GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-02 > 1140444607


From: John Plant <>
Subject: Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (contempory evidence for the namePlantevelu)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:21:23 +0000
References: <43F2F906.5070208@isc.keele.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <43F2F906.5070208@isc.keele.ac.uk>


Matt,

You ask a very interesting question:

"Why did Richard of York not take the by-name of a more recent, more
prestigious ancestor and could it have been that the Plantagenet name
had remained in continuous unofficial use even though that lacks evidence?"

I can just make a few relevant comments.

First, I should note the genealogist's mantra of argumentum ad
ignorantum. In that context, filling in the gaps for surname information
might be seen as a sin. However, we are not here discussing the
painstaking fitting together of a pedigree for which guessing across the
gap would invalidate the whole process. Historians seem generally quite
happy to fill in the gap between the by-name of Geffrey Plante Genest
and the Plantagenet surname of the House of York while genealogists are
more inclined to complain about that.

As an initial comment, some might question the idea that Geffrey Plante
Genest was not sufficiantly important. He did, after all, father the
Angevin Empire which extended far beyond just England though he was new
to royal status. He was the intended royal successor as Matilda's
carefully selected husband but Stephen of Blois grabbed the English
throne leading to protracted fighting between the Houses of Blois and
Anjou. Also, he became the male-line progenitor of a long-standing line
of kings and that would have been a crucial consideration for discussing
the royal succession.

That said, it seems to me to be reasonable to suppose that the "hairy
shoot" connotation of the name Plantegenest was all too well understood
in the Welsh borders at least. This could have been the inspiration that
led on to the salacious by-name Plantefolie, such as for John
Plantefolie in Somerset in 1226, though the same by-name was spread
around England: Leicestershire in 1209 and Yorkshire in 1270. Also,
since 1219, an alternative spelling of the Plant surname/by-name was
Plente which meant abundant or fertile or generosity. Putting this
together with the three powers of the vegetable soul we get nutritive
generosity, abundant growth, and fertile generation. Robert Grossetest
had been at the royal court and he was prominent around 1200 in
promoting the philosophy of the vegetable soul's powers. Is it a
coincidence that this churchman was active in countering the salacious
connotations?

Perhaps the 1266 record [Close Rolls] for Galfrido Plauntegenet was a
particularly difficult one for the censors to expunge, if that is what
was happening. Galfrido was one of 35 named people: they were evidently
sergeants at arms in the itinerant king's household and they authorised
who should transport the king's garderobe.

Historians might also debate the extent to which the following remark is
telling. The poet laureate, John Gower, wrote to the new Lancastrian
king Henry IV:

My lord, in whom evere yit be founde

Pite withoute spot of violence,

Kep thilke pes alwei withinne bounde,

Which god hathe planted in thi conscience;

Taking care not to attract criticism seems to be the watchword. The king
is cautioned to keep pes (peace or seed?) always within bounds and there
is an emphasis on planted conscience. By the time that Richard duke of
York adopted "Plantaginet" as a royal surname the connotations of the
name Plante Genest may have been cleaned up.

Unfortunately, that does not answer your question directly.

Regards,

John


This thread: