Numbering of Peers
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
Numbering of Peers
I would like to add and amend the information given
above by stating that the ordinal numbering of holders
of various creations of peerages is -afaik- not a
medieval custom, but a somewhat later system, which
has come to be retrospectively applied also to
medieval lords in official peerage lists and in those
genealogies following the retrospective systematics of
later peerage lists.
In Middle Ages, there was not yet a clearly-defined
peerage law with its today interpretations of
creations, terms of inheritance, and extinction.
(If someone doubts this statement, please take a
careful look what the modern doctrine, following the
legal case of Earldom of Norfolk, has to say about the
rightfulness of Thomas of Brotherton ever being Earl
of Norfolk - which he undoubtedly was de facto and
also in jurisprudence of his era.)
It is true that fairly often in Middle Ages a family
lost its earldom if there were no male-line heirs
left. And in some cases, the family lost it 'de facto'
even in a few cases a male-line heir survived, without
it becoming lawfully forfeited - such occurred for
various almost idiosyncratic reasons.
But a family did not totally necessarily lost its
hereditary English earldom, de jure nor de facto,
because of lack of male-line heirs - heirs general
occasionally were allowed to succeed. These cases have
caused lots of trouble to later
retrospective-reconstructors of peerage lists. Such
are today often interpreted as 'de novo' creations,
however such being not necessarily a historical truth
of the matter.
Medievally-rooted families, heirs-general
particularly, appear to have long nursed claims to
'peerages', rather, fiefs and titles, of their
cognatic ancestors - and these occasionally came into
realization with a sympathetic monarch. One of good
examples was when the Earl of Warwick, lord protector
of England, got his monarch to recognize him as duke.
He chose to be known as the Duke of Northumberland, as
heir-general (as it was believed) of the conquest-era
dominus Waltheof, dux of Northumbria, and his St.Liz
successors.
Of course the Bohun earls of Hereford have in
retrospective peerage lists those ordinals (1st, 2nd,
3rd,...) mentioned in these discussions.
However I am not at all convinced that they were known
precisely as such among their contemporaries. Rather,
I tend to believe they were not known with those
ordinals.
(Of course, authentic citations from contemporary
documents to shed light to this will be heartily
welcome.)
However, I am not at all convinced, either, of
correctness of retrospective ordinaling made here by
an enthusiastic pontificator. I sincerely suspect that
the mentioned Bohun earl of Hereford was not known as
the 8th earl among his contemporaries.
Authenticity of ordinaling of post-medieval peers
being off-topic, I would not go any further into that
systematics.
This ordinaling, as to medieval persons, boils down to
the point that any such ordinal highly likely is an
anachronism anyway. and that such ordinals have any
sense and meaningfulness as to medieval context only
as reflections of how those individuals may be
referred in later works.
Fairly much a similar question as whether a certain
gentleman was William the Conqueror (which obviously
is linguistically etc a retrospective name) or
'Guillaume le batard' (which enjoys a tad better
contemporary authenticity).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ
above by stating that the ordinal numbering of holders
of various creations of peerages is -afaik- not a
medieval custom, but a somewhat later system, which
has come to be retrospectively applied also to
medieval lords in official peerage lists and in those
genealogies following the retrospective systematics of
later peerage lists.
In Middle Ages, there was not yet a clearly-defined
peerage law with its today interpretations of
creations, terms of inheritance, and extinction.
(If someone doubts this statement, please take a
careful look what the modern doctrine, following the
legal case of Earldom of Norfolk, has to say about the
rightfulness of Thomas of Brotherton ever being Earl
of Norfolk - which he undoubtedly was de facto and
also in jurisprudence of his era.)
It is true that fairly often in Middle Ages a family
lost its earldom if there were no male-line heirs
left. And in some cases, the family lost it 'de facto'
even in a few cases a male-line heir survived, without
it becoming lawfully forfeited - such occurred for
various almost idiosyncratic reasons.
But a family did not totally necessarily lost its
hereditary English earldom, de jure nor de facto,
because of lack of male-line heirs - heirs general
occasionally were allowed to succeed. These cases have
caused lots of trouble to later
retrospective-reconstructors of peerage lists. Such
are today often interpreted as 'de novo' creations,
however such being not necessarily a historical truth
of the matter.
Medievally-rooted families, heirs-general
particularly, appear to have long nursed claims to
'peerages', rather, fiefs and titles, of their
cognatic ancestors - and these occasionally came into
realization with a sympathetic monarch. One of good
examples was when the Earl of Warwick, lord protector
of England, got his monarch to recognize him as duke.
He chose to be known as the Duke of Northumberland, as
heir-general (as it was believed) of the conquest-era
dominus Waltheof, dux of Northumbria, and his St.Liz
successors.
Of course the Bohun earls of Hereford have in
retrospective peerage lists those ordinals (1st, 2nd,
3rd,...) mentioned in these discussions.
However I am not at all convinced that they were known
precisely as such among their contemporaries. Rather,
I tend to believe they were not known with those
ordinals.
(Of course, authentic citations from contemporary
documents to shed light to this will be heartily
welcome.)
However, I am not at all convinced, either, of
correctness of retrospective ordinaling made here by
an enthusiastic pontificator. I sincerely suspect that
the mentioned Bohun earl of Hereford was not known as
the 8th earl among his contemporaries.
Authenticity of ordinaling of post-medieval peers
being off-topic, I would not go any further into that
systematics.
This ordinaling, as to medieval persons, boils down to
the point that any such ordinal highly likely is an
anachronism anyway. and that such ordinals have any
sense and meaningfulness as to medieval context only
as reflections of how those individuals may be
referred in later works.
Fairly much a similar question as whether a certain
gentleman was William the Conqueror (which obviously
is linguistically etc a retrospective name) or
'Guillaume le batard' (which enjoys a tad better
contemporary authenticity).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: Numbering of Peers
I would like to add and amend the information given
above by stating that the ordinal numbering of holders
of EMPERORS is -afaik- not a medieval custom.
http://www.thepin-up.com/napoleon.jpg
merci merci merci
above by stating that the ordinal numbering of holders
of EMPERORS is -afaik- not a medieval custom.
http://www.thepin-up.com/napoleon.jpg
merci merci merci
Re: Numbering of Peers
On Feb 18, 8:09 am, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Oh, I forgot to add my true stats are:
in case you confuse me with the genuine article,
letiTiAflufF aka leTiAflufF,
I really am: Wile E Coyote/CoJote/Go Daddy <G>
Leticia Cluff
motzarella.org
Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English(America)
and, in case you think me taffed:
James Hogg
Jas.HoggOUT@SPAM.gmail.com
hanging out at motzarella.org
while driving around in my convertible Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/
20071031)
aioe.org
Domain Name: aioe.org
Status: OK
Registrar: Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Expiration Date: 2008-05-11 16:59:42
Creation Date: 2000-05-11 16:59:42
Last Update Date: 2007-05-10 16:03:17
Name Servers:
dns2.technorail.com
dns.technorail.com
IP Address: 194.177.96.78
IP Location: Italy
Website Status: active
Server Type: Apache/1.3.34 (Debian) PHP/4.4.4-8+etch4
Alexa Trend/Rank: 1 Month: 2,233,597 3 Month: 1,073,626
Page Views per Visit: 1 Month: 3.0 3 Month: 2.1
Cache Date: 2008-02-18 07:21:26 MST
Compare Archived Data: 2007-06-04
Registrant Contact Information:
Name: Paolo Amoroso
Organization: Paolo Amoroso
Address 1: Via L. Rech 80
City: Roma
State: RM
Zip: 00156
Country: IT
Phone: +39.0575560999
Fax: +39.0575562849
Email:
Administrative Contact Information:
Name: Paolo Amoroso
Organization: Paolo Amoroso
Address 1: Via L. Rech 80
City: Roma
State: RM
Zip: 00156
Country: IT
Phone: +39.0575560999
Fax: +39.0575562849
Email:
Technical Contact Information:
Name: Stefano Cecconi
Organization: Technorail Srl
Address 1: Piazza Garibaldi 8
City: Soci
State: Arezzo
Zip: 52010
Country: IT
Phone: +39.0575560999
Fax: +39.0575562849
Email:
wrote:
I would like to add and amend the information given
above by stating that the ordinal numbering of holders
of EMPERORS is -afaik- not a medieval custom.
http://www.thepin-up.com/napoleon.jpg
merci merci merci
Oh, I forgot to add my true stats are:
in case you confuse me with the genuine article,
letiTiAflufF aka leTiAflufF,
I really am: Wile E Coyote/CoJote/Go Daddy <G>
Leticia Cluff
motzarella.org
Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English(America)
and, in case you think me taffed:
James Hogg
Jas.HoggOUT@SPAM.gmail.com
hanging out at motzarella.org
while driving around in my convertible Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/
20071031)
aioe.org
Domain Name: aioe.org
Status: OK
Registrar: Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Expiration Date: 2008-05-11 16:59:42
Creation Date: 2000-05-11 16:59:42
Last Update Date: 2007-05-10 16:03:17
Name Servers:
dns2.technorail.com
dns.technorail.com
IP Address: 194.177.96.78
IP Location: Italy
Website Status: active
Server Type: Apache/1.3.34 (Debian) PHP/4.4.4-8+etch4
Alexa Trend/Rank: 1 Month: 2,233,597 3 Month: 1,073,626
Page Views per Visit: 1 Month: 3.0 3 Month: 2.1
Cache Date: 2008-02-18 07:21:26 MST
Compare Archived Data: 2007-06-04
Registrant Contact Information:
Name: Paolo Amoroso
Organization: Paolo Amoroso
Address 1: Via L. Rech 80
City: Roma
State: RM
Zip: 00156
Country: IT
Phone: +39.0575560999
Fax: +39.0575562849
Email:
Administrative Contact Information:
Name: Paolo Amoroso
Organization: Paolo Amoroso
Address 1: Via L. Rech 80
City: Roma
State: RM
Zip: 00156
Country: IT
Phone: +39.0575560999
Fax: +39.0575562849
Email:
Technical Contact Information:
Name: Stefano Cecconi
Organization: Technorail Srl
Address 1: Piazza Garibaldi 8
City: Soci
State: Arezzo
Zip: 52010
Country: IT
Phone: +39.0575560999
Fax: +39.0575562849
Email:
Re: Numbering of Peers
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:48:24 -0800 (PST), "letiTiAflufF@gmail.com"
<letiTiAflufF@gmail.com> wrote:
That's me, Bill, but I'm sorry to have to tell you that the other
headers you quote have nothing to do with me. Your beautiful mind is
tricking you into believing that you have cracked yet another code.
Now, will you please stop stalking me?
Tish
<letiTiAflufF@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:09 am, "letiTiAfl...@gmail.com" <letiTiAfl...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would like to add and amend the information given
above by stating that the ordinal numbering of holders
of EMPERORS is -afaik- not a medieval custom.
http://www.thepin-up.com/napoleon.jpg
merci merci merci
Oh, I forgot to add my true stats are:
in case you confuse me with the genuine article,
letiTiAflufF aka leTiAflufF,
I really am: Wile E Coyote/CoJote/Go Daddy <G
Leticia Cluff
motzarella.org
Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English(America)
That's me, Bill, but I'm sorry to have to tell you that the other
headers you quote have nothing to do with me. Your beautiful mind is
tricking you into believing that you have cracked yet another code.
Now, will you please stop stalking me?
Tish
Re: Numbering Of Peers
Utter Nonsense...
Pogue Leo is just trying to whip up a false controversy.
DSH
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3588.1203362624.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Pogue Leo is just trying to whip up a false controversy.
DSH
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3588.1203362624.4586.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I wonder how many years Richardson has been involved with genealogy, it is
amazing that only now he feels the numberals used in titles is confusing
him.
Re: Numbering Of Peers
That's one reason CP is so useful and well-designed.
It DOES have BOTH systems, so the reader can quickly see, count and compare.
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:60f40371-8f45-491c-837c-67a6e0314fd8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
It DOES have BOTH systems, so the reader can quickly see, count and compare.
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:60f40371-8f45-491c-837c-67a6e0314fd8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Utter Nonsense...
Pogue Leo is just trying to whip up a false controversy.
DSH
Leo's snide remarks aside, the controversy is real enough. There are
two systems of counting peers. Complete Peerage uses BOTH of them.
I happen to prefer one system over the other, because it is far more
consistent and far easier to follow.
Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Numbering Of Peers
On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Leo's snide remarks aside, the controversy is real enough. There are
two systems of counting peers. Complete Peerage uses BOTH of them.
I happen to prefer one system over the other, because it is far more
consistent and far easier to follow.
Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Utter Nonsense...
Pogue Leo is just trying to whip up a false controversy.
DSH
Leo's snide remarks aside, the controversy is real enough. There are
two systems of counting peers. Complete Peerage uses BOTH of them.
I happen to prefer one system over the other, because it is far more
consistent and far easier to follow.
Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Numbering Of Peers
On Feb 18, 1:23 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
< That's one reason CP is so useful and well-designed.
<
< It DOES have BOTH systems, so the reader can quickly see, count and
compare.
<
< DSH
Yes, I totally agree, Spencer. Compete Peerage is VERY thorough that
way. It allows people the freedom to follow which of the two systems
they prefer.
Simultaneous posting gives newsgroup posters the same kind of freedom.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< That's one reason CP is so useful and well-designed.
<
< It DOES have BOTH systems, so the reader can quickly see, count and
compare.
<
< DSH
Yes, I totally agree, Spencer. Compete Peerage is VERY thorough that
way. It allows people the freedom to follow which of the two systems
they prefer.
Simultaneous posting gives newsgroup posters the same kind of freedom.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Numbering Of Peers
Douglas Richardson wrote:
And as such they are both irrelevant to the medieval situation - at least
before creations by letters patent.
--
John Briggs
On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Utter Nonsense...
Pogue Leo is just trying to whip up a false controversy.
DSH
Leo's snide remarks aside, the controversy is real enough. There are
two systems of counting peers. Complete Peerage uses BOTH of them.
I happen to prefer one system over the other, because it is far more
consistent and far easier to follow.
Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.
And as such they are both irrelevant to the medieval situation - at least
before creations by letters patent.
--
John Briggs
Re: Numbering Of Peers
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:60f40371-8f45-491c-837c-67a6e0314fd8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Self-serving tripe - we all saw that Richardson failed to follow his own
"system" by getting the order of earls of Hereford wrong by this anyway, as
Michael showed from Fryde. He just didn't know ehat he was talking about.
Where and when have we seen that before?
So what? Ordinals are used for peerages within each creation, and you can't
institute ordinals without following them back to the first in each case.
The early succession to some existing peerages was medieval, and so the
ordinals are applied. This is a long-established convention of peers
themselves, as well as historians and heralds, something that Richardson
vaunts whenever it suits him.
And the person who suggested that medieval emperors did not use ordinals is
mistaken - even in their own documents they were frequently called "Otto
secundus", "Henricus tertius", etc.
Peter Stewart
news:60f40371-8f45-491c-837c-67a6e0314fd8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Utter Nonsense...
Pogue Leo is just trying to whip up a false controversy.
DSH
Leo's snide remarks aside, the controversy is real enough. There are
two systems of counting peers. Complete Peerage uses BOTH of them.
I happen to prefer one system over the other, because it is far more
consistent and far easier to follow.
Self-serving tripe - we all saw that Richardson failed to follow his own
"system" by getting the order of earls of Hereford wrong by this anyway, as
Michael showed from Fryde. He just didn't know ehat he was talking about.
Where and when have we seen that before?
Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.
So what? Ordinals are used for peerages within each creation, and you can't
institute ordinals without following them back to the first in each case.
The early succession to some existing peerages was medieval, and so the
ordinals are applied. This is a long-established convention of peers
themselves, as well as historians and heralds, something that Richardson
vaunts whenever it suits him.
And the person who suggested that medieval emperors did not use ordinals is
mistaken - even in their own documents they were frequently called "Otto
secundus", "Henricus tertius", etc.
Peter Stewart
Re: Numbering Of Peers
On Feb 19, 8:10 am, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
(cross-posting again removed)
True - but the currently accepted system is applied to peerages by
writ, many of which remain extant. And in any case, the situation
here is slightly different to just an intellectual discussion about
retrospectivity.
On the one hand, we have the troll Richardson cross-posting gibberish
all over Usenet [and John, you might wish to trim your reply lists,
since each time you respond, you repeat its cross-posting to infected
news-groups, thus increasing the risk of cross-infection as the troll
doubtless desires].
In this case, the troll assigned a particular ordinal number to an
early Earl of Hereford. When asked to justify its use of this
particular number, it patronisingly told the enquirer to learn to
count. It subsequently transpired that it [allegedly] thought peerage
ordinals applied from the genesis of a title onwards.
On the other hand, as we know, the accepted practice is to apply the
current and long-standing numbering system, with all its faults and
inherent problems, thereby distinguishing one creation from another.
When confronted with this, the troll Richardson (as usual) started
ducking and diving, producing a chronological list that only served to
show that its own original justification was wrong, since the Earl it
had lighted upon to start counting from was not the first Earl of
Hereford.
Attempting to state that, since ordinal numbers were not used by 13th
century peers, we may pluck any old number out of the air to refer to
them, does not seem a terribly scholarly approach, yet it is now the
defence that the troll is attempting to throw in the list's face
(while reverting to cross-posting in yet another attempt to have the
group rendered useless with an overrun with computer-generated
rubbish). It was the troll itself that assigned an ordinal number to
a mediaeval Earl; now it is inventing 'systems' that nobody else uses
in order to avoid admitting it doesn't understand the material it
sprays all over the web.
If ever I had doubts about my own intellectual position, the chiming-
in of other trolls (such as Hines and Fluff, neither of whom ever
contribure anything of genealogical value to this group) would pretty
much persuade me I was wrong. Trolls of a feather...
MA-R
(cross-posting again removed)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.
And as such they are both irrelevant to the medieval situation - at least
before creations by letters patent.
True - but the currently accepted system is applied to peerages by
writ, many of which remain extant. And in any case, the situation
here is slightly different to just an intellectual discussion about
retrospectivity.
On the one hand, we have the troll Richardson cross-posting gibberish
all over Usenet [and John, you might wish to trim your reply lists,
since each time you respond, you repeat its cross-posting to infected
news-groups, thus increasing the risk of cross-infection as the troll
doubtless desires].
In this case, the troll assigned a particular ordinal number to an
early Earl of Hereford. When asked to justify its use of this
particular number, it patronisingly told the enquirer to learn to
count. It subsequently transpired that it [allegedly] thought peerage
ordinals applied from the genesis of a title onwards.
On the other hand, as we know, the accepted practice is to apply the
current and long-standing numbering system, with all its faults and
inherent problems, thereby distinguishing one creation from another.
When confronted with this, the troll Richardson (as usual) started
ducking and diving, producing a chronological list that only served to
show that its own original justification was wrong, since the Earl it
had lighted upon to start counting from was not the first Earl of
Hereford.
Attempting to state that, since ordinal numbers were not used by 13th
century peers, we may pluck any old number out of the air to refer to
them, does not seem a terribly scholarly approach, yet it is now the
defence that the troll is attempting to throw in the list's face
(while reverting to cross-posting in yet another attempt to have the
group rendered useless with an overrun with computer-generated
rubbish). It was the troll itself that assigned an ordinal number to
a mediaeval Earl; now it is inventing 'systems' that nobody else uses
in order to avoid admitting it doesn't understand the material it
sprays all over the web.
If ever I had doubts about my own intellectual position, the chiming-
in of other trolls (such as Hines and Fluff, neither of whom ever
contribure anything of genealogical value to this group) would pretty
much persuade me I was wrong. Trolls of a feather...
MA-R
Re: Numbering Of Peers
Douglas Richardson wrote:
When do you think this peer-counting system was invented?
On Feb 18, 1:03 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Utter Nonsense...
Pogue Leo is just trying to whip up a false controversy.
DSH
Leo's snide remarks aside, the controversy is real enough. There are
two systems of counting peers. Complete Peerage uses BOTH of them.
I happen to prefer one system over the other, because it is far more
consistent and far easier to follow.
Nonetheless, I hasten to add that both systems are arbitrary. Neither
system is contemporary to the medieval period. They are both modern
inventions.
When do you think this peer-counting system was invented?
Re: Numbering Of Peers
On Feb 18, 2:10 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
< And as such they are both irrelevant to the medieval situation - at
least
< before creations by letters patent.
< --
< John Briggs
Finally an intelligent remark. Thank you. You made my day.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< And as such they are both irrelevant to the medieval situation - at
least
< before creations by letters patent.
< --
< John Briggs
Finally an intelligent remark. Thank you. You made my day.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah