From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty,
soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Numbering Of Peers
<snipped sniping>
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 so is the use of the term Plantagenet.
CP explains their use quite clearly and simply : "The Roman Numerals
indicate the number of persons who have borne the dignity, while the Arabic
ones show how many of the same family have inherited it.
Richardson seems to want us to believe that the, as he sees it, anomaly is
recent. In 1993 The Royal Descent of 500 Immigrants was published by his
friend and benefactor Gary Boyd Roberts, all you need to do is go the index,
page 501, here we find Humphrey de Bohun, 4the Earl of Hereford, two entries
later William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton, CP tells he was the 6th
person to be Earl of Northampton.
My oldest Burke's Peerage is of 1899 and they are doing it there.
Richardson has in the past promoted "consensus", I think the numbering per
creation is the general accepted consensus.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1284 - Release Date: 2/17/2008
2:39 PM