Fw: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Sali

[Leo van de Pas]

Wasn't Erik the Red the first one to reach America?

But it is Columbus who gets the credit because he did something with his
discovery. I wonder, did Columbus know about Erik the Red? Does it matter
whether he did know about him? It doesn't change anything. The re-discovery
by Columbus is what counts.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury


< Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo. He published back in
< 1898.
<
< Jennifer Mills

Dear Jennifer ~

You're entirely correct.

Mr. Malo definitely deserves the credit for discovering that Ralph le
Bigod was William Longespée's brother. He published first. That's
crystal clear.

Whether or not Mr. Phair knew about Mr. Malo's work is immaterial.

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1251 - Release Date: 1/30/2008
9:29 AM

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

On Jan 31, 1:15 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:

Wasn't Erik the Red the first one to reach America?

But it is Columbus who gets the credit because he did something with his
discovery. I wonder, did Columbus know about Erik the Red? Does it matter
whether he did know about him? It doesn't change anything. The re-discovery
by Columbus is what counts.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury

Primary credit would have to go to Henri Malo.  He published back in
1898.

Jennifer Mills

Dear Jennifer ~

You're entirely correct.

Mr. Malo definitely deserves the credit for discovering that Ralph le
Bigod was William Longespée's brother.  He published first.  That's
crystal clear.

Whether or not Mr. Phair knew about Mr. Malo's work is immaterial.

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1251 - Release Date: 1/30/2008
9:29 AM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and why stop there with the Viking....surely pacific islanders
"discovered" America several thousand years earlier...and why stop
there...I read of one genetic study implicating that human ancestors
from the Iberian Penn. circa 40,000 years ago may have in fact arrived
in "American" before the Pacific islanders did.....!

[norenxaq]

and why stop there with the Viking....surely pacific islanders
"discovered" America several thousand years earlier...

there is no proof of this and only speculation at best

and why stop
there...I read of one genetic study implicating that human ancestors
from the Iberian Penn. circa 40,000 years ago may have in fact arrived
in "American" before the Pacific islanders did.....!



oh... REALLY...

[DaHoorn]

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

[Gjest]

On Jan 31, 1:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

No, how about you?

[Peter Stewart]

"DaHoorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f8694ea2-d6c5-48dd-a7ea-35585ba85c8b@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

I suppose this is meant to be saracsm - if so it is unworthy and badly
misplaced.

People who come to SGM for the benefits of input from others who research in
the field should not complain if there is occasional vigorous debate about
the proprieties of scholarship.

Suggesting that you expect to find here just what happens to suit your needs
& preferences and nothing else besides is, to say the least, selfish &
unbecoming.

Peter Stewart

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

On Jan 31, 2:13 pm, norenxaq <[email protected]> wrote:

and why stop there with the Viking....surely pacific islanders
"discovered" America several thousand years earlier...

there is no proof of this and only speculation at best

lol - it's called research. look it up.

the brilliant geneticist Spencer Wells proved it years ago.
no speculation needed. only facts....REALLY...!!!!!

and why stop
there...I read of one genetic study implicating that human ancestors
from the Iberian Penn. circa 40,000 years ago may have in fact arrived
in "American" before the Pacific islanders did.....!

oh... REALLY...

yes....REALLY.....!!!!

http://www.google.com do some research

[DaHoorn]

On Jan 31, 4:53 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

"DaHoorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:f8694ea2-d6c5-48dd-a7ea-35585ba85c8b@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

I suppose this is meant to be saracsm - if so it is unworthy and badly
misplaced.

People who come to SGM for the benefits of input from others who research in
the field should not complain if there is occasional vigorous debate about
the proprieties of scholarship.

Suggesting that you expect to find here just what happens to suit your needs
& preferences and nothing else besides is, to say the least, selfish &
unbecoming.

Peter Stewart

Actually, I was serious. I'm a maternal descendant. Sorry I asked.
Geesh.

[DaHoorn]

On Jan 31, 4:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

From a post by John P. Ravilious Oct 8 2007, 6:37 am


Dear Leo, et al.,

I agree that the chronology would support Ida being either (A) a
somewhat late-born daughter of Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut
[married before 9 August 1138], or (B) an older daughter of the
marriage of their son Ralph to Margaret de Beaumont.

I was hoping someone had proof of this.

THANK YOU!

[Peter Stewart]

On Feb 1, 10:52 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Stewart was just climbing up on his high horse.

Par for the course.

And Hilarious...

And which side of which face would Hines be laughing out of today?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Feb 1, 10:45 am, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 31, 6:40 pm, Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:





On Feb 1, 10:30 am, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:20 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

From a post by John P. Ravilious Oct 8 2007, 6:37 am

Dear Leo, et al.,

     I agree that the chronology would support Ida being either (A) a
somewhat late-born daughter of Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut
[married before 9 August 1138], or (B) an older daughter of the
marriage of their son Ralph to Margaret de Beaumont.

I was hoping someone had proof of this.

THANK YOU!

As far as I am aware, this is the extent of it. She was a Toeny, and
that her name was Ida suggests, along with the chronology, that she
fits into the main-line family in these generations, and while we may
speculate based on tenuous associations, no proof has been
forthcoming.

There is proof (overlooked by Richardson, of course) that Roger and
Ida did not have a daughter named Ida at the time of his charter
naming his family, a confirmation of gifts made previously by his
father - this states:

"Postmodum Rogerius de Toenio, ejusdem Radulphi filius, particeps esse
volens patris eleemosynae...Dedit etiam hanc libertatem...Concessit hoc id
[sic, for Ida] uxor ejusdem Rogerii et filii eorum, Radulphus, Hugo,
Rogerius, Balduini, Gaufridus, et filiae eorum, Elizabeth et
Godehildis."

I'm not sure if the original copyist or the editor misread "Id(a)" as
"id".

Since Richardson does not consider it ncessary to cite the sources of
his information on the subject, he can seek out the location of this
important piece of evidence for himself.

Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

At least it eliminates one family (Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut)
from the consideration set.- Hide quoted text -

Almost, but not entirely. The document I quoted from is not dated, and
we can't say for certain that Ida was not another child of this family
born afterwards.

However, it does add significantly to the argument Richardson wishes
to mount for Ralph V de Tosy and Margaret de Beaumont as the likeliest
parents of Countess Ida. In this context no competent scholar would
have overlooked it, as Richardson has done in his own efforts at
research and then continued to do even since being alerted to it in a
post from Leo last year (i.e. it isn't news to him now, but he _still_
hasn't found it).

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Feb 1, 10:30 am, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:20 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:





On Jan 31, 4:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

From a post by John P. Ravilious Oct 8 2007, 6:37 am

Dear Leo, et al.,

I agree that the chronology would support Ida being either (A) a
somewhat late-born daughter of Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut
[married before 9 August 1138], or (B) an older daughter of the
marriage of their son Ralph to Margaret de Beaumont.

I was hoping someone had proof of this.

THANK YOU!

As far as I am aware, this is the extent of it. She was a Toeny, and
that her name was Ida suggests, along with the chronology, that she
fits into the main-line family in these generations, and while we may
speculate based on tenuous associations, no proof has been
forthcoming.

There is proof (overlooked by Richardson, of course) that Roger and
Ida did not have a daughter named Ida at the time of his charter
naming his family, a confirmation of gifts made previously by his
father - this states:

"Postmodum Rogerius de Toenio, ejusdem Radulphi filius, particeps esse
volens patris eleemosynae...Dedit etiam hanc libertatem...Concessit hoc id
[sic, for Ida] uxor ejusdem Rogerii et filii eorum, Radulphus, Hugo,
Rogerius, Balduini, Gaufridus, et filiae eorum, Elizabeth et
Godehildis."

I'm not sure if the original copyist or the editor misread "Id(a)" as
"id".

Since Richardson does not consider it ncessary to cite the sources of
his information on the subject, he can seek out the location of this
important piece of evidence for himself.

Peter Stewart

[DaHoorn]

On Jan 31, 6:40 pm, Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

On Feb 1, 10:30 am, [email protected] wrote:





On Jan 31, 3:20 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

From a post by John P. Ravilious Oct 8 2007, 6:37 am

Dear Leo, et al.,

     I agree that the chronology would support Ida being either (A) a
somewhat late-born daughter of Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut
[married before 9 August 1138], or (B) an older daughter of the
marriage of their son Ralph to Margaret de Beaumont.

I was hoping someone had proof of this.

THANK YOU!

As far as I am aware, this is the extent of it. She was a Toeny, and
that her name was Ida suggests, along with the chronology, that she
fits into the main-line family in these generations, and while we may
speculate based on tenuous associations, no proof has been
forthcoming.

There is proof (overlooked by Richardson, of course) that Roger and
Ida did not have a daughter named Ida at the time of his charter
naming his family, a confirmation of gifts made previously by his
father - this states:

"Postmodum Rogerius de Toenio, ejusdem Radulphi filius, particeps esse
volens patris eleemosynae...Dedit etiam hanc libertatem...Concessit hoc id
[sic, for Ida] uxor ejusdem Rogerii et filii eorum, Radulphus, Hugo,
Rogerius, Balduini, Gaufridus, et filiae eorum, Elizabeth et
Godehildis."

I'm not sure if the original copyist or the editor misread "Id(a)" as
"id".

Since Richardson does not consider it ncessary to cite the sources of
his information on the subject, he can seek out the location of this
important piece of evidence for himself.

Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

At least it eliminates one family (Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut)
from the consideration set.

[Peter Stewart]

On Feb 1, 10:12 am, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:53 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:





"DaHoorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:f8694ea2-d6c5-48dd-a7ea-35585ba85c8b@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

I suppose this is meant to be saracsm - if so it is unworthy and badly
misplaced.

People who come to SGM for the benefits of input from others who research in
the field should not complain if there is occasional vigorous debate about
the proprieties of scholarship.

Suggesting that you expect to find here just what happens to suit your needs
& preferences and nothing else besides is, to say the least, selfish &
unbecoming.

Peter Stewart

Actually, I was serious.  I'm a maternal descendant.  Sorry I asked.
Geesh

Being disingenuous about it now is equally unorthy and misplaced - the
current thread started with the following question:

On Jan 31, 2:00 am, AdrianBnjmBurke <[email protected]>
wrote:

Anyone know if there is any update on research into the ancestry of
William Longspee's mother Ida?

Then a day later you wiegh in with

"Any new information on Ida's parentage?"

and expect us to accept that this was a genuine enquiry. Geesh,
indeed.

The answer is No, but since on your own say-so you are paying no
attention to the exchanges on the subject there may be some news to
you earlier in the thread.

I suggest you read it instead of trying to repeat it.

Peter Stewart

[DaHoorn]

and expect us to accept that this was a genuine enquiry.

The answer is yes.

[Gjest]

On Jan 31, 3:45 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

At least it eliminates one family (Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut)
from the consideration set.

Without further information, this is not necessarily valid. As Peter
pointed out it shows that there was no daughter Ida at the time of the
document. It takes some chronological assumptions to go the next step.

taf

[Renia]

Peter Stewart wrote:

On Feb 1, 10:30 am, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:20 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:






On Jan 31, 4:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

From a post by John P. Ravilious Oct 8 2007, 6:37 am

Dear Leo, et al.,

I agree that the chronology would support Ida being either (A) a
somewhat late-born daughter of Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut
[married before 9 August 1138], or (B) an older daughter of the
marriage of their son Ralph to Margaret de Beaumont.

I was hoping someone had proof of this.

THANK YOU!

As far as I am aware, this is the extent of it. She was a Toeny, and
that her name was Ida suggests, along with the chronology, that she
fits into the main-line family in these generations, and while we may
speculate based on tenuous associations, no proof has been
forthcoming.


There is proof (overlooked by Richardson, of course) that Roger and
Ida did not have a daughter named Ida at the time of his charter
naming his family, a confirmation of gifts made previously by his
father - this states:

"Postmodum Rogerius de Toenio, ejusdem Radulphi filius, particeps esse
volens patris eleemosynae...Dedit etiam hanc libertatem...Concessit hoc id
[sic, for Ida] uxor ejusdem Rogerii et filii eorum, Radulphus, Hugo,
Rogerius, Balduini, Gaufridus, et filiae eorum, Elizabeth et
Godehildis."

Perhaps Ida, in this instance, is a diminutive of Godehildis?

[Peter Stewart]

On Feb 1, 11:18 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote:

Stewart is so dumb he still doesn't understand the Hines Strategy, after all
these years of butting his head up against it.

Ah yes, this would be the Hines strategy for showing himself up as the
unprincipled sycophant of a flagrant liar, who can't recall his last
brush with honesty or commonsense. And this is the Hawaiian failure's
idea of smarts.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Feb 1, 11:33 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

There is proof (overlooked by Richardson, of course) that Roger and
Ida did not have a daughter named Ida at the time of his charter
naming his family, a confirmation of gifts made previously by his
father - this states:

"Postmodum Rogerius de Toenio, ejusdem Radulphi filius, particeps esse
volens patris eleemosynae...Dedit etiam hanc libertatem...Concessit hoc id
[sic, for Ida] uxor ejusdem Rogerii et filii eorum, Radulphus, Hugo,
Rogerius, Balduini, Gaufridus, et filiae eorum, Elizabeth et
Godehildis."

Perhaps Ida, in this instance, is a diminutive of Godehildis?

The name Ida came into the Tosny family with Ida of Hainaut (who
occurs as "id" in the charter of her husband Roger II quoted earlier).
Godehildis had been in the family since the 11th century, from the
wife of Roger I, i.e. the great-grandmother of Ida's husband.

These were distinct names, not interchangeable.

Peter Stewart

[Renia]

Peter Stewart wrote:

On Feb 1, 11:33 am, Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:


snip

There is proof (overlooked by Richardson, of course) that Roger and
Ida did not have a daughter named Ida at the time of his charter
naming his family, a confirmation of gifts made previously by his
father - this states:

"Postmodum Rogerius de Toenio, ejusdem Radulphi filius, particeps esse
volens patris eleemosynae...Dedit etiam hanc libertatem...Concessit hoc id
[sic, for Ida] uxor ejusdem Rogerii et filii eorum, Radulphus, Hugo,
Rogerius, Balduini, Gaufridus, et filiae eorum, Elizabeth et
Godehildis."

Perhaps Ida, in this instance, is a diminutive of Godehildis?


The name Ida came into the Tosny family with Ida of Hainaut (who
occurs as "id" in the charter of her husband Roger II quoted earlier).
Godehildis had been in the family since the 11th century, from the
wife of Roger I, i.e. the great-grandmother of Ida's husband.

These were distinct names, not interchangeable.

Yes, it was just a thought. I've been working on a 17thc parish record
today where a Margaret was known as Ada at the baptisms of her children,
but married and was buried as Margaret.

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

On Jan 31, 6:30 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:20 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:





On Jan 31, 4:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

From a post by John P. Ravilious Oct 8 2007, 6:37 am

Dear Leo, et al.,

     I agree that the chronology would support Ida being either (A) a
somewhat late-born daughter of Roger de Tosny and Ida of Hainaut
[married before 9 August 1138], or (B) an older daughter of the
marriage of their son Ralph to Margaret de Beaumont.

I was hoping someone had proof of this.

THANK YOU!

As far as I am aware, this is the extent of it. She was a Toeny, and
that her name was Ida suggests, along with the chronology, that she
fits into the main-line family in these generations, and while we may
speculate based on tenuous associations, no proof has been
forthcoming.

taf- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yeah see this is all that need have been posted in response to my
original question!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

On Jan 31, 4:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 31, 1:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

No, how about you?

No - i'm still waiting for an answer to my originally posted question:
anyone have an update on the research into ida's ancestry...??????

Still waiting......!!!

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

DSH

"Renia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Yes, it was just a thought. I've been working on a 17thc parish record
today where a Margaret was known as Ada at the baptisms of her children,
but married and was buried as Margaret.

[Gjest]

On Jan 31, 5:06 pm, AdrianBnjmBurke <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Jan 31, 4:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 31, 1:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

No, how about you?

No - i'm still waiting for an answer to my originally posted question:
anyone have an update on the research into ida's ancestry...??????

Still waiting......!!!

I think it would be safe to conclude that if what has appeared to date
has failed to satisfy your inquiry, there is little chance of anything
more substantive appearing.

taf

[wjhonson]

Don't we have evidence that Ida de Toeni was yet a royal ward in
1181 ?

If she was that young still, I'm having difficulty believeing she
could be a daughter of Ida (Gertrude) of Hainault, wife of Roger de
Toeni, Lord of Flamstead.

This couple were already married by 1135 or 1139 at the latest. That
seems like an awfully long birthspan for Ida.

Will Johnson

[John Foster]

Q. What's the difference between parents depending on ancestry and ancestry
depending on parents?

A. The scholarship.

(I have been reading piles of messages on this topic. Have you missed them?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "AdrianBnjmBurke" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Ida de Tony, mother of William Longespée, E arl of
Salisbury


On Jan 31, 4:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 31, 1:36 pm, DaHoorn <[email protected]> wrote:

Any new information on Ida's parentage?

No, how about you?

No - i'm still waiting for an answer to my originally posted question:
anyone have an update on the research into ida's ancestry...??????

Still waiting......!!!

[James Hogg]

In January 1893 Alred Nobel wrote to Bertha von Suttner that he
planned to create a prize to be awarded "to HIM OR HER who will have
brought about the greatest step in advancing to the pacification of
Europe."

The Fool's Gold Swagger Stick for Debased Grammar is awarded annually
"to he or she who produces the most pathetic ad hoc defence for
incorrect usage".

This year's award goes to David Spencer Hines for this gem:
"The Devil Is In The Details Of EACH SPECIFIC SENTENCE ...
It is up to he who makes the decisions as to how we proceed. --
CORRECT"

The award will presented "to he" at a ceremony in Kailua later this
month.

[James Hogg]

"They went home praising HIM who had once pronounced his name with
bitterness."

Winston Churchill, The Crisis

[James Hogg]

"If either of you had known how each moment of delay weighs upon the
heart of HER who loves."

Sheridan, Duenna II. iv.