GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-04 > 1113767084
From: "Clive West" <>
Subject: Re: Newsgroup toadies - Unnecessary name calling
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:44:44 +0100
References: <003201c542b5$82cfd6e0$c3b4fea9@email> <email@example.com> <000401c542c7$c92075c0$c3b4fea9@email> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <d3s3nj$llu$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>
As I mentioned in a previous message, the spelling "le Despencer" is often
found in contemporary documents. One example can be found in Coram Rege. 50
Henry III (1265) rot. 17. This reports that an emissary had been to sent to
rouse the county of Essex in support of Simon de Montfort...."cum litteris
Hugonis le Despencer, tunc Justiciarii Angliae...etc" . The 17th century
historian William Camden likewise spells the name "Despencer". Matthew Paris
writing in Latin in the 13th century always refers to "Hugo le Dispensator".
However "le Despenser" is certainly the most common form and therefore has
the best claim if there has to be a standard version.
> Chris Phillips wrote:
> > It's interesting that even the new DNB refers in a couple of places to
> > title as "Baron Le Despencer". I suspect this is incorrect, and that
> > "Despencer" is not a spelling that was ever used in medieval times - it
> > would be interesting to know when this version originated.
My guess would be that it has its roots in the attempts to trace Spencer
> to Despenser.