The Visitations of Devon & Cornwall vs. Burke's Peerage & Heraldic Dictionaries

Question

I've found a few discrepancies, especially in the de Courtenay line. Some of these I am managing to resolve with research and brain gymnastics, but where I can't do this, which of the two should I trust as the most accurate source?

Answer 1

Hi Anonymous,  You should cite both sources in the Biography Sources section of each profile.  Add a notation that the sources conflict and supporting sources are needed.

I encourage you to cite all sources that you consult, hopefully with a link, so that WikiTree researchers 5, 10 or 20 years from now will know what sources have been viewed and where any problems exist.

Comments

Thank you Kitty :) I would do that normally but I'm having issues in particular (or should I say presently - have been doing brain gymnastics re the Coutenays for several days now as I work through the pedigrees!) ... with the parentage of Hawise who married Reginald de Courtenay (d. 1194). Burke's says she was the daughter of _____ Deincourt & Maud d'Abrincis, who was the daughter of Robert d'Abrincis & Emma de Briones https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Cq8KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354&dq=Robert+d%27Abrincis&source=bl&ots=fjC_oK_hFF&sig=9oeKXdvnl1ObRbENG642sFG5pxc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwB2oVChMIhdX74cj1yAIVgeimCh1Kiw5P#v=onepage&q=Robert%20d'Abrincis&f=false 

Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall say Hawise was the daughter of Robert d'Abrincis, page 105, http://ukga.org/england/Cornwall/visitations/index.html  

This discussion here http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-09/0937925303 has me totally bamboozled! 

And here on wikitree, if I have the correct profile (I am so confused) http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Donjon-1 ... I am become even more so confused :o 

I wasn't logged in before ... now I'm no longer anonymous :)

 

 

 

 

---

There is a footnote in Burke's dictionary, page 354 (link above) re the confusion of Hawise's parentage. I've decided to go with his version of the pedigree which makes Hawise the granddaughter of Robert d'Abrincis rather than his daughter, and so ... move on :) I've come to the conclusion after all the time I've spent on this Vivian's pedigree likely has a missing generation. That said, imho :) 

Regarding Hawise's profile here on wikitree which makes her the daughter of Guy Donjon & Corbell unknown Donjon, http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Donjon-1 I'm not quite sure what to think? Neither Vivian or Burke have cited this the case. It is categorized as a profile in need of clean-up so that's great. When I have finally finished what I've been working on over the last several months (re-doing and sourcing my entire tree before I commit to being back here on wikitree adding any more ancestors) Hawise is one profile I'll definitely attempt to do some work on ... unless someone gets there first. (Please .... someone get there first :o)

---

I've edited Hawise's profile to reflect the parents as discussed below.  Thanks for pointing out the discrepancies!

---

7 thank you's sent :) Very much appreciated Darlene ... it's looking much more sensical!

Answer 2

Neither... Please link to one or more of the profiles and post on G2G as to thoughts and/or discrepancies and cite sources. I edited your question with the EuroAristo tag. Please remember to tag questions with that tag so that our project leaders and members see it.

Comments

I just did that Darlene ... probably as you were posting this. I didn't initially as I wasn't sure, due to all the confusing info in the profile itself, if it was even the right profile to link to. All my thoughts and discrepancies are already noted above, including links and citing sources.

---

Hi Nicky,

Hawise is the daughter of Sir William de Courcy and Maud d'Avranches according to Jim Weber (well-known and respected on the Gen-Medieval list on rootsweb), citing these sources: Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom, by G. E Cokayne, Sutton Publishing Ltd, 2000, Page: III:465 note (c) and Burke's Peerage & Baronetage, 106th Edition, Charles Mosley Editor-in-Chief, 1999, Page: 833.

As to the discussion on Gen-Medieval that you reference and say has you 'bamboozled', I'm not sure why you said that, but perhaps you didn't know that CP stands for Complete Peerage?  Anyway, if you have other questions as to a specific person, I recommend you post a new question specific to that profile and remember to tag it with EuroAristo.  I just 'happened' across your post while surfing G2G questions, but many of our members only look at the emails they get with the tags they're following and therefore wouldn't/didn't see this.

As to the Courtenays, I've got a lot of data in my personal database, so feel free to ask and I'll help as much as I can.  I don't have time, unfortunately, to check over the pedigree(s) as shown on Wikitree right now.  Thanks for looking into this!

---

Thanks Darlene ... now it's all making sense. Much better than just saying 'neither' and then launching into a lecture on tagging which was not at all helpful.

So ...  the name  'Deincourt' in Burke's is actually de Corcy. And her mother, Maud, was the daughter of Robert d'Abrincis or Avranches, making Hawise as Burke's footnote cites, Robert's granddaughter, and not his daughter as Vivian's Visitations cite. Awesome information and clarification .... Thank you :)

Re the discussion I linked to on Gen-medieval - it wasn't what CP stands for that had me bamboozled, and I'm sure I'm not alone in having been confused by it all. It's an extremely confusing pedigree in parts with multiple sites and literature all in contradiction. Put together as a whole it becomes a total muddle. Bamboozilling even!

As I said up there, I didn't link to Hawise's profile initially as I was not sure it was even the correct profile given it cites different parentage altogether. Once I had satisfied myself I was looking at the right lady with more wrong parents I linked immediately, without needing to be asked. Thanks for pointing out that the euroaristo tag is helpful. I will try to remember to do that in future. If I do forget though I'm sure someone in the friendly spirit of wikitree will happily do so.

---

Hi Nicky,

The tag comment wasn't a lecture.  It was a comment to let you know that, without the EuroAristo tag, the majority of the people that could help you won't see the post.  Without being told about how/when to tag posts, most people aren't aware.  I don't see you as a member of the European Aristocrats Project, and since you didn't tag the question with it, I figured there was a good chance you weren't aware of the project.  That's why I mentioned it -- just trying to help...

I've gone in and looked at and worked on Hawise's profile.  I can see numerous errors with others associated with her pedigree.  Her husband and his father have been mixed up for one another, so I tried to get that straightened out.  I'm on the road and using a tablet, so forgive my shortened replies.  Trying to sneak some time into Wikitree to assist, but not much time to do so.

If you're interested in the Courtenays and other medieval families, I'd suggest you contact John Atkinson, leader of the European Aristocrats Project, and discuss/consider joining the project.  I used to lead it, but stepped down due to time restrictions.  It's the largest and oldest project on Wikitree, and can always use new, enthusiastic members.  You can read more about the project here:  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:European_Aristocrats

---

Hi Darlene :) All good, I just felt a tad chastised :o

Yes looking further I've found where the Donjon name comes in ... according to Vivian, Hawise's husband Reginald de Courtenay was firstly married to a Matilda, daughter of Guy du Donjon. But I havent looked further than Vivian's ... yet.

I'm going to bookmark Hawise's profile so that I too can do work on it when I get the time. It's going to have to be after I've finished re-doing my own tree so that it's solid.

Thanks very much Darlene for doing a bit on it now ... it's a worry what a shambles it is.

---

Re: Donjon, I recommend you look at/consider Jim Weber's website:  http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=jweber&id=I16819 In my personal database, following Jim's site, I don't show Reginald with a first marriage, but rather his father Renaud (c 1100-1189) was married to a de Donjon female (i.e. Donjon is the mother, not first wife, of the Reginald that married Hawise de Courcy).

Jim Weber notes: " I received a post-em from Jay Call, wondering where I got three Renauds between Miles & Robert in my data base instead of two. Apparently AR8 (as opposed to AR7 above) agrees with CP in having Renaud, b. c1150, being a son of Renaud (who I have as grandfather, based on AR7, d. 1161, but who AR8 states d. 1189/90 (probably about the same date as this Renaud)). I sent the following e-mail to Jay to explain where I got the 3 Renauds:

"Jay,

"I have re-examined my primary source (AR7) on the 3 Renaud/Reginald de Courtenays. AR7 definitely has three distinct individuals named Renaud or Reginald de Courtenay. It has (line 107):

"107-23: Eremgarde de Nevers, m. ca. 1095 Milo, Sire of Courtenay, b. ca. 1075 or bef., d. 1127, son of Jocelin de Courtenay, 1065, and Isabel, dau. of Guy de Motlhery.

"107-24: Renaud de Courtenay, Sire de Courtenay, d. 1161; m. a dau. of Frederick (or Guy) du Donjon and Corbeil.

"And AR7 has (line 138):

"138-23: Ermengarde de Nevers; m. Milo (or Miles) de Courtenay. (see 107-24 for their son Renaud de Courtenay, who in Ezra Cleveland's 'A Genealogical History of the Noble and Illustrious Family of Courtenay' (1735), pp. 114-115, is identified as Reginald de Courtenay (No. 24 below). The story is told that the great possessions in France of Renaud (AKA. Reginald) de Courtenay (a man of high social rank and described in personal terms as in effect a glorified bandit) were seized about 1150 by King Louis VII who granted them to his youngest brother, Pierre (anestor of the French Courtenays), with Renaud's daughter, in marriage, and that Renaud then appeared in England as a minor functionary of the English Court with a small manor and another family. Line breaks here. Although Old-CP III:102 states that the alleged connection between the English and French families has not been established, CP IV:317 inexplicably revived the connection. Herbert F. Seversmith, 'The Ancestry of Roger Ludlow', pp. 2419-2424, in addition to demonstrating the lack of contemporary evidence, points out the chronological, personal character, and social status difficulties with this identification.

* * * [Line broken]

"138-24: Renaud de Courtenay, b. c 1125, d. Oct - Dec 1190; witness in 1150 at Rouen, Normandy of charter of Henry, Duke of Normandy (later Henry II of England); in 1160 received grant of the Manor of Sutton, Berkshire from the king; from that date in constant attendance on the king, perhaps a royal secretary; in 1171 accompanied the king in his campaign in Ireland; appears holding land in Devonshire for the first time 1175-1176; in the king's train in his travels in England and France; m. (1) an unidentified woman, mother of son Reginald; m. (2) after 1172, Maud, daughter of Robert Fitz Edith (illegitimate son of King Henry I of England, by Edith, daughter of Forn), by Maud (d'Avranches) de Courcy, widow of William de Courcy.

"138-25: Reginald de Courtenay, b. c 1150, d. 27 Sep 1194, buried Ford Abbey, co. Devon; held barony of Oakhampton (in right of wife); m. Hawise de Courcy, d. 31 July 1219, lady of Oakhampton, half-sister of his father's second wife [Maud, daughter of Robert Fitz Edith (illegitimate son of King Henry I of England, by Edith, daughter of Forn), by Maud (d'Avranches) de Courcy, widow of William de Courcy], daughter and heir of William de Courcy, by wife, Maud d'Avranches, lady of Oakhampton, and of du Sap in Normandy, daughter and heir of Robert d'Avranches, lord of Oakhampton, co. Devon.

"So you may be able to see where I got three different Renaud/Reginald de Courtenays (they are spelled out above as three different individuals). I "unsourced" placed Renaud (138-24) as son of Renaud (107-24), establishing the connection between the French and English Courtenays (and solving the "chronological difficulties" which AR7 identifies in 138-23), and named Renaud (138-24)'s 1st wife as Hawise Deincourt (based on other World Connect lines, which had her as his wife).

"I have updated my notes on these individuals, which did not clearly identify the information in AR7, upon which I based my line. I am, for the time being, leaving my line as is, based on AR7. I agree that CP has only the two Renauds (and AR8 apparently does now too); but I still think there is merit in AR7's reasoning."

---

Now I'm really bamboozilled! I'm going to have to print all that out and study/draw it all up .... I find it much easier to actually draw up a chart than follow all the words ~ I'm a visual learner! Thanks very much for the link and all that information Darlene .... it's really appreciated :) What a mission of a line!

 

---

Nicky, don't be bambooziled!  FOFL!!  Click on the link I gave you at the beginning of my last comment....  It'll take you to a pedigree chart that's easy to follow.  You can click on any of the names for more information/sources.  You might want to bookmark Jim Weber's site.  I use it for research all of the time when I'm working on medieval profiles.  He closely follows the Gen-Medieval discussions.  You can also always drop me a private note.  I spent ten years researching medieval genealogy almost exclusively...

---

I'm looking at it now. How interesting it all is. Gosh I'd figured by now through research that even after adjusting Visitation pedigrees according to the addenda and corrigenda in them they still had issues but ... oh dear :o And yes, I've bookmarked Jim's site. Really easy to follow, much easier than drawing it all up on screeds of paper! Fantastic sources too. Most timely being pointed in that direction - my tree may as well have been sent sailing down the river on a biscuit otherwise :) Thank you.

Answer 3

I see the online discussion linked to gives CP (Complete Peerage) as a good authority, and that sounds like a good lead as this is normally a very strong source. There are copies of the second edition on books.familysearch.org which you may be able to access. (It is clunky.) Burkes and visitations are known to have weaknesses. If you are only using these, and they disagree, look further afield. I notice the online discussion also says it has been discussed more on that Medieval Genealogy list, which means it can be searched for. That is not the average online forum, and has some top genealogists such as Douglas Richardson contributing.

Comments

Oops. Darlene way ahead of me. Hope my comments add something! :)

---

Thank you Andrew ... you really did! I'm off to books.familysearch to look in a tick. I searched online for Complete Peerage yesterday and found the latest edition costs over 500$US, in Kiwi$ that's half as much again. How lucky are they who have the actual volumes in their library :) 24 hours on and I'm still getting confused with this part of the Courtenay line though. Even though Jim Webers' tree is so well sourced and clearly many years of hard work and knowledge has gone into it, I'm still very nervous about the extra  Renuad de Courtenay's and whether there should be 2 of them, or 3 as Jim has. His explanatory notes attached are helpful as to how he has come the 3 Renaud's, but still :o I need to get confident about them all. For now I've stopped adding ancestors in my tree at the Robert de Courtenay who married Mary de Reviers (Redvers). After a nights rest and a coffee .... I'm off to try again .... & *wishing to myself a sensible journey* ;)

---

Well "neither" was correct - neither Burke nor Vivian is authoritative for that era.  But the same goes for Weis and Weber.

If the primary data doesn't settle the question, then it remains an open question.  The authorities have offered their opinions, ie guesses, but the truth can't be found by somehow reconciling the guesses of secondary sources with no further primary information.

---

Yes "neither" it seems is correct ~ adding a quick explanation as to why is helpful and friendly.Much more enlightened now having been pointed in new directions the answers to my question have been really helpful and very much appreciated. This line is not resolved or resolvable at this point in time. May be it never will be. I agree ... without proof a thing can not be fact. After all assumptions are why there are so many inaccurate trees on the internet.