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

On Sep 3, 12:08 pm, royalances...@xxxxxxx wrote:
My comments are interspersed below.  DR

On Sep 3, 12:04 pm, taf <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Given that you have been unable to provide a reference, and now say
you can't, 'take my word for it' is not very persuasive.

You're entirely welcome to look for the reference yourself.

This is the rough equivalent of saying "I saw a unicorn - don't
remember where or when, but you are more than welcome to go look for
it. Sorry, but until the person claiming it exists comes up with the
evidence, it remains a myth.

 I know it exists.

Obviously not, or you could prove it.


You're also welcome to find and post the numerous citations I
gave which showed that this individual occurs regularly in
contemporary records as "William la Zouche Mortimer."  

Again, I am not going to do your work for you. If this evidence is
necessary to make your point, and you can't be bothered, then it is
your point that doesn't get made.


 If you need
me to post my citations again (with still more examples), I'll be
happy to do that for you.

You never have gotten past this 'examples make a rule' fallacy, have
you?


He said in the lawsuit an
abstract of which I saw that his name was William la Zouche Mortimer.

Says you, but 'take my word for it' is not the level of scholarship
you demand from others, so why the double standard?


Over the years I've found many instances of his name in that form in
contemporary records.

Examples do not a rule make.

< > In any case, you've proved my chief point that name forms mattered
in
< > medieval times, just as they do now.
<
< No. That does not prove that name forms mattered with respect to
< naming individuals, only that within a specific case, everything had
< to match, even if it was wrong.  

You're clearly not talking about legal matters.

Oh, but I am.



 My point was that the
name in the writ had to match the man's regular name.  Doug pointed
out that a protection was denied because it didn't match the name in a
writ.

Nice way to gloss over the conflict, but it is fatally flawed. He used
a form different than the writ. If the writ had to use man's regular
name, then he used a form different than his regular name. 'Regular'
loses any consistent meaning.


<
< No, it is not the same principle.  

Yes, it's the same principle.  In the case of William la Zouche
Mortimer, it was important that the correct individual be summoned as
there were several other William la Zouche's in this time period.

The mythical case you mean.


 If
the wrong man was brought to court, and, it was found that wrong
individual had been sued, then the legal proceedings were voided and
the lawsuit had to start all over again.   That's basic medieval law.


Modern too, but that a proceeding against the wrong man is void is
hardly the issue at hand.

William la Zouche Mortimer's insistence that the writ addressed to him
under another form be denied was a perfectly legal claim.  Then and
now.

Just as is a claim of an illegal search, but don't confuse that with
innocence. That he, supposedly, was able to pull this legal maneuver
by claiming he had a 'right' form, and elsewhere got shut out for
using a 'right' form, just shows you that this was more about
legalities than realities.


In any case, we're getting your opinions, taf, and no evidence, no
sources, no weblinks.  Your opinion is nice but doesn't mean much if
it's not backed up by evidence.

Ah, yes. Whenever pressed, this is your typical fallback. All opinions
are not created equal. Those of Douglas are expected by him to be
accepted at face value, without evidence. (remember - "I know it
exists" from earlier in this post)

Other people, however, are not so fortunate, it being demanded that
they provide the evidence Douglas cannot. The same old pathetic
double standard that, while dressed in the language of scholarly
discussion is really nothing more than an attempt by him to silence
differing opinion even though it is no less well supported than his
own speculations.

taf
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Michigans ban on using race and gender as a factor
    ... Opinions are expressed by a multitude of organizations through their lobbyists at every state and federal level of government. ... A court order is Law. ... Opinions of random people are indeed not evidence. ... Morals are but principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Typology of Scientism
    ... On the one hand you have Shakespeare, ... is claiming that *your* personal opinion is binding on everybody else. ... Your demands for more evidence would be a little more credible if you ... opinions are binding on everybody else. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why do you object to how I view the OT?
    ... is presented that contradict elements of your opinions, ... Rarely is any evidence ever presented ... I can agree or disagree on some ... Merneptha stele, what I have entered is not my "opinion" but the ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... > problem and consider each and every possibility where the evidence ... You are entitled to your opinions about wading and swimming and whatnot ... gone through review and published in *reputable and ... that I'm somehow hydrophobic is both ignorant and unfounded. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Are old people ready for the digital conversion?
    ... Your "evidence" may simply not have been collected in a way that makes it ... more than worthless, or simply misleading. ... in my ability to form reasonably accurate opinions than that. ... causes you to denegrate or upset others for zero reason. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)