GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-09 > 1251934434
From: Doug Thompson <>
Subject: Re: Mary de Bohun, the missing 4th daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> <1%pnm.52102$gY4.email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 3 Sep, 00:02, wrote:
> On Sep 2, 3:55 pm, Doug <> wrote:
> < It would be interesting to know from the assertion you make whether
> < actually asked to be addressed as "William"? Or did he use another
> < form of the name? Can you give a reference. (No citation - no
> < but I decided not to ignore it!)
> < Regards
> < Doug Thompson
> Can I give you another reference to William la Zouche Mortimer?
> Sure, here's another one from the Patent Rolls:
> Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
No. You misunderstood it seems. We have plenty of references to the
use of the forms William la Zouche Mortimer and William la Zouch de
You made m assertion, unsupported by reference, that William had
maintained that his preferred form was William la Zouche Mortimer.
That was the reference I was asking for.
As you rightly say frequently, unsupported assertions are worthless,
so please let us know where your assertion comes from.
|Re: Mary de Bohun, the missing 4th daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex by Doug Thompson <>|