GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-03 > 0889511350


From: Vickie Elam White< >
Subject: Re: William Longspee's True Mother
Date: 9 Mar 1998 22:29:10 -0800


D. Spencer Hines wrote --

>1. No one here seems to have actually SIGHTED and READ these two
>charters in the Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory, allegedly originated
>by William Longespee.
>
>2. The Cartulary itself is allegedly 14th Century. William died in
>1226. Can these two charters be dated in any way? They are allegedly
>not holographic. What is the evidence that William is the source for
>the two charters?
>
>3. We should all understand that the Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory
>is a later collection of documents, not a primary source, in and of
>itself.

No, so far no one on this list/newsgroup has mentioned seeing the
charters. They don't exist any longer. But, as perfectly respectable
and reliable researchers have concluded,they were copied faithfully by
the monks of Bradenstoke Priory.

Remember reading about those guys in the robes? Liked to chant, had
the funny haircuts, kept the sawbones busy because of rampant writer's
cramp from all that copying by hand? They copied some internal records
that were never meant to be viewed by the public but were, however,
intended to keep a record of the priory's holdings and income.

As David Greene, editor of TAG and distinguished scholar in his own
right, posted on 2/26/98:

>So far as the Bradenstoke Cartulary is concerned, we are not dealing
>with something like the famous Horn Papers hoax. What we have is the
>careful attempt by distinguished scholars to present an accurate
>version of a significant early document. A cartulary is not the
>original charters; it is instead, a copy, often in abbreviated form,
>by the monks of a monastery of those documents that granted property
>to the institution. A cartulary is usually the closest we can come to
>the monastic charters, which, in England,usually did not survive the
>Reformation. For a discussion of such cartularies and the original
>documents, see the new edition of the recently recovered Lanercost
>Cartularly, published last year as Vol. 202 or 203 of the publications
>of the Surtees Society.
>
>Most experienced medievalists would be willing to accept the very
>scholarly edition of the Bradenstoke Cartulary unless there are
>reasons to suspect it. Such reasons have not yet been presented, and
>until they are, we should accept the premise that William Longespee
>called his mother the Countess Ida, and go on from there.

Spencer also wrote --

>4. It is surpassingly naive to think that William Longespee would
>not possibly [1] simply not have known for sure who his Mother was
>[2]sincerely thought his Mother was "Countess Ida" but been mistaken
>[3]decided to use the nuns of the Bradenstoke Priory as his validators
>and verifiers in the proof that "Countess Ida" was his Mother.

Oh, please! You're really grasping at straws. And they were monks,
not nuns. If you can't get that basic fact straight...

As with your other posting in which you postulated that perhaps William
LONGESPEE invented a different mother because he didn't want it known
that his mother was a prostitute, this is absurd. William's half-
brother Geoffrey *was* the son of a prostitute, yet it certainly didn't
stop him from moving up in the world.

>Douglas Richardson,who was Gary Boyd Roberts' source for this
>allegation has never published his article. Why?

Because he hasn't gotten to it, that's why. He said a year ago that
he was working on other problems first, such as the identity of "Queen
Clementia." You really should take your own advice and re-read the
old posts on this subject. Besides, why should you care? By your own
pitiful admission, you do not bother with papers and articles
until they make it into book form.

Vickie Elam White

This thread: