Talk:Ernulf

Prior of Rochester?
According to Wharton: "Arnulfus. Extat enim in Archivis Ecclesiae Cant. Charta autographa Arnulfi Prioris Roffensis; subscribunt Letardus Portarius & Henricus filius ejus.". Greenway says "Thought to have been prior of Rochester before he became prior of Canterbury", but claims an absence of records. There is a well-worn dictum that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", so Greenway is not claiming that Ernulf was not Prior of Rochester, just that she has no evidence that he was. IT is a pity that Wharton does not identify the manuscript, but the WP citation police were absent 300-odd years ago. Comments? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * a 20th century source that neglects to corroborate a 17th century source is enough in my mind to consider the 17th century source unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note also the ODNB entry for Ernulf which makes no mention of him being prior of Rochester. If Diana Greenway and Peter Cramer both neglect to mention him holding any such office, it is pretty much assured that he did not. Greenway's entry is "Ernulph thought to have been prior of Rochester before he became prior of Canterbury in 1096 (Mon. Ang. 1 157; Ang. Sac. 1 392 etc.). But never occ. as prior of Rochester, and occ. as monk of Christ Church, Canterbury, after 1094" means that since after 1094 he was still being referred to as just a monk of Canterbury, and NOT at Rochester. If he had been prior of Rochester, the documents would have said he was prior of Rochester rather than the lesser title of plain monk and would have placed him at Rochester, rather than at Canterbury. Many of the 17th and 18th sources have been shown to be incorrect or based on forged documents. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Heads of Religious Houses: England & Wales I. 940-1216 (second edition) by David Knowles, C. N. L. Brooke, and Vera C. London on page 63 give an "?Arnulf D. -1113 (Roul. Morts., p. 203)" as prior, but this cannot be Ernulf since Arnulf was prior until 1113. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the second man as separate. Wharton lists them as Arnulfus and Ernulfus II.  Page uses Ernulf and Ernulf II whilst Hastead names them as Arnulph and Ernulf II.  Greenway doesn't mention the second man at all. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)