GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-09 > 1252004881
From:
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 12:08:01 -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><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> <0a930cf4-2a00-40c7-9886-8178cb7aca19@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Sep 3, 12:04 pm, taf <> wrote:
> 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.
You're entirely welcome to look for the reference yourself. I know it
exists. You're also welcome to find and post the numerous citations I
gave which showed that this individual occurs regularly in
contemporary records as "William la Zouche Mortimer." If you need
me to post my citations again (with still more examples), I'll be
happy to do that for you.
> > 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.
Not at all, taf. What is true is that William la Zouche Mortimer
occurs in records of the period as William la Zouche, William la
Zouche Mortimer, William la Zouche de Mortimer, etc. What style he
personally used is the issue I addressed. He said in the lawsuit an
abstract of which I saw that his name was William la Zouche Mortimer.
Over the years I've found many instances of his name in that form in
contemporary records. I'm sure still more can be found if you look
for them. What other people called him doesn't matter much.
We've seen in the case of the Botetourt family that male members of
this family never used a "de" with their name on their personal
seals. Yet, if one looks far and wide, one can find an occasional
reference to a stray "de Botetourt" in contemporary records. Ditto
the Longespee family.
< > 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.
You're clearly not talking about legal matters. My point was that the
name in the writ had to match the man's regular name. Doug pointed
out that a protection was denied because it didn't match the name in a
writ. We often think that spelling and forms of names was fluid in
the medieval time period. And, to a large degree, they were. But not
always as Doug's citation proves. A request for a protection had to
match the name given in a writ, for example. That was point I was
making.
< > 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.
Yes, it's the same principle. In the case of William la Zouche
Mortimer, it was important that the correct individual be summoned as
there were several other William la Zouche's in this time period. If
the wrong man was brought to court, and, it was found that wrong
individual had been sued, then the legal proceedings were voided and
the lawsuit had to start all over again. That's basic medieval law.
William la Zouche Mortimer's insistence that the writ addressed to him
under another form be denied was a perfectly legal claim. Then and
now.
In any case, we're getting your opinions, taf, and no evidence, no
sources, no weblinks. Your opinion is nice but doesn't mean much if
it's not backed up by evidence. When you reply, please cite some
evidence, sources, or weblinks.
> taf
DR
This thread: