Ida mother of William Longspee'

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

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

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Adrian ~

I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
of Salisbury.

The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
connection between the Longespée and Bigod family. His book may be
found at the following weblink:

Title page:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id= ... Z3qgwj-Gmk

pg. 199:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id= ... #PPA199,M1

pg. 209:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id= ... #PPA209,M1

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Note: William Longespée has long been thought to have been the
illegitimate child of Henry II, King of England, by his mistress,
Rosamond Clifford. New evidence has surfaced in recent years,
however, which indicates William was actually the son of King Henry II
by another mistress, a certain Ida, afterwards wife of Roger le Bigod
(died 1221), Earl of Norfolk [see C.P. 9 (1936): 586-589 (sub
Norfolk); Kemp, Reading Abbey Cartularies 1 (Camden 4th Ser. 31)
(1986): 371]. For conclusive evidence that William Longespée was the
son of Countess Ida le Bigod, see London, Cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1979): 143, 188, which includes two
charters in which Earl William Longespée specifically names his
mother, Countess Ida. Furthermore, among the English prisoners
captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, there was a certain Ralph
[le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record refers to as
"brother" [that is, half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of
Salisbury [see Brial, Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de
Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17)
(1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in
bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis"); see
also Malo, Un grand feudataire, Renaud de Dammartin et la coalition de
Bouvines (1898):199, 209, which author identified Ralph le Bigod as
brother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury]. For newly published
evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see
Morris, The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th Century (2005): 2, who
cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl
Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South
Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de
Tony [see Rotuli Hundredorum 1 (1812): 504, 537]. Morris shows that
Earl Roger le Bigod received these manors by writ of the king, he
having held them for three quarters of a year at Michaelmas 1182 [see
PR 28 Henry II, 1181-1182 (Pipe Roll Soc.) (1910):64]. This appears
to pinpoint to marriage of Ida de Tony and Earl Roger le Bigod as
having occurred about Christmas 1181. As for Countess Ida's
parentage, it seems virtually certain that she was a daughter of Ralph
V de Tony (died 1162), of Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife,
Margaret (b. c.1125, living 1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd
Earl of Leicester [see C.P.7 (1929): 530, footnote e (incorrectly
dates Ralph and Margaret's marriage as "after 1155" based on the
misdating of a charter--correction provided by Ray Phair); C.P. 12(1)
(1953): 764-765 (sub Tony); Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth
and Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 525 (Tosny pedigree)]. For
evidence which supports Ida's placement as a child of Ralph V de Tony,
several facts may be noted. First, Countess Ida and her husband,
Roger le Bigod, are known to have named children, Ralph and Margaret,
presumably in honor of Ida's parents, Ralph and Margaret de Tony [see
Thompson, Liber Vitæ Ecclesiæ Dunelmenis (Surtees Soc. 136) (1923): fo.
63b, for a contemporary list of the Bigod children]. Countess Ida was
herself evidently named in honor of Ralph V de Tony's mother, Ida of
Hainault. Next, William Longespée and his descendants had a long
standing association with the family of Roger de Akeny, of Garsington,
Oxfordshire, which Roger was a younger brother of Ralph V de Tony
(died 1162) [see C.P. 8 (1932): chart foll. 464; 14 (1998): 614; Loyd,
Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Fams. (1951): 2; VCH Oxford 5 (1957):
138; Harper-Bill, Dodnash Priory Charters (Suffolk Rec. Soc. 16)
(1998): 34-37, 39-40, 72-73; Fam. Hist. 18 (1995-97): 47-64; 19
(1998): 125-129]. Lastly, Roger le Bigod and his step-son William
Longespée both had associations with William the Lion, King of
Scotland, which connection can be readily explained by virtue of King
William's wife, Ermengarde, being sister to Constance de Beaumont,
wife of Countess Ida's presumed brother, Roger VI de Tony [see C.P.
12(1) (1953): 760-769 (sub Tony)]. William the Lion was likewise near
related to both of Countess Ida's presumed parents, her father by a
shared descent from Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror,
and her mother by a shared descent from Isabel de Vermandois, Countess
of Surrey. Roger le Bigod and William Longespée were both present
with other English relations of William the Lion at an important
gathering at Lincoln in 1200, when William the Lion paid homage to
King John of England [see Stubbs, Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene
4 (Rolls Ser. 51) (1871): 141-142]. Thus, naming patterns, familial
and political associations give strong evidence that Ida, wife of Earl
Roger le Bigod, was a daughter of Ralph V de Tony.

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

On Jan 30, 12:32 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Adrian ~

I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
of Salisbury.

The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
connection between the Longespée and Bigod family.  His book may be
found at the following weblink:

Title page:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...

pg. 199:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...

pg. 209:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Note: William Longespée has long been thought to have been the
illegitimate child of Henry II, King of England, by his mistress,
Rosamond Clifford.  New evidence has surfaced in recent years,
however, which indicates William was actually the son of King Henry II
by another mistress, a certain Ida, afterwards wife of Roger le Bigod
(died 1221), Earl of Norfolk [see C.P. 9 (1936): 586-589 (sub
Norfolk); Kemp, Reading Abbey Cartularies 1 (Camden 4th Ser. 31)
(1986): 371].  For conclusive evidence that William Longespée was the
son of Countess Ida le Bigod, see London, Cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1979): 143, 188, which includes two
charters in which Earl William Longespée specifically names his
mother, Countess Ida.  Furthermore, among the English prisoners
captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, there was a certain Ralph
[le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record refers to as
"brother" [that is, half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of
Salisbury [see Brial, Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de
Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17)
(1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in
bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis"); see
also Malo, Un grand feudataire, Renaud de Dammartin et la coalition de
Bouvines (1898):199, 209, which author identified Ralph le Bigod as
brother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury].  For newly published
evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see
Morris, The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th Century (2005): 2, who
cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl
Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South
Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de
Tony [see Rotuli Hundredorum 1 (1812): 504, 537].  Morris shows that
Earl Roger le Bigod received these manors by writ of the king, he
having held them for three quarters of a year at Michaelmas 1182 [see
PR 28 Henry II, 1181-1182 (Pipe Roll Soc.) (1910):64].  This appears
to pinpoint to marriage of Ida de Tony and Earl Roger le Bigod as
having occurred about Christmas 1181.  As for Countess Ida's
parentage, it seems virtually certain that she was a daughter of Ralph
V de Tony (died 1162), of Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife,
Margaret (b. c.1125, living 1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd
Earl of Leicester [see C.P.7 (1929): 530, footnote e (incorrectly
dates Ralph and Margaret's marriage as "after 1155" based on the
misdating of a charter--correction provided by Ray Phair); C.P. 12(1)
(1953): 764-765 (sub Tony); Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth
and Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 525 (Tosny pedigree)].  For
evidence which supports Ida's placement as a child of Ralph V de Tony,
several facts may be noted.  First, Countess Ida and her husband,
Roger le Bigod, are known to have named children, Ralph and Margaret,
presumably in honor of Ida's parents, Ralph and Margaret de Tony [see
Thompson, Liber Vitæ Ecclesiæ Dunelmenis (Surtees Soc. 136) (1923): fo..
63b, for a contemporary list of the Bigod children].  Countess Ida was
herself evidently named in honor of Ralph V de Tony's mother, Ida of
Hainault.  Next, William Longespée and his descendants had a long
standing association with the family of Roger de Akeny, of Garsington,
Oxfordshire, which Roger was a younger brother of Ralph V de Tony
(died 1162) [see C.P. 8 (1932): chart foll. 464; 14 (1998): 614; Loyd,
Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Fams. (1951): 2; VCH Oxford 5 (1957):
138; Harper-Bill, Dodnash Priory Charters (Suffolk Rec. Soc. 16)
(1998): 34-37, 39-40, 72-73; Fam. Hist. 18 (1995-97): 47-64; 19
(1998): 125-129].  Lastly, Roger le Bigod and his step-son William
Longespée both had associations with William the Lion, King of
Scotland, which connection can be readily explained by virtue of King
William's wife, Ermengarde, being sister to Constance de Beaumont,
wife of Countess Ida's presumed brother, Roger VI de Tony [see C.P.
12(1) (1953): 760-769 (sub Tony)].  William the Lion was likewise near
related to both of Countess Ida's presumed parents, her father by a
shared descent from Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror,
and her mother by a shared descent from Isabel de Vermandois, Countess
of Surrey.  Roger le Bigod and William Longespée were both present
with other English relations of William the Lion at an important
gathering at Lincoln in 1200, when William the Lion paid homage to
King John of England [see Stubbs, Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene
4 (Rolls Ser. 51) (1871): 141-142].  Thus, naming patterns, familial
and political associations give strong evidence that Ida, wife of Earl
Roger le Bigod, was a daughter of Ralph V de Tony.

Thank you Mr R - hopefully this will spur further research to prove
conclusively her ancestry. Thanks!!

ABB

[Gjest]

On Jan 30, 11:36 am, [email protected] wrote:

As you known, Ray Phair was the
first to publish recognition of the genealogical significance of this
information - that it showed a relationship between the Toeny family

That should have said "Bigod family"

and William Longespee and thereby confirmed the previously unsupported
speculation regarding the shared maternity through Ida.

[Gjest]

[childish crosspost removed]

On Jan 30, 9:32 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Adrian ~

I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
of Salisbury.

The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
connection between the Longespée and Bigod family.

Not really an accurate portrayal. He noticed that a source called a
Ralph le Bigod brother of William Longespee. There is no indication
that he recognized any significance to this information, or concerned
himself with the Bigod family in the least. He appears to be doing
nothing but repeating what the original source said, without further
effort at genealogical analysis. As you known, Ray Phair was the
first to publish recognition of the genealogical significance of this
information - that it showed a relationship between the Toeny family
and William Longespee and thereby confirmed the previously unsupported
speculation regarding the shared maternity through Ida.

There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Adrian ~

After Henri Malo published his important work correctly identifying
Ralph le Bigod as the brother of William Longespée, genealogists such
as Walter Lee Sheppard, FASG, and Charles Evans, F.S.A., F.S.G.,
failed to take notice. Sheppard, for example, published a dreadful
article in 1964, in which he identified the mother of William
Longespée as Annabel de Baliol. In 1979 Vera London published charter
evidence which conclusively proved that William Longespée was the son
of an unidentified "Countess Ida." In 1993 Douglas Richardson
identified William's mother as Ida, wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk. Finally, in 2005, Marc Morris published evidence from a
royal inquest dated 1275, in which the jurors affirmed that Earl Roger
le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South
Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de
Tony. Thus, in this train of events, it was finally revealed that the
mother of William Longespée was Ida de Tony.

As for Ray Phair, he merely repeated the same information published
many years earlier by the historian, Henri Malo. In fact, the list of
the prisoners taken at the Battle of Bouvines which Malo cited as his
source was available in print to anyone as early as Brial, Monumens de
Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de Louis VIII, volume 1 (Recueil des
Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17) (1878): 101 (Guillelmus
Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus
Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis").

This item may be viewed at the following weblink (Go to item marked
D):

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... 0135&M=tdm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

Not really meaningful here...

We need not worry about Bishop Berkeley in this situation [he coined that
thought puzzle].

If we find a genealogical tree fallen in the forest -- even long after it
fell -- we don't really care whether it made a noise or not.

He who cares about such trifles is lost.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:89e2caa5-6ccf-4e3a-8513-eed91a1ef3ca@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.

taf

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

On Jan 30, 3:06 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear  Adrian ~

After Henri Malo published his important work correctly identifying
Ralph le Bigod as the brother of William Longespée, genealogists such
as Walter Lee Sheppard, FASG, and Charles Evans, F.S.A., F.S.G.,
failed to take notice.  Sheppard, for example, published a dreadful
article in 1964, in which he identified the mother of William
Longespée as Annabel de Baliol.  In 1979 Vera London published charter
evidence which conclusively proved that William Longespée was the son
of an unidentified "Countess Ida."  In 1993 Douglas Richardson
identified William's mother as Ida, wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk.  Finally, in 2005, Marc Morris published evidence from a
royal inquest dated 1275, in which the jurors affirmed that Earl Roger
le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South
Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de
Tony.  Thus, in this train of events, it was finally revealed that the
mother of William Longespée was Ida de Tony.

As for Ray Phair, he merely repeated the same information published
many years earlier by the historian, Henri Malo.  In fact, the list of
the prisoners taken at the Battle of Bouvines which Malo cited as his
source was available in print to anyone as early as Brial, Monumens de
Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de Louis VIII, volume 1 (Recueil des
Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17) (1878): 101 (Guillelmus
Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus
Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis").

This item may be viewed at the following weblink (Go to item marked
D):

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... 0135&M=tdm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Thanks for the clarification Mr R - will this ancestry of Ida be
included in future additions of your P. Descent?

[Peter Stewart]

On Jan 31, 6:36 am, [email protected] wrote:

[childish crosspost removed]

On Jan 30, 9:32 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Adrian ~

I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
of Salisbury.

The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
connection between the Longespée and Bigod family.

Not really an accurate portrayal.  He noticed that a source called a
Ralph le Bigod brother of William Longespee. There is no indication
that he recognized any significance to this information, or concerned
himself with the Bigod family in the least. He appears to be doing
nothing but repeating what the original source said, without further
effort at genealogical analysis.

Indeed, Henri Malo insofar as he even put 2 + 2 together came up not
with 4 but with a garbled version of pi. He did not identify William
Longespee's brother Bigod properly - believing in error that Rosamund
Clifford was the mother of both men he called this person "Bigot de
Clifford".

 As you known, Ray Phair was the first to publish recognition of the
genealogical significance of this information - that it showed a
relationship between the Toeny family and William Longespee and
thereby confirmed the previously unsupported speculation regarding
the shared maternity through Ida.

And this correct speculation had been argued most persuasively by Paul
Reed - by contrast, Richardson at one stage was trying to claim that
"Countess Ida" was the same as Ada de Chaumont.

There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.

But in Malo's case a whole tree did not fall in the first place, he
just snapped off a twig, incidentally, that fell into lower branches,
never hitting the ground.

Peter Stewart

[[email protected]]

On Jan 30, 4:51 pm, [email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.

If its there for all to find, the answer is yes. It up to everybody to find it.

Credit should go to the first person (in modern times, that is) to

find it. If it sits unused, yes, secondary credit should go to
a popularizer.

Doug McDonald

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

Jennifer Mills

[Peter Stewart]

On Jan 31, 10:59 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 30, 4:51 pm, [email protected] wrote:> [email protected] wrote:

There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.

If its there for all to find, the answer is yes. It up to everybody to find it.

 Credit should go to the first person (in modern times, that is) to
 find it. If it sits unused, yes, secondary credit should go to
 a popularizer.

 Doug McDonald

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

Nonsense - Doug McDonald is quite right, and the person who read the
list of prisoners from Bouvines (not "found" however, as this had been
recorded by a royal historiographer in the first place and was known
to historians for centuries before Henri Malo happened to mention it
in passing), and also knew what to make of this in the context of
William Longespee's parentage, was Ray Phair.

You only have Douglas Richardson's word for it that Henri Malo had
supposedly come up with anything new or worthwhile about William
Longespee in the biography of Renaud de Dammartin published in 1898,
unless you are co-incidentally making the same mistake about this -
and if you have participated in SGM for any time you ought to realise
how little Richardson's word is worth.

Peter Stewart

[[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Richardson

You mentioned Charles Evans. Why is he important to this discussion?

Jennifer


On Jan 30, 1:06 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear  Adrian ~

After Henri Malo published his important work correctly identifying
Ralph le Bigod as the brother of William Longespée, genealogists such
as Walter Lee Sheppard, FASG, and Charles Evans, F.S.A., F.S.G.,
failed to take notice.  Sheppard, for example, published a dreadful
article in 1964, in which he identified the mother of William
Longespée as Annabel de Baliol.  In 1979 Vera London published charter
evidence which conclusively proved that William Longespée was the son
of an unidentified "Countess Ida."  In 1993 Douglas Richardson
identified William's mother as Ida, wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk.  Finally, in 2005, Marc Morris published evidence from a
royal inquest dated 1275, in which the jurors affirmed that Earl Roger
le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South
Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de
Tony.  Thus, in this train of events, it was finally revealed that the
mother of William Longespée was Ida de Tony.

As for Ray Phair, he merely repeated the same information published
many years earlier by the historian, Henri Malo.  In fact, the list of
the prisoners taken at the Battle of Bouvines which Malo cited as his
source was available in print to anyone as early as Brial, Monumens de
Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de Louis VIII, volume 1 (Recueil des
Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17) (1878): 101 (Guillelmus
Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus
Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis").

This item may be viewed at the following weblink (Go to item marked
D):

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... 0135&M=tdm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Jan 30, 2:42 pm, Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 31, 6:36 am, [email protected] wrote:

There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.

But in Malo's case a whole tree did not fall in the first place, he
just snapped off a twig, incidentally, that fell into lower branches,
never hitting the ground.

If that . . . .

