Discussion:
Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman??
(too old to reply)
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-20 17:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am most curious as to why the Royal Stewart line are repeatedly claimed to be Anglo-Norman in origin?


Any help on this will be much appreciated.


Thanks,

Bernard.
taf
2016-11-20 18:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 9:25:41 AM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> I am most curious as to why the Royal Stewart line are repeatedly claimed to
> be Anglo-Norman in origin?

The Anglo-Normans (as applied to this period) is not an ethnic term but a socio-political one. They were the noblemen from across the channel who came to England under the Norman kings. Many of them were Norman (or at least from Normandy) but there were also Franks, Flemings, Bretons and others. Still, collectively they are known as Anglo-Normans, independent of ethnicity, and they represented the vast majority of the post-Conquest nobility of England. Likewise the term is applied in Scottish history to the noblemen who accompanied David I of Scotland when he returned north from exile at the court of Henry I of England or who migrated north during that king's welcoming reign. Many of the Scottish lowland nobility who would later contest the crown descended from these Anglo-Normans from England.

One of the men David brought with him was his steward Walter Fitz Alan, progenitor of the Stuarts. Walter was son of Alan Fitz Flaald, who had come to England in the retinue of Henry I following his return from the continent. Alan came from a Breton family who had been stewards to the Diocese of Dol. Despite being ethnically Breton, the father falls within the socio-political class of the Anglo-Normans who migrated from the continent to England under the Norman kings, and his son falls into the class of the Anglo-Normans from the English court who accompanied David to Scotland.

taf
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-20 20:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> One of the men David brought with him was his steward Walter Fitz Alan, progenitor of the Stuarts. Walter was son of Alan Fitz Flaald, who had come to England in the retinue of Henry I following his return from the continent. Alan came from a Breton family who had been stewards to the Diocese of Dol.

Thank you Taf, my problem is that I don't see any evidence for the connection between Walter Fitz Alan (progenitor of the Stuarts) and Alan Fitz Flaald. Why are they thought to be related?

Bernard.
j***@gmail.com
2016-11-20 21:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 3:49:31 PM UTC-5, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> > One of the men David brought with him was his steward Walter Fitz Alan, progenitor of the Stuarts. Walter was son of Alan Fitz Flaald, who had come to England in the retinue of Henry I following his return from the continent. Alan came from a Breton family who had been stewards to the Diocese of Dol.
>
> Thank you Taf, my problem is that I don't see any evidence for the connection between Walter Fitz Alan (progenitor of the Stuarts) and Alan Fitz Flaald. Why are they thought to be related?

This is a long studied problem, long ago solved.
See Horace Round here: https://archive.org/stream/studiesinpeerage02rounuoft#page/114/mode/2up
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-20 22:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Joe,

What I have read of Round, he doesn't evaluate Chalmers claims, instead he seeks to add to the same mistaken Shropshire claim. He does so by arguing that because some of Walter's "followers" have surnames that could be associated with Shropshire (and lots of other places as well) then this further proof that Walter Fitz Alan came from Shropshire. However Round's logic if applied to David I of Scotland, who is said to have Anglo-Norman followers, would require him to be an Anglo Norman, which he isn't.

That Walter Fitz Alan's followers are Anglo-Norman is just purely speculation and without any proof. For example the Montgomerys, important followers of Walter Fitz Alan, have been seen as obviously coming from Shropshire. Yet Professor Barrow writes, in The Kingdom of the Scots, 2003, that: "It is most unlikely that the Scottish family of Montgomery were related to the family which held the earldom of Shrewsbury until 1102."

Given that the place name Monte Britannorum existed in medieval Scotland, you could expect the existence of a place name like Monte Cumbri within Cumbrian lands of the Stewarts, and hence a more credible origin to the Scottish De Montgumbri family name... .

Thanks,
Bernard.

________________________________
From: GEN-MEDIEVAL <gen-medieval-bounces+bernardmorgan=***@rootsweb.com> on behalf of ***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:17 PM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman??

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 3:49:31 PM UTC-5, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> > One of the men David brought with him was his steward Walter Fitz Alan, progenitor of the Stuarts. Walter was son of Alan Fitz Flaald, who had come to England in the retinue of Henry I following his return from the continent. Alan came from a Breton family who had been stewards to the Diocese of Dol.
>
> Thank you Taf, my problem is that I don't see any evidence for the connection between Walter Fitz Alan (progenitor of the Stuarts) and Alan Fitz Flaald. Why are they thought to be related?

This is a long studied problem, long ago solved.
See Horace Round here: https://archive.org/stream/studiesinpeerage02rounuoft#page/114/mode/2up

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
w***@gmail.com
2016-11-20 23:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>

> That Walter Fitz Alan's followers are Anglo-Norman is just purely speculation and without any
> proof. For example the Montgomerys, important followers of Walter Fitz Alan, have been seen as
> obviously coming from Shropshire. Yet Professor Barrow writes, in The Kingdom of the Scots,
> 2003, that: "It is most unlikely that the Scottish family of Montgomery were related to the family which held the earldom of Shrewsbury until 1102."

Here is what Professor Barrow wrote in full:

“It is most unlikely that the Scottish family of Montgomery were related to the family which held the earldom of Shrewsbury until 1102, who took their name from Montgomery in Calvados. The Scottish Montgomerys probably came from the Castellany or Honour of Montgomery, which was close to the fief held in Shropshire by the FitzAlans.”
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-21 02:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>Here is what Professor Barrow wrote in full:

>"It is most unlikely that the Scottish family of Montgomery were related to the family which held the earldom of Shrewsbury until 1102, who took their name from Montgomery in Calvados. The Scottish Montgomerys probably came from the Castellany or Honour of Montgomery, which was close to the fief held in Shropshire by the FitzAlans."

I appreciate the fall quote, however note Barrow's language: "probably". Barrow has no evidence to bias the claim on, except for the so far false association that Walter Fitz Alan came from Shropshire. Barrow source for Walter Fitz Alan coming from Shropshire is Round.
taf
2016-11-21 02:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 2:55:10 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:

> However Round's logic if applied to David I of Scotland, who is said to have
> Anglo-Norman followers, would require him to be an Anglo Norman, which he isn't.

Culturally he was, having been raised at the English court.

> Given that the place name Monte Britannorum existed in medieval Scotland, you
> could expect the existence of a place name like Monte Cumbri within Cumbrian
> lands of the Stewarts, and hence a more credible origin to the Scottish De
> Montgumbri family name... .

I am not sure I agree that a hypothetical place name conjured out of thin air through reverse etymology is more credible than an existing place name, known to have given rise to a family using the same surname. Yes, such coincidences can happen, but one really needs to have an actual place with that name to make the argument credible.

taf
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-21 03:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>> However Round's logic if applied to David I of Scotland, who is said to have

>> Anglo-Norman followers, would require him to be an Anglo Norman, which he isn't.

>Culturally he was, having been raised at the English court.

Then can we then assume that Walter Fitz Alan is also a Scot raised at the English court. The Round's induction is week to the point of worthless.

Bernard.
taf
2016-11-21 04:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:06:48 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> >> However Round's logic if applied to David I of Scotland, who is said to have
>
> >> Anglo-Norman followers, would require him to be an Anglo Norman, which he isn't.
>
> >Culturally he was, having been raised at the English court.
>
> Then can we then assume that Walter Fitz Alan is also a Scot raised at the
> English court. The Round's induction is week to the point of worthless.

On what basis would we assume this? Are you now suggesting that everyone with ANglo-Norman retainers must have been raised at court simply because this was true of David? Argument by imperfect analogy seems more convincing superficially than it is when looking at the details. There is every reason for David to have had a set of Anglo-Norman retainers independent of his ethnicity: his documented time at court, being brother-in-law of the king, being married to the heiress of Huntington. None of these are known to apply to Walter, so we have to invoke William of Occam and accept that just like with most people with Anglo-Norman retainers, if Walter had them the most likely explanation is that he was Anglo-Norman.

Just to be clear, are we to reject Chalmers in favor of Eyton and Boace, with Walter son of an Alan filius Fleance entirely distinct from Alan filius Flaald, or are you suggesting something entirely new? Or is this simply a visceral rejection of the imperialistic English historians intent on depriving the Scots of a native dynasty, as has been claimed here before?

taf
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-21 22:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My problem is with the form of Rounds argument, i.e., that because Walter Fitz Alan has potential some Anglo-Norman with surnames that could be found in Shropshire - this tells us nothing about the origins of the Walter Fitz Alan.


If we start with the conclusion is Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. How does Round justify this conclusion?


Attempting to put the argument in standard form:


Premise 1 Walter Fitz Alan has followers

Premise 2: Some of his followers are Anglo-Norman from Shropshire

Therefore: Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire


A deductive case is not there, for there is the fallacy of undistributed middle.


If someone medieval person has some followers who (speculatively) are Anglo-Normans from Shropshire, doesn't mean that person is an Anglo-Norman family from Shropshire. He might be from any where, include of the same origin of this other followers.


If a pattern could be shown that those who have followers that include Anglo-Normans from Shropshire are themselves are Anglo-Normans from Shropshire, we would have an Induction from Generalization. Then we could walk around and say that man has Anglo-Normans from Shropshire as followers hence like all other with men with Anglo-Normans from Shropshire as followers, he must be an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire.


However generalization are fragile things and simple broken by showing a contradiction. The famous example is the former generalization that "All swans are white", which held true until a Black swan was discovered in Australia. In our case the Black Swan in David I, who had Anglo-Norman followers and some allegedly from Shropshire. Yet he wasn't an Anglo-Normans from Shropshire.


Nothing in Round argument shows us that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. Instead we are asked assume that Chalmers has provide this point, which he hasn't.


Think about the negative, what if Walter Fitz Alan isn't an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. Is there any reason to believe that his followers are from Anglo-Normans from Shropshire? Only Montgomery have some what of association with Shropshire, that is purely because their surname matches an area in Wales (used by French speakers?). Why should we think that the Scottish Montgomery came from the place in France called Montgomery? And there are even possible origins to the surname.


Simply put Round doesn't prove that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire, instead he simply use it as a premise to see other Anglo-Normans from Shropshire around him.



I also believe the yDNA evidence shows no recent relationship between the Stewarts and the kings of Dal Riada.






________________________________
From: GEN-MEDIEVAL <gen-medieval-bounces+bernardmorgan=***@rootsweb.com> on behalf of taf <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:21 AM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman?? Round

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:06:48 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> >> However Round's logic if applied to David I of Scotland, who is said to have
>
> >> Anglo-Norman followers, would require him to be an Anglo Norman, which he isn't.
>
> >Culturally he was, having been raised at the English court.
>
> Then can we then assume that Walter Fitz Alan is also a Scot raised at the
> English court. The Round's induction is week to the point of worthless.

On what basis would we assume this? Are you now suggesting that everyone with ANglo-Norman retainers must have been raised at court simply because this was true of David? Argument by imperfect analogy seems more convincing superficially than it is when looking at the details. There is every reason for David to have had a set of Anglo-Norman retainers independent of his ethnicity: his documented time at court, being brother-in-law of the king, being married to the heiress of Huntington. None of these are known to apply to Walter, so we have to invoke William of Occam and accept that just like with most people with Anglo-Norman retainers, if Walter had them the most likely explanation is that he was Anglo-Norman.

Just to be clear, are we to reject Chalmers in favor of Eyton and Boace, with Walter son of an Alan filius Fleance entirely distinct from Alan filius Flaald, or are you suggesting something entirely new? Or is this simply a visceral rejection of the imperialistic English historians intent on depriving the Scots of a native dynasty, as has been claimed here before?

taf

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
D. Spencer Hines
2016-11-22 00:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think he makes some quite trenchant points here.

DSH
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All things truly wicked start from an innocence." -- Ernest Hemingway _A
Moveable Feast_

"Bernard Morgan" wrote in message
news:mailman.100.1479768642.9546.gen-***@rootsweb.com...

My problem is with the form of Rounds argument, i.e., that because Walter
Fitz Alan has potential some Anglo-Norman with surnames that could be found
in Shropshire - this tells us nothing about the origins of the Walter Fitz
Alan.

If we start with the conclusion is Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from
Shropshire. How does Round justify this conclusion?

Attempting to put the argument in standard form:

Premise 1 Walter Fitz Alan has followers

Premise 2: Some of his followers are Anglo-Norman from Shropshire

Therefore: Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire

A deductive case is not there, for there is the fallacy of undistributed
middle.

If someone medieval person has some followers who (speculatively) are
Anglo-Normans from Shropshire, doesn't mean that person is an Anglo-Norman
family from Shropshire. He might be from any where, include of the same
origin of this other followers.

If a pattern could be shown that those who have followers that include
Anglo-Normans from Shropshire are themselves are Anglo-Normans from
Shropshire, we would have an Induction from Generalization. Then we could
walk around and say that man has Anglo-Normans from Shropshire as followers
hence like all other with men with Anglo-Normans from Shropshire as
followers, he must be an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire.

However generalization are fragile things and simple broken by showing a
contradiction. The famous example is the former generalization that "All
swans are white", which held true until a Black swan was discovered in
Australia. In our case the Black Swan in David I, who had Anglo-Norman
followers and some allegedly from Shropshire. Yet he wasn't an Anglo-Normans
from Shropshire.

Nothing in Round argument shows us that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman
from Shropshire. Instead we are asked assume that Chalmers has provide this
point, which he hasn't.

Think about the negative, what if Walter Fitz Alan isn't an Anglo-Norman
from Shropshire. Is there any reason to believe that his followers are from
Anglo-Normans from Shropshire? Only Montgomery have some what of association
with Shropshire, that is purely because their surname matches an area in
Wales (used by French speakers?). Why should we think that the Scottish
Montgomery came from the place in France called Montgomery? And there are
even possible origins to the surname.

Simply put Round doesn't prove that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman
from Shropshire, instead he simply use it as a premise to see other
Anglo-Normans from Shropshire around him.

I also believe the yDNA evidence shows no recent relationship between the
Stewarts and the kings of Dal Riada.
________________________________
From: GEN-MEDIEVAL
<gen-medieval-bounces+bernardmorgan=***@rootsweb.com> on behalf of
taf <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:21 AM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman?? Round

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:06:48 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> >> However Round's logic if applied to David I of Scotland, who is said to
> >> have
>
> >> Anglo-Norman followers, would require him to be an Anglo Norman, which
> >> he isn't.
>
> >Culturally he was, having been raised at the English court.
>
> Then can we then assume that Walter Fitz Alan is also a Scot raised at the
> English court. The Round's induction is week to the point of worthless.

On what basis would we assume this? Are you now suggesting that everyone
with ANglo-Norman retainers must have been raised at court simply because
this was true of David? Argument by imperfect analogy seems more convincing
superficially than it is when looking at the details. There is every reason
for David to have had a set of Anglo-Norman retainers independent of his
ethnicity: his documented time at court, being brother-in-law of the king,
being married to the heiress of Huntington. None of these are known to
apply to Walter, so we have to invoke William of Occam and accept that just
like with most people with Anglo-Norman retainers, if Walter had them the
most likely explanation is that he was Anglo-Norman.

Just to be clear, are we to reject Chalmers in favor of Eyton and Boace,
with Walter son of an Alan filius Fleance entirely distinct from Alan filius
Flaald, or are you suggesting something entirely new? Or is this simply a
visceral rejection of the imperialistic English historians intent on
depriving the Scots of a native dynasty, as has been claimed here before?

taf
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
taf
2016-11-22 00:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 2:50:43 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> My problem is with the form of Rounds argument, i.e., that because Walter Fitz Alan has potential some Anglo-Norman with surnames that could be found in Shropshire - this tells us nothing about the origins of the Walter Fitz Alan.
>
> If we start with the conclusion is Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. How does Round justify this conclusion?
>
> Attempting to put the argument in standard form:

You will find this far from the standard form for historical hypotheses.


> If someone medieval person has some followers who (speculatively) are Anglo-
> Normans from Shropshire, doesn't mean that person is an Anglo-Norman family
> from Shropshire.

No it doesn't, but it certainly makes it a lot more likely than if none of his followers were from Shropshire. Likewise, a man from Shropshire is more likely to have followers from Shropshire than a man from Cumbria is to have Shropshire retainers.

> He might be from any where, include of the same origin of this other followers.

Logically, we cannot exclude that he was from Italy or Iceland or Anatolia. But was this likely?


> If a pattern could be shown that those who have followers that include Anglo-Normans from Shropshire are themselves are Anglo-Normans from Shropshire, we would have an Induction from Generalization.

We would, and that works just fine in parlor-room arguments of logic, but in the real world, nothing is this clean. We are left in the messy realm of probabilities and likelihoods, support, weight-of-evidence and Occam's razor.
This is the world of much scholarly pursuit - astronomy, geology, biology, archaeology, . . . and history.

> However generalization are fragile things and simple broken by showing a
> contradiction.

Human history is rife with one-offs and exceptions. That means that almost nothing can be formally proven: there is almost no trend or general principle that is never violated at some point, for which a single exception cannot be found. It does not mean that all historical hypotheses must be rejected for this failure, or that one cannot give appropriate weight to these exceptions without reverting to historical nihilism. We can never say that a random infant anywhere in Eastern Europe was not the heir to the English crown, but the chances that any arbitrary individual is actually a long-lost AEtheling is exceedingly unlikely, and this is not changed by the fact that in 1050, one of them really was.

> Nothing in Round argument shows us that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman
> from Shropshire. Instead we are asked assume that Chalmers has provide this
> point, which he hasn't.

And short of explicit documentation, such hypotheses cannot ever be proven formally.

> Think about the negative, what if Walter Fitz Alan isn't an Anglo-Norman from
> Shropshire.

You can have a go at each of the arguments independently (and I see in another post you have). Is it possible that some of the 'Shropshire' surnames weren't really Shropshire surnames? Is it possible that the Shropshire Clunaic monks were chosen for logistical reasons? Is it possible that the Fitz Alans claimed hereditary right to be Stewards of Scotland through some other line of descent? Yes, yes, and yes. Put them all together and you have something greater than the sum of the parts. You certainly have something better than the alternative, which is . . . . ? What is your alternative?

> Simply put Round doesn't prove that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman from
> Shropshire

No, nor could he without a document attesting that Walter Fitz Alan, Steward of Scotland, was an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. I am reminded of the Pope Joan proponents who insist that since no document can be found in which the pope in question explicitly declared themself not to be a woman, it has not been proven he wasn't.

> I also believe the yDNA evidence shows no recent relationship between the
> Stewarts and the kings of Dal Riada.

Why would you expect there to be one?

taf
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-22 02:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I see that you offer no proof that Walter Fitz Alan is Anglo-Norman.

________________________________
From: GEN-MEDIEVAL <gen-medieval-bounces+bernardmorgan=***@rootsweb.com> on behalf of taf <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 12:53 AM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman?? Round

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 2:50:43 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> My problem is with the form of Rounds argument, i.e., that because Walter Fitz Alan has potential some Anglo-Norman with surnames that could be found in Shropshire - this tells us nothing about the origins of the Walter Fitz Alan.
>
> If we start with the conclusion is Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. How does Round justify this conclusion?
>
> Attempting to put the argument in standard form:

You will find this far from the standard form for historical hypotheses.


> If someone medieval person has some followers who (speculatively) are Anglo-
> Normans from Shropshire, doesn't mean that person is an Anglo-Norman family
> from Shropshire.

No it doesn't, but it certainly makes it a lot more likely than if none of his followers were from Shropshire. Likewise, a man from Shropshire is more likely to have followers from Shropshire than a man from Cumbria is to have Shropshire retainers.

> He might be from any where, include of the same origin of this other followers.

Logically, we cannot exclude that he was from Italy or Iceland or Anatolia. But was this likely?


> If a pattern could be shown that those who have followers that include Anglo-Normans from Shropshire are themselves are Anglo-Normans from Shropshire, we would have an Induction from Generalization.

We would, and that works just fine in parlor-room arguments of logic, but in the real world, nothing is this clean. We are left in the messy realm of probabilities and likelihoods, support, weight-of-evidence and Occam's razor.
This is the world of much scholarly pursuit - astronomy, geology, biology, archaeology, . . . and history.

> However generalization are fragile things and simple broken by showing a
> contradiction.

Human history is rife with one-offs and exceptions. That means that almost nothing can be formally proven: there is almost no trend or general principle that is never violated at some point, for which a single exception cannot be found. It does not mean that all historical hypotheses must be rejected for this failure, or that one cannot give appropriate weight to these exceptions without reverting to historical nihilism. We can never say that a random infant anywhere in Eastern Europe was not the heir to the English crown, but the chances that any arbitrary individual is actually a long-lost AEtheling is exceedingly unlikely, and this is not changed by the fact that in 1050, one of them really was.

> Nothing in Round argument shows us that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman
> from Shropshire. Instead we are asked assume that Chalmers has provide this
> point, which he hasn't.

And short of explicit documentation, such hypotheses cannot ever be proven formally.

> Think about the negative, what if Walter Fitz Alan isn't an Anglo-Norman from
> Shropshire.

You can have a go at each of the arguments independently (and I see in another post you have). Is it possible that some of the 'Shropshire' surnames weren't really Shropshire surnames? Is it possible that the Shropshire Clunaic monks were chosen for logistical reasons? Is it possible that the Fitz Alans claimed hereditary right to be Stewards of Scotland through some other line of descent? Yes, yes, and yes. Put them all together and you have something greater than the sum of the parts. You certainly have something better than the alternative, which is . . . . ? What is your alternative?

> Simply put Round doesn't prove that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman from
> Shropshire

No, nor could he without a document attesting that Walter Fitz Alan, Steward of Scotland, was an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. I am reminded of the Pope Joan proponents who insist that since no document can be found in which the pope in question explicitly declared themself not to be a woman, it has not been proven he wasn't.

> I also believe the yDNA evidence shows no recent relationship between the
> Stewarts and the kings of Dal Riada.

Why would you expect there to be one?

taf

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
taf
2016-11-22 03:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 6:19:21 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> I see that you offer no proof that Walter Fitz Alan is Anglo-Norman.

Ah, yes. We move on to pointless point-scoring. Having said that nothing in medieval history can be formally proven, you trumpet the lack of proof for this particular hypothesis as if it is damning.

You argued that a single exception destroys a generalization, so let's take this to its logical conclusion:

Statement: Documents provide evidence of genealogical relationship

Exception 1. If you can find any scribal error in any document or a dissagreement between two documents, this fails.

Exception 2. If a man has ever impregnated someone else's wife without it appearing so in the official record, this fails.

Exception 3. If ever two contemporaries of the same name have been confused, this fails.

There are examples of each of the above, so the very basis for medieval genealogy, the use of the documentary record to reconstruct relationships, is logically flawed and no genealogy can be proven, ever.

So no, you did not see me offer proof that Walter Fitz Alan was Anglo-Norman, it being impossible to do so. The good news is that we can all now abandon any attempts at genealogy and just start inventing whatever makes us each feal good about ourselves. Have the Stuarts descend from anyone you want, . . . or maybe the 'proof' standard is not the most appropriate one to use.

taf
taf
2016-11-22 23:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:41:31 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> The very REASONING behind the association made between Walter Fitz Alan and
> Alan Fitz Flaad may be based on a translation error?

Yet we don't seem to be addressing the actual translation in question. What does the original document say? If you are going to dismiss Chambers as a fraudulent imperialist hack, the least you could do is show us how he got it wrong by giving us the original text.

> Are you not concerned of the false narrative that this may be spreading?

I have yet to see anything that convinces me it is a false narrative. I certainly haven't seen any narrative that has a greater claim to representing the true situation.

taf
taf
2016-11-22 23:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 3:03:39 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 2:41:31 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> > The very REASONING behind the association made between Walter Fitz Alan and
> > Alan Fitz Flaad may be based on a translation error?
>
> Yet we don't seem to be addressing the actual translation in question. What does the original document say? If you are going to dismiss Chambers as a fraudulent imperialist hack, the least you could do is show us how he got it wrong by giving us the original text.
>


Sorry, that should be Chalmers.
Jason Quick
2016-11-23 01:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"The surnames Nes, Costentin and Hunald are first names and hence contain no topographical association. There are too many origin to the surname Hose, so it too has no topographical information."

Costenin is definitely not a First name, it probabaly based on Coutances in Normandy. Hunald on the other hand is probably a first name.

Examples in Shropshire

Elias de Costentin - Held one fee of Willelmi filli Alani at Eaton Constantin, Shropshire in 1166. Thomas de Constantin held one fee at Eaton and Alderbury in 142. (Fees, 971). Red Book of Exch. 1897 271-274

Hunald could be Robert Filius Halufri who held a fee of Willelmi filli Alani. Same source as above. He had a brother Roger.

Red book https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112105152195;view=1up;seq=431
Jason Quick
2016-11-23 01:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 6:08:59 PM UTC-7, Jason Quick wrote:
> "The surnames Nes, Costentin and Hunald are first names and hence contain no topographical association. There are too many origin to the surname Hose, so it too has no topographical information."
>
> Costenin is definitely not a First name, it probabaly based on Coutances in Normandy. Hunald on the other hand is probably a first name.
>
> Examples in Shropshire
>
> Elias de Costentin - Held one fee of Willelmi filli Alani at Eaton Constantin, Shropshire in 1166. Thomas de Constantin held one fee at Eaton and Alderbury in 142. (Fees, 971). Red Book of Exch. 1897 271-274
>
> Hunald could be Robert Filius Halufri who held a fee of Willelmi filli Alani. Same source as above. He had a brother Roger.
>
> Red book https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112105152195;view=1up;seq=431

I also see Ricardus Walencis (Wallace) on pg 273 Under William filli Alani in Shropshire. He is also named next to William's brother Walter in Scotland in charters in Hadington and Kyle c. 1164-1214.

https://books.google.com/books?id=hxQPAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR58&dq=walteri+filius+alani+walensis&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB1_PB3b3QAhXH3SwKHSbNA7EQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=walteri%20filius%20alani%20walensis&f=false
D. Spencer Hines
2016-11-23 05:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Clearly, what we have with the Stewarts is:

...A Masterly Job Of _Pedigree Building_ -- on several tracks.

The Spencers have done the same.

...But taf is not likely to admit that -- even if you bludgeon him with
various "proofs".

It 's very easy to hide and obfuscate all the "Genealogical
Constructions" -- and pros are quite skilled at that.

DSH

"All things truly wicked start from an innocence." -- Ernest Hemingway _A
Moveable Feast_
Jason Quick
2016-11-22 06:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 7:19:21 PM UTC-7, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> I see that you offer no proof that Walter Fitz Alan is Anglo-Norman.

Bernard

Maybe by researching the entire family you may find a new conclusion. Some of these sources will help you find the answers to get there.

Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants has this info

Alan Fillius Flaad son of Flaad
The hereditary senechal of the archbishops of Dol married Avelina de Hesdin. pg 886 - Early Yorkshire Charters Vol IV no. 4 Vol VI nos. 2 & 4, RRAN III no. 135, Dugdales Monisticon IV pg 51 no. IX, Cartularium, Cartullarium Monasterii de Rameseia no. LXXXI, Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, no. 35

Sons
*Jordan Fillius Alani pg 860 – BN fr. 22319 pg. 104, pipe roll 31 Henry I – 7,11,12 ntdb, 109,113,121,ln
*Walter Fillius Alani pg 860 – Early Yorkshire Charters Vol IX no. 109, RRAN III, nos 377-378, 461. Cartulary of Missenden Abbey III 664-65, 808
*Willelm Fillius Alani pg 860 – Charters of the Anglo Norman Earls of Chester, nos 62, 84-85, RRAN III, nos 130, 377-79, 461,703 820-21 .. etc etc

Histoire féodale des marais, territoire et église de Dol Jean Allenou 1917 starts about pg 311
http://www.persee.fr/doc/abpo_0003-391x_1917_num_32_3_1458

The author Michel Brand’Honneur has this pedigree http://books.openedition.org/pur/docannexe/image/11274/img-24.png

The Cartulary of Missenden Abbey is free to download http://www.bucksrecsoc.org.uk/publications.html

Regards - Jason
John Watson
2016-11-22 09:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 06:12:54 UTC, Jason Quick wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 7:19:21 PM UTC-7, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> > I see that you offer no proof that Walter Fitz Alan is Anglo-Norman.
>
> Bernard
>
> Maybe by researching the entire family you may find a new conclusion. Some of these sources will help you find the answers to get there.
>
> Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants has this info
>
> Alan Fillius Flaad son of Flaad
> The hereditary senechal of the archbishops of Dol married Avelina de Hesdin. pg 886 - Early Yorkshire Charters Vol IV no. 4 Vol VI nos. 2 & 4, RRAN III no. 135, Dugdales Monisticon IV pg 51 no. IX, Cartularium, Cartullarium Monasterii de Rameseia no. LXXXI, Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, no. 35
>
> Sons
> *Jordan Fillius Alani pg 860 – BN fr. 22319 pg. 104, pipe roll 31 Henry I – 7,11,12 ntdb, 109,113,121,ln
> *Walter Fillius Alani pg 860 – Early Yorkshire Charters Vol IX no. 109, RRAN III, nos 377-378, 461. Cartulary of Missenden Abbey III 664-65, 808
> *Willelm Fillius Alani pg 860 – Charters of the Anglo Norman Earls of Chester, nos 62, 84-85, RRAN III, nos 130, 377-79, 461,703 820-21 .. etc etc
>
> Histoire féodale des marais, territoire et église de Dol Jean Allenou 1917 starts about pg 311
> http://www.persee.fr/doc/abpo_0003-391x_1917_num_32_3_1458
>
> The author Michel Brand’Honneur has this pedigree http://books.openedition.org/pur/docannexe/image/11274/img-24.png
>
> The Cartulary of Missenden Abbey is free to download http://www.bucksrecsoc.org.uk/publications.html
>
> Regards - Jason

Two of those sources certainly appear to be the clinchers.

In June-July 1141, when David, king of Scots was at Oxford, he witnessed a charter of the empress, granting three carucates in Walcot, Shropshire to Haughmond abbey. Among the witnesses are William fitz Alan and Walter his brother.
H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, eds., Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum, 1066-1154, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1968), 145, No. 377.
https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/145/mode/1up

Probably in June 1148, at Falaise, the empress granted protection to Lilleshall abbey, together with William fitz Alan and Walter his brother and all the faithful of Shropshire.
H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, eds., Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum, 1066-1154, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1968), 173, No. 461.
https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/173/mode/1up

Regards,
John
John Watson
2016-11-22 10:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 09:16:28 UTC, John Watson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 06:12:54 UTC, Jason Quick wrote:
> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 7:19:21 PM UTC-7, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> > > I see that you offer no proof that Walter Fitz Alan is Anglo-Norman.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> > Maybe by researching the entire family you may find a new conclusion. Some of these sources will help you find the answers to get there.
> >
> > Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants has this info
> >
> > Alan Fillius Flaad son of Flaad
> > The hereditary senechal of the archbishops of Dol married Avelina de Hesdin. pg 886 - Early Yorkshire Charters Vol IV no. 4 Vol VI nos. 2 & 4, RRAN III no. 135, Dugdales Monisticon IV pg 51 no. IX, Cartularium, Cartullarium Monasterii de Rameseia no. LXXXI, Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, no. 35
> >
> > Sons
> > *Jordan Fillius Alani pg 860 – BN fr. 22319 pg. 104, pipe roll 31 Henry I – 7,11,12 ntdb, 109,113,121,ln
> > *Walter Fillius Alani pg 860 – Early Yorkshire Charters Vol IX no. 109, RRAN III, nos 377-378, 461. Cartulary of Missenden Abbey III 664-65, 808
> > *Willelm Fillius Alani pg 860 – Charters of the Anglo Norman Earls of Chester, nos 62, 84-85, RRAN III, nos 130, 377-79, 461,703 820-21 .. etc etc
> >
> > Histoire féodale des marais, territoire et église de Dol Jean Allenou 1917 starts about pg 311
> > http://www.persee.fr/doc/abpo_0003-391x_1917_num_32_3_1458
> >
> > The author Michel Brand’Honneur has this pedigree http://books.openedition.org/pur/docannexe/image/11274/img-24.png
> >
> > The Cartulary of Missenden Abbey is free to download http://www.bucksrecsoc.org.uk/publications.html
> >
> > Regards - Jason
>
> Two of those sources certainly appear to be the clinchers.
>
> In June-July 1141, when David, king of Scots was at Oxford, he witnessed a charter of the empress, granting three carucates in Walcot, Shropshire to Haughmond abbey. Among the witnesses are William fitz Alan and Walter his brother.
> H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, eds., Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum, 1066-1154, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1968), 145, No. 377.
> https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/145/mode/1up
>
> Probably in June 1148, at Falaise, the empress granted protection to Lilleshall abbey, together with William fitz Alan and Walter his brother and all the faithful of Shropshire.
> H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, eds., Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum, 1066-1154, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1968), 173, No. 461.
> https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/173/mode/1up
>
> Regards,
> John

That should be "the empress granted protection to Lilleshall abbey, addressed to William fitz Alan and Walter his brother and all her faithful of Shropshire."

Regards,
John
w***@gmail.com
2016-11-23 12:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:34:34 PM UTC, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> Whatever the proof that William Fitz Alan had a brother called Walter, it doesn't make him the
> Walter Fitz Alan in Scotland. There needs to be evidence of connection between the two Walters
> for them to be assumed to be the same person.

John Watson provided a very solid piece of evidence:

In June-July 1141, when David, king of Scots was at Oxford, he witnessed a charter of the empress, granting three carucates in Walcot, Shropshire to Haughmond abbey. Among the witnesses are William fitz Alan and Walter his brother.
H. A. Cronne and R. H. C. Davis, eds., Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum, 1066-1154, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1968), 145, No. 377.
https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/145/mode/1up

> For weren't there other Alans with other sons named Walter???

None that I know of. I am asking you to produce one.

A search of the POMS database for the name ‘Alan’ in the period 1093 to 1160 yields just 5 men:

http://db.poms.ac.uk/search/search?basic_search_type=people&query=Alan&ordering=personfull&years=1093-1160&show_all=false

Alan de Percy (le Meschin), son of Alan 1124 × 1152
Alan, monk of Durham 1152 × 1159
Alan, son of Cospatric (mid 12C) 1147 × 1160
Alan, son of Ralph 1152 × 1153
Alan, son of Waltheof, lord of Allerdale 1139 × 1139

Since you do not believe that Walter fitz Alan was the son of Alan fitz Flaad, which of the above Alans do you propose was his real father? And why?
w***@gmail.com
2016-11-22 10:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>

> Think about the negative, what if Walter Fitz Alan isn't an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. Is
> there any reason to believe that his followers are from Anglo-Normans from Shropshire? Only
> Montgomery have some what of association with Shropshire, that is purely because their
> surname matches an area in Wales (used by French speakers?). Why should we think that the
> Scottish Montgomery came from the place in France called Montgomery? And there are even
> possible origins to the surname.

<snip>

So far, you have already misquoted Barrow and tried to use a partial quote from his work to support your view, when in fact he was supporting the opposite. Now you ask “Why should we think that the Scottish Montgomery came from the place in France called Montgomery?”

No one said we should. Barrow argued that the Montgomery family is NOT likely to have been related to the Montgomery Earls (the Earls being the ones who came from the place in France called Montgomery). Barrow suggests that the Scottish Montgomery family came from Montgomery (which at that time was in Shropshire, but is now in Powys). Furthermore, on pp. 326-331 of ‘The Kingdom of the Scots’, Barrow includes an ‘Index of known and probable tenants and vassals of the first three Stewarts’, which I urge you to read carefully. I only have copies of pages 329 and 331 to hand, but I can see several names that originate in Shropshire. For example the Hosés of Albright Hussey, the Hunalds of Marchamley, the Kinnerleys (and Nesses) from Ness, the Constantines from Eaton Constantine and the Wallaces (le Waleys meaning ‘the Welshman’). Richard le Waleys was a sergeant-at-arms under William Fitz Alan, Lord of Oswestry. Can you explain why Richard decided to up sticks and go to Scotland when he already had a decent paid job serving the Lord of Oswestry on the Shropshire borders? Isn’t it a bit far fetched to argue that it was just a coincidence that a Walter Fitz Alan appeared in Scotland at the same time, given that the Lord of Oswestry had a brother named Walter? I would be more sympathetic if you offered a counter argument (other than just your doubts). If this is a case of mistaken identity, can you offer any alternative Walter Fitz Alans who might fit the bill?
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-22 21:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lets start with the origin of his followers. None have been proven independently to come from Shropshire. Barrow's proposed origins are purely speculative being solely based on the premise the Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire.

If Walter Fitz Alan is NOT an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire, then there is nothing to justify any of them are from Shropshire other than a review of their surname.

Barrow: "conspicuous group of individuals and families obviously came to Scotland from Shropshire and its borderland, for example the Hoses of Albright Hussy,21 the important but mysterious Robert 'of Montgomery',22 Robert Hunald from Marchamley,23 Stephen of Kinnerley,24 a family from Great or Little Ness,25 possibly the 'de Costentin' or Constantine family, from Eaton Constantine,26 and the widely-ramified family of Wallace (Walensis), beginning with Richard Wallace, holder of a garrison-serjeant's fee in Shropshire under William"

The surnames Nes, Costentin and Hunald are first names and hence contain no topographical association. There are too many origin to the surname Hose, so it too has no topographical information.

The surname Kinnerley looks clearly derived from a place name and Kinnerley is a place name found in Shropshire. However it is not the name on the charters, the Scottish family was called De Kinardesleia. The same family name (Kinardley or Kinardislay), if not the same family, held land in Mearns. Because De Kinardesleia appears on Paisley charters Barrow reads Kinardley as corrupted form of the Shropshire place name Kinnerley and so another newly minted Shropshire Anglo-Norman settler is born. An alternative he consider is that 'Kinard' is a common Scottish place name, "Ceann Aird." Unless proof can be found to support Barrow. Barrow is presenting a case of Anglo-Norman bias in regard to the origins of the modern state of Scotland. (It wouldn't be his first time... .)

Now Montgomery, which as you point out is now within the Welsh county of Powys, and in the local Welsh language Trefaldwyn, "the town of Baldwin". The Norman Roger de Montgomerie, Earl of Shewsbury, build a castle there between 1071-4 and lost it thirty years later. In 1102 to Baldwin de Boulers who held for another 100 years, and from whom the Welsh named the town after.

Barrow in the above quote has no idea who the "mysterious Robert 'of Montgomery'" comes from, because why else calls him mysterious. Maybe you have Barrows quote where he suggests that the Scottish Montgomery family came from Montgomery? For without his justification there is no clear reason to accept that the Scottish Montgomery came from the Town of Baldwin instead of France or somewhere else. It adds not value in identifying that Walter Fitz Alan came from Shropshire. For if we think of the logic X is Y because one of this followers is from Y makes little sense.

If we were to assume by this logic Walter Fitz Alan is from Shropshire, we have to accept by the same logic David I is also from Shropshire! Which is untrue and hence the logic is busted and hence a fallacy to think this way.

The only question remains is how many of X have to be Y before X can be said to be from Y? In truth all the followers could be from Y and X is still not from Y. However that is not the problem here for we haven't actually proved that any of his followers are from Shropshire.









________________________________
From: GEN-MEDIEVAL <gen-medieval-bounces+bernardmorgan=***@rootsweb.com> on behalf of ***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:31 AM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman?? Round

<snip>

> Think about the negative, what if Walter Fitz Alan isn't an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire. Is
> there any reason to believe that his followers are from Anglo-Normans from Shropshire? Only
> Montgomery have some what of association with Shropshire, that is purely because their
> surname matches an area in Wales (used by French speakers?). Why should we think that the
> Scottish Montgomery came from the place in France called Montgomery? And there are even
> possible origins to the surname.

<snip>

So far, you have already misquoted Barrow and tried to use a partial quote from his work to support your view, when in fact he was supporting the opposite. Now you ask "Why should we think that the Scottish Montgomery came from the place in France called Montgomery?"

No one said we should. Barrow argued that the Montgomery family is NOT likely to have been related to the Montgomery Earls (the Earls being the ones who came from the place in France called Montgomery). Barrow suggests that the Scottish Montgomery family came from Montgomery (which at that time was in Shropshire, but is now in Powys). Furthermore, on pp. 326-331 of 'The Kingdom of the Scots', Barrow includes an 'Index of known and probable tenants and vassals of the first three Stewarts', which I urge you to read carefully. I only have copies of pages 329 and 331 to hand, but I can see several names that originate in Shropshire. For example the Hosés of Albright Hussey, the Hunalds of Marchamley, the Kinnerleys (and Nesses) from Ness, the Constantines from Eaton Constantine and the Wallaces (le Waleys meaning 'the Welshman'). Richard le Waleys was a sergeant-at-arms under William Fitz Alan, Lord of Oswestry. Can you explain why Richard decided to up sticks and go to Scotland when he already had a decent paid job serving the Lord of Oswestry on the Shropshire borders? Isn't it a bit far fetched to argue that it was just a coincidence that a Walter Fitz Alan appeared in Scotland at the same time, given that the Lord of Oswestry had a brother named Walter? I would be more sympathetic if you offered a counter argument (other than just your doubts). If this is a case of mistaken identity, can you offer any alternative Walter Fitz Alans who might fit the bill?

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
taf
2016-11-22 23:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:50:49 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:

> Barrow: "conspicuous group of individuals and families obviously came to
> Scotland from Shropshire and its borderland, for example the Hoses of
> Albright Hussy,21 the important but mysterious Robert 'of Montgomery',22
> Robert Hunald from Marchamley,23 Stephen of Kinnerley,24 a family from Great
> or Little Ness,25 possibly the 'de Costentin' or Constantine family, from
> Eaton Constantine,26 and the widely-ramified family of Wallace (Walensis),
> beginning with Richard Wallace, holder of a garrison-serjeant's fee in
> Shropshire under William"
>
> The surnames Nes, Costentin and Hunald are first names and hence contain no
> topographical association. There are too many origin to the surname Hose, so
> it too has no topographical information.

There is no surname Nes in the above passage.

The numbers following the names are clearly footnotes. Have you pursued the cited sources? Perhaps there is more to the identification of, for example, Robert Hunald, than simply his surname.

> The surname Kinnerley looks clearly derived from a place name and Kinnerley
> is a place name found in Shropshire. However it is not the name on the
> charters, the Scottish family was called De Kinardesleia. The same family
> name (Kinardley or Kinardislay), if not the same family, held land in
> Mearns. Because De Kinardesleia appears on Paisley charters Barrow reads
> Kinardley as corrupted form of the Shropshire place name Kinnerley and so
> another newly minted Shropshire Anglo-Norman settler is born.
. . .
> Barrow is presenting a case of Anglo-Norman bias in regard to the origins
> of the modern state of Scotland. (It wouldn't be his first time... .)

Does he say this explicitly (that Kinardesleia is a corruption of Kinnerley) or is this your assumption? You must consider that Kinnerley is the modern form of the name, so is likely itself a corrupt form of whatever the name was in the 12th century. I wouldn't be too hasty in accusing Barrow of sloppy imperialistic scholarship in this case unless you have some feeling for the history of that toponym.

> If we were to assume by this logic Walter Fitz Alan is from Shropshire, we
> have to accept by the same logic David I is also from Shropshire! Which is
> untrue and hence the logic is busted and hence a fallacy to think this way.

And we have seen where this logic-based evaluation leads - the existance of exceptions to general trends throughout history means that nothing can be formally proven. Historians just have to deal with it. You can't single out a reconstruction you wish to reject for nationalistic reasons and hold it to an impossible standard. Well, you can, but doing so is simply begging the question.


> The only question remains is how many of X have to be Y before X can be said
> to be from Y? In truth all the followers could be from Y and X is still not
> from Y. However that is not the problem here for we haven't actually proved
> that any of his followers are from Shropshire.

What is the point? You have just concluded that even were they all from Shropshire it wouldn't make any difference.

taf
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2016-11-23 05:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From: Bernard Morgan [***@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 November 2016 21:50
<snip>
> The surname Kinnerley looks clearly derived from a place name and Kinnerley is a place name found in Shropshire. However it is not the name on the charters, the Scottish family was called De Kinardesleia. The same family name (Kinardley or Kinardislay), if not the same family, held land in Mearns. Because De Kinardesleia appears on Paisley charters Barrow reads Kinardley as corrupted form of the Shropshire place name Kinnerley and so another newly minted Shropshire Anglo-Norman settler is born. An alternative he consider is that 'Kinard' is a common Scottish place name, "Ceann Aird." Unless proof can be found to support Barrow. Barrow is presenting a case of Anglo-Norman bias in regard to the origins of the modern state of Scotland. (It wouldn't be his first time... .)
>
-------------------------------
Kinnerley is merely the modern form of the Shropshire village's name - in the medieval period it was Kinardesle, Kynardeslegh, Kynardesley, Kynardley.

Matt Tompkins
taf
2016-11-23 05:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:13:51 PM UTC-8, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
> From: Bernard Morgan [***@hotmail.com]
> Sent: 22 November 2016 21:50
> <snip>
> > The surname Kinnerley looks clearly derived from a place name and Kinnerley is a place name found in Shropshire. However it is not the name on the charters, the Scottish family was called De Kinardesleia. The same family name (Kinardley or Kinardislay), if not the same family, held land in Mearns. Because De Kinardesleia appears on Paisley charters Barrow reads Kinardley as corrupted form of the Shropshire place name Kinnerley and so another newly minted Shropshire Anglo-Norman settler is born. An alternative he consider is that 'Kinard' is a common Scottish place name, "Ceann Aird." Unless proof can be found to support Barrow. Barrow is presenting a case of Anglo-Norman bias in regard to the origins of the modern state of Scotland. (It wouldn't be his first time... .)
> >
> -------------------------------
> Kinnerley is merely the modern form of the Shropshire village's name - in the medieval period it was Kinardesle, Kynardeslegh, Kynardesley, Kynardley.
>

Yeah, I suspected that would be the case.

taf
John P. Ravilious
2016-11-23 21:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:40:05 PM UTC-5, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> Thanks you for correcting me as to the between Kinnerley and Kinardesleia.
>
> My I concern is the puzzle presented by the conclusions of Stewart DNA group and resulting circuitous route the Stewart DNA took to become again located near people with same origin. Given that Walter Fitz Alan is a relative of Alan Fitz Faald. (And assuming not to dismiss the conclusion as a non-parental event occurred).
>
> The Stewart project results are that the descendant of:
>
> Sir John Stewart of Bonkyl, son of Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland, and
> Sir John Stewart, sheriff of Bute, descendant of James was a son of Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland
>
> Are positive for the SNP L746+.
>
> Hence justifying that Alexander Stewart (1214-1283), the 4th High Steward of Scotland, would have had to have been L746+.
>
>
> The major markers that lead up to the creation of the L746+ are:
> R-P312/S116 > L21/S145 > DF13 > Z39589 > DF41/S524 > S775 > L746
>
> While current assumptions as to the populations they represent, we can say about Alexander Stewart is that:
>
> R-P312/S116 marker means that he descends from the patrilineal society that spoke a proto-Celtic language as opposed to proto-Germanic.
>
> L21/S145+ he descends from an Insular Celtic patrilineal society that settled in the British Isles 4000 years ago.
>
> DF13 he descends from population that conforms to the medieval distribution of Goidelic Insular Celtic speakers.
>
> Z39589 he descends population who descent come from the principle tribes of the northern half of Ireland and population groups stretching from the Solway Firth to the Forth of Clyde.
>
> DF41 shown he share a distant relationship with interrelated surname blocks from areas near to were his ancestor Walter Fitz Alan settled:
>
> The largest block includes the families surnamed: MacLellan (who are potentially of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright) and their closely related to families surnamed Morrison, McCown and MacBurnie.
>
> Another block with equal relations to those above and the Stewarts is that with common surname Black/Duffy/Dowie
>
> And there are a host of smaller groups such as:
> Lamberon/Erksine group (still too small to be of much worth.)
> ...
>
>
> The DNA evidence presented does not directly conflict with Breton origin or make the story impossible, however it would require Flaad's ancestor have originated in Ireland and then traveled via Britain to Brittany.
>
>
> What puzzles me is what a circuitous route the the Stewart DNA has taken, to end up next to its closet DNA cousins?
>
>
> (Of course more DNA results could show closer cousin in Brittany, however that hasn't happened yet...)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: GEN-MEDIEVAL <gen-medieval-bounces+bernardmorgan=***@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) <***@leicester.ac.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 5:13 AM
> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman?? Round
>
> From: Bernard Morgan [***@hotmail.com]
> Sent: 22 November 2016 21:50
> <snip>
> > The surname Kinnerley looks clearly derived from a place name and Kinnerley is a place name found in Shropshire. However it is not the name on the charters, the Scottish family was called De Kinardesleia. The same family name (Kinardley or Kinardislay), if not the same family, held land in Mearns. Because De Kinardesleia appears on Paisley charters Barrow reads Kinardley as corrupted form of the Shropshire place name Kinnerley and so another newly minted Shropshire Anglo-Norman settler is born. An alternative he consider is that 'Kinard' is a common Scottish place name, "Ceann Aird." Unless proof can be found to support Barrow. Barrow is presenting a case of Anglo-Norman bias in regard to the origins of the modern state of Scotland. (It wouldn't be his first time... .)
> >
> -------------------------------
> Kinnerley is merely the modern form of the Shropshire village's name - in the medieval period it was Kinardesle, Kynardeslegh, Kynardesley, Kynardley.
>
> Matt Tompkins
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Bernard,

If this is the source of the issues with the Stewart ancestry, there does appear to have been Irish immigration into southern Wales, and subsequently into Brittany (one notable example of the latter is the life of St. Samson of Dol).

I am not aware of how solid the genetic research is, but I recommend reading Blood of the Celts by Jean Manco (2015). It is alleged by Manco that the Stewart DNA has interesting Celtic matches in Ireland and west-central Scotland, which if true would answer your concerns.

Cheers (and happy holidays),

John
Andrew Lancaster
2016-11-25 12:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:40:05 PM UTC+1, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>
> The major markers that lead up to the creation of the L746+ are:
> R-P312/S116 > L21/S145 > DF13 > Z39589 > DF41/S524 > S775 > L746
>
> While current assumptions as to the populations they represent, we can say about Alexander Stewart is that:
>
> R-P312/S116 marker means that he descends from the patrilineal society that spoke a proto-Celtic language as opposed to proto-Germanic.
>
> L21/S145+ he descends from an Insular Celtic patrilineal society that settled in the British Isles 4000 years ago.
>
> DF13 he descends from population that conforms to the medieval distribution of Goidelic Insular Celtic speakers.
>
> Z39589 he descends population who descent come from the principle tribes of the northern half of Ireland and population groups stretching from the Solway Firth to the Forth of Clyde.
>
> DF41 shown he share a distant relationship with interrelated surname blocks from areas near to were his ancestor Walter Fitz Alan settled:
>
> The largest block includes the families surnamed: MacLellan (who are potentially of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright) and their closely related to families surnamed Morrison, McCown and MacBurnie.
>
> Another block with equal relations to those above and the Stewarts is that with common surname Black/Duffy/Dowie
>
> And there are a host of smaller groups such as:
> Lamberon/Erksine group (still too small to be of much worth.)
> ...
>
>
> The DNA evidence presented does not directly conflict with Breton origin or make the story impossible, however it would require Flaad's ancestor have originated in Ireland and then traveled via Britain to Brittany.
>
>
> What puzzles me is what a circuitous route the the Stewart DNA has taken, to end up next to its closet DNA cousins?

Dear Bernard

It is interesting, but the evidence is also not quite clear enough to use it that way in my opinion. It has already been pointed out that a Breton having British or Irish ancestry would not be a surprise as we know that a significant number must have made just such migrations in the early Middle Ages, but moreover I think that the dates and regions you use could be questioned.

In general the dating and localization of Y haplogroups is an on-going controversy, even among the paid experts, let alone the genealogical groups who help drive much of the very valid and interesting discussion about the subject.

Just to take one example, the L21 project has a rough diagram here: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-l21/about

While I see no point taking sides on this forum about such things, you can see that L21 is claimed to be probably far older than Celtic languages, let alone their arrival in Western Europe, and going down the tree the estimations are all quite older than the ones you give.

Also in terms of regions, many of the haplogroups you name may be older and more regionally spread than the account you give. I do not doubt that looking further into this might eventually give some help in questions like this though.

One of the complications which became apparent after the first decade or so of such attempts is that some of these male lines have clearly had enormous explosions in small regions in recent centuries, giving a distorted impression that they are old in the regions where they are now common, and not found in other regions. As more data has come in over the years, such ideas have often had to be adapted. (Take for example the so-called Ui Neill haplotype, quite likely truly spread by particular successful clans, but also quite likely existing already before that happened. In Scotland also there is a strong association between a large number of highland clan lines and one haplotype they have helped spread, but that does not mean it started that way.)

Regards
taf
2016-11-25 19:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 4:44:33 AM UTC-8, Andrew Lancaster wrote:

> One of the complications which became apparent after the first decade or
> so of such attempts is that some of these male lines have clearly had enormous
? explosions in small regions in recent centuries, giving a distorted impression
> that they are old in the regions where they are now common, and not found in
> other regions. As more data has come in over the years, such ideas have often
> had to be adapted. (Take for example the so-called Ui Neill haplotype, quite
> likely truly spread by particular successful clans, but also quite likely
> existing already before that happened. In Scotland also there is a strong
> association between a large number of highland clan lines and one haplotype
> they have helped spread, but that does not mean it started that way.)

There are also significant sampling biases. This is seen in the so-called Kohanim haplotype. Studies of members of this hereditary rabbinical clan (or with surnames suggesting they were) found a single haplotype present in high proportions, and it was proposed that this represented the haplotype of the founder, Aaron, brother of Moses, and has been used as a marker for a population having Jewish origin, for example, the Lemba tribe of Zimbabwe. However, with more broad sampling in non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations, it was found that this haplotype could be found at low levels in most Middle-Eastern populations, and its pattern of divergence suggested that it actually originated about 10,000 years ago.

The same may be true of the Scottish clan DNAs - they only look like they are distinctive markers of the clans because there has been more genealogical DNA testing of the clans. It has been done by looking at paper-trail clan members and looking at their DNA, without significant testing of outgroups that might show more broad distribution.

taf
Andrew Lancaster
2016-11-26 08:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 8:32:40 PM UTC+1, taf wrote:

> There are also significant sampling biases. This is seen in the so-called Kohanim haplotype. Studies of members of this hereditary rabbinical clan (or with surnames suggesting they were) found a single haplotype present in high proportions, and it was proposed that this represented the haplotype of the founder, Aaron, brother of Moses, and has been used as a marker for a population having Jewish origin, for example, the Lemba tribe of Zimbabwe. However, with more broad sampling in non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations, it was found that this haplotype could be found at low levels in most Middle-Eastern populations, and its pattern of divergence suggested that it actually originated about 10,000 years ago.
>
> The same may be true of the Scottish clan DNAs - they only look like they are distinctive markers of the clans because there has been more genealogical DNA testing of the clans. It has been done by looking at paper-trail clan members and looking at their DNA, without significant testing of outgroups that might show more broad distribution.

You are right but that is not the end of the story. Haplogroup assignations made 10 years ago with 12 or 25 STR markers and biased sampling indeed turned out to be insufficient, leading to underestimates of ages. But then the technology keeps giving us more refined haplogroups which are effectively branches and twigs of those old ones found in the early days, and in some cases these really do look recent. However around the internet old and new versions of hypotheses end up being mixed a bit. Things move so fast in this area. I think this is the reason some projects still report age estimates which seem too young?

Some of the best data now involves groups who have literally done a complete sequencing of the Y DNA of a group of people, to the point where SNPs can be identified for even recent family tree branching. But still, identifying branching just exactly in a century you are interested in is tough, because as has been mentioned here a few times, good enough triangulation requires quite a lot of people to be tested the same way and compared very carefully.
j***@gmail.com
2018-05-13 16:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 7:44:33 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lancaster wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:40:05 PM UTC+1, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> >
> > The major markers that lead up to the creation of the L746+ are:
> > R-P312/S116 > L21/S145 > DF13 > Z39589 > DF41/S524 > S775 > L746
> >
> > While current assumptions as to the populations they represent, we can say about Alexander Stewart is that:
> >
> > R-P312/S116 marker means that he descends from the patrilineal society that spoke a proto-Celtic language as opposed to proto-Germanic.
> >
> > L21/S145+ he descends from an Insular Celtic patrilineal society that settled in the British Isles 4000 years ago.
> >
> > DF13 he descends from population that conforms to the medieval distribution of Goidelic Insular Celtic speakers.
> >
> > Z39589 he descends population who descent come from the principle tribes of the northern half of Ireland and population groups stretching from the Solway Firth to the Forth of Clyde.
> >
> > DF41 shown he share a distant relationship with interrelated surname blocks from areas near to were his ancestor Walter Fitz Alan settled:
> >
> > The largest block includes the families surnamed: MacLellan (who are potentially of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright) and their closely related to families surnamed Morrison, McCown and MacBurnie.
> >
> > Another block with equal relations to those above and the Stewarts is that with common surname Black/Duffy/Dowie
> >
> > And there are a host of smaller groups such as:
> > Lamberon/Erksine group (still too small to be of much worth.)
> > ...
> >
> >
> > The DNA evidence presented does not directly conflict with Breton origin or make the story impossible, however it would require Flaad's ancestor have originated in Ireland and then traveled via Britain to Brittany.
> >
> >
> > What puzzles me is what a circuitous route the the Stewart DNA has taken, to end up next to its closet DNA cousins?
>
> Dear Bernard
>
> It is interesting, but the evidence is also not quite clear enough to use it that way in my opinion. It has already been pointed out that a Breton having British or Irish ancestry would not be a surprise as we know that a significant number must have made just such migrations in the early Middle Ages, but moreover I think that the dates and regions you use could be questioned.
>
> In general the dating and localization of Y haplogroups is an on-going controversy, even among the paid experts, let alone the genealogical groups who help drive much of the very valid and interesting discussion about the subject.
>
> Just to take one example, the L21 project has a rough diagram here: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-l21/about
>
> While I see no point taking sides on this forum about such things, you can see that L21 is claimed to be probably far older than Celtic languages, let alone their arrival in Western Europe, and going down the tree the estimations are all quite older than the ones you give.
>
> Also in terms of regions, many of the haplogroups you name may be older and more regionally spread than the account you give. I do not doubt that looking further into this might eventually give some help in questions like this though.
>
> One of the complications which became apparent after the first decade or so of such attempts is that some of these male lines have clearly had enormous explosions in small regions in recent centuries, giving a distorted impression that they are old in the regions where they are now common, and not found in other regions. As more data has come in over the years, such ideas have often had to be adapted. (Take for example the so-called Ui Neill haplotype, quite likely truly spread by particular successful clans, but also quite likely existing already before that happened. In Scotland also there is a strong association between a large number of highland clan lines and one haplotype they have helped spread, but that does not mean it started that way.)
>
> Regards

Andrew, this is Marc Matthews family researcher Ancestry.com (MarcTMatt) I have been told that some of my FTDNA Big-Y DNA Markers like A600+ DF41+ S775+ L21+ reflect my ancestors were either progenitors or the closest upstream cousins ever found to date, that are "Pre-Stewart" progenitors. I have also found only two other DNA tested men that also have the same markers with present sur-name's of Ryley & Robinson. According to FTDNA Alex Willimson has put our names on the R-A600 section of Big Tree of early forfathers of the Royal Stewart's. Would it not to be prudent to have all this conversation regarding who were the true forefathers of the Royal Stewart's, require more DNA research? to truly clear up origins of the true forefathers of the Royal Stewart's. Thanks Marc M. Would very much like to discuss this with you. Marc
taf
2016-11-20 21:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:49:31 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:

> Thank you Taf, my problem is that I don't see any evidence for the connection
> between Walter Fitz Alan (progenitor of the Stuarts) and Alan Fitz Flaald. Why
> are they thought to be related?

See the following:
George Chalmers, Caledonia col. 1 (1807), which lays out the detailed argument
https://books.google.com/books?id=I89aAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA572

and

J. Horace Round, "The Origins of the Stwearts" in Studies in Peerage and Family History, who accepts it and looks at Alan Fitz Flaald
https://archive.org/stream/studiesinpeerage02rounuoft#page/114/mode/2up
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-20 22:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Taf,


My understanding of Chalmers is that he offers two reason for why Walter Fitz Alan should be considered related the Shopshire FitzAlans, I find neither valid:


The first justification and most substantial is: "Now; Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel, being with Edward III., in Scotland, during the year 1335; and claiming to be Stewart of Scotland, by hereditary right, sold his title, and claim to Edward III., for a thousand marks." Chalmers makes the claim that Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel in the charter argued that he is a relative of Walter Fitz Alan and the Scottish Stewarts.

Here are the charters relating to the subject:
1336 Nov. 28. 1218. The K. having received from his cousin Richard earl of Arundel, a charter of his right to the Stewardship of Scotland, belonging to him by descent and confirmation charter by the. K. of Scotland, and, in return for his 'naturesce' and good will, having given him 1000 marks from the justiciary of North Wales, orders letters in his favour. Bothwell. [Privy Seals (Tower), 10 Edw. III. File 7.]

1339 Feb. 6. 1300. The K. to the Chamberlain of North Wales. As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, which grant was confirmed by Edward K. of Scotland, the K. in return granted the Earl, on 28th November 1336, 1000 marks of the issues of North Wales. The late Chamberlain having left office before it was fully paid, the K. commands the balance to be settled. Teste the Guardian. Kenyngton. [Close, 13 Edw. Ill p. 1, m. 49.]

Neither charters supports Chalmers claim. Richard FitzAlan Earl of Arundel only claims to have been granted Stewardship of Scotland with hereditary rights. And not as Chalmers claims Richard FitzAlan Earl of Arundel is claiming the Stewardship because of so hereditary right to it.


Second justification offered by Chalmers is that then Walteri Filli Alani founded the priory of Paisley in 1163, he did so with monks from the nearest Cluniac Abbey at Wendlock in Shropshire. This just doesn't have legs. For example in 1097 King Edmond of Scotland was sent to the Cluniac Abbey of Montacute in Somerset, by the same reasoning present by Chalmers, I would have to assume that the Cranmores were original from Somerset.


So, other than Chalmers false claims, is there reason to think that Walter Fitz Alan is related to Alan Fitz Flaald?

Thanks,
Bernard.


________________________________
From: GEN-MEDIEVAL <gen-medieval-bounces+bernardmorgan=***@rootsweb.com> on behalf of taf <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:17 PM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman??

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:49:31 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:

> Thank you Taf, my problem is that I don't see any evidence for the connection
> between Walter Fitz Alan (progenitor of the Stuarts) and Alan Fitz Flaald. Why
> are they thought to be related?

See the following:
George Chalmers, Caledonia col. 1 (1807), which lays out the detailed argument
https://books.google.com/books?id=I89aAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA572
[https://books.google.com/books/content?id=I89aAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&edge=curl&imgtk=AFLRE71TfHbiIWpG9OShgcT3iV7VFmYOeDSOpNf0vieXvhdgotA6ssv6AbQjLFWZon5hqBkoKDnvc1CZFfUo6GZmHkefBXV5BIBSvazuCFHDuDHC6thGCLPx2n-BRFSwDem3-FoA8_16]<https://books.google.com/books?id=I89aAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA572>

Caledonia, Or an Account, Historical and Topographical, of North Britain; from the Most Ancient to the Present Times, with a Dicitionary of Places, Chrorographical and Philological. - London, T. Cadell & W. Davies 1807-1824<https://books.google.com/books?id=I89aAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA572>
books.google.com
/




and

J. Horace Round, "The Origins of the Stwearts" in Studies in Peerage and Family History, who accepts it and looks at Alan Fitz Flaald
https://archive.org/stream/studiesinpeerage02rounuoft#page/114/mode/2up

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
taf
2016-11-21 02:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 2:51:53 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:

> Here are the charters relating to the subject:
> 1336 Nov. 28. 1218. The K. having received from his cousin Richard earl of
> Arundel, a charter of his right to the Stewardship of Scotland, belonging
> to him by descent

> Neither charters supports Chalmers claim. Richard FitzAlan Earl of Arundel only
> claims to have been granted Stewardship of Scotland with hereditary rights.

'. . . belonging to him by descent' does not mean that he had been granted it with hereditary rights - it means that he had inherited it rather than being granted it. That being said, the charter wasn't written in English, so this would be best addressed by determining what the charter actually said, in its original form.

> Second justification offered by Chalmers is that then Walteri Filli Alani
> founded the priory of Paisley in 1163, he did so with monks from the nearest
> Cluniac Abbey at Wendlock in Shropshire. This just doesn't have legs. For
> example in 1097 King Edmond of Scotland was sent to the Cluniac Abbey of
> Montacute in Somerset, by the same reasoning present by Chalmers, I would have
> to assume that the Cranmores were original from Somerset.

The circumstances are a little bit different, don't you think? Where one got monks from vs where one was exiled to? Edmond didn't choose his fate, so might this not say more about the people who sent him there (nearly as far as possible in Britain as you could get away from Scotland) to get rid of him?

> So, other than Chalmers false claims, is there reason to think that Walter Fitz
> Alan is related to Alan Fitz Flaald?

Not false, just unconvincing, in your opinion.

Do you have an alternative - perhaps some other Alan that you think is more likely to have been his father, who was no Anglo-Norman?

taf
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-22 00:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If I reverse the order of assertions starting with weakest claim and then moving on to the misunderstanding that underlies all else:

What does Walter Fitz Alan choice to bring monks from Wendlock tell us about his origin? In truth I am not sure.

He could of chosen monks from the nearby Cistercian establishment Dundrennan in Galloway, yet he didn’t.

Does this signal a prior connection with Wendlock and Shropshire?

The answer is an emphatic NO. For other alternative reasons can be put forward for why Walter Fitz Alan choose monks from Wendlock. For example, Wendlock is nearest Cluniac institution to Paisley and Walter Fitz Alan wanted Cluniac monks.
(There is no known preference by Alan Fitz Flaald or his known descendants for the Clunaic order. William Fitz Alan (alleged brother of Scottish Walter) founded a priory for Augustinian Canons at Haughmond prior to Walter's own foundation with a rival community. No linkage.)

When trying to create a standard form to present the deductive reasoning, I am stump on how to present that Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire because he choice Clunaic monks of Wendlock to populate his new foundation. If Walter Fitz Alan purchased tapestries from Caen, does that make him a Norman?

Premise 1: Walter Fitz Alan is Y.
Premise 2: Y is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire.
Therefore: Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire.

The association between Walter Fitz Alan and the Anglo-Norman origin is purely speculative without further proof.
That Walter Fitz Alan’s monk came from Wendlock is only important to support the claim that he had relatives in Shropshire.


To the crux of the argument: that there is a charter that shows a familial connection between the descendants of Alan Fitz Flaald and descendants of Walter Fitz Alan. In truth if we had transcriptions of the original we would have a clear understanding for what was meant, however we are left to argue about the

Chalmer cites his sources for this charter that shows the familial connection:
"(d) Dugd. Bar. i. 316b, which quotes the Clause Roll 13 Edw. III. p. r. m. 40. Not trusting to Dugdale, for such a transaction, I sent to the Tower, for a copy of the Record, which attests the fact ; and adds a curious circumstance, which Dugdale overlooked, that Edward had obtained the confirmation of this purchase, from Edward Baliol ; so anxious was the ambition of Edward III. to obtain this pretented title to the Stewartship of Scotland! !"

The only charter relating to Arundel and the Scottish Stewartship in 13 Edw. III and has been published conflicts in language with Chalmers translation:
"1339 Feb. 6. 1300. The K. to the Chamberlain of North Wales. As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, which grant was confirmed by Edward K. of Scotland, the K. in return granted the Earl, on 28th November 1336, 1000 marks of the issues of North Wales. The late Chamberlain having left office before it was fully paid, the K. commands the balance to be settled. Teste the Guardian. Kenyngton. [Close, 13 Edw. Ill p. 1, m. 49.]"

This is in the same manner that the translation of an earlier charter concerning the exact same matter, the purchase of the hereditary rights to the Stewardship of Scotland:
1336 Nov. 28. 1218. The K. having received from his cousin Richard earl of Arundel, a charter of his right to the Stewardship of Scotland, belonging to him by descent and confirmation charter by the. K. of Scotland, and, in return for his 'naturesce' and good will, having given him 1000 marks from the justiciary of North Wales, orders letters in his favour. Bothwell. [Privy Seals (Tower), 10 Edw. III. File 7.]

We could argue over the existence of a second charter in the 13 Edw. III roll, however the simplest choice is to assume a difference in opinion in translation of a probable Latin term.

This Latin Term has been translated as either "hereditary right" or "belonging to him by descent". "Belonging to him by descent" is literally the same meaning a "hereditary right". Yet the former can be read to imply that the actual owner come to hold possession of the tile in question by a "hereditary right". However, documents are short message concerning the purchase of a tile, what is more likely to be convey:

That owner of the title came by it by descent. OR
That the title gives the owner hereditary rights to the tile.

I see the simplest answer as the later, an expression that the tile has greater value because it comes (as so many such titles are described) with hereditary rights.

So we end with the Royal Stuart line holds on by it finger tips to the Anglo-Norman heritage, newly given to them by Chalmers who has wiped away the former association with a barbarous Irish ancestry.
And this because we don’t know the truth behind the conflicting interruptions of a Latin term.

Personally I believe in all probability Chalmers distorted the translation to favour his Loyalist opinion. And I suspect the yDNA results shows this.
taf
2016-11-22 00:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:

> So we end with the Royal Stuart line holds on by it finger tips to the Anglo-
> Norman heritage, newly given to them by Chalmers who has wiped away the former
> association with a barbarous Irish ancestry.

> Personally I believe in all probability Chalmers distorted the translation to
> favour his Loyalist opinion.

Yeah, didn't see that coming.

taf
Matt Tompkins
2016-11-22 22:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 00:44:29 UTC, Bernard Morgan wrote:
<snip>
> To the crux of the argument: that there is a charter that shows a familial connection between the descendants of Alan Fitz Flaald and descendants of Walter Fitz Alan. In truth if we had transcriptions of the original we would have a clear understanding for what was meant, however we are left to argue about the
>
> Chalmer cites his sources for this charter that shows the familial connection:
> "(d) Dugd. Bar. i. 316b, which quotes the Clause Roll 13 Edw. III. p. r. m. 40. Not trusting to Dugdale, for such a transaction, I sent to the Tower, for a copy of the Record, which attests the fact ; and adds a curious circumstance, which Dugdale overlooked, that Edward had obtained the confirmation of this purchase, from Edward Baliol ; so anxious was the ambition of Edward III. to obtain this pretented title to the Stewartship of Scotland! !"
>
> The only charter relating to Arundel and the Scottish Stewartship in 13 Edw. III and has been published conflicts in language with Chalmers translation:
> "1339 Feb. 6. 1300. The K. to the Chamberlain of North Wales. As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, which grant was confirmed by Edward K. of Scotland, the K. in return granted the Earl, on 28th November 1336, 1000 marks of the issues of North Wales. The late Chamberlain having left office before it was fully paid, the K. commands the balance to be settled. Teste the Guardian. Kenyngton. [Close, 13 Edw. Ill p. 1, m. 49.]"
>
> This is in the same manner that the translation of an earlier charter concerning the exact same matter, the purchase of the hereditary rights to the Stewardship of Scotland:
> 1336 Nov. 28. 1218. The K. having received from his cousin Richard earl of Arundel, a charter of his right to the Stewardship of Scotland, belonging to him by descent and confirmation charter by the. K. of Scotland, and, in return for his 'naturesce' and good will, having given him 1000 marks from the justiciary of North Wales, orders letters in his favour. Bothwell. [Privy Seals (Tower), 10 Edw. III. File 7.]
>
> We could argue over the existence of a second charter in the 13 Edw. III roll, however the simplest choice is to assume a difference in opinion in translation of a probable Latin term.
>
> This Latin Term has been translated as either "hereditary right" or "belonging to him by descent". "Belonging to him by descent" is literally the same meaning a "hereditary right". Yet the former can be read to imply that the actual owner come to hold possession of the tile in question by a "hereditary right". However, documents are short message concerning the purchase of a tile, what is more likely to be convey:
>
> That owner of the title came by it by descent. OR
> That the title gives the owner hereditary rights to the tile.
>
> I see the simplest answer as the later, an expression that the tile has greater value because it comes (as so many such titles are described) with hereditary rights.
>
> So we end with the Royal Stuart line holds on by it finger tips to the Anglo-Norman heritage, newly given to them by Chalmers who has wiped away the former association with a barbarous Irish ancestry.
> And this because we don’t know the truth behind the conflicting interruptions of a Latin term.
>

-----------------------
The meanings of 'his hereditary right to the stewardship of Scotland' (in the abstract of the 10 Edw III letters close) and 'the stewardship of Scotland, belonging to him by descent' (in the abstract the 13 Edw III order for letters patent to be issued) are identical. They both mean that Richard Fitzalan had inherited the stewardship.

The former document, the letters close of 10 Edw III, is abstracted a little more fully in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1339-41, p 2, where it says:

1339, Feb. 6, Kennington: "To John de Ellerker, chamberlain of North Wales. Order to pay to Richard earl of Arundel the arrears of 1,000 marks, as on 28 November in the 10th year of the reign the king granted to him 1,000 marks yearly from the issues of that chamber, in recompence for what pertained to the earl of the stewardship of Scotland, which belonged to him by hereditary right and which he granted to the king, the grant being confirmed by Edward, king of Scotland ..."

Matt Tompkins
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2016-11-23 21:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From: Matt Tompkins [***@leicester.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 November 2016 22:20
>
> The meanings of 'his hereditary right to the stewardship of Scotland' (in the abstract of the 10 Edw III letters close) and 'the stewardship of Scotland, belonging to him by descent' (in the abstract the 13 Edw III order for letters patent to be issued) are identical. They both mean that Richard Fitzalan had inherited the stewardship.
>
> The former document, the letters close of 10 Edw III, is abstracted a little more fully in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1339-41, p 2, where it says:
>
> 1339, Feb. 6, Kennington: "To John de Ellerker, chamberlain of North Wales. Order to pay to Richard earl of Arundel the arrears of 1,000 marks, as on 28 November in the 10th year of the reign the king granted to him 1,000 marks yearly from the issues of that chamber, in recompence for what pertained to the earl of the stewardship of Scotland, which belonged to him by hereditary right and which he granted to the king, the grant being confirmed by Edward, king of Scotland ..."
>
>
-------------------------------
Out of curiosity, I had a quick look today at the originals of both the above records, in C 54/163, m. 49 (the Close Roll for 13 Edw III, pt 1) and C 66/188, m. 10 (the Patent Roll for 10 Edw III, pt 2). The crucial Latin phrase is the same in both: 'senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat' ('spectat' in the Patent Roll). The Calendar of Close Rolls entry quoted above translates this exactly.

Matt Tompkins
Bernard Morgan
2016-11-24 09:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If possible can you supply the full Latin text.

For in the sentence below the the pronoun eum refers to the subject senescalia Scotie.

senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat

Hence implying the observance of hereditary rights in regard to Senescalia Scotie.

I.e., The office of the Steward of Scotland has hereditary rights.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) <***@leicester.ac.uk<mailto:***@leicester.ac.uk>> wrote:

senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat
Peter Stewart
2016-11-24 10:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 24/11/2016 8:01 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> If possible can you supply the full Latin text.
>
> For in the sentence below the the pronoun eum refers to the subject senescalia Scotie.
>
> senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat
>
> Hence implying the observance of hereditary rights in regard to Senescalia Scotie.
>
> I.e., The office of the Steward of Scotland has hereditary rights.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 23, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) <***@leicester.ac.uk<mailto:***@leicester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat
>

You have this peculiarly awry - "eum" is accusative, not nominative: the
pronoun refers to Arundel, and not to the stewardship that allegedly
belonged to him by hereditary right - i.e. his right to the stewardship,
of course, not the stewardship's right to him.

Peter Stewart
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2016-11-24 11:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Nov 23, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) <***@leicester.ac.uk<mailto:***@leicester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat

From: Bernard Morgan
Sent: 24 November 2016 09:01
>
> If possible can you supply the full Latin text.
>
> For in the sentence below the the pronoun eum refers to the subject senescalia Scotie.
>
> senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat
>
> Hence implying the observance of hereditary rights in regard to Senescalia Scotie.
>
> I.e., The office of the Steward of Scotland has hereditary rights.
>

-------------------------------
The English calendar entry quoted above supplied the syntactical context, but here is more of the Latin (from C 54/163, the Close Roll entry):

Dum dilectus consanguineus et fidelis noster Ricardus comes Arundell' nuper concessisset nobis quantum ad ipsum pertinuit de Senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat, habendum nobis et heredibus nostris imperpetuum, quam quidem concessionem magnificus princeps dominus Edwardus Rex Scotie consanguineus noster carissimus per litteras suas confirmauit ...

Matt Tompkins
Bernard Morgan
2016-12-03 04:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>> The former document, the letters close of 10 Edw III, is abstracted a little more fully in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1339-41, p 2, where it says:
>>
>> 1339, Feb. 6, Kennington: "To John de Ellerker, chamberlain of North Wales. Order to pay to Richard earl of Arundel the arrears of 1,000 marks, as on 28 November in the 10th year of the reign the king granted to him 1,000 marks yearly from the issues of that chamber, in recompence for what pertained to the earl of the stewardship of Scotland, which belonged to him by hereditary right and which he granted to the king, the grant being confirmed by Edward, king of Scotland ..."
>>
> >
>-------------------------------
>Out of curiosity, I had a quick look today at the originals of both the above records, in C 54/163, m. 49 (the Close Roll for 13 Edw III, pt 1) and C 66/188, m. 10 (the >Patent Roll for 10 Edw III, pt 2). The crucial Latin phrase is the same in both: 'senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat' ('spectat' in the Patent Roll). >The Calendar of Close Rolls entry quoted above translates this exactly.


Though numerous translation of charters translate the Latin Spectabat as 'belonged', elsewhere and even within Latin-English dictionaries the translation is not so. For Spectabat is the third-person singular imperfect active indicative of specto, which means "to look on, look at, behold, gaze at, watch, observe, inspect, attend". http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&l=spectabant

The is no imparting ownership in the meaning of specto or even within its Indo-European root *spé?yeti. The translation of Spectabat as 'belongs' in the charters is purely a simplistic approach by the translator.

Joseph Bain his translation in "Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland: 1307-1357", 1887, choice not repeat claims that the title belonged to Richard Arundel by Hereditary Right:
"As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, ... .]"

A literal translation of "que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat" would be: "..., which observed to him with hereditary rights, ..."

I see no assertion within the charter that Richard Arundel inherited the Stewardship of Scotland due to a hereditary claim?
Peter Stewart
2016-12-03 06:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/12/2016 3:13 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>>> The former document, the letters close of 10 Edw III, is abstracted a little more fully in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1339-41, p 2, where it says:
>>>
>>> 1339, Feb. 6, Kennington: "To John de Ellerker, chamberlain of North Wales. Order to pay to Richard earl of Arundel the arrears of 1,000 marks, as on 28 November in the 10th year of the reign the king granted to him 1,000 marks yearly from the issues of that chamber, in recompence for what pertained to the earl of the stewardship of Scotland, which belonged to him by hereditary right and which he granted to the king, the grant being confirmed by Edward, king of Scotland ..."
>>>
>>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Out of curiosity, I had a quick look today at the originals of both the above records, in C 54/163, m. 49 (the Close Roll for 13 Edw III, pt 1) and C 66/188, m. 10 (the >Patent Roll for 10 Edw III, pt 2). The crucial Latin phrase is the same in both: 'senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat' ('spectat' in the Patent Roll). >The Calendar of Close Rolls entry quoted above translates this exactly.
>
> Though numerous translation of charters translate the Latin Spectabat as 'belonged', elsewhere and even within Latin-English dictionaries the translation is not so. For Spectabat is the third-person singular imperfect active indicative of specto, which means "to look on, look at, behold, gaze at, watch, observe, inspect, attend". http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&l=spectabant
>
> The is no imparting ownership in the meaning of specto or even within its Indo-European root *spé?yeti. The translation of Spectabat as 'belongs' in the charters is purely a simplistic approach by the translator.
>
> Joseph Bain his translation in "Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland: 1307-1357", 1887, choice not repeat claims that the title belonged to Richard Arundel by Hereditary Right:
> "As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, ... .]"
>
> A literal translation of "que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat" would be: "..., which observed to him with hereditary rights, ..."
>
> I see no assertion within the charter that Richard Arundel inherited the Stewardship of Scotland due to a hereditary claim?

Then you are missing the point of the charter entirely.

You can't expect (i.e. derived from the same word) to find an idiomatic
translation of 14th century Latin usage in a classical Latin word tool.

A literal rendition might be "the stewardship of Scotland which was due
to him by hereditary right". That is, Arundel did not actually hold the
office of steward in the sense of performing its duties, but rather
claimed dynastic right to it and sold this instead of taking it up.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2016-12-03 06:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/12/2016 5:18 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>
> On 3/12/2016 3:13 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>>>> The former document, the letters close of 10 Edw III, is abstracted
>>>> a little more fully in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1339-41, p 2,
>>>> where it says:
>>>>
>>>> 1339, Feb. 6, Kennington: "To John de Ellerker, chamberlain of
>>>> North Wales. Order to pay to Richard earl of Arundel the arrears
>>>> of 1,000 marks, as on 28 November in the 10th year of the reign the
>>>> king granted to him 1,000 marks yearly from the issues of that
>>>> chamber, in recompence for what pertained to the earl of the
>>>> stewardship of Scotland, which belonged to him by hereditary right
>>>> and which he granted to the king, the grant being confirmed by
>>>> Edward, king of Scotland ..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> Out of curiosity, I had a quick look today at the originals of both
>>> the above records, in C 54/163, m. 49 (the Close Roll for 13 Edw
>>> III, pt 1) and C 66/188, m. 10 (the >Patent Roll for 10 Edw III, pt
>>> 2). The crucial Latin phrase is the same in both: 'senescalia
>>> Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat' ('spectat' in the
>>> Patent Roll). >The Calendar of Close Rolls entry quoted above
>>> translates this exactly.
>>
>> Though numerous translation of charters translate the Latin Spectabat
>> as 'belonged', elsewhere and even within Latin-English dictionaries
>> the translation is not so. For Spectabat is the third-person singular
>> imperfect active indicative of specto, which means "to look on, look
>> at, behold, gaze at, watch, observe, inspect, attend".
>> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&l=spectabant
>>
>> The is no imparting ownership in the meaning of specto or even within
>> its Indo-European root *spé?yeti. The translation of Spectabat as
>> 'belongs' in the charters is purely a simplistic approach by the
>> translator.
>>
>> Joseph Bain his translation in "Calendar of Documents Relating to
>> Scotland: 1307-1357", 1887, choice not repeat claims that the title
>> belonged to Richard Arundel by Hereditary Right:
>> "As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his
>> hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, ... .]"
>>
>> A literal translation of "que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat"
>> would be: "..., which observed to him with hereditary rights, ..."
>>
>> I see no assertion within the charter that Richard Arundel inherited
>> the Stewardship of Scotland due to a hereditary claim?
>
> Then you are missing the point of the charter entirely.
>
> You can't expect (i.e. derived from the same word) to find an
> idiomatic translation of 14th century Latin usage in a classical Latin
> word tool.
>
> A literal rendition might be "the stewardship of Scotland which was
> due to him by hereditary right". That is, Arundel did not actually
> hold the office of steward in the sense of performing its duties, but
> rather claimed dynastic right to it and sold this instead of taking it up.

I should have added: you can find countless instances of the same
idiomatic usage of *spectare* in the headings of Dugdale's Monasticon,
for example "Cartae ad Colcestrense coenobium in agro Essexiensi
spectantes" (charters belonging/pertaining to Colchester abbey in Essex).

Obviously Dugdale did not mean that these charters were somehow
observing the monastery.

Peter Stewart
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2016-12-03 09:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>>> The former document, the letters close of 10 Edw III, is abstracted a little more fully in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1339-41, p 2, where it says:
>>>
>>> 1339, Feb. 6, Kennington: "To John de Ellerker, chamberlain of North Wales. Order to pay to Richard earl of Arundel the arrears of 1,000 marks, as on 28 November in the 10th year of the reign the king granted to him 1,000 marks yearly from the issues of that chamber, in recompence for what pertained to the earl of the stewardship of Scotland, which belonged to him by hereditary right and which he granted to the king, the grant being confirmed by Edward, king of Scotland ..."
>>>
>>>
-------------------------------
>> Out of curiosity, I had a quick look today at the originals of both the above records, in C 54/163, m. 49 (the Close Roll for 13 Edw III, pt 1) and C 66/188, m. 10 (the >Patent Roll for 10 Edw III, pt 2). The crucial Latin phrase is the same in both: 'senescalia Scotie que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat' ('spectat' in the Patent Roll). >The Calendar of Close Rolls entry quoted above translates this exactly.
>>
-------------------------------
From: Bernard Morgan [***@hotmail.com]
Sent: 03 December 2016 04:13
> Though numerous translation of charters translate the Latin Spectabat as 'belonged', elsewhere and even within Latin-English dictionaries the translation is not so. For Spectabat is the third-person singular imperfect active indicative of specto, which means "to look on, look at, behold, gaze at, watch, observe, inspect, attend". http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?la=la&l=spectabant
>
> The is no imparting ownership in the meaning of specto or even within its Indo-European root *spé?yeti. The translation of Spectabat as 'belongs' in the charters is purely a simplistic approach by the translator.
>

This is the basic tyro error of supposing medieval legal texts can be translated using only a classical Latin dictionary. As the translators of those 'numerous charters' knew perfectly well, medieval Latin had evolved some way from the classic language, particularly in its vocabulary. New words appeared and old ones changed their meanings, or acquired additional meanings. 'Specto' was one of the latter. If you look in Latham's Revised Medieval Latin Word-list (under 'spect/us') or the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources (under 'spectare') you will find the meaning 'to pertain, belong to'.

> Joseph Bain his translation in "Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland: 1307-1357", 1887, choice not repeat claims that the title belonged to Richard Arundel by Hereditary Right:
"As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, ... .]"
>

Bain was providing a brief summary of a rather verbose text, not a word-for-word translation. He would have seen no difference between 'which belonged to him by hereditary right' and 'his hereditary right' except brevity.

> A literal translation of "que ad eum iure hereditario spectabat" would be: "..., which observed to him with hereditary rights, ..."
>

That phrase has no meaning.

> I see no assertion within the charter that Richard Arundel inherited the Stewardship of Scotland due to a hereditary claim?
>

Perhaps because you're situating the appreciation?

Matt Tompkins
taf
2016-12-03 17:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:

> First, Latin 'Spectare' is the root to the 16th century English
> 'Spectator', why don't we in English use some cognate as a synonym for 'to pertain, belong to'?

I'll leave the Latin to the experts, but this is not how linguistic borrowing works. Even within a language words change their precise meanings and usage over time, but all the more so when they are borrowed into another language. Likewise, the usages of borrowed words almost never retain all of their original meanings. One might just as well insist that we are mis-translating 'sinister' since English has no cognate of it meaning 'left', while we do have ambidextrous and dexterity. Sometimes borrowed words retain certain meanings, other times they end up meaning something completely different. If such predictions had any validity, the word assassin should be more likely associated with drug use than the word addict.


> The only evidence I see is that the semantic shift occurred with
> 19th century antiquarians swapped its meaning of Specto in their
> translation for a Germanic word with different connotations, i.e.,
> distorting the mean of the sentences.
>
> I see no argument that justifies that 'Specto' is correctly
> translated as "to pertain / to belong". I just see nineteenth
> century mistakes being carried into the twenty first century.

Whenever you find it necessary to declare that an entire field of scholarship in error for more than a century, just so that your desired interpretation of a single specific case can be maintained, you might want to consider the obvious alternative.

taf
P J Evans
2016-12-03 21:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> >> 19th century antiquarians swapped its meaning of Specto in their
> >> translation for a Germanic word with different connotations, i.e.,
> >> distorting the mean of the sentences.
> >>
> >> I see no argument that justifies that 'Specto' is correctly
> >> translated as "to pertain / to belong". I just see nineteenth
> >> century mistakes being carried into the twenty first century.
>
>> Whenever you find it necessary to declare that an entire field of scholarship in error for more than a century, just so that your desired interpretation of a single specific case can be maintained, you might want to consider the obvious alternative.

>
> When it is wrong it's wrong. An argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy until proof is offered.
>


You're the one making the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence for them.
So far, you've got nothing.
taf
2016-12-03 22:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 1:06:59 PM UTC-8, P J Evans wrote:
> You're the one making the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence for them.

Burden of proof is a tricky thing. I just had an exchange wherein I said that I had never found the slightest evidence in any contemporary record that a woman had the maiden name given her by a family historian.

This was criticized because I hadn't supplied any proof.

taf
D. Spencer Hines
2016-12-03 23:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well, you are obviously corresponding with a genealogical idiot.

So, why continue with it?

DSH

"All things truly wicked start from an innocence." -- Ernest Hemingway _A
Moveable Feast_

"taf" wrote in message
news:e709f3c9-1939-4dbb-a89f-***@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 1:06:59 PM UTC-8, P J Evans wrote:

> You're the one making the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence for
> them.

Burden of proof is a tricky thing. I just had an exchange wherein I said
that I had never found the slightest evidence in any contemporary record
that a woman had the maiden name given her by a family historian.

This was criticized because I hadn't supplied any proof.

taf
Peter Stewart
2016-12-03 23:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/12/2016 9:38 AM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>>> When it is wrong it's wrong. An argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy until proof is offered.
>>>
>
>> You're the one making the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence for them.
>> So far, you've got nothing.
> I thought I had:
> From proto-Indo European till spectator enter the English land in the 16th century 'Specto' has been "to look at, to observe". That 19th century antiquarians translated in manner inconsistent with prior usage, which is a red flag. And to continue regarding 'belong' as meaning of Spectabat requires justification, i.e., proof of a semantic shift in it usage by the 14th century. Without such proof, the continued usage of 'to belong' is meaningless.
>
> However continued study of the sentence shows that it is not the meaning of the verb (beyond is over generalization of the situation when something has been observed with something else) is of importance. The key to the sentence's meaning is the missing preposition of ablative noun 'iure'!
>
> What allows for the identification that we are dealing with an ablative of agent over an ablative of accompaniment?

There is no "missing" preposition - Latin is an inflected language, and
the preposition is understood by the case: 'iure hereditario' means by
hereditary right.

s.g.m. is not a post-truth forum. You can't reinvent facts here by
yokelism masquerading as scholarship.

Peter Stewart
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2016-12-03 23:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From: Bernard Morgan [***@hotmail.com]
Sent: 03 December 2016 22:38
>>You're the one making the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence for them.
>>So far, you've got nothing.
>
> I thought I had:
> From proto-Indo European till spectator enter the English land in the 16th century 'Specto' has been "to look at, to observe". That 19th century antiquarians translated in manner inconsistent with prior usage, which is a red flag.

This is not true, as I have demonstrated.

> And to continue regarding 'belong' as meaning of Spectabat requires justification, i.e., proof of a semantic shift in it usage by the 14th century. Without such proof, the continued usage of 'to belong' is meaningless.
>

The proof is in the early dictionaries, and in the use of 'spectare' in thousands of medieval and early modern charters, inquisitions, lawsuits, accounts, surveys, court rolls and other records, in contexts where the meaning is self-evidently 'belong'.

<snip>

Matt Tompkins
Peter Stewart
2016-12-04 00:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/12/2016 10:46 AM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
> From: Bernard Morgan [***@hotmail.com]
> Sent: 03 December 2016 22:38
>>> You're the one making the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence for them.
>>> So far, you've got nothing.
>> I thought I had:
>> From proto-Indo European till spectator enter the English land in the 16th century 'Specto' has been "to look at, to observe". That 19th century antiquarians translated in manner inconsistent with prior usage, which is a red flag.
> This is not true, as I have demonstrated.
>
>> And to continue regarding 'belong' as meaning of Spectabat requires justification, i.e., proof of a semantic shift in it usage by the 14th century. Without such proof, the continued usage of 'to belong' is meaningless.
>>
> The proof is in the early dictionaries, and in the use of 'spectare' in thousands of medieval and early modern charters, inquisitions, lawsuits, accounts, surveys, court rolls and other records, in contexts where the meaning is self-evidently 'belong'.
>

Spectare also carried the meaning "belong to, concern" in classical
Latin, as exemplified by a quotation from Cicero in the word tool that
Bernard Morgan posted before - evidently he didn't comprehend this any
better than the charter he is so stubbornly misinterpreting.

Peter Stewart
Bernard Morgan
2016-12-04 01:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>There is no "missing" preposition - Latin is an inflected language, and

the preposition is understood by the case: 'iure hereditario' means by
hereditary right.

You may quibble with my use of "missing preposition". I read that lack of a preposition identities the ablative as an ablative of agent (other authors called it ablative of means or instrument). However I also find reference that Cum in an ablative of accompaniment can in cases also be drop. How do you tell the difference? The answer to that resolves the meaning:

For whether the sentence is translated as: 'Which observed to him by hereditary right' or 'Which belongs to him by hereditary right', both cases the agent to his possession was 'hereditary right'.

The only exception to the above translation would be that 'Cum' had been drop, leading to such ideas as 'Which belongs to him with hereditary right'. Then taught Latin as kid I didn't expect to have to answer such questions and don't remember there grammar rules, so how is ablative of accompaniment ruled out?
Peter Stewart
2016-12-04 01:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/12/2016 12:29 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>> Spectare also carried the meaning "belong to, concern" in classical
> Latin, as exemplified by a quotation from Cicero in the word tool that
> Bernard Morgan posted before - evidently he didn't comprehend this any
> better than the charter he is so stubbornly misinterpreting.
>
> The principle of etymology and word development is well known. If it obvious that in Cicero time the word had been subject to a semantic shift, then you should be show be able to simply show that Cicero meant Spectare to mean "belong to, concern" instead of "observe ,look at"?
>

You keep insisting on gibberish - benefits do not observe people, or
"observe to" people, any more than hereditary rights do.

The nub of the question is semantic range, not shift. *Spectare* can
carry a range of meanings, one of which is "belong to, concern" as it
was in Cicero's time and as it remained the 14th century.

You are still vainly trying to situate the appreciation. It will never work.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2016-12-04 02:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/12/2016 12:50 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>>> The proof is in the early dictionaries, and in the use of 'spectare' in thousands of medieval and early modern charters, inquisitions, lawsuits, accounts, surveys, court rolls and other records, in contexts where the meaning is self-evidently 'belong'.
> This would certainly lead to an inductive case for it. However in the few cases I have translated a sentence with Spectabat with 'observed' I see no problem:
>
> For example his random charter line reads:
> "which formerly belonged to the chaplains of the parish church ..."
> Which seems to loss nothing it re-written:
> "which formerly observed to the chaplains of the parish church ..."
>
> At sometime in history a Germanic speakers chosen to link the Latin spectabat from a root that does not exist his language to a Germanic word "belong" from a different PIE root, the question is when. And in regard to the association of 'Pertain' with 'Specto', 'Pertain' this is from the Latin 'Pertineo', so why is Pertain considered to be a meaning of Latin Specto, when it has its own Latin term (Pertineo)?
>

Perhaps Matt is right, and this whole splurge of ignorance is just a hoax.

Cicero was not a German - he explicitly used "spectare" and "pertinere"
as variants for the same meaning in the same sentence.

You have been shown this and still repeat the nonsense of things
"observing to" people, with which you purportedly observe no problem.

Try keeping quiet for a while to find out whether you are observing to
voices in your head, or they to you.

Peter Stewart
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2016-12-04 09:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From: Bernard Morgan [***@hotmail.com]
Sent: 04 December 2016 01:50

>>The proof is in the early dictionaries, and in the use of 'spectare' in thousands of medieval and early modern charters, inquisitions, lawsuits, accounts, surveys, court rolls and other records, in contexts where the meaning is self-evidently 'belong'.

>This would certainly lead to an inductive case for it. However in the few cases I have translated a sentence with Spectabat with 'observed' I see no problem:
>
>For example his random charter line reads:
"which formerly belonged to the chaplains of the parish church ..."
Which seems to loss nothing it re-written:
"which formerly observed to the chaplains of the parish church ..."
>

'see no problem'? 'seems to lose nothing'? Seriously?

>At sometime in history a Germanic speakers chosen to link the Latin spectabat from a root that does not exist his language to a Germanic word "belong" from a different PIE root, the question is when. And in regard to the association of 'Pertain' with 'Specto', 'Pertain' this is from the Latin 'Pertineo', so why is Pertain considered to be a meaning of Latin Specto, when it has its own Latin term (Pertineo)?
>

For the simple and obvious reason that 'belong' and 'pertain' share the same meaning, as do 'pertineo' and 'specto'.

Fernandez is right - it is time to give up.

Matt Tompkins
j***@gmail.com
2016-12-04 15:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:41:10 AM UTC-5, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> >For the simple and obvious reason that 'belong' and 'pertain' share the same meaning, as do 'pertineo' and 'specto'.
>
> In absolute terms 'belong' and 'pertain' do not share the same meaning. Else why do we retain two word meaning the same thing.

swine / pig
fowl / poultry
amaze / astound
ghost / phantom
buy / purchase
grin / smile
fatherly / paternal
Peter Stewart
2016-12-04 22:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:41:10 AM UTC-5, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>>> For the simple and obvious reason that 'belong' and 'pertain' share the same meaning, as do 'pertineo' and 'specto'.
>> In absolute terms 'belong' and 'pertain' do not share the same meaning. Else why do we retain two word meaning the same thing.
> swine / pig
> fowl / poultry
> amaze / astound
> ghost / phantom
> buy / purchase
> grin / smile
> fatherly / paternal
>

You might have included

observe / remark

The conventional usage of "observe to" in English means the same as
"remark to" or "say to".

The usage in Bernard Morgan's invalid translation is, of course,
unhinged nonsense.

I wonder if a human intelligence (to stretch a term) is directly behind
these ludicrous posts, or if we are all being observed to by an internet
bot.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2016-12-04 23:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/12/2016 9:21 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>
> On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:41:10 AM UTC-5, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>>>> For the simple and obvious reason that 'belong' and 'pertain' share
>>>> the same meaning, as do 'pertineo' and 'specto'.
>>> In absolute terms 'belong' and 'pertain' do not share the same
>>> meaning. Else why do we retain two word meaning the same thing.
>> swine / pig
>> fowl / poultry
>> amaze / astound
>> ghost / phantom
>> buy / purchase
>> grin / smile
>> fatherly / paternal
>>
>
> You might have included
>
> observe / remark
>
> The conventional usage of "observe to" in English means the same as
> "remark to" or "say to".
>
> The usage in Bernard Morgan's invalid translation is, of course,
> unhinged nonsense.
>
> I wonder if a human intelligence (to stretch a term) is directly
> behind these ludicrous posts, or if we are all being observed to by an
> internet bot.

By the way, it should be realised that English especially abounds in
multiple words for the same meaning - in part because of the
Anglo-Norman cultural heritage, which introduced many Latinate
alternatives to Anglo-Saxon terms.

But also because of poetry - for instance, a great many words in current
usage first occurred in Shakepeare's works.

Ditto for Latin - scansion demands variation, in that language not only
for stress but importantly for syllable length. Poets were responsible
for many idiomatic usages that became common, and so the literal meaning
of a word from its root etymology is often a poor guide.

Peter Stewart
Bargiel
2016-12-05 08:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/12/2016 9:21 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

By the way, it should be realised that English especially abounds in
multiple words for the same meaning - in part because of the
Anglo-Norman cultural heritage, which introduced many Latinate
alternatives to Anglo-Saxon terms.

Quite, from the Latin pertinere.

French: appartenir a (without the accent)
Italian: appartenere a
Spanish: pertenecer a
Portuguese: pertencer a
Romanian: a apartine (without the accent)

All of the above mean to belong to.

Can we close this tedious discussion now?

Hazel Bargiel (nee Pickering)
Simon Fairthorne
2016-12-04 15:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Please don't use sets in arguments like this, I think I know what you meant
tp say but that wasn't what you wrote.
- "belongs to" means "is an element of" , "pertains to" is meaningless, so
when you say "X belongs to Y" this means that X is an element of Y (X can
also be subset of Y as well - so {a} is both an element and a subset of {a,
{a}}, this is one way of defining the natural numbers)

A lot of red ink if any of my students wrote like that

Simon
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
2016-12-04 07:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 2:00:48 PM UTC-3, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>
> > First, Latin 'Spectare' is the root to the 16th century English
> > 'Spectator', why don't we in English use some cognate as a synonym for 'to pertain, belong to'?
>
> I'll leave the Latin to the experts, but this is not how linguistic borrowing works. Even within a language words change their precise meanings and usage over time, but all the more so when they are borrowed into another language. Likewise, the usages of borrowed words almost never retain all of their original meanings. One might just as well insist that we are mis-translating 'sinister' since English has no cognate of it meaning 'left', while we do have ambidextrous and dexterity. Sometimes borrowed words retain certain meanings, other times they end up meaning something completely different. If such predictions had any validity, the word assassin should be more likely associated with drug use than the word addict.
>
>
> > The only evidence I see is that the semantic shift occurred with
> > 19th century antiquarians swapped its meaning of Specto in their
> > translation for a Germanic word with different connotations, i.e.,
> > distorting the mean of the sentences.
> >
> > I see no argument that justifies that 'Specto' is correctly
> > translated as "to pertain / to belong". I just see nineteenth
> > century mistakes being carried into the twenty first century.
>
> Whenever you find it necessary to declare that an entire field of scholarship in error for more than a century, just so that your desired interpretation of a single specific case can be maintained, you might want to consider the obvious alternative.
>
> taf

I most certainly agree with you and the others who posted here against this barrage of nonsense.
It's starting to get utterly boring.
Why don't just let Mr Morgan fantasize alone? If he were in possession of convincing documentation, then he should write an article with his (alleged) findings, not bare speculations, and let the genealogical community analyse it.
It's frustrating. He reminds me of some other long gone posters who tried to change well-sounded and established research for no reason at all.
Why don't we leave it at that and stop answering delusional posts?
Peter Stewart
2016-12-03 21:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/12/2016 2:51 AM, Bernard Morgan wrote:

<balder-snip>
>
>
>
> Hence "Charter observing to Colchester convent within [the] territory of Essex”

When you find yourself writing a long, ignorant and wildly pretentious
screed in order to justify a piece of gibberish such as this, it's time
to start appreciating the situation instead of the foolish reverse Matt
Tompkins warned you about.

Peter Stewart
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2016-12-03 22:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From: Bernard Morgan [***@hotmail.com]
Sent: 03 December 2016 15:51
<snip>
> Now for 'Spectare', and the other declination of 'Specto', to have meaning "to pertain, to belong" as suggested by this last entry. A semantic shift is require to have occurred from its original Proto-Indo-European roots meaning "to be looking at, to keep looking at", to the one being used by some translator of Charters.
>
> When did this semantic shift occur? What is the evidence?
>
> The only evidence I see is that the semantic shift occurred with 19th century antiquarians swapped its meaning of Specto in their translation for a Germanic word with different connotations, i.e., distorting the mean of the sentences.
>
> I see no argument that justifies that 'Specto' is correctly translated as "to pertain / to belong". I just see nineteenth century mistakes being carried into the twenty first century.
>

-------------------------------
This is now becoming absurd. These attempts to twist the evidence to support a desired non-Anglo-Norman origin for the Stewarts have now taken you so far beyond the realms of historical reality and logic that I'm beginning to suspect them of being some kind of joke or hoax.

To put paid to this latest iteration: in 1570 a physician called Peter Levins published a rhyming English-Latin dictionary called Manipulus Vocabulorum - in column 167 is the entry "to BELONG, pertinere, spectare", and in column 201 "to PERTEYNE, pertinere, spectare". In 1552 Richard Huloet published another English-Latin dictionary, called the Abecedarium Anglico-Latinum, which contains the entries "Aparteyn. Pertineo.es, Specto.as" and "Belonge vnto. Consto,as, Pertineo.es, Specto.as, Attineo.es".

The Manipulus can be found in the Internet Archive and the Abecedarium in Google Books.

Matt Tompkins
Peter Stewart
2016-12-04 01:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/12/2016 11:35 AM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>> To put paid to this latest iteration: in 1570 a physician called Peter Levins published a rhyming English-Latin dictionary called Manipulus Vocabulorum - in column 167 is the entry "to BELONG, pertinere, spectare", and in column 201 "to PERTEYNE, pertinere, spectare". In 1552 Richard Huloet published another English-Latin dictionary, called the Abecedarium Anglico-Latinum, which contains the entries "Aparteyn. Pertineo.es, Specto.as" and "Belonge vnto. Consto,as, Pertineo.es, Specto.as, Attineo.es".
> What you have is presented shows that semantic shift occurred by 1552. However it still does not show the semantic shift had occurred by 1336. Do we have any any Old English or Middle English glossaries for Spectare?
>

Isn't Cicero early enough for you?

Look at the link you posted before, and consider the quotation from *De
officiis* where Cicero used *spectare* and *pertinere* analagously in
the same sentence, contrasting the benefits that belong to or concern
(spectant) individuals with those that pertain (pertinent) to everyone
and to public affairs ("Sed quoniam de eo genere beneficiorum dictum est
quae ad singulos spectant, deinceps de iis quae ad universos quaeque ad
rem publicam pertinent disputantum est".

Peter Stewart


//
Bernard Morgan
2016-12-04 02:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Stewart
2016-12-04 02:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/12/2016 1:18 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
>> Look at the link you posted before, and consider the quotation from *De
> officiis* where Cicero used *spectare* and *pertinere* analagously in
> the same sentence, contrasting the benefits that belong to or concern
> (spectant) individuals with those that pertain (pertinent) to everyone
> and to public affairs ("Sed quoniam de eo genere beneficiorum dictum est
> quae ad singulos spectant, deinceps de iis quae ad universos quaeque ad
> rem publicam pertinent disputantum est".
>
> I read "ad singulos spectant" as "observed to each" and "ad rem publicam pertinent" as "pertaining to state of the people [i.e. Republic]". I just don't see *spectare* and *pertinere* as analagously.
>

Well then you know nothing of Latin or English.

"Observed to each" is meaningless.

You can't make up Latin as you go along situating your failed appreciation.

Peter Stewart
taf
2016-12-04 06:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
While each step made a degree of sense at the time, we now have somehow gotten into the position where the interpretation of a quote from Cicero is somehow a necessary component in the determination of whether Walter Fitz Alan was son of Alan Fitz Flaald. Methinks this discussion has very much gone off the rails.

taf
Peter Stewart
2016-11-21 03:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21/11/2016 9:51 AM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> Taf,
>
>
> My understanding of Chalmers is that he offers two reason for why Walter Fitz Alan should be considered related the Shopshire FitzAlans, I find neither valid:
>
>
> The first justification and most substantial is: "Now; Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel, being with Edward III., in Scotland, during the year 1335; and claiming to be Stewart of Scotland, by hereditary right, sold his title, and claim to Edward III., for a thousand marks." Chalmers makes the claim that Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel in the charter argued that he is a relative of Walter Fitz Alan and the Scottish Stewarts.
>
> Here are the charters relating to the subject:
> 1336 Nov. 28. 1218. The K. having received from his cousin Richard earl of Arundel, a charter of his right to the Stewardship of Scotland, belonging to him by descent and confirmation charter by the. K. of Scotland, and, in return for his 'naturesce' and good will, having given him 1000 marks from the justiciary of North Wales, orders letters in his favour. Bothwell. [Privy Seals (Tower), 10 Edw. III. File 7.]
>
> 1339 Feb. 6. 1300. The K. to the Chamberlain of North Wales. As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, which grant was confirmed by Edward K. of Scotland, the K. in return granted the Earl, on 28th November 1336, 1000 marks of the issues of North Wales. The late Chamberlain having left office before it was fully paid, the K. commands the balance to be settled. Teste the Guardian. Kenyngton. [Close, 13 Edw. Ill p. 1, m. 49.]
>
> Neither charters supports Chalmers claim. Richard FitzAlan Earl of Arundel only claims to have been granted Stewardship of Scotland with hereditary rights. And not as Chalmers claims Richard FitzAlan Earl of Arundel is claiming the Stewardship because of so hereditary right to it.

As I understand this, Edward III purchased Richard Fitzalan's hereditary
rights to the stewardship of Scotland and obtained confirmation of his
purchase from Edward Balliol as king of Scots - the hereditary rights in
question, claimed and sold by the head of the Fitzalans after forfeiture
by a cadet branch of the family, came not from Edward Balliol directly
to Richard himself, but rather from a grant by David I as confirmed by
Malcolm IV to Walter fitz Alan.

The text of David I's original grant ca 1136 is not known, but the
confirmation from Malcolm IV is clear (""hac mea carta confirmaui
Walterio filio Alani dapifero meo ... senescalciam meam tenendam sibi
heredibus suis de me et heredibus meis liberaliter in feudo et
hereditate ita bene et ita plenarie, sicut rex Dauid ei senescalciam
suam melius et plenarius dedit ...).

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2016-11-26 12:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Something intrigues me.
There are several fitz Alan brothers.
The eldest one stays in England and is ancestor to the earls of Arundel.
Younger brother Walter goes to Scotland and is appointed steward in 1136.
Descendants of Walter function as steward and adopt the familyname of Stewart. They florish, branch out, marry well and eventually one becomes the king.

How can a descendant of the eldest brother claim that he had the hereditary right of the stewardship of Scotland?

The Scottish branch of the Fitz Alans did not die out and the eldest Fitz Alan brother was never steward in Scotland.

So if the earl of Arundel possesed the title and the hereditary right he, or his father or higher up the tree, must have bought it from the Scottish branch.

Or did I miss something?

Hans Vogels


Op maandag 21 november 2016 04:12:55 UTC+1 schreef Peter Stewart:
> On 21/11/2016 9:51 AM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> > Taf,
> >
> >
> > My understanding of Chalmers is that he offers two reason for why Walter Fitz Alan should be considered related the Shopshire FitzAlans, I find neither valid:
> >
> >
> > The first justification and most substantial is: "Now; Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel, being with Edward III., in Scotland, during the year 1335; and claiming to be Stewart of Scotland, by hereditary right, sold his title, and claim to Edward III., for a thousand marks." Chalmers makes the claim that Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel in the charter argued that he is a relative of Walter Fitz Alan and the Scottish Stewarts.
> >
> > Here are the charters relating to the subject:
> > 1336 Nov. 28. 1218. The K. having received from his cousin Richard earl of Arundel, a charter of his right to the Stewardship of Scotland, belonging to him by descent and confirmation charter by the. K. of Scotland, and, in return for his 'naturesce' and good will, having given him 1000 marks from the justiciary of North Wales, orders letters in his favour. Bothwell. [Privy Seals (Tower), 10 Edw. III. File 7.]
> >
> > 1339 Feb. 6. 1300. The K. to the Chamberlain of North Wales. As Richard earl of Arundell, lately resigned in his favour his hereditary right to the Stewardship of Scotland, which grant was confirmed by Edward K. of Scotland, the K. in return granted the Earl, on 28th November 1336, 1000 marks of the issues of North Wales. The late Chamberlain having left office before it was fully paid, the K. commands the balance to be settled. Teste the Guardian. Kenyngton. [Close, 13 Edw. Ill p. 1, m. 49.]
> >
> > Neither charters supports Chalmers claim. Richard FitzAlan Earl of Arundel only claims to have been granted Stewardship of Scotland with hereditary rights. And not as Chalmers claims Richard FitzAlan Earl of Arundel is claiming the Stewardship because of so hereditary right to it.
>
> As I understand this, Edward III purchased Richard Fitzalan's hereditary
> rights to the stewardship of Scotland and obtained confirmation of his
> purchase from Edward Balliol as king of Scots - the hereditary rights in
> question, claimed and sold by the head of the Fitzalans after forfeiture
> by a cadet branch of the family, came not from Edward Balliol directly
> to Richard himself, but rather from a grant by David I as confirmed by
> Malcolm IV to Walter fitz Alan.
>
> The text of David I's original grant ca 1136 is not known, but the
> confirmation from Malcolm IV is clear (""hac mea carta confirmaui
> Walterio filio Alani dapifero meo ... senescalciam meam tenendam sibi
> heredibus suis de me et heredibus meis liberaliter in feudo et
> hereditate ita bene et ita plenarie, sicut rex Dauid ei senescalciam
> suam melius et plenarius dedit ...).
>
> Peter Stewart
WJH
2016-11-26 14:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 12:49:48 PM UTC, Hans Vogels wrote:
> Something intrigues me.
> There are several fitz Alan brothers.
> The eldest one stays in England and is ancestor to the earls of Arundel.
> Younger brother Walter goes to Scotland and is appointed steward in 1136.
> Descendants of Walter function as steward and adopt the familyname of Stewart. They florish, branch out, marry well and eventually one becomes the king.
>
> How can a descendant of the eldest brother claim that he had the hereditary right of the stewardship of Scotland?
>
> The Scottish branch of the Fitz Alans did not die out and the eldest Fitz Alan brother was never steward in Scotland.
>
> So if the earl of Arundel possesed the title and the hereditary right he, or his father or higher up the tree, must have bought it from the Scottish branch.
>
> Or did I miss something?
>
> Hans Vogels

I too had been wondering just which "hereditary rights" Arundel was selling, Might he have been entitled to some form of reversion if the Scots branch had died out? Or was there some later link between the families e.g. a marriage or wardship that gave Arundel some rights that Edward considered worth buying? After all it is more usual for cadet branches to claim rights when the main branch dies out than the other way round...

So, I'm with Hans: how could an English Earl claim hereditary rights in Scotland first given to a cadet branch of his own family?
taf
2016-11-26 16:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 4:49:48 AM UTC-8, Hans Vogels wrote:
> Something intrigues me.
> There are several fitz Alan brothers.
> The eldest one stays in England and is ancestor to the earls of Arundel.
> Younger brother Walter goes to Scotland and is appointed steward in 1136.
> Descendants of Walter function as steward and adopt the familyname of Stewart. They florish, branch out, marry well and eventually one becomes the king.
>
> How can a descendant of the eldest brother claim that he had the hereditary right of the stewardship of Scotland?
>
> The Scottish branch of the Fitz Alans did not die out and the eldest Fitz Alan brother was never steward in Scotland.
>
> So if the earl of Arundel possesed the title and the hereditary right he, or his father or higher up the tree, must have bought it from the Scottish branch.
>
> Or did I miss something?

Given how manipulative the Plantagenets were, my guess would be they were operating under the model that that any Scot who did not swear fealty and recognize king Edward's claim to be overlord of Scotland could be considered 'in rebellion', their titles subject to reversion 'by inheritance' to the closest 'loyal' (i.e. English) noble.

taf
Andrew Lancaster
2016-11-27 11:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 5:12:42 PM UTC+1, taf wrote:
> Given how manipulative the Plantagenets were, my guess would be they were operating under the model that that any Scot who did not swear fealty and recognize king Edward's claim to be overlord of Scotland could be considered 'in rebellion', their titles subject to reversion 'by inheritance' to the closest 'loyal' (i.e. English) noble.

I think that is very consistent with Edward's "legal theory" - enough to blunten accusations of a breakdown in law-and-order (which was important to him). It seems a bit like a line being "atteinted" in early modern England. Furthermore, histories of this Scottish war remind us that Edward was (over-)using his successful campaign in Wales as a model for what he eventually tried to do in Scotland.

In defense of the Angevin dynasty I think it is however true that many of the laws and rules they are accused of bending and breaking sometimes were perhaps not fixed when the dynasty came to power either. Edward can take some credit for giving clearer legal precedents in some areas, though of course Scotland is not normally seen as high point in his career.
Peter Stewart
2016-11-27 00:36:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 26/11/2016 11:49 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:
> Something intrigues me.
> There are several fitz Alan brothers.
> The eldest one stays in England and is ancestor to the earls of Arundel.
> Younger brother Walter goes to Scotland and is appointed steward in 1136.
> Descendants of Walter function as steward and adopt the familyname of Stewart. They florish, branch out, marry well and eventually one becomes the king.
>
> How can a descendant of the eldest brother claim that he had the hereditary right of the stewardship of Scotland?
>
> The Scottish branch of the Fitz Alans did not die out and the eldest Fitz Alan brother was never steward in Scotland.
>
> So if the earl of Arundel possesed the title and the hereditary right he, or his father or higher up the tree, must have bought it from the Scottish branch.
>
> Or did I miss something?
>

You are assuming that Arundel actually had some vestige of hereditary
right just because he claimed it - that is not a safe premise. He only
had to convince Edward III and Edward Balliol, hardly disinterested
parties, of his fantasy's political value in order to collect his 1,000
marks...

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2016-11-27 09:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Op zondag 27 november 2016 01:36:16 UTC+1 schreef Peter Stewart:
> On 26/11/2016 11:49 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:
> > Something intrigues me.
> > There are several fitz Alan brothers.
> > The eldest one stays in England and is ancestor to the earls of Arundel.
> > Younger brother Walter goes to Scotland and is appointed steward in 1136.
> > Descendants of Walter function as steward and adopt the familyname of Stewart. They florish, branch out, marry well and eventually one becomes the king.
> >
> > How can a descendant of the eldest brother claim that he had the hereditary right of the stewardship of Scotland?
> >
> > The Scottish branch of the Fitz Alans did not die out and the eldest Fitz Alan brother was never steward in Scotland.
> >
> > So if the earl of Arundel possesed the title and the hereditary right he, or his father or higher up the tree, must have bought it from the Scottish branch.
> >
> > Or did I miss something?
> >
>
> You are assuming that Arundel actually had some vestige of hereditary
> right just because he claimed it - that is not a safe premise. He only
> had to convince Edward III and Edward Balliol, hardly disinterested
> parties, of his fantasy's political value in order to collect his 1,000
> marks...
>
> Peter Stewart

Indeed. How can anyone sell something that is not in his actual possession. It would backfire. Firstly by the rightfull owner and secondly was Edward III not someone who would like to be conned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Steward_of_Scotland gives a list of High Stewards. Walter Stewart is 1320/26 mentioned als Walter the Steward.

The earl of Arundel is not mentioned in the list.
He is also non existant in Michael Brown's The wars of Scotland 1214-1371 (The New Edinburgh History of Scotland volume 4).

It stays a puzzel. It were turbulent times with the king of England trying to subdue the Scotish king and the various fractions (Balliol-Bruce) fighting for power and independence.

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2016-11-27 10:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 27/11/2016 8:59 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:
> Op zondag 27 november 2016 01:36:16 UTC+1 schreef Peter Stewart:
>> On 26/11/2016 11:49 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:
>>> Something intrigues me.
>>> There are several fitz Alan brothers.
>>> The eldest one stays in England and is ancestor to the earls of Arundel.
>>> Younger brother Walter goes to Scotland and is appointed steward in 1136.
>>> Descendants of Walter function as steward and adopt the familyname of Stewart. They florish, branch out, marry well and eventually one becomes the king.
>>>
>>> How can a descendant of the eldest brother claim that he had the hereditary right of the stewardship of Scotland?
>>>
>>> The Scottish branch of the Fitz Alans did not die out and the eldest Fitz Alan brother was never steward in Scotland.
>>>
>>> So if the earl of Arundel possesed the title and the hereditary right he, or his father or higher up the tree, must have bought it from the Scottish branch.
>>>
>>> Or did I miss something?
>>>
>> You are assuming that Arundel actually had some vestige of hereditary
>> right just because he claimed it - that is not a safe premise. He only
>> had to convince Edward III and Edward Balliol, hardly disinterested
>> parties, of his fantasy's political value in order to collect his 1,000
>> marks...
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> Indeed. How can anyone sell something that is not in his actual possession. It would backfire. Firstly by the rightfull owner and secondly was Edward III not someone who would like to be conned.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Steward_of_Scotland gives a list of High Stewards. Walter Stewart is 1320/26 mentioned als Walter the Steward.
>
> The earl of Arundel is not mentioned in the list.
> He is also non existant in Michael Brown's The wars of Scotland 1214-1371 (The New Edinburgh History of Scotland volume 4).
>
> It stays a puzzel. It were turbulent times with the king of England trying to subdue the Scotish king and the various fractions (Balliol-Bruce) fighting for power and independence.

Naturally Arundel is not listed, since he was never the high steward.
This was just a dynastic pretense that happened to suit everyone
involved in the sale of his "rights".

I am not suggesting at all that he conned Edward - the king may have
instigated the transaction for all we can know. They shared a political
interest in the forfeiture of the Stewart officeholder, and someone had
to take his place: since the office was hereditary, why not an English
subject who was the head of Stewart's agnatic family of origin, the
Fitzalans?

People are easily lulled into accepting hereditary oddities without
examining plausibility too closely - for instance, readers of *Pride and
Prejudice* mostly accept without question that Mr Bennet's family estate
could not pass to one of his daughters because it was entailed on his
male heir, Rev Collins, a cousin who was scarcely likely even to have
been an agnate given his different surname.

Peter Stewart
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2016-11-27 11:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> On 26/11/2016 11:49 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:
>>> Something intrigues me.
>?> There are several fitz Alan brothers.
>>> The eldest one stays in England and is ancestor to the earls of Arundel.
>>> Younger brother Walter goes to Scotland and is appointed steward in 1136.
>>> Descendants of Walter function as steward and adopt the familyname of Stewart. They florish, branch out, marry well and eventually one becomes the king.
>>>
>>> How can a descendant of the eldest brother claim that he had the hereditary right of the stewardship of Scotland?
>>>
>>> The Scottish branch of the Fitz Alans did not die out and the eldest Fitz Alan brother was never steward in Scotland.
>>>
>>> So if the earl of Arundel possesed the title and the hereditary right he, or his father or higher up the tree, must have bought it from the Scottish branch.
>>>
>>> Or did I miss something?
>>>
Op zondag 27 november 2016 01:36:16 UTC+1 schreef Peter Stewart:
>> You are assuming that Arundel actually had some vestige of hereditary
>> right just because he claimed it - that is not a safe premise. He only
>> had to convince Edward III and Edward Balliol, hardly disinterested
>> parties, of his fantasy's political value in order to collect his 1,000
>> marks...
>>
>> Peter Stewart

From: Hans Vogels [***@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 November 2016 09:59
> Indeed. How can anyone sell something that is not in his actual possession. It would backfire. Firstly by the rightfull owner and secondly was Edward III not someone who would like to be conned.
>
-------------------------------
No one was being conned - they all knew perfectly well what they were doing. This was politics, and Scottish politics in a time of civil war at that - red in tooth and claw, and giving regard to the finer points of inheritance law only when they lead where political necessity demanded. The hereditary stewards, the Stewarts, had been unwavering supporters of the Bruce faction, so when Edward Balliol came to power he had no qualms in granting Robert Stewart's lands and the stewardship to his confederate David Strathbogie. Strathbogie's death in 1335 left the stewardship vacant as far as Balliol was concerned, so he and Edward III were happy to recognise Arundel's tenuous claim to the office based on descent from the original grantee. The recognition of the Scottish king at the time converted that rather dubious claim into a political reality, and it would have continued so had not the fortunes of civil war given the crown to the Stewarts.

Matt Tompkins
Loading...