Good Morning My Good Friends:
What to do? Many of you have read early postings of the Botelers over
the years but I finally decided to get serious and do heavy, HEAVY
research to either confirm what I had surmised thru researh and family
legends, lay it to rest or leave it to the great empty mysteries
forever.
I had started to write a little booklet for my own family for
Christmas, which is turning into a book, go figure?!! and then the
data came together with the original records, in latin, french and
english that co-responded with what I had written and found. This
changes many Peerages, Debrett's, Burkes, The Complete Peerage and
others, countless books and family lines and clears up many
unanswered questions about families and their lines. It is my desire
to change this and want the opinions of yourselves who have more
experience than I. Should I post excerpts to this site? write papers
and submit to various genie societies or websites? LDS? I do not know
what is the proper way to go about this and am looking for advice, I
want this information available but only have limited time.
For those who know and for those who don't, the Botelers of Warrington
started with Richard Pincerna who married Beatrix, not Almeric/Aumeric
or William as I have seen so many articles and books, I have the land
transfers when she was given in marriage. Richard was Baron of
Warrington in the right of his wife and by tenure only . The Botelers
were Barons of Warrington ONLY 2 more times after this by writ and
were not barons after 1328, there is a reason for this, they were
supplanted by intermarriage with the Butlers of Rawcliffe and the
Botelers of Ireland who intermarried with them. That is why the
Botelers of Warringtons lines seemed sketchy and all the charters and
piperolls, etc., don't make sense, they do now.
The Botelers of Rawcliffe descend from Hamon Walter Pincerna brother
of Theobald Walter Pincerna of Ireland, many of you have read a post
I once wrote where his grandson Theobald Le Boteler father of Edmund
gave to his cousins Sir William of Warrington andhis brother, Sir
Richard of Outrawcliffe his lands of Outrawcliffe I did not have the
original latin charters but do now and all of their extended
lines.:Consanguis Meus" in one charter and a much longer version in
another. Did you catch the Sir William of Warrington, true, but not of
the original line descended from Richard Pincerna!!!
It is from this Theobald le Botelers children who start to inter-marry
with the the Warrington and Outrawcliffe Botelers and eventually
supplant them, Richard, you have his 5 sons and 2 daughters? listed in
your book, they are supported by the various rolls, charters IPM etc.
in this!!!
Most are not aware that the younger children, wives and the Earls of
Ormonde, themselves, up until about the late 1490s lived predominantly
and were granted various estates in Lancashire and others areas rather
than Ireland.
Please let me know what your thoughts are as to what avenue I should
take,
Thank You and Best Regards as Always,
Merry Christmas to All
Emmett L. Butler
What To Do? Botelers: Finally the documentation:Warrington R
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
wjhonson
Re: What To Do? Botelers: Finally the documentation:Warringt
What I want to know is, who is Joan des Marais ?
She is supposed to be the wife of Theobald 2nd Butler and the mother
of Theobald 3rd Butler, before he married secondly to Rohese de Vernon
in 1225 and had at least two more children by this next wife.
But who is Joan? Did she just appear out of nowhere? des Marais
should mean something like "of the [small] watery place"
Like marsh, swamp, pond, or whatever. Or a placename called Marais I
suppose.
Will Johnson
She is supposed to be the wife of Theobald 2nd Butler and the mother
of Theobald 3rd Butler, before he married secondly to Rohese de Vernon
in 1225 and had at least two more children by this next wife.
But who is Joan? Did she just appear out of nowhere? des Marais
should mean something like "of the [small] watery place"
Like marsh, swamp, pond, or whatever. Or a placename called Marais I
suppose.
Will Johnson
-
CE Wood
Re: What To Do? Botelers: Finally the documentation:Warringt
From a postem on Jim Weber's site regarding Joan's father, Geoffrey de
Marisco, Justiciar of Ireland:
"MARISCO, MARISCIS, MAREYS, or MARES, GEOFFREY de (d. 1245), justiciar
or viceroy of Ireland, is said to have been the nephew and heir of
Hervey de Mount-Maurice, and nephew of Herlewin, bishop of Leighlin
(d. 1217?) (_Genealogical Memoir of Montmorency_, Pedigree, p. ix;
Gilbert, _Viceroys of Ireland_, p. 78), but these assertions seem to
lack proof. He is also said to have been the brother of Richard de
Marisco, bishop of Durham and chancellor (Gilbert, ut supra), which,
though possible (see Sweetman, _Documents_, No. 745), appears to be a
mere assumption (see Foss, _Judges of England_, ii. 400; Surtees,
_History of Durham_, vol. i. p. xxviii). The arms used by the bishop
(see Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. i. 91) are different from those
carried by Geoffrey (see Matt. Paris, _Chronica Mqajora_, vi. 475).
Another theory makes him the son of a Jordan de Marisco, described as
lord of Huntspill-Mareys, Somerset, and other lands, which Geoffrey is
supposed to have inherited (_Genealogical Memoir_, ut, supra, p. vi;
Collinson, _History of Somerset_, ii. 392), but save that Geoffrey had
a brother named Jordan (_Documents_, No. 2119), and is represented as
having a son of that name (_Genealogical Memoir_, ut supra, p. x),
this also seems to be unsupported by evidence, for it is impossible to
assume, with the pedigree-makers, that the Geoffrey FitzJordan
mentioned in a charter of Quarr Abbey in the Isle of Wight
(_Monasticon, v. 317) is the justiciar; and though Geoffrey is said to
have possessed large estates in England (Gilbert, ut supra, p. 78), it
is certain that he had no land in this country in 1238 (_Documents_,
No. 2445). His name, which, translated, is simply Marsh, was as common
in England in the middle ages as the marshes from which it was derived
(_Monumenta _Franciscana_, vol. i. Pref. p. lxxvii), and the compilers
of the pedigrees of the family of Mount-morres, or Montmorency, have
caused much confusion by importing into their schemes the names of all
persons, of any note who were known by that common appellation, or by
one at all like it. Nothing seems certain about Geoffrey's parentage
further than that he was a nephew of John Comyn (d. 1212), archbishop
of Dublin (_Docu-ments_, No. 276), a fact which may account for his
rise to wealth and power in Ireland; and that his mother was alive in
1220 (_Royal Letters_, Henry III, i. 128).
Geoffrey was powerful in the south of Munster and Leinster, and
appears to have received large grants of land in Ireland from King
John. He was with the king at Ledbury, Gloucestershire, in 1200
(_Documents_, No. 137), and received a grant of 'Katherain' in
exchange for other lands in Ireland, together with twenty marks, to
fortify a house there for himself (_ib_. No. 139). When war broke out
among the English in Leinster, the lords and others who were
discontented with the government seem to have looked on Geoffrey as
their leader. He was joined by a number of the natives, seized
Limerick (_Annals of Worcester_, p. 396), and inflicted a severe
defeat on the justiciar, Meiler Fitzhenry, at Thurles in Munster
(_Annals of the Four Masters_, iii. 15, 171; _Annals ap. Chartularies
of St. Mary's Abbey_, ii. 311). For this he obtained the king's pardon
(Gilbert, ut supra, p. 66), and in 1210 made successful war against
the Irish of Connaught (_Annals of Loch Cé_, i. 239, 245). When
Innocent III was threatening, in or about 1211, to absolve John's
subjects from their allegiance, he joined the other magnates of
Ireland in making a protestation of loyalty (_Documents_, No. 448). In
the summer of 1215 he was with the king at Marlborough, and on 6 July
was appointed justiciar of Ireland, giving two of his sons as pledges
for his behaviour (_ib_. Nos. 604, 608). On the accession of Henry III
he advised that Queen Isabella, or her second son, Richard, should
reside in Ireland (Gilbert, ut supra, p. 80). He built, a castle at
Killaloe, co. Clare, in 1217, and forced the people to accept an
English bishop, Robert Travers, apparently one of his own relatives
(_Annals of the Four Masters_, iii. 90; _Documents_, Nos. 1026, 2119).
In 1218 he was ordered to raise money to enable the king to pay Louis,
the son of the French king, the sum promised to him, and to pay the
papal tribute. He was ordered in 1219 to pay the revenues of the crown
into the exchequer at Dublin, and to present himself before the king,
leaving Ireland in the care of Henry of London, archbishop of Dublin.
Having already taken the cross he received a safe-conduct to make a
pilgrimage to the Holy Land (_Calendar of Patent Rolls_, 3 Hen. III,
p. 12), and went to England. There in March 1220 he entered into an
agreement with the king at Oxford, in the presence of the council,
with reference to the discharge of his office, pledging himself to pay
the royal revenues into the exchequer, and to appoint faithful
constables for the king's castles, and delivering one of his sons to
be kept as a hostage by the king (_FOEdera_, i. 162). On his return to
Ireland he was commanded to resume the demesne lands that he had
alienated without warrant (_Documents_, No. 949). Complaints were made
against him to the king by the citizens of Dublin, and in July 1221
the king wrote to the council in Ireland, declaring that, he had
received no money from that country since he came to the throne, and
that Geoffrey, who had while in England made a fine with him to
satisfy defaults, had not obeyed his wishes. Henry therefore, desired
that he should give up his office (_ib_. No. 1001). Geoffrey resigned
the justiciarship on 4 Oct., was thanked for his faithful services,
quitclaimed of 1,080 marks, part of the fine made with the king, and
received a letter of protection during the king's minority, and the
wardship of the heir of John de Clahull (_ib_. Nos. 1015 sqq.)
During the absence of the justiciar, William Marshal, during November
and December 1224, Geoffrey had charge of the country, and carried on
war with Aedh O'Neill. He was reappointed justiciar on 25 June 1226,
and, being then in England, received on 4 July a grant of 580_1_, a
year, to be paid out of the Irish exchequer as salary (_ib_. Nos.
1383, 1413; _FOEdera_, 1. 182). This seems to be the first time that a
salary was appointed for the viceroy of Ireland. On his return to
Ireland he wrote to the king informing him that, Tbeobald FitzWalter,
who had married Geoffrey's daughter, was refractory, and had
garrisoned Dublin Castle against the king. He advised that Theobald
should be deprived of the castle of Roscray, and promised that he
would use every effort to punish the king's enemies (_Royal Letters_,
i. 290 sqq.) He endeavoured to detain the person of Hugh, or Cathal,
O'Conor king, of Connaught; but Hugh was delivered by the intervention
of William, the earl-marshal. In revenge, his son Aedh surprised
William, the justiciar's son, near Athlone, and made him prisoner; nor
could his father obtain his release, except on terms that were highly
advantageous to the Connaught people (_Annals of Four Masters, iii.
245). Geoffrey built the castle of Ballyleague, in the barony of South
Ballintober, co. Roscommon, about this time. While Hugh O'Conor was at
the justiciar's house, one of Goeoffrey's men slew him, on account of
a private quarrel, and Geoffrey hanged the murderer (_ib_. p. 247). He
resigned the justiciarship at his own wish in February 1228
(_Documents_, No. 1572). He was reappointed justiciar in 1230, and in
July inflicted, with the help of Walter de Lacy and Richard de Burgh,
a severe defeat on the Connaught men, under their king, Aedh, who was
taken prisoner (Wendover, iv. 213). He resigned the justiciarship in
1232 (_Royal Letters_, i. 407).
In common with Maurice FitzGerald, then justiciar, and other lords,
Geoffrey in 1234 received a letter written by the king's evil
counsellors, and sealed by him, directing that should Richard Marshal
come to Ireland he should be taken alive or dead. Geoffrey accordingly
joined the magnates of Ireland in their conspiracy against Marshal,
who went to Ireland on hearing that his lands there had been ravaged.
As soon as he landed Geoffrey joined him, and treacherously urged him
to march against his enemies, promising him his aid. Acting by his
advice, the earl, at a conference with the magnates at the Curragh,
Kildare, refused to grant them the truce that they demanded. When they
set the battle against him Geoffrey deserted the earl, who was
wounded, taken prisoner, and soon afterwards died
(Paris, iii. 273-91). Geoffrey fell into temporary disgrace with the
king for his share in the business, but on 3 Aug. 1235 Henry restored
him his lands (_Documents_, No. 2280). In this year his son William,
it is said, slew, at London, a clerk named Henry Clement, a messenger
from one of the Irish magnates, and was consequently outlawed (_ib_.
No. 2386). A man who was accused of an intent to assassinate the king
at Woodstock in 1238 was said to have been instigated by William de
Marisco; his father, Geoffrey, was suspected of being privy to the
scheme, and his lands in Ireland being distrained upon, he fled to
Scotland, where he was, with the connivance of Alexander II, sheltered
by Walter Comyn, no doubt, his kinsman. Henry was indignant with the
king of Scots for harbouring him, and made it a special ground of
complaint. After the treaty of July 1244 Alexander sent Geoffrey out
of his dominions. He fled to France, where he died friendless and poor
in 1245, at an advanced age, for he is described as old in 1234.
Meanwhile his son had taken refuge on Lundy Island, which he
fortified. There he was joined by a number of broken men, and adopted
piracy as a means of sustaining life, specially plundering ships laden
with wine and provisions. Strict watch was kept, in the hope of taking
him, and in 1242 he was taken by craft, carried to London, and there
drawn. hanged, and quartered, sixteen of his companions being also
hanged. In his dying confession he protested his innocence of the
death of Clement, and of the attempt on the king's life (Paris, iv.
196). He had married Matilda, niece Henry, archbishop of Dublin, who
gave her land on her marriage (_Documents_, Nos. 2528, 2853). William
had also received a grant of land from the king for his support in
1228 (_ib_. No. 1640).
Geoffrey appears to have been vigorous and able, a successful
commander, and on the whole a just and skilful ruler. Like most of the
great men of Ireland at the time, he did not scruple to act
treacherously. To the king, however, he seems to have been a faithful
servant. The accusation of treason brought against him and his son
William is extremely improbable, and their ruin must be considered as
a result of the indignation excited by the fate of Richard Marshal.
Geoffrey founded an Augustinian monastery at Killagh, co. Kerry,
called Beaulieu (_Monasticon Hibernicum_, p. 304), and commanderies of
knights hospitallers at Any and Adair, co. Limerick. An engraving of a
tomb in the church of Any, which is said to be Geoffrey's, is in the
'Genealogical Memoir of Montmorency.'
Geoffrey married Eva de Bermingham (_Docutments_, Nos. 817, 1112), and
apparently, for his second wife, a sister of Hugh de Lacy (Wendover,
iv. 304; Paris, iii. 277 ), named Matilda (_Documents_, No. 2853).
Geoffrey told Richard Marshal that his wife was Hugh de Lacy's sister,
but the genealogists assert that his second wife was Christiania,
daughter of Walter de Riddlesford, baron of Bray, and sister of Hugh
de Lacy's wife, Emmeline (_Genealogical Memoir_, Pedigree, p. ix).
This is an error, for Christiania de Riddlesford married Geoffrey's
son Robert (d. 1213), by whom she was the mother of Christiania de
Marisco, an heiress of great wealth (_Documents_, No. 2645 and other
numbers; comp. also Calendarium Genealogicum, i. 171). Of Geoffrey's
many sons, William, Robert, Walter, Thomas, Henry, John, and Richard
appear in various public records (see _Documents_ passim) He is also
said to have had an eldest son Geoffrey, who settled in Tipperary and
died without issue; William was reckoned as his second son; a third
and eldest surviving son, named Jordan, married the daughter of the
lord of Lateragh, and continued his line; his youngest son was named
Stephen (_Genealogical Memoir_, Pedigree, pp. x, xi, App. p. xl); a
daughter is assigned to him named Emmeline, who is said to have
married Maurice FitzGerald, 'earl of Desmond' (_ib_. and App. p.
clxvii). The first Earl of Desmond, however, lived much later [see
under FitzThomas, Mauice d. 1356], and the genealogist seems to take
for a daughter of Geoffrey de Marisco, Emmeline, daughter and heiress
of Emmeline de Riddlesford, wife of Hugh de Lacy, and Stephen
Longespée, who married Maurice FitzMaurice; Kildare, _Earls of
Kildare_, p.17). Geoffrey had a daughter who married Theobald Fitz
Walter. The assertion (_Genealogical Memoir_, Pedlgree, p. x) that his
son John was viceroy of Ireland in 1266 is erroneous. The father of
the viceroy was Geoffrey FitzPeter. Geoffrey the iusticiar had nephews
named Richard, John Travers, and William FitzJordan (_Documents_, No.
2119).
[Sweetmail's Calendars of Documents, Ireland, vol. i. passim (Record
publ.); Cal. Pat. Rolls, Hen. III, p. 12 (Record publ.); Rymer's
FOEdera, i. 145, 162, 182 (Record ed.); Roberts's Catendarium
Genealogicum, i. 171 (Record Publ.); Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. i.
91; Royal Letters, Hen. III, i. 128, 290, 500 (Rolls Ser.); Annals of
Loch Cé, i. ann. 1210, 1224, 1227, 1228 (Rolls, Sor.); Annals of the
Four Masters, iii. 15, 17, 190, 245, 247, ed. O'Donovan; Chartularies
of St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin, i. 175, 272, ii. 311 (Rolls Ser.); Ann.
of Osney and Ann. of Worc. ap. Ann. Monast. iv. 96, 396 (Rolls Ser.);
Wendover, iv. 213, 292 sq., 300-3 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); M. Paris's
Chron. Maj. iii. 197, 265, 273, 277, iv. 193, 202, 380, 422, vi. 475
(Rolls Ser.); Ware's Annals, p. 48, and Antiqq. p. 103, ed. 1705; H.
de Montmorncy-Morrès's Genealogical Memoir of Montmorency, passim (un-
trustworthy); Gilbert's Viceroys of Ireland, pp. 66, 78, 80, 82, 91,
102.] W. H.* [Ref: DNB, Editor, Sidney Lee, MacMillan Co, London &
Smith, Elder & Co., NY, 1908, vol. xii, pp. 1046-8]
* The Rev. William Hunt, D.Litt., author of this article.
Regards,
Curt"
CE Wood
On Dec 24, 1:43 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:
Marisco, Justiciar of Ireland:
"MARISCO, MARISCIS, MAREYS, or MARES, GEOFFREY de (d. 1245), justiciar
or viceroy of Ireland, is said to have been the nephew and heir of
Hervey de Mount-Maurice, and nephew of Herlewin, bishop of Leighlin
(d. 1217?) (_Genealogical Memoir of Montmorency_, Pedigree, p. ix;
Gilbert, _Viceroys of Ireland_, p. 78), but these assertions seem to
lack proof. He is also said to have been the brother of Richard de
Marisco, bishop of Durham and chancellor (Gilbert, ut supra), which,
though possible (see Sweetman, _Documents_, No. 745), appears to be a
mere assumption (see Foss, _Judges of England_, ii. 400; Surtees,
_History of Durham_, vol. i. p. xxviii). The arms used by the bishop
(see Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. i. 91) are different from those
carried by Geoffrey (see Matt. Paris, _Chronica Mqajora_, vi. 475).
Another theory makes him the son of a Jordan de Marisco, described as
lord of Huntspill-Mareys, Somerset, and other lands, which Geoffrey is
supposed to have inherited (_Genealogical Memoir_, ut, supra, p. vi;
Collinson, _History of Somerset_, ii. 392), but save that Geoffrey had
a brother named Jordan (_Documents_, No. 2119), and is represented as
having a son of that name (_Genealogical Memoir_, ut supra, p. x),
this also seems to be unsupported by evidence, for it is impossible to
assume, with the pedigree-makers, that the Geoffrey FitzJordan
mentioned in a charter of Quarr Abbey in the Isle of Wight
(_Monasticon, v. 317) is the justiciar; and though Geoffrey is said to
have possessed large estates in England (Gilbert, ut supra, p. 78), it
is certain that he had no land in this country in 1238 (_Documents_,
No. 2445). His name, which, translated, is simply Marsh, was as common
in England in the middle ages as the marshes from which it was derived
(_Monumenta _Franciscana_, vol. i. Pref. p. lxxvii), and the compilers
of the pedigrees of the family of Mount-morres, or Montmorency, have
caused much confusion by importing into their schemes the names of all
persons, of any note who were known by that common appellation, or by
one at all like it. Nothing seems certain about Geoffrey's parentage
further than that he was a nephew of John Comyn (d. 1212), archbishop
of Dublin (_Docu-ments_, No. 276), a fact which may account for his
rise to wealth and power in Ireland; and that his mother was alive in
1220 (_Royal Letters_, Henry III, i. 128).
Geoffrey was powerful in the south of Munster and Leinster, and
appears to have received large grants of land in Ireland from King
John. He was with the king at Ledbury, Gloucestershire, in 1200
(_Documents_, No. 137), and received a grant of 'Katherain' in
exchange for other lands in Ireland, together with twenty marks, to
fortify a house there for himself (_ib_. No. 139). When war broke out
among the English in Leinster, the lords and others who were
discontented with the government seem to have looked on Geoffrey as
their leader. He was joined by a number of the natives, seized
Limerick (_Annals of Worcester_, p. 396), and inflicted a severe
defeat on the justiciar, Meiler Fitzhenry, at Thurles in Munster
(_Annals of the Four Masters_, iii. 15, 171; _Annals ap. Chartularies
of St. Mary's Abbey_, ii. 311). For this he obtained the king's pardon
(Gilbert, ut supra, p. 66), and in 1210 made successful war against
the Irish of Connaught (_Annals of Loch Cé_, i. 239, 245). When
Innocent III was threatening, in or about 1211, to absolve John's
subjects from their allegiance, he joined the other magnates of
Ireland in making a protestation of loyalty (_Documents_, No. 448). In
the summer of 1215 he was with the king at Marlborough, and on 6 July
was appointed justiciar of Ireland, giving two of his sons as pledges
for his behaviour (_ib_. Nos. 604, 608). On the accession of Henry III
he advised that Queen Isabella, or her second son, Richard, should
reside in Ireland (Gilbert, ut supra, p. 80). He built, a castle at
Killaloe, co. Clare, in 1217, and forced the people to accept an
English bishop, Robert Travers, apparently one of his own relatives
(_Annals of the Four Masters_, iii. 90; _Documents_, Nos. 1026, 2119).
In 1218 he was ordered to raise money to enable the king to pay Louis,
the son of the French king, the sum promised to him, and to pay the
papal tribute. He was ordered in 1219 to pay the revenues of the crown
into the exchequer at Dublin, and to present himself before the king,
leaving Ireland in the care of Henry of London, archbishop of Dublin.
Having already taken the cross he received a safe-conduct to make a
pilgrimage to the Holy Land (_Calendar of Patent Rolls_, 3 Hen. III,
p. 12), and went to England. There in March 1220 he entered into an
agreement with the king at Oxford, in the presence of the council,
with reference to the discharge of his office, pledging himself to pay
the royal revenues into the exchequer, and to appoint faithful
constables for the king's castles, and delivering one of his sons to
be kept as a hostage by the king (_FOEdera_, i. 162). On his return to
Ireland he was commanded to resume the demesne lands that he had
alienated without warrant (_Documents_, No. 949). Complaints were made
against him to the king by the citizens of Dublin, and in July 1221
the king wrote to the council in Ireland, declaring that, he had
received no money from that country since he came to the throne, and
that Geoffrey, who had while in England made a fine with him to
satisfy defaults, had not obeyed his wishes. Henry therefore, desired
that he should give up his office (_ib_. No. 1001). Geoffrey resigned
the justiciarship on 4 Oct., was thanked for his faithful services,
quitclaimed of 1,080 marks, part of the fine made with the king, and
received a letter of protection during the king's minority, and the
wardship of the heir of John de Clahull (_ib_. Nos. 1015 sqq.)
During the absence of the justiciar, William Marshal, during November
and December 1224, Geoffrey had charge of the country, and carried on
war with Aedh O'Neill. He was reappointed justiciar on 25 June 1226,
and, being then in England, received on 4 July a grant of 580_1_, a
year, to be paid out of the Irish exchequer as salary (_ib_. Nos.
1383, 1413; _FOEdera_, 1. 182). This seems to be the first time that a
salary was appointed for the viceroy of Ireland. On his return to
Ireland he wrote to the king informing him that, Tbeobald FitzWalter,
who had married Geoffrey's daughter, was refractory, and had
garrisoned Dublin Castle against the king. He advised that Theobald
should be deprived of the castle of Roscray, and promised that he
would use every effort to punish the king's enemies (_Royal Letters_,
i. 290 sqq.) He endeavoured to detain the person of Hugh, or Cathal,
O'Conor king, of Connaught; but Hugh was delivered by the intervention
of William, the earl-marshal. In revenge, his son Aedh surprised
William, the justiciar's son, near Athlone, and made him prisoner; nor
could his father obtain his release, except on terms that were highly
advantageous to the Connaught people (_Annals of Four Masters, iii.
245). Geoffrey built the castle of Ballyleague, in the barony of South
Ballintober, co. Roscommon, about this time. While Hugh O'Conor was at
the justiciar's house, one of Goeoffrey's men slew him, on account of
a private quarrel, and Geoffrey hanged the murderer (_ib_. p. 247). He
resigned the justiciarship at his own wish in February 1228
(_Documents_, No. 1572). He was reappointed justiciar in 1230, and in
July inflicted, with the help of Walter de Lacy and Richard de Burgh,
a severe defeat on the Connaught men, under their king, Aedh, who was
taken prisoner (Wendover, iv. 213). He resigned the justiciarship in
1232 (_Royal Letters_, i. 407).
In common with Maurice FitzGerald, then justiciar, and other lords,
Geoffrey in 1234 received a letter written by the king's evil
counsellors, and sealed by him, directing that should Richard Marshal
come to Ireland he should be taken alive or dead. Geoffrey accordingly
joined the magnates of Ireland in their conspiracy against Marshal,
who went to Ireland on hearing that his lands there had been ravaged.
As soon as he landed Geoffrey joined him, and treacherously urged him
to march against his enemies, promising him his aid. Acting by his
advice, the earl, at a conference with the magnates at the Curragh,
Kildare, refused to grant them the truce that they demanded. When they
set the battle against him Geoffrey deserted the earl, who was
wounded, taken prisoner, and soon afterwards died
(Paris, iii. 273-91). Geoffrey fell into temporary disgrace with the
king for his share in the business, but on 3 Aug. 1235 Henry restored
him his lands (_Documents_, No. 2280). In this year his son William,
it is said, slew, at London, a clerk named Henry Clement, a messenger
from one of the Irish magnates, and was consequently outlawed (_ib_.
No. 2386). A man who was accused of an intent to assassinate the king
at Woodstock in 1238 was said to have been instigated by William de
Marisco; his father, Geoffrey, was suspected of being privy to the
scheme, and his lands in Ireland being distrained upon, he fled to
Scotland, where he was, with the connivance of Alexander II, sheltered
by Walter Comyn, no doubt, his kinsman. Henry was indignant with the
king of Scots for harbouring him, and made it a special ground of
complaint. After the treaty of July 1244 Alexander sent Geoffrey out
of his dominions. He fled to France, where he died friendless and poor
in 1245, at an advanced age, for he is described as old in 1234.
Meanwhile his son had taken refuge on Lundy Island, which he
fortified. There he was joined by a number of broken men, and adopted
piracy as a means of sustaining life, specially plundering ships laden
with wine and provisions. Strict watch was kept, in the hope of taking
him, and in 1242 he was taken by craft, carried to London, and there
drawn. hanged, and quartered, sixteen of his companions being also
hanged. In his dying confession he protested his innocence of the
death of Clement, and of the attempt on the king's life (Paris, iv.
196). He had married Matilda, niece Henry, archbishop of Dublin, who
gave her land on her marriage (_Documents_, Nos. 2528, 2853). William
had also received a grant of land from the king for his support in
1228 (_ib_. No. 1640).
Geoffrey appears to have been vigorous and able, a successful
commander, and on the whole a just and skilful ruler. Like most of the
great men of Ireland at the time, he did not scruple to act
treacherously. To the king, however, he seems to have been a faithful
servant. The accusation of treason brought against him and his son
William is extremely improbable, and their ruin must be considered as
a result of the indignation excited by the fate of Richard Marshal.
Geoffrey founded an Augustinian monastery at Killagh, co. Kerry,
called Beaulieu (_Monasticon Hibernicum_, p. 304), and commanderies of
knights hospitallers at Any and Adair, co. Limerick. An engraving of a
tomb in the church of Any, which is said to be Geoffrey's, is in the
'Genealogical Memoir of Montmorency.'
Geoffrey married Eva de Bermingham (_Docutments_, Nos. 817, 1112), and
apparently, for his second wife, a sister of Hugh de Lacy (Wendover,
iv. 304; Paris, iii. 277 ), named Matilda (_Documents_, No. 2853).
Geoffrey told Richard Marshal that his wife was Hugh de Lacy's sister,
but the genealogists assert that his second wife was Christiania,
daughter of Walter de Riddlesford, baron of Bray, and sister of Hugh
de Lacy's wife, Emmeline (_Genealogical Memoir_, Pedigree, p. ix).
This is an error, for Christiania de Riddlesford married Geoffrey's
son Robert (d. 1213), by whom she was the mother of Christiania de
Marisco, an heiress of great wealth (_Documents_, No. 2645 and other
numbers; comp. also Calendarium Genealogicum, i. 171). Of Geoffrey's
many sons, William, Robert, Walter, Thomas, Henry, John, and Richard
appear in various public records (see _Documents_ passim) He is also
said to have had an eldest son Geoffrey, who settled in Tipperary and
died without issue; William was reckoned as his second son; a third
and eldest surviving son, named Jordan, married the daughter of the
lord of Lateragh, and continued his line; his youngest son was named
Stephen (_Genealogical Memoir_, Pedigree, pp. x, xi, App. p. xl); a
daughter is assigned to him named Emmeline, who is said to have
married Maurice FitzGerald, 'earl of Desmond' (_ib_. and App. p.
clxvii). The first Earl of Desmond, however, lived much later [see
under FitzThomas, Mauice d. 1356], and the genealogist seems to take
for a daughter of Geoffrey de Marisco, Emmeline, daughter and heiress
of Emmeline de Riddlesford, wife of Hugh de Lacy, and Stephen
Longespée, who married Maurice FitzMaurice; Kildare, _Earls of
Kildare_, p.17). Geoffrey had a daughter who married Theobald Fitz
Walter. The assertion (_Genealogical Memoir_, Pedlgree, p. x) that his
son John was viceroy of Ireland in 1266 is erroneous. The father of
the viceroy was Geoffrey FitzPeter. Geoffrey the iusticiar had nephews
named Richard, John Travers, and William FitzJordan (_Documents_, No.
2119).
[Sweetmail's Calendars of Documents, Ireland, vol. i. passim (Record
publ.); Cal. Pat. Rolls, Hen. III, p. 12 (Record publ.); Rymer's
FOEdera, i. 145, 162, 182 (Record ed.); Roberts's Catendarium
Genealogicum, i. 171 (Record Publ.); Notes and Queries, 3rd ser. i.
91; Royal Letters, Hen. III, i. 128, 290, 500 (Rolls Ser.); Annals of
Loch Cé, i. ann. 1210, 1224, 1227, 1228 (Rolls, Sor.); Annals of the
Four Masters, iii. 15, 17, 190, 245, 247, ed. O'Donovan; Chartularies
of St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin, i. 175, 272, ii. 311 (Rolls Ser.); Ann.
of Osney and Ann. of Worc. ap. Ann. Monast. iv. 96, 396 (Rolls Ser.);
Wendover, iv. 213, 292 sq., 300-3 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); M. Paris's
Chron. Maj. iii. 197, 265, 273, 277, iv. 193, 202, 380, 422, vi. 475
(Rolls Ser.); Ware's Annals, p. 48, and Antiqq. p. 103, ed. 1705; H.
de Montmorncy-Morrès's Genealogical Memoir of Montmorency, passim (un-
trustworthy); Gilbert's Viceroys of Ireland, pp. 66, 78, 80, 82, 91,
102.] W. H.* [Ref: DNB, Editor, Sidney Lee, MacMillan Co, London &
Smith, Elder & Co., NY, 1908, vol. xii, pp. 1046-8]
* The Rev. William Hunt, D.Litt., author of this article.
Regards,
Curt"
CE Wood
On Dec 24, 1:43 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:
What I want to know is, who is Joan des Marais ?
She is supposed to be the wife of Theobald 2nd Butler and the mother
of Theobald 3rd Butler, before he married secondly to Rohese de Vernon
in 1225 and had at least two more children by this next wife.
But who is Joan? Did she just appear out of nowhere? des Marais
should mean something like "of the [small] watery place"
Like marsh, swamp, pond, or whatever. Or a placename called Marais I
suppose.
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson
Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can be
found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... Qm7LsKVwd8
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and not
translating a Latin name into the vernacular English. Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh. Elsewhere for example Sir
Geoffrey is correctly styled Geoffrey de Marsh by the histiorian, Kate
Norgate, in her book, The Minority of Henry the Third (1912). He is
likewise styled Geoffrey de Marsh by the more recent historian,
Nicholas Vincent, in his outstanding book, Peter des Roches: An Alien
in English Politics (1996). The name Marsh is sometimes rendered as
Mareis or Mareys by historians, which form is closer to the way the
name was spelled in the medieval time period. These two variant forms
would also ne correct to use.
As for Sir Geoffrey de Marsh's antecedents, I know he derived from
Huntspill-Mareys, Somerset. His father's name is suggested by an
entry in the Red Book of the Exchequer, although I'm not quite sure
that the DNB account or anyone else has gotten that far. Beyond that,
on his mother's side, I know he was the nephew of John Comyn,
Archbishop of Dublin. The Archbishop's own ancestry is somewhat
murky. However, it is thought that he was closely related to the
Comyn family of Worcestershire, which had land holdings in Ireland.
For the Archbishop himself, newsgroup members should consult Loyd &
Stenton, Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals (1950). The
Archbishop was evidently distantly related to the Scottish Comyn
family, as when Geoffrey de Marsh had to flee Ireland, he went to
Scotland where he was sheltered by Walter Comyn. The DNB account
states that Walter Comyn was doubtless Sir Geoffrey's relative, and I
concur in that opinion.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of
Ireland:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Edward
Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Francis Dade, Anne
Humphrey, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Thomas Lunsford,
Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley,
Herbert Pelham, Thomas Rudyard, John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can be
found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... Qm7LsKVwd8
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and not
translating a Latin name into the vernacular English. Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh. Elsewhere for example Sir
Geoffrey is correctly styled Geoffrey de Marsh by the histiorian, Kate
Norgate, in her book, The Minority of Henry the Third (1912). He is
likewise styled Geoffrey de Marsh by the more recent historian,
Nicholas Vincent, in his outstanding book, Peter des Roches: An Alien
in English Politics (1996). The name Marsh is sometimes rendered as
Mareis or Mareys by historians, which form is closer to the way the
name was spelled in the medieval time period. These two variant forms
would also ne correct to use.
As for Sir Geoffrey de Marsh's antecedents, I know he derived from
Huntspill-Mareys, Somerset. His father's name is suggested by an
entry in the Red Book of the Exchequer, although I'm not quite sure
that the DNB account or anyone else has gotten that far. Beyond that,
on his mother's side, I know he was the nephew of John Comyn,
Archbishop of Dublin. The Archbishop's own ancestry is somewhat
murky. However, it is thought that he was closely related to the
Comyn family of Worcestershire, which had land holdings in Ireland.
For the Archbishop himself, newsgroup members should consult Loyd &
Stenton, Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals (1950). The
Archbishop was evidently distantly related to the Scottish Comyn
family, as when Geoffrey de Marsh had to flee Ireland, he went to
Scotland where he was sheltered by Walter Comyn. The DNB account
states that Walter Comyn was doubtless Sir Geoffrey's relative, and I
concur in that opinion.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of
Ireland:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Edward
Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Francis Dade, Anne
Humphrey, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Thomas Lunsford,
Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley,
Herbert Pelham, Thomas Rudyard, John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
wjhonson
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
I have to disagree here with DR's erudite explanation of the correct
Latin rendition into "English" as he had used the odd form "de...
Marsh"
Since the de form here is French, as was the rendering of most names
in the England of this period, the "correct" rendition should be
something like "des Marais" which would, in French, mean "Marsh".
Thank you Curt for posting that long biography which greatly adds to
what I had had on the Marisco, Marais or Marsh family, although it
confuses what I had on the Riddlesfords
Which just means I need to do some more work on them. I had no idea
that Joan des Marais had so many interesting connections.
Will Johnson
Latin rendition into "English" as he had used the odd form "de...
Marsh"
Since the de form here is French, as was the rendering of most names
in the England of this period, the "correct" rendition should be
something like "des Marais" which would, in French, mean "Marsh".
Thank you Curt for posting that long biography which greatly adds to
what I had had on the Marisco, Marais or Marsh family, although it
confuses what I had on the Riddlesfords
Which just means I need to do some more work on them. I had no idea
that Joan des Marais had so many interesting connections.
Will Johnson
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Dear Douglas
Where would I find a Marsh descent from Geoffrey de Marisco?
My ancestor George Marsh who arrived in Hingham, Massachusetts in 1635 is a
particularly frustrating brick wall, and I would love to find ancestors for
him.
Best wishes and a happy Christmas to you and all on this list.
Merilyn Pedrick (nee Marsh)
-------Original Message-------
From: Douglas Richardson
Date: 12/25/07 09:50:16
To: [email protected]
Subject: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can be
found at the following weblink:
http://books.google
com/books?id=-yUJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=diictionary+national+biograph
+geoffrey+marisco&source=web&ots=wWPwrjN8Ff&sig=CdN-_z3fjnoVV67i5Qm7LsKVwd8
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and not
translating a Latin name into the vernacular English. Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh. Elsewhere for example Sir
Geoffrey is correctly styled Geoffrey de Marsh by the histiorian, Kate
Norgate, in her book, The Minority of Henry the Third (1912). He is
likewise styled Geoffrey de Marsh by the more recent historian,
Nicholas Vincent, in his outstanding book, Peter des Roches: An Alien
in English Politics (1996). The name Marsh is sometimes rendered as
Mareis or Mareys by historians, which form is closer to the way the
name was spelled in the medieval time period. These two variant forms
would also ne correct to use.
As for Sir Geoffrey de Marsh's antecedents, I know he derived from
Huntspill-Mareys, Somerset. His father's name is suggested by an
entry in the Red Book of the Exchequer, although I'm not quite sure
that the DNB account or anyone else has gotten that far. Beyond that,
on his mother's side, I know he was the nephew of John Comyn,
Archbishop of Dublin. The Archbishop's own ancestry is somewhat
murky. However, it is thought that he was closely related to the
Comyn family of Worcestershire, which had land holdings in Ireland.
For the Archbishop himself, newsgroup members should consult Loyd &
Stenton, Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals (1950). The
Archbishop was evidently distantly related to the Scottish Comyn
family, as when Geoffrey de Marsh had to flee Ireland, he went to
Scotland where he was sheltered by Walter Comyn. The DNB account
states that Walter Comyn was doubtless Sir Geoffrey's relative, and I
concur in that opinion.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of
Ireland:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Edward
Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Francis Dade, Anne
Humphrey, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Thomas Lunsford,
Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley,
Herbert Pelham, Thomas Rudyard, John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Where would I find a Marsh descent from Geoffrey de Marisco?
My ancestor George Marsh who arrived in Hingham, Massachusetts in 1635 is a
particularly frustrating brick wall, and I would love to find ancestors for
him.
Best wishes and a happy Christmas to you and all on this list.
Merilyn Pedrick (nee Marsh)
-------Original Message-------
From: Douglas Richardson
Date: 12/25/07 09:50:16
To: [email protected]
Subject: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can be
found at the following weblink:
http://books.google
com/books?id=-yUJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=diictionary+national+biograph
+geoffrey+marisco&source=web&ots=wWPwrjN8Ff&sig=CdN-_z3fjnoVV67i5Qm7LsKVwd8
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and not
translating a Latin name into the vernacular English. Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh. Elsewhere for example Sir
Geoffrey is correctly styled Geoffrey de Marsh by the histiorian, Kate
Norgate, in her book, The Minority of Henry the Third (1912). He is
likewise styled Geoffrey de Marsh by the more recent historian,
Nicholas Vincent, in his outstanding book, Peter des Roches: An Alien
in English Politics (1996). The name Marsh is sometimes rendered as
Mareis or Mareys by historians, which form is closer to the way the
name was spelled in the medieval time period. These two variant forms
would also ne correct to use.
As for Sir Geoffrey de Marsh's antecedents, I know he derived from
Huntspill-Mareys, Somerset. His father's name is suggested by an
entry in the Red Book of the Exchequer, although I'm not quite sure
that the DNB account or anyone else has gotten that far. Beyond that,
on his mother's side, I know he was the nephew of John Comyn,
Archbishop of Dublin. The Archbishop's own ancestry is somewhat
murky. However, it is thought that he was closely related to the
Comyn family of Worcestershire, which had land holdings in Ireland.
For the Archbishop himself, newsgroup members should consult Loyd &
Stenton, Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals (1950). The
Archbishop was evidently distantly related to the Scottish Comyn
family, as when Geoffrey de Marsh had to flee Ireland, he went to
Scotland where he was sheltered by Walter Comyn. The DNB account
states that Walter Comyn was doubtless Sir Geoffrey's relative, and I
concur in that opinion.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of
Ireland:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Edward
Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Francis Dade, Anne
Humphrey, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Thomas Lunsford,
Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley,
Herbert Pelham, Thomas Rudyard, John West.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
John Briggs
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
wjhonson wrote:
The reason for that being that the scribe was trying to render a name in
Latin, and was using a French form as being rather more familiar to him than
Latin!
--
John Briggs
I have to disagree here with DR's erudite explanation of the correct
Latin rendition into "English" as he had used the odd form "de...
Marsh"
Since the de form here is French, as was the rendering of most names
in the England of this period, the "correct" rendition should be
something like "des Marais" which would, in French, mean "Marsh".
The reason for that being that the scribe was trying to render a name in
Latin, and was using a French form as being rather more familiar to him than
Latin!
--
John Briggs
-
taf
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
taf
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can be
found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and not
translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
taf
-
John Briggs
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
taf wrote:
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Dec 31, 3:24 pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
Actually it is customary to retain the "de" for names that employed
them until about 1400. However, there are some historians who prefer
to use "of" in place of :"de." Either convention is just fine.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs
Actually it is customary to retain the "de" for names that employed
them until about 1400. However, there are some historians who prefer
to use "of" in place of :"de." Either convention is just fine.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Dec 31, 4:24�pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are some
of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not know of
whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as interested in
that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could make
things less confusing.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. �The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" �is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
� Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. �Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are some
of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not know of
whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as interested in
that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could make
things less confusing.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
John Briggs
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Sir Geoffrey of Marsh" would be bonkers. [The only reason for "about 1400"
is French being assumed to be the official language.]
--
John Briggs
On Dec 31, 3:24 pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from
the account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example
of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy
and not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your*
way.
Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey
Marsh".
Actually it is customary to retain the "de" for names that employed
them until about 1400. However, there are some historians who prefer
to use "of" in place of :"de." Either convention is just fine.
"Sir Geoffrey of Marsh" would be bonkers. [The only reason for "about 1400"
is French being assumed to be the official language.]
--
John Briggs
-
John Briggs
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[email protected] wrote:
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that you are using
it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de Marisco as
well?
--
John Briggs
On Dec 31, 4:24?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from
the account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. ?The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" ?is an example
of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy
and not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your*
way.
? Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. ?Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey
Marsh". --
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are some
of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not know of
whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as interested in
that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could make
things less confusing.
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that you are using
it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de Marisco as
well?
--
John Briggs
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Dec 31, 7:09�pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Evening J. Briggs et al.,
I do not always catch my spelling mistakes nor do I always use spell
check, as far as VERNACULAR, "STYLE" you did get the "JIST" of what I
was trying to emphasize. Now contribute something of value rather
worrying about my spelling, I worry about it enough.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:24?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from
the account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. ?The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" ?is an example
of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy
and not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your*
way.
? Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. ?Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey
Marsh". --
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are some
of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not know of
whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as interested in
that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could make
things less confusing.
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that you are using
it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de Marisco as
well?
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening J. Briggs et al.,
I do not always catch my spelling mistakes nor do I always use spell
check, as far as VERNACULAR, "STYLE" you did get the "JIST" of what I
was trying to emphasize. Now contribute something of value rather
worrying about my spelling, I worry about it enough.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
-
Renia
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Either convention means the same thing.
On Dec 31, 3:24 pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs
Actually it is customary to retain the "de" for names that employed
them until about 1400. However, there are some historians who prefer
to use "of" in place of :"de." Either convention is just fine.
Either convention means the same thing.
-
Renia
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[email protected] wrote:
snort!
and others and
On Dec 31, 4:24�pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. �The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" �is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
� Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. �Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are some
of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not know of
whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as interested in
that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines
snort!
and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could make
things less confusing.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
Renia
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[email protected] wrote:
snort!
and others and
On Dec 31, 4:24�pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. �The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" �is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
� Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. �Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are some
of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not know of
whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as interested in
that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines
snort!
and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could make
things less confusing.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
Renia
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[email protected] wrote:
snort!
and others and
On Dec 31, 4:24�pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. �The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" �is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
� Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. �Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are some
of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not know of
whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as interested in
that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines
snort!
and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could make
things less confusing.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
Renia
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[email protected] wrote:
snort!
and others and
On Dec 31, 4:24�pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from the
account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. �The original account in the DNB can
be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" �is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
� Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. �Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are some
of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not know of
whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as interested in
that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines
snort!
and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could make
things less confusing.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Dec 31, 7:32 pm, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
< Either convention means the same thing.
Yep. That's why they're both acceptable.
DR
< Either convention means the same thing.
Yep. That's why they're both acceptable.
DR
-
John Briggs
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[email protected] wrote:
You haven't addressed the point about Richard de Marisco [Richard Marsh] and
Adam de Marisco [Adam Marsh] - or are they not your period? (You really
don't mean vernacular...)
--
John Briggs
On Dec 31, 7:09?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:24?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from
the account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. ?The original account in the DNB
can be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" ?is an
example of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a
bit lazy and not translating a Latin name into the vernacular
English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your*
way.
? Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. ?Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey
Marsh". --
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are
some of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not
know of whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as
interested in that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could
make things less confusing.
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that you
are using it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de
Marisco as well?
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening J. Briggs et al.,
I do not always catch my spelling mistakes nor do I always use spell
check, as far as VERNACULAR, "STYLE" you did get the "JIST" of what I
was trying to emphasize. Now contribute something of value rather
worrying about my spelling, I worry about it enough.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
You haven't addressed the point about Richard de Marisco [Richard Marsh] and
Adam de Marisco [Adam Marsh] - or are they not your period? (You really
don't mean vernacular...)
--
John Briggs
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 1, 11:49�am, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
Good Afternoon John,
What of Richard and Adam??! So Adam was the rector at Wearmouth and
Richard, Bishop of Durham. Adam in the the letter to Eleanor ,
countess of Anjou, all in latin, he signs it Adaa de Marisco, it is
catalogued I believe as Adaa de Marisco Epistolae. I have read a
charter written by Richard when he was Chancelor of England under
Henry III, it is in latin and of those he refers to he uses the de for
as Humphrey de Bohun, de Clare etc. So it is of the same time era, it
doesn't really interest me, except, Richard as he is refered to as
marsh and de marisco, as to why in the above post, I suggested the use
of a slash-so that those who are aware of one name can realize that it
is the same person they recognize as using a different form of the
same name. This really isn't rocket science and detracts immensely
from the study of the subject matter at hand.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:09?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:24?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's great
website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt comes from
the account of the justiciar found in the Dictionary of National
Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. ?The original account in the DNB
can be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" ?is an
example of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a
bit lazy and not translating a Latin name into the vernacular
English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your*
way.
? Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. ?Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey
Marsh". --
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are
some of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not
know of whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as
interested in that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say W.
Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others and
stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is, but, if
you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of which I am
familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to whom you are
referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times in
points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it could
make things less confusing.
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that you
are using it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de
Marisco as well?
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening J. Briggs et al.,
I do not always catch my spelling mistakes nor do I always use spell
check, as far as VERNACULAR, "STYLE" you did get the "JIST" of what I
was trying to emphasize. �Now contribute something of value rather
worrying about my spelling, I worry about it enough.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
You haven't addressed the point about Richard de Marisco [Richard Marsh] and
Adam de Marisco [Adam Marsh] - or are they not your period? (You really
don't mean vernacular...)
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Afternoon John,
What of Richard and Adam??! So Adam was the rector at Wearmouth and
Richard, Bishop of Durham. Adam in the the letter to Eleanor ,
countess of Anjou, all in latin, he signs it Adaa de Marisco, it is
catalogued I believe as Adaa de Marisco Epistolae. I have read a
charter written by Richard when he was Chancelor of England under
Henry III, it is in latin and of those he refers to he uses the de for
as Humphrey de Bohun, de Clare etc. So it is of the same time era, it
doesn't really interest me, except, Richard as he is refered to as
marsh and de marisco, as to why in the above post, I suggested the use
of a slash-so that those who are aware of one name can realize that it
is the same person they recognize as using a different form of the
same name. This really isn't rocket science and detracts immensely
from the study of the subject matter at hand.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
John Briggs
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[email protected] wrote:
If you are really interested in rocket science, I would commend the
parameter "Specific impulse". Choose the right units, and it is measured in
seconds...
--
John Briggs
--
John Briggs
On Jan 1, 11:49?am, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:09?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:24?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]
wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's
great website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt
comes from the account of the justiciar found in the
Dictionary of National Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. ?The
original account in the DNB can be found at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" ?is an
example of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being
a bit lazy and not translating a Latin name into the vernacular
English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it
*your* way.
? Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. ?Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should
be properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey
Marsh". --
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are
some of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not
know of whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as
interested in that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say
W. Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others
and stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is,
but, if you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of
which I am familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to
whom you are referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times
in points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it
could make things less confusing.
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that you
are using it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de
Marisco as well?
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening J. Briggs et al.,
I do not always catch my spelling mistakes nor do I always use spell
check, as far as VERNACULAR, "STYLE" you did get the "JIST" of what
I was trying to emphasize. ?Now contribute something of value rather
worrying about my spelling, I worry about it enough.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
You haven't addressed the point about Richard de Marisco [Richard
Marsh] and Adam de Marisco [Adam Marsh] - or are they not your
period? (You really don't mean vernacular...)
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Afternoon John,
What of Richard and Adam??! So Adam was the rector at Wearmouth and
Richard, Bishop of Durham. Adam in the the letter to Eleanor ,
countess of Anjou, all in latin, he signs it Adaa de Marisco, it is
catalogued I believe as Adaa de Marisco Epistolae. I have read a
charter written by Richard when he was Chancelor of England under
Henry III, it is in latin and of those he refers to he uses the de for
as Humphrey de Bohun, de Clare etc. So it is of the same time era, it
doesn't really interest me, except, Richard as he is refered to as
marsh and de marisco, as to why in the above post, I suggested the use
of a slash-so that those who are aware of one name can realize that it
is the same person they recognize as using a different form of the
same name. This really isn't rocket science and detracts immensely
from the study of the subject matter at hand.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
If you are really interested in rocket science, I would commend the
parameter "Specific impulse". Choose the right units, and it is measured in
seconds...
--
John Briggs
--
John Briggs
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 1, 2:05�pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
Briggs,
I prefer scalar mathematics and quantum vectoring and I am quite sure
you understand the implications....I have much better things to do
with my time, see ya in the future.
[email protected] wrote:
On Jan 1, 11:49?am, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:09?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:24?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]
wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's
great website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt
comes from the account of the justiciar found in the
Dictionary of National Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. ?The
original account in the DNB can be found at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" ?is an
example of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being
a bit lazy and not translating a Latin name into the vernacular
English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it
*your* way.
? Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. ?Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should
be properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey
Marsh". --
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are
some of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not
know of whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as
interested in that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say
W. Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others
and stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is,
but, if you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of
which I am familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to
whom you are referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times
in points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it
could make things less confusing.
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that you
are using it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de
Marisco as well?
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening J. Briggs et al.,
I do not always catch my spelling mistakes nor do I always use spell
check, as far as VERNACULAR, "STYLE" you did get the "JIST" of what
I was trying to emphasize. ?Now contribute something of value rather
worrying about my spelling, I worry about it enough.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
You haven't addressed the point about Richard de Marisco [Richard
Marsh] and Adam de Marisco [Adam Marsh] - or are they not your
period? (You really don't mean vernacular...)
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Afternoon John,
What of Richard and Adam??! So Adam was the rector at Wearmouth and
Richard, Bishop of Durham. Adam in the the letter to Eleanor ,
countess of Anjou, all in latin, he signs it Adaa de Marisco, it is
catalogued I believe as Adaa de Marisco Epistolae. I have read �a
charter written by Richard when he was Chancelor of England under
Henry III, it is in latin and of those he refers to he uses the de for
as Humphrey de Bohun, de Clare etc. So it is of the same time era, it
doesn't really interest me, except, �Richard as he is refered to as
marsh and de marisco, as to why in the above post, I suggested the use
of a slash-so that those who are aware of one name can realize that it
is the same person they recognize as using a different form of the
same name. This really isn't rocket science and detracts immensely
from the study of �the subject matter at hand.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
If you are really interested in rocket science, I would commend the
parameter "Specific impulse". Choose the right units, and it is measured in
seconds...
--
John Briggs
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Briggs,
I prefer scalar mathematics and quantum vectoring and I am quite sure
you understand the implications....I have much better things to do
with my time, see ya in the future.
-
John Briggs
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[email protected] wrote:
I am familiar with the words, but not in that configuration.
--
John Briggs
On Jan 1, 2:05?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Jan 1, 11:49?am, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:09?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]
wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:24?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]
wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's
great website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt
comes from the account of the justiciar found in the
Dictionary of National Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. ?The
original account in the DNB can be found at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" ?is an
example of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt)
being a bit lazy and not translating a Latin name into the
vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it
*your* way.
? Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. ?Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should
be properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir
Geoffrey Marsh".
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there
are some of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or
may not know of whom you are referring to, and yet, are as
equally as interested in that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as
say W. Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and
others and stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de
Marsh is, but, if you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the
venacular of which I am familiar, that is another story,
instantly I know to whom you are referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at
times in points of confusion, if one were to write
Marsh/Marisco it could make things less confusing.
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that
you are using it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de
Marisco as well?
Good Evening J. Briggs et al.,
I do not always catch my spelling mistakes nor do I always use
spell check, as far as VERNACULAR, "STYLE" you did get the "JIST"
of what I was trying to emphasize. ?Now contribute something of
value rather worrying about my spelling, I worry about it enough.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
You haven't addressed the point about Richard de Marisco [Richard
Marsh] and Adam de Marisco [Adam Marsh] - or are they not your
period? (You really don't mean vernacular...)
Good Afternoon John,
What of Richard and Adam??! So Adam was the rector at Wearmouth and
Richard, Bishop of Durham. Adam in the the letter to Eleanor ,
countess of Anjou, all in latin, he signs it Adaa de Marisco, it is
catalogued I believe as Adaa de Marisco Epistolae. I have read ?a
charter written by Richard when he was Chancelor of England under
Henry III, it is in latin and of those he refers to he uses the de
for as Humphrey de Bohun, de Clare etc. So it is of the same time
era, it doesn't really interest me, except, ?Richard as he is
refered to as marsh and de marisco, as to why in the above post, I
suggested the use of a slash-so that those who are aware of one
name can realize that it is the same person they recognize as using
a different form of the same name. This really isn't rocket science
and detracts immensely from the study of ?the subject matter at
hand.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
If you are really interested in rocket science, I would commend the
parameter "Specific impulse". Choose the right units, and it is
measured in seconds...
Briggs,
I prefer scalar mathematics and quantum vectoring and I am quite sure
you understand the implications....I have much better things to do
with my time, see ya in the future.
I am familiar with the words, but not in that configuration.
--
John Briggs
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Dec 31 2007, 4:25 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]>
wrote:
You left out the words, ". . . to me." Mr. Richardson is presenting
his own personal taste on this issue. There is no convention, and
others find de Marisco "just fine". Given that traditionally, this is
the form that English historians have generally used, there are those
who even prefer this consistency (i.e. temporal consistency among
historians rather than linguistic consistency, particularly when the
latter is applied inconsistently).
taf
wrote:
On Dec 31, 3:24 pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" is an example of
a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being a bit lazy and
not translating a Latin name into the vernacular English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it *your* way.
Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should be
properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in rendering
names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey Marsh".
Actually it is customary to retain the "de" for names that employed
them until about 1400. However, there are some historians who prefer
to use "of" in place of :"de." Either convention is just fine.
You left out the words, ". . . to me." Mr. Richardson is presenting
his own personal taste on this issue. There is no convention, and
others find de Marisco "just fine". Given that traditionally, this is
the form that English historians have generally used, there are those
who even prefer this consistency (i.e. temporal consistency among
historians rather than linguistic consistency, particularly when the
latter is applied inconsistently).
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Dear Newsgroup ~
Historians seldom leave either a surname in the Latin form, unless
they are unfamiliar with the vernacular form. That is why you never
see the Latin form "de Mortuo Mari" in modern accounts. The name is
almost uniformly translated as "de Mortimer." I have no problem
whatsoever with the modernization and standardization of names. This
practice was commenced by my fellow historians long before I
discovered America ( .... I mean before I was born, of course).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Historians seldom leave either a surname in the Latin form, unless
they are unfamiliar with the vernacular form. That is why you never
see the Latin form "de Mortuo Mari" in modern accounts. The name is
almost uniformly translated as "de Mortimer." I have no problem
whatsoever with the modernization and standardization of names. This
practice was commenced by my fellow historians long before I
discovered America ( .... I mean before I was born, of course).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
[inane crosspost removed]
On Jan 1, 6:23 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
This is a gross oversimplification, and again makes the egotistical
false dichotomy that one either does it the Richardson way or is
guilty of bad scholarship.
taf
On Jan 1, 6:23 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Historians seldom leave either a surname in the Latin form, unless
they are unfamiliar with the vernacular form.
This is a gross oversimplification, and again makes the egotistical
false dichotomy that one either does it the Richardson way or is
guilty of bad scholarship.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 1, 9:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
< This is a gross oversimplification, and again makes the egotistical
< false dichotomy that one either does it the Richardson way or is
< guilty of bad scholarship.
<
< taf
taf is upset because he doesn't want to have to post his sources or
cite his weblinks like the rest of us do. He thinks if he questions
my credentials that he can confuse the issue and avoid having to do
any serious research. Opinions are nice (and sometimes helpful), but
research based on contemporary evidence is the only real foundation
for genealogy and history. Good scholars have always known that. taf
has yet to learn that.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< This is a gross oversimplification, and again makes the egotistical
< false dichotomy that one either does it the Richardson way or is
< guilty of bad scholarship.
<
< taf
taf is upset because he doesn't want to have to post his sources or
cite his weblinks like the rest of us do. He thinks if he questions
my credentials that he can confuse the issue and avoid having to do
any serious research. Opinions are nice (and sometimes helpful), but
research based on contemporary evidence is the only real foundation
for genealogy and history. Good scholars have always known that. taf
has yet to learn that.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 1, 9:05 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Richardson is clueless when it comes to judging my state of mind. I am
not upset. I am just clarifying that he has been stating his own
personal preferences and not some kind of accepted standard, and
pointing out that both times he has done this in this thread, he has
attacked researchers who have chosen to do it any other way.
Let me get this through to you, Mr. Richardson (or if not to you, to
the other readers you continue to intimidate with these self-serving
demands). No one has to post sources. No one. No one has to post at
all. All participants are free to participate to the degree they
prefer, and you have no business setting any rules for posting here,
any more than you can invent rules to proper naming. Certainly all
posts are not created equal, and posts with sources can (can mind you,
not necessarily will) be more helpful and more convincing. Still, it
is the poster's business to decide, not yours. This would even be the
case if you applied your demand for references evenly and also lived
up to your own standard, rather than in the self-serving hypocritical
manner that you apply it.
I am not questioning your credentials, I am questioning your right to
dictate naming propriety. Hence this red herring is intended to
confuse the issue. Further, you have not the slightest clue what the
motivations are for my posting, and by constructing a caricature
motivation for me you are revealing more about your own character than
mine. (You are lying and you know you are lying, but that this does
not stop you from saying it tells all anyone needs to know about you).
As to serious research, don't make me laugh. Again you have set up
your false dichotomy - either one agrees with Richardson or they don't
do serious research.
This whole line of discussion resulted from you giving an opinion as
to what name was proper for Geoffrey de Marisco. Now you are the one
minimizing the value of opinions - did it ever occur to you, did it
ever sink in, that unless you wish to be labeled a grand hypocrite
this must also be applied to your opinions? No. I suppose not.
We are discussing naming preference, which is something that of
necessity is a matter of opinion and not subject to resolution by
citation of sources. That you have injected the issue of source
citation into a discussion of your personal naming whims is just smoke
and mirrors.
Hardly. Mr. Richardson is just having a fit because he gave his
opinion - yes, his opinion - and I pointed out that that is all it
was. He had the arrogance to dictate to the entire field of medieval
genealogy what is and is not appropriate, and I called him on it.
Further, he had the egotism to denigrate any historians who failed to
follow his whim, and I called him on that too. Now comes this slimy
attack that suggests that because I have questioned his right to
establish rules for an entire field that I am not a good scholar. That
his own posts do not live up to his stated standards is irrelevant.
That for the issue at hand, citation of contemporary documents is not
the least bit helpful is irrelevant. Again, this trained historian
and genealogist suggests that you, all of you, must either agree with
his every whim or be labeled a bad scholar. Pathetic really.
taf
On Jan 1, 9:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
This is a gross oversimplification, and again makes the egotistical
false dichotomy that one either does it the Richardson way or is
guilty of bad scholarship.
taf is upset
Richardson is clueless when it comes to judging my state of mind. I am
not upset. I am just clarifying that he has been stating his own
personal preferences and not some kind of accepted standard, and
pointing out that both times he has done this in this thread, he has
attacked researchers who have chosen to do it any other way.
because he doesn't want to have to post his sources or
cite his weblinks like the rest of us do.
Let me get this through to you, Mr. Richardson (or if not to you, to
the other readers you continue to intimidate with these self-serving
demands). No one has to post sources. No one. No one has to post at
all. All participants are free to participate to the degree they
prefer, and you have no business setting any rules for posting here,
any more than you can invent rules to proper naming. Certainly all
posts are not created equal, and posts with sources can (can mind you,
not necessarily will) be more helpful and more convincing. Still, it
is the poster's business to decide, not yours. This would even be the
case if you applied your demand for references evenly and also lived
up to your own standard, rather than in the self-serving hypocritical
manner that you apply it.
He thinks if he questions
my credentials that he can confuse the issue and avoid having to do
any serious research.
I am not questioning your credentials, I am questioning your right to
dictate naming propriety. Hence this red herring is intended to
confuse the issue. Further, you have not the slightest clue what the
motivations are for my posting, and by constructing a caricature
motivation for me you are revealing more about your own character than
mine. (You are lying and you know you are lying, but that this does
not stop you from saying it tells all anyone needs to know about you).
As to serious research, don't make me laugh. Again you have set up
your false dichotomy - either one agrees with Richardson or they don't
do serious research.
Opinions are nice (and sometimes helpful), but
research based on contemporary evidence is the only real foundation
for genealogy and history.
This whole line of discussion resulted from you giving an opinion as
to what name was proper for Geoffrey de Marisco. Now you are the one
minimizing the value of opinions - did it ever occur to you, did it
ever sink in, that unless you wish to be labeled a grand hypocrite
this must also be applied to your opinions? No. I suppose not.
We are discussing naming preference, which is something that of
necessity is a matter of opinion and not subject to resolution by
citation of sources. That you have injected the issue of source
citation into a discussion of your personal naming whims is just smoke
and mirrors.
Good scholars have always known that. taf
has yet to learn that.
Hardly. Mr. Richardson is just having a fit because he gave his
opinion - yes, his opinion - and I pointed out that that is all it
was. He had the arrogance to dictate to the entire field of medieval
genealogy what is and is not appropriate, and I called him on it.
Further, he had the egotism to denigrate any historians who failed to
follow his whim, and I called him on that too. Now comes this slimy
attack that suggests that because I have questioned his right to
establish rules for an entire field that I am not a good scholar. That
his own posts do not live up to his stated standards is irrelevant.
That for the issue at hand, citation of contemporary documents is not
the least bit helpful is irrelevant. Again, this trained historian
and genealogist suggests that you, all of you, must either agree with
his every whim or be labeled a bad scholar. Pathetic really.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Reputable scholars post their sources and their weblinks. taf hasn't
learned this yet.
DR
learned this yet.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 1, 11:47 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
This is just as irrelevant as it was the last time you said it a few
hours ago.
Oh, and it is also misleading. The quality of the work of a scholar
is not based on the fact that he or she has cited sources, but on
whether these sources actually prove (or at least allow) the
interpretation presented. If the sources are irrelevant, incidental
or say the opposite of what the work concludes, then the act of
citation only gives the appearance of reliability, while actually
showing that the author merits the reputation of a bibliography
stuffer and sleight of hand artist. Likewise, a reputable scholar
knows the applicability of sources - for example that a general rule
is not proven by a single instance, or even a handful of instances,
but requires a compelling systematic analysis of a statistically
relevant sample. Further, the reputation of a scholar can be based on
the critical analysis that scholar applies to the hypotheses of
others. For this, one need no further resources than what is already
on the table, but this is likewise valuable scholarship. Is short,
your characterization of the actions of a reputable scholar is
woefully misinformed.
As everyone who follows this issue knows, Mr. Richardson pulls out his
demand for scholarship not when he seeks illumination, but when he
seeks to summarily dismiss criticism. That he has now resorted to
simple repetitive ad hominem should come as no surprise.
taf
Reputable scholars post their sources and their weblinks. taf hasn't
learned this yet.
This is just as irrelevant as it was the last time you said it a few
hours ago.
Oh, and it is also misleading. The quality of the work of a scholar
is not based on the fact that he or she has cited sources, but on
whether these sources actually prove (or at least allow) the
interpretation presented. If the sources are irrelevant, incidental
or say the opposite of what the work concludes, then the act of
citation only gives the appearance of reliability, while actually
showing that the author merits the reputation of a bibliography
stuffer and sleight of hand artist. Likewise, a reputable scholar
knows the applicability of sources - for example that a general rule
is not proven by a single instance, or even a handful of instances,
but requires a compelling systematic analysis of a statistically
relevant sample. Further, the reputation of a scholar can be based on
the critical analysis that scholar applies to the hypotheses of
others. For this, one need no further resources than what is already
on the table, but this is likewise valuable scholarship. Is short,
your characterization of the actions of a reputable scholar is
woefully misinformed.
As everyone who follows this issue knows, Mr. Richardson pulls out his
demand for scholarship not when he seeks illumination, but when he
seeks to summarily dismiss criticism. That he has now resorted to
simple repetitive ad hominem should come as no surprise.
taf
-
John Foster
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
I went to college over 30 years ago, and TCP/IP is only 25 years old,
according to a Google rollover on January 1, 2008. That makes my education
medieval, since it was a dark age. Scholars didn't have weblinks in those
days, but they did have a lot of drawers and boxes full of 3"x5" index
cards. A 40 year indexing effort was "worthy of tenure" at that time.
In 1992 (an eternity ago, in the digital age) I applied for a job with the
Attorney General of Texas. 'All postcollege experience', stated the job
description (I still have it myself, in hard copy), 'must be with personal
computers'. "What was I supposed to do for eight years," I asked, "until the
personal computer was INVENTED?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...
TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
according to a Google rollover on January 1, 2008. That makes my education
medieval, since it was a dark age. Scholars didn't have weblinks in those
days, but they did have a lot of drawers and boxes full of 3"x5" index
cards. A 40 year indexing effort was "worthy of tenure" at that time.
In 1992 (an eternity ago, in the digital age) I applied for a job with the
Attorney General of Texas. 'All postcollege experience', stated the job
description (I still have it myself, in hard copy), 'must be with personal
computers'. "What was I supposed to do for eight years," I asked, "until the
personal computer was INVENTED?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...
TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Reputable scholars post their sources and their weblinks. taf hasn't
learned this yet.
DR
-
Renia
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Including erroneous material from Wikipedia?
Reputable scholars post their sources and their weblinks. taf hasn't
learned this yet.
Including erroneous material from Wikipedia?
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:27:12 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 1, 9:05 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
yawn...
Hmmmmm...
Speaking of slimy...good is redundant, Scholar? not even...
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:27:12 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 1, 9:05 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jan 1, 9:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
Let me get this through to you, Mr. Richardson (or if not to you, to
the other readers you continue to intimidate with these self-serving
demands). No one has to post sources. No one. No one has to post at
all.
yawn...
Now comes this slimy attack that suggests that because I have questioned
his right to establish rules for an entire field that I am not a good
scholar.
Hmmmmm...
Speaking of slimy...good is redundant, Scholar? not even...
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 2, 3:33 am, [email protected] wrote:
yawn...
Hissy fit number 9? this thread alone...
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
Humpty Tafty sat on a wall, Humpty Tafty had a Great Fall,
all the King's Persiflage, and all the Queen's Persiflage
couldn't put poor busted broken-up Tafty back together again...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
On Jan 1, 11:47 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Reputable scholars post their sources and their weblinks. taf hasn't
learned this yet.
This is just as irrelevant as it was the last time you said it a few
hours ago.
Oh, and it is also misleading. The quality of the work of a scholar
is not based on the fact that he or she has cited sources, but on
whether these sources actually prove (or at least allow) the
interpretation presented. If the sources are irrelevant, incidental
or say the opposite of what the work concludes, then the act of
citation only gives the appearance of reliability, while actually
showing that the author merits the reputation of a bibliography
stuffer and sleight of hand artist. Likewise, a reputable scholar
knows the applicability of sources - for example that a general rule
is not proven by a single instance, or even a handful of instances,
but requires a compelling systematic analysis of a statistically
relevant sample. Further, the reputation of a scholar can be based on
the critical analysis that scholar applies to the hypotheses of
others. For this, one need no further resources than what is already
on the table, but this is likewise valuable scholarship. Is short,
your characterization of the actions of a reputable scholar is
woefully misinformed.
yawn...
Hissy fit number 9? this thread alone...
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
Humpty Tafty sat on a wall, Humpty Tafty had a Great Fall,
all the King's Persiflage, and all the Queen's Persiflage
couldn't put poor busted broken-up Tafty back together again...
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 2, 3:33 am, [email protected] wrote:
What a pathetic hissy fit, in this thread, number 10....
Called him on it? Mr. Richardson is scholarly,
and Humpty Tafty is bluffing, playing poker
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
On Jan 1, 11:47 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Reputable scholars post their sources and their weblinks. taf hasn't
learned this yet.
This is just as irrelevant as it was the last time you said it a few
hours ago.
Oh, and it is also misleading. The quality of the work of a scholar
is not based on the fact that he or she has cited sources, but on
whether these sources actually prove (or at least allow) the
interpretation presented. If the sources are irrelevant, incidental
or say the opposite of what the work concludes, then the act of
citation only gives the appearance of reliability, while actually
showing that the author merits the reputation of a bibliography
stuffer and sleight of hand artist. Likewise, a reputable scholar
knows the applicability of sources - for example that a general rule
is not proven by a single instance, or even a handful of instances,
but requires a compelling systematic analysis of a statistically
relevant sample. Further, the reputation of a scholar can be based on
the critical analysis that scholar applies to the hypotheses of
others. For this, one need no further resources than what is already
on the table, but this is likewise valuable scholarship. Is short,
your characterization of the actions of a reputable scholar is
woefully misinformed.
Hardly. Mr. Richardson is just having a fit because what is and is not
appropriate, and I called him on it. Pathetic really.
What a pathetic hissy fit, in this thread, number 10....
Called him on it? Mr. Richardson is scholarly,
and Humpty Tafty is bluffing, playing poker
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 1, 3:05 pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hmmmm...
Sock puppet for John Brandon brings it on...
trashing another newbie...
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
[email protected] wrote:
On Jan 1, 11:49?am, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 7:09?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:24?pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]
wrote:
taf wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information on Sir Geoffrey "de Marisco" on Jim Weber's
great website which was added in a "Post-em Display" by Curt
comes from the account of the justiciar found in the
Dictionary of National Biography, 36 (1893): 161-163. ?The
original account in the DNB can be found at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-yUJAA ... 161&dq=d...
Referring to the justiciar as "Geoffrey de Marisco" ?is an
example of a historian (in this case, Rev. William Hunt) being
a bit lazy and not translating a Latin name into the vernacular
English.
Ah, yes, it is a flaw in his character not to have done it
*your* way.
? Marisco is
simply Latin for Marsh. ?Thus, Sir Geoffrey de Marisco should
be properly rendered Sir Geoffrey de Marsh.
This assumes that there is some convention for propriety in
rendering names, which there is not.
Even if there were, Richardson should have written "Sir Geoffrey
Marsh". --
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening All,
Perhaps... whether it is in the Latin/English venacular there are
some of us who, depending upon the subject matter, may or may not
know of whom you are referring to, and yet, are as equally as
interested in that particular subject matter.
I, for one, am not as scholarly, in this particular field, as say
W. Johnson or D. Richardson or P. Stewart or R. Hines and others
and stand a good chance of not knowing who Geoffrey de Marsh is,
but, if you to write about Geoffrey de Marisco, the venacular of
which I am familiar, that is another story, instantly I know to
whom you are referring to.
I know that is a PAIN to use the slash bar, but perhaps, at times
in points of confusion, if one were to write Marsh/Marisco it
could make things less confusing.
It is spelt "vernacular" - and I am not totally convinced that you
are using it correctly.
Presumably you habitually refer to Richard de Marisco and Adam de
Marisco as well?
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Evening J. Briggs et al.,
I do not always catch my spelling mistakes nor do I always use spell
check, as far as VERNACULAR, "STYLE" you did get the "JIST" of what
I was trying to emphasize. ?Now contribute something of value rather
worrying about my spelling, I worry about it enough.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
You haven't addressed the point about Richard de Marisco [Richard
Marsh] and Adam de Marisco [Adam Marsh] - or are they not your
period? (You really don't mean vernacular...)
--
John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good Afternoon John,
What of Richard and Adam??! So Adam was the rector at Wearmouth and
Richard, Bishop of Durham. Adam in the the letter to Eleanor ,
countess of Anjou, all in latin, he signs it Adaa de Marisco, it is
catalogued I believe as Adaa de Marisco Epistolae. I have read a
charter written by Richard when he was Chancelor of England under
Henry III, it is in latin and of those he refers to he uses the de for
as Humphrey de Bohun, de Clare etc. So it is of the same time era, it
doesn't really interest me, except, Richard as he is refered to as
marsh and de marisco, as to why in the above post, I suggested the use
of a slash-so that those who are aware of one name can realize that it
is the same person they recognize as using a different form of the
same name. This really isn't rocket science and detracts immensely
from the study of the subject matter at hand.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
If you are really interested in rocket science, I would commend the
parameter "Specific impulse". Choose the right units, and it is measured in
seconds...
--
John Briggs
--
John Briggs
Hmmmm...
Sock puppet for John Brandon brings it on...
trashing another newbie...
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 2, 6:46 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
< Douglas Richardson wrote:
< > Reputable scholars post their sources and their weblinks. taf
hasn't
< > learned this yet.
<
< Including erroneous material from Wikipedia?
Dear Renia ~
Good to hear from you as always.
I didn't say anything about Wikipedia. Regardless, I do find some
entries in Wikipedia that are well written AND well documented. I
found one entry last week, in fact, that was simply top drawer. I was
very impressed.
However, as you know, most entries in Wikipedia are pooly written and
poorly sourced. Having said that, this is the beginning of
Wikipedia. As such, I think we should withhold judgement on that
database for a few more years to come.
On the other hand, the new ODNB which was written by professional
historians, has its own set of problems. I find almost every entry in
the ODNB that I check has a genealogical error or misstatement in it
of some sort.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Douglas Richardson wrote:
< > Reputable scholars post their sources and their weblinks. taf
hasn't
< > learned this yet.
<
< Including erroneous material from Wikipedia?
Dear Renia ~
Good to hear from you as always.
I didn't say anything about Wikipedia. Regardless, I do find some
entries in Wikipedia that are well written AND well documented. I
found one entry last week, in fact, that was simply top drawer. I was
very impressed.
However, as you know, most entries in Wikipedia are pooly written and
poorly sourced. Having said that, this is the beginning of
Wikipedia. As such, I think we should withhold judgement on that
database for a few more years to come.
On the other hand, the new ODNB which was written by professional
historians, has its own set of problems. I find almost every entry in
the ODNB that I check has a genealogical error or misstatement in it
of some sort.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
John Brandon
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
John Briggs
Hmmmm...
Sock puppet for John Brandon brings it on...
trashing another newbie...
Hmm, if I were to employ a sock puppet why would I be so dim as to use
a name so similar to my own?
You were more attractive when you were writing naive poetry ...
John Brandon mocks [whatever ...]
Moi? mocks DiSH,
Sly? Moi? mocks TiSH,
etc.
Re: Sir Geoffrey de Marsh, Justiciar of Ireland (died 1245)
On Jan 3, 3:07 pm, "John Briggs" <[email protected]> wrote:
we give up, sock puppet for John Brandon, why are you so dim?
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
John Brandon wrote:
John Briggs
Hmmmm...
Sock puppet for John Brandon brings it on...
trashing another newbie...
Hmm, if I were to employ a sock puppet why would I be so dim as to use
a name so similar to my own?
Not particularly similar, and in a different time-zone...
--
John Briggs
we give up, sock puppet for John Brandon, why are you so dim?
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval