GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-09 > 1252001087


From: taf <>
Subject: Re: Mary de Bohun, the missing 4th daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
References: <6145c3ff-2c1d-4d69-aace-4d81f1a4d88c@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com><mailman.307.1251593183.15794.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><006c26c9-8aac-4a4b-8b43-544f10e0adbd@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com><mailman.340.1251678289.15794.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><9261ae71-21b3-4628-88d6-f5e15c2334cf@p36g2000prn.googlegroups.com><45630511-f339-40be-8e04-f0600df244b2@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com><51770605-42a7-47d4-a62c-f05cb82af549@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <8c0e299c-99d9-4884-82e1-359503ed4aa1@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <edeb5dcd-fd5d-4ea4-8ac2-7878932f6a1b@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <3bb98cc5-74c3-4047-a035-0d54d095e601@y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <a314c609-258f-4c10-b682-b306390b66d9@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <bdbf20e7-772e-440f-8257-6f1ee367d3bf@o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <bbe9d0d6-c965-4014-bb2d-ed7fffea0ecb@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>


On Sep 3, 10:00 am, wrote:
> Doug ~
>
> There is apparently yet another suit in print involving William la
> Zouche Mortimer himself, in which he stated the writ was wrongly
> directed to him as it wasn't addressed to him as "William la Zouche
> Mortimer."  You apparently missed the lawsuit.  If it was not included
> in my references, then you have my apology.  I've seen the suit in the
> past.

Given that you have been unable to provide a reference, and now say
you can't, 'take my word for it' is not very persuasive.


> In the second case you cited, if the protection was denied because it
> didn't match the writ, it presumes that William would have had to use
> a form that was the same or similar to the writ.  That doesn't mean
> that he himself did or didn't use "William la Zouche Mortimer" as his
> name.  You've interpreted it to mean that he used the name "W. Souche
> de Mortuo Mari" which which isn't necessarily the case.  He would have
> had to follow the name given in the writ.

Which blows a big hole in the entire 'the one he used is THE correct
form of the name' argument.


> In any case, you've proved my chief point that name forms mattered in
> medieval times, just as they do now.

No. That does not prove that name forms mattered with respect to
naming individuals, only that within a specific case, everything had
to match, even if it was wrong. An entire case could be fought under
a non-preferred name simply because that is what was first used. Looks
to me like they didn't think the form used mattered at all, just
internal consistency.


>  If a request for protection was
> denied because it didn't match the writ (which you've shown is the
> case), that is similar to William la Zouche Mortimer asking that a
> writ de denied because it was wrongly addressed to him under a
> different name.   It's the same principle.


No, it is not the same principle. One says 'we don't care what you
call yourself - for the purposes of this case you must use a form you
don't use'. The other (if it even exists) says 'we care what you call
yourself - so if the case uses a different form it is void'. These
are, in fact, polar opposites.

You started this by parading out the old gem that there is supposedly
a single most correct form of a medieval name - that which the
individual used. Now you try to claim support from a document that
tells the individual that he is using the incorrect form. That is
ironic, to say the least.

taf



This thread: