Discussion:
Roger le Poitevin
(too old to reply)
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 08:06:40 UTC
Permalink
The gall of Richardson suggesting that I should look up "amicus" in a dictionary of medieval Latin, when he castigated Peter Stewart over years for daring to quote the leading dictionary's definition of "cognatus" to refute his error over that!

Richardson's latest question, "Do you have a contemporary source in which Roger calls himself Count of La Marche?" reveals his ignorance of logic and language yet again - how could there be a source in which Roger names himself that was other than contemporary? Maybe the spirits of dead noblemen appear to Richardson and his UFO spotting friends in Utah, but in the real medieval world people only named themselves while alive.

And of course there are sources from his time naming Roger as "comes Marchie" or "comes de Marchia". Richardson can easily look these up for himself.
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 08:12:01 UTC
Permalink
I have been told :
"Amicis" is the dative plural of "amicus", a loved one. In the charter, "pro salute anime sue...et pro fratribus suis et omnibus amicis suis" means "for the wellbeing of his own soul and for his brothers and all those near and dear to him".

There is nothing to limit this word here to meaning just his relatives, either by blood or marriage. "Kith and kin" would be a fair translation, but not just "kin".
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 08:48:25 UTC
Permalink
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
< The gall of Richardson suggesting that I should look up "amicus" in a
dictionary of medieval <Latin, when he castigated Peter Stewart over
years for daring to quote the leading dictionary's definition of
"cognatus" to refute his error over that!

Medieval Latin dictionaries are quite helpful, if one knows how to use
them properly.
Post by Leo van de Pas
Richardson's latest question, "Do you have a contemporary source in which Roger calls himself Count of La Marche?" reveals his ignorance of logic and language yet again - how could there be a source in which Roger names himself that was other than contemporary? Maybe the spirits of dead noblemen appear to Richardson and his UFO spotting friends in Utah, but in the real medieval world people only named themselves while alive.
You have stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. Are you able
to prove this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.

DR
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 09:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
You have stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. Are you able
to prove this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.
DR
Why do you even ask? I have already quoted sources, sources you have said in
the past you have access to.
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 09:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo van de Pas
DR
Why do you even ask? I have already quoted sources, sources you have said in
the past you have access to.
You have stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. Are you able
to prove this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.

DR
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 09:20:15 UTC
Permalink
How many times do I have to tell I have quoted sources, look them up!!! You
demand I look up websited you quote.

People like Faris, Weis, the Prince von Isenburg, Schwennicke and Richardson
would like to be part of that company, are people who search the primary
sources and create secondary sources. With your questioning are you now
going to attack Schwennicke, as you did with Faris in the past?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Leo van de Pas
DR
Why do you even ask? I have already quoted sources, sources you have said in
the past you have access to.
You have stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. Are you able
to prove this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.
DR
Chris Phillips
2005-12-12 09:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
You have stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. Are you able
to prove this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.
I don't understand what you are trying to do here, but you made effectively
the same statement yourself only yesterday:
<<
Round is also correct to call him a count, as Roger's title came from his
wife's French inheritance, not from his lands in England.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 09:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Douglas Richardson
You have stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. Are you able
to prove this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.
I don't understand what you are trying to do here, but you made effectively
<<
Round is also correct to call him a count, as Roger's title came from his
wife's French inheritance, not from his lands in England.
Chris Phillips
Van de Pas has stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. I find
this peculiar because Roger was known simply as Count Roger in his
English charters, with no reference to La Marche. In fact, Version C
of his charter calls him "comes Pictavensis," which in French would be
rendered "Comte de Poitiers," not Count of La Marche. If this is an
error, it should be easy to establish.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
2005-12-12 09:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Douglas Richardson
You have stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. Are you able
to prove this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.
I don't understand what you are trying to do here, but you made effectively
<<
Round is also correct to call him a count, as Roger's title came from his
wife's French inheritance, not from his lands in England.
Chris Phillips
Van de Pas has stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. I find
this peculiar because Roger was known simply as Count Roger in his
English charters, with no reference to La Marche. In fact, Version C
of his charter calls him "comes Pictavensis," which in French would be
rendered "Comte de Poitiers," not Count of La Marche. If this is an
error, it should be easy to establish.
To the Newsgroup:

I understand that Kathleen Thompson's article entitled "Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: Unpublished Charters of Roger the
Poitevin", and the two French versions of the charter specifically
describe Roger le Poitevin as "Rogerius comes cognomine Pictavensis"
("Count Roger known as the Poitevin").

Rendering charter Latin is made difficult because Latin with no useful
definite article had no unambiguous means of expressing 'the Poitevin.'
That left only adjectival and genetival forms available which by their
very use was ambiguous.

'Pictavensis' should be translated 'le Poitevin' or 'the Poitevin.'

More important is the fact that the the document cited by Richardson is
a later version cobbled together in Lancashire by persons who did not
know that Roger was not count of Poitou (or who raised him to such a
rank to give him status; for he was not, in fact, a French count,
except in the right of his wife) and in mangling language of the
charter made him such which he himself would never have done. This
places the usefulness of the charter used by Richardson in question and
for evidentiary purposes should be ignored.



CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 11:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by CED
'Pictavensis' should be translated 'le Poitevin' or 'the Poitevin.'
CED
Yikes. It should? Not according to Round. And he's the authority on
such things.

By the way, when King Richard II confirmed Count Roger's charter, he
referred to Roger as "Rogeri quondam comitis Pictavensis."

When you have the opportunity, perhaps you can translate this reference
for us.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Chris Phillips
2005-12-12 11:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
'Pictavensis' should be translated 'le Poitevin' or 'the Poitevin.'
CED
Yikes. It should? Not according to Round. And he's the authority on
such things.
By the way, when King Richard II confirmed Count Roger's charter, he
referred to Roger as "Rogeri quondam comitis Pictavensis."
When you have the opportunity, perhaps you can translate this reference
for us.
We have now been through this about half a dozen times.

This is just a waste of everybody's time.

Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 12:01:21 UTC
Permalink
King Richard II lived from 1367 to 1400. Count Roger died in 1123.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
'Pictavensis' should be translated 'le Poitevin' or 'the Poitevin.'
CED
Yikes. It should? Not according to Round. And he's the authority on
such things.
By the way, when King Richard II confirmed Count Roger's charter, he
referred to Roger as "Rogeri quondam comitis Pictavensis."
When you have the opportunity, perhaps you can translate this reference
for us.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 12:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for that information.

DR
Post by Leo van de Pas
King Richard II lived from 1367 to 1400. Count Roger died in 1123.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
'Pictavensis' should be translated 'le Poitevin' or 'the Poitevin.'
CED
Yikes. It should? Not according to Round. And he's the authority on
such things.
By the way, when King Richard II confirmed Count Roger's charter, he
referred to Roger as "Rogeri quondam comitis Pictavensis."
When you have the opportunity, perhaps you can translate this reference
for us.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
CED
2005-12-12 15:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
'Pictavensis' should be translated 'le Poitevin' or 'the Poitevin.'
CED
Yikes. It should? Not according to Round. And he's the authority on
such things.
By the way, when King Richard II confirmed Count Roger's charter, he
referred to Roger as "Rogeri quondam comitis Pictavensis."
When you have the opportunity, perhaps you can translate this reference
for us.
To the Newsgroup:

Richardson is up to his old tricks.

Round according to my understanding was was using the discredited
charter that you use.

The question is what was in the original charter, i.e "Rogerius comes
cognomine Pictavensis" which should be translated as "Count Roger known
as the Poitevin".

CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-12 17:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
'Pictavensis' should be translated 'le Poitevin' or 'the Poitevin.'
CED
Yikes. It should? Not according to Round. And he's the authority on
such things.
Says you. What makes him more of an authority than, say Dugdale? This
is name-dropping, plain and simple. The truth is, we don't need to know
how Round translated it - we have the original, and the historical
context, and we can evaluate it ourselves. You keep harping on the fact
that, in isolation, 'comes Pictavensis' would mean Count of
Poitou/Poitiers. This may well be the case, but it is not in isolation.
It it refering to a man who was elsewhere known as 'Rogerius
Pictavensis'. If you want to give that man a title, how would you write
it? - as Roger comes Pictavensis. Unfortunately, the failure of the
medieval French to have invented punctuation makes this ambiguous. You
insist on reading it "Roger, comes Pictavensis", but it could just as
well have been "Roger comes, Pictavensis". Do we have any basis to
decide which? Well, in addition to the whole history of this man Roger
being called le Poitevin, we have the other two versions of the charter,
where it is rendered Roger comes cognomen Pictavensis - Count Roger
called the Poitevin. The additional word renders the intended meaning
unambiguous. Given then that you have two ambiguous alternatives in one
charter, and an unambiguous rendition in other versions of the same, are
you really justified in maintaining that Round got it right? He
translated this phrase with a possible meaning while viewing it in
isolation, as you are trying to force by asking what "comes Pictavensis"
means, but in context, this is not sustainable. That is OK, even Round
can be wrong occasionally. (This assumes that the scribes intended it
to read Roger 'comes Pictavensis' and did not accidentally drop the word
cognomen, and that they were not being intentionally fraudulent,
claiming for Roger a title he never held.)
Post by Douglas Richardson
By the way, when King Richard II confirmed Count Roger's charter, he
referred to Roger as "Rogeri quondam comitis Pictavensis."
It just means that his people made the same mistake Round did, giving an
ambiguous statement its common-sense, but when viewed in context
inaccurate, translation.

taf
Chris Phillips
2005-12-12 09:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Van de Pas has stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. I find
this peculiar because Roger was known simply as Count Roger in his
English charters, with no reference to La Marche. In fact, Version C
of his charter calls him "comes Pictavensis," which in French would be
rendered "Comte de Poitiers," not Count of La Marche. If this is an
error, it should be easy to establish.
We've been through this several times:

(1) He was known as "Rogerus Pictavensis" - "Roger 'the Poitevin'".

(2) Versions A and B calls him "Rogerus comes cognomine Pictavensis", "Count
Roger, bynamed 'the Poitevin'".

(3) Version C calls him "Rogerus comes Pictavensis". Given (1) and (2), if
the copyist actually meant to say this rather than just omitting "cognomine"
by accident, it must clearly be understood to mean "Count Roger 'the
Poitevin'".

You yourself have said that Roger's title of "comes" came from "his wife's
French inheritance". His wife's French inheritance was the county of La
Marche. If you can justify your own statement, you will have justified
Leo's.

Chris Phillips
CED
2005-12-12 09:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
< The gall of Richardson suggesting that I should look up "amicus" in a
dictionary of medieval <Latin, when he castigated Peter Stewart over
years for daring to quote the leading dictionary's definition of
"cognatus" to refute his error over that!
Medieval Latin dictionaries are quite helpful, if one knows how to use
them properly.
Post by Leo van de Pas
Richardson's latest question, "Do you have a contemporary source in which Roger calls himself Count of La Marche?" reveals his ignorance of logic and language yet again - how could there be a source in which Roger names himself that was other than contemporary? Maybe the spirits of dead noblemen appear to Richardson and his UFO spotting friends in Utah, but in the real medieval world people only named themselves while alive.
You have stated that Count Roger was Count of La Marche. Are you able
to prove this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.
To the Newsgroup:

Jim Weber's database which has been recommended to us by Richardson is
a source which he might check for the counts of La Marche. If he were
to do so, he would find Roger of Montgomery as a husband of an heiress
of the counts of La Marche. If Roger of Montgomery was a count, it was
only as husband of the heiress. As for original sources, he has better
access than most of us to the sources used by Jim Weber.

As for Latin translations: When documents in Latin in England use the
term "comes," it means "earl." Elsewhere among the many Richardson
posts on this subject, he contends otherwise, disputing Thompson's
translation. He might consult a dictionary, even though he has been
known to scoff at those who do.

CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
DR
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 11:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by CED
If Roger of Montgomery was a count, it was
only as husband of the heiress. As for original sources, he has better
access than most of us to the sources used by Jim Weber.
CED
We all know Roger was a French Count, not an Earl as Ms. Thompson says.
But what was his title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide
documentation of his title?

DR
Chris Phillips
2005-12-12 11:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
We all know Roger was a French Count, not an Earl as Ms. Thompson says.
But what was his title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide
documentation of his title?
This is getting ridiculous.

You yourself have already told us he held the title of "comes" in the right
of his wife. His wife was countess of La Marche.

Chris Phillips
CED
2005-12-13 08:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
If Roger of Montgomery was a count, it was
only as husband of the heiress. As for original sources, he has better
access than most of us to the sources used by Jim Weber.
CED
We all know Roger was a French Count, not an Earl as Ms. Thompson says.
But what was his title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide
documentation of his title?
DR
To the Newsgroup:

Richardson asks for documentation for the title of Roger le Poitevin.
So be it.

The chronicle of Saint-Maixent provides the information that Roger's
wife Almodis succeeded her brother Boso (III) count of La Marche after
his death in battle at Confolens in 1091: "Anno [M]XC primo, Boso,
comes de Marchia, occisus est Confolento castro. Huic successit
Aumodis, soror sua, que habuit de Rotgerico comite duos filios".

Orderic Vitalis wrote that Roger retired in exile at Charroux. The
couple's charter for Charroux abbey confirms the marriage and the
sphere of their title, "Ego Rotgerius comes et Almodis comitissa uxor
mea...damus". Note the first person, present tense.

CED
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 08:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Well and good, CED.

But what was Count Roger's title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide documentation
of his title?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalaancestry.net
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
If Roger of Montgomery was a count, it was
only as husband of the heiress. As for original sources, he has better
access than most of us to the sources used by Jim Weber.
CED
We all know Roger was a French Count, not an Earl as Ms. Thompson says.
But what was his title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide
documentation of his title?
DR
Richardson asks for documentation for the title of Roger le Poitevin.
So be it.
The chronicle of Saint-Maixent provides the information that Roger's
wife Almodis succeeded her brother Boso (III) count of La Marche after
his death in battle at Confolens in 1091: "Anno [M]XC primo, Boso,
comes de Marchia, occisus est Confolento castro. Huic successit
Aumodis, soror sua, que habuit de Rotgerico comite duos filios".
Orderic Vitalis wrote that Roger retired in exile at Charroux. The
couple's charter for Charroux abbey confirms the marriage and the
sphere of their title, "Ego Rotgerius comes et Almodis comitissa uxor
mea...damus". Note the first person, present tense.
CED
CED
2005-12-13 09:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Well and good, CED.
But what was Count Roger's title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide documentation
of his title?
To the Newsgroup:

Apparently Richardson refuses to read the message to which he responds.
Boso, count of La Marche dies. His sister, Almodis, suceeds him. Her
husband, Roger, is (and calls himself) 'count.' There is no other
reason for him to have the title than as husband of Almodis. So, what
could he be but count of La Marche? Is Richardson so thick headed that
he refuses to do even the basic courtesy of reading the post? Could it
be that he needs a lesson in geography to know that a person from La
Marche could be called a 'Poitevin' ?

CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalaancestry.net
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
If Roger of Montgomery was a count, it was
only as husband of the heiress. As for original sources, he has better
access than most of us to the sources used by Jim Weber.
CED
We all know Roger was a French Count, not an Earl as Ms. Thompson says.
But what was his title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide
documentation of his title?
DR
Richardson asks for documentation for the title of Roger le Poitevin.
So be it.
The chronicle of Saint-Maixent provides the information that Roger's
wife Almodis succeeded her brother Boso (III) count of La Marche after
his death in battle at Confolens in 1091: "Anno [M]XC primo, Boso,
comes de Marchia, occisus est Confolento castro. Huic successit
Aumodis, soror sua, que habuit de Rotgerico comite duos filios".
Orderic Vitalis wrote that Roger retired in exile at Charroux. The
couple's charter for Charroux abbey confirms the marriage and the
sphere of their title, "Ego Rotgerius comes et Almodis comitissa uxor
mea...damus". Note the first person, present tense.
CED
Chris Phillips
2005-12-13 09:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
But what was Count Roger's title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide documentation
of his title?
Why do you keep repeating this question over and over again?

You yourself have already told us "Roger's title came from his wife's French
inheritance", and we know that she was heiress of the county of La Marche.

You say you have checked Complete Peerage for information on Roger, so
you'll also know that in the account of Shrewsbury it says this about him
[xi 687 note d]:
"He has erroneously been called Earl of Lancaster; his comital style is
attributable to the comté of Marche held in right of his wife".

I can only assume the repeated question is just a debating tactic. If so, I
wish you would stop, because it does you no credit at all, but just wastes
everybody's time.

Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-13 15:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
But what was Count Roger's title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide documentation
of his title?
Given that William of Aquitaine was Count of Poitou, don't you think
that option is a bit . . . . unlikely? The whole Poitou/Poitiers red
herring is based on a document of questionable authenticity.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 16:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Douglas Richardson
But what was Count Roger's title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide documentation
of his title?
Given that William of Aquitaine was Count of Poitou, don't you think
that option is a bit . . . . unlikely? The whole Poitou/Poitiers red
herring is based on a document of questionable authenticity.
taf
This is your usual putdown, Todd. When you have nothing to offer to
the discussion, you trash the other poster's documentation. You claim
that their sources are late-date, unreliable, or "of questionable
authenticity." It simply doesn't work, Todd. If you wish to prove
your point, you'll have to produce some solid examples from
contemporary records, as I have already done.

How about giving us some contemporary examples in the vernacular of
Alphonse of France as Comte de Poitou? Or, better yet, some
contemporary examples of what title Count Roger employed, if any.

DR
CED
2005-12-13 17:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Douglas Richardson
But what was Count Roger's title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide documentation
of his title?
Given that William of Aquitaine was Count of Poitou, don't you think
that option is a bit . . . . unlikely? The whole Poitou/Poitiers red
herring is based on a document of questionable authenticity.
taf
This is your usual putdown, Todd. When you have nothing to offer to
the discussion, you trash the other poster's documentation. You claim
that their sources are late-date, unreliable, or "of questionable
authenticity."
To the Newsgroup:

A review of the postings on this subject and its predecessors indicates
that Richardson's charter is discredited. That, not the title used by
Roger le Poitevin, appears to be Richardson's major concern. And, this
reason for his concern appears to be that his statements on the
ancestry of Orm, son of Ketel, depend on this very shakey charter. To
discredit the charter is to under cut Richardson's contentions about
Orm.

CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
It simply doesn't work, Todd. If you wish to prove
your point, you'll have to produce some solid examples from
contemporary records, as I have already done.
How about giving us some contemporary examples in the vernacular of
Alphonse of France as Comte de Poitou? Or, better yet, some
contemporary examples of what title Count Roger employed, if any.
DR
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 17:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Actually, Ceddie, we're all learning something here. As document after
document flows past us, we're learning about ancient charters,
formulations, dating procedures, medieval Latin, correct methodology,
Alphonse of France's title in the vernacular, .... it's all good!

Your poetry could improve some, I think.

DR
Post by CED
A review of the postings on this subject and its predecessors indicates
that Richardson's charter is discredited. That, not the title used by
Roger le Poitevin, appears to be Richardson's major concern. And, this
reason for his concern appears to be that his statements on the
ancestry of Orm, son of Ketel, depend on this very shakey charter. To
discredit the charter is to under cut Richardson's contentions about
Orm.
CED
CED
2005-12-13 17:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Actually, Ceddie, we're all learning something here. As document after
document flows past us, we're learning about ancient charters,
formulations, dating procedures, medieval Latin, correct methodology,
Alphonse of France's title in the vernacular, .... it's all good!
Platitudinous cover language; when lost, spout platitudes; and even if
not pious!

What has Alphonse of France have to with this subject? A different
time; a different subject; and, in fact a different place. A red
herring.

CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Your poetry could improve some, I think.
DR
Post by CED
A review of the postings on this subject and its predecessors indicates
that Richardson's charter is discredited. That, not the title used by
Roger le Poitevin, appears to be Richardson's major concern. And, this
reason for his concern appears to be that his statements on the
ancestry of Orm, son of Ketel, depend on this very shakey charter. To
discredit the charter is to under cut Richardson's contentions about
Orm.
CED
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 18:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by CED
Platitudinous cover language; when lost, spout platitudes; and even if
not pious!
What has Alphonse of France have to with this subject? A different
time; a different subject; and, in fact a different place. A red
herring.
CED
Your poetry could still improve some, I think.

DR
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-13 19:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by CED
A review of the postings on this subject and its predecessors indicates
that Richardson's charter is discredited. That, not the title used by
Roger le Poitevin, appears to be Richardson's major concern. And, this
reason for his concern appears to be that his statements on the
ancestry of Orm, son of Ketel, depend on this very shakey charter. To
discredit the charter is to under cut Richardson's contentions about
Orm.
It is not even that - the validity of the charter does not depend on
whether it calls him "Count Roger, the Poitevin", or "Roger Count of
Poitou/Poitiers" - if anything, it would be more lkikely to be authentic
if it didn't refer to him by a bogus title.

taf
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-13 18:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Douglas Richardson
But what was Count Roger's title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide documentation
of his title?
Given that William of Aquitaine was Count of Poitou, don't you think
that option is a bit . . . . unlikely? The whole Poitou/Poitiers red
herring is based on a document of questionable authenticity.
This is your usual putdown, Todd. When you have nothing to offer to
the discussion, you trash the other poster's documentation.
If someone is using bogus documentation to support a bogus claim, then
it merits 'trashing' - and doing so is offering something to the
discussion. Your standard operating procedure is to put up wild
supposition and then demand anyone questioning the basis for it have
detailed sources to disprove your rampant speculation - then when
someone calls you on it go into the 'poor me the victim of all those
evil men who want me to support my wild guesses' mode, as you have done
here.

You claim
Post by Douglas Richardson
that their sources are late-date, unreliable, or "of questionable
authenticity." It simply doesn't work, Todd.
And do you respond by buttressing your position or providing arguments
in favor of the authenticity of your document? No - you just say 'look
everyone, he's picking my argument apart, the beast', or to translate,
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

The authenticity IS questionable - it has been questioned by an
established scholar, a 'trained historian' (and we all know how much
respect you think that merits). To date, the only argument you have
given to contradict this question of authenticity is "I don't understand
it but it must be wrong somehow" - a glorified "'tis not!"

Further, the specific title attribution appearing in the document in
question IS LIKEWISE quesionable. It has two alternative translations.
One of these implies a title not otherwise supportable. The other
translation is supported by the other versions of the same document,
which call him "Count Roger, called the Poitievin", and the various
other documents in which he appears. You have espoused the former,
unsupportable rendition, because Round translated it that way in his
ignorace of the other versions of the document, and this appeal to
authority is good enough for you. Others are less impressed.

Both the document and the translation ARE questionable, but how dare I
day so?

If you wish to prove
Post by Douglas Richardson
your point, you'll have to produce some solid examples from
contemporary records, as I have already done.
And again, you make an unsupportable statement and then say 'to prove me
wrong you need sources'. The only "contemporary records" you have cited
are that a different man, a couple of hundred years later, was called
Count of Poitiers. You don't honestly think this proves what title
Roger le Poitevin was entitled to, do you?

Roger was called "the Poitevin" - numerous examples have been cited.
Roger was called Count - numerous examples have been cited. He was even
called "Count Roger, called the Poitevin". Roger only appears with a
description that can, BUT NEED NOT, be translated as "Count of
Poitou/Poitiers" in a single document that has been altered from
originals in which he is called "Count Roger, called the Poitevin". A
viable alternative translation of the altered document would be "Count
Roger, the Poitevin", or likewise a scribal error in which the "called"
part was omitted has been proposed, either of which is perfectly
consistent with how the man appears in other documents - WITHOUT
REQUIRING HIM TO HOLD A TITLE VESTED IN THE DUKES OF AQUITAINE.

Your contemporary documentary support for your view: Alphonse of France
was Count of Poitiers. Great. Now how about something that is actually
relevant (and, for that matter, actually contemporary, not with the
person they were refering to, but with Roger himself).
Post by Douglas Richardson
How about giving us some contemporary examples in the vernacular of
Alphonse of France as Comte de Poitou?
What possible relevance could the titles that the King of France awarded
to Alphonse centuries later have on the titles held by Roger le
Poitevin? The time was different, the context was different - oh, and
the references to Alphonse being Count of Poitiers do not appear in
doctored documents.

Or, better yet, some
Post by Douglas Richardson
contemporary examples of what title Count Roger employed, if any.
You first. You keep trying to shift the burden of proof, when you are
making the ludicrous claim. You state unambiguously (as always, without
the proof you demand of others) that he obtained his title through his
marriage (to Almodis, Countess of La Marche), and then (with a
questionable translation of a flawed document as your only evidence) try
to make this title one (Poitou/Poitiers) that she did not hold, and then
demand that everyone else prove otherwise.

You basically are arguing in this thread that in the absence of direct
contradictory evidence, all things are possible, while at the same time
arguing in another thread, with regard to the surname, that in the
absence of direct contradictory evidence the de Lancastria surname is
impossible. While seemingly contradictory, these are in fact the same
argument - "it is what I say it is unless someone else provides proof to
the contrary." As I said before, a nice deal if you can just find a
sucker to take you up on it, but I am not playing that game, becoming
the straight man to your dog and pony show.

How about, if you want to discuss this productively, you actually
support your position, rather than alternating between "you can't prove
otherwise, so I'm right by default" and "quit picking on me".

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 18:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Dear Todd ~

All anyone asks is that you post contemporary evidence and cite your
sources. If you have no evidence and no sources, simply admit it and
say so.

No need to beat around the bush, Todd.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.com
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-13 19:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Todd ~
All anyone asks is that you post contemporary evidence and cite your
sources.
Anyone? Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the first-person pronoun,
as that is what you mean? When these same "anyone"s ask this of you, do
you also dodge their request by demanding sources of them?

If you have no evidence and no sources, simply admit it and
Post by Douglas Richardson
say so.
No need to beat around the bush, Todd.
Then why do it? You are staking down a position which you cannot
defend, and then making it my fault when I call you on it. "You won't
cite sources, so you must ignore the fact that I am talking out of my
___" - not a very strong argument in favor of your position, now, is it?
- particularly when my position is that your document fails to support
your conclusions, a position for which "post your sources" is hardly a
relevant response. It is also vague enough - not defining sources for
what - so as to hide the shell game you are running. Although your
bombast may mislead those not paying close attention, it is not my lack
of support which is at issue, but yours, as that IS my position - that
you are on an unsupported flight of fancy.

You have provided a non-contemporary and contextually irrelevant set of
references to some other guy as your only support for the supposition
that an ambiguous phrase in one questioned version of a charter should
be translated differently than the unambiguous phrase appearing in two
other versions of the same charter that do not support your translation.
What, exactly, am I supposed to support in this statement? That
Alphonse was not contemporary with Roger - done. That the context was
different - obvious as he was granted his title, de novo, from the King.
That the document has been questioned - done. That the other
versions call him Roger comes cognomen Pictaviensis - done. What is
there left that requires a source?

As I said, if you want to discuss this productively, how about you
actually support your position, rather than alternating between "you
can't prove otherwise, so I'm right by default" and "quit picking on
me". I guess your failure to do so tells us what we need to know.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 20:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Dear Todd ~

I stated that there is no evidence that Count Roger of Poitou ever used
the surname, de Lancaster, or did any of his family. He was a French
count, in right of his wife's inheritance. He and his immediate
descendants resided in France, not England.

As such, I think that simple logic dictates that Avice de Lancaster,
wife of William Peverel, was not his daughter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Todd ~
All anyone asks is that you post contemporary evidence and cite your
sources.
Anyone? Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the first-person pronoun,
as that is what you mean? When these same "anyone"s ask this of you, do
you also dodge their request by demanding sources of them?
If you have no evidence and no sources, simply admit it and
Post by Douglas Richardson
say so.
No need to beat around the bush, Todd.
Then why do it? You are staking down a position which you cannot
defend, and then making it my fault when I call you on it. "You won't
cite sources, so you must ignore the fact that I am talking out of my
___" - not a very strong argument in favor of your position, now, is it?
- particularly when my position is that your document fails to support
your conclusions, a position for which "post your sources" is hardly a
relevant response. It is also vague enough - not defining sources for
what - so as to hide the shell game you are running. Although your
bombast may mislead those not paying close attention, it is not my lack
of support which is at issue, but yours, as that IS my position - that
you are on an unsupported flight of fancy.
You have provided a non-contemporary and contextually irrelevant set of
references to some other guy as your only support for the supposition
that an ambiguous phrase in one questioned version of a charter should
be translated differently than the unambiguous phrase appearing in two
other versions of the same charter that do not support your translation.
What, exactly, am I supposed to support in this statement? That
Alphonse was not contemporary with Roger - done. That the context was
different - obvious as he was granted his title, de novo, from the King.
That the document has been questioned - done. That the other
versions call him Roger comes cognomen Pictaviensis - done. What is
there left that requires a source?
As I said, if you want to discuss this productively, how about you
actually support your position, rather than alternating between "you
can't prove otherwise, so I'm right by default" and "quit picking on
me". I guess your failure to do so tells us what we need to know.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-14 00:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Todd ~
I stated that there is no evidence that Count Roger of Poitou ever used
the surname, de Lancaster, or did any of his family. He was a French
count, in right of his wife's inheritance.
And that inheritance wasn't Poitou nor Poitiers, was it? - Oh, sorry,
that is the other thread where you are arguing cross-purposes with this.
Post by Douglas Richardson
He and his immediate
descendants resided in France, not England.
Those that we know of, and that makes it a hard argument to say what
surname any of them would have used had they lived in England. If, you
want to set aside the surname issue and focus on the fact that they
lived in La Marche, that is the center of Chandler's argument as well.
Post by Douglas Richardson
As such, I think that simple logic dictates that Avice de Lancaster,
wife of William Peverel, was not his daughter.
Maybe, so. However, the previous argument of yours based on what
hypothetical surname a hypothetical daughter of Roger would have
hypothetically used or not used in England after his disgrace, at this
period in the development of surnames, was a house built on sand.

taf
CED
2005-12-13 17:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Well and good, CED.
But what was Count Roger's title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide documentation
of his title?
To the Newsgroup:

Richardson continues to wrtite "Count Roger of Poitou" when he hasn't
substantiated that "Rogerius Comes Pictavensis" ever occurred apart
from one discredited charter.

The proper construction of Orderic's "Rogerius Pictavinus" and the
authentic "Rogerius comes cognomine pictavensis" establish that the man
was clearly known as "Count Roger the Poitevin".

His title was "comes." It can only have been La Marche. However, Roger
was in England when his wife succeeded her brother in the countship of
La Marche and this was soon contested effectively by her uncle Odo.
Almodis and Roger appear to have exercised only a vague co-authority
from Charroux, that is near the Poitevin frontier of the comital lands.
He certainly did not exercise any kind of authority in Poitou. His
only local charter names him simply as "count", and this was issued at
Charroux in La Marche. That and the statement of the Saint-Maixent
chronicler that his wife succeeded her brother the count of La Marche
are conclusive. Roger was not the 'de facto' count; but he was a count
'de jure' by virtue of his wife's rights there.

CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalaancestry.net
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by CED
If Roger of Montgomery was a count, it was
only as husband of the heiress. As for original sources, he has better
access than most of us to the sources used by Jim Weber.
CED
We all know Roger was a French Count, not an Earl as Ms. Thompson says.
But what was his title? Was he "Count of Poitou?" "Count of
Poitiers?" "Count of La Marche?" What? Can you provide
documentation of his title?
DR
Richardson asks for documentation for the title of Roger le Poitevin.
So be it.
The chronicle of Saint-Maixent provides the information that Roger's
wife Almodis succeeded her brother Boso (III) count of La Marche after
his death in battle at Confolens in 1091: "Anno [M]XC primo, Boso,
comes de Marchia, occisus est Confolento castro. Huic successit
Aumodis, soror sua, que habuit de Rotgerico comite duos filios".
Orderic Vitalis wrote that Roger retired in exile at Charroux. The
couple's charter for Charroux abbey confirms the marriage and the
sphere of their title, "Ego Rotgerius comes et Almodis comitissa uxor
mea...damus". Note the first person, present tense.
CED
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 10:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Richardson does not understand the nature of Latin. Unlike English, it is an inflected language. This means that there is not a simple equivalence of one Latin word = one English translation.

Context is always important, and the context at issue here is that Roger Montgomery was never "count of Poitou", the title that is coonventionally used for the counts of his time and before. He was also never "count of Poitiers", the title that is conventionally used for Alphonse of France who lived in the following century. The fact that Dugdale and Round in different context gave one of the possible renderings of "comes Pictavensis" does not make this especially correct. It was not incorrect for them, since the source under discussion had given this title to Roger. But it was incorrect for the monks of St Mary's Lancaster, who misrepresented that Roger himself subscribed their forged charter.

Dugdale and Round did not specifically study the charter to examine its authenticity, and they did not explicitly endorse it as the proper title for Roger in his own time and place. Round knew that it was not so, but Dugdale might not have realised this. Their views are not relevant to the debate today.

As to medieval sources for Roger and his countship of La Marche in right of his wife, the sources are many. For Anglo-Norman perspective Orderic is a good starting point, who called him "Rogerius Pictavinus" and described his wife's patrimony including the castle of Charroux, the original stronghold of her ancestors the counts of La Marche. References cited by the editor Marjorie Chibnall are found in 'Roger de Montgomery and his Sons (1067-1102)' by JFA Mason, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series xiii pages 1-28 at 14 and 17. It is surprising that leads are demanded as new information by someone who has already thrown out opinions on the subject.
Ginny Wagner
2005-12-12 10:31:35 UTC
Permalink
The signators to a late 11c charter are:

"Hujus donationis testes sunt:—Rogerius comes; Robertus
filius Hamonis; Robertus de Belismo; Hugo de Monte Gomerico;
Rogerius Pictavensis; Robertus Osberni filius; Gaufredus
Rivallonii filius; Alvredus pincerna; Hugo de Diva; Guido de
Landevi, Vitalis pincerna; Richardus de Lestra; Aigulfus
vicecomes de Dorset."

Which I translate as:

These gifts are witnessed:--

Count/Earl Roger
Robert son of Hamon
Robert of Belismo
Hugh of Monte Gomerico
Roger Pictavensis
Robert Osbern son
Gaufredus Rivallonii son
Alverdus butler
Hugh de Diva
Guido de Landevi
Vitalis butler
Richard de Lestra
Aigulfus sheriff of Dorset

Since this charter was to give the belongings of the dead
Mathildis, countess of Mortain, to abbey of Marmoutier of
Tours, was Count/Earl Roger "of Mortain"?

Now, the Robert and Gaufredus where the son follows Osbern
and Rivallonii is different from Robert son [of] Hamon. Why
is it different? Does that give it a different meaning?
Are we now looking at Robert Osbern son [of] Count/Earl
Roger and Gaufredus Rivallonii son [of] Count/Earl Roger? By
putting the filius at the end does it then refer back to the
main signator? Is that the difference in placement of the
filius?

My dos latin dictionary says if England then comes means
'earl' and if France then comes means 'count' as a Later
translation. It also says comes means official, magnate,
occupant of any state office. Is that right?

Any help is greatly appreciated since I'm totally novice at
Latin.

Thanks in advance. ;-) Ginny Wagner
J.C.B.Sharp
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ginny Wagner
"Hujus donationis testes sunt:—Rogerius comes; Robertus
filius Hamonis; Robertus de Belismo; Hugo de Monte Gomerico;
Rogerius Pictavensis; Robertus Osberni filius; Gaufredus
Rivallonii filius; Alvredus pincerna; Hugo de Diva; Guido de
Landevi, Vitalis pincerna; Richardus de Lestra; Aigulfus
vicecomes de Dorset."
These gifts are witnessed:--
Count/Earl Roger
Robert son of Hamon
Robert of Belismo
Hugh of Monte Gomerico
Roger Pictavensis
Robert Osbern son
Gaufredus Rivallonii son
Alverdus butler
Hugh de Diva
Guido de Landevi
Vitalis butler
Richard de Lestra
Aigulfus sheriff of Dorset
Since this charter was to give the belongings of the dead
Mathildis, countess of Mortain, to abbey of Marmoutier of
Tours, was Count/Earl Roger "of Mortain"?
Now, the Robert and Gaufredus where the son follows Osbern
and Rivallonii is different from Robert son [of] Hamon. Why
is it different? Does that give it a different meaning?
Are we now looking at Robert Osbern son [of] Count/Earl
Roger and Gaufredus Rivallonii son [of] Count/Earl Roger? By
putting the filius at the end does it then refer back to the
main signator? Is that the difference in placement of the
filius?
My dos latin dictionary says if England then comes means
'earl' and if France then comes means 'count' as a Later
translation. It also says comes means official, magnate,
occupant of any state office. Is that right?
Any help is greatly appreciated since I'm totally novice at
Latin.
Thanks in advance. ;-) Ginny Wagner
This charter is printed in Bates (Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum no 207)
where he suggests that Rogerius comes is the earl of Shrewsbury.

J.C.B.Sharp
London
Ginny Wagner
2005-12-12 23:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Does anyone know where a copy of predatory kinship by searle
is available at a reasonable price? Thanks. Ginny
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 10:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo van de Pas
Richardson does not understand the nature of Latin. Unlike English, it is an inflected language. This means that there is not a simple equivalence of one Latin word = one English translation.
What does "comes Pictavensis" mean to you?

DR
CED
2005-12-12 10:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Leo van de Pas
Richardson does not understand the nature of Latin. Unlike English, it is an inflected language. This means that there is not a simple equivalence of one Latin word = one English translation.
What does "comes Pictavensis" mean to you?
To the Newsgroup:

Richardson is demonstrating his ignorance about Latin. Anybody who has
had even a semester of college Latin knows that you can not take two
words out of context and have a proper translation. In Latin, in order
to get the true meaning, one must look at the entire sentence.

I think that he is being difficult on this matter because he does not
want (for reasons that only he knows) to give up on a forged (or badly
copied) charter. The more he insists, the more his ignorance shows.

CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
DR
J***@aol.com
2005-12-12 22:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Dear Douglas,
Wasn`t it King William II Rufus of England who was
involved in this Comte Roger`s charter of 1094 rather than King Richard II ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-13 22:16:42 UTC
Permalink
RIchardson is pestering me as a distraction from his own fallacies regarding the person he absurdly insists on calling "Count Roger of Poitou".

Alphonse was invested at Poitiers in July 1241 as count of Auvergne, Poitou, La Marche, etc. The lesser titles includes "count of Saintonge" or "count of Saintes" - there was no strict differentiation between these in the traditional Latin title, any more than there was between "Poitiers" and "Poitou".

However, medieval people were able to observe consistency as well as modern ones, and better than Richardson. When Alphonse became also "count of Toulouse" it made sense to give both his major titles as the names of cities, "count of Toulouse and Poitiers" rather than as the surrounding territories, "count of the Toulousain and Poitou".

To pretend that Richardson was "going through" the administrative correspondence of Alphonse, that is written in Latin, is a bad joke. Someone who talks about contemporary sources for Roger the Poitevin and yet thinks the Latin for his name is "Rogero" obviously can't make his way through a single sentence of Latin. The name is "Rogerius".
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 23:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Dear Leo:

You are wrong again. The two volume work, "Correspondance
administrative d'Alfonse de Poitiers," by Molinier, published in
1894-1900, is part in Latin and part in French. So far, all the
instances of Alphonse's title in the French documents I have seen are
"Comte de Poitiers," not "Comte de Poitou" as you have it.

I don't know if it's time you admitted your error on Alphonse's title,
but foot dragging, name calling, and making wild allegations won't help
you. He was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou." Which
is it, Leo?

If you feel "Comte de Poitou" is the correct title, simply cite some
original documents which show this. And, please provide your sources.
Thank you!

For your ease of access, the links to Molinier's work are given below:

Volume 1:

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-29284&M=pagination&Y=Image

Volume 2:

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-29285&M=pagination&Y=Image

Let us know what you find. Good luck in your sleuthing.

DR
Post by Leo van de Pas
RIchardson is pestering me as a distraction from his own fallacies regarding the person he absurdly insists on calling "Count Roger of Poitou".
Alphonse was invested at Poitiers in July 1241 as count of Auvergne, Poitou, La Marche, etc. The lesser titles includes "count of Saintonge" or "count of Saintes" - there was no strict differentiation between these in the traditional Latin title, any more than there was between "Poitiers" and "Poitou".
However, medieval people were able to observe consistency as well as modern ones, and better than Richardson. When Alphonse became also "count of Toulouse" it made sense to give both his major titles as the names of cities, "count of Toulouse and Poitiers" rather than as the surrounding territories, "count of the Toulousain and Poitou".
To pretend that Richardson was "going through" the administrative correspondence of Alphonse, that is written in Latin, is a bad joke. Someone who talks about contemporary sources for Roger the Poitevin and yet thinks the Latin for his name is "Rogero" obviously can't make his way through a single sentence of Latin. The name is "Rogerius".
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-13 23:37:06 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin
Post by Douglas Richardson
You are wrong again. The two volume work, "Correspondance
administrative d'Alfonse de Poitiers," by Molinier, published in
1894-1900, is part in Latin and part in French. So far, all the
instances of Alphonse's title in the French documents I have seen are
"Comte de Poitiers," not "Comte de Poitou" as you have it.
=====I am wrong again? Do provide where I say that Molinier is only in one
language?
Post by Douglas Richardson
I don't know if it's time you admitted your error on Alphonse's title,
but foot dragging, name calling, and making wild allegations won't help
you. He was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou." Which
is it, Leo?
===== You dragged in Alphonse, I have no interest in him.
Post by Douglas Richardson
If you feel "Comte de Poitou" is the correct title, simply cite some
original documents which show this. And, please provide your sources.
Thank you!
===== The only thing I feel is that you are brawling-----again. And why? Do
explain.
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 23:47:46 UTC
Permalink
You're dragging your feet, Leo.

Alphonse was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou." Which is
it?

DR
Post by Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin
Post by Douglas Richardson
You are wrong again. The two volume work, "Correspondance
administrative d'Alfonse de Poitiers," by Molinier, published in
1894-1900, is part in Latin and part in French. So far, all the
instances of Alphonse's title in the French documents I have seen are
"Comte de Poitiers," not "Comte de Poitou" as you have it.
=====I am wrong again? Do provide where I say that Molinier is only in one
language?
Post by Douglas Richardson
I don't know if it's time you admitted your error on Alphonse's title,
but foot dragging, name calling, and making wild allegations won't help
you. He was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou." Which
is it, Leo?
===== You dragged in Alphonse, I have no interest in him.
Post by Douglas Richardson
If you feel "Comte de Poitou" is the correct title, simply cite some
original documents which show this. And, please provide your sources.
Thank you!
===== The only thing I feel is that you are brawling-----again. And why? Do
explain.
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-14 01:27:14 UTC
Permalink
You think my feet are dragging? I think it really is your brain which is
very slow.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin
Post by Douglas Richardson
You're dragging your feet, Leo.
Alphonse was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou." Which is
it?
DR
Post by Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin
Post by Douglas Richardson
You are wrong again. The two volume work, "Correspondance
administrative d'Alfonse de Poitiers," by Molinier, published in
1894-1900, is part in Latin and part in French. So far, all the
instances of Alphonse's title in the French documents I have seen are
"Comte de Poitiers," not "Comte de Poitou" as you have it.
=====I am wrong again? Do provide where I say that Molinier is only in one
language?
Post by Douglas Richardson
I don't know if it's time you admitted your error on Alphonse's title,
but foot dragging, name calling, and making wild allegations won't help
you. He was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou." Which
is it, Leo?
===== You dragged in Alphonse, I have no interest in him.
Post by Douglas Richardson
If you feel "Comte de Poitou" is the correct title, simply cite some
original documents which show this. And, please provide your sources.
Thank you!
===== The only thing I feel is that you are brawling-----again. And why? Do
explain.
Chris Phillips
2005-12-14 09:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
You are wrong again. The two volume work, "Correspondance
administrative d'Alfonse de Poitiers," by Molinier, published in
1894-1900, is part in Latin and part in French. So far, all the
instances of Alphonse's title in the French documents I have seen are
"Comte de Poitiers," not "Comte de Poitou" as you have it.
Are you sure there are contemporary French texts in this work?

Please can you give us the page reference for one of the French documents
you have seen that says "Comte de Poitiers" ?

Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-15 03:15:16 UTC
Permalink
The discussion is now on another deadend. Version C of Roger's charter for St Mary's Lancaster cannot be a "genuine" confirmation. Kathleen Thompson gave reasons for placing this document between 1130 and 1150. Whenever it was concocted, Roger the Poitevin was not available to subscribe charters in England after 1102. He was in exile at Charroux in La Marche from then until he died, as Orderic tells us.

It is stretching credulity to imagine that he might have made a quick and clandestine trip over to Lancaster in order to subscribe a confirmation of gifts from 1094. This would have been a waste of his efforts anyway since he had been dispossessed in Lancashire since 1102. It might have been useful to the monks there in a dispute afterwards that he had originally made the donations in 1094, but not that he personally confirmed this at some time after being exiled later.

The point that was misrepresented in Version C is that "Count Roger of Poitou", under this false title. had subscribed the document in 1094, whereas it contains other people's gifts that were evidently not made by that time. Confirmations were dated when they were transacted, and often did not even mention the date of the original much less giving this alone. A "genuine" confirmation decades after the fact would not represent itself as taking place at the time of the original business.

Roger was probably still alive towards the end of 1123, when the names of deceased members of his family were inscribed on a mortuary roll that circulated from April 1123 to the summer of 1124. After this omission there is no trace of him in France, and certainly none in England.
Merilyn Pedrick
2005-12-15 05:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Dear Leo
Thanks for the precis - I was beginning to lose track of all the threads.
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 12/15/05 13:45:56
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fw: Roger le Poitevin

The discussion is now on another deadend. Version C of Roger's charter for
St Mary's Lancaster cannot be a "genuine" confirmation. Kathleen Thompson
gave reasons for placing this document between 1130 and 1150. Whenever it
was concocted, Roger the Poitevin was not available to subscribe charters in
England after 1102. He was in exile at Charroux in La Marche from then until
he died, as Orderic tells us.

It is stretching credulity to imagine that he might have made a quick and
clandestine trip over to Lancaster in order to subscribe a confirmation of
gifts from 1094. This would have been a waste of his efforts anyway since he
had been dispossessed in Lancashire since 1102. It might have been useful to
the monks there in a dispute afterwards that he had originally made the
donations in 1094, but not that he personally confirmed this at some time
after being exiled later.

The point that was misrepresented in Version C is that "Count Roger of
Poitou", under this false title. had subscribed the document in 1094,
whereas it contains other people's gifts that were evidently not made by
that time. Confirmations were dated when they were transacted, and often did
not even mention the date of the original much less giving this alone. A
genuine" confirmation decades after the fact would not represent itself as
taking place at the time of the original business.

Roger was probably still alive towards the end of 1123, when the names of
deceased members of his family were inscribed on a mortuary roll that
circulated from April 1123 to the summer of 1124. After this omission there
is no trace of him in France, and certainly none in England.
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-15 07:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo van de Pas
The point that was misrepresented in Version C is that "Count Roger of Poitou", under this false title. had subscribed the document in 1094,
This may be misunderstood so let me clarify. The original called him
Roger "comes cognomen Pictaviensis" - Count Roger, called 'the
Poitevin'. Version C calls him Roger "comes Pictaviensis". While this
was translated as Count of Poitou in a later royal confirmation, and
likewise by Round, but it could also (and I think should) be translated
as Count Roger 'the Poitevin'. In other words, it is not false title,
but faulty translation of version C that is the problem (with regard to
the title).

taf
butlergrt
2005-12-15 13:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Good Morning Leo,
Just because somebody writes something do not think that is the end of it,
I will have to find my sources again as I usually don't give them a 2nd
thought as I had presumed most people know the things already that I am
just learning but while he was in exile as you say, quite true, he was to
have returned to England in 1109 and remained there the rest of his life
and died c. 1144.
The source was the British History archives I believe, but will have to
loook it up. I believe there are primary sources that go with it.
Emmett
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-15 08:13:49 UTC
Permalink
We know exactly what "Rogerius comes cognomine Pictavensis" meant, because Orderic tells us Roger was called "Pictavinus" and that unequivocally means "the Poitevin". But "Rogerius comes Pictavensis" normally would mean "Count Roger of Poitou" (or even "Count of Poitiers") rather more naturally than "Count Roger the Poitevin".

There is nothing to show that the monks who produced Version C knew the distinctions involved in this. By 1130 they had probably forgotten, if they had ever known, what Roger's the connection had been to Poitou. He was not likely to be called "the Poitevin" until some time after his wife had unexpectedly inherited La Marche in 1091, and he was removed from the locality of St Mary's in 1102. A document from several decades earlier stating that Roger was surnamed "Pictavensis" might have seemed just a fancy and unnecessary way of giving him the title "count of Poitou".
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-15 20:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Emmett Butler has apparently misread something. Roger the Poitevin was allowed to return to England, and in 1109 he is recorded at Henry I's council at Nottingham. There is no evidence of his ever being allowed to return to Lancaster, his lands were not restored to him and he did not stay.

VIctoria Chandler noted that Roger's last occurrence was at the installation of an abbot in Le Moutier d'Ahun, "an official function for the house of Charroux", i.e. his wife's family in La Marche where Orderic says he lived out his days. Chandler adds that he was "definitely dead by 1140", and the reason is that Orderic knew about his death, as simple as could be. As stated before, he did not appear in the list of dead family members written in 1123/4, but that is all we have to go on.
butlergrt
2005-12-15 22:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Good After noon Leo,
No, I did not mis-read something. I merely stated that he returned to
England c. 1109. I did 'NOT' say that his lands were re-granted, nor did I
state that he remained for the duration of his life. Only that he returned
in 1109.
Further, as you have shown that he was alive in 1123/4 and certainly dead
before 1140, it means he was more than available to sign a charter c.
1130. Thank You for your Validation!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Best Regards,
Emmett
butlergrt
2005-12-16 00:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Leo,
Sorry about that, I did say 'he remained there for the duration of his
life', as I said I would have to find my notes again, but that is what I
remmebered, Because Victoria Chandler says he didn't, how does she know,
Oderic doesn't specify either way as I understand his writings.
Oh, I may be incorrect, but it is my understanding that Lancaster did not
become recognized as a county until c. 1183, which is why, when talking
about Lancaster or Yorkshire there is, on the borders, alot of give and
take as I understand it. The we also have Shropshire which were some of
his holdings along with Shrewsbury, he could have been at, so......
you'll understand why I say this in my next post, regarding the honor of
Lancaster, the Montgomerii's(Roger the count), and William de Lancaster
and William(Guillame) de Blois.
Best Regards,
Emmett

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...