GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0979828185


From:
Subject: Re: Father of Amy de Gaveston
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:29:45 GMT
References: <940j29$qio$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <943aer$509$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, <oja96.6759$LZ1.446961@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>


As a newbie to this illustrious newsgroup, I must say that I am
bewildered by this and your earlier response to the subject at hand.

> Totally unconvincing.

Shouldn't a sentence fragment be joined to a main clause or be rewritten
to become a complete sentence by itself? Without knowing to what the
specific object of the above remark refers, how can anyone respond in a
succinct manner?

> | 3) There was not enough time to properly write
> | this book in a timely manner to be published in the Journal;"

> ?????

The only answer I can offer at this time is to read my article in the
winter 2000 edition of The Plantagenet Connection - the answer is
contained therein. It is available now.

From this post and your earlier one: Re: Father of Amy de Gaveston dated
01/16/2001 where you say: "Of course, the slavish devotees of this
alleged, but undocumented, descent from Piers de Gaveston AND Margaret
de Clare will continue to dig their heels in ---- even in the face of
the genealogical evidence", it is obvious that you have not read the
article.

I would strongly suggest that a person of your elevated status in the
genealogical community should evaluate all the available evidence before
he pronounces such a strong conclusion. That is, if the reference to
your postscript, the quotation to Saint Thomas Aquinas, is indicative of
what you truly espouse.

Also, from a look into the archives on the above subject , I note that
your opening remark of your 01/16/2001 post equally applies to the
slavish devotees of the other camp, who just as firmly cling to the
descent from Piers de Gaveston 'AND NOT' Margaret de Clare.

P. S. - Is this the way you greet newbies to this group? - or have I
been selected for special treatment.

Sincerely, Robert W. Todd



In article <oja96.6759$>,
"D. Spencer Hines" <> wrote:
> Totally unconvincing.
>
> | 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"
> [c.1258-1264]
>
> "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
> news:943aer$509$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> | Dear Mr. Richardson:
> | In reply to your post I would like to add my own observations to
> | yours. First of all, I would also be loath to call Mr. Reeds
> | article definitive. As I show in my article, there is lack of
> | sufficient factual documentation to offer definitive proof of either
> | Joan or Amys birth. There are only four pieces of primary
information
> | yet not one of them mention the name of the infant and the date of
> | birth in the same document. Thus, all conclusions have to be either
> | inferred, deduced or assumed. Thus no theory can be declared
> | definitive. All we can do, as pointed out by Reed himself, is to
draw
> | the best possible conclusions from the facts that do survive.
> | Unfortunately, this approach is prone to a number of common pitfalls
> | when constructing a deductive argument. On the surface they often
> | appear valid and convincing, and sometimes only close and careful
> | examination reveals the logical flaw. One only has to search the
> | archives of this society to see the various permutations and
> | combinations of who was the parent of whom etc, in reference to Amy,
> | Joan, Margaret and Piers that have been proposed. It is only by
> careful
> | examination of all the facts and possible scenarios that can rout
out
> | the arguments that are unsound or invalid.
> |
> | I did not intend that this article would provide all the answers
> | because: 1) there is so much background information that I have
found
> | which has not been hitherto published in any article that I have
been
> | able to read; 2) I would have to write a book to fully cover all the
> | aspects of this issue; 3) There was not enough time to properly
write
> | this book in a timely manner to be published in the Journal; 4)
> | Anyways, I doubt that many people would want to wade through the
> | details of all the facts and arguments in a journal. :-)
> |
> |
> |
> | Regards, Robert Todd
> |
> |
> | In article <940j29$qio$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> | wrote:
> | > In article <>,
> | > (Gryphon801) wrote:
> | > > Try the article by Paul C. Reed in NGSQ 88:32-49 (2000) which
is,
> I
> | > think,
> | > > definitive.
> | > >
> | >
> | > Dear Mr. Thompson:
> | >
> | > By definition, definitive means conclusive and unalterable; final.
> If
> | > Mr. Reed's article was "definitive" as you say, then surely Mr.
Todd
> | > would not be publishing a competing article with an entirely
> different
> | > 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
> the
> | > 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
> your
> | > 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
> you
> | > 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
> | http://www.deja.com/
>
>


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/


This thread: