Died at sea in 1120 ?
D DeFrank
On the evening of 25 November 1120 (sometimes date appears as 1119)
the ship called "Blanche Nef" or "White Ship"sank off Barfleur,
Normandy. Orderic Vitalis gives the most extensive list of those who
drowned I've found, but names only the most notable males, and only a
few of the women. The ship was said to be carrying 300 people.
In support of a historical novel that begins with the sinking of the
Blanche Nef, I am hoping to add names to the list, identify those
listed only by relationship, and flesh out details. If anyone can add
a name or detail, please do. A brief reference citation is
appreciated also, if possible.
The list is as follows:
--Thomas, son of Stephen (aka Thomas FitzStephen)
--Geoffrey, son of Gilbert de l'Aigle
--William (the etheling, son of Henry I, age 17)
--William, son of Roger, bishop of Coutances "with his brother and
three gallant nephews."
--Ralph (the Red) of Pont Echanfre', Lord of Echanfre'
--Gilbert d'Exmes
--Richard (illeg son of Henry)
--Matilda, Countess of Perche (Henry's illeg dau, wife of Routrou.)
--Richard, the young earl of Chester
--Matilda, the wife of Richard, earl of Chester (sister to Theobald)
--Othere (son of Hugh, earl of Chester, and governor/tutor to the
etheling)
--Theodoric, nephew of Henry, emperor of germany (a mere boy)
--Two sons of Ives de Grantmesnil
--William de Rhuddlan (proceeding to England to take possession of
inheritance)
--William Bigod
--Geoffery Ridel
--Hugh de Moulins
--Robert Mauconduit
--Gisulf, the king's "iniquitous secretary"
--no less than 18 females who were either daughters, sisters, wives or
neices of kings and earls.)
--Berold (Beroult) "a butcher of Rouen" said to be the sole survivor.
William de Pirou, the king's Steward (this one person appears to have
been included erroneously by OV, as he later signs a record signed by
the queen Henry marries after the sinking.)
--fifty oarsmen (rowers)
--a "marine force"
Sincerely,
Deborah E. DeFrank
-------------------------
spamfoil added to address.
remove "not" from user AND host
to reply.
-------------------------
Kathy McIntosh
In article <5p3tf4$l...@news2.tds.net>, D DeFrank <notdp...@conc.tdsnet.
com.not> writes
>On the evening of 25 November 1120 (sometimes date appears as 1119)
>the ship called "Blanche Nef" or "White Ship"sank off Barfleur,
>Normandy. Orderic Vitalis gives the most extensive list of those who
>drowned I've found, but names only the most notable males, and only a
>few of the women. The ship was said to be carrying 300 people.
>
>In support of a historical novel that begins with the sinking of the
>Blanche Nef, I am hoping to add names to the list, identify those
>listed only by relationship, and flesh out details. If anyone can add
>a name or detail, please do. A brief reference citation is
>appreciated also, if possible.
snip of Deborah's list.
What I want to know, is why did it sink?
Ken Follet, in his novel "Pillars of the Earth", uses the deliberate
sinking theory, but is this based on fact? Can anyone tell me what
really happened. Please.
--
Kathy McIntosh
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Robert Byrne.
D DeFrank
Kathy McIntosh <ka...@vineries.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What I want to know, is why did it sink?
>Ken Follet, in his novel "Pillars of the Earth", uses the deliberate
>sinking theory, but is this based on fact? Can anyone tell me what
>really happened. Please.
>--
"History" has it that the Blanche Nef sank because its captain (and
owner) Stephen FitzThomas allowed himself and his crew to become drunk
on wine William the Atheling and his companions liberated from his
father's wine stores. The sole evidence for this is based on the word
of the "rustic", a butcher "Berold" who supposedly clung to the mast
and survived (attributed to his fleece garment.)
As a retired navy officer, I cannot believe that FitzThomas would have
been so careless.
Think on this. Stephen FitzThomas built the Blanche Nef to be the
king's ship. He had the heritage of his father (who had piloted the
Moira), and when he went to Henry and asked him to have as his "fief"
to be the "king's ship", was told that Henry had chosen his ship
already for that passage, but that Henry would entrust to him the
safe passage of his only legitimate male heir, his treasure, and his
wine stores. Did Thomas FitzStephen allow his men to get drunk? I
don't think so.
Consider also, that the Blanche Nef could carry 300. There were fifty
oarsmen, a marine force, and a throng of young nobles, their squires,
their wives, and at least 18 women who were kin to kings, dukes, and
emperors. Given that those people surely had their waiting women and
attendants with them...that Ralth the Red, Gilbert of Exmes, the Earl
of Chester and his wife, the nephew of the German emperos, and Henry's
own stewards and scribes were on board....I can't think that one so
lowly as a butcher was on that ship. It's the equivalent of saying
that a bag lady was the sole survivor of the Concorde's maiden flight
crash, or that a homeless wino survived the crash of Air Force One.
Consider also, that Henry had recently 'made peace' (i.e. defeated)
after years of war with the king of france (Louis the Fat) and with
the rebellious lords of Normandy, wringing huge concessions. It's not
so much a taskto think _who_ might have had a motive to sink the
ship, as to think who might _not_ have. Henry himself might have been
on that ship, if events had been only slightly different. The earl of
Chester died, as did the claimant to Rhuddlan. Ralph the Red died,
who had frustrated the attempts of most of the rebellious barons in
Normandy. Interesting that Henry's son had just married the daughter
of Fulk of Anjou (after Henry had fought Fulk to a standstill) but
that William's young wife (admittedly prepubescent) didn't accompany
her new husband to England.
To me, this has always been as large a mystery as the princes in the
tower, but more so...because of the possibly spurious survivor. Think
of it. Give a butcher a few hundred pounds worth of gold coin, and
he'll probably say he's seen martians.
I'm not quite so sure as Ken Follett who *caused* the sinking. But I'm
certain in my heart that the ship's pilot and owner did NOT run
aground because he and his oarsmen were drunk.
Deborah
Dave Thomas
In article <d3cpDDAs...@vineries.demon.co.uk>, Kathy McIntosh
<ka...@vineries.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>
>What I want to know, is why did it sink?
>Ken Follet, in his novel "Pillars of the Earth", uses the deliberate
>sinking theory, but is this based on fact? Can anyone tell me what
>really happened. Please.
William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum writes in a translation by
D.C.Douglas, English Historical Documents, Vol.II.
On 25 November the king gave orders for his return to England, and set
sail from Barfleur just before twilight on the evening of that day. But
the young man who was just over seventeen and himself a king in all but
name, commanded that another vessel should be prepared for himself and
all the young nobility being his boon companions, gathered round him.
The sailors too, who had drunk overmuch, cried out with true sailor's
hilarity that they must overtake the ship that had already set out since
their own ship was of best construction and newly equiped. ......
......She flew swifter than an arrow, sweeping the rippling surface of
the deep, but the carelessness of the crew drove her on to a rock which
rose above the waves not far from the shore. All in consternation rushed
on deck and with loud cries got ready their boat hooks in an endeavour
to to force the vessel off, but fate was against them and brought to
nought their efforts.
The article continues in some detail and records that the prince
eventually got into a boat and was almost on shore when the cries of his
bastard sister, the countess of Perche, made him order the boat to
return to the stricken ship. A large number of the other passengers all
jumped into the boat and it was capsized and sank.
It concludes; One rustic alone, floating all night on the mast, survived
until the morning to describe the dismal catastrophe.....
--
Dave Thomas
Paul J. Gans
Kathy McIntosh (ka...@vineries.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <5p3tf4$l...@news2.tds.net>, D DeFrank <notdp...@conc.tdsnet.
: com.not> writes
: >On the evening of 25 November 1120 (sometimes date appears as 1119)
: >the ship called "Blanche Nef" or "White Ship"sank off Barfleur,
: >Normandy. Orderic Vitalis gives the most extensive list of those who
: >drowned I've found, but names only the most notable males, and only a
: >few of the women. The ship was said to be carrying 300 people.
: >
: >In support of a historical novel that begins with the sinking of the
: >Blanche Nef, I am hoping to add names to the list, identify those
: >listed only by relationship, and flesh out details. If anyone can add
: >a name or detail, please do. A brief reference citation is
: >appreciated also, if possible.
:
: snip of Deborah's list.
: What I want to know, is why did it sink?
: Ken Follet, in his novel "Pillars of the Earth", uses the deliberate
: sinking theory, but is this based on fact? Can anyone tell me what
: really happened. Please.
I don't think anyone really knows what happened. Henry's ship,
which left about the same time, reached England with no difficulties.
One theory I've heard is that the White Ship was overloaded. But
there are many things that can sink a ship. All it would take is
for one of the horses tethered on deck to get loose.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Terry Oehler
There is a story that the captain of the White Ship was the son of
the captain of the ship (the Mora?) that carried William to England
in 1066. I *think* I read that in Palgrave, but I didn't copy down
the source because I simply didn't believe it. It seems too unlikely
a coincidence. (But on the other hand, I suppose one could imagine
"Hey, Bill, could you give my son a job? We're in the same line of
work.")
D DeFrank
Terry Oehler <ter...@SFPL.LIB.CA.US> wrote:
The chronicler Orderic Vitalis has Thomas son of Stephen telling
Henry that he is the son of Stephen of Airarard ..or Everard (sp) when
he approached Henry. His father would have been the pilot or
navigator of the Mora, not its owner, though. The owner was William
the Conquerer's wife, who gave it to her husband as a gift.
It was Thomas, not his father who played the kinship card. It was a
strong card, and backed by an obviously well constructed and
impressive vessel.
David Pugh
D DeFrank wrote:
>
> Kathy McIntosh <ka...@vineries.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >What I want to know, is why did it sink?
> >Ken Follet, in his novel "Pillars of the Earth", uses the deliberate
> >sinking theory, but is this based on fact? Can anyone tell me what
> >really happened. Please.
Very interesting indeed, I confess to a sudden uncertainty about my
assumptions!
OTOH, you should maybe watch out for the Butchers' Anti-Defamation
League. Don't think you have to be a butcher to tell lies (pork pies in
Cockney rhyming slang, appropriately enough) for gold.
One little thought occurs to me. Is it not the case that this butcher
might have been a prosperous burgher, the owner of a slaughterhouse
etc., or the Purveyor of the King's Viands? I think that sometimes
sources don't distinguish between what we would call an artisan and what
we would call a captain of industry. It has been suggested, for example,
that Joseph the father of Jesus was what we would call a building
contractor rather than just a guy with nails between his teeth. In the
same way, when Roman sources talk about the People, they mean stinking
rich equites. From the point of view of the landed blood-aristocracy,
they're all oiks. Minor point.
(It's ages since I read it, but on the cover of my "Distant Mirror" is
an illustration of that horrendous episode at the French court when the
young bloods dressed up as monkeys or something and all caught fire.
Cock-ups do happen.)
David
Kathy McIntosh
Thanks for all the replies. They have given me something to think
about.
Now lets see. A drunken horse got lose, took over the ship, and paid a
butcher to sink the ship rather then make steaks from him ... :-}
Paul J. Gans
In my opinion you've made a good argument. Yet the presence
of one butcher boy isn't really all that difficult to explain.
See how Sharon Newman does it in her novel _When Christ and
his Angels Slept_.
As far as the sinking being deliberate, I can't agree. In
the days before explosives it would be hard for any single
person to secretly do enough damage to sink a ship.
The Channel has always been treacherous. Even in the great
days of wooden ships and iron men, the Channel claimed its
share of ships. A moment's inattention and a sudden gust
of wind could do it. The Channel is very shallow. It doesn't
take much to raise some rather monster waves. And if the
White Ship, heavily laden, found herself broadside to a 20-footer
that would be all she wrote. It had happened before and
happened many times since.
I agree that the cause remains a mystery. The enormity of
the disaster has faded for us, but it was one of those things,
like the death of Harold at Hastings, that changed history.
Not only did it eventually cause the civil war between
Stephen of Blois and Maude, Henry's surviving child, but
in the end the Angevins took the English throne.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Valerie LaMont
Paul,
I have always enjoyed your responses for their intelligence and their
natural wit. But, since the book is dedicated to me, I have to admit
cringing everytime you mention that Sharon Newman wrote "When Christ and
His Angles Slept". The title is "When Christ and His Saints Slept" and
the author is none other than Sharon Kay Penman. Sharan Newman writes
some very fine historical mysteries. Must be the heat getting to you.
Valerie LaMont
Adrian Channing
D De Frank list of those drowned in the White Ship included Theodoric,
nephew of Henry emperor of Germany (a mere boy). This is presumably the
following un-named young man and nephew of the emperor referred to in a
foot-note in A. L. Poole's book "Domesday Book to Magna Carta."
"Le Povost (Ordericus Vitalis, iv. 418, n.1) supposes him to have been th=
e
son of Henry V's sister Agnes and Frederick of Swabia."
Adrian Channing (Surrey, UK) 10651...@CompuServ.Com
Paul J. Gans
Valerie LaMont (pt...@vms.cis.pitt.edu) wrote:
: Paul,
Yes. I goofed big time. I'm really sorry. I've posted
several corrections. Sharon Kay Penman's book, _When
Christ and his Saints Slept_ is excellently researched and
a very good read. The latter is my opinion, the former is
the opinion of a fair number of medievalists.
It is also an excellent way to understand one of the stranger
and less-well known bits of English history -- the Civil War
between Stephen of Blois and the Empress Maude.
Paul J. Gans
I made a terrible mistake below in a book citation, getting
both the author AND the title wrong. Please note the
correction.
Paul J. Gans (ga...@scholar.nyu.edu) wrote:
[much deleted]
: In my opinion you've made a good argument. Yet the presence
: of one butcher boy isn't really all that difficult to explain.
: See how Sharon Newman does it in her novel _When Christ and
: his Angels Slept_.
It is Sharon Kay Penman and _When Christ and his Saints Slept_.
I'm very sorry about that.
[more deleted]
D DeFrank
"D. Spencer Hines" <shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Have you given even the *slightest* _ rational _ consideration to the
>fact that William of Aetheling and his company of randy, hungry and
>inebriated nobles --- of both genders --- might well have seen fit to
>employ the services of a good butcher for their voyage across La Manche
>---- not from Calais to Dover --- mind you?
Yes, I have. The timing given for the voyage, from at least for that
completed by Henry in a similar vessel was in the neighborhood of
12-14 hours. While the notables might well have been interested in
food (were they not too seasick) I doubt preparation started from a
carcass. Food for their journey would most likely have been cooked
before the start of the crossing. The presence of livestock, sides of
beef, or cooking facilities on board those ships are not mentioned at
all by chroniclers.
>Here again, you make the same mistake as to why a butcher might well be
>aboard --- *to serve the nobles.* You weren't really a career sea-going
>--- Officer of the Deck type, line naval officer, on a combatant ship,
>were you? Why do you pretend to be one?
I have never "pretended" to be one. I was, in fact commissioned as an
unrestricted line officer, and retired as an engineering duty officer.
The point remains that sailing experience --yours or mine--is
irrelevant to the presence or absence of the butcher and the sobriety
of the crew. My experience working with professionals --competent,
capable, responsible and yes, sober on duty--gained on active duty in
the Navy does lead me to be quite doubtful that the captain and crew
were in fact drunk. And yes, my acquaintance includes officers of the
Royal Navy as well.
>>
>> >Please also share your tall ship sailing qualifications and knowledge of
>> >sea conditions in La Manche with us, if you would be so kind. You are a
>> >retired naval officer? Which ships did you command? Were any of them
>> >in the vaguest sense similar to the White Ship under discussion?
>Do you continue to believe that the
>White Ship was being rowed by 50 "rowers" as you put it [the proper term
>is "oarsmen."] and was not carrying any sail?
I never stated that the Blanche Nef was not carrying sail. It most
certainly carried sail, specifically a single mast and square sail.
But, by all contemporary chroniclers' accounts, it also carried
oarsmen, similar to William the Conquerer's Moira. Orderic Vitalis
numerated the oarsmen at fifty, and gave a total count of passengers
and crew as 300. Other contemporary chroniclers have been translated
to use the term "rowers." Both terms were taken from chronicles. The
presence of oars and oarports on 12th century vessels is not a matter
of speculation, but of chronicle and the findings of marine
acheologists.
>Tell us, if you will, the
>dimensions, draft and rigging of the White Ship. Do you realize the
>distance from Barfleur to their intended port of destination?
The dimensions and draft of the Blanche Nef aren't recorded, to my
knowledge. It was clearly considered a large ship for the time.
However the term "tall ship" did not come into use until well after
the 12th century. Nefs, cogs and keels of the 12th century were
single masted and square sailed, and used a side rudder or
steering-board. The height of the mast was limited by the comparably
(to the deeper vessels of following centuries) shallow drafts of 3-6
feet.
The intended port of destination was Portsmouth, where King Henry's
ship put in. Distance, approximately 125 km. At a conservative
estimate of 5 knots (based on accounts of crews sailing reproduction
vessels built on the finds of marine archeologists) 13.5 hours
sailing time. (This agrees with the estimates of sailing time for
William the Conquerer's crossing.)
>Lastly, you demonstrate an extreme case of nautical hubris in blindly
>extrapolating from a 20th Century harbor note description of Barfleur
>Harbor --- and pretending that you know precisely what the sea
>conditions were on 25 November 1120!
I didn't say I knew _precisely_, though the phase of the moon and
therefore the relative amplitude of the tide _is_ known. I included
a description of normal sea conditions to show that yes, I _do_
understand that the waters off Barfleur are indeed generally
treacherous. Historical descriptions of the channel currents are
consistent with modern conditions, except on the eastern English
coast, where the harbors tend to fill in with sand, shingle and silt,
and where bygone harbors have been landlocked. What hasn't changed
are the prevailing winds from the west, and that the tidal current in
the channel itself flows eastward rising, and westward falling.
However, the general sea conditions--provided on YOUR request, I may
add-- have nothing to do with whether or not there would have been a
butcher on the Blanche Nef, or whether the crew and captain would have
been drunk.
>Surely you understand the inanity of such an unconsidered [and
>decidededly un-naval-officer-like] peremptory chop-logic judgment. Naval
>officers ---- real ones ---- are much smarter than to make such snap
>judgments --- particularly those who have *actually* commanded warships
>and sailing vessels.
Why does it get up your nose when the _only_ statement of cause I've
made is that I do not believe the captain of the Blanche Nef would
have permitted himself and his men to get drunk? I say that based on
my disbelief in the credibility of the witness, and on my belief that
a man who had so much on the line, who had built his ship out of his
own resources, who wanted to have as his fief the honor of providing
the king's ship, and who had been entrusted with the king's heir and
treasure would have not taken that opportunity and responsibility
lightly.
My supposed lack of seagoing experience means _nothing_ to the
question of whether or not there was a butcher on board the Blanche
Nef, or whether or not the captain and crew were drunk. I don't have
to be able to fly a plane to believe there would not have been a bag
lady on board the Concorde's maiden flight, nor do I have to have a
pilot's license to believe quite firmly the pilot and crew were sober.
However, if your maintain that your sailing and military experience
lead you to believe the most likely explanation for the wreck is that
the crew and captain _were_ soused, I can only conclude my overall
acquaintance has been with a higher calibre of individuals.
>You are guilty of blowing a great deal of ***White Smoke*** here ---
>pretending to be something you are not --- and you have been caught
>red-handed and red-faced. You simply do not know whereof you speak and
>your opinions on this nautical, genealogical and historical matter are
>not worth the powder to blow them out of one of "Old Ironsides'"
>impressive cannon.
I have blown no smoke, as you put it, and am neither red-handed or
red-faced.
>>
>> The phrase "in my heart" was meant to show that my reasoned and
>> intuitive opinion that the crew and captain of the White Ship were not
>> drunk is without proof. However, the accepted history that the ship
>> sank _because the captain and crew were drunk_ remains without
>> credible proof also.
>>
>> Deborah DeFrank
>You are the *advocate* for the unproven "DeFrank Hypothesis" opining
>some doubts and palpitations about traditional explanations for the
>disaster or, as one of our astute British friends [perhaps with some
>real sea-going Royal Naval experience] has christened it --- the
>"cock-up" of the White Ship. The burden of proof lies clearly on *your*
>head for your fragile and unsupported opinings.
I can't claim credit for being the first person to doubt the account
of the sole survivor. Ken Follett beat me to , in "Pillars of the
Earth". Sharon Kay Penman apparently had such difficulty with _why_
the butcher was on board that she felt she had to concoct a tale to
explain his presence. (A young butcher lad has been robbed while
trying to retrieve his brother from England before their father dies,
and Stephen takes pity on him and installs him on the ship.)
It was, in fact, a Royal Navy officer who is responsible for my
thinking (as he did) that the captain of the White Ship was an
undeserving scapegoat.
>Show us the Evidence.
If you have evidence which controverts my position, I invite you to do
the same. Otherwise, I can logically give your opinion on the
presence of the butcher, and on the sobriety of the crew and captain
no more credence than that of the witness on whom you base your faith.
Despite your claim of superior experience, your use of the term "tall
ship", and your disbelief in the fact that the White Ship had oars
indicate to me that you know less in general of 12th century ships
than I do.
Your offensive manner, sarcasm, and ad-hominem attacks have perverted
what might have been a lively exchange of ideas and opinion into
something quite distasteful, which quite simply isn't worth the
effort. We will simply have to agree to disagree, because you're
going back in my killfile.
Deborah DeFrank
D DeFrank
Aileen Power <ov...@istar.ca> wrote:
>.Dishonesty and credibility do not respect the boundaries of social
>and financial status and that has been well documented down through the
>ages.
You make a good point, and I agree that no class of person is beyond
bribery. It is simply more expensive to bribe a wealthy person than a
poor one, and more difficult to intimidate a powerful person than a
powerless one. The question of credibility of witnesses in courtrooms
today frequently hinges on similar judgements, i.e. how vulnerable the
witness would be to bribery or coercion in framing their testimony.
Since the witness here is a man of low social status for the time, I
think he would be quite vulnerable to pressure of bribery or threat.
I also think he would not have been on the ship. Had the witness been
a nobleman, I wouldn't be inclined to doubt his presence on the ship,
but I wouldn't rule out the possiblity that his testimony was tainted
by either bribery, threat, or some other matter of self-interest.
Something that I have been looking into-- and have as yet found
disappointingly little--are the laws and customs of rights of salvage.
During the 12th century, the custom and law of England altered such
that a ship was or was not considered a wreck (subject to rights of
salvage) if there was even a single survivor. I've not yet found
anything that discusses medieval salvage rights off Normandy, and what
I've found ton English wreck rights is vague on dates, but this does
seem to present a potential reason unrelated to the cause of sinking
to produce a spurious survivor.
D DeFrank
"D. Spencer Hines" <shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Sacre bleu, you really don't care for butchers do you! Along with
>bartenders and taxi drivers they are some of my favorite folks.
I have absolutely nothing against butchers, or bag ladies. My
comments merely pointed out the vast difference in status and wealth
between the passengers and the claimed sole survivor. If the sole
survivor had been _wealthy_ (before the sinking) or otherwise less
likely to be bribable, I might give his testimony more credence.
>Perhaps you would share with us your *evidence* for the above unbridled
>speculative ramble based on being "certain in [your] heart" and perhaps
>also opine on your considered opinions concerning the St. Bartholomew's
>Day Massacre and the Kennedy Assassinations? Would you care to have a
>whack at explaining the TWA 800 disaster as well?
This type of sarcastic diatribe is why you were on my killfile;
someone had to bring your attack to my attention. I have no
"considered opinions" on the above events, but if there had been a
sole survivor of the TWA disaster who was clearly too poor to have
afforded the fare, and who claimed the plane crashed because the
pilot and crew were all drunk as skunks, I'd view that testimony with
doubt also.
>Please also share your tall ship sailing qualifications and knowledge of
>sea conditions in La Manche with us, if you would be so kind. You are a
>retired naval officer? Which ships did you command? Were any of them
>in the vaguest sense similar to the White Ship under discussion?
None of these red herrings have anything to do with my strong
disbelief that the White Ship's master would have permitted himself
and his crew to have gotten drunk before sailing.
I'll quote myself here:
>> I'm not quite so sure as Ken Follett who *caused* the sinking. But I'm
>> certain in my heart that the ship's pilot and owner did NOT run
>> aground because he and his oarsmen were drunk.
None of this rules out a mistake in seamanship or navigation.
Barfleur harbor dries, and vessels of any draft can enter only a few
hours before and after high tide. The prevailing winds in the channel
are westerly, and as there were ample witnesses to the fact that the
White Ship left significantly after Henry's ship, it would have faced
a strong easterly current (4-6kts) when even with Pte. Barfleur. This
current would have tended to carry them toward Catte Raz.
Additionally, when the winds run contrary to the tidal current, the
sea can be quite fierce. There is no doubt that delaying departure
put the White Ship in a significantly more treacherous position than
Henry's ship faced, leaving just before or on high tide.
The phrase "in my heart" was meant to show that my reasoned and
intuitive opinion that the crew and captain of the White Ship were not
drunk is without proof. However, the accepted history that the ship
sank _because the captain and crew were drunk_ remains without
credible proof also.
Deborah DeFrank
D. Spencer Hines
D DeFrank wrote:
> I have absolutely nothing against butchers, or bag ladies. My
> comments merely pointed out the vast difference in status and wealth
> between the passengers and the claimed sole survivor. If the sole
> survivor had been _wealthy_ (before the sinking) or otherwise less
> likely to be bribable, I might give his testimony more credence.
Have you given even the *slightest* _ rational _ consideration to the
fact that William of Aetheling and his company of randy, hungry and
inebriated nobles --- of both genders --- might well have seen fit to
employ the services of a good butcher for their voyage across La Manche
---- not from Calais to Dover --- mind you?
>
> >Perhaps you would share with us your *evidence* for the above unbridled
> >speculative ramble based on being "certain in [your] heart" and perhaps
> >also opine on your considered opinions concerning the St. Bartholomew's
> >Day Massacre and the Kennedy Assassinations? Would you care to have a
> >whack at explaining the TWA 800 disaster as well?
>
> This type of sarcastic diatribe is why you were on my killfile;
> someone had to bring your attack to my attention. I have no
> "considered opinions" on the above events, but if there had been a
> sole survivor of the TWA disaster who was clearly too poor to have
> afforded the fare, and who claimed the plane crashed because the
> pilot and crew were all drunk as skunks, I'd view that testimony with
> doubt also.
Here again, you make the same mistake as to why a butcher might well be
aboard --- *to serve the nobles.* You weren't really a career sea-going
--- Officer of the Deck type, line naval officer, on a combatant ship,
were you? Why do you pretend to be one?
>
> >Please also share your tall ship sailing qualifications and knowledge of
> >sea conditions in La Manche with us, if you would be so kind. You are a
> >retired naval officer? Which ships did you command? Were any of them
> >in the vaguest sense similar to the White Ship under discussion?
>
> None of these red herrings have anything to do with my strong
> disbelief that the White Ship's master would have permitted himself
> and his crew to have gotten drunk before sailing.
Your "strong disbelief" and 87 cents will get you a cup of coffee at the
local McDonald's in Honolulu. I note you do not respond to any of my
quite specific questions as to your supposed naval officer credentials.
>
> I'll quote myself here:
>
> >> I'm not quite so sure as Ken Follett who *caused* the sinking. But I'm
> >> certain in my heart that the ship's pilot and owner did NOT run
> >> aground because he and his oarsmen were drunk.
>
> None of this rules out a mistake in seamanship or navigation.
> Barfleur harbor dries, and vessels of any draft can enter only a few
> hours before and after high tide. The prevailing winds in the channel
> are westerly, and as there were ample witnesses to the fact that the
> White Ship left significantly after Henry's ship, it would have faced
> a strong easterly current (4-6kts) when even with Pte. Barfleur. This
> current would have tended to carry them toward Catte Raz.
> Additionally, when the winds run contrary to the tidal current, the
> sea can be quite fierce. There is no doubt that delaying departure
> put the White Ship in a significantly more treacherous position than
> Henry's ship faced, leaving just before or on high tide.
Drunken sailors and officers don't navigate or hold a course very well.
You seem to have tapped into some 20th Century harbor notes for
Barfleur.
Have you ever actually sailed out of Barfleur Harbor yourself --- at the
conn, of a sailing vessel? I have. Do you continue to believe that the
White Ship was being rowed by 50 "rowers" as you put it [the proper term
is "oarsmen."] and was not carrying any sail? Tell us, if you will, the
dimensions, draft and rigging of the White Ship. Do you realize the
distance from Barfleur to their intended port of destination?
Lastly, you demonstrate an extreme case of nautical hubris in blindly
extrapolating from a 20th Century harbor note description of Barfleur
Harbor --- and pretending that you know precisely what the sea
conditions were on 25 November 1120!
Surely you understand the inanity of such an unconsidered [and
decidededly un-naval-officer-like] peremptory chop-logic judgment. Naval
officers ---- real ones ---- are much smarter than to make such snap
judgments --- particularly those who have *actually* commanded warships
and sailing vessels.
You are guilty of blowing a great deal of ***White Smoke*** here ---
pretending to be something you are not --- and you have been caught
red-handed and red-faced. You simply do not know whereof you speak and
your opinions on this nautical, genealogical and historical matter are
not worth the powder to blow them out of one of "Old Ironsides'"
impressive cannon.
>
> The phrase "in my heart" was meant to show that my reasoned and
> intuitive opinion that the crew and captain of the White Ship were not
> drunk is without proof. However, the accepted history that the ship
> sank _because the captain and crew were drunk_ remains without
> credible proof also.
>
> Deborah DeFrank
You are the *advocate* for the unproven "DeFrank Hypothesis" opining
some doubts and palpitations about traditional explanations for the
disaster or, as one of our astute British friends [perhaps with some
real sea-going Royal Naval experience] has christened it --- the
"cock-up" of the White Ship. The burden of proof lies clearly on *your*
head for your fragile and unsupported opinings.
Show us the Evidence.
--
D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790]
David Pugh
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
(huge snip)
> You are the *advocate* for the unproven "DeFrank Hypothesis" opining
> some doubts and palpitations about traditional explanations for the
> disaster or, as one of our astute British friends [perhaps with some
> real sea-going Royal Naval experience] has christened it --- the
> "cock-up" of the White Ship.
I said something in this thread about the "conspiracy" versus the
"cock-up" theory of history, so that "our British friend" is probably
me. However, I have no connection with the Royal Navy, am afraid of
water and consequently avoid getting into any boat smaller than a car
ferry. Any implication of support to either party's sea-doggery is
therefore unwarranted: though I don't much care for Mr. Hines' tone.
Whether I am "astute" is not for me to say. We all do our best.
David
Aileen Power
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> D DeFrank wrote:
>
> > I have absolutely nothing against butchers, or bag ladies. My
> > comments merely pointed out the vast difference in status and wealth
> > between the passengers and the claimed sole survivor. If the sole
> > survivor had been _wealthy_ (before the sinking) or otherwise less
> > likely to be bribable, I might give his testimony more credence.
If you know anything about history at all then you should be well
aware that so called wealthy and high placed people were not above
taking a bribe or two and they also carried out many devious
deeds.Dishonesty and credibility do not respect the boundaries of social
and financial status and that has been well documented down through the
ages. Since your argument is heavily based on this premise, then it
holds no credence at all. It is good to have an interest in history and
there is nothing wrong with not knowing all the answers, so therefore
ask questions. It's important to base your opinions on fact not
supposition.
Aileen Power ov...@istar.ca
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Have you given even the *slightest* _ rational _ consideration to the
> > > fact that William of Aetheling and his company of randy, hungry and
> > > inebriated nobles --- of both genders --- might well have seen fit to
> > > employ the services of a good butcher for their voyage across La Manche
> > > ---- not from Calais to Dover --- mind you?
> >
> > short as it turned out) voyage across the Channel? A cook possibly for
> > their hunger, a steward for their inebriation, some ladies of dubious
> > virtue for their randiness, perhaps. But a butcher? Wouldn't taking
> > aboard a few joints of meat have made more sense?
> >
> > Anyway, until the 19th century, butchers were engaged in the
> > slaughtering of animals not in preparing and purveying meat retail. It
> > was a seasonal occupation.
> >
> > John Steele Gordon
>
> Actually the voyage would not have been so short, as you would
> understand had you taken a glance at a good map. This was a not a Calais
> to Dover voyage. Depending on wind and sea conditions, the voyage could
> have taken many hours ---- certainly enough time for a royal feast.
You could do with some common manners to go with your flaunted
erudition. I did consult a map (or is the National Geographic Atlas not
up to your cartographic standards?) and my remarks stand. The voyage
certainly would have taken several hours, even in favorable weather, and
could have taken several days in unfavorable. But in the case of the
latter, I expect that appetites would not have been robust.
Also, beef and mutton both need to be hung before they are really good
to eat. That would have been even more true in 1120 than it is today
with our pampered, grain-fed cows and sheep.
>
> Butchers were essential personnel in 1120. In an age where meat spoiled
> quickly, it was often wise to slaughter an animal on the hoof and eat it
> immediately.
How do you slaughter an animal off the hoof? Ask it to lie down for the
coup de grace? That sort of reminds me of those television sitcoms that
are shot before a "live studio audience."
John Steele Gordon
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> Have you given even the *slightest* _ rational _ consideration to the
> fact that William of Aetheling and his company of randy, hungry and
> inebriated nobles --- of both genders --- might well have seen fit to
> employ the services of a good butcher for their voyage across La Manche
> ---- not from Calais to Dover --- mind you?
What would they have needed a butcher for on a short (unfortunately too
D. Spencer Hines
David Pugh wrote:
> I said something in this thread about the "conspiracy" versus the
> "cock-up" theory of history, so that "our British friend" is probably
> me. However, I have no connection with the Royal Navy, am afraid of
> water and consequently avoid getting into any boat smaller than a car
> ferry.
It is surpassing strange that you would tout and parade such an
emasculating infirmity.
Any implication of support to either party's sea-doggery is
> therefore unwarranted: though I don't much care for Mr. Hines' tone.
> Whether I am "astute" is not for me to say. We all do our best.
>
> David
You are certainly not astute, we've determined that. The central point
of my previous post, which you have sidestepped [perhaps by design] is
that the role of chance, accident, Murphy's Law and simple human error
account for many things that happened in the medieval period ---- just
as they do today. People who always turn to a conspiracy theory for an
explanation of untoward events are often the least well-educated who
don't understand how "cock-ups" occur ---- frequently because they have
never had the task of managing the resolution of one.
To the contrary, there *are* actual real and true conspiracies ---- such
as the events we call the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, beginning in
Paris on 23 Aug 1572 [24 Aug was actually St. Bartholomew's Day] and
continuing into early October, in the French provinces. At least 3,000
Huguenots [French Protestants] were killed in Paris, perhaps as many as
70,000 throughout France. Catherine de Medici and her son, King Charles
IX, were the chief conspirators.
So, as always, one must look at the discrete facts and cascade of
events, before deciding "cock-up" or conspiracy" ----- some careless,
lazy and un-educated folks often don't take the time to do that.
--
D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790] ["The Good Burke"]
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
"D. Spencer Hines" <shi...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>David Pugh wrote:
>
>> I said something in this thread about the "conspiracy" versus the
>> "cock-up" theory of history, so that "our British friend" is probably
>> me. However, I have no connection with the Royal Navy, am afraid of
>> water and consequently avoid getting into any boat smaller than a car
>> ferry.
>It is surpassing strange that you would tout and parade such an
>emasculating infirmity.
>> Any implication of support to either party's sea-doggery is
>> therefore unwarranted: though I don't much care for Mr. Hines' tone.
>> Whether I am "astute" is not for me to say. We all do our best.
>> David
>You are certainly not astute, we've determined that.
It becomes clear (as if it were not already) why M. Hines is in a killfile
or 20.
Robert
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net [John Steele Gordon] wrote:
> > Actually the voyage would not have been so short, as you would
> > understand had you taken a glance at a good map. This was not a Calais
> > to Dover voyage. Depending on wind and sea conditions, the voyage could
> > have taken many hours ---- certainly enough time for a royal feast. [DSH]
>
> You could do with some common manners to go with your flaunted
> erudition. I did consult a map (or is the National Geographic Atlas not
> up to your cartographic standards?) and my remarks stand. The voyage
> certainly would have taken several hours, even in favorable weather, and
> could have taken several days in unfavorable. But in the case of the
> latter, I expect that appetites would not have been robust.
Deborah DeFrank estimates a figure of 12-14 hours is not unreasonable.
Sea and wind conditions change rapidly in La Manche. I have experienced
them. Just because Henry I, King of England made the crossing in 12-14
hours, says nothing about another ship's elapsed time for a crossing,
even on the same evening. However, be that as it may, people get hungry
in 12-14 hours. In a dead calm [which I have experienced in La Manche
several times] the crossing would take much longer, [*one* of the
reasons for the presence of the 50 oarsmen on board ---- we can't have
the heir apparent floating around helplessly in the Channel, in the
event of a dead calm, or very light airs. Experienced mariners try to
prepare in advance for all contingencies.] from Barfleur to Portsmouth
--- but the appetites would be quite robust in a dead calm or very light
airs, particularly after an evening of roistering and lovemaking.
Also, sea and wind conditions can change with terrifying suddeness in La
Manche. I also have directly experienced that wake-up call, on several
occasions. Shoreside observers in either France or Britain would not be
reliable witnesses as to what may have occurred with respect to wind and
sea conditions, even slightly further out to sea.
You do remember what happened to the Spanish Armada in 1588?
>
> Also, beef and mutton both need to be hung before they are really good
> to eat. That would have been even more true in 1120 than it is today
> with our pampered, grain-fed cows and sheep.
The "really good" is a convenient escape hatch or trapdoor in your
sentence ---- it is the operative weasel phrase that turns the sentence
into "Wortsalat."
There is a curious phenomenon that occurs in newsgroups [perhaps it is
the presumed anonymity] where folks sound off on subjects well beyond
their ken ---- whereas they would never be so foolish as to do so at a
dinner party --- where they would be quite vulnerable to an instant and
embarrassing rebuttal.
> >
> > Butchers were essential personnel in 1120. In an age where meat spoiled
> > quickly, it was often wise to slaughter an animal on the hoof, and eat it
> > immediately. [DSH]
--
D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790] ["The Good Burke"]
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
In article <33D61D...@istar.ca>, Aileen Power <ov...@istar.ca> writes:
>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> D DeFrank wrote:
>> > I have absolutely nothing against butchers, or bag ladies. My
>> > comments merely pointed out the vast difference in status and wealth
>> > between the passengers and the claimed sole survivor. If the sole
>> > survivor had been _wealthy_ (before the sinking) or otherwise less
>> > likely to be bribable, I might give his testimony more credence.
>
>If you know anything about history at all then you should be well
>aware that so called wealthy and high placed people were not above
>taking a bribe or two and they also carried out many devious
>deeds.Dishonesty and credibility do not respect the boundaries of social
>and financial status and that has been well documented down through the
>ages. Since your argument is heavily based on this premise, then it
>holds no credence at all.
Since her argument is based not at all on the premise that the wealthy
are immune to bribery your criticism seems to lack credence.
>It is good to have an interest in history and
>there is nothing wrong with not knowing all the answers, so therefore
>ask questions. It's important to base your opinions on fact not
>supposition.
In that case I won't suppose that you haven't read any of the thread
and I won't form an opinion about historians who don't do research
about arguments they are butting into.
i.e. chill out.
>Aileen Power ov...@istar.ca
D. Spencer Hines
D DeFrank wrote:
<snip>
> The presence of livestock, sides of beef, or cooking facilities on
> board those ships are not mentioned at all by chroniclers.
This negative "proof" you offer up is not worth a tinker's dam. Cooking
facilities are rather mundane matters and would not necessarily be noted
by chroniclers. You have stated that the White Ship was "large" ---- it
reputedly was carrying 300 passengers. In the event of adverse sea or
wind conditions, this voyage and *future planned LONGER ones* would
encompass more than 24 hours --- at the minimum. It would be most
foolish, and therefore unseamanlike, not to have made some provision for
cooking onboard.
Ships' Galleys [Kitchens] were, in 1120, and still are, in 1997 ---
noisy, hot, often chaotic and smelly, certainly unpleasant and quite
frequently dangerous --- Chroniclers [scribblers of the day] would not
know much about their inner workings. How many folks today have even
the least glimmer of what goes on in the kitchens of even their favorite
restaurants?
>
> >Here again, you make the same mistake as to why a butcher might well be
> >aboard --- *to serve the nobles.* You weren't really a career sea-going
> >--- Officer of the Deck type, line naval officer, on a combatant ship,
> >were you? Why do you pretend to be one?
>
> I have never "pretended" to be one. I was, in fact commissioned as an
> unrestricted line officer, and retired as an engineering duty officer.
YOU raised the issue of your credibility by saying you were a "retired
naval officer" and employed it as an authority rattle. It turns out you
were an EDO --- you don't tell us about any specific sea-going
experience, ergo, your authority rattle has exploded in your face. Had
I not challenged you, you might well have gotten away with what was
certainly a very misleading statement ---- designed to impress your
audience.
I doubt that you would have passed muster as a commissioned officer in
the Nuclear Power program when Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was calling the
shots. Perhaps you worked only with high-pressure steam [certainly
dangerous enough] systems rather than with Nuclear Reactors. Given your
deficit of sound reasoning skills --- I doubt you would have made the
cut --- and survived the famous "Rickover Treatment". If you did ----
that is a frightening proposition.
<snip>
> However, the general sea conditions--provided on YOUR request, I may
> add ... <snip>
I did not ask for "the general sea conditions" ---- the only relevant
sea conditions are those prevailing in waters in close proximity to
Blanche Nef and along her projected track, on 25 Nov 1120 --- or another
probable date for the voyage.
<snip>
> Why does it get up your nose when the _only_ statement of cause I've
> made is that I do not believe the captain of the Blanche Nef would
> have permitted himself and his men to get drunk? I say that based on
> my disbelief in the credibility of the witness, and on my belief that
> a man who had so much on the line, who had built his ship out of his
> own resources, who wanted to have as his fief the honor of providing
> the king's ship, and who had been entrusted with the king's heir and
> treasure would have not taken that opportunity and responsibility
> lightly.
Your **NORMATIVE* belief of what the man who built the ship, *SHOULD*
have considered and how careful he *SHOULD* have been given the
circumstances, as you construe them, is not relevant here and carrys
absolutely *NO WEIGHT*. You totally ignore the very real possibility
that he was simply overruled by William, or one of his nobles ---- and
told to stick to his knitting.
This has frequently been the case in infamous maritime disasters.
Surely you recall the famous case of J. Bruce Ismay, on "Titanic" -----
and his stuffing "Baltic's" ice-warning into his pocket. Captain Smith
had a tough row to hoe with the Chairman and Managing Director of the
White Star Line in "Titanic" --- for her maiden voyage. Ismay is
alleged to have pressed Captain Smith for a rapid crossing, even in the
face of significant danger to the ship ---- which proved fatal to
Titanic and Smith, but not to Ismay, who exited stage left in one of the
too few lifeboats that he himself had provided. His reputation was
destroyed, however.
<snip>
> <snip> I can only conclude my overall acquaintance has been with a higher calibre of individuals.
Again, this is a totally irrelevant non-sequitur. What you know about
engineering personnel in the United States Navy in the late 20th Century
---- has absolutly no bearing on the sobriety and seamanship of 12th
Century sailing masters and crews ---- on Blanche Nef and other
vessels. Surely you understand that basic truth. If you don't, it is
even more frightening to contemplate you at the control panels of a
Nuclear Reactor or even a High Pressure Steam Plant.
<snip>
>
>
> I can't claim credit for being the first person to doubt the account
> of the sole survivor. Ken Follett beat me to, in "Pillars of the
> Earth". Sharon Kay Penman apparently had such difficulty with _why_
> the butcher was on board that she felt she had to concoct a tale to
> explain his presence. (A young butcher lad has been robbed while
> trying to retrieve his brother from England before their father dies,
> and Stephen takes pity on him and installs him on the ship.)
????? Ken Follett is an accomplished writer of mystery novels and
historical fiction. He does good work and is quite entertaining. How
did you manage to elevate him into the sphere of respected Medieval
Historian???
> >Show us the Evidence.
>
> If you have evidence which controverts my position, I invite you to do
> the same.
The burden of proof is clearly on you to prove the "DeFrank Hypothesis"
I have no obligation to swat down every half-baked, wild-eyed theory
that comes down the pike.
Again I say, stop posturing as a "retired naval officer" and shaking
that sword at us. Then you should stop these idle opinings about the
way you think folks *SHOULD* have behaved --- and perhaps *WOULD* have
behaved had they been in YOUR Navy. Third, you should sit down and
compose a thoughtful post [if you are capable of that] delineating
relevant sources and evidence for your theories ----- and the best place
to do that would be in the Medieval History Newsgroup.
> Your offensive manner, sarcasm, and ad-hominem attacks have perverted
> what might have been a lively exchange of ideas and opinion into
> something quite distasteful, which quite simply isn't worth the
> effort. We will simply have to agree to disagree, because you're
> going back in my killfile.
>
> Deborah DeFrank
Well, given your obvious inability to carry the gravamen of your own
argument ---- that is probably the better part of valor --- cut and run
for cover ---- to a safe and protected berth. Isn't the Internet
wonderful? Fraud, deceit and sloppy thinking will sooner or later be
discovered ----- and exposed.
Or, as a former ship captain and experienced U.S. naval officer -----
and good friend of mine ---- once put it, "Skill and Daring Win Out Over
Blind Luck and Superstition Every Time."
--
D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790] ["The Good Burke"]
D. Spencer Hines
David Pugh wrote:
> > > I said something in this thread about the "conspiracy" versus the
> > > "cock-up" theory of history, so that "our British friend" is probably
> > > me. However, I have no connection with the Royal Navy, am afraid of
> > > water and consequently avoid getting into any boat smaller than a car
> > > ferry.
> >
> > It is surpassing strange that you would tout and parade such an
> > emasculating infirmity.
> >
> Real Men Aren't Landlubbers, eh? OK, so I'm not a Real Man. I really
> couldn't care less.
No, "Real Men" [your term, not mine] are not afraid of the water --- or,
if they are --- they don't parade, flaunt, tout and advertise it.
>
> > Any implication of support to either party's sea-doggery is
> > > therefore unwarranted: though I don't much care for Mr. Hines' tone.
> > > Whether I am "astute" is not for me to say. We all do our best.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > You are certainly not astute, we've determined that.
>
> Funny that, I was your "astute British friend" before.
> There was a thread on the Royal We the other day, your insights would
> have been invaluable.
It's amusing that you have so badly misread what I said. I never said
you were "my" astute British friend --- I don't even know you. "Our" in
the sense only that you are a fellow subscriber to this list --- so we
have that in common. Dragging in the "Royal We" is a total
non-sequitur.
This is what I said:
"as one of our astute British friends [perhaps with some [[N.B. the word
*perhaps*.]]
real sea-going Royal Naval experience] has christened it --- the
"cock-up" of the White Ship." [DSH] [The individual was not named.]
You were *astute* to point out that the "cock-up" theory of history, as
you put it, explains many disasters --- and probably is more useful as
an explanatory variable than the "conspiracy" theory --- always with
reference to the discrete facts of the case, of course.
Subsequent events have proven you to be less than astute, with reference
to other matters.
>
> The central point
> > of my previous post, which you have sidestepped [perhaps by design]
>
> No, the purpose of my post was to deny that I was a Royal Naval officer
> or anything resembling that, because silence might have been taken to
> imply consent to the proposition, and thereby false pretences.
Balderdash, "The [gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks." You
missed the qualifier "perhaps" above, didn't you. I had no way of
knowing whether you had any experience at sea, whether in the Merchant
Marine, the Royal Navy, as a yachtsman or even casual day sailor ----
but we certainly smoked it out of you, didn't we, in spades ---- and you
tell us you are afraid of the water.
>
> Actually, my mention of the "cock-up theory of history" was sympathetic,
> not the reverse. (As you say, one must take each case on the evidence,
> but a temperamental bias is difficult to avoid, and that's mine.) Do try
> to keep all your enemies straight.....
Yes, I took it as sympathetic and concurred with you. You do read
standard English, I trust? Educated people *DO* resist and *AVOID*
temperamental biases, even though it is frequently "difficult" ----
that's why one must look at the hard evidence in a framework of logic
---- and not rely on "temperamental bias" ---i.e., emotion or having a
"strong belief that..." or "feeling deep in one's heart that....."
Are you saying that you are, "one of my enemies?" How quaint! I've
never met you and hardly consider you an "enemy" ---- but some folks
take offense quite easily and have very thin skins. Are you perhaps one
of those chaps? England was not built on such tender souls and
mush-mouths so I truly hope you do not fall into that slough of Despond.
--
D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790] ["The Good Burke"]
rleutner
It is absurd to get into any kind of heated argument over why
a ship sank in 1120 unless there are genuine issues of
historiography involved, which quite evidently there are not.
Would you folks please take this to
alt.shipwrecks.drunkendebates or someplace? Thank you.
Bob Leutner
Iowa City IA
D. Spencer Hines
> > fact that William of Aetheling and his company of randy, hungry and
> > inebriated nobles --- of both genders --- might well have seen fit to
> > employ the services of a good butcher for their voyage across La Manche
> > ---- not from Calais to Dover --- mind you?
>
> short as it turned out) voyage across the Channel? A cook possibly for
> their hunger, a steward for their inebriation, some ladies of dubious
> virtue for their randiness, perhaps. But a butcher? Wouldn't taking
> aboard a few joints of meat have made more sense?
>
> Anyway, until the 19th century, butchers were engaged in the
> slaughtering of animals not in preparing and purveying meat retail. It
> was a seasonal occupation.
>
> John Steele Gordon
Actually the voyage would not have been so short, as you would
understand had you taken a glance at a good map. This was a not a Calais
to Dover voyage. Depending on wind and sea conditions, the voyage could
have taken many hours ---- certainly enough time for a royal feast.
Butchers were essential personnel in 1120. In an age where meat spoiled
quickly, it was often wise to slaughter an animal on the hoof and eat it
immediately.
--
D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790] ["The Good Burke"]
Jim Brownfield
In <33D69C...@worldnet.att.net> "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> D DeFrank wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The presence of livestock, sides of beef, or cooking facilities on board
> > those ships are not mentioned at all by chroniclers.
>
> This negative "proof" you offer up is not worth a tinker's dam. Cooking
> facilities are rather mundane matters and would not necessarily be noted by
> chroniclers. You have stated that the White Ship was "large" ---- it
> reputedly was carrying 300 passengers. In the event of adverse sea or wind
> conditions, this voyage and *future planned LONGER ones* would encompass
> more than 24 hours --- at the minimum. It would be most foolish, and
> therefore unseamanlike, not to have made some provision for cooking
> onboard.
I'm not a seaman, Naval Officer, or even a historian, but I find it
interesting that not having cooking provisions would be "unseamanlike."
However, operating a seagoing vessel while soused apparently would be
seamanlike.
Annapolis must be one really cool place! ;-)
--
Jim Brownfield (Jim_Bro...@Radical.Com) NeXTmail/MIME accepted
Radical System Solutions, Inc. (http://www.radical.com/)
System/Network/Database Design, Development, Consulting
rad i cal \'rad-i-kel\ n -- a basic principle: FOUNDATION
David Pugh
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> David Pugh wrote:
>
> > I said something in this thread about the "conspiracy" versus the
> > "cock-up" theory of history, so that "our British friend" is probably
> > me. However, I have no connection with the Royal Navy, am afraid of
> > water and consequently avoid getting into any boat smaller than a car
> > ferry.
>
> It is surpassing strange that you would tout and parade such an
> emasculating infirmity.
>
Real Men Aren't Landlubbers, eh? OK, so I'm not a Real Man. I really
couldn't care less.
> Any implication of support to either party's sea-doggery is
> > therefore unwarranted: though I don't much care for Mr. Hines' tone.
> > Whether I am "astute" is not for me to say. We all do our best.
> >
> > David
>
> You are certainly not astute, we've determined that.
Funny that, I was your "astute British friend" before.
There was a thread on the Royal We the other day, your insights would
have been invaluable.
The central point
> of my previous post, which you have sidestepped [perhaps by design]
No, the purpose of my post was to deny that I was a Royal Naval officer
or anything resembling that, because silence might have been taken to
imply consent to the proposition, and thereby false pretences.
Actually, my mention of the "cock-up theory of history" was sympathetic,
not the reverse. (As you say, one must take each case on the evidence,
but a temperamental bias is difficult to avoid, and that's mine.) Do try
to keep all your enemies straight.....
David Pugh
kabo...@worldnet.att.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> ????? Ken Follett is an accomplished writer of mystery novels and
> historical fiction. He does good work and is quite entertaining. How
> did you manage to elevate him into the sphere of respected Medieval
> Historian???
>
How can you be "an accomplished writer of . . . historical fiction" and
not be very knowledgeable regarding the historical period about which
you write? Are you arguing that some inarticulate academic with a PhD in
early 19th century British history is to be preferred, ipso facto, to
Patrick O'Brian or C. S. Forrester when it comes to knowledge of
everyday life in the Nelsonian Royal Navy?
As someone who writes history for a living (and has only a B.A.), I've
long since learned not to confuse credentials with knowledge.
John Steele Gordon
D DeFrank
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>What would they have needed a butcher for on a short (unfortunately too
>short as it turned out) voyage across the Channel? A cook possibly for
>their hunger, a steward for their inebriation, some ladies of dubious
>virtue for their randiness, perhaps. But a butcher? Wouldn't taking
>aboard a few joints of meat have made more sense?
>Anyway, until the 19th century, butchers were engaged in the
>slaughtering of animals not in preparing and purveying meat retail. It
>was a seasonal occupation.
Thanks for the info about butchers; I'd had the impression that the
knacker slaughtered, and the butchers took over from there.
I'm extremely doubtful that there were any cooking facilities on the
White Ship. Early 12th century Norman ships, like their viking
forebears did not have fixed decks, and were entirely open to the
weather. Some ships meant to carry cargo (and the lading of Henry's
wine suggests the White Ship did have substantial cargo capacity) used
hatching over the cross-supports to provide a floor over the cargo
area, but the flooring produced was not weather tight, nor was the
cargo area more than a few feet in depth. Though marine
archeologists have identified small hearths of laid brick on a few
norse/viking traders ships, these have been a minority of finds.
Fire would be a significant danger, and I doubt any cooking was done
underway, even on the ships equipped with hearths ; it being more the
norse manner of operations to duck into a sheltering inlet. Norse
traders often undertook voyages of many days, or even weeks, across
great distances. Traffic between Normandy and England tended to be a
cross-channel dash, completed as quickly as possibly.
Sea crossings were feared by many, as evidenced by a law that
prohibited/invalidated all bargains of fare and passage struck _while
at sea_ (a seasick and storm-tossed individual being considered likely
to promise anything to be delivered to the nearest port.)
As another matter, I'd like to apologize for being the cause of
subjecting you, and soc.genealogy.medieval and soc.history.medieval to
Mr. Hines' rants and personal attacks. I have placed him back in my
killfile, for reasons that must be obvious to all.
D. Spencer Hines
> > historical fiction. He does good work and is quite entertaining. How
> > did you manage to elevate him into the sphere of respected Medieval
> > Historian???
> >
>
> not be very knowledgeable regarding the historical period about which
> you write? Are you arguing that some inarticulate academic with a PhD in
> early 19th century British history is to be preferred, ipso facto, to
> Patrick O'Brian or C. S. Forrester when it comes to knowledge of
> everyday life in the Nelsonian Royal Navy?
>
> As someone who writes history for a living (and has only a B.A.), I've
> long since learned not to confuse credentials with knowledge.
>
> John Steele Gordon
This is childish, puerile and jejune. One simply does not quote a work
of fiction as a source for a historical or genealogical fact --- it has
nothing to do with A.B.'s and Ph.D.'s.
Michael Crichton writes entertaining books, "Jurassic Park" --- "The
Lost World" --- about dinosaurs ---- but I would never quote him as a
paleontologist. Crichton himself has said that when he gets caught
between a rock and a hard place, with respect to the demands of his plot
and hard science ---- he just makes something up.
Spinning a yarn about why the butcher boy was on the White Ship would
fall into the same category.
Let's talk to each other like adults and cast off these childish and
thoroughly unscholarly diversions ---- we need to act like educated
adults, employing adult standards of logic, evidence, scholarship and
integrity in order to create lasting and consumable Genealogy.
D. Spencer Hines
Deborah DeFrank wrote:
<kilosnip>
> As another matter, I'd like to apologize for being the cause of
> subjecting you, and soc.genealogy.medieval and soc.history.medieval to
> Mr. Hines' rants and personal attacks. I have placed him back in my
> killfile, for reasons that must be obvious to all.
>
> Deborah DeFrank
I note you have failed to respond to many quite specific substantive
matters and relevant questions raised by me.
Also, you have not coherently written up your "DeFrank Hypothesis for
the Sinking of the White Ship [Blanche Nef" but continue to opinine,
prattle and sniff around the edges of the matter. Your strong
preconceptions are fogging your historical vision, as you proceed to
examine other factual clusters.
It has been demonstrated that your naval expertise in these matters is
non-existent and/or irrelevant. We have access to the same documents as
you do --- and can read them. I hope you do not continue to quote works
of fiction in building a historical argument. I will not.
Yes, running for cover to a safe protected berth is probably your best
option at this moment. You obviously cannot develop and defend a
coherent thesis at this juncture. Ostriches do stick their heads in the
sand for comfort and relief ----- as well as "security."
You would vociferously deny it now, I trust ---- but I think [if you are
honest] you will thank me for this someday. You needed to have a shot
fired across your bow because you were web-spinning, meandering and
treading water with your speculative opinings. Perhaps I have spurred
you to actually sit down and do the hard work required to develop your
thesis.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790] ["The Good Burke"]
D. Spencer Hines
Deborah DeFrank wrote:
<kilosnip>
> As another matter, I'd like to apologize for being the cause of
> subjecting you, and soc.genealogy.medieval and soc.history.medieval to
> Mr. Hines' rants and personal attacks. I have placed him back in my
> killfile, for reasons that must be obvious to all.
>
> Deborah DeFrank
I note you have failed to respond to many quite specific substantive
matters and relevant questions raised by me.
Also, you have not coherently written up your "DeFrank Hypothesis for
prattle and sniff around the edges of the matter. Your strong
preconceptions are fogging your historical vision, as you proceed to
examine other factual clusters.
It has been demonstrated that your naval expertise in these matters is
non-existent and/or irrelevant. We have access to the same documents as
you do --- and can read them. I hope you do not continue to quote works
of fiction in building a historical argument. I will not.
Yes, running for cover to a safe protected berth is probably your best
option at this moment. You obviously cannot develop and defend a
coherent thesis at this juncture. Ostriches do stick their heads in the
sand for comfort and relief ----- as well as "security."
You would vociferously deny it now, I trust ---- but I think [if you are
honest] you will thank me for this someday. You needed to have a shot
fired across your bow because you were web-spinning, meandering and
treading water with your speculative opinings. Perhaps I have spurred
you to actually sit down and do the hard work required to develop your
--
D. Spencer Hines---"People will not look forward to Posterity who never
look backward to their Ancestors." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Reflections
on the Revolution in France [1790] ["The Good Burke"]
D. Spencer Hines
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote: ["Kaboodle" is John Steele Gordon]
> As always with Mr. Hines "compliments fly when gentle folk meet." Why
> can't you keep a civil tongue in your head like the rest of us? Or are
> yoy, [sic] like lawyers, more interested in winning the argument than in
> finding the truth? [*red herring* --- DSH]
>
> One simply does not quote a work of fiction as a source for a historical
>
> And where did I say that you should? What I said was that historical
> novelists--at least those of the highest order--are immensely
> knowledgeable regarding the periods they write about and one can learn a
> great deal with very little effort and much enjoyment by reading them.
> You will become much more conversant with the realities of the Royal
> Navy in Napoleonic times by reading Patrick O'Brian's Aubery-Maturin
> novels than you will be reading a dozen tomes by scholars. They may be
> immensely erudite but they are not likely to have much of a gift for
> bringing a world to life the way a novelist can. (There are exceptions,
> of course: Garrett Mattingly's The Armada, for instance, Paul Murray
> Kendall's biographies of Louis XI and Richard III, although the latter
> has been superceded by later work, or Winston Churchill's Marlborough.)
> But quote a novel as a source for hard historical fact? Of course not.
Well, we certainly know your biases, now. You are using a broadsword
where a rapier would be much more appropriate. There are many excellent
academic historians, as well. Their names are legion. Examine any
Yale, Harvard, U.C. Berkeley, Columbia, Duke, University of Chicago,
Stanford and many other university catalogs and you will garner a
basketful of luminaries ----- N.B. If a university is not mentioned here
that does NOT mean it does not have Great Historians who are ALSO Great
Writers. [Idiot Trap]
We are talking about a discrete historical event here, the sinking of
the White Ship in 1120, which, of course, had massive genealogical
repercussions in British and European History. Several players in this
debate have quoted fictional sources in elucidating and delineating
their arguments --- yourself included ---- and that is wrong.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Michael Crichton writes entertaining books, "Jurassic Park" --- "The
> > Lost World" --- about dinosaurs ---- but I would never quote him as a
> > paleontologist. Crichton himself has said that when he gets caught
> > between a rock and a hard place, with respect to the demands of his plot
> > and hard science ---- he just makes something up.
>
> Dinosaurs are a bit prehistory. Science fiction is a different genre
> from historical fiction. [slippery attempt to fall off the point---DSH]
The point holds. Fictional writers can always "just make it up" when
demands of plot development and fact conflict. Ask any writer of
historical-drama-fiction privately and she/he will admit it, if honest.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Let's talk to each other like adults and cast off these childish and
> > thoroughly unscholarly diversions ---- we need to act like educated
> > adults, employing adult standards of logic, evidence, scholarship and
> > integrity in order to create lasting and consumable Genealogy.
<snip>
Do not get so hot and bothered. Controversy is the life blood of good,
solid intellectual debate ---- and if you can't take the heat ---- or
your blood pressure is rising into the danger zone --- perhaps you
should get out of the Galley.
I never heard from you --- with reference to the information I provided
to you, at your request, showing Theodore Roosevelt's descent from John
of Gaunt and Katherine Roet.
D DeFrank
kabo...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> historical
>novelists--at least those of the highest order--are immensely
>knowledgeable regarding the periods they write about and one can learn a
>great deal with very little effort and much enjoyment by reading them.
As a reader, I've found that as a whole, well-done historical fiction
gives much more of a sense of "dwelling in the time" than history
does. It's purely a personal preference. The glimpses of human
drama in history texts, while occasionally clear and brilliant, tend
to be brief.
As a novelist, I was reassured that a respected novelist (Ken
Follett) saw the same potential for error that I did in the tradition
of the drunken captain and crew causing the sinking having been based
on the word of a possibly suspect sole survivor. I was also heartened
that another respected novelist (Sharon Kay Penman) saw the need to
explain the butcher's presence on the ship. They served as part of the
"reasonable human" test.
I am not interested in rewriting history, only in producing an
entertaining and plausible work that describes a world and events that
are appropriate for the time. And even in that aim I am less
ambitious than Ken Follet, who elected to choose specific villains,
and postulated (I believe; it's been a while) the bishop of Salisbury
as the instigator of his fictional conspiracy. _IF_ there was indeed
a conspiracy of sabotage, there were entirely too many who would have
benefited or had cause for me to choose one. I don't intend to
formulate a specific conspiracy.
And lest the credential police come after me, yes, I am an as yet
_unpublished_ novelist.
As the subject of the cause of the sinking is indeed not related to
genealogy and there have been some complaints on that regard , I
recommend that further posts on the cause of the sinking be limited to
soc.history.medieval.
I am still quite interested if any of the members of the genealogy
newsgroup have, in their research, identified additional personages
who perished on that ship beyond the list of Orderic Vitalis I
initially posted, or who seem to fit the criteria of died at sea, on
or about 25 November 1120, off Pte. Barfleur.
Regards,
D. Spencer Hines
At 04:30 AM 7/25/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>>This negative "proof" you offer up is not worth a tinker's dam.
>>
>>Here we go again. Wasn't the peace enjoyable while it lasted?
>>David in Ballarat
>
>
>I can see the civit [sic] (It should be *civet*) cat has not changed it's
spots.
>
>The peace still rules on my machine - bless Eudora and 'kill files'.
>
>
>Kathie
>
D. Spencer Hines---"Joseph Stalin, receiving a British delegation headed by
Nancy [Astor] and George Bernard Shaw, had bluntly asked her about
Winston's political prospects. Her eyes had widened. 'Churchill?' she had
said. She gave a scornful little laugh and replied, 'Oh, he's finished.'
Afterward, in Red Square, Shaw told the waiting press that he found the
Soviet Union admirable, and would, indeed, advise young men from all over
the world to pack up and settle in it. Nancy smiled and nodded, which,
Virginia Cowles points out, was 'reprehensible, because up until then she
had been a tremendous anti-Bolshevik, denouncing the slaughter of the
Russians in speech after speech.' " [1931] "The Last Lion, Winston
Churchill, Alone 1932-1940," William Manchester. Little, Brown and Company
(1988), pp. 85-86.
John Kent
Hey, Dave, you sure do like living dangerously. If you're talking about who
I think you're talking about he has the biggest flame thrower...and does he
ever know how to use it. It's too bad he didn't die at sea in 1120. Jno
DavidBotts
John:
To date, we have received help on our project from many, many different
folks. Rarely have we had a problem, aside from spammers. Perhaps with
our million relations database, we hold enough hostages to secure peace in
our kingdom<g>
We of the families BOTTS lost relations on the channel crossing. Who was
the cause of the wreck is of less importance to us that determining the
extent of the family losses.
Thanks,
Dave
D DeFrank
DavidBotts <david...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>We of the families BOTTS lost relations on the channel crossing.
Would you share with me the name(s) of those relations lost on the
crossing? My original post set out Orderic Vitalis' partial list in
hopes of adding to it those whose fate might have been identified from
other sources, such as family/genealogical records.
If your source is other than Orderic Vitalis' chronicle, I'd be
curious in knowing that too, as well as your degree of certainty that
the loss occurred on that particular crossing. Even _tentative_
names/sources are appreciated.
Martin Hungerford
D DeFrank <notdp...@conc.tdsnet.com.not> wrote:
> Aileen Power <ov...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> >.Dishonesty and credibility do not respect the boundaries of social
> >and financial status and that has been well documented down through the
> >ages.
>
> You make a good point, and I agree that no class of person is beyond
> bribery. It is simply more expensive to bribe a wealthy person than a
> poor one, and more difficult to intimidate a powerful person than a
> powerless one. The question of credibility of witnesses in courtrooms
> today frequently hinges on similar judgements, i.e. how vulnerable the
> witness would be to bribery or coercion in framing their testimony.
>
snip
>
> Deborah DeFrank
No real argument here, just the observation that land rich nobles were
often strapped for cash.
Martin Hungerford
--
jong...@netcon.net.au
"Reagan Wins on Budget, But More Lies Ahead"