Re: Question for the group Part I.

Douglas,

The mere mention of "a source proves unreliable, through lack of knowledge,
partisanship, or sheer dishonesty" must have struck a resonant chord with
you.

Whatever else could have prompted such a vitriolic attack on Peter?
Especially as it originated from the "Prince of Sham".

On 21 Jan 1999 the following appeared on Gen-Med:

White family of Farnham, Surrey and South Warnborough, Hants
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval

From: dcrd...@xxxxxxx (Dcrdcr4)
Date: 1999/01/21
Subject: White family of Farnham, Surrey and South Warnborough, Hants

Does anyone have any information on the White family of Farnham, Surrey
and South Warnborough, Hants. I am interested in this line:

1. Robert White, of Farnham, merchant of the Staple of Calais, married Alice

2. John White, Gent., of Farnham and South Warnborough, died 1469, married
Eleanor,daughter of Robert Hungerford, Lord Hungerford. She married (2nd)
1470, Sir William Tyrrell, Knt., of Warley, Essex, and (3rd) by 1475, Sir
Henry Fitz Lewis of Nevendon, Essex and London.

3. Robert White, of Farnham and South Warnborough, born c. 1456, died
1518, married Margaret Gainsford

4. Margaret White, married John Kirton, and her sister, Anne White,
married Nicholas Tichborne.

Followed, after Henry Sutliff had nibbled at the bait, by:


Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: dcrd...@xxxxxxx (Dcrdcr4)
Date: 1999/01/22
Subject: Re: White family of Farnham, Surrey and South Warnborough, Hants

Hi Henry: Yes, the White family of Surrey and Hampshire did have a cadet
branch in Essex but it is not the family that you mention. The Surrey and
Hampshire White family is ancestral to Edward Rainsford of Mass. and
George Yate of Maryland.
Yes, you are correct, the Hungerford marriage is an all new discovery.
You can find many such new discoveries in my forthcoming book, Magna Carta
Ancestrty, which I am co-authoring with David Faris. The book should be
finished within the next month and available for purchase from GPC in
about two months' time.

********************************************************************

An article appeared in the NEHGR back in April 2000. It was titled :
"Plantagenet Ancestry of Edward Rainsford (1609-1680) of Boston,
Massachusetts"

Fortunately, one David Collyer forwarded an abstract to the list on 15 May
2000, otherwise I would have missed it.


As it is a trifle long I'll write a following email containing the abstract.

It is well worth the read. I found the terms "unreliable, through lack of
knowledge, partisanship, or sheer dishonesty" came to mind immediately.

I challenge you Douglas or anyone else for that matter to point out a
shred of evidence in the whole piece.

Tony Ingham

*******************************************************************


On May 2, 3:50 am, "Peter G R Howarth" <pgrhowa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"To AaronParmenter

I think that the logic of your message is at fault.

In genealogy, as in all historical studies, we must evaluate out sources.
If we find that a source proves unreliable, through lack of knowledge,
partisanship, or sheer dishonesty, then we should say so. By evaluating
the writer we are saying something important about their message.

John of Gaunt suggested in Parliament that Edmund Crouchback, although
Henry III's eldest son, was, on account of his deformity, passed over in
favour of his younger brother, Edward I. The object of this dishonest
story was to promote the pretensions of his son to the throne of Richard
II. We must evaluate the person telling the story in order to judge his
message.

We must continue to evaluate all the evidence that comes before us,
especially in the work of modern genealogists. We must look at their
general reliability, their methods of working, their handling of the
foreign languages involved, their responses when mistakes are pointed out.

From this behaviour we are in a position to assess the value of the
content of their message.

I therefore believe that the content of your message is wrong; it also
shows that the messenger's ability to handle logic is not to be relied on.

Peter G R Howarth"


Douglas Richardson replied:

"In Peter's message above, he sets forth a standard that he himself is
not able to meet. As has been pointed out on more than one occasion
here on the newsgroup,. Edmund, Earl of Lancaster (younger son of King
Henry III of England), was never known as Edmund "Crouchback" at all.
He was neither hunchbacked, crossbacked, or humpbacked. Yet we find
that Peter calls him Edmund Crouchback. Using Peter's own standard,
we find Peter falliible, his methods flawed, his handling of language
mistaken. We are thus in a position of assessing the content of his
message and find it lacking. One can conclude from this that Peter is
not in any position to assess to value of the content of his fellow
posters and that his logic can not be relied on.

Peter agrees completely with this assessment, as it is based on his
own standard. Likewise how Peter reacts to being corrected by this
post will be likewise used to determine he is lacking.

Or, perhaps Peter was talking about another standard, the one that
says others must adhere to a higher standard of scholarship, while
Peter himself gets a free skate? My guess is that it was this second
standard that Peter was using. Otherwise he would never have used the
epithet "Courchback." in his message. He would not be that stupid or
that dishonest. Right, Peter?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah"


.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Question for the group
    ... would know exactly which Edmund I meant -- and that is the ... Is that intended to show your standard of scholarship when quoting sources? ... < Peter G R Howarth ... was never known as Edmund "Crouchback" at all. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Question for the group
    ... < John of Gaunt suggested in Parliament that Edmund Crouchback, ... The object of this dishonest story ... he sets forth a standard that he himself is ... that Peter calls him Edmund Crouchback. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Question for the group
    ... Oh dear oh dear - I though we'd already discussed this at length, some time ago, and agreed that a nickname like Crouchback or Longshanks actually assisted in identifying who they were. ... < John of Gaunt suggested in Parliament that Edmund Crouchback, ... he sets forth a standard that he himself is ... that Peter calls him Edmund Crouchback. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Question for the group
    ... < In genealogy, as in all historical studies, we must evaluate out ... < John of Gaunt suggested in Parliament that Edmund Crouchback, ... he sets forth a standard that he himself is ... that Peter calls him Edmund Crouchback. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)