privileged) position.
My kids just say "Oh Dad!" and do what they want. I think it would
be great to be a teenager again. Then again maybe not.

< Yours
< Margaret

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 12 nov 2007 20:23:59

Robert Bruce the elder married firstly 1271 Margaret Countess of
Carrick, widow of Adam de Kilconquhar. She died in 1292. He died in
1304 and would have probably/possibly married a second wife. Even
though he did not hold the Earldom of Carrick after his wife's death
he would surely have been called by the title as a courtesy. If
Robert his son had had a wife between Isabel of Mar and Elizabeth de
Burgh whom he married in 1302, surely the chroniclers would have noted
it, while they might not in the case of his father.

Are the references to Maud FitzAlan in CDS and if they are, how do
they treat them? I don't have my own copy and I'm miles from a
library which has one.
..

Leticia Cluff

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 12 nov 2007 20:24:29

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:08:13 -0800, Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 12, 4:37 am, Margaret <marschb...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Changing "wife" to "widow" was unnecessary, arbitrary and
anachronistic (attribution of a custom, event, etc. to a period to
which it does not belong). (Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300
written
in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
you prefer, Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnel)." )

The writer of the text wrote "qe fu la femme". There's nothing
difficult in translating this as "who was the wife". But you claim
"widow", your preferred interpretation, means the same thing. But it
doesn't now and it didn't then.

The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
the modern construct "the widow of." If you prefer a strict, literal
rendering of all things medieval, please be my guest.


I don't think Margaret will be fooled by the mock-authoritative tone
of this message, or by the contorsions of a man who makes up his own
rules. The description of one construct as medieval and the other as
modern is wholly arbitrary, with no basis whatever in the reality of
either modern or medieval language.

Google hits for "who was the wife of": 52,500
Google hits for "who was the widow of": 9,690

Note the large majority for the "medieval" construct. I think you will
find that most of the examples occur in a non-medieval context.


However,
it'simpossible to give a strict rendering of everything written in
medieval Latin or medieval French into modern English. Expressions,
customs, laws, etc. change over time. Even modern translators have to
fudge a bit when they are translating one modern language into another
one.

Evidently it's not only modern translators who fudge.

Tish

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 nov 2007 22:16:04

On Nov 12, 12:24 pm, Leticia Cluff <leticia.cl...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:

Do you you hate all men, Tish, or just men with authority?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Renia

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Renia » 12 nov 2007 22:49:40

Douglas Richardson wrote:


The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
the modern construct "the widow of."


It does not, whether you know the outcome of a marriage or not. Some
marriages were annulled and other couples got divorced.

Renia

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Renia » 12 nov 2007 23:59:45

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:49 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:


The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
the modern construct "the widow of."

It does not, whether you know the outcome of a marriage or not. Some
marriages were annulled and other couples got divorced.


The medieval construct "who was the wife of" was used in opposition to
the construct "who is the wife of."

Indeed.


One meant the current wife, the other meant a widow (or if you prefer
a former wife).

Not all former wives were widows. Some were divorcees. Unless the
document states which is which, you can't tell.



In the colonial period, a similar construct is the
phrase "my now wife" which refers to a man's current wife. It does
not mean or suggest the man had a previous marriage, although it has
been interpreted by many to mean that.

Irrelevant. But the phrase "my now wife" simply allows that the "now"
wife may die and he may marry again in the future and wants to specify
this present wife.


When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
invariably indicated by the text.

That may or may not be so, but unless the text tells you, you cannot
tell whether the woman who "was the wife of" someone, was a widow or a
divorcee or, indeed, whether the marriage had been annulled.

John Briggs

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av John Briggs » 13 nov 2007 01:43:59

Renia wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:49 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:


The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing
as the modern construct "the widow of."

It does not, whether you know the outcome of a marriage or not. Some
marriages were annulled and other couples got divorced.


The medieval construct "who was the wife of" was used in opposition
to the construct "who is the wife of."

Indeed.


One meant the current wife, the other meant a widow (or if you prefer
a former wife).

Not all former wives were widows. Some were divorcees. Unless the
document states which is which, you can't tell.



In the colonial period, a similar construct is the
phrase "my now wife" which refers to a man's current wife. It does
not mean or suggest the man had a previous marriage, although it has
been interpreted by many to mean that.

Irrelevant. But the phrase "my now wife" simply allows that the "now"
wife may die and he may marry again in the future and wants to specify
this present wife.



When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
invariably indicated by the text.

That may or may not be so, but unless the text tells you, you cannot
tell whether the woman who "was the wife of" someone, was a widow or a
divorcee or, indeed, whether the marriage had been annulled.

Does it make sense to distinguish between divorce and annulment in the
medieval period? If not, which is the correct modern term to apply?
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 nov 2007 01:52:23

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 12, 3:59 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
< Douglas Richardson wrote:
< > On Nov 12, 2:49 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
<
< >>Douglas Richardson wrote:
<
< >>>The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing
as
< >>>the modern construct "the widow of."
<
< >>It does not, whether you know the outcome of a marriage or not.
Some
< >>marriages were annulled and other couples got divorced.
<
< > The medieval construct "who was the wife of" was used in
opposition to
< > the construct "who is the wife of."
<
< Indeed.
<
< > One meant the current wife, the other meant a widow (or if you
prefer
< > a former wife).
<
< Not all former wives were widows. Some were divorcees. Unless the
< document states which is which, you can't tell.
<
< > In the colonial period, a similar construct is the
< > phrase "my now wife" which refers to a man's current wife. It
does
< > not mean or suggest the man had a previous marriage, although it
has
< > been interpreted by many to mean that.
<
< Irrelevant. But the phrase "my now wife" simply allows that the
"now"
< wife may die and he may marry again in the future and wants to
specify
< this present wife.

Not at all irrelevant. We are talking about constructs of language,
the meaning of which may have been clear to contemporaries, but not
necessarily to those who follow centuries later.

< > When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
< > invariably indicated by the text.
<
< That may or may not be so.

It is so. The reason being that a medieval woman only had rights to
deal with her property`if she was single. Thus any lawsuit over
property, any assignment of dower would necessarily indicate that a
woman was married, widowed, or divorced and single. If she had a
husband, he was duly named.

A good case in point is Amice of Gloucester, the wife of Sir Richard
de Clare, Earl of Hertrford, the Magna Carta baron. Sometime before
Michaelmas 1198, Earl Richard and his wife, Amice, were separated by
order of the Pope on grounds of consanguinity, at which date she
claimed the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, which had been her marriage
portion. Their kinship was presumably due their common descent from
Harleve of Falaise, mother of William the Conqueror, King of England,
they being related in the 5th and 6th degrees of kindred though
Harleve. They were apparently considered divorced by Trinity term
1200, when Amice was called "former wife of the Earl of Clare." In
1202-1203 she repeated her claim to the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, and,
in 1205-1207, she claimed the advowson of St. Gregories, Sudbury,
Suffolk, which the Prioress of Eton said had been granted to Eton by
Earl William, Amice's father. The issue of the validity of their
marriage was presumably resolved, as Amice styled herself in later
charters the "Countess of Clare." Regardless, she and her husband
appear to have been estranged at the time of Earl Richard's death, as
her charters of this period make no mention of her husband, but only
their son and heir, Gilbert. Sir Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford,
died between 30 Oct. and 28 Nov. 1217. Following his death, Tonbridge
Priory petitioned the bishop to grant indulgence "to all who prayed
for the soul of Sir Richard de Clare, formerly Earl of Hertford, whose
body lies in the church of St. Mary Magdalen of Tonbridge, and the
souls of all faithful departed deceased and those who have assisted in
the building or upkeep of the lights" of the church of St. Mary
Magdalen in Tonbridge. Nevertheless, the Earl's widow, Amice, caused
his body to be carried to Tewkesbury Abbey, Gloucestershire, where it
was buried in the choir of the abbey. In the period, 1217-1223, in
her widowhood ["viduetate mea"], she gave to Stoke by Clare Priory a
messuage and possessions of the hospital of St. Sepulchre in Sudbury,
Suffolk. In the period, 1217-1236, Amice, Countess of Clare, in her
widowhood ["viduitate mea'] confirmed grants made to Margam Abbey by
her grandfather, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William, Earl of
Gloucester.

As we can see, even though Amice's marital status changed repeteadly,
from wife to separated spouse to divorced to married again to widow -
the records tell us her marital status through each period.

<, but unless the text tells you, you cannot
< tell whether the woman who "was the wife of" someone, was a widow or
a
< divorcee or, indeed, whether the marriage had been annulled.

Can you cite any medieval English examples of marriages that were
annulled? You mention this as a possibility. So I'm sure you have
some examples.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Briggs

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av John Briggs » 13 nov 2007 01:54:51

Douglas Richardson wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 12, 3:59 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:49 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing
as
the modern construct "the widow of."

It does not, whether you know the outcome of a marriage or not.
Some
marriages were annulled and other couples got divorced.

The medieval construct "who was the wife of" was used in
opposition to
the construct "who is the wife of."

Indeed.

One meant the current wife, the other meant a widow (or if you
prefer
a former wife).

Not all former wives were widows. Some were divorcees. Unless the
document states which is which, you can't tell.

In the colonial period, a similar construct is the
phrase "my now wife" which refers to a man's current wife. It
does
not mean or suggest the man had a previous marriage, although it
has
been interpreted by many to mean that.

Irrelevant. But the phrase "my now wife" simply allows that the
"now"
wife may die and he may marry again in the future and wants to
specify
this present wife.

Not at all irrelevant. We are talking about constructs of language,
the meaning of which may have been clear to contemporaries, but not
necessarily to those who follow centuries later.

When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
invariably indicated by the text.

That may or may not be so.

It is so. The reason being that a medieval woman only had rights to
deal with her property`if she was single. Thus any lawsuit over
property, any assignment of dower would necessarily indicate that a
woman was married, widowed, or divorced and single. If she had a
husband, he was duly named.

A good case in point is Amice of Gloucester, the wife of Sir Richard
de Clare, Earl of Hertrford, the Magna Carta baron. Sometime before
Michaelmas 1198, Earl Richard and his wife, Amice, were separated by
order of the Pope on grounds of consanguinity, at which date she
claimed the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, which had been her marriage
portion. Their kinship was presumably due their common descent from
Harleve of Falaise, mother of William the Conqueror, King of England,
they being related in the 5th and 6th degrees of kindred though
Harleve. They were apparently considered divorced by Trinity term
1200, when Amice was called "former wife of the Earl of Clare." In
1202-1203 she repeated her claim to the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, and,
in 1205-1207, she claimed the advowson of St. Gregories, Sudbury,
Suffolk, which the Prioress of Eton said had been granted to Eton by
Earl William, Amice's father. The issue of the validity of their
marriage was presumably resolved, as Amice styled herself in later
charters the "Countess of Clare." Regardless, she and her husband
appear to have been estranged at the time of Earl Richard's death, as
her charters of this period make no mention of her husband, but only
their son and heir, Gilbert. Sir Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford,
died between 30 Oct. and 28 Nov. 1217. Following his death, Tonbridge
Priory petitioned the bishop to grant indulgence "to all who prayed
for the soul of Sir Richard de Clare, formerly Earl of Hertford, whose
body lies in the church of St. Mary Magdalen of Tonbridge, and the
souls of all faithful departed deceased and those who have assisted in
the building or upkeep of the lights" of the church of St. Mary
Magdalen in Tonbridge. Nevertheless, the Earl's widow, Amice, caused
his body to be carried to Tewkesbury Abbey, Gloucestershire, where it
was buried in the choir of the abbey. In the period, 1217-1223, in
her widowhood ["viduetate mea"], she gave to Stoke by Clare Priory a
messuage and possessions of the hospital of St. Sepulchre in Sudbury,
Suffolk. In the period, 1217-1236, Amice, Countess of Clare, in her
widowhood ["viduitate mea'] confirmed grants made to Margam Abbey by
her grandfather, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William, Earl of
Gloucester.

As we can see, even though Amice's marital status changed repeteadly,
from wife to separated spouse to divorced to married again to widow -
the records tell us her marital status through each period.

, but unless the text tells you, you cannot
tell whether the woman who "was the wife of" someone, was a widow or
a
divorcee or, indeed, whether the marriage had been annulled.

Can you cite any medieval English examples of marriages that were
annulled? You mention this as a possibility. So I'm sure you have
some examples.

Can you explain why you think 'divorce' is a better term than 'annulment'?
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Renia » 13 nov 2007 02:19:34

Douglas Richardson wrote:

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 12, 3:59 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:49 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing
as
the modern construct "the widow of."

It does not, whether you know the outcome of a marriage or not.
Some
marriages were annulled and other couples got divorced.

The medieval construct "who was the wife of" was used in
opposition to
the construct "who is the wife of."

Indeed.

One meant the current wife, the other meant a widow (or if you
prefer
a former wife).

Not all former wives were widows. Some were divorcees. Unless the
document states which is which, you can't tell.

In the colonial period, a similar construct is the
phrase "my now wife" which refers to a man's current wife. It
does
not mean or suggest the man had a previous marriage, although it
has
been interpreted by many to mean that.

Irrelevant. But the phrase "my now wife" simply allows that the
"now"
wife may die and he may marry again in the future and wants to
specify
this present wife.

Not at all irrelevant. We are talking about constructs of language,
the meaning of which may have been clear to contemporaries, but not
necessarily to those who follow centuries later.

We are not talking about constructs of language. We are talking of legal
terminology, much of which is still used in English law courts today.


When a divorced woman was involved in the medieval period, it was
invariably indicated by the text.

That may or may not be so.

It is so. The reason being that a medieval woman only had rights to
deal with her property`if she was single.


Unmarried women did not have property rights. Widows had property rights.


Thus any lawsuit over
property, any assignment of dower would necessarily indicate that a
woman was married, widowed, or divorced and single. If she had a
husband, he was duly named.

A good case in point is Amice of Gloucester, the wife of Sir Richard
de Clare, Earl of Hertrford, the Magna Carta baron. Sometime before
Michaelmas 1198, Earl Richard and his wife, Amice, were separated by
order of the Pope on grounds of consanguinity, at which date she
claimed the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, which had been her marriage
portion. Their kinship was presumably due their common descent from
Harleve of Falaise, mother of William the Conqueror, King of England,
they being related in the 5th and 6th degrees of kindred though
Harleve. They were apparently considered divorced by Trinity term
1200, when Amice was called "former wife of the Earl of Clare." In
1202-1203 she repeated her claim to the town of Sudbury, Suffolk, and,
in 1205-1207, she claimed the advowson of St. Gregories, Sudbury,
Suffolk, which the Prioress of Eton said had been granted to Eton by
Earl William, Amice's father. The issue of the validity of their
marriage was presumably resolved, as Amice styled herself in later
charters the "Countess of Clare." Regardless, she and her husband
appear to have been estranged at the time of Earl Richard's death, as
her charters of this period make no mention of her husband, but only
their son and heir, Gilbert. Sir Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford,
died between 30 Oct. and 28 Nov. 1217. Following his death, Tonbridge
Priory petitioned the bishop to grant indulgence "to all who prayed
for the soul of Sir Richard de Clare, formerly Earl of Hertford, whose
body lies in the church of St. Mary Magdalen of Tonbridge, and the
souls of all faithful departed deceased and those who have assisted in
the building or upkeep of the lights" of the church of St. Mary
Magdalen in Tonbridge. Nevertheless, the Earl's widow, Amice, caused
his body to be carried to Tewkesbury Abbey, Gloucestershire, where it
was buried in the choir of the abbey. In the period, 1217-1223, in
her widowhood ["viduetate mea"], she gave to Stoke by Clare Priory a
messuage and possessions of the hospital of St. Sepulchre in Sudbury,
Suffolk. In the period, 1217-1236, Amice, Countess of Clare, in her
widowhood ["viduitate mea'] confirmed grants made to Margam Abbey by
her grandfather, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William, Earl of
Gloucester.

As we can see, even though Amice's marital status changed repeteadly,
from wife to separated spouse to divorced to married again to widow -
the records tell us her marital status through each period.

, but unless the text tells you, you cannot
tell whether the woman who "was the wife of" someone, was a widow or
a
divorcee or, indeed, whether the marriage had been annulled.

Can you cite any medieval English examples of marriages that were
annulled? You mention this as a possibility. So I'm sure you have
some examples.

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but who chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

allan connochie

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av allan connochie » 13 nov 2007 08:49:48

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1194729009.310748.301640@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I recently posted regarding the subsequent history of Maud Fitz Alan,
the hitherto unnoticed second wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick,
lord of Annandale (afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of Scotland).
In my earlier post copied below, I stated that this marriage was

Does the document actually state "Lord of Annandale"? If it does won't
there be a potential problem there? Robert didn't become Lord of Annandale
until 1304 when his father died. Robert de Brus (the father) was married to
Marjorie of Carrick who died in 1292. He had also been Earl of Carrick but
gave the title to his son (the future king) on the death of Marjorie. He of
course had lands in England too and based himself there for some time during
the Scottish Wars. Isn't it possible that this 'secret marriage' could have
involved Robert de Brus the father rather than Robert de Brus the son? When
did the father's second marriage to Eleanor/Alionere take place?

Allan

Margaret

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Margaret » 13 nov 2007 13:05:52

If I had to translate "snit" (a word you use against Trish that I've
never come across before) I'd certainly have to fudge it. However,
"wife" needs no fudging whatever. Nor does "who was the wife". Film
subtitles are irrelevant here, it's totally different work with
totally different constraints and aims.

It's so sad. All you had to do was reply 'Oops, sorry' to Leo when he
first spotted the mistake. We all make mistakes. It's better in the
long run to swallow our pride and admit it. All you're doing is
digging yourself into a hole.

I've not seen anyone arguing for inconsistency. It's a fact of life
and part of being human. The problem is the way you jump down people's
throats, set yourself up in judgement - then continue with
inconsistencies of your own. I'm prepared to believe it's not
deliberate and that you're not aware of how offensive your admonitions
come over but that wouldn't make them any more useful or acceptable.
One way or the other you do, I'm afraid, seem muddled. I mentioned
"modern rendering" and "modern values" and how you allow yourself the
first and disapprove of the second. You replied "You're misquoting me,
or have misunderstood me, or both. Or, perhaps I failed to make myself
clear. Either way you're not saying what I would say." I did not
misquote, your words were there in the message I was replying to. I
read the two "moderns" together and saw the inconsistency. If it is
not what you meant it's up to you to analyse it further.

You asked me to explain my point better when I wrote:
< What makes you think people can't cope with the vagaries of
< medieval names, terms, etc.? Anyway it's all part of the fun of it,
< mental gymnastics are good for us and getting to grips with Latin
< forms does no one any harm.

I was trying to point out the pleasure and other benefits of research.
I'd like to discuss what I'm doing on this group. However, when I sent
in a question your response was pure negativity except when you
reminded me of your work. First you "corrected" my rendition of a
name, you gave a long list of inaccessible (to me) books, and you
ignored the problem raised in my (secondary) source, telling me
instead that *I'd* got it wrong. You then repeated the names and
relationships that I'd asked about in the first place. The impression
you left was "just take my word for it". Well no, Douglas, I won't
just take your word for it. You didn't read my question properly and
the evidence presented by my secondary source is worth investigating.

I was mortified by your treatment of the source I presented, passing
it off, as you did, as "my" confusion. This was downright
unprofessional. I decided not to present other people's work on sgm
again just to open it up to such insult.

More often than not your messages come over as if genealogy was your
private domain that Shall Not Be Questioned. You fend off and duck
questions, or ignore them, and when you're stumped you make personal
remarks.

For example, you write:
"You're free to be as consistent or inconsistent as you wish in your
genealogical records, or, for that matter, in your personal life.
Common sense, however, tells us you get further when you have order in
your life, as opposed to utter chaos."
"Regardless, my personal views are just that. My personal views.
You're entitled to express your opinion as I am mine. I value your
right to express yourself freely."

Why do you think you're in a position to tell me what I can and can't
do and what I'm entitled to - even if you did know anything about my
genealogical records or my personal life. You have no grounds for
making any comment whatever on them.

Personal views are not at issue. But when you publish your work it is
up for grabs. Readers have every right to ask about original sources,
question, discuss your interpretations, and evaluate them in relation
to other sources, the work of other genealogists, and the work of
historians without being discouraged and having their intelligence
insulted. It must be very gratifying to see your work cited so much
and with such confidence. Indeed, it's a real achievement. There's no
need to spoil it by responding as you do to awkward questions.

Finally, you write:
"In any event, I hardly have an influential (or privileged) position.
My kids just say "Oh Dad!" and do what they want. I think it would
be great to be a teenager again. Then again maybe not."

What part of "dead hand layer of obfuscation between the past and
present" makes you think I was commenting on your family life or
parenting skills?

Yours
Margaret

On Nov 12, 8:08 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Nov 12, 4:37 am, Margaret <marschb...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Changing "wife" to "widow" was unnecessary, arbitrary and
anachronistic (attribution of a custom, event, etc. to a period to
which it does not belong). (Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Mr. Rye also provides a transcript of a document dated 1300
written
in French issued by Maud Fitz Alan herself. Her name is given in
this document as "Mahaud qe fu la femme Sire Philip Burnel" (or, if
you prefer, Maud the widow of Sir Philip Burnel)." )
The writer of the text wrote "qe fu la femme". There's nothing

difficult in translating this as "who was the wife". But you claim
"widow", your preferred interpretation, means the same thing. But it
doesn't now and it didn't then.

The medieval construct "who was the wife of" means the same thing as
the modern construct "the widow of." If you prefer a strict, literal
rendering of all things medieval, please be my guest. However,
it'simpossible to give a strict rendering of everything written in
medieval Latin or medieval French into modern English. Expressions,
customs, laws, etc. change over time. Even modern translators have to
fudge a bit when they are translating one modern language into another
one. And, occasionally I've noticed they make changes in subtitles
in movies from what is spoken on the screen.

But do you use this same "I prefer" (and it is I, not you,

see above) formula generally, in other cases? What other words,
customs and terms do you prefer to "modernise"? And why?

I follow conventions currently used by modern historians. Pick up any
history book on medieval times. You'll notice several conventions
that are being followed if you pay close attention. They're usually
quite easy to spot.

By the by, I think it's silly to insist everyone use only modern names.

Standardizing and modernizing names have a great advantage. But, for
the record, I "insist" on nothing. You are free to do what you wish.
All I say is that you should be consistent in your approach to names,
dates, titles, etc. If you have men's names all rendered in modern
spellings, then you should render the women's names that way as well.

A case in point. I just visited an online medieval genealogical
database. On the page in question, you can find the extended ancestry
of a certain invididual. Reviewing the extended ancestry, I found the
following "inconsistencies."

INCONSISTENCY #1:

I see Amicia, Eva, Egidia, and Sibilla used for women (all Latrin
forms) but Hugh, Roger, Robert, Walter, and Richard for men (modern
standardized forms). The modern standardized forms for the women's
names would be Amice, Eve, Gille (or Giles), and Sibyl.

INCONSISTENCY #2:

I see the forms Maud, Maude, and Matilda (Maud) all used. "Matilda
(Maud)" is used in several instances as if these women had a double
name. Actually Maud is the modern standardized form. Matilda is the
Latin form. There is no double name.

INCONSISTENCY #3:

I see 'Robert VI" used for someone whose name was "Robert de Brus."
And, no he wasn't a king. Ordinal numbers are not assigned to men in
other families. Some members of the de Brus family also have the
surname spelled "Brus," and some have the surname spelled "Bruce."

INCONSISTENCY #4:

I see "Hawise of Beaumont" and "Ida of Toeni" used, as well as
"William de Burgh" and "Walter de Lacy." The person should use
either "de" or "of" but not both. I only use "of" when the person is
a member of a ducal, comital, or royal family (for example, Elizabeth
of England, Isabel of France) . I try to be consistent. It can be
difficult at times.

INCONSISTENCY #5:

I see "Geoffrey Earl of Essex" used for a man's name, when the man's
name was actually "Geoffrey Fitz Peter" His title was Earl of Essex,
not his name.

INCONSISTENCY #6:

I see "Maud (Matilda) St. Hilaire" with no "de." In this case, the
name "Saint Hilaire" takes a "de."

I could cite more examples, but you get my point. The person who
generated this database is all over the map and follows no consistent
approach for how they treat names or titles. Sometimes they uses
"de," sometimes "of," something nothing. Sometimes they use Latin,
sometimes not. Sometimes they assisgn ordinals, sometimes not.
Sometimes they incorporate a title as part of the name, sometimes they
exclude the title completely. Sometimes they use a modern spelling of
a surname, sometimes not. And so forth and so on.

All I tell people is to be consistent.. From there I figure you're
smart enough to fill in your own blanks. Now if we can just get our
ancestors to be consistent.

What makes you think people can't cope with the vagaries of
medieval names, terms, etc.? Anyway it's all part of the fun of it,
mental gymnastics are good for us and getting to grips with Latin
forms does no one any harm.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you explain yourself
better?

You say you prefer the "modern rendering", but oddly, later on, in
response to a straightforward question you say the questioner's use
of
what you call "modern values" is "ill advised". Do you think modern
values have nothing to do with modern renderings?

You're misquoting me, or have misunderstood me, or both. Or, perhaps
I failed to make myself clear. Either way you're not saying what I
would say.

Reading your posts I often feel you are using your influential (and
privileged) position to create a dead hand layer of obfuscation
between the past and present, "rewriting" medieval genealogy in stone.
If everyone obeyed your instructions, it would only be rendered
according to your values, views, suppositions and preferences.

You're free to be as consistent or inconsistent as you wish in your
genealogical records, or, for that matter, in your personal life.
Common sense, however, tells us you get further when you have order in
your life, as opposed to utter chaos.

Regardless, my personal views are just that. My personal views.
You're entitled to express your opinion as I am mine. I value your
right to express yourself freely.

In any event, I hardly have an influential (or privileged) position.
My kids just say "Oh Dad!" and do what they want. I think it would
be great to be a teenager again. Then again maybe not.

Yours
Margaret

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 13 nov 2007 16:15:09

On 12 Nov, 19:23, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Robert Bruce the elder married firstly 1271 Margaret Countess of
Carrick, widow of Adam de Kilconquhar. She died in 1292. He died in
1304 and would have probably/possibly married a second wife. Even
though he did not hold the Earldom of Carrick after his wife's death
he would surely have been called by the title as a courtesy. If
Robert his son had had a wife between Isabel of Mar and Elizabeth de
Burgh whom he married in 1302, surely the chroniclers would have noted
it, while they might not in the case of his father.

Are the references to Maud FitzAlan in CDS and if they are, how do
they treat them? I don't have my own copy and I'm miles from a
library which has one.
.



I posted the above message, which is germane to the thread.
Unfortunately you all seem more interested in slagging each other off
than exploring the turn of the 13th century. Would anyone dare to
forswear their favourite pastime and address the argument in my post?

John Briggs

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av John Briggs » 13 nov 2007 17:28:41

Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
On 12 Nov, 19:23, Alex Maxwell Findlater
maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Robert Bruce the elder married firstly 1271 Margaret Countess of
Carrick, widow of Adam de Kilconquhar. She died in 1292. He died in
1304 and would have probably/possibly married a second wife. Even
though he did not hold the Earldom of Carrick after his wife's death
he would surely have been called by the title as a courtesy. If
Robert his son had had a wife between Isabel of Mar and Elizabeth de
Burgh whom he married in 1302, surely the chroniclers would have
noted it, while they might not in the case of his father.

