GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-08 > 0933643584


From: Jim Stevens< >
Subject: Re: Odard de Dutton
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 21:26:24 -0400


Kay Allen posted:

>Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Aug 1999 04:58:02 -0700, (Kay Allen AG) wrote:
>>
>> >It would appear that Cope is an incompetent genealogist and a plagerist
>> >to boot, if he did not cite Ormerod.
>>
>> Did you know that Gilbert Cope (1840-1928) is a member of the National
>> Genealogy Hall of Fame, and was the foremost expert on English and
>> American Quaker genealogy of his time? Although I am not familiar
>> with the specific case being discussed here, I have done a tremendous
>> amount of genealogical research on English and American Quaker
>> families, and am familiar with much of Cope's work, which I have found
>> to be of very high quality. (I have caught him in a few errors, but
>> every genealogist as prolific as Cope is going get caught making
>> mistakes from time to time.) Before suggesting that such an eminent
>> genealogist might have been a plagiarist and an incompetent, I think
>> that more detailed evidence should be offered.
>>
>> Stewart Baldwin
>
>The name seemed familiar. However, if he was quoted correctly, to which
>I cannot attest, my statement stands. If J. Stevens has misquoted him
>and misled us, then my "appears" lets me off the hook. As J. Stevens
>reported it, it seemed as if he had taken Ormerod without attribution.
>But since I had not seen the work in question, I said appears to be
>as based on what was sent. If what was sent as purporting to be quoting
>Cope, is not an accurate quote or paraphrasing, then Mr. Stevens owes
>us all, including Mr. Cope, an apology for not getting it correct and
>should change his web page so that it accurately reflects Mr. Cope's
>scholarship.
>
>Would Mr. Stevens please send us the applicable passages from Cope's
>work, so that we may more accurately address the matter.
>
>Kay Allen AG

Following is a word-for-word repeat of my original posting:
_____________________________________________________________________
>From Odard's notes on my website:

Extracted from "Genealogy of the Dutton family of Pennsylvania" compiled by
Gilbert Cope, printed in 1871 (pp. 12-13):
Odard or Udard, sometimes also written Hodard and Hudard, came into
England with WILLIAM THE CONQUERER, and seated himself at Dutton, a good
part of wherof Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester [Hugh of Avranches, Earl of
Chester (RIN 3101)], gave unto him as you have heard out of Doomsday-book.
. According to "Burke's Landed Gentry", p.1508: "These six
. brothers [including Odard] accompanied their uncle, Hugh
. Lupus into England, in the train of WILLIAM THE CONQUERER,
. their great-uncle; and on the establishment of the Norman
. power, had various estates and honors conferred upon them."
The ancient Roll of the Barons of Halton saith that with Hugh, Earl of
Chester, came one Nigeil, a nobleman; and with Nigeil came five bretheren
to wit: Hudard, Edard, Wolmere, Horswyne, and Wolfaith . . . and unto
Hudard the same Nigeil gave Weston and Great Aston . . . and from this
Hudard came all the Duttons. [Cope goes on to expess doubt as to whether
the five brothers listed above were actually Nigeil's brothers.]
Cope mentions that in 1665 an heirloom called "Hudard's sword" was then
in the custody of Lady Elinour Viscountess Kilmorey, sole dau. and heir of
Thomas Dutton of Dutton.
Regarding Odard's parentage, Cope says that "Burke's Landed Gentry",
p.1508, cited above, calls him the son of WILLIAM, COUNT OF EU (RIN 3830)
and his second wife Jeanne, niece of Hugh of Avranches, Earl of Chester.
This would give him a descent from RICHARD I, DUKE OF NORMANDY (RIN 1308).
Cope states that another source, "Lyson's Magna Britannia", calls Odard the
son of Yvron, Viscount of Constantine.

I do not beleive that current scholarly opinion gives much weight to the
descent from Duke Richard.

Odard is # 5274 in the database at my website.
_____________________________________________________________________

It has been quite a while since I wrote this, so I got Cope out and
refreshed my memory. The above is indeed directly quoted from the book.
After his entry on Odard, Cope has a footnote in which he refers to the
Burke citation. This is the indented portion of my note.

I beleive my notes acurately reflect Cope's position, with which I agree;
to wit:

Odard is the earliest verifiable individual in this line. Burke and Lyson
claim to extend the line further back to Duke Richard, but Cope takes
exception to this.

The "recent scholarly opinion" I refer to AGREES with Cope. It appears
that Kay read my notes to say that it is with Cope, rather than Burke and
Lyson, that modern research disagrees with.

Bt the way, the comment was made that "Viscount of Constantine" should have
read "Viscount of Contenin". I would agree. However I am looking at Cope
right now and it does indeed say "Viscount of Constantine". However, this
was not Cope's error as he was merely reporting what he read in "Lyson's
Magna Britannia".

Just to demonstrate Cope's attention to detail, let me point out that his
lengthy footnote from which I partially quoted begins, "The Warburtons
claim consanguinity . . . through William, Earl of Eu, who married a niece
of William the Conquerer . . ." and ends. "Leycester mentions that William,
Earl of Eu, married a sister to Hugh Lupus, and gives the paternal ancestry
of the latter, but says nothing of their relationship to either William the
Conquerer or to the six brothers above named. He says elsewhere that Sir
George Warburton denied him the perusal of the Warburton papers, which may
account for the lack of information on this point."

Today is the first day of the rest of your life ! () Jim

Visit my genealogy website at
http://www.gendex.com/users/jas

This thread: