Maud de Baskerville, sister of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1322)

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Humphrey de Bohun, 8th Earl of Hereford, 9th Earl of Essex, was the
son-in-law of King Edward I of England, he having married the king's
daughter, Elizabeth. Earl Humphrey joined the rebellion against his
brother-in-law, King Edward II of England, and was slain at the Battle
of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2. A short but useful biography of
Earl Humphrey appears in Who's Who in Late Medieval England by Michael
Hicks (1991), pages 49-51, which says of him:

"[He] ... was an intelligent and competent soldier, councillor and
diplomat.... A strong sense of honour and dynasty, conventional piety
and generosity round off his character". END OF QUOTE.

Earl Humphrey de Bohun left a rather detailed will dated 11 August
1319, which requested burial at Walden Abbey near the body of his late
wife, Elizabeth.

A full abstract of this will is available in an article entitled "The
Bohun Wills," by Melville M. Bigelow, which article was published in
1896 in American Historical Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 414-435.

Included among the bequests in his will is the following legacy to
Earl Humphrey's sister, Maud:

" ... and to Maud de Bascreville, my sister, for her marriage, £40."

A snippet view of the bequest may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22maud ... a=N&tab=wp

Unless some unusual transcription error has been made, we appear to
have here a reference to a hitherto overlooked sister of Earl Humphrey
de Bohun. It is odd, though, that she is called "de Bascreville" (or
Baskerville) rather than "de Bohun," unless, of course, she had been
married in childhood and widowed early by a man named Baskerville,
which is entirely possible.

However, it is also possible that Maud de Baskerville was a bastard
sister to Earl Humphrey, as I find the earl had an illegitimate
brother, John de Hereford, a priest, who held the churches of Depden,
Essex and South Staunton, Oxfordshire. In 1317-1318 King Edward II
wrote a letter to the Pope John XXII on his behalf, requesting a
prebend for him in the cathedral church of Canterbury. The king also
wrote a second letter to the Pope requesting a dispensation for him to
hold a benefice. [References: Fourth Report Hist. MSS. Comm. (1874):
382; Kellawe, Reg. of Richard de Kellawe, Lord Palatine and Bishop of
Durham, 1314-1316, 4 (1878): xlv, li-lii.].

Like Maud de Baskerville, John de Hereford has been little noticed by
Bohun genealogists. More likely than not, however, Maud de
Baskerville was a legitimate sister of Earl Humphrey de Bohun.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 4:25 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(deletion of extraneous and infected groups)

Dear Newsgroup ~

(snip)

And so the deliberate cross-posting by the troll Richardson,
determined to bring this group down, continues...

If you can't get positive attention, settle for the negative, it
seems.

MA-R

[Susan Perrett]

In article <690e4770-620b-4dbf-899f-
a9fd2f3892ac@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, royalancestry@msn.com
says...

Dear Newsgroup ~

Humphrey de Bohun, 8th Earl of Hereford, 9th Earl of Essex, was the
son-in-law of King Edward I of England, he having married the king's
daughter, Elizabeth. Earl Humphrey joined the rebellion against his
brother-in-law, King Edward II of England, and was slain at the Battle
of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2. A short but useful biography of
Earl Humphrey appears in Who's Who in Late Medieval England by Michael
Hicks (1991), pages 49-51, which says of him:

Well something is incorrect here, as my sources say this man was
Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford and the 3rd Earl of Essex
b. circa 1276, d. 16 March 1321, buried at Walden Abbey

Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford was the son of Humphrey de
Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford and Maud de Fiennes.

He married Lady Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of Edward I
'Longshanks', King of England and Eleanor de Castilla, Comtesse de
Ponthieu, on 14 November 1302 at Westminster Abbey, Westminster, London,
England.1
He died on 16 March 1321 at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, England.

Where have I gone wrong?
--
Susan Perrett
Victoria
Australia
http://www.st.net.au/~susanp/index.html

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 9:33 am, Susan Perrett <sus...@st.net.au> wrote:

In article <690e4770-620b-4dbf-899f-
a9fd2f389...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, royalances...@msn.com
says...

Dear Newsgroup ~

Humphrey de Bohun, 8th Earl of Hereford, 9th Earl of Essex, was the
son-in-law of King Edward I of England, he having married the king's
daughter, Elizabeth.  Earl Humphrey joined the rebellion against his
brother-in-law, King Edward II of England, and was slain at the Battle
of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2.  A short but useful biography of
Earl Humphrey appears in Who's Who in Late Medieval England by Michael
Hicks (1991), pages 49-51, which says of him:

Well something is incorrect here, as my sources say this man was
Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford and the 3rd Earl of Essex
b. circa 1276, d. 16 March 1321, buried at Walden Abbey

     Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford was the son of Humphrey de
Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford and Maud de Fiennes.

He married Lady Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of Edward I
'Longshanks', King of England and Eleanor de Castilla, Comtesse de
Ponthieu, on 14 November 1302 at Westminster Abbey, Westminster, London,
England.1
He died on 16 March 1321 at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, England.

Where have I gone wrong?

Nowhere - the troll Richardson doesn't understand how English peerages
are numbered.

Numbers are applied to each male who holds a title, but only within
each seperate creation. The Earldom of Hereford, for instance, was
created in 1141 for Miles de Gloucester. He was thus the 1st Earl of
the 1141 creation.

Miles died in 1143 and was succeeded by his son Roger (d 1155) - the
2nd Earl of Hereford. When Roger died, the King refused to invest his
brother and heir (Walter) as Earl. Today, we may consider him the 3rd
Earl 'de jure'. He died in 1160, and was succeeded by his brothers,
Henry and then Mahel (d 1165) - de jure the 4th and 5th Earls. None
of these three younger sons was ever styled Earl of Hereford.

When Mahel died, he left no single heir - there were three sisters who
stood in equal relationship, and who each left issue - the Bohuns, the
Fitzherberts and the Braoses. Thus the Earldom ceased to exist de
jure, as it already had de facto.

One of these sisters was Margaret (d 1187) who married Humphrey de
Bohun (d 1164/5). Her grandson Henry de Bohun (d 1220) was created
Earl of Hereford by King John on 28 April 1199 - the charter for this
stating that it was a new and separate creation. Henry de Bohun was
thus the 1st Earl of Hereford by the creation of 1199; the usual way
of styling this is '1st Earl of the 2nd creation'.

He was succeeded in turn by Humphrey his son (d 1275) - the 2nd Earl;
the latter's grandson, Humphrey (d 1298) - the 3rd Earl; and his son
Humphrey (d 1322), the peer in question, who was the 4th Earl of
Hereford (of the 2nd creation).

The Earldom of Essex is a different matter, of course.

PS Please note when replying to its posts, it is advisable to delete
the other newsgroups that it has cross-posted to, as at least one of
these has recently been infected with malicious sporging, and despite
the troll's intentions, we wouldn't want the infection to take control
here.

Regards, Michael

[CE Wood]

HEREFORD:
Earls of Hereford, First Creation (1043)
* Swegen Godwinson, 1043 - 1051
earldom forfeit 1051-1052

Earls of Hereford, Second Creation (1052)
* Ralph the Timid, Earl of Hereford, 1052 - 1057
earldom extinct 1057-1058

Earls of Hereford, Third Creation (1058)
* Harold Godwinson, Earl of Hereford (later Harold II of England),
1058 - 1066
earldom extinct 1066-1067

Earls of Hereford, Fourth Creation (1067)
* William Fitzosbern, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1067 - 1071
* Roger de Breteuil, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1071 - 1074
earldom forfeit 1074-1141

Earls of Hereford, Fifth Creation (1141)
* Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1141 - 1143
* Roger FitzMiles, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1143 - 1155
earldom extinct 1155-1199

Earls of Hereford, Sixth Creation (1199)
* Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1199 - 1220
* Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1220 - 1275
* Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford, 1275 - 1298
* Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford, 1298 - 1322
* John de Bohun, 5th Earl of Hereford, 1322 - 1336
* Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford, 1336 - 1361
* Humphrey de Bohun, 7th Earl of Hereford, 1361 - 1373

peerage extinct 1373- After Humphrey was murdered by the crown. Heirs
apparent of the title of Earl Hereford along with Essex and
Northampton pass by right to Humphrey's nephew Gilbert de Bohun and
his heirs.

ESSEX:
Earls of Essex, first Creation (c. 1139)
* Geoffrey de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1144)
* Geoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1166)
* William de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex (d. 1189) (extinct)

Earls of Essex, second Creation (1199)
* Geoffrey Fitzpeter, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1213)
* Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1216)
* William FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex (d. 1227)

Earls of Essex, third Creation (1239)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1275)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1297)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 3th Earl of Essex (d. 1322)
* John de Bohun, 4th Earl of Essex (d. 1336)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 5th Earl of Essex (1309-1361)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Essex (1342-1373)

Earls of Essex, fourth Creation (1376)
* Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Essex (1355-1397) (forfeit)

Earls of Essex, fifth Creation (1461)
* Henry Bourchier, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1483)
* Henry Bourchier, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1540)

Earls of Essex, sixth Creation (1540)
* Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex (1485-1540) (forfeit)

Earls of Essex, seventh Creation (1543)
* William Parr, 1st Marquess of Northampton (c. 1512-1571)
(forfeit 1553; restored 1559)

Earls of Essex, eighth Creation (1572)
* Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex (1541-1576)
* Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (1566-1601)
* Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex (1591-1646) (extinct)

Barons Capell (1641)
* Arthur Capell, 1st Baron Capell (1604-1649)
* Arthur Capell, 2nd Baron Capell (1631-1683) (created Earl of
Essex in 1661)

Earls of Essex, ninth Creation (1661)
* Arthur Capell, 1st Earl of Essex (1631-1683)
* Algernon Capell, 2nd Earl of Essex (1670-1710)
* William Capell, 3rd Earl of Essex (1697-1743)
* William Anne Capell, 4th Earl of Essex (1732-1799)
* George Capell-Coningsby, 5th Earl of Essex (1757-1839)
* Arthur Algernon Capell, 6th Earl of Essex (1803-1892)
* George Devereux de Vere Capell, 7th Earl of Essex (1857-1916)
* Algernon George de Vere Capell, 8th Earl of Essex (1884-1966)
* Reginald George de Vere Capell, 9th Earl of Essex (1906-1981,
dormant 1981)
* Robert Edward de Vere Capell, 10th Earl of Essex (1920-2005,
revived 1989)
* Frederick Paul de Vere Capell, 11th Earl of Essex (b. 1944)

The Heir Presumptive is the present holder's fourth cousin once
removed William Jennings Capell (b. 1952). He is great-great-great-
grandson of the Hon. Adolphus Frederick Charles Molyneux Capell
(younger brother of the sixth Earl), younger son of the aforementioned
the Hon. John Thomas Capell (half-brother of the fifth Earl), son of
the second marriage of the fourth Earl. Adolphus' line is the only
remaining, of which William Jennings and his son, Kevin Devereux are
the only known members.

from Wiki

CE Wood




On Feb 16, 2:33 pm, Susan Perrett <sus...@st.net.au> wrote:

In article <690e4770-620b-4dbf-899f-
a9fd2f389...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, royalances...@msn.com
says...

Dear Newsgroup ~

Humphrey de Bohun, 8th Earl of Hereford, 9th Earl of Essex, was the
son-in-law of King Edward I of England, he having married the king's
daughter, Elizabeth. Earl Humphrey joined the rebellion against his
brother-in-law, King Edward II of England, and was slain at the Battle
of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2. A short but useful biography of
Earl Humphrey appears in Who's Who in Late Medieval England by Michael
Hicks (1991), pages 49-51, which says of him:

Well something is incorrect here, as my sources say this man was
Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford and the 3rd Earl of Essex
b. circa 1276, d. 16 March 1321, buried at Walden Abbey

Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford was the son of Humphrey de
Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford and Maud de Fiennes.
He married Lady Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of Edward I
'Longshanks', King of England and Eleanor de Castilla, Comtesse de
Ponthieu, on 14 November 1302 at Westminster Abbey, Westminster, London,
England.1
He died on 16 March 1321 at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, England.

Where have I gone wrong?
--
Susan Perrett
Victoria
Australiawww.st.net.au/~susanp/index.html

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 16, 3:33 pm, Susan Perrett <sus...@st.net.au> wrote:
<
< Where have I gone wrong?
< --
< Susan Perrett
< Victoria
< Australiawww.st.net.au/~susanp/index.html

Dear Susan ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

If you want a correct ordinal number of the individual Earls of
Hereford and Essex, I suggest you list them here on the newsgroup and
count them for yourself.

For starters, the first Earl of Hereford was Miles of Gloucester, who
died in 1143.

The second earl was ... you can easily do this yourself.

Let's see how you do. I'll bet you come out right on the money.

After you do the Earls of Hereford, then you can do the Earls of
Essex.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 10:20 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(re-inserted trollish cross-posting once again removed)

On Feb 16, 3:33 pm, Susan Perrett <sus...@st.net.au> wrote:

Where have I gone wrong?
--
Susan Perrett
Victoria
Australiawww.st.net.au/~susanp/index.html

Dear Susan ~

Thank you for your good post.  Much appreciated.

If you want a correct ordinal number of the individual Earls of
Hereford and Essex, I suggest you list them here on the newsgroup and
count them for yourself.

For starters, the first Earl of Hereford was Miles of Gloucester, who
died in 1143.

The second earl was ...  you can easily do this yourself.

Let's see how you do.  I'll bet you come out right on the money.

After you do the Earls of Hereford, then you can do the Earls of
Essex.

And if you following the patronising "advice" offered by the troll
Richardson, you'll come up with the wrong numbers, because that's not
how British peerage ordinals work. For some reason, when not trying
to maliciously infect this newsgroup, this particular troll loves to
parade his lack of detailed understanding of the very subjects he
pontificates about. I guess that's just part-and-parcel of being a
troll.

Essex is generally considered to be a special case, because of the
detailed circumstances whereby the earldom passed from the Mandevilles
through the family of Geoffrey fitz Piers to the Bohuns. Hereford is
not.

NB the Conquest is usually treated as a sort of 'English year
zero' (cf BC and AD) - thus, we speak of King Edward I, although he
was the fourth English monarch of that name (count them...)

MA-R

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 10:29 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:20 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(re-inserted trollish cross-posting once again removed)

Apologies for not having removed the cross-posting last time - I hit
the 'send' button too quickly.

This is how the troll seeks to increase the risks of infection.

MA-R

[Douglas Richardson]

Carolyn, of course, has left out Maud de Mandeville (died 1236), widow
of Henry de Bohun, who was Countess of Essex in her own right.
Countess Maud was sister and sole heiress to William de Mandeville
(died 1227), Earl of Essex.

So Maud would be 7th Earl (I mean .... um ... Countess) of Essex, or
is that 4th Earl of the 2nd creation?

But if you don't count women, then Maud wouldn't be Countess at all.
Then all the numbers would change.

Why see ... it's crystal clear.

DR

On Feb 16, 4:16 pm, CE Wood <wood...@msn.com> wrote:

HEREFORD:
Earls of Hereford, First Creation (1043)
* Swegen Godwinson, 1043 - 1051
earldom forfeit 1051-1052

Earls of Hereford, Second Creation (1052)
* Ralph the Timid, Earl of Hereford, 1052 - 1057
earldom extinct 1057-1058

Earls of Hereford, Third Creation (1058)
* Harold Godwinson, Earl of Hereford (later Harold II of England),
1058 - 1066
earldom extinct 1066-1067

Earls of Hereford, Fourth Creation (1067)
* William Fitzosbern, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1067 - 1071
* Roger de Breteuil, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1071 - 1074
earldom forfeit 1074-1141

Earls of Hereford, Fifth Creation (1141)
* Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1141 - 1143
* Roger FitzMiles, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1143 - 1155
earldom extinct 1155-1199

Earls of Hereford, Sixth Creation (1199)
* Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1199 - 1220
* Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1220 - 1275
* Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford, 1275 - 1298
* Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford, 1298 - 1322
* John de Bohun, 5th Earl of Hereford, 1322 - 1336
* Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford, 1336 - 1361
* Humphrey de Bohun, 7th Earl of Hereford, 1361 - 1373

peerage extinct 1373- After Humphrey was murdered by the crown. Heirs
apparent of the title of Earl Hereford along with Essex and
Northampton pass by right to Humphrey's nephew Gilbert de Bohun and
his heirs.

ESSEX:
Earls of Essex, first Creation (c. 1139)
* Geoffrey de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1144)
* Geoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1166)
* William de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex (d. 1189) (extinct)

Earls of Essex, second Creation (1199)
* Geoffrey Fitzpeter, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1213)
* Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1216)
* William FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex (d. 1227)

Earls of Essex, third Creation (1239)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1275)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1297)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 3th Earl of Essex (d. 1322)
* John de Bohun, 4th Earl of Essex (d. 1336)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 5th Earl of Essex (1309-1361)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Essex (1342-1373)

Earls of Essex, fourth Creation (1376)
* Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Essex (1355-1397) (forfeit)

Earls of Essex, fifth Creation (1461)
* Henry Bourchier, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1483)
* Henry Bourchier, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1540)

Earls of Essex, sixth Creation (1540)
* Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex (1485-1540) (forfeit)

Earls of Essex, seventh Creation (1543)
* William Parr, 1st Marquess of Northampton (c. 1512-1571)
(forfeit 1553; restored 1559)

Earls of Essex, eighth Creation (1572)
* Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex (1541-1576)
* Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (1566-1601)
* Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex (1591-1646) (extinct)

Barons Capell (1641)
* Arthur Capell, 1st Baron Capell (1604-1649)
* Arthur Capell, 2nd Baron Capell (1631-1683) (created Earl of
Essex in 1661)

Earls of Essex, ninth Creation (1661)
* Arthur Capell, 1st Earl of Essex (1631-1683)
* Algernon Capell, 2nd Earl of Essex (1670-1710)
* William Capell, 3rd Earl of Essex (1697-1743)
* William Anne Capell, 4th Earl of Essex (1732-1799)
* George Capell-Coningsby, 5th Earl of Essex (1757-1839)
* Arthur Algernon Capell, 6th Earl of Essex (1803-1892)
* George Devereux de Vere Capell, 7th Earl of Essex (1857-1916)
* Algernon George de Vere Capell, 8th Earl of Essex (1884-1966)
* Reginald George de Vere Capell, 9th Earl of Essex (1906-1981,
dormant 1981)
* Robert Edward de Vere Capell, 10th Earl of Essex (1920-2005,
revived 1989)
* Frederick Paul de Vere Capell, 11th Earl of Essex (b. 1944)

The Heir Presumptive is the present holder's fourth cousin once
removed William Jennings Capell (b. 1952). He is great-great-great-
grandson of the Hon. Adolphus Frederick Charles Molyneux Capell
(younger brother of the sixth Earl), younger son of the aforementioned
the Hon. John Thomas Capell (half-brother of the fifth Earl), son of
the second marriage of the fourth Earl. Adolphus' line is the only
remaining, of which William Jennings and his son, Kevin Devereux are
the only known members.

from Wiki

CE Wood

On Feb 16, 2:33 pm, Susan Perrett <sus...@st.net.au> wrote:

In article <690e4770-620b-4dbf-899f-
a9fd2f389...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, royalances...@msn.com
says...

Dear Newsgroup ~

Humphrey de Bohun, 8th Earl of Hereford, 9th Earl of Essex, was the
son-in-law of King Edward I of England, he having married the king's
daughter, Elizabeth. Earl Humphrey joined the rebellion against his
brother-in-law, King Edward II of England, and was slain at the Battle
of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2. A short but useful biography of
Earl Humphrey appears in Who's Who in Late Medieval England by Michael
Hicks (1991), pages 49-51, which says of him:

Well something is incorrect here, as my sources say this man was
Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford and the 3rd Earl of Essex
b. circa 1276, d. 16 March 1321, buried at Walden Abbey

Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford was the son of Humphrey de
Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford and Maud de Fiennes.
He married Lady Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of Edward I
'Longshanks', King of England and Eleanor de Castilla, Comtesse de
Ponthieu, on 14 November 1302 at Westminster Abbey, Westminster, London,
England.1
He died on 16 March 1321 at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, England.

Where have I gone wrong?
--
Susan Perrett
Victoria
Australiawww.st.net.au/~susanp/index.html

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 16, 4:32 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

< Apologies for not having removed the cross-posting last time - I hit
< the 'send' button too quickly.

< MA-R

It's going to be hard, but, yes, I accept your apology, Michael.

DR

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 10:33 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(wilful cross-posting by troll to infected group and others removed -
again)

Carolyn, of course, has left out Maud de Mandeville (died 1236), widow
of Henry de Bohun, who was Countess of Essex in her own right.
Countess Maud was sister and sole heiress to William de Mandeville
(died 1227), Earl of Essex.

So Maud would be 7th Earl (I mean .... um ...  Countess) of Essex, or
is that 4th Earl of the 2nd creation?

But if you don't count women, then Maud wouldn't be Countess at all.
Then all the numbers would change.

In the ordinal system applied to British peerages, women title-holders
are counted, but they don't use a number themselves, i.e.

1. William Smith, 1st Baron Smith (barony by writ)
2. Mary Smith, Baroness Smith (only daughter and sole heir); marries
John Brown
3. Henry Brown, 3rd Baron Smith.

It's not hard.

The Essex case should not be used to establish rules, because it is
unique to itself.

MA-R

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 16, 4:20 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

< For starters, the first Earl of Hereford was Miles of Gloucester,
who
< died in 1143.
<
< Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

There were of course earlier earls of Hereford, but they were not
ancestral to the Bohun family. The first earl of the Bohun family
tree was Miles of Gloucester, who died in 1143.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Besides Maud de Mandeville (died 1236), Countess of Essex, Carolyn has
also overlooked the evidence which indicates that her husband's
father, Humphrey de Bohun, was Earl of Hereford.

For contemporary evidence that Humphrey de Bohun was styled Earl
Humphrey ["Umfridi comitis"] shortly after his death, see R.H.C.
Davis, The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and Related
Documents (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. 84) (1954): 36, 52-53 [see Appendix I,
Document 38 below].

Does this mean that this Humphrey de Bohun was third earl of the 5th
Creation, or first earl of the 6th creation, or do we scrap the whole
numbering system and start over so we can wedge Humphrey in where he
belongs?

And, how do we count women who don't count, and count men who were
earls who don't count? Do we call them earl/countess 6B or give them
a little star to show they don't count?

I'm totally confused now.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Feb 16, 4:16 pm, CE Wood <wood...@msn.com> wrote:
< HEREFORD:
< Earls of Hereford, First Creation (1043)
< * Swegen Godwinson, 1043 - 1051
< earldom forfeit 1051-1052

Earls of Hereford, Second Creation (1052)

< * Ralph the Timid, Earl of Hereford, 1052 - 1057
< earldom extinct 1057-1058
<

Earls of Hereford, Third Creation (1058)
* Harold Godwinson, Earl of Hereford (later Harold II of

England),
< 1058 - 1066
< earldom extinct 1066-1067
<
< Earls of Hereford, Fourth Creation (1067)
< * William Fitzosbern, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1067 - 1071
< * Roger de Breteuil, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1071 - 1074
< earldom forfeit 1074-1141
<
< Earls of Hereford, Fifth Creation (1141)
< * Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1141 - 1143
< * Roger FitzMiles, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1143 - 1155
< earldom extinct 1155-1199
<
< Earls of Hereford, Sixth Creation (1199)
< * Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford, 1199 - 1220
< * Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1220 - 1275
< * Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford, 1275 - 1298
< * Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford, 1298 - 1322
< * John de Bohun, 5th Earl of Hereford, 1322 - 1336
< * Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford, 1336 - 1361
< * Humphrey de Bohun, 7th Earl of Hereford, 1361 - 1373
<

peerage extinct 1373- After Humphrey was murdered by the crown. Heirs
apparent of the title of Earl Hereford along with Essex and
Northampton pass by right to Humphrey's nephew Gilbert de Bohun and
his heirs.

ESSEX:
Earls of Essex, first Creation (c. 1139)
* Geoffrey de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1144)
* Geoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1166)
* William de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex (d. 1189) (extinct)

Earls of Essex, second Creation (1199)
* Geoffrey Fitzpeter, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1213)
* Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1216)
* William FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex (d. 1227)

Earls of Essex, third Creation (1239)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1275)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1297)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 3th Earl of Essex (d. 1322)
* John de Bohun, 4th Earl of Essex (d. 1336)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 5th Earl of Essex (1309-1361)
* Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Essex (1342-1373)

Earls of Essex, fourth Creation (1376)
* Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Essex (1355-1397) (forfeit)

Earls of Essex, fifth Creation (1461)
* Henry Bourchier, 1st Earl of Essex (d. 1483)
* Henry Bourchier, 2nd Earl of Essex (d. 1540)

Earls of Essex, sixth Creation (1540)
* Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex (1485-1540) (forfeit)

Earls of Essex, seventh Creation (1543)
* William Parr, 1st Marquess of Northampton (c. 1512-1571)
(forfeit 1553; restored 1559)

Earls of Essex, eighth Creation (1572)
* Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex (1541-1576)
* Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (1566-1601)
* Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex (1591-1646) (extinct)

Barons Capell (1641)
* Arthur Capell, 1st Baron Capell (1604-1649)
* Arthur Capell, 2nd Baron Capell (1631-1683) (created Earl of
Essex in 1661)

Earls of Essex, ninth Creation (1661)
* Arthur Capell, 1st Earl of Essex (1631-1683)
* Algernon Capell, 2nd Earl of Essex (1670-1710)
* William Capell, 3rd Earl of Essex (1697-1743)
* William Anne Capell, 4th Earl of Essex (1732-1799)
* George Capell-Coningsby, 5th Earl of Essex (1757-1839)
* Arthur Algernon Capell, 6th Earl of Essex (1803-1892)
* George Devereux de Vere Capell, 7th Earl of Essex (1857-1916)
* Algernon George de Vere Capell, 8th Earl of Essex (1884-1966)
* Reginald George de Vere Capell, 9th Earl of Essex (1906-1981,
dormant 1981)
* Robert Edward de Vere Capell, 10th Earl of Essex (1920-2005,
revived 1989)
* Frederick Paul de Vere Capell, 11th Earl of Essex (b. 1944)

The Heir Presumptive is the present holder's fourth cousin once
removed William Jennings Capell (b. 1952). He is great-great-great-
grandson of the Hon. Adolphus Frederick Charles Molyneux Capell
(younger brother of the sixth Earl), younger son of the aforementioned
the Hon. John Thomas Capell (half-brother of the fifth Earl), son of
the second marriage of the fourth Earl. Adolphus' line is the only
remaining, of which William Jennings and his son, Kevin Devereux are
the only known members.

from Wiki

CE Wood

On Feb 16, 2:33 pm, Susan Perrett <sus...@st.net.au> wrote:

In article <690e4770-620b-4dbf-899f-
a9fd2f389...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, royalances...@msn.com
says...

Dear Newsgroup ~

Humphrey de Bohun, 8th Earl of Hereford, 9th Earl of Essex, was the
son-in-law of King Edward I of England, he having married the king's
daughter, Elizabeth. Earl Humphrey joined the rebellion against his
brother-in-law, King Edward II of England, and was slain at the Battle
of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2. A short but useful biography of
Earl Humphrey appears in Who's Who in Late Medieval England by Michael
Hicks (1991), pages 49-51, which says of him:

Well something is incorrect here, as my sources say this man was
Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford and the 3rd Earl of Essex
b. circa 1276, d. 16 March 1321, buried at Walden Abbey

Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford was the son of Humphrey de
Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford and Maud de Fiennes.
He married Lady Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of Edward I
'Longshanks', King of England and Eleanor de Castilla, Comtesse de
Ponthieu, on 14 November 1302 at Westminster Abbey, Westminster, London,
England.1
He died on 16 March 1321 at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, England.

Where have I gone wrong?
--
Susan Perrett
Victoria
Australiawww.st.net.au/~susanp/index.html

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 10:36 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(trollish cross-posting removed)

On Feb 16, 4:32 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

Apologies for not having removed the cross-posting last time - I hit
the 'send' button too quickly.

MA-R

It's going to be hard, but, yes, I accept your apology, Michael.

My apologies were to useful listers of SGM for having unwittingly
replicated the troll Richardson's malicious cross-posting to an
infected newsgroup; I offer no apologies to trolls.

MA-R

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 16, 4:44 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

< The Essex case should not be used to establish rules, because it is
< unique to itself.
<
< MA-R

Well, if Wikipediia doesn't include Maud de Mandeville, does that mean
that Maud de Mandeville wasn't a real Countess?

I definitely know how to count jelly beans, but counting these English
titles is getting out of hand real fast. 1st Creations, 2nd
Creations, why don't they just count bodies?

I get it, rules are only rules, until someone decides they don't
count. But they could count, if everyone changes their minds. Why
this sounds just like delegates from Florida for the upcoming
Democratic National Convention. Maybe we should all watch the
Convention so we can learn how to count English titles.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 16, 4:51 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

< My apologies were to useful listers of SGM for having unwittingly
< replicated the troll Richardson's malicious cross-posting to an
< infected newsgroup; I offer no apologies to trolls.
<
< MA-R

I accept your apology for all the mean things you've said about me.

No wait, apologies to trolls don't count. This is getting even more
confusing than English titles! Apologies that count, but don't count.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 10:54 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

I'm totally confused now.

Yes, that's evident.

Part of the problem (as usual, I suppose) is trying to apply modern
concepts to mediaeval practices. Before the peerage system became
regulated in the way we now see it, it operated in a more-or-less
haphazard fashion.

To use Carolyn's reference as an example, we call William Fitz Osbern
'Earl of Hereford', although this is not a title he used during his
lifetime. (This is because of the assumption that an Earl must be
Earl of Somewhere - the use of a surname together with the peerage
rank came much later, eg Earl Spencer, Marquess Townshend, even though
it was usually the case with English baronies and, later
viscountcies). These 'territorial designations', as they are called,
can be more for clarity of modern identification than a reflection of
contemporary usage - not that that makes them 'wrong', of course.

Then there are the people that we would consider under the modern
doctrine would have inherited a peerage, but whose contemporaries
(including the monarch of the day) did not regard as a peer, for
whatever reason. Thus we have one of the Barons Argentein sitting in
the House of Commons, and many Lords Grey who were never summoned to
the House of Lords.

Additionally, we have the complication of the former system whereby a
man who married an English peeress in her own right could use her
peerage title 'jure uxoris' - ie if you married a Countess, you became
an Earl. Because a such a Peeress could marry more than once, there
are cases where there are several additional bearers of the title -
but since they were not themselves substantive peers, they are not
'counted' when it comes to ordinals.

(This too is subject to qualification and variation. For instance, in
some cases a man marrying the heiress to a peerage may have been
created a peer himself, using the same title, in sime cases even
subverting the title so that it was removed from the original line.
The Nevilles furnish some good examples of this, as does Richard of
York, Duke of Norfolk).

And just because the later holders of a title descended from the
earlier holders, does not mean that the ordinal numbers continue. The
Mowbray and Howard Dukes of Norfolk, for instance, are numbered
separately, since the title became extinct in between them (it could
not pass to a female).

The ordinal system is an important part of the terminology for
describing British peerages. Thus we speak of the current Queen's
second son, Prince Andrew, as the 1st Duke of York, even though he is
not the first man to bear that title, nor by any means the first
member of his immediate family to do so (his grandfather and great-
grandfather were both Dukes of York). Similarly, HM's consort, Prince
Philip, is the 1st Duke of Edinburgh - despite being the sixth man to
hold that title. Calling him the 6th Duke of Edinburgh would be
wrong, so posterity will likely call him the 1st Duke of the 1947
creation (or Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, since no other Duke using that
title has borne that Christian name).

Because the situation from an historical point of view is fraught with
potential inconsistency, and thus confusion, it is normal for the
modern system to be used retrospectively in assigning titles and
places. This is where terms such as '1st creation' and 'de jure' are
such useful, as they assist in clarifying and thus identifying.

Recording history, including genealogy, can often entail a struggle
between ensuring accuracy, and ensuring ease of identification - but
the two needn't be mutually exclusive.

And kindly stop trying to infect this newsgroup by your malicious
cross-posting. You are a troll.

MA-R

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 11:04 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

On Feb 16, 4:44 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

The Essex case should not be used to establish rules, because it is
unique to itself.

MA-R

Well, if Wikipediia doesn't include Maud de Mandeville, does that mean
that Maud de Mandeville wasn't a real Countess?

No, it means Wikipedia is a poor reference source. You should stop
using it.

I definitely know how to count jelly beans, but counting these English
titles is getting out of hand real fast.  1st Creations, 2nd
Creations, why don't they just count bodies?

Because they don't.

I get it, rules are only rules, until someone decides they don't
count.  But they could count, if everyone changes their minds.  

According to your logic, since Henry II had a son of the same name who
was also crowned King (vita patris), the English reformation must have
been started by Henry IX (d 1547), who was succeeded by his son Edward
IX (d 1553).

I don't make up the rules, but I do try to understand and apply them.
That way, people who know what they're talking about, know what I'm
talking about.

Perhaps you should stick to jelly-beans?

MA-R

[Peter Stewart]

[Half-witted cross-postings removed]

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:24ef2715-0e22-496a-8236-8d91672664cb@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Besides Maud de Mandeville (died 1236), Countess of Essex, Carolyn has
also overlooked the evidence which indicates that her husband's
father, Humphrey de Bohun, was Earl of Hereford.

For contemporary evidence that Humphrey de Bohun was styled Earl
Humphrey ["Umfridi comitis"] shortly after his death, see R.H.C.
Davis, The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and Related
Documents (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. 84) (1954): 36, 52-53 [see Appendix I,
Document 38 below].

Does this mean that this Humphrey de Bohun was third earl of the 5th
Creation, or first earl of the 6th creation, or do we scrap the whole
numbering system and start over so we can wedge Humphrey in where he
belongs?

None of these, of course - abbots don't make earls, much less posthumously.
And anyway, how can we know that this comital honorific was not accorded to
Humphrey de Bohun due to his marrying a widowed countess (of Brittany &
Richmond), rather than from his being the grandson through his mother of an
earl (of Hereford)? Modern rules did not apply, as Richardson needs to be
reminded so very often. But then the understanding of trolls, as he shows us
yet again, is a negative quantity.

And, how do we count women who don't count, and count men who were
earls who don't count? Do we call them earl/countess 6B or give them
a little star to show they don't count?

I'm totally confused now.

No he's not; once again Richardson is just scrambling under a cutesy-folksy
cover for his embarrassment at proving that he knows so little of his own
craft as a medievalist.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 11:04 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

 1st Creations, 2nd Creations, why don't they just count bodies?

There's a further, very practical reason why they "don't just count
bodies" - a reason that was even more relevant during the mediaeval
period.

That reason is - precedence.

Unless a higher precedence applies for other reasons [don't blame me,
I didn't make the rules up] the relative precedence of a peerage title
depended on its creation date. This was the general rule for
determining relative precedence amongst holders of the same peerage
rank.

For instance, a baron whose title dated from 1350 ranked before a
baron whose title dated from 1360. NB the date that each respective
peer succeeded to his title was irrelevant - it was the creation date
of the peerage that counted.

Because of this rule, peers were anxious to obtain for the peerage
they held the earliest possible creation date. This may sound bizarre
- after all, how can you treat a creation date as a 'moveable feast'?
- but considering the lack of firm documentation for some peerage
creations, it has often been a matter of getting a legal ruling (eg
from the Crown, or the House of Lords, or its Committee for
Privileges) to have the earliest possible date accepted.

This is why there is sometimes a discrepancy between the actual date a
peerage was created (or the date that we now consider it was created)
and the date assigned to it for precedence purposes. This discrepancy
can represent:

(a) a peerage which uses the same precedence date as an earlier
peerage of the same name, to enhance its prestige;
(b) a peerage which uses the precedence date of an earlier summons to
a meeting now not considered to have been that of a House of Lords;
(c) a peerage which has been called out of a long abeyance, and which
when called out has been given a later precedence date (under pressure
from other peers who didn't want to surrender precedence to someone
they considered a lucky parvenu);
(d) a peerage given an earlier precedence date as a mark of royal
favour, ie to accord enhanced precedence

It might all seem complicated at first glance, but there's plenty of
good reasoning behind it all - plus 'the weight of ages'.

MA-R

[Merilyn Pedrick]

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

On Feb 17, 10:54 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

I'm totally confused now.


Yes, that's evident.

Part of the problem (as usual, I suppose) is trying to apply modern
concepts to mediaeval practices. Before the peerage system became
regulated in the way we now see it, it operated in a more-or-less
haphazard fashion.

To use Carolyn's reference as an example, we call William Fitz Osbern
'Earl of Hereford', although this is not a title he used during his
lifetime. (This is because of the assumption that an Earl must be
Earl of Somewhere - the use of a surname together with the peerage
rank came much later, eg Earl Spencer, Marquess Townshend, even though
it was usually the case with English baronies and, later
viscountcies). These 'territorial designations', as they are called,
can be more for clarity of modern identification than a reflection of
contemporary usage - not that that makes them 'wrong', of course.

Then there are the people that we would consider under the modern
doctrine would have inherited a peerage, but whose contemporaries
(including the monarch of the day) did not regard as a peer, for
whatever reason. Thus we have one of the Barons Argentein sitting in
the House of Commons, and many Lords Grey who were never summoned to
the House of Lords.

Additionally, we have the complication of the former system whereby a
man who married an English peeress in her own right could use her
peerage title 'jure uxoris' - ie if you married a Countess, you became
an Earl. Because a such a Peeress could marry more than once, there
are cases where there are several additional bearers of the title -
but since they were not themselves substantive peers, they are not
'counted' when it comes to ordinals.

(This too is subject to qualification and variation. For instance, in
some cases a man marrying the heiress to a peerage may have been
created a peer himself, using the same title, in sime cases even
subverting the title so that it was removed from the original line.
The Nevilles furnish some good examples of this, as does Richard of
York, Duke of Norfolk).

And just because the later holders of a title descended from the
earlier holders, does not mean that the ordinal numbers continue. The
Mowbray and Howard Dukes of Norfolk, for instance, are numbered
separately, since the title became extinct in between them (it could
not pass to a female).

The ordinal system is an important part of the terminology for
describing British peerages. Thus we speak of the current Queen's
second son, Prince Andrew, as the 1st Duke of York, even though he is
not the first man to bear that title, nor by any means the first
member of his immediate family to do so (his grandfather and great-
grandfather were both Dukes of York). Similarly, HM's consort, Prince
Philip, is the 1st Duke of Edinburgh - despite being the sixth man to
hold that title. Calling him the 6th Duke of Edinburgh would be
wrong, so posterity will likely call him the 1st Duke of the 1947
creation (or Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, since no other Duke using that
title has borne that Christian name).

Because the situation from an historical point of view is fraught with
potential inconsistency, and thus confusion, it is normal for the
modern system to be used retrospectively in assigning titles and
places. This is where terms such as '1st creation' and 'de jure' are
such useful, as they assist in clarifying and thus identifying.

Recording history, including genealogy, can often entail a struggle
between ensuring accuracy, and ensuring ease of identification - but
the two needn't be mutually exclusive.

And kindly stop trying to infect this newsgroup by your malicious
cross-posting. You are a troll.

MA-R



Dear Michael

Thankyou so much for that very comprehensive explanation of the peerage
system. I never knew before what 'jure uxoris' meant. It's all much
clearer now (in its rather muddly way).
Merilyn

[Gjest]

On Feb 17, 4:12 pm, Merilyn Pedrick <merilyn.pedr...@internode.on.net>
wrote:

Dear Michael
Thankyou so much for that very comprehensive explanation of the peerage
system.  I never knew before what 'jure uxoris' meant.  It's all much
clearer now (in its rather muddly way).
Merilyn

My pleasure, Merilyn - most of us are here to share and to learn.

Cheers, Michael

[John Briggs]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Besides Maud de Mandeville (died 1236), Countess of Essex, Carolyn has
also overlooked the evidence which indicates that her husband's
father, Humphrey de Bohun, was Earl of Hereford.

For contemporary evidence that Humphrey de Bohun was styled Earl
Humphrey ["Umfridi comitis"] shortly after his death, see R.H.C.
Davis, The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and Related
Documents (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. 84) (1954): 36, 52-53 [see Appendix I,
Document 38 below].

Does this mean that this Humphrey de Bohun was third earl of the 5th
Creation, or first earl of the 6th creation, or do we scrap the whole
numbering system and start over so we can wedge Humphrey in where he
belongs?

And, how do we count women who don't count, and count men who were
earls who don't count? Do we call them earl/countess 6B or give them
a little star to show they don't count?

I'm totally confused now.

You probably always were...

The origin of the confusion is employing terms like "creation" and using
enumeration in contexts where they really don't apply. "Creation" really
only applies to peerages created by letters patent (baronies created by writ
are just a legal fiction). "Earldoms" weren't even "peerages" - they were
just royal appointments, and not intended to be hereditary, although they
immediately became so. They couldn't be held by women, or inherited through
the female line, although such "inheritance" was often recognised by the
king - whether that counts as inheritance, a new appointment, or a new
"creation" is anyone's guess.

So, no, Maud de Mandeville wasn't Countess of Essex "in her own right", and
if someone was styled Earl "shortly after his death", that is hardly
"contemporary evidence"!

You are better off just numbering the various Henries and Humphries.
--
John Briggs

[Dugless Dickson]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

And, how do we count women who don't count, and count men who were
earls who don't count? Do we call them earl/countess 6B or give them
a little star to show they don't count?

Earls count as counts but
Countesses are countless.

Women, what are they? We men, what are we?
They have dugs but we do not.
We have numbers, they do not.
Dugless or numberless?
Which would you rather be?

I'm totally confused now.

No need to be

Best all ways
Dugless ~

[letiTiAflufF@gmail.com]

On Feb 17, 10:25 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:> > I'm totally confused now.

You probably always were...

sockpuppet JB for Peter Stupor, we see <G> you, there,
hiding behind the arrass
"Hamlet stabs him through the arrass"

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[letiTiAflufF@gmail.com]

On Feb 17, 10:55 am, Dugless Dickson <roYalancES...@msN.cOm> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
And, how do we count women who don't count, and count men who were
earls who don't count?  Do we call them earl/countess 6B or give them
a little star to show they don't count?

Earls count as counts but
Countesses are countless.

Women, what are they? We men, what are we?
They have dugs but we do not.
We have numbers, they do not.
Dugless or numberless?
Which would you rather be?

 > I'm totally confused now.

No need to be

Best all ways
Dugless ~

O Duggee, me lad, we be looking for you behind the aarras
too, so keep at it, and we will trace you down in your yellow <G>
thunderbird

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[letiTiAflufF@gmail.com]

On Feb 17, 10:55 am, Dugless Dickson <roYalancES...@msN.cOm> wrote:

Douglas Richardson wrote:
And, how do we count women who don't count, and count men who were
earls who don't count?  Do we call them earl/countess 6B or give them
a little star to show they don't count?

Earls count as counts but
Countesses are countless.

Women, what are they? We men, what are we?
They have dugs but we do not.
We have numbers, they do not.
Dugless or numberless?
Which would you rather be?

 > I'm totally confused now.

No need to be

Best all ways
Dugless ~

Dugee, me lad, you be transparent
in your yellow <G> thunderbird
wiping your face in aloe vera gel
we be looking for you behind the arrass, too

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Susan ~

Where have you gone wrong?

You used the wrong source, that's all.

Try using the standard reference work, Handbook of British Chronology
(1996), by E.B. Fryde. Fryde is a highly respected historian.

You can access the list of Earls of Hereford on page 465 by going to
the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zcgxEv ... #PPA465,M1

Fryde identifies Humphrey de Bohun of my post at the 8th Earl of
Hereford, just as I did, not 4th Earl. You can find the work by Fryde
at any major library in your country.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Feb 16, 3:33 pm, Susan Perrett <sus...@st.net.au> wrote:

In article <690e4770-620b-4dbf-899f-
Dear Newsgroup ~

<
< > Humphrey de Bohun, 8th Earl of Hereford, 9th Earl of Essex, was
the
< > son-in-law of King Edward I of England, he having married the
king's
< > daughter, Elizabeth. Earl Humphrey joined the rebellion against
his
< > brother-in-law, King Edward II of England, and was slain at the
Battle
< > of Boroughbridge 16 March 1321/2. A short but useful biography of
< > Earl Humphrey appears in Who's Who in Late Medieval England by
Michael
< > Hicks (1991), pages 49-51, which says of him:
<
< Well something is incorrect here, as my sources say this man was
< Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford and the 3rd Earl of Essex
< b. circa 1276, d. 16 March 1321, buried at Walden Abbey
<
< Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford was the son of Humphrey
de
< Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford and Maud de Fiennes.
<
< He married Lady Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of Edward I
< 'Longshanks', King of England and Eleanor de Castilla, Comtesse de
< Ponthieu, on 14 November 1302 at Westminster Abbey, Westminster,
London,
< England.1

He died on 16 March 1321 at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, England.

< Where have I gone wrong?
< --
< Susan Perrett

[Peter Stewart]

Cross-posting removed.

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f071ea95-a7ba-470d-88ac-bce464a57c33@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Dear Susan ~

Where have you gone wrong?

You used the wrong source, that's all.

Try using the standard reference work, Handbook of British Chronology
(1996), by E.B. Fryde. Fryde is a highly respected historian.

Rubbish - as Richardson knows perfectly well, this is not the standard
reference work for the British peerage.

You can access the list of Earls of Hereford on page 465 by going to
the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zcgxEv ... #PPA465,M1

Fryde identifies Humphrey de Bohun of my post at the 8th Earl of
Hereford, just as I did, not 4th Earl. You can find the work by Fryde
at any major library in your country.

And on page 448 of the book the compiler explains that "All holders of a
dignity under each title are numbered consecutively regardless of successive
creations". In other words, explicity using for a particular purpose an
enumeration different from the system used by the standard reference work
for the British peerage, CP.

If only Richardson would expend a fraction of the time & energy he wastes on
trying to vindicate his errors, or cover up his ignorance, in a more useful
effort to learn his business and get things right in the first place.....

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

On Feb 18, 5:20 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(removal of malicious cross-posting)

Dear Susan ~

Where have you gone wrong?

You used the wrong source, that's all.

Try using the standard reference work, Handbook of British Chronology
(1996), by E.B. Fryde.   Fryde is a highly respected historian.

Er, Fryde is not a peerage authority, nor is the 'Handbook for British
Chronology' a peerage directory.

Looking at the other entries on the same page as the one on google
books linked by the troll Richardson, we note that each peerage title
is listed with a sequential run of numbers, regardless of the peerage
creation. These are not ordinal numbers in the sense under discussion
on this thread; they are merely numbers on a list.

Thus, John Ramsay, 1st Earl of Holderness (cr 1621; dsp 1626) and
Prince Rupert, 1st Earl of Holderness (cr 1644; dspl 1682, also 1st
Duke of Cumberland) are respectively listed as "1" and "2" under
'earldom of Holderness'. But Rupert was not the "2nd Earl of
Holderness".

Here's another list that I have put together, of English monarchs.

1. William (1066-1087)
2. William (1086-1100)
3. Henry (1100-1135)
4. Stephen (1135-1154)

Using the above logic, we can conclude that this was King Stephen IV.

To get a better idea of this troll's inability to stick to its own
[wrong] line, let's have a look at what it wrote to this selfsame
thread yesterday at 10.20 am:

"For starters, the first Earl of Hereford was Miles of Gloucester, who
died in 1143"

- yet when we look at Fryde's list of the Earl of Gloucester, we see
the number against his name is "3", not "1".

Oh dear, how embarrassing.

The desperate determination to keep digging is one of the troll
Richardson's many inane features. Let's see what other amusing tricks
it can come up with as it wriggles. We might as well get some
entertainment from its amazing public displays of stupidity.

You can access the list of Earls of Hereford on page 465 by going to
the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zcgxEv ... DUS+DdU&...

Fryde identifies Humphrey de Bohun of my post at the 8th Earl of
Hereford, just as I did, not 4th Earl.  You can find the work by Fryde
at any major library in your country.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Sadly, this "best" isn't really very good. I give it a D minus.

MA-R

[Gjest]

On Feb 18, 5:45 pm, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

On Feb 18, 5:20 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(removal of malicious cross-posting)

Dear Susan ~

Where have you gone wrong?

You used the wrong source, that's all.

Try using the standard reference work, Handbook of British Chronology
(1996), by E.B. Fryde.   Fryde is a highly respected historian.

Er, Fryde is not a peerage authority, nor is the 'Handbook for British
Chronology' a peerage directory.

Looking at the other entries on the same page as the one on google
books linked by the troll Richardson, we note that each peerage title
is listed with a sequential run of numbers, regardless of the peerage
creation.  These are not ordinal numbers in the sense under discussion
on this thread; they are merely numbers on a list.

Thus, John Ramsay, 1st Earl of Holderness (cr 1621; dsp 1626) and
Prince Rupert, 1st Earl of Holderness (cr 1644; dspl 1682, also 1st
Duke of Cumberland) are respectively listed as "1" and "2" under
'earldom of Holderness'.  But Rupert was not the "2nd Earl of
Holderness".

Here's another list that I have put together, of English monarchs.

1. William (1066-1087)
2. William (1086-1100)
3. Henry (1100-1135)
4. Stephen (1135-1154)

Using the above logic, we can conclude that this was King Stephen IV.

To get a better idea of this troll's inability to stick to its own
[wrong] line, let's have a look at what it wrote to this selfsame
thread yesterday at 10.20 am:

"For starters, the first Earl of Hereford was Miles of Gloucester, who
died in 1143"

- yet when we look at Fryde's list of the Earl of Gloucester, we see
the number against his name is "3", not "1".

recte: "Earls of Hereford"

MA-R

[letiTiAflufF@gmail.com]

On Feb 18, 1:35 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

Rubbish - as Richardson knows perfectly well, this is not the standard
reference work for the British peerage.

If only peter Stewart would expend a fraction of the time & energy he wastes on
trying to vindicate his errors, or cover up his ignorance, in a more useful
effort to learn his business and get things right in the first place.....

Scholar Richardson had an unwanted lamb, unwanted lamb
and everywhere that Scholar Richardson went, the lamb was sure to go

(Singalong members, Chorus)
Scholar Richardson had an unwanted lamb
unwanted lamb
unwanted lamb
and everywhere that he went
the unwanted lamb was sure to go
was sure to go

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[letiTiAflufF@gmail.com]

On Feb 18, 1:45 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

Looking at the other entries on the same page as the one on google
books linked by the troll My Asthma Returns, we note that each peerage title
is listed with a sequential run of numbers, regardless of the peerage
creation.  These are not ordinal numbers in the sense under discussion
on this thread; they are merely numbers on a list.

Using the above logic, we can conclude that this was King Peter Stewart, my dear ole dad.

To get a better idea of this troll's inability to stick to its own
[wrong] line, let's have a look at what it wrote to this selfsame
thread yesterday at 10.20 am:

Here's another list that I have put together, of English monarchs.

1. Peter Stewart (Stuarts) (1066-1087)
2. My Asthma Returns (Dunces) (1086-1100)
3. Dugless Richards (Copykats) (1100-1135)
4. Little Miss Know It All (Burps) (1135-1154)

Oh dear, how embarrassing.

The desperate determination to keep digging is one of the troll
My Asthma Returns's many inane features.  Let's see what other amusing tricks
it can come up with as it wriggles in the habitat with Peter Stupid.  We might as well get some
entertainment from its amazing public displays of stupidity.

Earl Stewart identifies Dingbat de My Asthma of my post at the 8th Earl of
JBooze Bandsderland, just as I did, not 4th Earl.  You can find the work by Stewart
at any major library in your country, or search Amazon.com for Peter Stewart,
Earl of Stuporville

Sadly, this "best" isn't really very good.  I give it a D minus.

MA-R, Earl of JBoozeville, Count of Lesser Mobilities, Dean of Trolls Abbey, Stewardland

persiflage, persiflage, persiflage

~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne

http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear fellow posters ~

Mr. Fryde who I have cited as a source is a highly reputable scholar.
He is perfectly acceptable to use as a source for counting peerage
titles. His standard reference work, Handbook of British Chronology,
is found in library all around the world. You've probably seen the
book in your own library.

Mr. Fryde has chosen to count bodies, not creations, which decision
makes good sense to me. If you count creations, not bodies, then to
be consistent, you must ALWAYS indicate which creation which you are
referring. Otherwise, you create total confusion for posters like
Susan who don't understand the arbitrary splitting of earls into
different creations. And, since people DON'T indicate which creation
goes to what earl, the system of counting earls within successive
creations is inherently inconsistent and confusing.

I might note that the authoritative Complete Peerage uses BOTH systems
(confused yet?). It counts bodies (successive earls) and also
provides numbers of earls within different creations. Thus, Humphrey
de Bohun, died 1322, is listed as follows in Complete Peerage, 6
(1926): 467 (sub Hereford):

"VIII. 1298. 4. Humphrey (de Bohun), Earl of Hereford and Essex, and
Constable of England, ..."

While Complete Peerage supplies the correct numbers, it confuses the
reader as to whether Humphrey de Bohun was the 4th Earl or the 8th
Earl of Hereford. Of course, in his lifetime, Earl Humphrey didn't
style himself either 4th earl or 8th earl. As such, both systems of
ordinals are completely arbitrary in their nature and are not derived
from contemporary documents. But, if I had to choose between the two
systems, I would use Fryde's system of counting bodies, not titles in
successive creations.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Now that the subject of counting peers has been kicked around, how
about we get back to the actual subject of this thread, namely Maud de
Baskerville, the sister of Earl Humphrey de Bohun (died 1322).

Does anyone have anything pertinent to share regarding Maud de
Baskerville?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah