GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0979710292
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Father of Amy de Gaveston
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:44:52 GMT
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| 3) There was not enough time to properly write
| this book in a timely manner to be published in the Journal;"
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
<> wrote in message
| Dear Mr. Richardson:
| In reply to your post I would like to add my own observations to
| yours. First of all, I would also be loath to call Mr. Reeds
| article definitive. As I show in my article, there is lack of
| sufficient factual documentation to offer definitive proof of either
| Joan or Amys birth. There are only four pieces of primary information
| yet not one of them mention the name of the infant and the date of
| birth in the same document. Thus, all conclusions have to be either
| inferred, deduced or assumed. Thus no theory can be declared
| definitive. All we can do, as pointed out by Reed himself, is to draw
| the best possible conclusions from the facts that do survive.
| Unfortunately, this approach is prone to a number of common pitfalls
| when constructing a deductive argument. On the surface they often
| appear valid and convincing, and sometimes only close and careful
| examination reveals the logical flaw. One only has to search the
| archives of this society to see the various permutations and
| combinations of who was the parent of whom etc, in reference to Amy,
| Joan, Margaret and Piers that have been proposed. It is only by
| examination of all the facts and possible scenarios that can rout out
| the arguments that are unsound or invalid.
| I did not intend that this article would provide all the answers
| because: 1) there is so much background information that I have found
| which has not been hitherto published in any article that I have been
| able to read; 2) I would have to write a book to fully cover all the
| aspects of this issue; 3) There was not enough time to properly write
| this book in a timely manner to be published in the Journal; 4)
| Anyways, I doubt that many people would want to wade through the
| details of all the facts and arguments in a journal. :-)
| Regards, Robert Todd
| In article <email@example.com>,
| > In article <>,
| > (Gryphon801) wrote:
| > > Try the article by Paul C. Reed in NGSQ 88:32-49 (2000) which is,
| > think,
| > > definitive.
| > >
| > Dear Mr. Thompson:
| > By definition, definitive means conclusive and unalterable; final.
| > Mr. Reed's article was "definitive" as you say, then surely Mr. Todd
| > would not be publishing a competing article with an entirely
| > conclusion a year later. So, no, Mr. Reed's article was not
| > definitive. Not even close.
| > The matter of Amy de Gaveston's parentage needs much more scholarly
| > study. As a trained historian, I wholeheartedly welcome Mr. Todd's
| > article. While Mr. Todd's article doesn't provide all answers to
| > Amy de Gaveston puzzle, I believe it will lead us to a better
| > understanding of the evidence as we now have it.
| > When you have a moment, I know the newsgroup would enjoy hearing
| > comments of Mr. Todd's article. Presuming you've seen Mr. Todd's
| > article, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Todd's conclusions? If
| > agree, why? If not, please explain.
| > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
| > E-mail:
| > Sent via Deja.com
| > http://www.deja.com/
| Sent via Deja.com