Discussion:
Shifting the goal post Fw: Roger le Poitevin
(too old to reply)
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 08:02:23 UTC
Permalink
I don't undersand why Louis IX's brother Alphonse has come to figure in this discussion. Alphonse was made count of Auvergne and Poitou (or Poitiers) as an apanage that was created specifically for him as a cadet of the royal house. Trying to suggest that this justifies or mandates the use of "Poitiers" in the title of the earlier counts from a completely different family and with a different history is like saying that the Cavendish earls of Devonshire should be called earls of Devon instead because the Courtenay earls of an earlier creation used the latter version of the county's name.



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.
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 09:09:48 UTC
Permalink
The reason why Alphonse of France has entered the discussion is because
his title in Latin was "comes Pictavensis." This is the very same
title ascribed to Count Roger in Version C of Count Roger's charter to
Sees Priory.

In the other posts, I've provided evidence that Alphonse of France's
title in contemporary French documents was called "Comte de Poitiers,"
not "Comte de Poitou." Thus, the form "Comte de Poitiers" would
appear to be the correct French translation of the Latin form, "comes
Pictavensis."

DR
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 09:23:49 UTC
Permalink
What one person did two hundred years later has in my opinion no bearing on
Roger de Montgomery as "Count of Poitou or Poitiers". You called him
that........He was no Count and he may have been a citizen of either the
county of Poitou or the city of Poitiers, it does not make him Count of
Poitou...........never mind what a few hundred years later Alphonse is
called, or are you implying that one scribe did both?



----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:09 PM
Subject: Comes pictavensis = Comte de Poitiers
Post by Douglas Richardson
The reason why Alphonse of France has entered the discussion is because
his title in Latin was "comes Pictavensis." This is the very same
title ascribed to Count Roger in Version C of Count Roger's charter to
Sees Priory.
In the other posts, I've provided evidence that Alphonse of France's
title in contemporary French documents was called "Comte de Poitiers,"
not "Comte de Poitou." Thus, the form "Comte de Poitiers" would
appear to be the correct French translation of the Latin form, "comes
Pictavensis."
DR
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 09:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Alphonse of France was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou."
Which is it, Leo?

DR
Post by Leo van de Pas
What one person did two hundred years later has in my opinion no bearing on
Roger de Montgomery as "Count of Poitou or Poitiers". You called him
that........He was no Count and he may have been a citizen of either the
county of Poitou or the city of Poitiers, it does not make him Count of
Poitou...........never mind what a few hundred years later Alphonse is
called, or are you implying that one scribe did both?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:09 PM
Subject: Comes pictavensis = Comte de Poitiers
Post by Douglas Richardson
The reason why Alphonse of France has entered the discussion is because
his title in Latin was "comes Pictavensis." This is the very same
title ascribed to Count Roger in Version C of Count Roger's charter to
Sees Priory.
In the other posts, I've provided evidence that Alphonse of France's
title in contemporary French documents was called "Comte de Poitiers,"
not "Comte de Poitou." Thus, the form "Comte de Poitiers" would
appear to be the correct French translation of the Latin form, "comes
Pictavensis."
DR
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-12 09:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Shifting the goal post still? You brought Alphonse into the conversation,
you tell us.

Have you checked yet whether it was the same scribe who recorded Roger de
Montgommery as well as Alphonse?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Comes pictavensis = Comte de Poitiers
Post by Douglas Richardson
Alphonse of France was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou."
Which is it, Leo?
DR
Post by Leo van de Pas
What one person did two hundred years later has in my opinion no bearing on
Roger de Montgomery as "Count of Poitou or Poitiers". You called him
that........He was no Count and he may have been a citizen of either the
county of Poitou or the city of Poitiers, it does not make him Count of
Poitou...........never mind what a few hundred years later Alphonse is
called, or are you implying that one scribe did both?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:09 PM
Subject: Comes pictavensis = Comte de Poitiers
Post by Douglas Richardson
The reason why Alphonse of France has entered the discussion is because
his title in Latin was "comes Pictavensis." This is the very same
title ascribed to Count Roger in Version C of Count Roger's charter to
Sees Priory.
In the other posts, I've provided evidence that Alphonse of France's
title in contemporary French documents was called "Comte de Poitiers,"
not "Comte de Poitou." Thus, the form "Comte de Poitiers" would
appear to be the correct French translation of the Latin form, "comes
Pictavensis."
DR
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-12 10:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo van de Pas
Shifting the goal post still? You brought Alphonse into the conversation,
you tell us.
Alphonse of France was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou."
Which is it, Leo?

DR
CED
2005-12-12 11:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Leo van de Pas
Shifting the goal post still? You brought Alphonse into the conversation,
you tell us.
Alphonse of France was either "Comte de Poitiers" or "Comte de Poitou."
Which is it, Leo?
To the Newsgroup:

This exchange between Leo and Richardson is a demonstration of just how
petty Richardson can be. It is a good measure of the depth of his
scholarly research.

CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
DR
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 18:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

While Leo mulls over the correct title in the vernacular of Alphonse,
Comte de Poitiers and Toulouse, here is another reference to Alphonse:

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-73698

According to this source, a transcript of the will of Alphonse, Comte
de Poitiers and Toulouse, dated June 1270 is printed in Layettes du
Trésor des Chartes, IV, 5712.

Does anyone have access to this work?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-13 19:33:15 UTC
Permalink
I have to disappoint Richardson I am not mulling over anything.

As I have said in the past several times, Richardson is the cause of most
disharmonious conversations as well as the continuation of them. This
message is an obvious attempt to do just that.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: Comes pictavensis = Comte de Poitiers
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
While Leo mulls over the correct title in the vernacular of Alphonse,
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-73698
According to this source, a transcript of the will of Alphonse, Comte
de Poitiers and Toulouse, dated June 1270 is printed in Layettes du
Trésor des Chartes, IV, 5712.
Does anyone have access to this work?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-13 19:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo van de Pas
As I have said in the past several times, Richardson is the cause of most
disharmonious conversations as well as the continuation of them. This
message is an obvious attempt to do just that.
This is what Leo always says when he doesn't want to admit he is wrong.

So, I'll ask Leo again. Was Alphonse of France "Comte de Poitou" as
you say, or "Comte de Poitiers" as the contemporary records indicate?
It's a simple question. Please cite your evidence (contemporary
evidence, not 20th Century secondary sources). Thank you.

P.S. I have a bet riding on Leo's answer.

DR
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-13 20:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Where am I wrong in regards to Alphonse? Did I mention him first? Did I say
"his title is xyz and nothing else?" The fact is when questions are asked,
sorry not even Richardson can demand, nobody is obliged to answer.

What I also have wondered in the past is about Richardson as a bar room
brawler, well, it looks he is at it again.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: Comes pictavensis = Comte de Poitiers
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Leo van de Pas
As I have said in the past several times, Richardson is the cause of most
disharmonious conversations as well as the continuation of them. This
message is an obvious attempt to do just that.
This is what Leo always says when he doesn't want to admit he is wrong.
So, I'll ask Leo again. Was Alphonse of France "Comte de Poitou" as
you say, or "Comte de Poitiers" as the contemporary records indicate?
It's a simple question. Please cite your evidence (contemporary
evidence, not 20th Century secondary sources). Thank you.
P.S. I have a bet riding on Leo's answer.
DR
Loading...