Are the references to Maud FitzAlan in CDS and if they are, how do
they treat them? I don't have my own copy and I'm miles from a
library which has one.

I posted the above message, which is germane to the thread.
Unfortunately you all seem more interested in slagging each other off
than exploring the turn of the 13th century. Would anyone dare to
forswear their favourite pastime and address the argument in my post?

CDS?
--
John Briggs

Margaret

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Margaret » 13 nov 2007 18:32:55

On Nov 13, 4:15 pm, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12 Nov, 19:23, Alex Maxwell Findlater

maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Robert Bruce the elder married firstly 1271 Margaret Countess of
Carrick, widow of Adam de Kilconquhar. She died in 1292. He died in
1304 and would have probably/possibly married a second wife. Even
though he did not hold the Earldom of Carrick after his wife's death
he would surely have been called by the title as a courtesy. If
Robert his son had had a wife between Isabel of Mar and Elizabeth de
Burgh whom he married in 1302, surely the chroniclers would have noted
it, while they might not in the case of his father.

Are the references to Maud FitzAlan in CDS and if they are, how do
they treat them? I don't have my own copy and I'm miles from a
library which has one.
.

I posted the above message, which is germane to the thread.
Unfortunately you all seem more interested in slagging each other off
than exploring the turn of the 13th century. Would anyone dare to
forswear their favourite pastime and address the argument in my post?

You're quite right and it's a pity. I read your question and I'd like
to see it discussed. I'm afraid I don't know nearly enough to be of
use.
yours
Margaret

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 13 nov 2007 19:42:54

CDS?
--
John Briggs

Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, ed Joseph Bain - sometimes
called Bain

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 nov 2007 21:56:12

[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty].

I believe the information below gives a complete answer to Alex's
question regarding the identity of Robert de Brus, the husband of Maud
Fitz Alan.

A license was issued 19 September 1295, for Maud [Fitz Alan], late the
wife of Philip Burnel, tenant in chief, to marry Robert de Brus, lord
of Annandale [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301 (1895),
pg. 147]. A weblink to this record is given below:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0147.pdf

The next record is a communication dated 13 October 1296 from King
Edward I of England to John de Langetone found in the published
Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland by Bain. This specific
record names Maud Fitz Alan's husband in 1296 as Robert de Brus, Earl
of Carrick and lord of Annandale. It is erroneously cited by Scots
Peerage as pertaining to Robert de Brus, grandson of the Competitor
(afterwards King Robert I), when it actually pertains to his father,
Robert de Brus, Senior, who died in 1304.

"On 13 October 1296 at Kirkham. The King to John de Langetone to his
chancellor. Empowers him to appoint some fit person to receive the
attiorneys of Robert de Brus Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale,
and Matill[idis] his`wife, in a plea of dower whereof the said earl's
clerk, the bearer, will acquaint him. Privy Seals (Tower), 24 Edward
I. Bundle 5." [Reference: Joseph Bain, Calendar of Documents relating
to Scotland, 2 (1884): 223, no. 850].

We can be certain of the identity of Maud Fitz Alan's husband, Robert
de Brus, from two documents. In the first document dated 1296, Robert
de Brus, son and heir of the Competitor, is dealing with his step-
mother, Christian d'Ireby regarding her dower in Scotland and
England. Robert grants his step-mother dower from the freehold of his
father in the valleys of Annan and Moffet, showing that in 1296 he
then controlled Annandale, not his son.

29 August 1296 from the Close Rolls Edward I. Agreement between
Chirstiana widow of Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale plaintiff and
Robert de Brus his son and heir defendant as to dower both in England
and Scotland. Robert grants her dower from the freehold of his father
in the valleys of Annan and Moffet as in John late king of Scotland's
time ... She also grants to the said Robert her dower in the rents of
the burghs of Annan and Lochmaben [Reference: Joseph Bain, Calendar
of Documents relating to Scotland, 2 (1884): 217, no. 826].

In the next document dated 1298, Robert de Brus, senior (i.e., son of
the Competitor) is specifically styled Earl of Carrick and lord of
Annandale, in spite of the fact that he had formally resigned the
earldom of Carrick and its lands to his son, Robert, junior, in 1292.
Thus, he should be the same individual who was assigned these same
titles in the communication by King Edward I mentioned above dated
1296.

Charter dated 29 May 1298 [Thursday in Pentecost week in 26 Edward I.]
Robert de Brus senior, Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale, releases
and quitclaims to John Herolff a half virgate of land in Writtle,
Essex [Reference: Ruth Blakely, The Brus Family in England and
Scotland, 1100-1295 (2005) pg. 232, no. 193; original in Essex Record
Ofice, Charter D/DP T1/1770.

I have confirmed the date of the charter cited by Blakely.

Unfortunately there appears to be no surviving charters for the
younger Robert de Brus (aftewards King Robert I) in this time period,
so we don't know what title(s) he used if any during this period.
What can be said, however, is that his father, Robert de Brus, Senior,
was clearly known as Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale during this
period, and we know that Maud Fitz Alan's husband had these titles.
Thus, it would appear that it was the elder Robert de Brus (died 1304)
who married Maud Fitz Alan, not his son, Robert de Brus the younger
(who was afterwards King Robert I of Scotland).

The marriage of Maud Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus appears to have
ended in divorce sometime before Easter term 1299, when Maud sued in
English courts as "Maud who was the wife of Philip Burnell" regarding
her right of dower in a messuage in Gunton, Norfolk, without making
reference to Robert de Brus as her husband [Reference: Rye, Some Rough
Materials for a Hist. of the Hundred of North Erpingham 1 (1883): 82-
85]. The usual cause for divorce in this time period was
consanguinity (that is, near kinship between the two parties). In
this case, Maud Fitz Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus were related in the
4th and 3rd degrees of kindred respectively by virtue of their common
descent from William Marshal (died 1219), Earl of Pembroke. Thus,
there would have been grounds for a divorce between these two
parties. In 1302 Maud petitioned the king and council in England as
"Maud widow of Philip Burnel" regarding socages and burgages held in
various counties by her late husband, Philip Burnell [PRO Document, SC
8/313/E63]. Maud Fitz Alan subsequently married (3rd) Simon de
Criketot. She was still living 19 June 1316, but died shortly before
17 Nov. 1326 (death date of her nephew, Edmund, Earl of Arundel), as
indicated by a petition to the king and council dated c.1330 submitted
by her daughter and son-in-law, Maud and John de Haudlo [Reference:
PRO Document, SC 8/52/2570].

Special thanks go to my good friend and colleague, Andrew MacEwen, of
Stockton Springs, Maine, the resident expert in all things Scottish,
for his gracious help in the preparation of this post. Mr. MacEwen
typifies the meaning of the expression, "a gentleman and a scholar."

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2007 23:14:38

On Nov 13, 12:56 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty].

. . . just because he can . . .

I believe the information below gives a complete answer to Alex's
question regarding the identity of Robert de Brus, the husband of Maud
Fitz Alan.

A license was issued 19 September 1295, for Maud [Fitz Alan], late the
wife of Philip Burnel, tenant in chief, to marry Robert de Brus, lord
of Annandale [Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301 (1895),
pg. 147]. A weblink to this record is given below:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0147.pdf

The next record is a communication dated 13 October 1296 from King
Edward I of England to John de Langetone found in the published
Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland by Bain. This specific
record names Maud Fitz Alan's husband in 1296 as Robert de Brus, Earl
of Carrick and lord of Annandale. It is erroneously cited by Scots
Peerage as pertaining to Robert de Brus, grandson of the Competitor
(afterwards King Robert I), when it actually pertains to his father,
Robert de Brus, Senior, who died in 1304.


Just as a reminder, the post that started this thread stated (emphasis
mine):

"In earlier posts on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I presented
evidence which *proved conclusively* that Robert de Brus, Earl of
Carrick, lord of Annandale (*afterwards King Robert [I] de Brus of
Scotland*) had a previously unknown second marriage by license dated
19 Sept. 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell, Knt., of
Holgate, Shropshire, and daughter of John Fitz Alan, of Clun and
Oswestry, Shropshire."

and

"In *truth*, Robert de Brus had three wives, of whom Maud Fitz Alan
was the second wife. This marriage is proven from English sources,
not Scottish ones. As far as I know, Scottish sources are completely
silent about King Robert I's marriage to Maud Fitz Alan, doubtless
because the marriage was brief, childless, and ended in divorce, and
because the wife was English."

So, what was "proved conclusively", what was "truth" only obscured do
to a "doubtless" cover-up just a few weeks ago (even as recently as
three days ago) now finds itself on the dustbin of history, without
the slightest indication of this reversal of fortune (I guess we
should just be glad all of the earlier posts in the thread were not
deleted).

taf

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 13 nov 2007 23:57:58

I am most grateful for this, above, analysis of the evidence. It
leads to the conclusion which I expected, but being unable to see the
documents myself, I am unable to present them, or indeed vouch them.
Mr Richardson has very generously unravelled the construct which he
previously made: this would obviously have been a matter of some
delicacy for him, having initiated this thread on a somewhat different
basis. We should acknowledge his respect for the truth, as well as we
can see it at this distance, and hope that we, ourselves, are not to
be so unlucky as to start off on a false track. I myself have often
got the wrong end of the stick and had to rework research.

Furthermore this response which, we should all acknowledge, must have
taken some courage, was in the face of considerable hostility. I am
not suggesting that hostility was in one direction only, but I am
suggesting that research has to be done in a spirit of geniality and
collegiality to be really effective. We should all note this in our
hearts.

Thank you for your forbearance. End of sermon!

Alex

Leticia Cluff

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 14 nov 2007 00:19:40

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:57:58 -0800, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am most grateful for this, above, analysis of the evidence. It
leads to the conclusion which I expected, but being unable to see the
documents myself, I am unable to present them, or indeed vouch them.
Mr Richardson has very generously unravelled the construct which he
previously made: this would obviously have been a matter of some
delicacy for him, having initiated this thread on a somewhat different
basis. We should acknowledge his respect for the truth, as well as we
can see it at this distance, and hope that we, ourselves, are not to
be so unlucky as to start off on a false track. I myself have often
got the wrong end of the stick and had to rework research.

Furthermore this response which, we should all acknowledge, must have
taken some courage, was in the face of considerable hostility. I am
not suggesting that hostility was in one direction only, but I am
suggesting that research has to be done in a spirit of geniality and
collegiality to be really effective. We should all note this in our
hearts.

Thank you for your forbearance. End of sermon!

Well said!

And Mr. Richardson has displayed this courage twice in two days. He
deserves praise for his frank and public admissions that he was in
error, and for his displays of graciousness in thanking the experts
whose opinions he heeded.

Pax vobiscum

Tish

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 nov 2007 00:24:14

[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty]

For those of you not familiar with this particular research problem,
it is known that Maud Fitz Alan's sometime husband, Robert de Brus,
was Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale in 1296. This is proven by
a warrant issued by King Edward I of England in that year. Likewise,
it is known that in 1292, three years prior to Maud's marriage to
Robert de Brus, that Robert de Brus, senior, resigned the earldom of
Carrick over to his son, Robert de Brus, junior (afterwards King
Robert I). Thus Scots Peerage assigns the record of the 1296 warrant
of King Edward I to the younger Robert de Brus in their account of the
royal Brus family. Given the fact that the younger Robert had the
earldom before this date, this is not at all surprising.

What confuses the matter, however, is that it is known that Robert de
Brus, senior, continued to use the title Earl of Carrick AFTER he
resigned the earldom and its lands to his son. So technically you
have two men who conceivably could be called Earl of Carrick in the
records. Unfortunately, while charters have survived for the father,
none have survived for the son in this time period. Thus, is is
unknown if both men were styled Earl of Carrick in 1296, or only one.
Confused yet? I am.

What resolves this particular problem is determining who was
controlling Annandale in 1296. This estate is also known to have been
held by Maud Fitz Alan's husband, Robert de Brus. Maud's husband is
specifically called "lord of Annandale" in the 1295 license that King
Edward I granted to Maud and Robert which allowed them to marry.
Maud's husband is also called "lord of Annandale" in the warrant of
King Edward I mentioned above dated in 1296. It is Bain's Calendar
that resolves this issue. Bain shows that the elder Robert de Brus
granted dower to his widowed step-mother, Christian d'Ireby "from the
freehold of his father in the valleys of Annan and Moffet" in 1296.
This grant proves that it was the elder Robert de Brus was lord of
Annandale in 1296, not the son.

Lastly, in a more practical vein, it is known that the elder Robert de
Brus was living in England after 1294, when he had livery of his
father's lands and was appointed Governor of Carlisle Castle. He
accompanied King Edward in his expedition to Scotland against Balliol
in 1296, but on his claims to the throne being thwarted by Edward, he
again retired to England, where he resided chiefly at Broomshawbury,
Essex. Thus, it was Robert de Brus, senior, who was living in England
at the time of Maud Fitz Alan's marriage to Robert de Brus, not the
son. Thus one would suppose it was more likely that it was the elder
Robert who was Maud's husband, she being English, rather than his son
of the same name who was presumably living in Scotland during this
time period. In 1299, for instance, the younger Robert de Brus was
chosen one of the guardians of the kingdom of Scotland.

Again I wish to thank Andrew MacEwen, of Stockton Springs, Maine for
his help and assistance in this matter. As I stated before, Mr.
MacEwen is the essence of a gentleman and a scholar.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Leo van de Pas

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 14 nov 2007 00:30:24

Dear Alex,

I think you are too kind and too generous towards Richardson. I don't
understand how you can talk about "his respect for the truth".

He send out a message.

He is told he is wrong

He removes his original message from the Google archives

He sends his re-written message-------without saying it is a re-write,
without acknowledging he was wrong in the first place.

You may see his "respect for the truth" in one matter, but there are too
many where this does not apply. To say this one "respect for the truth"
whitewashes Richardson, I would not agree.

Why do you think Richardson is encountering "hostility"? Richardson is the
only person "encountering hostitlity in regards to genealogy" Why do you
think that is the case?

He resents criticism and reacts negatively, instead of seeing "criticism" as
an effort to improve or correct the information. By his reactions he extends
the "hostility" and moves from the subject to the people who "dare" suggest
he might be wrong. How is that in regards to "respect for the truth"?

I don't know how many times I have said that Richardson is really tragic,
_if only_ his approach was different he would have had a huge number of
people supporting him, what he has achieved is totally the opposite.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan,the Almost Queen of
Scotland


I am most grateful for this, above, analysis of the evidence. It
leads to the conclusion which I expected, but being unable to see the
documents myself, I am unable to present them, or indeed vouch them.
Mr Richardson has very generously unravelled the construct which he
previously made: this would obviously have been a matter of some
delicacy for him, having initiated this thread on a somewhat different
basis. We should acknowledge his respect for the truth, as well as we
can see it at this distance, and hope that we, ourselves, are not to
be so unlucky as to start off on a false track. I myself have often
got the wrong end of the stick and had to rework research.

Furthermore this response which, we should all acknowledge, must have
taken some courage, was in the face of considerable hostility. I am
not suggesting that hostility was in one direction only, but I am
suggesting that research has to be done in a spirit of geniality and
collegiality to be really effective. We should all note this in our
hearts.

Thank you for your forbearance. End of sermon!

Alex


-------------------------------
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan,The Almost Que

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 01:16:38

Leo is having yet another hissy fit....

Tempest in a teapot.

Douglas Richardson did the right thing -- he revised and extended his
remarks.

Anyone is entitled to do that. Congressmen and Senators do it all the time.

If DR did indeed remove the original "wrong" message from Google, that's a
Good Thing too. It won't be there to mislead someone in the future.

What does Leo think happens in the publishing business when a new edition of
a book comes out? Things are CHANGED, including factual errors.

To then stress that DR must go around and thank everyone who may have
spurred him to make some corrections is also overwrought and tedious.

That can become a long battle of who shot John, who should get credit, _mea
culpas_ and all other sorts of wastes of time.

Better just to move on and do Real Genealogy without all the small-minded
back-biting that Leo has become a Master of.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.486.1194996672.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

He send [sic] out a message.

He is told he is wrong

He removes his original message from the Google archives

He sends his re-written message-------without saying it is a re-write,
without acknowledging he was wrong in the first place.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan,The Almost Que

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 nov 2007 01:45:33

On Nov 13, 5:16 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Leo is having yet another hissy fit....

Yes, he is. Poor thing.

DR

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2007 02:06:37

On Nov 13, 2:57 pm, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mr Richardson has very generously unravelled the construct which he
previously made: this would obviously have been a matter of some
delicacy for him, having initiated this thread on a somewhat different
basis.

Well, no, he didn't unravel the previous construct. He simply made the
best case for the new construct and ignored the fact that any other
construct had ever been posted, let alone as having been "proved
conclusively".

We should acknowledge his respect for the truth, as well as we
can see it at this distance, and hope that we, ourselves, are not to
be so unlucky as to start off on a false track. I myself have often
got the wrong end of the stick and had to rework research.

Anyone can start out on a wrong track, and that is why everyone should
keep an open mind to their own conclusions and be ready to reevaluate
them. The problem here is not that an initial conclusion was
abandoned for a revised one - that is as it should be. The real
problem is that the initial conclusion was announced to be "proven
conclusively". Something with that level of proof should not be so
easily revised, or to put it another way, something that can be so
readily revised should not be declared "conclusively proven". Instead,
this conclusively proven non-solution was declared to the group and
those who have raised doubts have been either ignored or denigrated
for doubting him, while historians were accused of covering up The
Truth. Now, again, he parades out The Truth, without any indication
that this new Truth is completely at odds with the previous Truth.


Furthermore this response which, we should all acknowledge, must have
taken some courage, was in the face of considerable hostility.

It would have taken more courage to say, "I was wrong and this is why"
rather than simply to declare a new dogma without the least hint that
as recently as three days before the alternative solution was being
touted by the same poster as The Truth. Further, such a behavior would
likely have faced less hostility than this artificial aura of smug
perfection.

I am
not suggesting that hostility was in one direction only, but I am
suggesting that research has to be done in a spirit of geniality and
collegiality to be really effective. We should all note this in our
hearts.

I am all for geniality and collegiality, but have little truck for
hypocrisy and strutting self-importance. For years the poster has
treated this group (and now several other groups as well) as an
audience to be talked down to and not as a group of colleagues. Well,
when someone treats a public discussion forum as nothing but a vehicle
for self-promotion, when they make their expertise rather than the
genealogical facts the central issue, they reap what they sew.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, The Almost Qu

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 14 nov 2007 02:19:00

taf, Todd A. Farmerie, The Illiterate strikes again...

In the throes of another hissy fit.

DSH

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1195002397.126569.91160@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

Well,
when someone treats a public discussion forum as nothing but a vehicle
for self-promotion, when they make their expertise rather than the
genealogical facts the central issue, they reap what they sew. [sic]

taf

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, The Almost Qu

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2007 02:47:19

On Nov 13, 5:19 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
taf, Todd A. Farmerie, The Illiterate strikes again...

In the throes of another hissy fit.


To Mr. Richardson. Before you chime in with another snide 'me too'
post in response to this, note that the poster has decided his
contribution is also appropriate for the newsgroup:

alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial

Setting aside what this reveals about the USENET activities of the
poster (his mother must be so proud), you may wish to reevaluate his
choice before you respond.

taf

Gjest

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2007 06:55:36

On Nov 13, 8:24 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TAF has taken me to task for not KNOWING in my genealogical heart of hearts
that Beth and Betsey WERE/ARE/ALWAYS WERE/ALWAYS ARE nicknames aka
*sobriquets* of Elizabeth.

This is a lie, of course. I only said that your analogy did not seem
applicable to the situation.

So: Monsieur TAF better admit he can LEARN, too, not two, from this ole
English prof with an American leaning or two:

--- t...@clearwire.net wrote:

"So, what was "proved conclusively", what was "truth" only obscured do
to a "doubtless" cover-up just a few weeks ago (even as recently as
three days ago) now finds itself on the dustbin of history, without
the slightest indication of this reversal of fortune (I guess we
should just be glad all of the earlier posts in the thread were not
deleted).

BA: I sure hope TAF is *not* deleted because he ought to know that
it was "only obscured due to" and not do nor dew!

Wow, a second typo unmasked. Guilty as charged. That certainly puts me
in my place. You must be so very proud for catching it. I tend to
care more about substance, but seeing how badly you managed to distort
the substance above, I guess it is good that you are devoting your
efforts to proofreading.

taf

wjhonson

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av wjhonson » 14 nov 2007 07:05:32

On Nov 13, 8:24 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TAF has taken me totaskfor not KNOWING in my genealogical heart of hearts
that Beth and Betsey WERE/ARE/ALWAYS WERE/ALWAYS ARE nicknames aka
*sobriquets* of Elizabeth.
---------------


I don't think a sobriquet and a diminuative name are the same thing.
To me a sobriquet can only be applied to a *particular* person, not to
all people with that same forename, such as Betsy.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickname

Will Johnson

Renia

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan,The Almost Que

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 14:31:02

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

If DR did indeed remove the original "wrong" message from Google, that's a
Good Thing too. It won't be there to mislead someone in the future.


Exactly.

Renia

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan,The Almost Que

Legg inn av Renia » 14 nov 2007 14:32:02

D. Spencer Hines wrote:


That can become a long battle of who shot John, who should get credit, _mea
culpas_ and all other sorts of wastes of time.

Better just to move on and do Real Genealogy without all the small-minded
back-biting that Leo has become a Master of.

You can talk.

Douglas Richardson

Scots Peerage Correction: Robert de Brus (died 1304), Earl o

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 nov 2007 21:16:33

Dear Alex ~

Thank you for your good post and its accompanying sermon. Much
appreciated.

As a followup to my earlier response to you, I thought I'd post
another record which I found in the National Archives catalogue which
shows beyond any doubt that it was definitely Robert de Brus, senior
(died 1304) who was using the title Earl of Carrick in 1296, NOT his
son, Robert de Brus, junior (afterwards King Robert I of Scotland).
We can easily tell it was the father who was Earl of Carrick in 1296,
as both father AND son are mentioned in the same record below dated
1296! The father is styled Earl of Carrick in this record in spite of
the fact that he had resigned the earldom to his son in 1292, which
action was confirmed by the Scottish Parliament in 1293. The record
below proves conclusively that Scots Peerage was in error to assign
the 1296 warrant issued by King Edward I to the son, which record
involved Robert, Earl of Carrick, and his hitherto unknown wife, Maud
Fitz Alan. A transcript of the published 1296 warrant was included in
my last post and is taken from Bain's Calendar of Documents relating
to Scotland, 2 (1884): pg. 223, no. 850.

This, of course, raises another issue. How can a man resign the
earldom and its lands to another party, and yet continue to use the
title of the earl? Do you have any thoughts about this, Alex?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives catalogue

C 241/31/103

Debtor: Robert de Bruce {Brus}, knight, Earl of Carrick, Robert de
Bruce, his son, John de Sawbridgeworth, poulterer {Poleter}, and
John .......
Creditor: Nicholas Daleroun, Simon Daleroun, and Henry Daleroun,
citizens and merchants of Winchester.
Amount: £60.
Before whom: John Breton, Warden of London; .... .. ....... , Clerk
{coram nobis}.
First term: 08/04/1296
Last term: 08/04/1296
Writ to: Sheriff of Middx
Sent by: John Breton, Warden of London; .... .. ........, Clerk. |
Covering dates 1296


On Nov 13, 3:57 pm, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
< I am most grateful for this, above, analysis of the evidence. It
< leads to the conclusion which I expected, but being unable to see
the
< documents myself, I am unable to present them, or indeed vouch them.
< MrRichardsonhas very generously unravelled the construct which he
< previously made: this would obviously have been a matter of some
< delicacy for him, having initiated this thread on a somewhat
different
< basis. We should acknowledge his respect for the truth, as well as
we
< can see it at this distance, and hope that we, ourselves, are not to
< be so unlucky as to start off on a false track. I myself have often
< got the wrong end of the stick and had to rework research.
<
< Furthermore this response which, we should all acknowledge, must
have
< taken some courage, was in the face of considerable hostility. I am
< not suggesting that hostility was in one direction only, but I am
< suggesting that research has to be done in a spirit of geniality and
< collegiality to be really effective. We should all note this in our
< hearts.
<
< Thank you for your forbearance. End of sermon!
<
> Alex

Douglas Richardson

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 nov 2007 22:28:38

On Nov 13, 10:55 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
< Wow, a second typo unmasked. Guilty as charged. That certainly puts
me
< in my place. You must be so very proud for catching it. I tend to
< care more about substance, but seeing how badly you managed to
distort
< the substance above, I guess it is good that you are devoting your
< efforts to proofreading.
<
< taf

No, Todd, you are merely reeping what you are sewing.

Speaking of which, I had at least three typo's in a post I made
yesterday. If anyone can find them, I'll you you five Google stars.
I'll even give you a hint. I misspelled the word attorneys.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City., Utah

wjhonson

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av wjhonson » 14 nov 2007 23:23:58

On Nov 14, 1:28 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
No, Todd, you are merely reeping what you are sewing.

Speaking of which, I had at least three typo's in a post I made
yesterday. If anyone can find them, I'll you you five Google stars.
I'll even give you a hint. I misspelled the word attorneys.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City., Utah

----------
Yes you're reeping what you were sewing.
Quite distinct from reaping what you were sowing.

Douglas is quite a humourist.

Will

Douglas Richardson

Re: Scots Peerage Correction: Robert de Brus (died 1304), Ea

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 00:02:05

Dear Alex ~

Here is yet another record dated 1296 which involves Sir Robert de
Brus, Earl of Carrick, and his son, Robert de Brus [junior]
(afterwards King Robert I of Scotland). Again, the implications of
this are obvious. It is the father who had the title Earl of Carrick
in 1296, not the son, in spite of the father's resignation of the
earldom to the son in 1292.

Mr. MacEwen suspects that Robert de Brus, senior, may have retained
the "life-rent" of the earldom at the time he resigned the earldom in
favor of his son. Retaining the life-rent might have allowed the
father to continue using the title, even though the lands of the
earldom went to the son. However, possession of the life-rent is not
mentioned in the published transcript of the elder Robert de Brus'
resignation of the earldom in 1292. So, it is purely a guess as to
what might have allowed the father to contintue using the title, Earl
of Carrick, after the resignation.

Mr. MacEwen adds that retaining the life-rent of the earldom did
permit a later Earl of Lennox to continue using the title after he had
resigned the earldom in favor of his son. So there is at least one
example of possession of the life-rent affecting who held a title in
Scottish history.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: National Archives Catalogue

C 241/18/59

Debtor: Robert de Brus, knight, Earl of Carrick [who held the manors
of Hatfield Broad Oak, Harlow Hundred, Essex, and Writtle, Chelmsford
Hundred, and half the Harlow Hundred], and Robert de Bruce, his son,
William de Roding [Ongar Hundred], knight, William de Baddow {Badew}
[Chelmsford Hundred, Essex], and John de Writtle [Chelmsford Hundred,
Essex], called Serich.

Creditor: John de Abingdon, citizen [merchant] of London.

Amount: £120.

Before whom: John Breton, Warden of London; John de Bakewell, Clerk.

First term: 16/02/1296
Last term: 25/03/1296

Writ to: Sheriff of Essex

Sent by: John Breton, Warden of London; John de Bakewell, Clerk.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 01:53:30

taf's error was not a "typo"... a mere typographical error.

[taf = Todd A. Farmerie]

It was an error in Basic English, which someone who is a COLLEGE PROFESSOR,
as he is, certainly should NOT have made.

taf obviously does not know the difference between the verbs _TO SEW_ and
_TO SOW_.

Further, taf, as a Geographical Mid-Westerner, where Agriculture is SO
important, SHOULD understand the difference between these two verbs.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Renia

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av Renia » 15 nov 2007 02:02:32

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

taf's error was not a "typo"... a mere typographical error.

[taf = Todd A. Farmerie]

It was an error in Basic English, which someone who is a COLLEGE PROFESSOR,
as he is, certainly should NOT have made.

taf obviously does not know the difference between the verbs _TO SEW_ and
_TO SOW_.

Further, taf, as a Geographical Mid-Westerner, where Agriculture is SO
important, SHOULD understand the difference between these two verbs.

'Nuff Said.

More than enough said.

John Briggs

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 nov 2007 02:03:39

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
taf's error was not a "typo"... a mere typographical error.

[taf = Todd A. Farmerie]

It was an error in Basic English, which someone who is a COLLEGE
PROFESSOR, as he is, certainly should NOT have made.

taf obviously does not know the difference between the verbs _TO SEW_
and _TO SOW_.

Further, taf, as a Geographical Mid-Westerner, where Agriculture is SO
important, SHOULD understand the difference between these two verbs.

Ah, but does he post to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial, like D.
Spencer Hines?
--
John Briggs

Peter Jason

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av Peter Jason » 15 nov 2007 02:21:31

Oh Mr Hines; how low can you *sink*!

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 04:05:03

On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were

rife
< with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but who
chose
< to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had never
< legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples of
that for us?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Renia

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Renia » 15 nov 2007 08:17:18

Douglas Richardson wrote:

On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples of
that for us?

It is not necessary to cite "medieval examples". It was, and is, part of
(Catholic) church law.

John Briggs

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 nov 2007 17:41:21

Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 nov 2007 20:30:03

On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
< Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

< > < Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts
were
< > rife
< > < with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
who
< > chose
< > < to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
< > < legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.
<
< > You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples
of
< > that for us?
<
< Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in
favour
< of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
< Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.
<
< divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro
<
< divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis
<
< divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii
<
< separatio quoad torum
<
< separatio quoad cohabitationem
<
< declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem
<
< dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge
< --
< John Briggs

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England, John?

John Briggs

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 nov 2007 20:44:56

Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts
were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples
of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in
favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England, John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2007 21:42:03

On Nov 15, 11:27 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:< Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts
were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples
of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in
favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge


Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England, John?

His point is that the same church-imposed or -approved unmarriaging
you cite as examples of "divorce" might better be called "annulment"
based on modern usage of the terms. To demand that he now supply a
medieval example of "annulment", as opposed to "divorce", is missing
the point. At its heart, he is discussing semantics, and you are
playing semantic games.

taf

Gjest

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2007 22:02:04

On Nov 15, 12:23 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
On Nov 14, 8:03 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:



D. Spencer Hines wrote:
taf's error was not a "typo"... a mere typographical error.

[taf = Todd A. Farmerie]

It was an error in Basic English, which someone who is a COLLEGE
PROFESSOR, as he is, certainly should NOT have made.

taf obviously does not know the difference between the verbs _TO SEW_
and _TO SOW_.

Further, taf, as a Geographical Mid-Westerner, where Agriculture is SO
important, SHOULD understand the difference between these two verbs.

Ah, but does he post to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial, like D.
Spencer Hines?
--

There is nothing wrong with a little color in one's bed.

A surprising amount of black chicks **** as good as they dance.



Ah, yes. Another sterling example of the benefits crossposting brings
to this group. What is your opinion on this post Mr. Richardson? Do
you think the groups is better off for it having been attracted here?
Do you think we have learned more about medieval genealogy and made
friends because a lame-brained crosspost induced this person to bring
this pearl of wisdom to us?

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 22:06:27

Hmmmmmmm...

taf seems to have sampled their wares -- and recognizes a pearl of wisdom.

DSH

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:76c61887-863d-43c0-8cb7-5d5cb172ec57@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 15, 12:23 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:

There is nothing wrong with a little color in one's bed.

A surprising amount of black chicks **** as good as they dance.

Do you think we have learned more about medieval genealogy and made
friends because a lame-brained crosspost induced this person to bring
this pearl of wisdom to us?

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: TAKING PEOPLE TO TASK

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 15 nov 2007 22:41:13

Correct...

DSH

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0057b598-014b-441f-9cba-da9986793a0c@i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

Hmmmmmmm...

taf seems to have sampled their wares -- and recognizes a pearl of
wisdom.

DSH

Well, there's nothing wrong with that, I suppose ...

John Briggs

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av John Briggs » 15 nov 2007 23:20:02

taf@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 15, 11:27 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com
wrote:< Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts
were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples
of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were
in
favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge


Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England, John?

His point is that the same church-imposed or -approved unmarriaging
you cite as examples of "divorce" might better be called "annulment"
based on modern usage of the terms. To demand that he now supply a
medieval example of "annulment", as opposed to "divorce", is missing
the point. At its heart, he is discussing semantics, and you are
playing semantic games.

Yes, he won't answer any of these questions. It's some bizarre doctrinal
thing.
--
John Briggs

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 nov 2007 00:11:02

On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts
were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples
of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were in
favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England, John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?
--
John Briggs- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage is
that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
be annulments.

Pierre

John Briggs

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Maud Fitz Alan, the Almost Qu

Legg inn av John Briggs » 16 nov 2007 01:39:58

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
On 15 nov, 20:44, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:41 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:19 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Amice of Gloucester, whom you cite, above. The medieval courts
were
rife
with women whose marriages were annulled by their husbands but
who
chose
to fight the annullment. An annullment meant a marriage had
never
legally taken place so the woman remained as a single woman.

You use the word annulment. Can you cite some medieval examples
of
that for us?

Annulment is the modern term for the concept - I thought you were
in favour
of modernising terms? Which modern terms would you use for the
following?
Your choices are: divorce, annulment, judicial separation.

divortium [divorcium] a mensa et thoro

divortium [divorcium] tori et cohabitationis

divortium [divorcium] a vinculo matrimonii

separatio quoad torum

separatio quoad cohabitationem

declaratio ad matrimonii nullitatem

dispensatio ab alterutro vel utroque coniuge

Can you give us some examples of annulment in medieval England,
John?

Can you give us some examples of anything other than annulment?

Of course he can not: a peculiarity of Western medieval marriage is
that it can not be dissolved except in rare cases. So there can only
be annulments.

Unless you are a genealogist living in Utah, it would seem.
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus the elder (died 1304)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 nov 2007 05:15:03

Dear Newsgroup ~

When the anonymous person who posted the message below steps forward
and identifies himself, I should be happy to address the issues raised
in their post.

For the time being, I should like to point out that a full transcript
of the 1296 letter written by Robert de Brus the elder and Robert de
Brus the younger, Earl of Carrick can be found in the book, Anglo-
Scottish Relations, 1174-1328: Some Selected Documents, by E.L.G.
Stones, published in 1965, pp. 136, et seq This work can be found on
the internet at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=438EoR ... 8edsAKiyWU

Mr. Stones kindly provides a transcript of the original letter in
French and an accompanying English translation.

As I stated in an earlier post, the discovery of the elder Robert de
Brus' marriage to Maud Fitz Alan is indeed a new addition to the
authoritative Scots Peerage and Complete Peerage, as well as the newly
published standard reference work, Oxford Dicitionary of National
Biography (ODNB). The absence of Maud Fitz Alan in the published
literature is yet another case of people being entirely too dependent
on secondary sources rather than original records to guide them to the
correct facts about medieval history.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
ANONYMOUS POST

< Now that the blathering on this thread has gone quiet at last, I
thought it might be useful to you to have a few misstated loose ends
in posts from Douglas Richardson tidied up.

< It is not strictly accurate to say that Robert the elder (for
convenience, Robert VI as in DNB) "resigned" the earldom of Carrick to
his son Robert VII - rather, this had been inherited by the son from
his mother, not by anyone's decision but in the course of nature when
she died. Robert VII was still underage at the time, but Robert VI
intended to leave Scotland - reportedly to avoid acknowledging John
Balliol as king - and travel to Norway. There he arranged the marriage
of his daughter Isabel to King Eric II, and it was probably in large
part due to this that he kept using the title "earl of Carrick" along
with his lower rank as lord of Annandale in the following years, as a
courtesy to Eric and Isabel as much as to aggrandise himself, since
kings at the end of the 13th century did not usually marry daughters
of men below comital rank.
<
< It is quite untrue to say that we don't know what title Robert VII
used in 1296: he was earl of Carrick and we have his own word for it.
There are anough documents from around this time to leave no doubt on
the point, for instance the famous letter of 25 March 1296 from both
Roberts together, along with Patrick, earl of March & Dunbar and
Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus, where only the younger Robert
used the title earl of Carrick, calling themselves "Robert de Brus le
veil, e Robert de Brus le juuene comte de Carryk", or the letter from
Earl John de Warenne to King Edward I in the early summer of 1297
referring to "le counte de Carricke" where this could mean only Robert
VII. Scrabbling around online for modern extracts in English is not
the way a professional historian should go about establishing
precisely what is in primary documents - and in any case, these
particular ones are published in books that any good library will be
found to hold.
<
< As for the idea that the marriage of Robert VI to Maud Fitzalan was
somehow forgotten from the time of Joseph Bain's _Calendar of
Documents Relating to Scotland_, vol II, published in 1884, until
Richardson stumbled onto this - that of course is preposterous. The
same document was summarised in _Calendar of Chancery Warrants
Preserved in the Public Record Office...AD 1244-1326_ published in
1927. Competent historians and genealogists know a lot of things that
come as news to Richardson and, clearly, his consultant Andrew
MacEwan, and they know where to look for countless more. They do not
need to turn for poor advice to people whom they describe as "the
resident expert in all things Scottish", and needless to say unctuous
Obsessive-Compulsive formulations like that do not palm off
accountability for errors anyway.

Gjest

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus the elder (died 1

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2007 05:16:02

On Nov 18, 7:31 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

When the anonymous person who posted the message below steps forward
and identifies himself, I should be happy to address the issues raised
in their post.

That's right - no need to correct errors and make clarifications for
the benefit of the readers. (After all, you can't launch an ad hominem
until you know who to attack, right?)

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus the Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 nov 2007 05:48:00

Anonymous, pseudonymous posters or those who use a sock puppet invention
have as little credibility as those who scribble on lavatory walls.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1213302c-3f10-4313-b719-71b6e1d9c0e9@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 18, 7:31 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

When the anonymous person who posted the message below steps forward
and identifies himself, I should be happy to address the issues raised
in their post.

That's right - no need to correct errors and make clarifications for
the benefit of the readers. (After all, you can't launch an ad hominem
until you know who to attack, right?)

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus the Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 nov 2007 08:20:04

On Nov 18, 9:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
< Anonymous, pseudonymous posters or those who use a sock puppet
invention
< have as little credibility as those who scribble on lavatory walls.
<
< DSH

I totally agree with you, Spencer. You've hit the nail on the head.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus the Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 nov 2007 08:55:08

Thanks, Douglas.

Cheers,

Spencer

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7bddeb7a-56fa-4de1-bf05-5c69c6e024f4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 18, 9:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Anonymous, pseudonymous posters or those who use a sock puppet
invention have as little credibility as those who scribble on lavatory
walls.

DSH

I totally agree with you, Spencer. You've hit the nail on the head.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Francisco Tavares de Alme

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus the Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av Francisco Tavares de Alme » 19 nov 2007 10:15:06

On 19 Nov, 08:55, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Thanks, Douglas.

Cheers,

Spencer

"Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:7bddeb7a-56fa-4de1-bf05-5c69c6e024f4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 18, 9:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Anonymous, pseudonymous posters or those who use a sock puppet
invention have as little credibility as those who scribble on lavatory
walls.

DSH

I totally agree with you, Spencer. You've hit the nail on the head.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

What a touching exchange of messages...
Pity that Honolulu is so far away from Salt Lake making it difficult
to kiss each other's mouth.

Best regards,
Francisco

Gjest

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus the Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2007 10:55:07

On Nov 18, 11:18 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 18, 9:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Anonymous, pseudonymous posters or those who use a sock puppet
invention
have as little credibility as those who scribble on lavatory walls.

I totally agree with you, Spencer. You've hit the nail on the head.

What credibility does someone need to point out an error or ask for
clarification? If it is an error, it is an error, no matter who
points it out. If something is unclear, then it could stand
clarification. To whom it is unclear is irrelevant (particularly
since there are probably others who would like to ask the same thing,
but have been intimidated from doing so by just this type of
behavior). If new information is provided, it is the source of the
information that is important, and not the identity of the person who
passes it on.

I see, though, that I was wrong. Mr. Richardson wasn't demanding the
identity of the correspondent so that he could launch an ad hominem.
His insistence on identity _was_ the ad hominem. Now that the critic
has been shot, the problems no longer exist - Stalin couldn't have
done better.

taf

Leticia Cluff

Lavatory Walls (Was: Maud Fitz Alan)

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 19 nov 2007 13:59:31

[Top posting adjusted]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:55:08 -0000,
the resident expert on what can be found on lavatory walls,
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7bddeb7a-56fa-4de1-bf05-5c69c6e024f4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 18, 9:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Anonymous, pseudonymous posters or those who use a sock puppet
invention have as little credibility as those who scribble on lavatory
walls.

DSH

I totally agree with you, Spencer. You've hit the nail on the head.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Thanks, Douglas.

Cheers,

Spencer


This display of agreement between Douglas the serious historian and
David the abusive troll is heartwarming, especially since David has
previously been so harsh in his judgment of Douglas (calling him "a
sly, manipulative charlatan and an utter fraud"). I somehow missed the
post with David's public apology for his libel of Douglas.

Here's another mystery concerning a missing post. It was in this group
that David was exposed by Todd Farmerie as being a reader (if that's
the word) of the newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial.

David has since published a passionate defense of his interest in
"erotica," which is his euphemism for this hard-core pornography and
voyeurism. His message, as usual, went simultaneously to a large
number of newsgroups, but strangely NOT to the newsgroup where his
private vice was publicized. Why does David think that a never-ending
thread about terrible British food is more relevant to medieval
genealogy than his desire to learn more about ways of performing the
act without which there would be no procreation and no genealogy in
the first place? Having convinced participants in other groups that he
does not use pornographic pictures for masturbation, surely he needs
to give the same reassurance to those of us with an interest in
geneaology?

To rectify this perplexing omission, and to enlighten Douglas and
other readers of this group as to the real reasons why David consults
such sites, I quote his message in full, vide infra.

(Typographically sensitive readers are warned that capital letters are
severely abused in the text below.)

Tish


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> typed in message
news:Ssm%i.632$Ig4.2752@eagle.america.net...

There must be THOUSANDS of these Erotica Newsgroups on USENET as well as
THOUSANDS of Erotica Websites.

They offer a rich tapestry of Exotic Erotica, tailored to individual tastes
and proclivities.

Yes, Veronica, there is a Free Market of Erotica on the Internet -- and we
are the better for it.

What I find quite amusing is that our pogues and poguettes see no use for
such material except for indulgence in the Solitary Vice of Masturbation.

The Sin Of Onanism.

Hilarious!

Erotica is MOST useful for its Educational Value.

Positions, Techniques, Timing, Emphases, Number of Participants, Species...

The Creative, Sensitive, Attentive Lover will understand that the blonde
likes this, while the brunette likes that and the redhead is quite curious
and eager to experiment with these and those.

Sex Is A Smorgasbord of Infinite Variety -- Just Ask The Swedish Canadian,
Our Own Nilita Gay, about that.

Parisians attend Live Sex Shows, Farm Boys watch stallions mount mares,
Anatolian Sheepherders pick out a ewe and have a go.

Hollywood starlets and wannabe starlets participate as the Meat Dish de Jour
in multiple partner orgies with producers, directors and stars.

Fraternity Boys enjoy toga parties, doing their best to imitate our Ancient
Roman Ancestors and outdo Caligula in their innovative staging, excess and
presentation.

As Mao would say, in an American context:

"Let a thousand cornstalks grow."

"Let a thousand flowers open and bloom."

Yet all these little members of The Great Unwashed Poguenoscenti can think
of to do with such material is to MASTURBATE with it...

Which, of course, is what they THEMSELVES DO.

Hilarious!

Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Enjoy!

How Sweet It Is!

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy." ---- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] The Tragedy of
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene V, Line 166-167

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

Gjest

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus the Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2007 23:57:03

On Nov 19, 11:42 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

I come here to share information and make friends.

Your actions give lie to your stated goal.


Perhaps you forget:

"Do you you hate all men, Tish, or just men with authority?"


taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus the Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 nov 2007 00:10:03

On Nov 19, 3:04 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
< On Nov 19, 11:42 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com>
wrote:
<
< > I come here to share information and make friends.
<
< taf

Thank you for quoting me correctly. Much appreciated.

DR

Gjest

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus the Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 nov 2007 01:56:02

On Nov 19, 3:06 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:04 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 19, 11:42 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com
wrote:

I come here to share information and make friends.

taf

Thank you for quoting me correctly. Much appreciated.

[. . . he says disingenuously, after removing the actual content of my
contribution.]

And thank you for proving your hypocrisy.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud Fitz Alan, Wife of Robert de Brus The Elder (Died 1

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 nov 2007 03:22:47

"Tish" is a sock puppet.

taf the ignorant STILL doesn't understand that.

DSH

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:a62d7a4a-bd52-46b7-972a-ea6610a26ab6@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 19, 11:42 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

I come here to share information and make friends.

Your actions give lie to your stated goal.

Perhaps you forget:

"Do you you hate all men, Tish, or just men with authority?"


taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»