Re: Another C.P. Addition: Margaret Neville, wife of Sir William Lucy, of Richard's Castle, Herefordshire
t...@clearwire.net
> I believe Margaret (Neville) Lucy was Earl Edmund's first cousin, she
> being the same person as Margaret Neville, the daughter of Lady
> Elizabeth Neville, who is mentioned in the 1423 record of the Privy
> Council above mentioned. This Margaret Neville's mother, Elizabeth
> (Holand) Neville, was the aunt of Earl Edmund Mortimer.
>
> Interestingly, I find that the matter of the identify of Margaret
> Neville, wife of William Lucy, Knt., was discussed in print back in
> 1878 by "Ermentrude" in Notes & Queries 5th series, 9 (1878): 266.
> Ermentrude states there that she found herself "confirmed by Harl. MS.
> 807 in the conclusion" that Margaret Neville, wife of William Lucy,
> was the daughter of Sir John Neville, by his wife, Elizabeth Holand.
> Unfortunately, Ermentrude failed to quote Harleian MS. 807. As such,
> I'm uncertain exactly what she saw in that source. However, I assume
> she found a record which stated that Sir John Neville and his wife,
> Elizabeth Holand, had a daughter, Margaret Neville, who married
> William Lucy.
Perhaps it is a bit premature to draw so definitive a conclusion based
on a self-serving assumption of what an unseen source might say.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 9:23 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> < Perhaps it is a bit premature to draw so definitive a conclusion
> based
> < on a self-serving assumption of what an unseen source might say.
> <
> < taf
>
> the conclusion" that Margaret Neville, wife of William Lucy, was the
> rather definite statement.
A definitive statement that she saw something that she thought
confirmed the relationship. That and $4 will get you a latte. You have
no idea what this document was, nor who Ermengarde was, nor what her
basis for 'confirmation' might have been. Curiously, just the other
day, you suggested that a known county historian citing contemporary
court records could not be trusted to because various secondary
sources failed to take interest in his conclusion. Now you are saying
that this pseudonymous contributor to the 19th century equivalent of
an internet newsgroup is to be trusted, simply because she says so.
The old double standard rears its head again.
> Moreover, as you know, I've found
> additional evidence which proved that Sir John Neville had a daughter,
> Margaret, which evidence Ermentrude never saw. Thus, I concur with
> Ermentrude's conclusion.
Of course, that would make this family unique, having a daughter named
Margaret.
> In any event, Earl Edmund Mortimer would hardly have settled so much
> property on his kinswoman, Margaret Neville, and her husband, Sir
> William Lucy, unless she was closely related to him.
And begging the question.
taf
Leticia Cluff
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>In any event, taf hasn't asked the pertinent question yet. What is
>Harleian MS. 807? Anyone have a clue?
Here's a clue for you:
http://www.brockett.info/Hertfordshire/Glover.htm
You must surely know that this is one of the collection of
manuscripts built up by Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford, and
his son Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of Oxford. It's now in the
British Library, but not in the online catalog yet,
unfortunately.
Tish
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 11:12 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> < A definitive statement that she saw something that she thought
> < confirmed the relationship. That and $4 will get you a latte. You
> have
> < no idea what this document was, nor who Ermengarde was, nor what her
> < basis for 'confirmation' might have been. Curiously, just the other
> < day, you suggested that a known county historian citing contemporary
> < court records could not be trusted to because various secondary
> < sources failed to take interest in his conclusion. Now you are
> saying
> < that this pseudonymous contributor to the 19th century equivalent of
> < an internet newsgroup is to be trusted, simply because she says so.
> < The old double standard rears its head again.
> <
>
> "Ermengarde" made many contibutions to the Notes & Queries journal.
> I've read a variety of her posts. For her time, she was quite good.
> If she said Harleian MS. 807 confirmed that Margaret Neville, the wife
> of Sir William Lucy, was the daughter of Sir John Neville and his
> wife, Elizabeth Holand, I think you can accept the fact that it
> does.
You think wrong. For all we know it is a 17th century pedigree, which
would be way to late to have probative value. You are only willing to
give it the benefit of the doubt because you want it to be true.
> And, as I've stated already, I have independently established
> that Sir John Neville and his wife, Elizabeth, had a daughter,
> Margaret, who was living in 1423.
As did other couples at the time.
> Ermengarde was evidently not aware
> of this evidence. Next thing taf will say is that I haven't found
> Margaret Neville's birth certificate. Right.
Don't be a prat. You are trying to use hearsay to claim something is
proven, when you haven't even bothered to figure out what the evidence
is.
> In any event, taf hasn't asked the pertinent question yet. What is
> Harleian MS. 807? Anyone have a clue?
Actually, he did. "You have no idea what this document was" is
indicating this precise flaw in your knowledge. You haven't a clue,
yet you are willing to boldly draw conclusions based on someone else
saying they have seen it, but neither describing it nor saying what it
contained, only the conclusion she happened to draw from it.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 1:52 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> < Actually, he did. "You have no idea what this document was" is
> < indicating this precise flaw in your knowledge. You haven't a clue,
> < yet you are willing to boldly draw conclusions based on someone else
> < saying they have seen it, but neither describing it nor saying what
> it
> < contained, only the conclusion she happened to draw from it.
> <<
> < taf
>
I would call this a half-truth, except it is actually hovering
somewhere below 5%. Who was she? What are her qualifications? Is
she a "trained historian and genealogist"? You have seen her name on
some letters written to a non-peer-reviewed 19th century publication.
That is all. To claim that this represents a high degree of
'familiarity' is not just deceptive, it is delusionally absurd.
> Robert Glover, and the
> Harleian MS. collection.
Smoke and mirrors now? You know perfectly well I never said you didn't
know what the Harleian MS collection is. I know what the Library of
Congress is, but that doesn't mean I know what is in any specific
book. The fact of the matter (and one need do nothing more than look
at your previous post for this to be patently obvious) is that you had
not the slightest idea what _this specific_ item in that collection is
until another poster told you, yet you did not let that stand in the
way of drawing a conclusion that this unknown manuscript 807 with
unknown information proved your point because someone of unknown name
and unknown qualifications said it did. As to Glover, now that someone
has told you he was the author of the unknown manuscript 807, you
offer this up as further evidence that you are 'in the know'? Please.
> If taf is unfamiliar with them, I would understand that.
If Mr. Richardson chooses to make such silly attempts at sleight of
hand, it strongly suggests that he doesn't have the goods. You may
recall that a few weeks ago he decried a poster supporting his
argument with non-medieval material, yet now Mr. Richardson is
supporting his with the writings of a 19th century pseudonymous
cypher, and by hinting that I am the one at fault for his failure to
support his argument.
> At any event, it would be best if taf didn't assume all of us are as
> misinformed as he is.
Given that you YOURSELF posted a request for the information, it is
hardly an assumption to take your own request at face value, or are
you telling us that you cannot be trusted? Which is it, that you were
ill informed, or that you were lying?
> Psychologists call that "transference."
Since you are again offering me patronizing advice, I will offer you
some advice too. Given your behavior in this group, your lashing out
at anyone who questions your conclusions, your passing snide insults,
your two-faced backstabbing, your double standards, and your seeming
God complex, I would suggest that the less you draw attention to the
study of abnormal psychology the better.
> I say
> it's just another one of taf's many red herrings.
In what universe is "you have insufficient evidence for your
conclusion" a red herring? Oh, I forgot. Just as in your universe
"truth" is equal to "whatever Douglas Richardson, trained historian,
genealogist, and infallible genius says it is", apparently "red
herring" is equal to "any criticism of the conclusions of Mr.
Richardson, no matter how valid the critique". I guess that would
make sense, in a sick sort of way.
> taf seems to think being a historian or genealogist is sitting in your
> easy chair criticizing other people's work. Right.
Mr. Richardson seems to think that being a historian or genealogist is
making wild guesses, then browbeating and insulting anyone who
disagrees with him.
taf
P.S. Note to the group jester - I didn't ask for this. I was
addressing the historical argument. It was Mr. Richardson who decided
to attack the messenger. Are you now going to chastise him? or are you
just a pathetic partisan who has yet to make a contribution to this
group under any of your pseudonyms.
Hal Bradley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Douglas
> Richardson
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:40 PM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Another C.P. Addition: Margaret Neville, wife of Sir
> William Lucy, of Richard's Castle, Herefordshire
>
>
> On May 16, 1:52 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> < Actually, he did. "You have no idea what this document was" is
> < indicating this precise flaw in your knowledge. You haven't a clue,
> < yet you are willing to boldly draw conclusions based on someone else
> < saying they have seen it, but neither describing it nor saying what
> it
> < contained, only the conclusion she happened to draw from it.
> <<
> < taf
>
> Actually I'm quite familiar with Ermengarde, Robert Glover, and the
> Harleian MS. collection. If taf is unfamiliar with them, I would
> understand that.
Doug,
This response gets us nowhere. It is really tiring to see you continually
respond to criticism this way. Your being familiar with Harleian Mss. begs
the question. You stated that you have not seen Harleian MS. 807. Nor have
you provided any indication of what it specifically contains that would lead
someone to conclude that the wife of William Lucy was the daughter of Sir
John Neville. Mr. Farmerie's familiarity or unfamiliarity with this or any
other manuscript is irrelevant. He is merely pointing out that you have
reached a conclusion without providing the evidence upon which your
conclusion was based.
If you are really concerned about collegiality, then please respond to
content of the criticism. Thank you.
Hal Bradley
>
> At any event, it would be best if taf didn't assume all of us are as
> misinformed as he is. Psychologists call that "transference." I say
> it's just another one of taf's many red herrings.
>
> taf seems to think being a historian or genealogist is sitting in your
> easy chair criticizing other people's work. Right.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
letiTi...@gmail.com
> P.S. Note to the group jester - I didn't ask for this. I was
> addressing the historical argument. It was Mr. Richardson who decided
> to attack the messenger. Are you now going to chastise him? or are you
> just a pathetic partisan who has yet to make a contribution to this
> group under any of your pseudonyms.
What a clown you are,
full of yourself, twit,
as pathetic as you are,
wasting bandwidth
yes, Humpty TAFty you are the shark infesting these waters
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
letiTi...@gmail.com
>
> > P.S. Note to the group jester - I didn't ask for this. I was
> > addressing the historical argument. It was Mr. Richardson who decided
> > to attack the messenger. Are you now going to chastise him? or are you
> > just a pathetic partisan who has yet to make a contribution to this
> > group under any of your pseudonyms.
>
> What a clown you are,
> full of yourself, twit,
> as pathetic as you are,
> wasting bandwidth
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twit
Twit:: A British slang word for an insignificant, foolish or annoying
person.
yes, Daffy TAFty you are the Snarky Twit infesting these waters
Twit, Twit, Twit
t...@clearwire.net
wrote:
> On May 16, 6:00 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> > P.S. Note to the group jester - I didn't ask for this. I was
> > addressing the historical argument. It was Mr. Richardson who decided
> > to attack the messenger. Are you now going to chastise him? or are you
> > just a pathetic partisan who has yet to make a contribution to this
> > group under any of your pseudonyms.
>
> What a clown you are,
> full of yourself, twit,
> as pathetic as you are,
> wasting bandwidth
Yes, that's what I thought. We see now that your plaintive cries for
proper debate were nothing but pathetic partisanship, used as a
backhanded way to support your hero when you lacked the ability to
argue the facts.
letiTi...@gmail.com
>
> > > P.S. Note to the group jester - I didn't ask for this. I was
> > > addressing the historical argument. It was Mr. Richardson who decided
> > > to attack the messenger. Are you now going to chastise him? or are you
> > > just a pathetic partisan who has yet to make a contribution to this
> > > group under any of your pseudonyms.
>
> > What a clown you are,
> > full of yourself, twit,
> > as pathetic as you are,
> > wasting bandwidth
>
TWIT, twit, twit
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/twit
English
Etymology
Originally twite, an aphetism of Middle English atwite.
Verb
to twit (third-person singular simple present twits, present
participle twitting, simple past and past participle twitted)
1. (transitive) To reproach, blame; to ridicule or tease.
• 2007: H. R. Fox Bourne, secretary of the Aborigines' Protection
Society – often twitted for being an ‘armchair critic’ – wrote in a
review of one of Stanley's books — Bernard Porter, ‘Did He Puff his
Crimes to Please a Bloodthirsty Readership?’, London Review of Books
29:7, p. 10
Translations
To reproach, blame; to ridicule or tease
Noun
twit (plural twits)
1. A reproach, gibe or taunt.
2. (UK) A foolish or annoying person.
Translations
a reproach, gibe or taunt
a foolish or annoying person
Categories: Middle English derivations | English verbs | English nouns
| UK
yes, Daffy TAFty you are the SNARKY LARKY TWITTY TWIT infesting these
waters,
ARMCHAIR CRITIC, SECRETARY OF THE ABORIGINES’ PROTECTION SOCIETY,
DO YOU PUFF YOUR CRIMES TO PLEASE A BLOODTHIRSTY READERSHIP?
TWIT, TWIT, TWIT
t...@clearwire.net
> If Ermentrude says she saw confirmatory evidence in the pedigrees of
> Robert Glover regarding the parentage of Margaret Neville, I trust her
> word on it.
That is your prerogative. It is also misplaced trust, given that
every time you refer to her abilities, you can't stop yourself from
qualifying it with the words "for her time". Doesn't that concern
you? I guess not. What is important is that she agrees with your
guess, so she must be trustworthy.
I have to say, this is an odd form of the appeal to authority (where
again is our expert on logical fallacies, who never seems to detect
them when coming from this source), appealing to the authority of a
pseudonym for an unknown person. I guess, though it is fitting that
you should accept that if Ermengarde said it it must be true: after
all, you seem to expect the same level of trust in your own
pronouncements.
What would a 19th century genealogist consider to be confirmatory?
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 4:00 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> < P.S. Note to the group jester - I didn't ask for this. I was
> < addressing the historical argument. It was Mr. Richardson who
> decided
> < to attack the messenger. Are you now going to chastise him? or are
> you
> < just a pathetic partisan who has yet to make a contribution to this
> < group under any of your pseudonyms.
>
> itself.
Yes, it does. ". . . it would be best if taf didn't assume all of us
are as misinformed as he is". Who is calling me misinformed? Was that
your imaginary friend? Your other personality? Did you leave your
computer unattended and someone else typed those words? And who said,
"taf seems to think being a historian or genealogist is sitting in
your easy chair criticizing other people's work"? Who said that if it
wasn't you?
At least this answers one question I asked. Whether you are a liar.
> In any event, please stay on topic.
Who first mentioned psychology, hypocrite?
> And post your sources and your
> weblinks (if you have any).
Ah, yes. When he has no evidence to support his position, it is the
fault of others for not having weblinks. When he demands that others
produce medieval documents, and the best he can do is a 19th century
gossip rag, it is the fault of the critics.
You know, it is not like the Harleian collection is closed to the
public. If you were not so seft-satisfied, you could actually take
the steps necessary to demonstrate what support this document
provides, but you are content with (to borrow a phrase you have used)
sitting in your easy chair and browbeating and blustering, rather than
doing what it takes to prove your case.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 10:29 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> < That is your prerogative.
>
> Yes it is. And I have exercised it.
It is your prerogative to be credulous. However, you are insisting
that we all be credulous, which is not your prerogative.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 1:52 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> < indicating this precise flaw in your knowledge. You haven't a clue,
> < yet you are willing to boldly draw conclusions based on someone else
> < saying they have seen it, but neither describing it nor saying what
> it
> < contained, only the conclusion she happened to draw from it.
> <<
> < taf
>
It has been brought to my attention that you are so familiar with this
author that in your last four posts about her you haven't managed to
call her by the same name twice in a row. Ermentrude, Ermengarde,
Ermentrude, Ermengarde. That is the kind of in-depth familiarity that
builds trust, now, isn't it.
taf
david11...@gmail.com
> On May 16, 10:10 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > If Ermentrude says she saw confirmatory evidence in the pedigrees of
> > Robert Glover regarding the parentage of Margaret Neville, I trust her
> > word on it.
>
>
>
> DR
In your original post in this thread you refer us to your Dec 2007
posting on this subject, which relating to Margaret Neville, stated "I
assume she died in young adulthood, presumably unmarried."
You are now asking us to accept that you were WRONG in your original
assumption (without, of course, actually admitting you were wrong),
based on yet another of your assumptions "As such, I'm uncertain
exactly what she saw in that source. However, I assume .....". Is
this latest assumption as worthless as your original assumption on the
subject of Margaret Neville?
You do not demonstrate that the "Lady Neville" referred to in the
document you cite from Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council
of England,
edited by Sir Harris Nicolas, 3 (1834), refers to Elizabeth widow of
Sir John Neville. Can you provide us with evidence that the Lady
Neville referred to in the ordinance is actually Elizabeth, widow of
Sir John Neville? Or is this another assumption?
David
John Foster
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Another C.P. Addition: Margaret Neville, wife of Sir William
Lucy, of Richard's Castle, Herefordshire
> On May 16, 10:29 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> < That is your prerogative.
>
> Yes it is. And I have exercised it. Ermengarde was a "plus
> person."
>
> DR
>
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 11:14 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> < However, you are insisting that we all be credulous, which is not
> your prerogative.
>
>
> doesn't change the evidence.
Whatever that evidence might be. Unfortunately, the only person in
this discussion who has seen the evidence has been dead for 115 years,
and you have no idea what it was that she saw. Surely the evidence
hasn't changed, but you wouldn't know if it had, since you are simply
taking someone else's word that it exists, and that it is helpful to
your cause. it is not illogical to reject such hearsay as proof of a
guess. It is prudence.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 11:10 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> < Ah, yes. When he has no evidence to support his position, it is the
> < fault of others for not having weblinks. When he demands that others
> < produce medieval documents, and the best he can do is a 19th century
> < gossip rag, it is the fault of the critics.
>
You presented evidence that the Nevilles had a daughter with that
name. You presented evidence that the Earl of March made a grant to
Margaret wife of Lucy. Taken together, these hardly constitute proof.
What do you add to go over the top? The word of a 19th century author
of children's books, stating that a document you feel not worth
consulting 'confirmed' her hypothesis that it was Margaret Neville who
married Lucy. That is enough to suggest that you may be on the right
track, but proof? Hardly. Given the demands you make of others, a
double standard? Certainly.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On May 16, 10:38 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> < Yes it is. And I have exercised it. Ermengarde was a "plus
> < person."
>
Tonight? You first misnamed her at 8 AM. And it was about 2 PM when
you said, "Actually I'm quite familiar with Ermengarde". I guess that
was a bit of an exaggeration, now, wasn't it?
taf
letiTi...@gmail.com
Tonight? You first misnamed her at 8 AM. And it was about 2 PM when
> you said, "Actually I'm quite familiar with Ermengarde". I guess that
> was a bit of an exaggeration, now, wasn't it? taf
I am not exaggerating when I say Daffy TAFty is a W-I-N-D-bag
M.Sjostrom
"...tonight"
I think this attests that most times of a 24-hour
period are night for Douggy, our night creature :)
t...@clearwire.net
wrote:
I see 'Bret' is being extremely helpful: he not only pedantically
defines a word, but demonstrates it by example.
It is also clear that I used the wrong synonym when I referred to the
group 'jester'. I should have said 'fool'.
taf