C.P. Addition: Marriages of William de Roumare, Earl of Linc

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

C.P. Addition: Marriages of William de Roumare, Earl of Linc

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 nov 2004 03:27:03

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 671-672 (sub Lincoln) has a good account
of the history of William de Roumare, Earl of Lincoln (died about
1198). Regarding his death and two marriages, the author has the
following to say:

"He married, 1stly, Alice, whose parentage is unknown. He married,
2ndly, Philippe, daughter of Jean I, Count of Alencon, by Beatrice,
daughter of Helie d'Anjou, Count of Maine, and Philippe de Perche. He
died s.p. about 1198, and is said to have been buried at Revesby. His
widow m., 2ndly, William Malet, of Graville, by whom she had a son
Robert. She m., 3rdly, before October 1215, William de Preaux, who
died in 1223."

The Papal document below adds a few new details regarding the
marriages of William de Roumare. It indicates that sometime in or
before 1192-3, that William de Roumare reported that he had married a
first wife, from whom he was subsequently divorced on grounds of
consanguinity. In the intervening time, both he and his first wife
had married other parties. He since confessed to the Bishop of
Lincoln that no consanguinity existed between himself and his first
wife. The Pope advised the Bishop that he should remain with the
second wife.

"Pope Celestine III to the Bishop of Lincoln in the same book.
[Editor's note: This document is dated 1192-3, the first year of
Celestine III]

Earl William de Roumare, a nobleman of your diocese, has, as you have
informed us in your letters, confessed to you secretly that, when he
had married a certain noble lady who, at the instigation of certain
persons, alleged that there was a relationship of consanguinity
between them and asked for a decree of nullity from Richard, the late
Archbishop of Canterbury; and although the said Earl did not believe
that there was any connexion of consanguinity, being aggrieved that
his wife thus scorned him, whereas he might have opposed the petition
he did not do so, nor did he wish to appeal to the apostolic see, but
after the consanguinity had been established and the ecclesiastical
decree of nullity followed, the said woman, having married a certain
nobleman, William himself married another woman. Because his own
conscience now pricks him, as you say, in that knowing that there was
no consanguinity between him and his first wife he yet allowed himself
to be separated from her, he has consulted you and you have diligently
asked us what ought to be done. We reply herewith that although he
has a scruple of conscience about the desertion of his first wife he
ought not now to leave the second or deny her conjugal rights. But it
is fitting that you should enjoin on him a suitable penance for that
he agreed to the separatiion against his conscience, and let him feel
it as a further penalty inflicted on him that whereas he must with
grief grant his second wife her conjugal dues he should regard himself
as having lost the right to demand them from her." END OF QUOTE.
[Reference: Walther Holtzmann, ed., Papal Decretals relating to the
Diocese of Lincoln in the Twelfth Century (Pubs. of the Lincoln Rec.
Soc. 47) (1954): 56-57].

It appears from the above document that the divorce between William de
Roumare and his first wife, Alice, took place during the time of
Richard of Dover, Archbishop of Canterbury, which would fall in the
time period, 1174-1184 [Reference:
http://www.britannia.com/history/resour ... bish.html; cf.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... of%20Dover]. It
is also clear that William de Roumare married his second wife,
Philippe, sometime before 1192-3.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Nathaniel Taylor

false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 30 nov 2004 05:57:05

<crossposting deleted>

In article <2619efc9.0411291827.12855242@posting.google.com>,
douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

...

Earl William de Roumare, a nobleman of your diocese, has, as you have
informed us in your letters, confessed to you secretly that, when he
had married a certain noble lady who, at the instigation of certain
persons, alleged that there was a relationship of consanguinity
between them and asked for a decree of nullity from Richard, the late
Archbishop of Canterbury; and although the said Earl did not believe
that there was any connexion of consanguinity, being aggrieved that
his wife thus scorned him, whereas he might have opposed the petition
he did not do so, nor did he wish to appeal to the apostolic see, but
after the consanguinity had been established and the ecclesiastical
decree of nullity followed, the said woman, having married a certain
nobleman, William himself married another woman. Because his own
conscience now pricks him, as you say, in that knowing that there was
no consanguinity between him and his first wife he yet allowed himself
to be separated from her, he has consulted you and you have diligently
asked us what ought to be done. We reply herewith that although he
has a scruple of conscience about the desertion of his first wife he
ought not now to leave the second or deny her conjugal rights. But it
is fitting that you should enjoin on him a suitable penance for that
he agreed to the separatiion against his conscience, and let him feel
it as a further penalty inflicted on him that whereas he must with
grief grant his second wife her conjugal dues he should regard himself
as having lost the right to demand them from her." END OF QUOTE.
[Reference: Walther Holtzmann, ed., Papal Decretals relating to the
Diocese of Lincoln in the Twelfth Century (Pubs. of the Lincoln Rec.
Soc. 47) (1954): 56-57].

Douglas,

Thanks for posting this document, which I find very interesting. It
doesn't seem to help much with narrowing down the identity or dates of
this man's first marriage; but it is certainly interesting as a
case-study in the use of (real or false) consanguinity to annul a
marriage. I am not familiar with other cases where a consanguinity
impediment used to annul an existing marriage is subsequently admitted
to be false--if others have such cases in mind, I would like to hear of
it. I am also particularly piqued by the pope's conclusion about the
respective sexual rights of the earl and his current wife.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Douglas Richardson

Re: false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 nov 2004 22:05:21

Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<nathanieltaylor-E45243.23563929112004@news1.east.earthlink.net>...
Douglas,

Thanks for posting this document, which I find very interesting. It
doesn't seem to help much with narrowing down the identity or dates of
this man's first marriage; but it is certainly interesting as a
case-study in the use of (real or false) consanguinity to annul a
marriage. I am not familiar with other cases where a consanguinity
impediment used to annul an existing marriage is subsequently admitted
to be false--if others have such cases in mind, I would like to hear of
it. I am also particularly piqued by the pope's conclusion about the
respective sexual rights of the earl and his current wife.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

I completely agree, Nat. This Papal decretal is definitely a most
interesting document. It sheds a bright spotlight on the dark subject
of divorce in medieval England. In this case, a man and woman falsely
alleged consanguinity to obtain a divorce. The church cooperated and
granted the divorce. The sexual aspect of the Pope's ruling is
likewise fascinating. A sociologist would have fun with this document
- to be sure. The man's second wife didn't have to put out but he
did. Interesting.

Just when we think we understand the medieval man, a document like
this comes along and shows how little we know about the medieval
period. I'd appreciate seeing other documents like this if anyone is
willing to post them.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Bronwen Edwards

Re: false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 02 des 2004 04:17:12

My immediate gut reaction is to look at the political and/or financial
side. What kind of deal did the nobleman and the Archbishop work out?
What was their relationship if any? I suspect that the Archbishop
would normally have required some proof of consanguinity and that the
family background of that class was well known to church officials. I
would like to know the political and economic context. It does not
seem likely that the Archbishop would be fooled over such a thing;
therefore he must have gone along with the scheme.

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 02 des 2004 04:56:24

In article <54ca55f1.0412011917.41edaf7f@posting.google.com>,
lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote:

My immediate gut reaction is to look at the political and/or financial
side. What kind of deal did the nobleman and the Archbishop work out?
What was their relationship if any? I suspect that the Archbishop
would normally have required some proof of consanguinity and that the
family background of that class was well known to church officials. I
would like to know the political and economic context. It does not
seem likely that the Archbishop would be fooled over such a thing;
therefore he must have gone along with the scheme.

No, it is perfectly possible that the archbishop was 'fooled' in the
first instance, and was not in collusion with either party. I know from
a formal study of contemporary marriage litigation (I have an article
forthcoming on this) that all that would have been needed in such a
process was the testimony of a handful of people who alleged knowledge
of the kinship. Before the year 1200 such procedures were very ad-hoc
indeed, and this case could have taken any number of forms, and could
have been motivated by any number of subtexts. Your question suggests
that you are indicting the husband and the bishop for colluding to put
aside the first wife, then heading off a potential appeal by the
husband's subsequent 'admission' to having been duped or misled, with no
actual consanguinity. It is equally plausible (if not more so) that the
wife had contrived to get away from the marriage by deliberately
falsifying a consanguinity case--the power to bend laws was not merely
in the hands of some misogynistic phallocracy.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 des 2004 11:06:51

In message of 2 Dec, lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote:

My immediate gut reaction is to look at the political and/or financial
side. What kind of deal did the nobleman and the Archbishop work out?
What was their relationship if any? I suspect that the Archbishop
would normally have required some proof of consanguinity and that the
family background of that class was well known to church officials. I
would like to know the political and economic context. It does not
seem likely that the Archbishop would be fooled over such a thing;
therefore he must have gone along with the scheme.

This message was cross-posted to soc.history.medieval as well, which I
have deleted and set follow-ups to soc.genealogy.medieval. You may not
be aware of this but in the past cross-posting with that group has
resulted in even more time-wasting exchanges than normal.

To everyone: please don't cross-post!

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Bronwen Edwards

Re: false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 03 des 2004 02:25:38

Hey! I did NOT cross post this message. I do not even participate in
that newsgroup. If my message was cross-posted, someone else did it.
Bronwen



Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote in message news:<6085ec164d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
In message of 2 Dec, lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote:

My immediate gut reaction is to look at the political and/or financial
side. What kind of deal did the nobleman and the Archbishop work out?
What was their relationship if any? I suspect that the Archbishop
would normally have required some proof of consanguinity and that the
family background of that class was well known to church officials. I
would like to know the political and economic context. It does not
seem likely that the Archbishop would be fooled over such a thing;
therefore he must have gone along with the scheme.

This message was cross-posted to soc.history.medieval as well, which I
have deleted and set follow-ups to soc.genealogy.medieval. You may not
be aware of this but in the past cross-posting with that group has
resulted in even more time-wasting exchanges than normal.

To everyone: please don't cross-post!

Bronwen Edwards

Re: false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 03 des 2004 02:29:11

It's me again...I looked at my original message as it appears in this
group and I have no idea why it has the other news group on there. I
have never even visited that group. I don't know how it could have
happened accidentally, but it must have. I don't even know HOW to
cross post. I would be interested in knowing what happened; the one
thing I DO know is that I did not do it when I posted the message. It
was only addressed to the genealogy group. Did I get hijacked? Bronwen



Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote in message news:<6085ec164d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
In message of 2 Dec, lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote:

My immediate gut reaction is to look at the political and/or financial
side. What kind of deal did the nobleman and the Archbishop work out?
What was their relationship if any? I suspect that the Archbishop
would normally have required some proof of consanguinity and that the
family background of that class was well known to church officials. I
would like to know the political and economic context. It does not
seem likely that the Archbishop would be fooled over such a thing;
therefore he must have gone along with the scheme.

This message was cross-posted to soc.history.medieval as well, which I
have deleted and set follow-ups to soc.genealogy.medieval. You may not
be aware of this but in the past cross-posting with that group has
resulted in even more time-wasting exchanges than normal.

To everyone: please don't cross-post!

Nathaniel Taylor

OT: replying to crossposted messages (was Re: false consangu

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 03 des 2004 03:06:52

In article <54ca55f1.0412021729.56adc09f@posting.google.com>,
lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote:

It's me again...I looked at my original message as it appears in this
group and I have no idea why it has the other news group on there. I
have never even visited that group. I don't know how it could have
happened accidentally, but it must have. I don't even know HOW to
cross post. I would be interested in knowing what happened; the one
thing I DO know is that I did not do it when I posted the message. It
was only addressed to the genealogy group. Did I get hijacked? Bronwen

It's simple: your message was a reply to Doug's, which was itself
addressed to two newsgroups: so your reply, by default, was addressed to
two newsgroups as well. When someone has a crossposted message to which
you wish to reply, you should manually delete the other groups from the
'Newsgroups:' header of the message. Most newsreader client programs
(or web-interfaces) pre-set replies with the same newsgroup distribution
as the referent message. For example, at the beginning of this thread,
when I replied to Doug's initial post on the annulment, I manually
stripped the other newsgroup from the header, but when Doug replied to
my reply, he manually reinserted it.

Tim was berating you alone for this, since he likely remembers that Doug
has also been chastised for crossposting in the past, but Doug wilfully
ignores the no-crossposting convention to follow his own drummer (as do
a couple of other posters here), and berating him further about it would
serve no purpose.

It is because you are considered educable that you were rebuked; take it
as a compliment.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: OT: replying to crossposted messages (was Re: false cons

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 des 2004 16:20:28

In message of 3 Dec, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <54ca55f1.0412021729.56adc09f@posting.google.com>,
lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote:

It's me again...I looked at my original message as it appears in this
group and I have no idea why it has the other news group on there. I
have never even visited that group. I don't know how it could have
happened accidentally, but it must have. I don't even know HOW to
cross post. I would be interested in knowing what happened; the one
thing I DO know is that I did not do it when I posted the message. It
was only addressed to the genealogy group. Did I get hijacked? Bronwen

It's simple: your message was a reply to Doug's, which was itself
addressed to two newsgroups: so your reply, by default, was addressed to
two newsgroups as well. When someone has a crossposted message to which
you wish to reply, you should manually delete the other groups from the
'Newsgroups:' header of the message. Most newsreader client programs
(or web-interfaces) pre-set replies with the same newsgroup distribution
as the referent message. For example, at the beginning of this thread,
when I replied to Doug's initial post on the annulment, I manually
stripped the other newsgroup from the header, but when Doug replied to
my reply, he manually reinserted it.

Tim was berating you alone for this, since he likely remembers that Doug
has also been chastised for crossposting in the past, but Doug wilfully
ignores the no-crossposting convention to follow his own drummer (as do
a couple of other posters here), and berating him further about it would
serve no purpose.

It is because you are considered educable that you were rebuked; take it
as a compliment.

I agree with every word of this.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Douglas Richardson

Re: false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 des 2004 21:36:04

lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote in message news:<54ca55f1.0412021729.56adc09f@posting.google.com>...
It's me again...I looked at my original message as it appears in this
group and I have no idea why it has the other news group on there. I
have never even visited that group. I don't know how it could have
happened accidentally, but it must have. I don't even know HOW to
cross post. I would be interested in knowing what happened; the one
thing I DO know is that I did not do it when I posted the message. It
was only addressed to the genealogy group. Did I get hijacked? Bronwen

No, Bronwen, you didn't get hijacked. This issue comes up
periodically on the newsgroup.

Here's your explanation:

I access and post to the newsgroup through Google. Each and every
time I post, Google gives me the following message:

Send to Group(s): (separate multiple groups with commas)

What this means is that EVERYONE is allowed to post simultaneously to
more than one group if they choose to do so ANY TIME they post.

When I posted the document regarding William de Roumare, due to its
content, I chose to simultaneously post it to the medieval history
newsgroup. This is my right and I exercised that right.

The sky didn't fall. The newsgroup was not disrupted. The only thing
untoward which happened was Tim Powys-Lybbe's whining post about
posting to more than one group at a time. He just doesn't understand
Google, that's all.

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake Ciy, Utah

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: false consanguinity annulment (was Re: C.P. Addition...)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 des 2004 22:12:48

In message of 3 Dec, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

The sky didn't fall. The newsgroup was not disrupted. The only thing
untoward which happened was Tim Powys-Lybbe's whining post about
posting to more than one group at a time. He just doesn't understand
Google, that's all.

This is nothing to do with Google. What you are referring to is how
Usenet operates. Google is just a window onto Usenet, it is not
Usenet. This was very ably explained by Todd Farmerie in a post earlier
today, under the title "what happened to the format?".

So it seems that in your turn you neither understand how Google
operates nor do you pay any attention to the sometimes disastrous
consequences of these cross-posts of yours.

We have seen the results of a fair number of people joining in
discussions that they are not interested in but are interested in a good
argument on matters irrelevant to genealogy. It has almost always been
the case that cross-posting with medieval.history is not to our benefit.

It may be to your benefit, but I suggest that this does not apply to the
rest of us on this newsgroup.

Finally you refer to my observations as a "whine". Might I suggest
this is because it is easier to castigate them than to make a
reasonable discussion about them? I have given fair observations above
about the effects of cross-posting. You have not contradicted these
descriptions. I wonder why you have resorted to insult instead of
reason?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»