Thomas Randolph
al...@mindspring.com
Has a chart that alleges that Thomas Randolph, First Earl of Moray (d.
1332) was descended from the same Ranulph who was ancestral to the
Greystocks. It alleges that he was son of Thomas Randolph m. to nn
Kilconquhar daughter of Adam and the Countess of Carrick.
This appears to vary from the account in Scots Peerage which says he
was son the Thomas married Isabel Brus. CP says that Thomas married a
sister of Robert Brus. See SP VI: 286-300. CP IX: 167-187.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
Doug Smith
Douglas Richardson
nephew” in a charter issued by King Robert I [de Brus] of Scotland
dated 1316 [Reference: MSS of the Duke of Portland 2 (Hist. MSS Comm.
29) (1893): 1].
Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 167, footnote c (sub Moray) asserts that
mother of Thomas Randolph, 1st Earl of Moray, was ?Isabel, possibly
daughter of Robert de Brus (died 1304), by an unknown 1st wife. There
is no evidence, however, that Robert de Brus (father of King Robert I)
had a wife earlier than Marjory (or Margaret) of Carrick, Countess of
Carrick, to whom he was married about 1273. I have found evidence,
though, that Robert de Brus had a hitherto unnoticed second wife, Maud
Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell, Knt., whom he married in 1295,
which marriage was subsequently dissolved. Robert de Brus was
eventually survived at his death by a third wife, Eleanor, who
remarried before 8 Feb. 1305/6 (as his 1st wife) Richard le Waleys,
Knt., 1st Lord Waleys, of Burghwallis, Yorkshire. Eleanor's parentage
remains unknown. She died in 1331.
D.W. Hunter Marshall, in his article, “The Parentage of Thomas
Randolph, Earl of Moray,” published in Scottish Notes & Queries, 3rd
series 8 (1930): 2–5 suggests that the mother of Thomas Randolph, 1st
Earl of Moray, was actually the daughter of Marjory, Countess of
Carrick, by her 1st husband, Adam de Kilconquhar. This arrangement is
based on the passage of the lordship to Scoonie from Adam de
Kilconquhar down to Thomas Randolph. Andrew B.W. MacEwen, the
resident expert on all things Scottish, informs me that he believes
this is the correct solution to Thomas Randolph's kinship to King
Robert I of Scotland.
As for the ancestry of Adam de Kilconquhar, you might wish to read
Geoffrey Barrow's erudite comments in his book, Robert Bruce and the
Community of the Realm of Scotland (4th ed., 2005), pg. 430, footnote
27. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:
Good luck in your sleuthing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
M.Sjostrom
The near-contemporary material does not tell enough about the details of the kinship between Robert the Bruce and Thomas Randolph.
All precisions to that 'nepos' (which is the only kinship thing between them attested in near-contemporary sources) are much later reconstructions and imaginations.
However, I have believed (seemingly like Mr MacEwen) that Marshall's idea is correct.
That said, in reality they could have been just some sort of cousins, as we know that 'nepos' does not always mean what it is supposed to mean.
All attempts to make Thomas Randolph's mother a Bruce, taste of the relatively stupid tendency to try to find all kinships first via male line. For some reason, so many of people rely on the 'surname line', and that's the first which apparently comes into their minds. Thus, I would put a small presumption of 'negative' to all later sources using just the male line idea.
There would be grave chronological problems if Thomas Randolph would get construed to be son of a younger sister of the Bruce. Thomas Randolph flourished almost simultaneously with Robert himself, and was thus presumably not a full generation younger to him.
Elder sister or elder half-sister as Thomas' mother would make much more chronological sense.
al...@mindspring.com
McAndrew, Scotland's Historic Heraldry, Boydell Press, (2006), p 52.
McAndrew says that Sir Thomas (d aft 1289) was son of Thomas fitz
Ranulph who married a Juliana who died in 1262. He futher says that
that Thomas was the son of Ranulph fitz Walter de Greystoke and Amabel
de Baliol.
This is at variance with SP VI: 286-300. which says he was son of a
Thomas fitz Ranulf who died 18 May 1262 who was the son of Ranul fitz
Dunegal who was the son of Dunegal of Stranigh or Nithsdale.
It would appear that these are rather different interpretations of
what was likely limited information. Is there any evidence to support
either hypothesis?
Doug Smith
John P. Ravilious
Dear Dougs (Smith and Richardson), 'M', et al,
The heraldic evidence for the Randolph relationship to
the Greystoke family (common descent from Ranulf fitz
Walter of Greystoke) is I think quite good, and the
actual line of descent is receiving further attention at
present.
There is good evidence that supports the traditional
affiliation of Thomas Randolph, 1st Earl of Moray as the
son of a Kilconquhar half-sister of the Bruce. This is
the dispensation for the marriage of Robert II, K of
Scots to Euphemia of Ross, his 2nd wife. The text of
the mandate, dated Avignon, 6 nones Maii 3 Innocent VI
(2 May 1355) has been transcribed as follows:
' INNOCENTIUS Episcopus, Servus Servor. Dei, Venerabili
Fratri.... Episcopo Glasguen. Salutem, &c.
EXHIBITE nobis pro parte dilecti filii nobilis viri Roberti
Stivardi Senescalli Scocie, ac dilecte in Xsto, filie nobilis
mulieris Eufemie, Comitisse Moravie, relicte quondam Johannis
Comitis Moravie vidue Glasguen. et Moravien. Dioc. petitionis
series continebat, quod ipsi propter sedandas guerras,
discordias, et inimicitias inter ipsum Robertum et dilectum
filium nobilem virum Gulielmum Comitem Rossiae, Rossen
Dioc. dicte Eufemie fratrem, et alios ipsius Eufemie
consanguineos ex interfectione cujusdam nobilis, et aliis
de causis exortas tractatum habuerunt super matrimonio
inter se invicem contrahendo. Verum quia ipsi Robertus
et Eufemia quarto consanguinitatis, et ex eo tertio
affinitatis gradibus invicem se contigerunt; quod dicti
Robertus, et Johannes dum vivebant erant tertio
consanguinitatis gradu conjuncti, matrimonium hujusmodi
contrahere nequeunt dispensatione super hoc Apostolica
non obtenta, .... ' [1]
The dispensation was required in part as Robert and
Euphemia's first husband, John Randolph, 3rd Earl of Moray
were related in the 3rd degree of consanguinity ('quod
dicti Robertus, et Johannes dum vivebant erant tertio
consanguinitatis gradu conjuncti' - causing affinity
between his widow Euphemia and Robert). For this to have
been true, John Randolph and Robert the Stewart would
have been either 2nd cousins, or 1st cousins
once removed. The latter possibility can be readily
dispensed with given that the ancestries of both men are
reasonably established to 3 generations:
1) Adam de = Marjory = 2) Robert de Brus
Kilconquhar I C of Carrick I of Annandale
d. 1270 I I d. 1304
I I
Isabella Robert I
= Sir Thomas Randolph K of Scots
(d. 1292 or later) 1306-1329
I I
I I
Thomas Randolph Marjory = Walter Stewart
E of Moray Bruce I LHS of Scotland
I I
I I
1) John Randolph = Euphemia = 2) Robert II
E of Moray of Ross K of Scots
d. 1346 1371-1390
It appears in fact that John and Robert were twice
related in the 3rd degree, assuming that John's mother was
in fact Isabel Stewart, Thomas Randolph's 1st wife. The
latter 'fact' is also undergoing current research.
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Andrew Stuart, Genealogical History of
the Stuarts, pp. 420-421.
On Aug 9, 8:08�pm, "al...@mindspring.com" <al...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
al...@mindspring.com
The heraldic evidence is interesting in that the charges are very
similar so there is some evidence that may refute the pedigree
proposed in SP (or suggest its revision).
Thanks John and Douglas
Doug Smith
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Randolph the first Earl was also Lord of Annandale, which is next to
Nithsdale, from where the SP ancestry is proposed, there is no
evidence to support the SP interpretation. It is traditional and was
handed down from at least the writings of the C18 - the Douglas
peerage.
The arms are clearly the same, though in reversed tinctures, as those
of Greystoke and reversinng tinctures was a common method of
differencing at the period.
There are three Thomases in a row, of which the last was the Earl.
Thomas II Randolph's father Thomas I started off in a relatively lowly
clerical position in the King's household, first mentioned in 1225.
This is not a position which a magnate of Scotland would have
occuppied, even though he received the trust of the King and
negotiated important matters for him. However, it was a way for the
younger son of an established family (Greystoke was only just over
what became the final border with England) to make his way. Thomas I
and Thomas II were obviously very able and trusted and loyal to the
Kings Alexander.
Thoams I has been attached to Ranulph, son of Dunegal of Nithsdale.
However, this ignores the history of Nithsdale, where the line of the
ancient kinglets (Reguli) ran out or disappeared in the mid 1200s. At
any rate there is no further record of them and Nithsdale seems to
have come into the King's hands in the later part of the C12. Therre
are various plantings of French-speaking men in the valley in the
later 1100s, suggesting a void (eg Torthorald of that Ilk, Charteris
of Amisfield, Siward of Tibbers, Kirkpatrick of Closeburn). Thomas I
the father seems to have had no territorial connection to Nithsdale,
and nor does Thomas II the son.
Only with Thomas III the Earl do we find a connection to Nithsdale:
he is called Lord of the Valley of Nith in 1309, but by 1323 the Lord
of Nithsdale was Robert de Herries, "Dominus de Nithsdale", so this is
likely to have been a temporary "holding" appointment. He also had
Stichill in the eastern borders, but this went to the Gordons, perhaps
in the same way.
Need I go on?
Jwc...@aol.com
Thomas Randolph was intially fighting
againest his uncle Robert I of Scotland and didn`t join him until 1309 following
his successful herschip of the Comyn earldom of Buchan in December 1308.
Donald II, Earl of Mar stayed in the english service even longer and both
were on good terms with the English king , Edward II . did Thomas Randolph
descend from the original Greystoke family ? Thomas Greystoke died 1232
married Christian de Vipont and had a daughter Joan who married William Fitz
Ralph and had Ralph , 1st of the line most popularly known as Lord Greystoke
. He also had several sons William , Robert, Thomas and John.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
Douglas Richardson
nephew or grandson. I presume the same is true of Scotland. The date
of the charter I cited in which Thomas Randolph is styled
"nephew" [nepos] of King Robert I of Scotland is 1316. Thus, this
record dates from the period during which the word "nepos" should be
translated either "nephew" or "grandson."
Here is the weblink for the actual charter:
The abstract of the above charter as published is written in English.
However, I assume the original charter was written in Latin, hence the
words "Apud Parcum de Dunis" at the end. As such, the word "nepos"
should have been used in the original charter to refer to Thomas
Randolph.
Thomas Randolph is likewise styled "our nephew" in another published
charter of King Robert (de Brus) I of Scotland. This charter is dated
1313, and was published in Shaw, History of the Province of Moray, 3
(1882): 214–215. This record may be viewed at the following weblink:
Thomas Randolph is also styled "nephew" by King Robert I of Scotland
in a charter dated 1329, an abstract of which charter was published in
James Grant, Cassell’s Old & New Edinburgh, 5 (?1882): 166. Here is
the weblink for that reference:
http://www.oldandnewedinburgh.co.uk/volume5/page177.html
Alex Maxwell Findlater
suggests that he was knighted then. I expect he was born say
1270x80. A birthdate of 1280 for his wife Isabel d of Sir John
Stewart of Bonkyl would be consistent. He was captured by the English
at the Battle of Methven 19 June 1306, and was send for custody to the
Earl of Lincoln. He was apparently fighting for the English when he
was captured by Sir James Douglas and by 4 March 1308/9 was known to
have defected to the Scots, as his lands of Stichill were granted by
Edward II to Sir Adam Gordon - they later went to the Gordons of
Lochinvar. On 16 March 1308/9 he signed the letter to Philip of
France asking for help; it was in this letter he was called Lord of
the Valley of Nith.
Given the amount we don't know about what and why at this period, it
is dangerous to hypothesise, but I would expect that he remained
inwardly loyal to Bruce, but felt that to allow himself to be taken
north by the English, under whatever guise, would allow him the chance
to rejoin his friends. His presence at the coronation was the
greatest risk he ever took, surely.
t...@clearwire.net
> In England after 1250 the word "nepos" invariably refers to one's
> nephew or grandson.
Is there any evidence for this, or is it just another question-begging
rule of thumb. Let's see the statistics.
> I presume the same is true of Scotland.
A presumption based on . . . . ?
> The date
> of the charter I cited in which Thomas Randolph is styled
> "nephew" [nepos] of King Robert I of Scotland is 1316. Thus, this
> record dates from the period during which the word "nepos" should be
> translated either "nephew" or "grandson."
Not the strongest of arguments. An extrapolation based on a
presumption based on a declaration.
> Here is the weblink for the actual charter:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=1asKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Manus...
>
> The abstract of the above charter as published is written in English.
> However, I assume the original charter was written in Latin, hence the
> words "Apud Parcum de Dunis" at the end. As such, the word "nepos"
> should have been used in the original charter to refer to Thomas
> Randolph.
>
> Thomas Randolph is likewise styled "our nephew" in another published
> charter of King Robert (de Brus) I of Scotland. This charter is dated
> 1313, and was published in Shaw, History of the Province of Moray, 3
> (1882): 214–215. This record may be viewed at the following weblink:
Begging the question again. As I am sure you can tell, this too is in
English, and hence is what someone thinks "nepos" was intended to
mean.
> Thomas Randolph is also styled "nephew" by King Robert I of Scotland
> in a charter dated 1329, an abstract of which charter was published in
> James Grant, Cassell’s Old & New Edinburgh, 5 (?1882): 166. Here is
> the weblink for that reference:
And again. Repetition need not imply accuracy.
taf
John P. Ravilious
Dear Alex,
I quite agree with you, and Bruce McAndrew, concerning
the heraldic evidence.
A technical point on the Randolphs. There were
actually 5 Thomases in a row:
1. Thomas, son of Ranulf. The earliest evidence I have
noted to date is in a charter where we find
" Thomas filio Ran' " as a witness [together with
Ingram de Baliol, Henry de Baliol, John de Maxwell,
Walter Comyn, Walter Bisset, William de Lindsay, and
David de Lindsay] to a charter of King Alexander II
confirming the grants by Walter fitz Alan the Steward
of lands in Dalmulin, Drungran and Petithachengon to
Paisley Abbey, dated at Ayr, 28 May 16 Alex. II [1230]
[Reg. Paisley, pp. 47-48].
This Thomas died some time before 9 April 1262, when
he and his wife Juliana were interred at Melrose
[Chronica de Mailros].
2. Sir Thomas 'Randolph', whom I find [as 'Lord Thomas
Ranulphi, sheriff of Berwick ', perhaps more
properly Sir Thomas Randolph] as witness to charter of
Patrick III, Earl of Dunbar, quitclaiming to the Prior
and Convent of Coldingham a feast which used to be
given him yearly in the house of Coldingham, dated
' At Duns. 4 Kal. June [29 May] 1279. '
[Durham University Library Archives & Special
Collections: Misc. Charter 774].
This Thomas was living at least as late as 26
December 1292, when as 'Thomas son of Ranulph ' he
attested the record of homage by John de Baliol,
king of Scotland to Edward I of England, at
Newcastle on Tyne [Bain, Cal. Docs. Scotland II:155,
no. 660, cites Chapter House (Scots Documents),
Box 95, no. 6; Liber A. Chapter House, fol. 175 b.]
3. Sir Thomas Randolph, the husband of (Isabella ?) de
Kilconquhar. He is first identifiable as
'Thomas son of Ranulph, filius ' when he (together
with his father) also attested the record of homage
by John de Baliol, king of Scotland to Edward I of
England, at Newcastle on Tyne [see ref. to Bain
above].
I have not as yet found a subsequent reference to
this Thomas, father of 'the' Thomas Randolph. As indicated by
the attestation of the 1292 document cited above, it is quite clear
these were the father and grandfather of Thomas, the 1st Earl of
Moray: in 1292, the latter Thomas was likely 12 years of age at the
most, and quite likely younger (I believe he was born say 1280-1285).
4. The well-known Thomas Randolph, 1st Earl of Moray
(d. 20 Jul 1332).
5. Thomas Randolph, 2nd Earl of Moray, eldest son of
the above. He unfortunately barely survived his
father, as he d. 12 Aug 1332.
The existence of an 'additional' Thomas (as evidenced in the
1292 document) was noted some time ago by Andrew MacEwen.
I noted this evidence in reading Bain, which Andrew
subsequently confirmed in a telephone conversation. The credit for
this correction of course goes to Andrew MacEwen.
Cheers,
John
On Aug 10, 2:04�am, Alex Maxwell Findlater
Douglas Richardson
<
< Is there any evidence for this, or is it just another question-
begging
< rule of thumb. Let's see the statistics.
If you wish to refute another poster's statements, you simply need to
cite contemporary evidence, provide your sources, and give weblinks.
That's all.
Renia
How odd. DR has asked TAF for citations for TAF asking for evidence from DR.
Peter G R Howarth
>Sent: 11 August 2008 05:39
>To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Thomas Randolph
That is not the only way.
It is always possible to refute something by saying that the evidence you
have provided is not sufficient to prove what you want it to prove. It is
what a jury does every time it looks at the evidence put forward by the
prosecution and then brings in a verdict of not guilty or not proven.
Peter G R Howarth
t...@clearwire.net
> > It is always possible to refute something by saying that the evidence you
> > have provided is not sufficient to prove what you want it to prove. It is
> > what a jury does every time it looks at the evidence put forward by the
> > prosecution and then brings in a verdict of not guilty or not proven.
> We'd be glad to see your evidence, if you have any. And, please cite
> your sources and weblinks if you have them.
More of the same:
1) Mr. Richardson makes an unsupported claim that X invariably means
Y. He provides no evidence that this is the case. He provides no
source or web link where a scholar knowledgeable in the changes in use
of medieval Latin over time draws this conclusion. Simply put, he
makes it up and proclaims it ex cathedra.
2) I call him on his lack of evidence for the statement.
3) He insists that in order to refute his made-up statement, I need
contemporary evidence, even though he provided no evidence to support
his statement.
4) Mr. Howarth points out that it takes no evidence to say that an
unsupported (made up) statement is unsupported.
5) Mr. Richardson demands evidence from Mr. Howarth.
We have seen all this before - make up a 'rule of thumb' out of thin
air, and then bluster and browbeat anyone who points out the nakedness
of the Emperor. He demands citations of anyone who won't 'take his
word for it'. This is a convenient way of distracting attention from
the fact that he was making it up as he went along.
I will now make a clear statement of fact. The word 'nepos' did not
invariably mean nephew or grandson after 1250. I will provide for this
as much evidence as Mr. Richardson has provided for his statement,
i.e. none. You first. If Mr. Richardson wants to contradict my
statement, and thereby prove his statement that it did invariably mean
this, all he needs to do is demonstrate his original statement, that
every single time the word 'nepos' was used after 1250, it meant
either nephew or grandson - every single time (that's what
"invariably" means, after all). He must evaluate every single instance
where the word 'nepos' was used after this date, and demonstrate that
in no case did it mean anything other than nephew or grandson. Good
luck - or, Mr. Richardson, do you wish to admit you were overreaching
and withdraw your unsupported, even unsupportable, claim? (or will you
just hypocritically demand of me the evidence you yourself cannot
provide)
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
<811b6208-23e9-4d38...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
<...>
Actually I was going to provide a weblink for Mr. Richardson following
his non-responses to you and Mr. Howarth:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JHyMes8OKO8C&printsec=frontcover
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
t...@clearwire.net
> On Aug 11, 2:56 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Actually I was going to provide a weblink for Mr. Richardson following
> > his non-responses to you and Mr. Howarth:
>
Yes, you did. You shot the messenger. You made the claim - a very
specific claim - a false claim, no less, but that is beside the
point. You provided no support for this claim. I asked what your
evidence was and what did you do?
> I kindly asked both men to provide
> the newsgroup their evidence, sources, and weblinks.
In other words, when you were asked to provide the newsgroup with
evidence, you ignored the request and instead demanded it of the
questioner. When it was pointed out that "the evidence is not
sufficient to prove the case" requires no evidence, you again demanded
evidence. All the while pretending that you had not started the whole
thing by making up a completely unsupportable "invariable" rule out of
thin air.
> So far neither man has done so. It's really very sad.
To repeat Mr. Haworth's point, one that seemingly has to be repeated
every time you get caught red-handed inventing 'rules', the person
making the claim has the burden of proof. It requires no evidence to
see an unsupported statement and ask on what evidence it is based. It
may not seem fair, that there are different demands on the different
sides in scholarly discourse, but that is the way it works - the
person making the claim must meet the burden of proof, not the person
evaluating an unsupported claim. In this case, you are the one making
the claim about invariability.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On Aug 11, 2:42 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
>
> > I will now make a clear statement of fact. The word 'nepos' did not
> > invariably mean nephew or grandson after 1250.
>
> I don't think anyone (except taf) doubts that Thomas Randolph, Earl of
> Moray, was the nephew of King Robert [de Brus] I of Scotland.
Nice try, nice lie. I made a very specific claim, and you respond
with a non sequitur. Further, you have no basis to know my conclusion
regarding Thomas Randolph, or even that I have one. You are again
making things up. You should also be a little careful in assuming the
entire human population, minus one, shares your opinion. Again, hardly
supportable.
> And, .... Thomas Randolph is the topic of this thread, not the meaning
> of the word "nepos."
Now you are trying to tell people what they can and cannot talk about?
You should know better. Anyhow, you are the one who injected an
"invariable" rule into this thread, in order to apply it to the
Randolph case. It is hardly reasonable to now claim that the accuracy
of an argument has no place in the thread where the argument was
applied to a specific case.
> As far as it goes, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the norm in the use
> of language regarding kinsfolk.
The statement "there are ALWAYS exceptions" and the statement
"invariably refers to" are mutually exclusive, so you are, in fact,
withdrawing your original statement, you just can't bring yourself to
do it up front. Instead, you mask it in in an ad hominem attack on
your critic, and then just slip it in between the sleights.
Now that you have directly contradicted yourself, let's return to your
argument in the specific case:
> In England after 1250 the word "nepos" invariably refers to one's
> nephew or grandson.
Now, we know, this is false because "there are ALWAYS exceptions".
> I presume the same is true of Scotland.
So therefor, even ignoring that it was flawed from the outset, a
presumption based on a false statement cannot be sustained.
> The date
> of the charter I cited in which Thomas Randolph is styled
> "nephew" [nepos] of King Robert I of Scotland is 1316.
Well, at least this part appears to hold, but it seems to be circular
to assume that nephew must be a translation of nepos, then conclude
that nepos must be translated as nephew.
> Thus, this
> record dates from the period during which the word "nepos" should be
> translated either "nephew" or "grandson."
Since there "are ALWAYS exceptions", then is it appropriate to signify
what the translation "should" be? Given that the premise is false
even in England, and the presumption that it would be the same in
another country is hardly robust, then the conclusion is completely
unsupportable in Scotland. So much for that argument.
> Language is intended to be fluid.
This from the poster who applied the word "invariable" to language
usage, and then built a house of cards based on this non-fluidity.
taf
t...@clearwire.net
> On Aug 10, 3:50 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> <
> < Is there any evidence for this, or is it just another question-
> begging
> < rule of thumb. Let's see the statistics.
>
> If you wish to refute another poster's statements, you simply need to
> cite contemporary evidence, provide your sources, and give weblinks.
> That's all.
This is the heart of the discussion.
1) I was not refuting Mr. Richardson's statements. I asked him whether
he had any evidence.
2) It is untrue that "to refute another poster's statements, you
simply need to
cite contemporary evidence, provide your sources, and give weblinks."
First, as stated, it suggests that the act of providing counter
evidence is sufficient to refute another poster's statement. This may
be the case, but is frequently not. You need to present more than just
any evidence: it must be sufficient to demonstrate that your
conclusion is the more likely than the conclusion you wish to refute.
Second, it is untrue that new evidence is necessary to refute an
argument. It may be sufficient to simply reevaluate the evidence
already on the table, to show that it does not support the conclusion
being drawn from it. If this can be argued so as to make one's
conclusion more likely than the alternative conclusion, that is a
sufficient refutation even without additional evidence.
Third, this is all inapplicable when the original claim itself has not
been sufficiently supported. When the original claim is made without
support, a counter argument of "'tis not" has exactly the same
scholarly value as the original claim.
The sooner you understand these critical aspects of scholarly debate,
the better. I recommend a read through that book Nat suggested.
taf
letiTi...@gmail.com
> On Aug 11, 2:18 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 2:56 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
>
> > > Actually I was going to provide a weblink for Mr. Richardson following
> > > his non-responses to you and Mr. Howarth:
>
> > I responded to both individuals.
>
> Yes, you did. You shot the messenger.
If anybody on this planet shot the messenger, it was taf, TAF, the big
mouth
so full of himself his posts are not about the message but the
messenger.
Ignore the ignoramus: TAF, as this series of messages is about TAF TAF
and more TAF and has nothing to do with my ANCESTRAL LINEAGE,
Charle de Magne!
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval