The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Coven
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Coven
Dear Newsgroup ~
It has been alleged in print and in various modern databases such as
the National Archives catalogue that Roger de Meulun (or Meulent,
Mulent), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who died in 1295, was a
member of the Longespée family of England, more specifically that he
was a child of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, which William was
a well known bastard son of King Henry II of England. I followed that
line in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), and assigned Roger as a
"possible illegitimate" child of Earl William Longespée. However,
I've continued to have misgivings about Roger de Meulun's placement as
a possible member of the Longespée family for two reasons: First, as
far as I can tell, he himself never used the surname Longespée. He
occurs as "de Meulun" (or some variant form) in all the records that
I've seen of him. Second, he is never associated in any records with
any other member of the Longespée family. Both of these are red
flags.
I recently had the opportunity to read the comments regarding Bishop
Roger's origins which appear in Bowles & Nichols, Annals and
Antiquities of Lacock Abbey (1835): 164. I will quote at length below
what is stated in that source. The authors clearly state that the
connection between Bishop Roger and the Longespée family is
"unsubstantiated." Moreoever, they present direct evidence that
Bishop Roger was almost certainly of French extraction, not English.
They likewise point out that Bishop Roger was called "nephew" to King
Henry III and to King Henry's brother, Richard, Earl of Cornwall. If
nephew is intended (or not kinsman), it would be impossible for Bishop
Roger to be William Longespée's son. Any issue of William Longespée
would have been a cousin, not nephew, to King Henry III of England.
"This personage, who was Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield from 1257 to
1293, bore the surname Meuleng or Meulent, probably from having been
born at Meulan at France, for it is recorded that when made a Bishop
he knew very little of the English language! He was certainly related
to the Royal family, being styled "nepos" to King Henry, and to
Richard Earl of Cornwall, both in the account which Matthew Paris
gives of his election, and in the official documents relating to it,
which are preserved in the Annals of Burton. As it does not appear
how he could be nephew to King Henry the Third, it has been supposed
that he was a Longespé, and his name is consequently found in several
authors with that alias. In the History of Staffordshire, indeed,
(vol. i, p. 268), he is directly stated to have been "the third son of
William Longespé, Earl of Salisbury, and Eva his wife," (probably from
confusion with the Bishop of Salisbury); and in a note in the same
place is mentioned a conjecture of Dr. Pegge, that he was a natural
son of the Earl of Salisbury, as "the Italians use the word Nepos with
latitude." This latter hypothesis might be considered not improbable,
had the surname Longespé been ascribed to him by any ancient
authority; but that does not appear to be the case; and therefore the
connection of Bishop Roger de Meulan with the house of Longespé is
hitherto unsubstantiated." [Reference: Bowles & Nichols, Annals and
Antiqs. of Lacock Abbey (1835): 164].
There is certainly evidence that Bishop Roger was near related to the
English royal family. I 've found the following references to royal
connection in various records:
1. Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper, 46 (1886): 139 (R[oger], Bishop
of Coventry & Lichfield, styled "king's kinsman" by King Edward I of
England).
2. Papal Regs.: Letters 1 (1893): 534 (Roger, Bishop of Coventry &
Lichfield, styled "king's kinsman").
3. Cal. Charter Rolls,. 2 (1898): 19 (Roger styled "king's cousin").
4. Cal. Patent Rolls, 1272-1281 (1901): 226 (R[oger], Bishop of
Coventry & Lichfield, styled "king's kinsman" by King Edward I of
England).
5. Cal.Patent Rolls, 1247-1258 (1908): 540, 542 (instances of Roger
styled "king's nephew" by King Henry III of England).
Given the above references, there can be no question that Bishop Roger
was near related to King Henry III of England and to his son, King
Edward I. But how?
I find that Bishop Roger's arms are given in the book, Bedford, The
Blazon of Episcopacy (1858): 55 as stated below:
Argent, on a chief Gules, a lion passant Or-- citing Harl. MS. 6128.
These arms are not those of Longespée at all. If correct, this
evidence alone would put the nail in the coffin of a possible
Longespée origin for Bishop Roger. So what arms are these?
I find that the seal of Roger de Meulan in 1195 carried a lion
passant, which lion was subsequently shown as a lion rampant on the
shield of Jean de Meulan [Reference: Mémoires de la Société Nationale
Des Antiquaires de France, 4th ser. 7 (1876): 44]. If so, quite
possibly Bishop Roger de Meulan whose arms allegedly bore a lion
passant might in fact have been a member of the Meulan family of
France.
At this junction, I should point out that it is stated in print as
indicated above that Bishop Roger was called "nephew" by King Henry
III. I assume, however, the word "nepos" (or some variant form) was
used in the original source in Latin. If so, it is possible that
kinsman is the correct rendering of nepos in this instance, rather
than nephew. Regardless, I know of no connection between King Henry
III and any possible sister (legitimate or illegitimate) who might
have married a member of the Meulan family in France.
Lastly, please find below the information regarding Bishop Roger de
Meulan's origins which is found in the bishop's recent biography
written by the historian, D.A. Carpenter. This material is taken from
the standard reference work, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
(ODNB):
"Meuland [Meuleng, Meulent, Molend], Roger de [Master Longespee]
(c.1215-1295), bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, was a kinsman of
Henry III. He is once referred to by the chronicler Matthew Paris as
Master Longespee (Paris, Chron., 5.644), and it is thus possible that
he was a son of William Longespee, earl of Salisbury (d. 1226), who
was Henry III's uncle. The reason why Roger was styled de Meuland
(Meuleng, Meulent, and Molend are among the variant forms of his name)
is unclear, although it probably indicates some connection with Meulon
in Normandy. Perhaps it was there that he was born or brought up."
END OF QUOTE.
Mr. Carpenter's account leaves us with a "possible," "unclear,"
"probably," and a "perhaps." Also, reviewing Mr. Carpenter's sources,
he seems not to be aware of Bowles and Nichols' earlier comments which
are quite specific, nor of many of the other items I've cited above
which document Bishop Roger's kinship to the English royal family.
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
It has been alleged in print and in various modern databases such as
the National Archives catalogue that Roger de Meulun (or Meulent,
Mulent), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who died in 1295, was a
member of the Longespée family of England, more specifically that he
was a child of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, which William was
a well known bastard son of King Henry II of England. I followed that
line in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), and assigned Roger as a
"possible illegitimate" child of Earl William Longespée. However,
I've continued to have misgivings about Roger de Meulun's placement as
a possible member of the Longespée family for two reasons: First, as
far as I can tell, he himself never used the surname Longespée. He
occurs as "de Meulun" (or some variant form) in all the records that
I've seen of him. Second, he is never associated in any records with
any other member of the Longespée family. Both of these are red
flags.
I recently had the opportunity to read the comments regarding Bishop
Roger's origins which appear in Bowles & Nichols, Annals and
Antiquities of Lacock Abbey (1835): 164. I will quote at length below
what is stated in that source. The authors clearly state that the
connection between Bishop Roger and the Longespée family is
"unsubstantiated." Moreoever, they present direct evidence that
Bishop Roger was almost certainly of French extraction, not English.
They likewise point out that Bishop Roger was called "nephew" to King
Henry III and to King Henry's brother, Richard, Earl of Cornwall. If
nephew is intended (or not kinsman), it would be impossible for Bishop
Roger to be William Longespée's son. Any issue of William Longespée
would have been a cousin, not nephew, to King Henry III of England.
"This personage, who was Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield from 1257 to
1293, bore the surname Meuleng or Meulent, probably from having been
born at Meulan at France, for it is recorded that when made a Bishop
he knew very little of the English language! He was certainly related
to the Royal family, being styled "nepos" to King Henry, and to
Richard Earl of Cornwall, both in the account which Matthew Paris
gives of his election, and in the official documents relating to it,
which are preserved in the Annals of Burton. As it does not appear
how he could be nephew to King Henry the Third, it has been supposed
that he was a Longespé, and his name is consequently found in several
authors with that alias. In the History of Staffordshire, indeed,
(vol. i, p. 268), he is directly stated to have been "the third son of
William Longespé, Earl of Salisbury, and Eva his wife," (probably from
confusion with the Bishop of Salisbury); and in a note in the same
place is mentioned a conjecture of Dr. Pegge, that he was a natural
son of the Earl of Salisbury, as "the Italians use the word Nepos with
latitude." This latter hypothesis might be considered not improbable,
had the surname Longespé been ascribed to him by any ancient
authority; but that does not appear to be the case; and therefore the
connection of Bishop Roger de Meulan with the house of Longespé is
hitherto unsubstantiated." [Reference: Bowles & Nichols, Annals and
Antiqs. of Lacock Abbey (1835): 164].
There is certainly evidence that Bishop Roger was near related to the
English royal family. I 've found the following references to royal
connection in various records:
1. Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper, 46 (1886): 139 (R[oger], Bishop
of Coventry & Lichfield, styled "king's kinsman" by King Edward I of
England).
2. Papal Regs.: Letters 1 (1893): 534 (Roger, Bishop of Coventry &
Lichfield, styled "king's kinsman").
3. Cal. Charter Rolls,. 2 (1898): 19 (Roger styled "king's cousin").
4. Cal. Patent Rolls, 1272-1281 (1901): 226 (R[oger], Bishop of
Coventry & Lichfield, styled "king's kinsman" by King Edward I of
England).
5. Cal.Patent Rolls, 1247-1258 (1908): 540, 542 (instances of Roger
styled "king's nephew" by King Henry III of England).
Given the above references, there can be no question that Bishop Roger
was near related to King Henry III of England and to his son, King
Edward I. But how?
I find that Bishop Roger's arms are given in the book, Bedford, The
Blazon of Episcopacy (1858): 55 as stated below:
Argent, on a chief Gules, a lion passant Or-- citing Harl. MS. 6128.
These arms are not those of Longespée at all. If correct, this
evidence alone would put the nail in the coffin of a possible
Longespée origin for Bishop Roger. So what arms are these?
I find that the seal of Roger de Meulan in 1195 carried a lion
passant, which lion was subsequently shown as a lion rampant on the
shield of Jean de Meulan [Reference: Mémoires de la Société Nationale
Des Antiquaires de France, 4th ser. 7 (1876): 44]. If so, quite
possibly Bishop Roger de Meulan whose arms allegedly bore a lion
passant might in fact have been a member of the Meulan family of
France.
At this junction, I should point out that it is stated in print as
indicated above that Bishop Roger was called "nephew" by King Henry
III. I assume, however, the word "nepos" (or some variant form) was
used in the original source in Latin. If so, it is possible that
kinsman is the correct rendering of nepos in this instance, rather
than nephew. Regardless, I know of no connection between King Henry
III and any possible sister (legitimate or illegitimate) who might
have married a member of the Meulan family in France.
Lastly, please find below the information regarding Bishop Roger de
Meulan's origins which is found in the bishop's recent biography
written by the historian, D.A. Carpenter. This material is taken from
the standard reference work, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
(ODNB):
"Meuland [Meuleng, Meulent, Molend], Roger de [Master Longespee]
(c.1215-1295), bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, was a kinsman of
Henry III. He is once referred to by the chronicler Matthew Paris as
Master Longespee (Paris, Chron., 5.644), and it is thus possible that
he was a son of William Longespee, earl of Salisbury (d. 1226), who
was Henry III's uncle. The reason why Roger was styled de Meuland
(Meuleng, Meulent, and Molend are among the variant forms of his name)
is unclear, although it probably indicates some connection with Meulon
in Normandy. Perhaps it was there that he was born or brought up."
END OF QUOTE.
Mr. Carpenter's account leaves us with a "possible," "unclear,"
"probably," and a "perhaps." Also, reviewing Mr. Carpenter's sources,
he seems not to be aware of Bowles and Nichols' earlier comments which
are quite specific, nor of many of the other items I've cited above
which document Bishop Roger's kinship to the English royal family.
This matter deserves further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 2, 1:33 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Newsgroups - you spewed into 4.
Given that the Longespee arms are different than those of Kings
Richard and John, you must, by this logic, conclude that Longespee was
not related to the royal family.
In your whole post, I did not see mention of him being specifically
called Master Longespee. Did Paris really call him this? What exactly
does he say in the section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to
look? Don't you think this is important information, worth more than a
mention in passing?
As if this was a flaw - giving clear indication that something is
uncertain.
taf
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroups - you spewed into 4.
I find that Bishop Roger's arms are given in the book, Bedford, The
Blazon of Episcopacy (1858): 55 as stated below:
Argent, on a chief Gules, a lion passant Or-- citing Harl. MS. 6128.
These arms are not those of Longespée at all. If correct, this
evidence alone would put the nail in the coffin of a possible
Longespée origin for Bishop Roger. So what arms are these?
Given that the Longespee arms are different than those of Kings
Richard and John, you must, by this logic, conclude that Longespee was
not related to the royal family.
Lastly, please find below the information regarding Bishop Roger de
Meulan's origins which is found in the bishop's recent biography
written by the historian, D.A. Carpenter. This material is taken from
the standard reference work, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
(ODNB):
"Meuland [Meuleng, Meulent, Molend], Roger de [Master Longespee]
(c.1215-1295), bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, was a kinsman of
Henry III. He is once referred to by the chronicler Matthew Paris as
Master Longespee (Paris, Chron., 5.644),
In your whole post, I did not see mention of him being specifically
called Master Longespee. Did Paris really call him this? What exactly
does he say in the section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to
look? Don't you think this is important information, worth more than a
mention in passing?
Mr. Carpenter's account leaves us with a "possible," "unclear,"
"probably," and a "perhaps."
As if this was a flaw - giving clear indication that something is
uncertain.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 2, 4:35 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
No, sorry, this is not my conclusion at all.
If you want to bait me, you'll have to try harder than that, taf.
DR
Given that the Longespee arms are different than those of Kings
Richard and John, you must, by this logic, conclude that Longespee was
not related to the royal family.
taf
No, sorry, this is not my conclusion at all.
If you want to bait me, you'll have to try harder than that, taf.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 2, 4:13 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Let's review:
The argument put forward is that since the arms are not those of
Longespee, then Bishop Roger was not a Longespee. This is patently
ridiculous, given that coats of arms had far from ossified at the time
in question. If the lack of similar arms "puts the nail on the
coffin" of a possible relationship, and the Longespee arms are not
similar to those of Richard I, then the logical implications are
obvious, but clearly wrong. To exclude relationship based on different
arms, at this time, and for a member of the clergy no less, is
foolhardy. Someone recently posted to the group the following, which
while not applying in the case in question, would seem to apply here:
"I think you're judging medieval times by modern standards. This is
dangerous and ill advised."
That may well be the case, but it is irrelevant as my intention was
not to bait you, but simply to point out that you had said something
ridiculous.
Anyhow, as is typical, you ignored the questions in the post, and
tried to distract with this accusation.
Again, to review, you introduced the ODNB account with little purpose
other than to slight it for not being definitive, when the data
doesn't allow definitive conclusions, and for failing to cite the
particular references you happened upon. In so doing, you failed to
notice within the text a precise citation of a chronicler who
explicitly calls the person in question "Master Longespee". So:
Did Paris really call him this? What exactly does he say in the
section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to look? Don't you
think this is important information, worth more than a mention in
passing?
taf
On Dec 2, 4:35 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Given that the Longespee arms are different than those of Kings
Richard and John, you must, by this logic, conclude that Longespee was
not related to the royal family.
No, sorry, this is not my conclusion at all.
Let's review:
These arms are not those of Longespée at all. If correct, this
evidence alone would put the nail in the coffin of a possible
Longespée origin for Bishop Roger. So what arms are these?
The argument put forward is that since the arms are not those of
Longespee, then Bishop Roger was not a Longespee. This is patently
ridiculous, given that coats of arms had far from ossified at the time
in question. If the lack of similar arms "puts the nail on the
coffin" of a possible relationship, and the Longespee arms are not
similar to those of Richard I, then the logical implications are
obvious, but clearly wrong. To exclude relationship based on different
arms, at this time, and for a member of the clergy no less, is
foolhardy. Someone recently posted to the group the following, which
while not applying in the case in question, would seem to apply here:
"I think you're judging medieval times by modern standards. This is
dangerous and ill advised."
If you want to bait me, you'll have to try harder than that, taf.
That may well be the case, but it is irrelevant as my intention was
not to bait you, but simply to point out that you had said something
ridiculous.
Anyhow, as is typical, you ignored the questions in the post, and
tried to distract with this accusation.
Again, to review, you introduced the ODNB account with little purpose
other than to slight it for not being definitive, when the data
doesn't allow definitive conclusions, and for failing to cite the
particular references you happened upon. In so doing, you failed to
notice within the text a precise citation of a chronicler who
explicitly calls the person in question "Master Longespee". So:
Did Paris really call him this? What exactly does he say in the
section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to look? Don't you
think this is important information, worth more than a mention in
passing?
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 2, 5:50 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Take a walk around the block, taf.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Did Paris really call him this? What exactly does he say in the
section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to look? Don't you
think this is important information, worth more than a mention in
passing?
taf
Take a walk around the block, taf.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 2, 10:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Ah, now *that's* the 'scholar and gentleman' we have come to know.
taf
On Dec 2, 5:50 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Did Paris really call him this? What exactly does he say in the
section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to look? Don't you
think this is important information, worth more than a mention in
passing?
Take a walk around the block, taf.
Ah, now *that's* the 'scholar and gentleman' we have come to know.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
Quite right.
taf was not selected for tenure?
His posts have been full of injured pride, acid and bile for months now.
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6768d1c0-9174-4676-9dce-8281e1cd78d1@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
taf was not selected for tenure?
His posts have been full of injured pride, acid and bile for months now.
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6768d1c0-9174-4676-9dce-8281e1cd78d1@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 2, 4:35 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Given that the Longespee arms are different than those of Kings
Richard and John, you must, by this logic, conclude that Longespee was
not related to the royal family.
taf
No, sorry, this is not my conclusion at all.
If you want to bait me, you'll have to try harder than that, taf.
DR
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:17de1be2-2139-44d0-9049-acce8ddda2e0@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Unfortunately the leonine genealogist has run true to form once more -
whenever he writes "I'd rather people read...for themselves" of course he
really means "I'd rather people read...for _myself_". Just as with the book
by Ian Wood, here again he is hoping that someone else will look up and
interpret the sources, as he has patently failed to do for himself, or at
least start a discussion of the material from which he can glean some free
pickings.
Well, he can exercise his own idle paws to turn up the page references...
If he had made the effort already, he would plainly not have made sense of
Matthew Paris. The chronicler knew exactly who was elected bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield in 1257: he named the man several times as "Rogerus
de Mudlent" and "magistrum Rogerum de Molend, domini regis nepotem".
This name and the stated relationship agree with other contemporary sources,
notably the annals of Burton. If that is all we were told, as misreported by
Richardson, it might be reasonable enough to suppose that "nepos" was used
meaning "kinsman", and even to seek out candidates for identification with
the bishop - say, Roger de Harcourt whose mother was dame of Meulan and
whose maternal grandmother was a first cousin of King Henry II.
However, this would be mistaken, since by the term "nepos" Matthew Paris did
not mean vaguely "a kinsman" but conventionally, and specifially, "a
nephew". Apart from calling Roger the "nepos" of King Henry III, he added
that the latter's brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, who secured the
election of this "nepos" as bishop, was indeed "avunculus" to Roger
("procurante comite insuper Ricardo, ipsius Rogeri avunculo"). This
indicates that Matthew thought one of Roger's parents to be a sibling -
presumably his mother an illegitimate half-sister - of Henry III and
Richard, i.e. a bastard of King John otherwise unknown to us.
Matthew Paris does refer once to "magister Longa-spata", without a given
name, in writing about the incapacity and death of Roger's predecessor as
bishop, his namesake Roger de Weseham. However, it is not clear that this is
an anomolous reference to Roger the king's nephew, as it has usually been
read and as Richardson has characteristically assumed at second hand without
checking (indeed has quite uncollegially refused to check when asked).
The statement is that Roger de Weseham, when ailing, resigned his bishopric
("diuturna infirmitate...cesserat episcopatui") and either that master
Longespee was elected in his place OR was substituted for him in this
capacity ("Isti autem magister Longa-spata subrogatur"). Subrogation in this
context can mean either succession or substitution, not necessarily
permanent. Matthew Paris would more probably have used the term "eligitur"
rather than "subrogatur" if he identified master Longespee with Roger the
succeeding bishop.
Since the king's nephew was not consecrated until 1259, perhaps because he
was too young in 1257, this could mean that a cleric named Longespee
administered the bishopric and/or performed the episcopal duties in the
interval, perhaps both before and after Roger de Weseham died.
So much time & effort is wasted by not verifying what sources actually say,
then thinking about this a little.
But isn't that what Richardson often and loudly represents himself as doing?
Now, very happily, I shall take my leave of sgm again.
Peter Stewart
news:17de1be2-2139-44d0-9049-acce8ddda2e0@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 2, 10:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 5:50 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Did Paris really call him this? What exactly does he say in the
section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to look? Don't you
think this is important information, worth more than a mention in
passing?
Take a walk around the block, taf.
Ah, now *that's* the 'scholar and gentleman' we have come to know.
Unfortunately the leonine genealogist has run true to form once more -
whenever he writes "I'd rather people read...for themselves" of course he
really means "I'd rather people read...for _myself_". Just as with the book
by Ian Wood, here again he is hoping that someone else will look up and
interpret the sources, as he has patently failed to do for himself, or at
least start a discussion of the material from which he can glean some free
pickings.
Well, he can exercise his own idle paws to turn up the page references...
If he had made the effort already, he would plainly not have made sense of
Matthew Paris. The chronicler knew exactly who was elected bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield in 1257: he named the man several times as "Rogerus
de Mudlent" and "magistrum Rogerum de Molend, domini regis nepotem".
This name and the stated relationship agree with other contemporary sources,
notably the annals of Burton. If that is all we were told, as misreported by
Richardson, it might be reasonable enough to suppose that "nepos" was used
meaning "kinsman", and even to seek out candidates for identification with
the bishop - say, Roger de Harcourt whose mother was dame of Meulan and
whose maternal grandmother was a first cousin of King Henry II.
However, this would be mistaken, since by the term "nepos" Matthew Paris did
not mean vaguely "a kinsman" but conventionally, and specifially, "a
nephew". Apart from calling Roger the "nepos" of King Henry III, he added
that the latter's brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, who secured the
election of this "nepos" as bishop, was indeed "avunculus" to Roger
("procurante comite insuper Ricardo, ipsius Rogeri avunculo"). This
indicates that Matthew thought one of Roger's parents to be a sibling -
presumably his mother an illegitimate half-sister - of Henry III and
Richard, i.e. a bastard of King John otherwise unknown to us.
Matthew Paris does refer once to "magister Longa-spata", without a given
name, in writing about the incapacity and death of Roger's predecessor as
bishop, his namesake Roger de Weseham. However, it is not clear that this is
an anomolous reference to Roger the king's nephew, as it has usually been
read and as Richardson has characteristically assumed at second hand without
checking (indeed has quite uncollegially refused to check when asked).
The statement is that Roger de Weseham, when ailing, resigned his bishopric
("diuturna infirmitate...cesserat episcopatui") and either that master
Longespee was elected in his place OR was substituted for him in this
capacity ("Isti autem magister Longa-spata subrogatur"). Subrogation in this
context can mean either succession or substitution, not necessarily
permanent. Matthew Paris would more probably have used the term "eligitur"
rather than "subrogatur" if he identified master Longespee with Roger the
succeeding bishop.
Since the king's nephew was not consecrated until 1259, perhaps because he
was too young in 1257, this could mean that a cleric named Longespee
administered the bishopric and/or performed the episcopal duties in the
interval, perhaps both before and after Roger de Weseham died.
So much time & effort is wasted by not verifying what sources actually say,
then thinking about this a little.
But isn't that what Richardson often and loudly represents himself as doing?
Now, very happily, I shall take my leave of sgm again.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 3, 12:01 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Please don't go! This circus is in dire need of a lion tamer, and the
group would miss your scholarship, as evidenced by your post.
David
t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:17de1be2-2139-44d0-9049-acce8ddda2e0@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 2, 10:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 5:50 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Did Paris really call him this? What exactly does he say in the
section referred to by Carpenter? Did you bother to look? Don't you
think this is important information, worth more than a mention in
passing?
Take a walk around the block, taf.
Ah, now *that's* the 'scholar and gentleman' we have come to know.
Unfortunately the leonine genealogist has run true to form once more -
whenever he writes "I'd rather people read...for themselves" of course he
really means "I'd rather people read...for _myself_". Just as with the book
by Ian Wood, here again he is hoping that someone else will look up and
interpret the sources, as he has patently failed to do for himself, or at
least start a discussion of the material from which he can glean some free
pickings.
Well, he can exercise his own idle paws to turn up the page references...
If he had made the effort already, he would plainly not have made sense of
Matthew Paris. The chronicler knew exactly who was elected bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield in 1257: he named the man several times as "Rogerus
de Mudlent" and "magistrum Rogerum de Molend, domini regis nepotem".
This name and the stated relationship agree with other contemporary sources,
notably the annals of Burton. If that is all we were told, as misreported by
Richardson, it might be reasonable enough to suppose that "nepos" was used
meaning "kinsman", and even to seek out candidates for identification with
the bishop - say, Roger de Harcourt whose mother was dame of Meulan and
whose maternal grandmother was a first cousin of King Henry II.
However, this would be mistaken, since by the term "nepos" Matthew Paris did
not mean vaguely "a kinsman" but conventionally, and specifially, "a
nephew". Apart from calling Roger the "nepos" of King Henry III, he added
that the latter's brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, who secured the
election of this "nepos" as bishop, was indeed "avunculus" to Roger
("procurante comite insuper Ricardo, ipsius Rogeri avunculo"). This
indicates that Matthew thought one of Roger's parents to be a sibling -
presumably his mother an illegitimate half-sister - of Henry III and
Richard, i.e. a bastard of King John otherwise unknown to us.
Matthew Paris does refer once to "magister Longa-spata", without a given
name, in writing about the incapacity and death of Roger's predecessor as
bishop, his namesake Roger de Weseham. However, it is not clear that this is
an anomolous reference to Roger the king's nephew, as it has usually been
read and as Richardson has characteristically assumed at second hand without
checking (indeed has quite uncollegially refused to check when asked).
The statement is that Roger de Weseham, when ailing, resigned his bishopric
("diuturna infirmitate...cesserat episcopatui") and either that master
Longespee was elected in his place OR was substituted for him in this
capacity ("Isti autem magister Longa-spata subrogatur"). Subrogation in this
context can mean either succession or substitution, not necessarily
permanent. Matthew Paris would more probably have used the term "eligitur"
rather than "subrogatur" if he identified master Longespee with Roger the
succeeding bishop.
Since the king's nephew was not consecrated until 1259, perhaps because he
was too young in 1257, this could mean that a cleric named Longespee
administered the bishopric and/or performed the episcopal duties in the
interval, perhaps both before and after Roger de Weseham died.
So much time & effort is wasted by not verifying what sources actually say,
then thinking about this a little.
But isn't that what Richardson often and loudly represents himself as doing?
Now, very happily, I shall take my leave of sgm again.
Peter Stewart
Please don't go! This circus is in dire need of a lion tamer, and the
group would miss your scholarship, as evidenced by your post.
David
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Thank you for your post. Much appreciated. I'm glad to hear I was
right for once.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 3, 4:01 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
< However, this would be mistaken, since by the term "nepos" Matthew
Paris did
< not mean vaguely "a kinsman" but conventionally, and specifially, "a
< nephew". Apart from calling Roger the "nepos" of King Henry III, he
added
< that the latter's brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, who secured the
< election of this "nepos" as bishop, was indeed "avunculus" to Roger
< ("procurante comite insuper Ricardo, ipsius Rogeri avunculo"). This
< indicates that Matthew thought one of Roger's parents to be a
sibling -
< presumably his mother an illegitimate half-sister - of Henry III and
< Richard, i.e. a bastard of King John otherwise unknown to us.
<
> Peter Stewart
right for once.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 3, 4:01 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
< However, this would be mistaken, since by the term "nepos" Matthew
Paris did
< not mean vaguely "a kinsman" but conventionally, and specifially, "a
< nephew". Apart from calling Roger the "nepos" of King Henry III, he
added
< that the latter's brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, who secured the
< election of this "nepos" as bishop, was indeed "avunculus" to Roger
< ("procurante comite insuper Ricardo, ipsius Rogeri avunculo"). This
< indicates that Matthew thought one of Roger's parents to be a
sibling -
< presumably his mother an illegitimate half-sister - of Henry III and
< Richard, i.e. a bastard of King John otherwise unknown to us.
<
> Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my earlier post, if Bishop Roger de Meulan was the
nephew to King Henry III of England (as seems to be the case), he
obviously was not the son (legitimate or otherwise) of William
Longespée, Earl of Salisbury. As such, that canard can finally be
laid to rest.
Checking the pedigrees of the Meulan family, a good candidate for
Bishop Roger de Meulan's father would surely be Ralph (or Raoul) de
Meulan, son and heir of Waleran de Meulan (died c.1191), by his wife,
Marguerite, wife of Raoul de Fougères. Ralph's paternal grandfather
is the well known Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan (died c.1207),
whose daughter, Mabel, is the ancestress of the Courtenay family of
England. Count Robert revolted against King Philippe Auguste of
France in 1202, and suffered the confiscation of his county of Meulan
in consequence. In a vain attempt to save his position, Robert handed
over all of his estates 1 May 1204 to his daughter, Mabel, and her
husband, William de Vernon, Earl of Devon. This conveyance was
ignored by King John.
In 1212 Ranulph, Earl of Chester, claimed the manor of Ipplepen, Devon
as it had belonged to the family of his wife, Clemence de Fougères,
before 1204 [see Daniel Power The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and
Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 227; Michael Jones, The Creation of
Brittany: A Late Medieval State (1988): 79, footnote 36]. However, it
appears that Ralph de Meulan came to England and recovered Ipplepen,
Devon in England for a time in the 1220's. This manor was perhaps his
mother's maritagium. If nothing else, this suggests that Ralph de
Meulan was then of the allegiance of King Henry III. In time,
however, Ralph appears to have returned to France. In consequence of
a "querimonia" in 1247, King Louis IX of France granted Courseulles to
Ralph de Meulun and the heirs of the bodies of himself and his wife,
with reversion upon failure of such heirs to the king and his heirs.
In return Ralph quitclaimed to the king all his right, title, and
interest in Beaumont-le-Roger and Brionne.
References:
C.P. 7 (1929): Appendix I, 741-742 (sub Counts of Meulan). Daniel
Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth
Centuries (2004): 227-228 [citing Rot. Lib., 36; Red Book of the
Exchequer, ii, 620; Rot. Claus, i. 135, 481; Book of Fees, i. 612 (cf.
97), ii. 1262; Stevenson 1974, ii. 439-440; Vincent, 1997, 92-93], 499
(Fougères chart).
If Bishop Roger de Meulan was Ralph de Meulan's son, then Ralph de
Meulun's wife would necessarily be a hitherto unknown illegitimate
daughter of King John whom he married when he was living in England in
the 1220's. The time of the marriage would fit the chronology well,
as Bishop Roger de Meulan first occurs in England sometime after 1245
when he occurs as Prebendary of Broomesbury at St. Paul's, London
[Reference: Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiæe Anglicanæ 1066-1300 1 (1968):
28]. I show Roger de Meulan was also proposed for the See of Ely in
1254, by Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Strangely, neither of these items
are mentioned by Mr. Carpenter's account of Bishop Roger in the new
ODNB.
Comments are always welcome. When replying to my posts, however,
please be sure to cite your sources. If no sources are cited, you'll
probably just be ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
As a followup to my earlier post, if Bishop Roger de Meulan was the
nephew to King Henry III of England (as seems to be the case), he
obviously was not the son (legitimate or otherwise) of William
Longespée, Earl of Salisbury. As such, that canard can finally be
laid to rest.
Checking the pedigrees of the Meulan family, a good candidate for
Bishop Roger de Meulan's father would surely be Ralph (or Raoul) de
Meulan, son and heir of Waleran de Meulan (died c.1191), by his wife,
Marguerite, wife of Raoul de Fougères. Ralph's paternal grandfather
is the well known Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan (died c.1207),
whose daughter, Mabel, is the ancestress of the Courtenay family of
England. Count Robert revolted against King Philippe Auguste of
France in 1202, and suffered the confiscation of his county of Meulan
in consequence. In a vain attempt to save his position, Robert handed
over all of his estates 1 May 1204 to his daughter, Mabel, and her
husband, William de Vernon, Earl of Devon. This conveyance was
ignored by King John.
In 1212 Ranulph, Earl of Chester, claimed the manor of Ipplepen, Devon
as it had belonged to the family of his wife, Clemence de Fougères,
before 1204 [see Daniel Power The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and
Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 227; Michael Jones, The Creation of
Brittany: A Late Medieval State (1988): 79, footnote 36]. However, it
appears that Ralph de Meulan came to England and recovered Ipplepen,
Devon in England for a time in the 1220's. This manor was perhaps his
mother's maritagium. If nothing else, this suggests that Ralph de
Meulan was then of the allegiance of King Henry III. In time,
however, Ralph appears to have returned to France. In consequence of
a "querimonia" in 1247, King Louis IX of France granted Courseulles to
Ralph de Meulun and the heirs of the bodies of himself and his wife,
with reversion upon failure of such heirs to the king and his heirs.
In return Ralph quitclaimed to the king all his right, title, and
interest in Beaumont-le-Roger and Brionne.
References:
C.P. 7 (1929): Appendix I, 741-742 (sub Counts of Meulan). Daniel
Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth
Centuries (2004): 227-228 [citing Rot. Lib., 36; Red Book of the
Exchequer, ii, 620; Rot. Claus, i. 135, 481; Book of Fees, i. 612 (cf.
97), ii. 1262; Stevenson 1974, ii. 439-440; Vincent, 1997, 92-93], 499
(Fougères chart).
If Bishop Roger de Meulan was Ralph de Meulan's son, then Ralph de
Meulun's wife would necessarily be a hitherto unknown illegitimate
daughter of King John whom he married when he was living in England in
the 1220's. The time of the marriage would fit the chronology well,
as Bishop Roger de Meulan first occurs in England sometime after 1245
when he occurs as Prebendary of Broomesbury at St. Paul's, London
[Reference: Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiæe Anglicanæ 1066-1300 1 (1968):
28]. I show Roger de Meulan was also proposed for the See of Ely in
1254, by Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Strangely, neither of these items
are mentioned by Mr. Carpenter's account of Bishop Roger in the new
ODNB.
Comments are always welcome. When replying to my posts, however,
please be sure to cite your sources. If no sources are cited, you'll
probably just be ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my earlier post, if Bishop Roger de Meulan was the
nephew to King Henry III of England (as seems to be the case), he
obviously was not the son (legitimate or otherwise) of William
Longespée, Earl of Salisbury. As such, that canard can finally be
laid to rest.
Checking the pedigrees of the Meulan family, a good candidate for
Bishop Roger de Meulan's father would surely be Ralph (or Raoul) de
Meulan, son and heir of Waleran de Meulan (died c.1191), by his wife,
Marguerite, daughter of Raoul de Fougères. Ralph's paternal
grandfather
is the well known Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan (died c.1207),
whose daughter, Mabel, is the ancestress of the Courtenay family of
England. Count Robert revolted against King Philippe Auguste of
France in 1202, and suffered the confiscation of his county of Meulan
in consequence. In a vain attempt to save his position, Robert handed
over all of his estates 1 May 1204 to his daughter, Mabel, and her
husband, William de Vernon, Earl of Devon. This conveyance was
ignored by King John.
In 1212 Ranulph, Earl of Chester, claimed the manor of Ipplepen, Devon
as it had belonged to the family of his wife, Clemence de Fougères,
before 1204 [see Daniel Power The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and
Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 227; Michael Jones, The Creation of
Brittany: A Late Medieval State (1988): 79, footnote 36]. However, it
appears that Ralph de Meulan came to England and recovered Ipplepen,
Devon in England for a time in the 1220's. This manor was perhaps his
mother's maritagium. If nothing else, this suggests that Ralph de
Meulan was then of the allegiance of King Henry III. In time,
however, Ralph appears to have returned to France. In consequence of
a "querimonia" in 1247, King Louis IX of France granted Courseulles to
Ralph de Meulun and the heirs of the bodies of himself and his wife,
with reversion upon failure of such heirs to the king and his heirs.
In return Ralph quitclaimed to the king all his right, title, and
interest in Beaumont-le-Roger and Brionne.
References:
C.P. 7 (1929): Appendix I, 741-742 (sub Counts of Meulan). Daniel
Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth
Centuries (2004): 227-228 [citing Rot. Lib., 36; Red Book of the
Exchequer, ii, 620; Rot. Claus, i. 135, 481; Book of Fees, i. 612 (cf.
97), ii. 1262; Stevenson 1974, ii. 439-440; Vincent, 1997, 92-93], 499
(Fougères chart).
If Bishop Roger de Meulan was Ralph de Meulan's son, then Ralph de
Meulun's wife would necessarily be a hitherto unknown illegitimate
daughter of King John whom he married when he was living in England in
the 1220's. The time of the marriage would fit the chronology well,
as Bishop Roger de Meulan first occurs in England sometime after 1245
when he occurs as Prebendary of Broomesbury at St. Paul's, London
[Reference: Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiæe Anglicanæ 1066-1300 1 (1968):
28]. I also show Roger de Meulan was proposed for the See of Ely in
1254, by Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Strangely, neither of these items
are mentioned by Mr. Carpenter's account of Bishop Roger in the new
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB).
Comments are always welcome. When replying to my posts, however,
please be sure to cite your sources. If no sources are cited, you'll
probably just be ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
As a followup to my earlier post, if Bishop Roger de Meulan was the
nephew to King Henry III of England (as seems to be the case), he
obviously was not the son (legitimate or otherwise) of William
Longespée, Earl of Salisbury. As such, that canard can finally be
laid to rest.
Checking the pedigrees of the Meulan family, a good candidate for
Bishop Roger de Meulan's father would surely be Ralph (or Raoul) de
Meulan, son and heir of Waleran de Meulan (died c.1191), by his wife,
Marguerite, daughter of Raoul de Fougères. Ralph's paternal
grandfather
is the well known Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan (died c.1207),
whose daughter, Mabel, is the ancestress of the Courtenay family of
England. Count Robert revolted against King Philippe Auguste of
France in 1202, and suffered the confiscation of his county of Meulan
in consequence. In a vain attempt to save his position, Robert handed
over all of his estates 1 May 1204 to his daughter, Mabel, and her
husband, William de Vernon, Earl of Devon. This conveyance was
ignored by King John.
In 1212 Ranulph, Earl of Chester, claimed the manor of Ipplepen, Devon
as it had belonged to the family of his wife, Clemence de Fougères,
before 1204 [see Daniel Power The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and
Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 227; Michael Jones, The Creation of
Brittany: A Late Medieval State (1988): 79, footnote 36]. However, it
appears that Ralph de Meulan came to England and recovered Ipplepen,
Devon in England for a time in the 1220's. This manor was perhaps his
mother's maritagium. If nothing else, this suggests that Ralph de
Meulan was then of the allegiance of King Henry III. In time,
however, Ralph appears to have returned to France. In consequence of
a "querimonia" in 1247, King Louis IX of France granted Courseulles to
Ralph de Meulun and the heirs of the bodies of himself and his wife,
with reversion upon failure of such heirs to the king and his heirs.
In return Ralph quitclaimed to the king all his right, title, and
interest in Beaumont-le-Roger and Brionne.
References:
C.P. 7 (1929): Appendix I, 741-742 (sub Counts of Meulan). Daniel
Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth
Centuries (2004): 227-228 [citing Rot. Lib., 36; Red Book of the
Exchequer, ii, 620; Rot. Claus, i. 135, 481; Book of Fees, i. 612 (cf.
97), ii. 1262; Stevenson 1974, ii. 439-440; Vincent, 1997, 92-93], 499
(Fougères chart).
If Bishop Roger de Meulan was Ralph de Meulan's son, then Ralph de
Meulun's wife would necessarily be a hitherto unknown illegitimate
daughter of King John whom he married when he was living in England in
the 1220's. The time of the marriage would fit the chronology well,
as Bishop Roger de Meulan first occurs in England sometime after 1245
when he occurs as Prebendary of Broomesbury at St. Paul's, London
[Reference: Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiæe Anglicanæ 1066-1300 1 (1968):
28]. I also show Roger de Meulan was proposed for the See of Ely in
1254, by Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Strangely, neither of these items
are mentioned by Mr. Carpenter's account of Bishop Roger in the new
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB).
Comments are always welcome. When replying to my posts, however,
please be sure to cite your sources. If no sources are cited, you'll
probably just be ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 3, 11:31 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Yet you fail to cite any source for this seeming nephewhood. You
refer to your earlier post, but given the amount of electrons you have
spilled lately pontificating about how 'nephew doesn't always mean
nephew', you can't very well conclude that it does without explicit
evidence, and there was no such evdience in your earlier post. We all
know where that evidence came from - you lifted the information from
the post of someone you pretend did not post, who cited a source you
pretend was not worth consulting.
taf
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my earlier post, if Bishop Roger de Meulan was the
nephew to King Henry III of England (as seems to be the case),
Comments are always welcome. When replying to my posts, however,
please be sure to cite your sources. If no sources are cited, you'll
probably just be ignored.
Yet you fail to cite any source for this seeming nephewhood. You
refer to your earlier post, but given the amount of electrons you have
spilled lately pontificating about how 'nephew doesn't always mean
nephew', you can't very well conclude that it does without explicit
evidence, and there was no such evdience in your earlier post. We all
know where that evidence came from - you lifted the information from
the post of someone you pretend did not post, who cited a source you
pretend was not worth consulting.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5271eecc-8b9e-4130-9690-1c083fc2909f@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Trying to falsify the record yet again, hoping to bamboozle some future
reader. Not the behaviour of a Lion. But I suppose you might be able to
interest Disney Studios in an animated feature "The Liar King"....son of
Wile E. Coyote.
You wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b25e8db3-1ca8-4399-8cd5-5c2fe45ddca4@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
This is wrong, not "right for once", that we have yet to see.
If you had read Matthew Paris you would have known of a "possible sister
(legitimate or illegitimate)" of King Henry III who might have been Roger's
mother. The family he came from, of course, will not be established by
guesswork - for which sources cannot be provided anyway, as you demand of
others.
His parent related to Henry III and Richard of Cornwall was not a Lusignan
half-sibling - that family is very well-known, and they were roughly
contemporary with Roger, none of them old enough to be parent of a bishop
consecrated in 1259.
Nor is Raoul of Courseulles a likely candidate for the father: he married
twice that we know of, to ladies whose families are recorded, and his heir
was from the second of these marriages.
Perhaps you could hire your new best friends in Hawaii and Florida to help
in your research. Obviously neither of them has enough to do, apart from
constantly boring people online with their self-promotion and sycophancy.
Peter Stewart
news:5271eecc-8b9e-4130-9690-1c083fc2909f@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Thank you for your post. Much appreciated. I'm glad to hear I was
right for once.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 3, 4:01 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
However, this would be mistaken, since by the term "nepos" Matthew
Paris did
not mean vaguely "a kinsman" but conventionally, and specifially, "a
nephew". Apart from calling Roger the "nepos" of King Henry III, he
added
that the latter's brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, who secured the
election of this "nepos" as bishop, was indeed "avunculus" to Roger
("procurante comite insuper Ricardo, ipsius Rogeri avunculo"). This
indicates that Matthew thought one of Roger's parents to be a
sibling -
presumably his mother an illegitimate half-sister - of Henry III and
Richard, i.e. a bastard of King John otherwise unknown to us.
Peter Stewart
Trying to falsify the record yet again, hoping to bamboozle some future
reader. Not the behaviour of a Lion. But I suppose you might be able to
interest Disney Studios in an animated feature "The Liar King"....son of
Wile E. Coyote.
You wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b25e8db3-1ca8-4399-8cd5-5c2fe45ddca4@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
At this junction, I should point out that it is stated in print as
indicated above that Bishop Roger was called "nephew" by King
Henry III. I assume, however, the word "nepos" (or some variant
form) was used in the original source in Latin. If so, it is possible
that kinsman is the correct rendering of nepos in this instance,
rather than nephew. Regardless, I know of no connection between
King Henry III and any possible sister (legitimate or illegitimate)
who might have married a member of the Meulan family in France.
This is wrong, not "right for once", that we have yet to see.
If you had read Matthew Paris you would have known of a "possible sister
(legitimate or illegitimate)" of King Henry III who might have been Roger's
mother. The family he came from, of course, will not be established by
guesswork - for which sources cannot be provided anyway, as you demand of
others.
His parent related to Henry III and Richard of Cornwall was not a Lusignan
half-sibling - that family is very well-known, and they were roughly
contemporary with Roger, none of them old enough to be parent of a bishop
consecrated in 1259.
Nor is Raoul of Courseulles a likely candidate for the father: he married
twice that we know of, to ladies whose families are recorded, and his heir
was from the second of these marriages.
Perhaps you could hire your new best friends in Hawaii and Florida to help
in your research. Obviously neither of them has enough to do, apart from
constantly boring people online with their self-promotion and sycophancy.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
Additional material on Ralph (or Raoul) de Meulan, knight, the
potential father of Bishop Roger de Meulan, can be found in the
sources listed below. These sources indicate that King Louis IX
granted Courseulles and Bernières-sur-Mer in Calvados in August 1255
to Raoul de Meulan and the heirs of the bodies of himself and his
wife, in recompense for Raoul's ancestral lands which had been earlier
confiscated by King Philippe Auguste. A transcript of the actual
grant datyed 1255 from King Louis IX to Raoul de Meulan, knight,
together with Raoul's accompanying quitclaim of Beaumont-le-Roger and
Brionne, is published in Cartulaire Normand cited below.
A transcript of Raoul de Meulan's parents marriage settlement dated
1189 is likewise found in Mémoires et notes de M. Auguste le Prevost
cited below. As expected, Ipplepen, Devon is mentioned in this
settlement, thus confirming that Raoul de Meulan was the son of
Waleran de Meulan and his wife, Marguerite de Fougères, as stated by
the able historian, Daniel Power. Regardless, I did find one French
source which identified Raoul de Meulan as the son of his uncle, Peter
(or Pierre) de Meulan, a cleric. But, another French source simply
says that Raoul de Meulan was the "heir" of Peter.
Mémoires de l'Académie nationale des sciences, arts et belles-lettres
de Caen (1914); 121, 125, 126 cited below appears to be an account of
the Meulan family of Courseulles. This information is not available
through Google Book Search.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Sources relating to Raoul de Meulan:
Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie (1828): 432-433
(Raoul de Meulan identified as nephew of Jeanne de Meulan, wife of
Robert de Harcourt ["neveu de Jeanne"], sister of Waleran de
Meulan).
Delisle, Cartulaire Normand (Mémoires de la Société des Antiq. de
Normandie 16) (1852): 96-97 (No. 536 & 537).
Michaud, Histoire des Croisades 3 (1856): 231, footnote 1.
Delisle & Passy, Mémoires et notes de M. Auguste le Prevost 1 (1862):
208-214, esp. 211 (Raoul de Meulan identified as heir of Pierre [de
Meulan] ["héritier de Pierre"]), 214.
Boutaric, Actes du Parlement de Paris 2 (1863): 6 (No. 3033- seen), 26
(not seen).
Revue catholique d'histoire, d'archéologie et litterature de Normandie
4e année (1894): 450 (Raoul de Meulan incorrectly identified as the
son of Peter de Meulan ["fils de Pierre de Meulan"]).
Bénet, Inventaire sommaire des Archives départementales antérieures à
1790: Calvados, Archives Civiles (Série E Supplément 1) (1897): 284.
Mémoires de l'Académie nationale des sciences, arts et belles-lettres
de Caen (1914); 121, 125, 126 (not seen).
Little & Powicke, Essays in Medieval History Presented to Thomas
Frederick Tout (1925): 109-110.
Additional material on Ralph (or Raoul) de Meulan, knight, the
potential father of Bishop Roger de Meulan, can be found in the
sources listed below. These sources indicate that King Louis IX
granted Courseulles and Bernières-sur-Mer in Calvados in August 1255
to Raoul de Meulan and the heirs of the bodies of himself and his
wife, in recompense for Raoul's ancestral lands which had been earlier
confiscated by King Philippe Auguste. A transcript of the actual
grant datyed 1255 from King Louis IX to Raoul de Meulan, knight,
together with Raoul's accompanying quitclaim of Beaumont-le-Roger and
Brionne, is published in Cartulaire Normand cited below.
A transcript of Raoul de Meulan's parents marriage settlement dated
1189 is likewise found in Mémoires et notes de M. Auguste le Prevost
cited below. As expected, Ipplepen, Devon is mentioned in this
settlement, thus confirming that Raoul de Meulan was the son of
Waleran de Meulan and his wife, Marguerite de Fougères, as stated by
the able historian, Daniel Power. Regardless, I did find one French
source which identified Raoul de Meulan as the son of his uncle, Peter
(or Pierre) de Meulan, a cleric. But, another French source simply
says that Raoul de Meulan was the "heir" of Peter.
Mémoires de l'Académie nationale des sciences, arts et belles-lettres
de Caen (1914); 121, 125, 126 cited below appears to be an account of
the Meulan family of Courseulles. This information is not available
through Google Book Search.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Sources relating to Raoul de Meulan:
Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie (1828): 432-433
(Raoul de Meulan identified as nephew of Jeanne de Meulan, wife of
Robert de Harcourt ["neveu de Jeanne"], sister of Waleran de
Meulan).
Delisle, Cartulaire Normand (Mémoires de la Société des Antiq. de
Normandie 16) (1852): 96-97 (No. 536 & 537).
Michaud, Histoire des Croisades 3 (1856): 231, footnote 1.
Delisle & Passy, Mémoires et notes de M. Auguste le Prevost 1 (1862):
208-214, esp. 211 (Raoul de Meulan identified as heir of Pierre [de
Meulan] ["héritier de Pierre"]), 214.
Boutaric, Actes du Parlement de Paris 2 (1863): 6 (No. 3033- seen), 26
(not seen).
Revue catholique d'histoire, d'archéologie et litterature de Normandie
4e année (1894): 450 (Raoul de Meulan incorrectly identified as the
son of Peter de Meulan ["fils de Pierre de Meulan"]).
Bénet, Inventaire sommaire des Archives départementales antérieures à
1790: Calvados, Archives Civiles (Série E Supplément 1) (1897): 284.
Mémoires de l'Académie nationale des sciences, arts et belles-lettres
de Caen (1914); 121, 125, 126 (not seen).
Little & Powicke, Essays in Medieval History Presented to Thomas
Frederick Tout (1925): 109-110.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
Regarding the arms of the family of Meulan in France, the following
interesting weblink indicates the Meulan family of Beaumont-le-Roger
bore both checky and a lion, depending on the branch of the family:
http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/ ... aumont.pdf
For a contemporary example of the simple lion, see the first seal
attached to a charter dated 1281 of Amaury III de Meulan, seigneur of
la Queue and Gournay, which charter can be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/cartulaires ... /acte1360/
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Regarding the arms of the family of Meulan in France, the following
interesting weblink indicates the Meulan family of Beaumont-le-Roger
bore both checky and a lion, depending on the branch of the family:
http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/ ... aumont.pdf
For a contemporary example of the simple lion, see the first seal
attached to a charter dated 1281 of Amaury III de Meulan, seigneur of
la Queue and Gournay, which charter can be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/cartulaires ... /acte1360/
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/ ... aumont.pdf
The above weblink also has some helpful charts on the families of the
comtes and vicomtes of Meulan, including charts on the family of Raoul
(or Ralph) de Meuland, seigneur of Courseulles-sur-Mer.
For a picture of the seal of Roger de Meulan (died 1295), Bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield, see the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RedAL3 ... trI1UOtYmQ
Walter Birch gives a description of this seal (or a similar one) in
his book, Catalkogue of Seals in the British Museum, 1 (1887): 244:
"Seal of Roger Longespée, de Meulan dated 1293--Pointed oval: the
Bishop, full length, in embroidered vestments, lifting up the right
hand in benediction, in the left hand a pastoral staff; standing on a
corbel, supported by a lion couchant in allusion to the armorial
bearings of the family of Longespée, and flanked by the two churches
of Coventry and Lichfield. In the field, on either side, a crescent
enclosing an estoile, and below each of them a quatrefoiled niche
containing a tonsured head." END OF QUOTE.
I note that Mr. Birch fell into the trap of identifying Roger de
Meulan as a Longespée, whereas the Bishop never called himself by that
name. The Bishop's name was Roger de Meulan. Thus the lion couchant
is not an allusion to the Longespée family at all. Rather, it is pure
and simple a lion couchant.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/ ... aumont.pdf
The above weblink also has some helpful charts on the families of the
comtes and vicomtes of Meulan, including charts on the family of Raoul
(or Ralph) de Meuland, seigneur of Courseulles-sur-Mer.
For a picture of the seal of Roger de Meulan (died 1295), Bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield, see the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RedAL3 ... trI1UOtYmQ
Walter Birch gives a description of this seal (or a similar one) in
his book, Catalkogue of Seals in the British Museum, 1 (1887): 244:
"Seal of Roger Longespée, de Meulan dated 1293--Pointed oval: the
Bishop, full length, in embroidered vestments, lifting up the right
hand in benediction, in the left hand a pastoral staff; standing on a
corbel, supported by a lion couchant in allusion to the armorial
bearings of the family of Longespée, and flanked by the two churches
of Coventry and Lichfield. In the field, on either side, a crescent
enclosing an estoile, and below each of them a quatrefoiled niche
containing a tonsured head." END OF QUOTE.
I note that Mr. Birch fell into the trap of identifying Roger de
Meulan as a Longespée, whereas the Bishop never called himself by that
name. The Bishop's name was Roger de Meulan. Thus the lion couchant
is not an allusion to the Longespée family at all. Rather, it is pure
and simple a lion couchant.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 4, 11:42 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
That would be a lion trap, no doubt. At the start of this thread you
wrote:
On Dec 3, 8:33 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
In scholarly and gentlemanly circles it is normal practice to
acknowledge your own errors rather than pointing out similar
deficiencies on the same points in others.
Running up red flags over the trap after you have fallen in, then
pretending that you knew the hazard all along, is not acceptable
practice in any circles.
Peter Stewart
Dear Newsgroup ~
http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/ ... aumont.pdf
The above weblink also has some helpful charts on the families of the
comtes and vicomtes of Meulan, including charts on the family of Raoul
(or Ralph) de Meuland, seigneur of Courseulles-sur-Mer.
For a picture of the seal of Roger de Meulan (died 1295), Bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield, see the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RedAL3 ... 116&dq=r...
Walter Birch gives a description of this seal (or a similar one) in
his book, Catalkogue of Seals in the British Museum, 1 (1887): 244:
"Seal of Roger Longespée, de Meulan dated 1293--Pointed oval: the
Bishop, full length, in embroidered vestments, lifting up the right
hand in benediction, in the left hand a pastoral staff; standing on a
corbel, supported by a lion couchant in allusion to the armorial
bearings of the family of Longespée, and flanked by the two churches
of Coventry and Lichfield. In the field, on either side, a crescent
enclosing an estoile, and below each of them a quatrefoiled niche
containing a tonsured head." END OF QUOTE.
I note that Mr. Birch fell into the trap of identifying Roger de
Meulan as a Longespée, whereas the Bishop never called himself by that
name. The Bishop's name was Roger de Meulan. Thus the lion couchant
is not an allusion to the Longespée family at all. Rather, it is pure
and simple a lion couchant.
That would be a lion trap, no doubt. At the start of this thread you
wrote:
On Dec 3, 8:33 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
It has been alleged in print and in various modern databases such as
the National Archives catalogue that Roger de Meulun (or Meulent,
Mulent), Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who died in 1295, was a
member of the Longespée family of England, more specifically that he
was a child of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury, which William was
a well known bastard son of King Henry II of England. I followed that
line in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), and assigned Roger as a
"possible illegitimate" child of Earl William Longespée. However,
I've continued to have misgivings about Roger de Meulun's placement as
a possible member of the Longespée family for two reasons: First, as
far as I can tell, he himself never used the surname Longespée. He
occurs as "de Meulun" (or some variant form) in all the records that
I've seen of him. Second, he is never associated in any records with
any other member of the Longespée family. Both of these are red
flags.
In scholarly and gentlemanly circles it is normal practice to
acknowledge your own errors rather than pointing out similar
deficiencies on the same points in others.
Running up red flags over the trap after you have fallen in, then
pretending that you knew the hazard all along, is not acceptable
practice in any circles.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
Peter Stewart comes crawling back to SGM, after throwing a hissy fit and
departing in a Grand Huff.
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5c37520b-2a09-4b0a-a0de-4478b8a5659c@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
[Vicious, But Insipid Attack On Douglas Richardson]
<baldersnip>
departing in a Grand Huff.
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5c37520b-2a09-4b0a-a0de-4478b8a5659c@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
[Vicious, But Insipid Attack On Douglas Richardson]
<baldersnip>
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
For those newsgroup members who would like to study the documents
which relate to the election of Roger de Meulan as Bishop of Coventry
and Lichfield in 1256, they may do so at the weblinks provided below
for the Burton Annals. These records were published in Annales
Monastici, volume 1, edited by Henry R. Luard, and were cited in
passing by Bowles & Nichols in their account of Bishop Roger in Annals
and Antiquities of Lacock Abbey (1835): 164.
I note that Bishop Roger is twice called "nephew" of the king in these
documents:
pg. 377 Roger de Meuleng styled nephew of the king ["domini regis
nepotem"]
pg. 380 Roger de Meuleng styled "our beloved nephew" [delecto nepote
nostro"] by King Henry III of England
Even though Bishop Roger is clearly called "Roger de Meuleng" in these
records, the modern editor Mr. Luard has indexed all these entries
under the name, "Roger Longespée or de Meuleng" - see Annales
Monastici, Vol. 5, pp. 227-228 (index). Yet Bishop Roger no where
occurs as Longespée!
Here are the weblinks to the pages in Burton Annals which relate to
election of Bishop Roger de Meulan as Bishop of Coventry and
Lichfield:
pg. 377 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
pg. 378 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
pg. 379 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
pg. 380 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
pg. 381 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
Lastly, a record of the death of Bishop Roger de Meulan can be found
in Dunstable Annals (Annales Monastici, Vol. 3, pg. 400) at the
following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... hemindefer
Again, there is no reference in this record to Bishop Roger being a
Longespée.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
For those newsgroup members who would like to study the documents
which relate to the election of Roger de Meulan as Bishop of Coventry
and Lichfield in 1256, they may do so at the weblinks provided below
for the Burton Annals. These records were published in Annales
Monastici, volume 1, edited by Henry R. Luard, and were cited in
passing by Bowles & Nichols in their account of Bishop Roger in Annals
and Antiquities of Lacock Abbey (1835): 164.
I note that Bishop Roger is twice called "nephew" of the king in these
documents:
pg. 377 Roger de Meuleng styled nephew of the king ["domini regis
nepotem"]
pg. 380 Roger de Meuleng styled "our beloved nephew" [delecto nepote
nostro"] by King Henry III of England
Even though Bishop Roger is clearly called "Roger de Meuleng" in these
records, the modern editor Mr. Luard has indexed all these entries
under the name, "Roger Longespée or de Meuleng" - see Annales
Monastici, Vol. 5, pp. 227-228 (index). Yet Bishop Roger no where
occurs as Longespée!
Here are the weblinks to the pages in Burton Annals which relate to
election of Bishop Roger de Meulan as Bishop of Coventry and
Lichfield:
pg. 377 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
pg. 378 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
pg. 379 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
pg. 380 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
pg. 381 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50240s.pagination
Lastly, a record of the death of Bishop Roger de Meulan can be found
in Dunstable Annals (Annales Monastici, Vol. 3, pg. 400) at the
following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... hemindefer
Again, there is no reference in this record to Bishop Roger being a
Longespée.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is the weblink for the index page in Volume 7 of the 1883
edition of Matthew Paris which relates to Bishop Roger de Meulan.
Here Mr. Luard, who is the same person who earlier edited and indexed
the Burton Annals, has correctly indexed Roger de Meulan under the
name "Roger de Meuleng" with no reference to Longespée. So far, so
good.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iWTTbL ... Meuleng%22
As Mr. Luard's index shows, there is a reference to Bishop Roger de
Meulan's election as Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield under the year
1257 in Matthew Paris, Vol. 5, pg. 613. In Vol. 5, pg. 613, Bishop
Roger is called "Roger de Molend" and again styled nephew of the king
["domini regis nepotem"]. Richard, Earl of Cornwall, younger brother
of King Henry III, is likewise styled Bishop Roger's uncle
["avunculo"] in this entry. Yet, incredibly, on this same page, in an
editiorial footnote, Mr. Luard informs us that "Roger de Meuleng or de
Longespée" was "4th son of William de Longespée natural son of Henry
II., and so first cousin to Henry III." Yet Bishop Roger is no where
is named Longespée, nor did the name Longespée take a "de" with it.
Likewise, there is no evidence that Earl William Longespée (the
bastard son of King Henry II) had a son named Roger at all. Rather,
if Earl Richard was uncle to Bishop Roger as stated, it would be
impossible for Bishop Roger to be the son of Earl Richard's first
cousin, Earl William Longespée.
The weblink for Matthew Paris, vol. 5, pg. 613 is provided below:
pg. 613 http://books.google.com/books?id=IX9F6K ... #PPA613,M1
Incidentally, for those interested in name variants, the name "de
Meuleng" appears to be a variant form of "de Meulan." For French
examples of the variant, de Meuleng, see the following weblinks:
Mémoires pour servir à l'état historique et géographique du diocèse de
Bayeux
pg. 158: http://books.google.com/books?id=mjNMAA ... #PPA158,M1
pg. 159: http://books.google.com/books?id=mjNMAA ... #PPA159,M1
Mémoires of the Société archéologique de Rambouillet
pg. 487 http://books.google.com/books?id=xX04AA ... s=1#search
Comments are invited. When replying, please cite your sources and
post weblinks where they are available. Otherwise, you'll probably
just be ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Below is the weblink for the index page in Volume 7 of the 1883
edition of Matthew Paris which relates to Bishop Roger de Meulan.
Here Mr. Luard, who is the same person who earlier edited and indexed
the Burton Annals, has correctly indexed Roger de Meulan under the
name "Roger de Meuleng" with no reference to Longespée. So far, so
good.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iWTTbL ... Meuleng%22
As Mr. Luard's index shows, there is a reference to Bishop Roger de
Meulan's election as Bishop of Coventry & Lichfield under the year
1257 in Matthew Paris, Vol. 5, pg. 613. In Vol. 5, pg. 613, Bishop
Roger is called "Roger de Molend" and again styled nephew of the king
["domini regis nepotem"]. Richard, Earl of Cornwall, younger brother
of King Henry III, is likewise styled Bishop Roger's uncle
["avunculo"] in this entry. Yet, incredibly, on this same page, in an
editiorial footnote, Mr. Luard informs us that "Roger de Meuleng or de
Longespée" was "4th son of William de Longespée natural son of Henry
II., and so first cousin to Henry III." Yet Bishop Roger is no where
is named Longespée, nor did the name Longespée take a "de" with it.
Likewise, there is no evidence that Earl William Longespée (the
bastard son of King Henry II) had a son named Roger at all. Rather,
if Earl Richard was uncle to Bishop Roger as stated, it would be
impossible for Bishop Roger to be the son of Earl Richard's first
cousin, Earl William Longespée.
The weblink for Matthew Paris, vol. 5, pg. 613 is provided below:
pg. 613 http://books.google.com/books?id=IX9F6K ... #PPA613,M1
Incidentally, for those interested in name variants, the name "de
Meuleng" appears to be a variant form of "de Meulan." For French
examples of the variant, de Meuleng, see the following weblinks:
Mémoires pour servir à l'état historique et géographique du diocèse de
Bayeux
pg. 158: http://books.google.com/books?id=mjNMAA ... #PPA158,M1
pg. 159: http://books.google.com/books?id=mjNMAA ... #PPA159,M1
Mémoires of the Société archéologique de Rambouillet
pg. 487 http://books.google.com/books?id=xX04AA ... s=1#search
Comments are invited. When replying, please cite your sources and
post weblinks where they are available. Otherwise, you'll probably
just be ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
[Inane cross-postings removed - why does Richardson insist on broadcasting
his ignorance?]
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:32d79b2e-19b8-486a-a579-6081859c6e5d@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Now he is adding exclamation marks to ridicule a supposed error that he was
himself still committing to print 140 years after Luard.
There appears to be an immutable law in Richardson's nature that he CANNOT
get anything right, in proportion and treated with objectivity.
The interpretation of Matthew Paris that I posted yesterday was just an
alternative reading which happens to eliminate an old puzzle, NOT a proven
fact about what was meant by "subrogatur" in one specific context.
Luard's reading of this, consequently identifying "magister Longa-Spata"
with "Rogerus de Molent" (or elsewhere "Meuleng") remains another valid
reading of the text.
There is nothing to mock or jibber at in his editorial gloss or index,
either to _Annales monastici_ or his edition of _Chronica majora_ by Matthew
Paris.
We still don't have any evidence of Roger's parentage, apart from the
mysterious nepos/avunculi relationship linking him with Henry III and
Richard of Cornwall.
So by more compulsive posturing to cover of your own tracks, that will fooll
nobody, you are wasting more of your own time than anyone else's.
Peter Stewart
his ignorance?]
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:32d79b2e-19b8-486a-a579-6081859c6e5d@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Even though Bishop Roger is clearly called "Roger de Meuleng" in
these records, the modern editor Mr. Luard has indexed all these
entries under the name, "Roger Longespée or de Meuleng" - see
Annales Monastici, Vol. 5, pp. 227-228 (index). Yet Bishop
Roger no where occurs as Longespée!
Now he is adding exclamation marks to ridicule a supposed error that he was
himself still committing to print 140 years after Luard.
There appears to be an immutable law in Richardson's nature that he CANNOT
get anything right, in proportion and treated with objectivity.
The interpretation of Matthew Paris that I posted yesterday was just an
alternative reading which happens to eliminate an old puzzle, NOT a proven
fact about what was meant by "subrogatur" in one specific context.
Luard's reading of this, consequently identifying "magister Longa-Spata"
with "Rogerus de Molent" (or elsewhere "Meuleng") remains another valid
reading of the text.
There is nothing to mock or jibber at in his editorial gloss or index,
either to _Annales monastici_ or his edition of _Chronica majora_ by Matthew
Paris.
We still don't have any evidence of Roger's parentage, apart from the
mysterious nepos/avunculi relationship linking him with Henry III and
Richard of Cornwall.
So by more compulsive posturing to cover of your own tracks, that will fooll
nobody, you are wasting more of your own time than anyone else's.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 2:43 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
No sources. No weblinks.
Ignore.
DR
No sources. No weblinks.
Ignore.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 1:48 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Another post based on a misunderstanding - One need have no separate
source in order to point out a logical flaw in what has been
presented. To demand such a source is simply an elaborate way of
begging the question.
taf
On Dec 5, 2:43 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
No sources. No weblinks.
Ignore.
Another post based on a misunderstanding - One need have no separate
source in order to point out a logical flaw in what has been
presented. To demand such a source is simply an elaborate way of
begging the question.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 12:51 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
This is a common misconception - the majority of indexes are not done
by the authors/editors of the work, but by some grunt working for the
publisher. Thus it is never a great idea to castigate an author about
forms appearing in the index, as he likely played little role in its
compilation and it is not uncommon to see indexes that express
traditional identifications explicitly rejected in the text, much to
the authors' chagrin.
taf
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is the weblink for the index page in Volume 7 of the 1883
edition of Matthew Paris which relates to Bishop Roger de Meulan.
Here Mr. Luard, who is the same person who earlier edited and indexed
the Burton Annals, has correctly indexed Roger de Meulan under the
name "Roger de Meuleng" with no reference to Longespée. So far, so
good.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iWTTbL ... de+Meule...
As Mr. Luard's index shows, . . .
This is a common misconception - the majority of indexes are not done
by the authors/editors of the work, but by some grunt working for the
publisher. Thus it is never a great idea to castigate an author about
forms appearing in the index, as he likely played little role in its
compilation and it is not uncommon to see indexes that express
traditional identifications explicitly rejected in the text, much to
the authors' chagrin.
taf
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:48:46 -0800 (PST), Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
No sources. No weblinks.
No counter-arguments.
No admissions of error.
No surprises there.
Praetereamus
Tish
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2:43 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
No sources. No weblinks.
Ignore.
No sources. No weblinks.
No counter-arguments.
No admissions of error.
No surprises there.
Praetereamus
Tish
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
Report & Transactions of the Devonshire Assoc. for the Advancement of
Science, Literature & Art, 2nd ser. 7 (1905): 435 has some helpful
information on Bishop Roger de Meulan's possible father, Sir Ralph de
Meulan, who according to the historian Daniel Power held the the manor
of Ipplepen, Devon before returning permanently to France. Power
dates Sir Ralph de Meulan's ownership of Ipplepen as being in the
1220's. This would have been an acceptable time frame for Sir Ralph
de Meulan to have met and married a bastard daughter of King John in
England.
Here is a partial quotation of the Devonshire Association material:
"Sir Ralph de Meulent held the manor of Ippolepenn, i.e., Ipplepen, of
our lord the King in chief until after the coronation of our lord the
King. And because Ralph de Meulent would not join the King's army in
Brittany, the King gave the said manor to Nicholas de Lettres, who
held it all of his life." END OF QUOTE.
For the full text, see the weblink below:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jk0DAA ... de+Meulent
Comments are invited, indeed welcome. When replying, please cite your
sources and post weblinks where they are available. Otherwise, you'll
probably just be ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richarrdson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Report & Transactions of the Devonshire Assoc. for the Advancement of
Science, Literature & Art, 2nd ser. 7 (1905): 435 has some helpful
information on Bishop Roger de Meulan's possible father, Sir Ralph de
Meulan, who according to the historian Daniel Power held the the manor
of Ipplepen, Devon before returning permanently to France. Power
dates Sir Ralph de Meulan's ownership of Ipplepen as being in the
1220's. This would have been an acceptable time frame for Sir Ralph
de Meulan to have met and married a bastard daughter of King John in
England.
Here is a partial quotation of the Devonshire Association material:
"Sir Ralph de Meulent held the manor of Ippolepenn, i.e., Ipplepen, of
our lord the King in chief until after the coronation of our lord the
King. And because Ralph de Meulent would not join the King's army in
Brittany, the King gave the said manor to Nicholas de Lettres, who
held it all of his life." END OF QUOTE.
For the full text, see the weblink below:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jk0DAA ... de+Meulent
Comments are invited, indeed welcome. When replying, please cite your
sources and post weblinks where they are available. Otherwise, you'll
probably just be ignored.
Best always, Douglas Richarrdson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 2:59 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
<To demand such a source is simply an elaborate way of
V taf
If I post my sources and cite weblinks, so can others. It's only
fair.
DR
<To demand such a source is simply an elaborate way of
begging the question.
V taf
If I post my sources and cite weblinks, so can others. It's only
fair.
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
You should tell it like it is, taf. Mr. Luard, the editor, in the
footnotes of his OWN text proposed an impossible relationship between
the stated parties, for which relationship there is absolutely no
evidence, THEN or NOW.
After seeing the good bishop in many contemporary texts always as "de
Meulan," never as Longespée, I grew suspicious that something had gone
horribly wrong in the historical literature. When I found the
published comments of Bowles and Nichols in which they said the
alleged relationship was "unsubstantiated" (their exaxt word), I knew
that the matter needed a closer examination.
This case demonstrates once again the paramount need to examine the
original contemporary records of the period, and not simply depend on
modern secondary sources.
Please cite your sources and provide weblinks. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 5, 2:56 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
< This is a common misconception - the majority of indexes are not
done
< by the authors/editors of the work, but by some grunt working for
the
< publisher. Thus it is never a great idea to castigate an author
about
< forms appearing in the index, as he likely played little role in its
< compilation and it is not uncommon to see indexes that express
< traditional identifications explicitly rejected in the text, much to
< the authors' chagrin.
<
< taf
footnotes of his OWN text proposed an impossible relationship between
the stated parties, for which relationship there is absolutely no
evidence, THEN or NOW.
After seeing the good bishop in many contemporary texts always as "de
Meulan," never as Longespée, I grew suspicious that something had gone
horribly wrong in the historical literature. When I found the
published comments of Bowles and Nichols in which they said the
alleged relationship was "unsubstantiated" (their exaxt word), I knew
that the matter needed a closer examination.
This case demonstrates once again the paramount need to examine the
original contemporary records of the period, and not simply depend on
modern secondary sources.
Please cite your sources and provide weblinks. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 5, 2:56 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
< This is a common misconception - the majority of indexes are not
done
< by the authors/editors of the work, but by some grunt working for
the
< publisher. Thus it is never a great idea to castigate an author
about
< forms appearing in the index, as he likely played little role in its
< compilation and it is not uncommon to see indexes that express
< traditional identifications explicitly rejected in the text, much to
< the authors' chagrin.
<
< taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
'
Below is the weblink to a contemporary record of Bishop Roger de
Meulan dated 1254, which date is a couple of years before Bishop Roger
was chosen Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. This particular item
comes from the published Register, or Rolls, of Walter Gray, Lord
Archbishop of York (Surtees Soc. 56) (1872): 119.
In this record, Bishop Roger is called "dominum Rogerum de
Meulent" (that is, Sir Roger de Meulent).
http://books.google.com/books?id=YdgKAA ... #PPA119,M1
Sad to say, this record is another one that was missed by D.A.
Carpenter in his flawed account of Bishop Roger de Meulan in the new
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
'
Below is the weblink to a contemporary record of Bishop Roger de
Meulan dated 1254, which date is a couple of years before Bishop Roger
was chosen Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. This particular item
comes from the published Register, or Rolls, of Walter Gray, Lord
Archbishop of York (Surtees Soc. 56) (1872): 119.
In this record, Bishop Roger is called "dominum Rogerum de
Meulent" (that is, Sir Roger de Meulent).
http://books.google.com/books?id=YdgKAA ... #PPA119,M1
Sad to say, this record is another one that was missed by D.A.
Carpenter in his flawed account of Bishop Roger de Meulan in the new
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is the weblink of a record in the Patent Rolls, which shows the
manor of Ipplepen, Devon, which formerly belonged to Ralph de Meulent,
was granted in 1230 by King Henry III to Nicholas de Lettres.
http://books.google.com/books?id=EJkKAA ... de+Meulent
The specific citation for this item is Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1225-
1232 (1903), page 407.
Thus, it would appear that Ralph de Meulan headed back to France in or
before 1230.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Below is the weblink of a record in the Patent Rolls, which shows the
manor of Ipplepen, Devon, which formerly belonged to Ralph de Meulent,
was granted in 1230 by King Henry III to Nicholas de Lettres.
http://books.google.com/books?id=EJkKAA ... de+Meulent
The specific citation for this item is Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1225-
1232 (1903), page 407.
Thus, it would appear that Ralph de Meulan headed back to France in or
before 1230.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is the weblink to a discussion in French regarding Amaury de
Meulan, seigneur of Queue in 1231, which individual is a possible
father or grandfather of Bishop Roger de Meulan in England. Amaury's
wife here is named only as "A." Amaury de Meulan the elder was the
great-uncle to Sir Raoul (or Ralph) de Meulan, who held the manor of
Ipplepen, Devon in the 1220's.
The source is: M. l'abbe Lebeuf, Histoire du Diocèse de Paris 14
(1758), pages 392-394.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2hcFAA ... 1-PA392,M1
The family of Amaury de Meulan is charted in the following source.
Scroll down to page 7.
http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/ ... aumont.pdf
According to this source, Amaury de Meuland the elder's wife was Adèle
(or Alix), widow of Matthieu II, Comte of Beaumont. They allegedly
married in 1196.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Below is the weblink to a discussion in French regarding Amaury de
Meulan, seigneur of Queue in 1231, which individual is a possible
father or grandfather of Bishop Roger de Meulan in England. Amaury's
wife here is named only as "A." Amaury de Meulan the elder was the
great-uncle to Sir Raoul (or Ralph) de Meulan, who held the manor of
Ipplepen, Devon in the 1220's.
The source is: M. l'abbe Lebeuf, Histoire du Diocèse de Paris 14
(1758), pages 392-394.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2hcFAA ... 1-PA392,M1
The family of Amaury de Meulan is charted in the following source.
Scroll down to page 7.
http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/ ... aumont.pdf
According to this source, Amaury de Meuland the elder's wife was Adèle
(or Alix), widow of Matthieu II, Comte of Beaumont. They allegedly
married in 1196.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 6, 9:34 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
And of course this is precisely what Richardson did NOT do: over years
he never bothered to look at what Matthew Paris, a contemporary,
actually wrote until he was told this - along with an interpretation
that he now mistakes as definite, and his very own, prompting him to
some further vapid Googling and demands for others to do more work for
him, then present him with more results print-ready to filch as his
own.
He is now waiting impatiently for someone else to find and examine
Bishop Roger's own charters and/or the Lichfield episcopal register,
or whatever else he hasn't sought, discovered by accident and/or
understood by himself.
And this is leonine scholarship in action according to the latest in a
most inglorious succession of wayward Richardson groupies...
Is it any wonder that so many contributors have left sgm, forced to
off-list correspondence out of contempt for these idiots and the time
they waste imposing their foolishness and dishonesty on others?
Peter Stewart
You should tell it like it is, taf. Mr. Luard, the editor, in the
footnotes of his OWN text proposed an impossible relationship between
the stated parties, for which relationship there is absolutely no
evidence, THEN or NOW.
After seeing the good bishop in many contemporary texts always as "de
Meulan," never as Longespée, I grew suspicious that something had gone
horribly wrong in the historical literature. When I found the
published comments of Bowles and Nichols in which they said the
alleged relationship was "unsubstantiated" (their exaxt word), I knew
that the matter needed a closer examination.
This case demonstrates once again the paramount need to examine the
original contemporary records of the period, and not simply depend on
modern secondary sources.
And of course this is precisely what Richardson did NOT do: over years
he never bothered to look at what Matthew Paris, a contemporary,
actually wrote until he was told this - along with an interpretation
that he now mistakes as definite, and his very own, prompting him to
some further vapid Googling and demands for others to do more work for
him, then present him with more results print-ready to filch as his
own.
He is now waiting impatiently for someone else to find and examine
Bishop Roger's own charters and/or the Lichfield episcopal register,
or whatever else he hasn't sought, discovered by accident and/or
understood by himself.
And this is leonine scholarship in action according to the latest in a
most inglorious succession of wayward Richardson groupies...
Is it any wonder that so many contributors have left sgm, forced to
off-list correspondence out of contempt for these idiots and the time
they waste imposing their foolishness and dishonesty on others?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 5:11 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
< He is now waiting impatiently for someone else to find and examine
< Bishop Roger's own charters and/or the Lichfield episcopal register.
Er ... Bishop Roger de Meulan's register has been lost.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< He is now waiting impatiently for someone else to find and examine
< Bishop Roger's own charters and/or the Lichfield episcopal register.
Peter Stewart
Er ... Bishop Roger de Meulan's register has been lost.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 2:34 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
[more childishness]
.. . . he crossposts, hoping that the readers will accept his false-
criticism at face value and not notice that I did tell it like it is,
and that Mr. Richardson's entire 'refutation' of my post fails to have
the slightest thing to do with the content of my post. Typical
Richardsonian slime.
taf
[more childishness]
You should tell it like it is, taf.
.. . . he crossposts, hoping that the readers will accept his false-
criticism at face value and not notice that I did tell it like it is,
and that Mr. Richardson's entire 'refutation' of my post fails to have
the slightest thing to do with the content of my post. Typical
Richardsonian slime.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
Indeed.
Fair Enough...
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f72e01ad-f2a6-4550-a1ab-c62ffd50367b@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fair Enough...
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f72e01ad-f2a6-4550-a1ab-c62ffd50367b@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 2:59 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
To demand such a source is simply an elaborate way of
begging the question.
V taf
If I post my sources and cite weblinks, so can others. It's only
fair.
DR
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6a1635d7-3594-4a8f-9e4f-bdffd8cffeb3@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Er....I didn't write "Roger de Meulan's register" but rather "the Lichfield
episcopal register" - to be more precise, I should perhaps have written "the
Lichfield diocesan register", and that is published.
Peter Stewart
news:6a1635d7-3594-4a8f-9e4f-bdffd8cffeb3@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 5:11 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
He is now waiting impatiently for someone else to find and examine
Bishop Roger's own charters and/or the Lichfield episcopal register.
Peter Stewart
Er ... Bishop Roger de Meulan's register has been lost.
Er....I didn't write "Roger de Meulan's register" but rather "the Lichfield
episcopal register" - to be more precise, I should perhaps have written "the
Lichfield diocesan register", and that is published.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 2:38 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
To request appropriate sources where they are necessary to support a
specific claim that depends on said sources is legitimate. To demand
non-specific "sources and weblinks" for a comment that needs no source
or that builds on sources already supplied in prior posts, just as an
excuse for ignoring valid criticism, is nothing but childish
obfuscation.
Example 1: Your source may say that, but mine says something different
- that would be an appropriate claim for which to request a source
(note - request, not call out "he didn't give a source so everyone
should ignore him!")
Example 2: You misread your own source, which actually means this
other thing - this comment is based on no further information than
what is already on the table, and to dismiss it because no source is
given is just a parlor trick to try to hide an inconvenient
criticism. (To put it another way, if the record itself was all you
needed to make your original interpretation, then it is hypocritical
to demand more sources of others giving alternative interpretations of
the same original data.)
So far, you seem to be doing more of the latter (hypocritical childish
obfuscation) with this silly demand than the former (requesting one
where appropriate to the argument).
taf
On Dec 5, 2:59 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
To demand such a source is simply an elaborate way of><begging the question.
If I post my sources and cite weblinks, so can others. It's only
fair.
To request appropriate sources where they are necessary to support a
specific claim that depends on said sources is legitimate. To demand
non-specific "sources and weblinks" for a comment that needs no source
or that builds on sources already supplied in prior posts, just as an
excuse for ignoring valid criticism, is nothing but childish
obfuscation.
Example 1: Your source may say that, but mine says something different
- that would be an appropriate claim for which to request a source
(note - request, not call out "he didn't give a source so everyone
should ignore him!")
Example 2: You misread your own source, which actually means this
other thing - this comment is based on no further information than
what is already on the table, and to dismiss it because no source is
given is just a parlor trick to try to hide an inconvenient
criticism. (To put it another way, if the record itself was all you
needed to make your original interpretation, then it is hypocritical
to demand more sources of others giving alternative interpretations of
the same original data.)
So far, you seem to be doing more of the latter (hypocritical childish
obfuscation) with this silly demand than the former (requesting one
where appropriate to the argument).
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 5:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Er ... No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE
Now see how ridiculous your childish demand that every post without
sources be ignored really is?
taf
Er ... Bishop Roger de Meulan's register has been lost.
Er ... No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE
Now see how ridiculous your childish demand that every post without
sources be ignored really is?
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 5:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Er ... No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE
Now see how ridiculous your childish demand that every post without
sources be ignored really is?
taf
Er ... Bishop Roger de Meulan's register has been lost.
Er ... No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE
Now see how ridiculous your childish demand that every post without
sources be ignored really is?
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 5:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Er ... No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE
Now see how ridiculous your childish demand that every post without
sources be ignored really is?
taf
Er ... Bishop Roger de Meulan's register has been lost.
Er ... No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE
Now see how ridiculous your childish demand that every post without
sources be ignored really is?
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 5:00 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Er ... No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE
Now see how ridiculous your childish demand that every post without
sources be ignored really is?
taf
Er ... Bishop Roger de Meulan's register has been lost.
Er ... No sources. No weblinks. IGNORE
Now see how ridiculous your childish demand that every post without
sources be ignored really is?
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f72e01ad-f2a6-4550-a1ab-c62ffd50367b@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
It's certainly NOT fair for Richardson to refer to "my sources" in this
matter: he had only borrowed from Bowles & Nichols (1835) in the first
place. He then had to be told what was in the relevant sources before he
bothered to find the pages online, and what this most probably meant before
he could begin to make head-or-tail of the question that had stumped him -
despite publishing without appropriate caution, as his own research, what he
now points out as other people's error.
If anyone here can't see how disgraceful, shoddy and unscholarly
Richardson's approach has been over this - himself, Hines and Arnold
included - why not post a detailed and specific rebuttal of criticisms, with
citations and weblinks?
But we know why....
Peter Stewart
news:f72e01ad-f2a6-4550-a1ab-c62ffd50367b@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 2:59 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
To demand such a source is simply an elaborate way of
begging the question.
V taf
If I post my sources and cite weblinks, so can others. It's only
fair.
It's certainly NOT fair for Richardson to refer to "my sources" in this
matter: he had only borrowed from Bowles & Nichols (1835) in the first
place. He then had to be told what was in the relevant sources before he
bothered to find the pages online, and what this most probably meant before
he could begin to make head-or-tail of the question that had stumped him -
despite publishing without appropriate caution, as his own research, what he
now points out as other people's error.
If anyone here can't see how disgraceful, shoddy and unscholarly
Richardson's approach has been over this - himself, Hines and Arnold
included - why not post a detailed and specific rebuttal of criticisms, with
citations and weblinks?
But we know why....
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
taf continues with his childish obfuscation, sophistry, whining and parlor
tricks.
DR is correct....
Posters should reveal their sources in the FIRST post they make -- with
verbatim quotations and citations, whenever possible.
It's just common sense...
And Good Scholarship.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:af94cc96-794c-460e-96ae-4c3551ec45b3@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<baldersnip>
tricks.
DR is correct....
Posters should reveal their sources in the FIRST post they make -- with
verbatim quotations and citations, whenever possible.
It's just common sense...
And Good Scholarship.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:af94cc96-794c-460e-96ae-4c3551ec45b3@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<baldersnip>
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 7:12 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
We know what you meant. And the register is lost.
DR
I didn't write "Roger de Meulan's register" but rather "the Lichfield
episcopal register" - to be more precise, I should perhaps have written "the
Lichfield diocesan register", and that is published.
Peter Stewart
We know what you meant. And the register is lost.
DR
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:211b2053-100f-4bb1-ac88-d9fd6db869f7@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quite obviously you don't know what I meant and now you are trying to goad
me into providing a citation to the Lichfield register from this time, that
you haven't found already because you don't know the title.
Bishop Roger's own register would be an unlikely source for personal
information of the kind you need to progress this matter - others are much
more likely to have recorded clues about him. Since the Lichfield register
was published well after Bowles and Nichols, and most of your other favoured
sources that can be read on Google books, you will actually have to do some
real work in a library for a change.
Be careful you don't catch fleas from the last lion to pass that way.
Peter Stewart
news:211b2053-100f-4bb1-ac88-d9fd6db869f7@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 7:12 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
I didn't write "Roger de Meulan's register" but rather "the Lichfield
episcopal register" - to be more precise, I should perhaps have written
"the
Lichfield diocesan register", and that is published.
Peter Stewart
We know what you meant. And the register is lost.
Quite obviously you don't know what I meant and now you are trying to goad
me into providing a citation to the Lichfield register from this time, that
you haven't found already because you don't know the title.
Bishop Roger's own register would be an unlikely source for personal
information of the kind you need to progress this matter - others are much
more likely to have recorded clues about him. Since the Lichfield register
was published well after Bowles and Nichols, and most of your other favoured
sources that can be read on Google books, you will actually have to do some
real work in a library for a change.
Be careful you don't catch fleas from the last lion to pass that way.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart, who threw several Grand Hissy Fits, then fled SGM with his
tail between his legs and a much bruised, lacerated and bleeding rear end --
has now RETURNED, against his WORD, in High Dudgeon and is determined to
make an ass of himself AGAIN -- by throwing a NEW Grand Hissy Fit.
Deeeeeeelightful!
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u7J5j.20832$CN4.5148@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Pogue Stewart, who threw several Grand Hissy Fits, then fled SGM with his
tail between his legs and a much bruised, lacerated and bleeding rear end --
has now RETURNED, against his WORD, in High Dudgeon and is determined to
make an ass of himself AGAIN -- by throwing a NEW Grand Hissy Fit.
Deeeeeeelightful!
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u7J5j.20832$CN4.5148@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
If anyone here can't see how disgraceful, shoddy and unscholarly
Richardson's approach has been over this...
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
Below taf tries to explain why he shouldn't have to do any research or
post his sources. Mmmm ....
Sorry, taf, you're no exception. Post your sources or get put on
ignore.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 5, 7:13 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
< To request appropriate sources where they are necessary to support a
< specific claim that depends on said sources is legitimate. To
demand
< non-specific "sources and weblinks" for a comment that needs no
source
< or that builds on sources already supplied in prior posts, just as
an
< excuse for ignoring valid criticism, is nothing but childish
< obfuscation.
<
< Example 1: Your source may say that, but mine says something
different
< - that would be an appropriate claim for which to request a source
< (note - request, not call out "he didn't give a source so everyone
< should ignore him!")
<
< Example 2: You misread your own source, which actually means this
< other thing - this comment is based on no further information than
< what is already on the table, and to dismiss it because no source is
< given is just a parlor trick to try to hide an inconvenient
< criticism. (To put it another way, if the record itself was all you
< needed to make your original interpretation, then it is hypocritical
< to demand more sources of others giving alternative interpretations
of
< the same original data.)
<
< So far, you seem to be doing more of the latter (hypocritical
childish
< obfuscation) with this silly demand than the former (requesting one
< where appropriate to the argument).
<
< taf
post his sources. Mmmm ....
Sorry, taf, you're no exception. Post your sources or get put on
ignore.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Dec 5, 7:13 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
< To request appropriate sources where they are necessary to support a
< specific claim that depends on said sources is legitimate. To
demand
< non-specific "sources and weblinks" for a comment that needs no
source
< or that builds on sources already supplied in prior posts, just as
an
< excuse for ignoring valid criticism, is nothing but childish
< obfuscation.
<
< Example 1: Your source may say that, but mine says something
different
< - that would be an appropriate claim for which to request a source
< (note - request, not call out "he didn't give a source so everyone
< should ignore him!")
<
< Example 2: You misread your own source, which actually means this
< other thing - this comment is based on no further information than
< what is already on the table, and to dismiss it because no source is
< given is just a parlor trick to try to hide an inconvenient
< criticism. (To put it another way, if the record itself was all you
< needed to make your original interpretation, then it is hypocritical
< to demand more sources of others giving alternative interpretations
of
< the same original data.)
<
< So far, you seem to be doing more of the latter (hypocritical
childish
< obfuscation) with this silly demand than the former (requesting one
< where appropriate to the argument).
<
< taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
Indeed.
But not just SOURCES...
We need verbatim QUOTATIONS and precise CITATIONS too.
Anyone can provide a Broad & Meaningless Source such as "ES" or "CP".
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:acfa4e7b-bc67-4a02-80b8-
7ede7eb0f139@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
But not just SOURCES...
We need verbatim QUOTATIONS and precise CITATIONS too.
Anyone can provide a Broad & Meaningless Source such as "ES" or "CP".
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:acfa4e7b-bc67-4a02-80b8-
7ede7eb0f139@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Below taf tries to explain why he shouldn't have to do any research or
post his sources. Mmmm ....
Sorry, taf, you're no exception. Post your sources or get put on
ignore.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
Not crossposted - something about supporting Richardson to hide from the
wider USENET community?
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:bdJ5j.286$ag5.1448@eagle.america.net...
And that of course is demonstrably what Richardson DID NOT do in this
thread - see
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... 480b7e4675.
Not even the Salt Lake Lion could pretend that it wasn't possible for him to
provide "verbatim quotations and citations" at the start from the sources
that he only obliquely referenced then via Bowles and Nichols. He raised
this matter hoping to be told what these sources actually said, and never
expected to learn that this might mean something different from the readings
of his mainly 19th-century authorities.
He prefers them long dead, of course, because the older the cited material
the more it makes him appear scholarly and thorough to readers unfamiliar
with the subject matter or appropriate research method; and of course
because the authors can't sue for plagiarism.
Peter Stewart
wider USENET community?
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:bdJ5j.286$ag5.1448@eagle.america.net...
taf continues with his childish obfuscation, sophistry, whining and parlor
tricks.
DR is correct....
Posters should reveal their sources in the FIRST post they make -- with
verbatim quotations and citations, whenever possible.
It's just common sense...
And Good Scholarship.
And that of course is demonstrably what Richardson DID NOT do in this
thread - see
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... 480b7e4675.
Not even the Salt Lake Lion could pretend that it wasn't possible for him to
provide "verbatim quotations and citations" at the start from the sources
that he only obliquely referenced then via Bowles and Nichols. He raised
this matter hoping to be told what these sources actually said, and never
expected to learn that this might mean something different from the readings
of his mainly 19th-century authorities.
He prefers them long dead, of course, because the older the cited material
the more it makes him appear scholarly and thorough to readers unfamiliar
with the subject matter or appropriate research method; and of course
because the authors can't sue for plagiarism.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 6:43 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Not at all, he tries to explain why Mr. Richardson's demands are just
childish obfuscation, and hypocritical to boot. Through this
ridiculous mischaracterization of that post, Mr. Richardson only
proves his own scholarly vacuity and dishonesty.
Did you happen to notice, Mr. Richardson, that you have made another
post without a source? What are the implications of applying your own
criteria to your post - Oh, I keep forgetting, you have different
criteria for evaluating the works of others and your own.
But no. Mr. Richardson's post should not be rejected because it
doesn't quote any sources. There is enough in what it does contain to
merit rejection and ridicule that we need not apply such arbitrary and
misinformed standards as he suggests be used for the posts of others.
taf
Below taf tries to explain why he shouldn't have to do any research or
post his sources. Mmmm ....
Not at all, he tries to explain why Mr. Richardson's demands are just
childish obfuscation, and hypocritical to boot. Through this
ridiculous mischaracterization of that post, Mr. Richardson only
proves his own scholarly vacuity and dishonesty.
Sorry, taf, you're no exception. Post your sources or get put on
ignore.
Did you happen to notice, Mr. Richardson, that you have made another
post without a source? What are the implications of applying your own
criteria to your post - Oh, I keep forgetting, you have different
criteria for evaluating the works of others and your own.
But no. Mr. Richardson's post should not be rejected because it
doesn't quote any sources. There is enough in what it does contain to
merit rejection and ridicule that we need not apply such arbitrary and
misinformed standards as he suggests be used for the posts of others.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:blJ5j.287$ag5.1417@eagle.america.net...
What a pity that Richardson will have to ignore the only pathetically
dishonest attempt his second-favourite new groupie is willing to venture in
his defense, because it comes without any citations and weblinks...
Do we have to go back to the archive once again for more of the "vicious"
attacks that Hines made on Richardson, before he changed his tune?
Peter Stewart
news:blJ5j.287$ag5.1417@eagle.america.net...
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart, who threw several Grand Hissy Fits, then fled SGM with his
tail between his legs and a much bruised, lacerated and bleeding rear
end -- has now RETURNED, against his WORD, in High Dudgeon and is
determined to make an ass of himself AGAIN -- by throwing a NEW Grand
Hissy Fit.
Deeeeeeelightful!
DSH
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u7J5j.20832$CN4.5148@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
If anyone here can't see how disgraceful, shoddy and unscholarly
Richardson's approach has been over this...
What a pity that Richardson will have to ignore the only pathetically
dishonest attempt his second-favourite new groupie is willing to venture in
his defense, because it comes without any citations and weblinks...
Do we have to go back to the archive once again for more of the "vicious"
attacks that Hines made on Richardson, before he changed his tune?
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
taf descends into yet another Grand Hissy Fit.
Vide infra pro risibus.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:dc4c0d76-5610-4de9-9a9e-c5b962cae25c@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Vide infra pro risibus.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:dc4c0d76-5610-4de9-9a9e-c5b962cae25c@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 6:43 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Below taf tries to explain why he shouldn't have to do any research or
post his sources. Mmmm ....
Not at all, he tries to explain why Mr. Richardson's demands are just
childish obfuscation, and hypocritical to boot. Through this
ridiculous mischaracterization of that post, Mr. Richardson only
proves his own scholarly vacuity and dishonesty.
Sorry, taf, you're no exception. Post your sources or get put on
ignore.
Did you happen to notice, Mr. Richardson, that you have made another
post without a source? What are the implications of applying your own
criteria to your post - Oh, I keep forgetting, you have different
criteria for evaluating the works of others and your own.
But no. Mr. Richardson's post should not be rejected because it
doesn't quote any sources. There is enough in what it does contain to
merit rejection and ridicule that we need not apply such arbitrary and
misinformed standards as he suggests be used for the posts of others.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 7:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
< Indeed.
<
< But not just SOURCES...
<
< Anyone can provide a Broad & Meaningless Source such as "ES" or
"CP".
<
< DSH
Dear Spencer ~
I agree completely.
Whenever possible, I provide verbatim quotations and concise, clear
citations,. so that ANYONE at ANYTIME can double check my sources. I
also provide weblinks if I have them. And, that's the way it should
be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Indeed.
<
< But not just SOURCES...
We need verbatim QUOTATIONS and precise CITATIONS too.
<
< Anyone can provide a Broad & Meaningless Source such as "ES" or
"CP".
<
< DSH
Dear Spencer ~
I agree completely.
Whenever possible, I provide verbatim quotations and concise, clear
citations,. so that ANYONE at ANYTIME can double check my sources. I
also provide weblinks if I have them. And, that's the way it should
be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
wjhonson
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bis hop of C
On Dec 5, 6:31 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
-------------------
Yes Peter you big silly.
The Lichfield diocesan register is lost.
See here:
http://books.google.com/books?sourceid= ... a=N&tab=wp
Will Johnson
On Dec 5, 7:12 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
I didn't write "Roger de Meulan's register" but rather "the Lichfield
episcopal register" - to be more precise, I should perhaps have written "the
Lichfield diocesan register", and that is published.
Peter Stewart
We know what you meant. And the register is lost.
DR
-------------------
Yes Peter you big silly.
The Lichfield diocesan register is lost.
See here:
http://books.google.com/books?sourceid= ... a=N&tab=wp
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jwJ5j.20855$CN4.19554@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Ah, I was wrong - Richardson is indeed fool enough to try on such a
ludicrous pretense after all, even after the deficiency was illustrated from
his own post starting this thread, as demonstrated below with his smarmy
endearments to his Hawaiian acolyte.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5e0f2186-cb34-4e5e-8f48-61adb31912ca@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
news:jwJ5j.20855$CN4.19554@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Not crossposted - something about supporting Richardson to hide from the
wider USENET community?
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:bdJ5j.286$ag5.1448@eagle.america.net...
taf continues with his childish obfuscation, sophistry, whining and
parlor
tricks.
DR is correct....
Posters should reveal their sources in the FIRST post they make -- with
verbatim quotations and citations, whenever possible.
It's just common sense...
And Good Scholarship.
And that of course is demonstrably what Richardson DID NOT do in this
thread - see
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... 480b7e4675.
Not even the Salt Lake Lion could pretend that it wasn't possible for him
to provide "verbatim quotations and citations" at the start from the
sources that he only obliquely referenced then via Bowles and Nichols.
Ah, I was wrong - Richardson is indeed fool enough to try on such a
ludicrous pretense after all, even after the deficiency was illustrated from
his own post starting this thread, as demonstrated below with his smarmy
endearments to his Hawaiian acolyte.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5e0f2186-cb34-4e5e-8f48-61adb31912ca@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 7:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Indeed.
But not just SOURCES...
We need verbatim QUOTATIONS and precise CITATIONS too.
Anyone can provide a Broad & Meaningless Source such as "ES" or
"CP".
DSH
Dear Spencer ~
I agree completely.
Whenever possible, I provide verbatim quotations and concise, clear
citations,. so that ANYONE at ANYTIME can double check my sources. I
also provide weblinks if I have them. And, that's the way it should
be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
I agree, Douglas.
Then the genealogical followups need not provide the source -- just a simple
op. cit. and page numbers will do -- with verbatim quotations as required.
Obviously, we need not go silly-buggers on this -- as Stewart would have us
do -- with his strawmen red herrings.
If I say a well-known historical figure such as Tsar Nikolai II had four
daughters and a son -- all of whom died unmarried and sine prole -- I don't
need to prove that -- since any fool can find the data himself right at
Wikipedia or some other standard historical source, such as _Nicholas and
Alexandra.
Nothing abstruse or obscure about that.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5e0f2186-cb34-4e5e-8f48-61adb31912ca@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Then the genealogical followups need not provide the source -- just a simple
op. cit. and page numbers will do -- with verbatim quotations as required.
Obviously, we need not go silly-buggers on this -- as Stewart would have us
do -- with his strawmen red herrings.
If I say a well-known historical figure such as Tsar Nikolai II had four
daughters and a son -- all of whom died unmarried and sine prole -- I don't
need to prove that -- since any fool can find the data himself right at
Wikipedia or some other standard historical source, such as _Nicholas and
Alexandra.
Nothing abstruse or obscure about that.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5e0f2186-cb34-4e5e-8f48-61adb31912ca@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 7:48 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Indeed.
But not just SOURCES...
We need verbatim QUOTATIONS and precise CITATIONS too.
Anyone can provide a Broad & Meaningless Source such as "ES" or
"CP".
DSH
Dear Spencer ~
I agree completely.
Whenever possible, I provide verbatim quotations and concise, clear
citations,. so that ANYONE at ANYTIME can double check my sources. I
also provide weblinks if I have them. And, that's the way it should
be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée Parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:UpN5j.298$ag5.1466@eagle.america.net...
Eh? I have no idea what Hines could imagine he means, or that Richardson can
understand, by this.
Let either of them show us just ONE of these "strawmen red herrings" that I
am alleged to inflict on the newsgroup, or clarify what "silly-buggers"
citations and quotations I have ever insisted on from other contributors.
Random spraying of insults to keep someone, anyone, conversing with him will
do only further harm to the low self-esteem of the socially abandoned DS
Hines.
He seems stupid enough to imagine that readers regard him with amusement, or
even have some residual good humour where he is concerned. That is due to a
few misguided people joshing with him briefly to display their own idea of
wit, but no-one here - Richardson included - is quite dumb enough to hold
the vile cur in anything but deepest contempt.
Peter Stewart
news:UpN5j.298$ag5.1466@eagle.america.net...
I agree, Douglas.
Then the genealogical followups need not provide the source -- just a
simple
op. cit. and page numbers will do -- with verbatim quotations as required.
Obviously, we need not go silly-buggers on this -- as Stewart would have
us
do -- with his strawmen red herrings.
Eh? I have no idea what Hines could imagine he means, or that Richardson can
understand, by this.
Let either of them show us just ONE of these "strawmen red herrings" that I
am alleged to inflict on the newsgroup, or clarify what "silly-buggers"
citations and quotations I have ever insisted on from other contributors.
Random spraying of insults to keep someone, anyone, conversing with him will
do only further harm to the low self-esteem of the socially abandoned DS
Hines.
He seems stupid enough to imagine that readers regard him with amusement, or
even have some residual good humour where he is concerned. That is due to a
few misguided people joshing with him briefly to display their own idea of
wit, but no-one here - Richardson included - is quite dumb enough to hold
the vile cur in anything but deepest contempt.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Co
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:emR4j.19808$CN4.386@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Having checked the register of Lichfield, I need to correct the year given
above for Roger's consecration: he was elected on Tuesday 30 January 1257
and consecrated on Sunday 10 March 1258 (both dates in modern style). A
cleric named Longespee might still have deputised both before the
resignation of the previous bishop, Roger de Weseham, and during the 13+
months after the election of Roger de Meulent. This interval may have had
any number of reasons, but his lacking the full 30 years of age until March
1258 is a likely one.
It could be helpful if someone can turn up the text of Roger's will made at
Prees on 6 May 1292. This was proved at Haldington before Robert de
Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, on 28 January 1296. (The register only
includes one bequest to his successor as bishop.)
Peter Stewart
news:emR4j.19808$CN4.386@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Since the king's nephew was not consecrated until 1259, perhaps because he
was too young in 1257, this could mean that a cleric named Longespee
administered the bishopric and/or performed the episcopal duties in the
interval, perhaps both before and after Roger de Weseham died.
Having checked the register of Lichfield, I need to correct the year given
above for Roger's consecration: he was elected on Tuesday 30 January 1257
and consecrated on Sunday 10 March 1258 (both dates in modern style). A
cleric named Longespee might still have deputised both before the
resignation of the previous bishop, Roger de Weseham, and during the 13+
months after the election of Roger de Meulent. This interval may have had
any number of reasons, but his lacking the full 30 years of age until March
1258 is a likely one.
It could be helpful if someone can turn up the text of Roger's will made at
Prees on 6 May 1292. This was proved at Haldington before Robert de
Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, on 28 January 1296. (The register only
includes one bequest to his successor as bishop.)
Peter Stewart