I was addressing my analogy to the claim (that the publication of 'the
answer' in 1898 renders Ray Phair's contribution nugatory), not to the
actual facts of the case.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:94105d8b-74a0-4313-ae7e-b6f2e57b5e1e@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 30, 2:42 pm, Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:36 am, [email protected] wrote:

There is the second question hidden here as well. If a genealogical
tree falls in the forest, and no one hears, does it make any noise.

But in Malo's case a whole tree did not fall in the first place, he
just snapped off a twig, incidentally, that fell into lower branches,
never hitting the ground.

If that . . . .

I was addressing my analogy to the claim (that the publication of 'the
answer' in 1898 renders Ray Phair's contribution nugatory), not to the
actual facts of the case.

Yes, understood. Speaking of Ray Phair's contribution, there was a time when
Douglas Richardson was willing to cadge off this directly: on 7 December
2002 starting a thread titled "Countess Ida, mother of WIlliam Longespee,
Earl of Salisbury", he posted:

The following explantory note is what presently appears in the draft
of the manuscript of the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry,
regarding Countess Ida, mother of William Longespee, Earl of
Salisbury. Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

- - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: William Longespée has long been thought to have been the
illegitimate child of Henry II, King of England, by his mistress,
Rosamond Clifford. However, new evidence has surfaced in recent
years which indicates William was actually the son of King Henry II
by another of his mistresses, a certain Ida, afterwards the wife of
Roger Bigod (died 1221), 4th Earl of Norfolk, a noted Magna Carta
baron. For the Bigod family, see C.P. 9 (1936): 586-589 (sub
Norfolk); A.H. Thompson ed. Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmenis
(Surtees Soc., vol. 136) (1928). For conclusive evidence that
William Longespée was the son of Countess Ida, see V.C.M.
London Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc., vol.
35) (1979): 143,188, which includes two charters in which William
Longespée specifically names his mother, Countess Ida. Moreover,
among the prisoners captured at the battle of Bouvines in Flanders in
1214 was a Ralph Bigod, who contemporary records specifically call
"brother" [i.e., half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
[see J.W. Baldwin ed. Les Registres de Philippe Augustus (1992),
miscellanea no. 13].

The last citation is of course to the appropriate modern edition of the text
in question, as posted by Ray in his original notification of the evidence
to SGM.

Since then, however, Richardson has tried to cover his tracks by switching
to an obsolete extract of the same material published in 'Recueil des
historiens' vol. 17 as copied below from the present thread.

I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
of Salisbury.

<snip>

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Note: William Longespée has long been thought to have been the
illegitimate child of Henry II, King of England, by his mistress,
Rosamond Clifford. New evidence has surfaced in recent years,
however, which indicates William was actually the son of King Henry II
by another mistress, a certain Ida, afterwards wife of Roger le Bigod
(died 1221), Earl of Norfolk [see C.P. 9 (1936): 586-589 (sub
Norfolk); Kemp, Reading Abbey Cartularies 1 (Camden 4th Ser. 31)
(1986): 371]. For conclusive evidence that William Longespée was the
son of Countess Ida le Bigod, see London, Cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1979): 143, 188, which includes two
charters in which Earl William Longespée specifically names his
mother, Countess Ida. Furthermore, among the English prisoners
captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, there was a certain Ralph
[le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record refers to as
"brother" [that is, half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of
Salisbury [see Brial, Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de
Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17)
(1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in
bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis");

An instructive comparison - nothing the first time round in the draft for
his book to suggest that Richardson had not actually seen the work cited, to
verify the information he had clearly taken from Ray's post, and nothing in
the current file note to account for the weird switch of references for the
same evidence.

Why is that, can Richardson tell us?

Failing an explanation, we can only suppose a nefarious cover-up, that was
an outcome of more idle Googling to find an alternative for the same source,
hoping a casual or inexperienced reader would assume Richardson had come to
this independently by his own research.

Peter Stewart

[Rosie Bevan]

On Jan 31, 6:32 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Adrian ~

I've copied below my current file note concerning Ida de Tony, wife of
Roger le Bigod, Earl of Bigod, and mother of William Longespée, Earl
of Salisbury.

The historian, Henri Malo, is the first person who noted the
connection between the Longespée and Bigod family. His book may be
found at the following weblink:

Title page:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...

pg. 199:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...

pg. 209:http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=zeoJAAAAIAAJ&dq=Un+grand+feuda...

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Note: William Longespée has long been thought to have been the
illegitimate child of Henry II, King of England, by his mistress,
Rosamond Clifford. New evidence has surfaced in recent years,
however, which indicates William was actually the son of King Henry II
by another mistress, a certain Ida, afterwards wife of Roger le Bigod
(died 1221), Earl of Norfolk [see C.P. 9 (1936): 586-589 (sub
Norfolk); Kemp, Reading Abbey Cartularies 1 (Camden 4th Ser. 31)
(1986): 371]. For conclusive evidence that William Longespée was the
son of Countess Ida le Bigod, see London, Cartulary of Bradenstoke
Priory (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1979): 143, 188, which includes two
charters in which Earl William Longespée specifically names his
mother, Countess Ida. Furthermore, among the English prisoners
captured at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, there was a certain Ralph
[le] Bigod, who a contemporary French record refers to as
"brother" [that is, half-brother] of William Longespée, Earl of
Salisbury [see Brial, Monumens de Règnes des Philippe Auguste et de
Louis VIII 1 (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 17)
(1878): 101 (Guillelmus Armoricus: "Isti sunt Prisiones (capti in
bello Bovinensi)...Radulphus Bigot, frater Comitis Saresburiensis"); see
also Malo, Un grand feudataire, Renaud de Dammartin et la coalition de
Bouvines (1898):199, 209, which author identified Ralph le Bigod as
brother of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury]. For newly published
evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see
Morris, The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th Century (2005): 2, who
cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl
Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acle, Halvergate, and South
Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de
Tony [see Rotuli Hundredorum 1 (1812): 504, 537]. Morris shows that
Earl Roger le Bigod received these manors by writ of the king, he
having held them for three quarters of a year at Michaelmas 1182 [see
PR 28 Henry II, 1181-1182 (Pipe Roll Soc.) (1910):64]. This appears
to pinpoint to marriage of Ida de Tony and Earl Roger le Bigod as
having occurred about Christmas 1181. As for Countess Ida's
parentage, it seems virtually certain that she was a daughter of Ralph
V de Tony (died 1162), of Flamstead, Hertfordshire, by his wife,
Margaret (b. c.1125, living 1185), daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd
Earl of Leicester [see C.P.7 (1929): 530, footnote e (incorrectly
dates Ralph and Margaret's marriage as "after 1155" based on the
misdating of a charter--correction provided by Ray Phair); C.P. 12(1)
(1953): 764-765 (sub Tony); Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth
and Early Thirteenth Centuries (2004): 525 (Tosny pedigree)]. For
evidence which supports Ida's placement as a child of Ralph V de Tony,
several facts may be noted. First, Countess Ida and her husband,
Roger le Bigod, are known to have named children, Ralph and Margaret,
presumably in honor of Ida's parents, Ralph and Margaret de Tony [see
Thompson, Liber Vitæ Ecclesiæ Dunelmenis (Surtees Soc. 136) (1923): fo..
63b, for a contemporary list of the Bigod children].

<snip>

I note that you have neglected to credit me as a source for the names
of the children of Ida and Roger Bigod from the Durham Liber Vitae. It
would be nice if you extended the same scholarly courtesy you demand
of others, but I guess your hypocrisy in regard to theft of research,
and everything else shameless about you, is part and parcel of your
poverished reputation as a human being and scholar.

I posted this information to the newsgroup in July 2002 under the
thread "Liber Vitae and the family of Roger and Ida Bigod", and
followed it up in an article The Durham Liber Vitae: Some reflections
on its significance as a genealogical resource, Foundations (2005) 1
(6) pp. 414-424. The intellectual discussion and observations about
the Bigod family in the Liber Vitae are mine alone, as the listing is
not at all obvious on the folio. Not even Marc Morris had come across
this material.

(p. 419):
"Because they do not occur elsewhere, we are fortunate to have the
names of the entire family of Roger Bigod and Countess Ida listed in
the Durham Liber Vitae. Their grouping has been disguised by the
chaotic arrangement of names on the page by the cleric truncating the
lines two thirds of the way across and by the insertion of unrelated
individuals between the first and second lines in a later hand. We are
given

Comes Rogu's Bigot. Ida uxor ei'
Hugo Will's Rogu's Johs Radulf
Maria Margaret Ida pueri ei' "

I repeat Michael Andrews-Reading's query of yesterday, "how exactly do
you think these public displays of serious deficiencies will enhance
your reputation or assist you professionally?

Rosie Bevan

[Peter Stewart]

"Rosie Bevan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 31, 6:32 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

For evidence which supports Ida's placement as a child of Ralph
V de Tony, several facts may be noted. First, Countess Ida and
her husband, Roger le Bigod, are known to have named children,
Ralph and Margaret, presumably in honor of Ida's parents, Ralph
and Margaret de Tony [see Thompson, Liber Vitæ Ecclesiæ
Dunelmenis (Surtees Soc. 136) (1923): fo. 63b, for a
contemporary list of the Bigod children].

snip

I note that you have neglected to credit me as a source for the names
of the children of Ida and Roger Bigod from the Durham Liber Vitae.
It would be nice if you extended the same scholarly courtesy you
demand of others, but I guess your hypocrisy in regard to theft of
research, and everything else shameless about you, is part and parcel
of your poverished reputation as a human being and scholar.

I posted this information to the newsgroup in July 2002 under the
thread "Liber Vitae and the family of Roger and Ida Bigod", and
followed it up in an article The Durham Liber Vitae: Some reflections
on its significance as a genealogical resource, Foundations (2005) 1
(6) pp. 414-424. The intellectual discussion and observations about
the Bigod family in the Liber Vitae are mine alone, as the listing is
not at all obvious on the folio. Not even Marc Morris had come across
this material.

This underlines not only the appalling behaviour of Douglas Richardson, in
the present instance and more generally over years, but also the resulting
loss to him of the benefits he might have gained from truly collegial and
unselfish exchanges with this newsgroup. In particular he has denied himself
the respect and cooperation of such genuine experts in the field that
engages most of his own time as Rosie Bevan and Paul Reed.

It's also interesting to note that by Richardson's own botched efforts he
has missed the most obvious direct evidence bearing on the immediate family
of Roger de Tosny and Ida, the charter confirming earlier donations and
naming his wife and all their children.

But of course since Richardson doesn't fairly ackowledge help given, or
taken, he can't expect to go on receiving it here.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

< 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

[Gjest]

On Jan 31, 7:54 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

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

You're entirely correct.

No, not entirely, unless you are speaking solely about her recognition
that 1898 comes before the other publication dates involved. However,
as to the application of appropriate credit having to go to Malo, that
bears on the issue of what, exactly Malo published and whether credit
should accrue for what he published. To be accurate, you should have
said, "I agree with you entirely," rather than the formulation you
present here - that which agrees with the Richardson interpretation is
"correct", and by implication, that which disagrees is wrong. Tell
me, what came of qualifying presented opinions, Mr. Pot?

Mr. Malo definitely deserves the credit for discovering that Ralph le
Bigod was William Longespée's brother.

. . . . and that they were both children of Rosamund Clifford.
Repeating a record that has already been published, then
misinterpreting it, is hardly meritorious.

He published first. That's
crystal clear.

At least we have that math problem worked out. Now, what, precisely,
did he publish first?

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

Show us the page where Mr. Malo indicates that William and Ralph are
both children of Countess Ida. This mental contortionism in order to
avoid giving credit to the person who was first published a synthesis
of the two critical pieces of evidence, the Bradenstoke priory and the
Bouvines list, is unbecoming of a professional genealogist and
historian whose stated goal in participating here is to make friends.

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 31, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:

< Show us the page where Mr. Malo indicates that William and Ralph are
< both children of Countess Ida.
<
< taf

taf ~

William Longespée was not identified as the child of Countess Ida,
wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, until someone named Douglas
Richardson did so in 1993. Since you've asked for the exact page
reference, here it is.

G.B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American
Colonies or the United States (1993): 347.

If you need any other help, please let me know.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:66837936-6c91-4bbd-8d2e-df6b11c88c6c@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 31, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:

< Show us the page where Mr. Malo indicates that William and Ralph are
< both children of Countess Ida.
<
< taf

taf ~

William Longespée was not identified as the child of Countess Ida,
wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, until someone named Douglas
Richardson did so in 1993. Since you've asked for the exact page
reference, here it is.

G.B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American
Colonies or the United States (1993): 347.

If you need any other help, please let me know.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[James Hogg]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:10:41 -0000, "David S. Hines"
<[email protected]> wrote:

G

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

How would you translate that?

I suppose your semi-literate suggestion would be:

"Shame upon HE who thinks evil of it"

or

"Evil be to HE who evil thinks"

or

"Evil be to HE who thinks evil"

Luckily, the official website of the British monarchy is still staffed
by people who know correct English grammar:

"Evil be unto HIM who thinks evil"
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2542.asp

Or are they "mistakenly using German
grammar on the English language" (DSH)?

[Gjest]

On Jan 31, 9:39 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 31, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:

Show us the page where Mr. Malo indicates that William and Ralph are
both children of Countess Ida.

taf

taf ~

William Longespée was not identified as the child of Countess Ida,
wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, until someone named Douglas
Richardson did so in 1993. Since you've asked for the exact page
reference, here it is.

And what reference did this Mr. Richardson give? None. That is
because he had none. It was a wild guess based on nothing more
substantial than the old 'name's the same' fallacy. Certainly credit
needs to go to the person who proved it, not the person who just made
some random speculation that happened to resemble the historical
reality.

G.B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American
Colonies or the United States (1993): 347.

If you need any other help, please let me know.

This entire post is nothing but an elaborate way of saying that, no,
contrary to your previous claims, Malo did not resolve this question.

taf

[Gjest]

[cross-posting removed....again]

On Jan 31, 9:39 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 31, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:

Show us the page where Mr. Malo indicates that William and Ralph are
both children of Countess Ida.

taf

taf ~

William Longespée was not identified as the child of Countess Ida,
wife of Roger le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, until someone named Douglas
Richardson did so in 1993. Since you've asked for the exact page
reference, here it is.

G.B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American
Colonies or the United States (1993): 347.

If you need any other help, please let me know.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

I believe Todd's question was in regard to who first PUBLISHED the
presently accepted identification of Countess Ida. GBR in RD500
cites, inter alia, "a forthcoming Countess Ida monograph by Douglas
Richardson" - which was never published, it seems. DR's
identification of Countess Ida was apparently first published in his
Plantagenet Ancestry in 2004 - two years after Ray Phair's TAG article
on the subject. And the RD500 reference simply calls Ida the wife of
Roger Bigod, not identifying Ida's own parentage, as others
subsequently did. The only support for DR's claim to a 1993
identification is GBR's (inadequately unsupported) statement that DR
had made that claim. Are these the standards of a professional
genealogist?

For an interesting comment on the history of this particular
"identification", see the following - and (for a chuckle) note the
author of the comment:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 0921633937

Some things never change.....

Michael Andrews-Reading got it right: "How exactly do you think these
public displays of serious deficiencies will enhance your reputation
or assist you professionally?"

[Gjest]

On Jan 31, 1:47 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

A search on Google Books for "Longespee" and "Bigod" together that happened
to turn up his 1898 work is not a scholarly way to establish priority in the
literature, even if you had not also tried to deceive readers as to what
Malo actually published in the first place.

To remove this from the current topic to the more general, Jette is
largely credited with the hypothesis that Agatha was daughter of
Jaroslav of Kiev. The curious thing is that the solution had, in
fact, been around for at least a century, and perhaps a century before
that (the citation I have is to an edition of a work that does not
contain the information, but it may appear in other editions). the
more recent of these cites the identical primary sources, and
effectively makes the identical central arguments. Reading Jette's
article, it is not clear whether he never looked, simply assuming that
if it had been suggested it would have been mentioned in the other
more modern discussions of the issue, or if he just failed to find the
several distinct instances (and let me give credit where it is due -
for all of its problems with missing pages, inappropriate access
restrictions, poor OCR and sloppy bibliographic indexing, Google Books
has expanded exponentially the access of the average researcher to
such obscure resources).

That being said, where does true priority lie? With the first person
to publish the suggestion? This may have been done in a collection of
genealogical tables without references, and using who-knows-what
basis. Or should it go to the person who published the full
discussion, with citations? How about 'credit' which is distinct from
priority. Either of those? Given that the full discussion was in a
general-interest journal and not a genealogical of historical one, and
quickly passed into obscurity, what credit does it deserve is shaping
modern opinion on the question, and how much does Jette deserve? (And
here is where there is another monkey wrench. Were Jette to have
failed to look, vs. looked and failed to find, vs. found and failed to
report [and I am in no way suggesting that this is the case], vs.
found and reported this previous instance, this would affect the
credit due, but there is no way to distinguish the first three,
barring a paper trail approaching the bit trail we have in the Ida
case.)

taf