I am currently unable to sign in with my regular account, hence this temp. login request. I need clarification if the group thinks this to be one person or two or the son of so and so. The record is dated to between 1114 -1130 and appears in: Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores: Or, Chronicles and ..., Volume 83 By Ramsey Abbey Here is a link for you to access it quickly. https://books.google.ca/books?id=0WlEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=fulco+aschetillus+dispensator&source=bl&ots=vZbZXWt7Ar&sig=fxdClPvg1nlu3Ub8v0xyPq0ehgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR0aq18q_NAhUGYiYKHWI3C7MQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=fulco%20aschetillus%20dispensator&f=false Is this saying? Fulco Aschetillus Dispensator or Fulco, Aschetillus Dispensator or Fulco & Aschetillus Dispensator. is there were two dispensators witnessing this would they state this some other way for the time period. How common would this be for the time period to be shown with 2 different names? Would this person be well known enough to others to warrant inclusion of both his known names, therefore both were included? It's difficult to know or if it is just a typo missing a comma. The author or scribe does not seem to make a mistake with any of the other many detailed names appearing in the list. Any comments are welcome, your help is appreciated as always. Thanks Robert Spencer

Further to my querry, I see in the index, on page 444 the composer of the index seems to indicate this is one person, however I see on page 254 of the same record appearing as an (Ansketillus Dispensator only appears without the "Fulco")and on page 436 described as Aschetilus, or Ansketillus, fulk, the Steward (dispensator). Any thoughts anyone?? Thanks Robert Spencer

On 18/06/2016 7:05 AM, robert.thecomputerman via wrote: > I am currently unable to sign in with my regular account, hence this temp. login request. > > I need clarification if the group thinks this to be one person or two or the son of so and so. > > The record is dated to between 1114 -1130 and appears in: Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores: Or, Chronicles and ..., Volume 83 > By Ramsey Abbey > > Here is a link for you to access it quickly. > > https://books.google.ca/books?id=0WlEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=fulco+aschetillus+dispensator&source=bl&ots=vZbZXWt7Ar&sig=fxdClPvg1nlu3Ub8v0xyPq0ehgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR0aq18q_NAhUGYiYKHWI3C7MQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=fulco%20aschetillus%20dispensator&f=false > > > Is this saying? > > Fulco Aschetillus Dispensator or > > Fulco, Aschetillus Dispensator or > > Fulco & Aschetillus Dispensator. is there were two dispensators witnessing this would they state this some other way for the time period. > > How common would this be for the time period to be shown with 2 different names? Would this person be well known enough to others to warrant inclusion of both his known names, therefore both were included? > > It's difficult to know or if it is just a typo missing a comma. The author or scribe does not seem to make a mistake with any of the other many detailed names appearing in the list. This provides the evidence you are asking for - every witness is listed by his name along with some qualifier ("Ebroinus nepos Abbatis, Willelmus de Hucetona, Hugo interpres ..."). It would clearly disturb this pattern if "Fulco Aschetillus dispensator" did not refer to a single individual. Also, "Aschetillus" would not be in the nominative while "dispensator" would not be nominative and singular if Aschetil was a separate person either related to Fulco or holding the same office. It is extremely unlikely that the editor has mistaken something different in the source (for instance, Fulco filius Aschetillii, dispensator" or "Fulco filius Aschetilli dispensatoris" or Fulco et Aschetillus dispensatores"), as the contractions used for each of these alternatives would be distinct. Peter Stewart