GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1042790458
From: (Brent W Ruesch)
Subject: Re: Re-dating William Longespee's Birth
Date: 17 Jan 2003 00:00:58 -0800
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3E20D02B.email@example.com>
"Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message news:<>...
> Brent W Ruesch wrote:
> > There appears to be no question that the wife of Roger Bigod is Ida.
> > The question is - whose daughter is She? Was she a Toeni or a Warren
> > ( or what ?)
> > The Toeni family of Roger III called the Conches and born abt 1104
> > died after 29 sep 1158. He married bef 9 Aug 1138 Gertrude (Ida) of
> > Hennegau and had four sons listed: Raoul V who married Margaret
> > Beaumont; Roger;Balduin d 1170; and Geoffrey. No daughters are
> > listed but it could be argued that they had an Ida. In other words a
> > girl would have to be "created" to fill this option since she is not
> > listed. But still , it is possible and probable there was also an
> > Ida.
> No matter what family she belongs to, a daughter will have to be
> 'created', and you proceed to do just that, creating an Ida
> Warren who is entirely without basis in the historical record.
Thanks for responding. Certainly , you do have many opinions on
these. It is interesting to note that you introduced no new data
......only commentaries about how YOU feel about things ........But
unfortunately, I dont think there is any new data out
there..yet...wish there was a better argument and more stuff. Maybe
MR Pfair is working in the right area for this. It may be the
Germans have information that the English don't. Mr Pfair was able
to show that the French had something rather than rehashed material
from the English. Why not the Germans. One just never knows. And
after all.....all the records are'nt in England. But then you know
all of this already....
> > The only family whose records insist that a daughter married Roger
> > Bigod is the Warren family , specifically Hameline Plantagenet and his
> > wife Isabel Warren.
> "Insist" is a bit strong of a word for an undocumented tradition.
> "Claim" might be better.
> > The English records vary somewhat from the German
> > records of this same family.
> There are no German records relating to this family. Only German
> sources (ES) that summarize the conclusions of researchers
> working with English records (and the same goes for yur English
> 'records', actually summaries as well - this is not just
> semantics - it is critical to the understanding of the
> reliability of these sources.)
> > The English state that a daughter,
> > Isabel married Roger Bigod. The German (European Stammtafeln) state
> > that Isabel d. 30 Nov 1234, and married (1) Robert de Lacy d.1193 and
> > (2) Guilbert de L'Aigle Lord of Pevensey d 1231. Notice she did NOT
> > marry Roger Bigod. Ela (spelled Adela in the English records) married
> > Robert Newburn and then William FitzWilliam d. bef 1224. Maud (
> > Mathilda) d. 13 Dec 1228 married (1) Henry Count of Eu d. 1191, and
> > (2) Henry Stuteville lord of Eckington d. 8 Apr bef 1236.
> Is the critical difference between English and German records
> (sic), or between older sources that uncritically accept the
> family traditions and newer ones that are based on modern
> scholarship of the contemporary record?
> > Because the Warren family have insisted that a connection
> > was made by one of their daughters and have said so for centuries, it
> > is most likely the daughter was an Ida and not ISabel as she married
> > two other men mentioned and died 3 years after her last husband,
> > hardly enough time to marry Roger Bigod and have his numerous
> > children.
> This is a non sequitur. That it could not have been Isabel just
> means that the family tradition, however stongly it 'insists',
> must be wrong. Families regularly 'insist' on all kinds of bogus
> connections, so such claims cannot surve as the sole basis for
> suggesting a new reconstruction.
> > Is it possible that the Warren family , large as it was, got confused
> > as to which daughter married Roger Bigod?
> You frame this as if the tradition represented a broadly based
> and ancient family font of knowledge. This is not the case with
> most such traditions. (In fact, most 'traditions' that link
> Warren to Warenne are nothing but hopeful monsters, having no
> factual basis.) These traditions do not come to be found across
> disparate family members because ancient knowledge of authentic
> events has descended to the various lines, but rather are usually
> due to from horizontal transfer, with the claims being copied by
> distant cousins and even non-cousins with the same name, and
> incorporated into the various family traditions at late dates.
> They do not merit an assumption of validity, no matter how
> broadly found they are.
> To answer your question, it is not only possible, but likely that
> one historian got 'confused' that ANY daughter of Hameline de
> Warenne married Roger Bigod, and that his false claim was
> subsequently adopted by those believing themselves to be collaterals.
> > I think so. It certainly
> > was not Isabel who married Roger Bigod but an Ida.... probably an Ida
> > daughter of Hamelyn and Isabel.
> No evidence exists that such a person exists, and the complete
> lack of comment on Longespee being the progeny of Henry having
> bedded his niece argues strenuously against it.
> > No other family has made this claim
> > .....as they should and would have being of high status and close to
> > the throne ........Even the mistress was known.
> This is another flawed deduction. Many such relationships are
> without surviving traditions - just look at the case in question,
> where it took 800 years to rediscover a link between Bigod and
> Longespee. Likewise, as Round showed over 100 years ago, most
> such claims of medieval relationships have no basis in fact. It
> is inappropriate to argue that a baseless claim is better than
> none at all.
> You are faced with an undocumented tradition which gives Hameline
> a daughter Isabel married to Bigod, which is in conflict with all
> of the available contemporary records. When faced with such a
> contradicted tradition, it is not a good idea to try to 'fix' it,
> create another undocumented tradition with which to replace the
> first. Rather, if the tradition does not match the record it
> should be recognized for the invention that it is and rejected.
> Whoever Ida was, an old family tale about an Isabel Warren gives
> us no further insight into the question.