Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 08:02:23 UTC
The two sources cited for the mistaken point are not applicable to start with, and beyond this the approach is doubly wrong from inconsistency.
The first work cited, Auguste Molinier. Correspondance Administrative d'Alphonse de Poitiers, vol. 1, pg. 53; Doc.# 83. names Alphonse as "Aufonz, fiuz de roi de France, coens de Poitiers et de Tholose" (Alphonse, son of the king of France, count of Poitiers and Toulouse).
The second work, in Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, 1 (1839): 394, is a letter to Alphonse in Egypt written in April 1250 by a chaplain in Poitiers, addressing him as "comte de Tholose et de Poitiers". If someone wants to use "comte de Poitiers" for other, earlier counts as a result of this, consistency would indicate that "comte de Tholose" should be used for the earlier counts of Toulouse in his wife's family. The reversed order of the counts two titles only widens the choice.
The letter varies the "Aufonz" above, referring to him as "Alfonz" instead, as well as to "li cuens Richarz" for Richard, earl of Cornwall, to "Symon de Montfort" instead of Simon, and to "li cuens d'Angolesme" for the count of Angoulême. Are those versions also to be preferred to the conventional modern spellings, just because they can be found in a contemporary source?
A letter of 1250 to a French prince has nothing do with the byname given for Roger Montgomery in 1094 by monks in Normandy, or the title misused for him in 1130-50 by others in Lancaster, or the mistake of extrapolating from this to call him Roger Count of Poitou in another context.