Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Not for the first time, I am astonished that people who are interested in
the subject of this thread have chosen to leave Richardson's arbitrary
musings unchallenged.

What is the point of even having a newsgroup devoted to medieval genealogy
if tripe like this can go unremarked by those who (unlike myself) are
interested in the matter? Do the readers of this thread think that mere
silence on their part is somehow dignified and/or progressive?

Comments interspersed:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1129302317.747462.183960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dear Chris ~
>
> If "matertera" can mean either paternal aunt or maternal aunt, then I
> think it's clear that Countess Alice de Gant's aunt, Agnes Scrope, was
> a Gant (paternal aunt), not a Clare (maternal aunt). The Scropes lived
> in Lincolnshire, and were tenants of the Gant family. They served
> regularly as witnesses for Gant charters. This would put them in
> position for an intermarriage between the Scrope and Gant families. By
> comparison, Alice de Gant's maternal side, the Clare family, resided
> elsewhere in England. I also know of no association between them and
> the Scrope family. So right there the evidence has tipped heavily in
> favor of Agnes Scrope being a Gant.

Where families resided and what Richarson knows about them are NOT points of
evidence, or untested weights in the balance of evidence. Families
demonstrably allied themselves at court and in other contexts that cut
across the proximity of landholdings, and Richardson's patchy research is
not by ANY means a standard that can be held up for proof, or for any useful
purpose whatsoever.

> Furthermore, we already know that Walter de Gant had a daughter named
> Agnes whose husband William de Mohun last appears in the records about
> 1142. If we assume that Agnes was widowed about then, she would be
> free to marry Richard Scrope who occurs in the records from c. 1147
> through c. 1155. I find it especially important that Richard Scrope,
> her putative husband, witnessed a charter for her brother, Gilbert de
> Gant, c. 1147, which date is after William de Mohun's last known
> appearance in the records. So that fits nicely.

IF we assume X then Y becomes possible....After that, any remote coincidence
of persons can be adduced to magnify NOTHING into SOMETHING, possibility
magically transformed without rationale into plausibiliy - and "nicely" so?

> What is needed for conclusive evidence is to find a woman named Agnes
> Scrope dealing with Mohun family properties after c. 1142. I'll put my
> lucky rabbit's foot in my pocket the next time I go to the library.

What is needed for conclusive evidence must be everything that is so far
lacking. Supposition of the kind proposed by Richardson, a mere convenience
of solution by his lights, does NOT enter into the serious attempt to
resolve a specific question of relationship. Failing actual evidence, direct
or indirect, circumstantial indicators may be useful, but these must first
be clear in themselves or else must be cogently argued into clarity. None of
the above can be said to achieve this, or any reasonable simulacrum of it.

Why has this not been said before now, by others? Is this from acquiescence
in Richardson's vague process of wishful thinking and weakly approximate
analysis? If so, could the silent readers tell us why? Or if keeping quiet
from the limp desire for peace and quiet, could they tell us why we should
credit or even take note of their contributions whenever they DO finally
choose to speak up?

Peter Stewart


.

Relevant Pages