Re: Mary de Bohun, the missing 4th daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex

On Sep 2, 5:42 pm, royalances...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:33 pm, Doug Thompson <doug.thomp...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< You made m assertion, unsupported by reference, that William had
< maintained that his preferred form was William la Zouche Mortimer.
< That was the reference I was asking for.
<
< As you rightly say frequently, unsupported assertions are worthless,
< so please let us know where your assertion comes from.
<
< Regards
<
< Doug Thompson

I assume you've checked all the citations that I've already provided
to you.  Is that correct?

As far as the correct address in a writ, it was not entirely a legal
ploy as you suggest.  William la Zouche Mortimer had a right to be
addressed in that style, if that was the name he employed during his
adult life.  If he was incorrectly addressed in a writ, he had a right
to ask that the writ be denied.  Then the legal process had to start
all over again.

As I stated earlier, if a writ was incorrectly addressed to you as
David Thomson, it would also be invalid today.  If you complained
about the incorrect address in such a writ, a judge would rule in your
favor.  You seemed to have dodged that point.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

We're clearly not going to get an answer to the straightforward
question, now asked politely twice, of what specific reference
supports the assertion that the man in question preferred the form of
William la Zouche Mortimer and, in particular, that he objected to the
form of William la Zouche "de" Mortimer (rather than some other form)
- which is the issue here. There also has been no evidence provided
for the assertion that this was not just a legal ploy as Doug Thompson
has suggested.

So who exactly is dodging the point here?
.

Relevant Pages
Loading