Katherine Deighton's new royal ancestry
Clagett, Brice
much good work and who hope for more of it from his forthcoming
book.
However, I find his Beaufort-Stradling-Dennis text, as posted
on February 1, quite disturbing. If it is characteristic of the
book generally, then the book will be of much less value than
many of us have hoped.
The problem is that Doug presents as unquestioned fact the descent
depending on Joan Beaufort as mother of Katherine Stradling,
without the slightest recognition that this point is subject to
uncertainty and controversy. He cites a host of references without
revealing that not a single one of these sources (so far as I know)
in fact identifies Joan as Katherine's mother. (If any of them
do so identify her, why not say which one or ones?) He cites Clark
without disclosing that Clark says that Sir Edward Stradling had many
bastards. He characterizes RD500, without explanation, as containing
an "erroneous identification of Katherine Stradling's parentage."
Neither in this text nor in his posts to the newsgroup has Doug
disclosed the reasoning behind his conclusion.
If this approach is characteristic of the book, then it will be
impossible to credit any new line in it without examining every cited
source to see whether the aggregate of them fully supports each link
in the line. Far better frankly to acknowledge uncertainty where it
exists and to give the reasoning for one's preferred solution.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Oh no, not another reason for late delivery!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
John Higgins
have, regrettably, come to realize: PA3 will not be as useful as we had
hoped.
Doug seems to be unwilling to explain WHY he reaches particular conclusions
and WHY he has chosen between seemingly conflicting pieces of evidence. The
Stradling case is only one example; for another, see the thread in the past
few days titled "The Mother of Sir Roger Copley". I'm sure there are others
that can be easily found in the archives.
It's not sufficient to cite a lengthy (and not necessarily relevant) list of
citations, and leave the reader to figure out how the conclusion was
reached. It's an author's responsibilility in genealogy to explain which
sources he used and why, AND to clearly indicate when he is making
conjectures (as reasonable as such conjectures may be).
Brice cited a number of weaknesses in the Stradling citations presented by
Doug. I'll mention one more: the section on Katherine Stradling cites the
Stradling pedigree in Clark, without noting that Katherine isn't even
mentioned in that pedigree - let alone the issue of who her mother is and
the fact that her supposed father had multiple bastards.
Instead of being a useful addition to the genealogical literature, PA3 may
unfortunately acquire a reputation of being one of those works whose lines
of descent cannot be fully trusted without further verification. This would
be regrettable....
John Higgins
"Who begot whom is a most amusing kind of hunting" - Horace Walpole
Leo van de Pas
his collection into two. The proven ones and the possibles. Then he can
produce the possibles as he has, but by placing this line amongst the
possibles, people will know which ones are totally acceptable and those you
have to be careful with and double check. If he ever publishes a next
edition, and if proof either way emerges, he can place that line amongst the
proven or delete it altogether. If all are now huddled together, we are
heading for a disaster.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Peter Stewart
> I am one of those who believe that Douglas Richardson has done
> much good work and who hope for more of it from his forthcoming
> book.
So am I, Brice.
The belief is not quite ecstatic, while the hope started small and is
dwindling fast.
Richardson does indeed perform some useful hack-work in searching
through piles of secondary sources to come up with corrections to a few
details, particularly dates of marriages, contracts & dispensations.
However, to represent this as specialised research that is only possible
because of his elite training and professionalsm - which he has done,
repeatedly - is utter nonsense.
He demonstrably does not understand enough Latin and French, the
languages of the vast majority of primary records in his field of study,
to undertake any original or substantial research on his own. His
closest approach in most instances is to quote from the editors'
summaries in calendars of documents. I and others have frequently
pointed out the danger of introducing ambiguities and errors by such means.
The hostility towards Richardson on this newsgroup is a result of his
behaviour on this newsgroup, and in print, over years and in countless
matters. The current imbroglio over Katherine's parentage is just an
example that has concerned a few more people than usual about his methods.
Dumping worthless sections of his "manuscript" that fail in any way to
address the issue raised by his own original assertion is a typical
result of his crude cunning, and beyond that of his incapacity for the
kind of work he aspires to do.
He can't verify facts from primary sources reliably, and knows this
although he seeks to represent the opposite. Working without a
better-equipped collaborator, and not choosing to employ a
better-educated assistant, he comes to SGM with sly techniques to get
his work done for him. We can see from his articles in the current FMG
newsletter _Foundations_ and from PA3 excerpts posted to SGM that he is
cagey in giving credit to other contributors, if not downright unethical
and uncollegial in failing this duty entirely. A false impression is
deliberatley created that any new twist or discovery is the result of
his own special diligence, acuity and expertise.
He has also clearly delayed publication of the new _Plantagenet
Ancestry_ edition partly (even largely) in order to benefit from
discussions like the present one arising from overlapping points in Gary
Boyd Roberts' book.
We know what his view of Katherine's parentage & consequent ancestry was
on opening this thread. We know he portrayed this as coming from "recent
research", and that this must be scrutinised by backtracking through a
morass of citations surplus to any kind of responsible and accurate
scholarship. He then withheld any argumentation for this contained
(perchance) in the PA3 "manuscript", either because there wasn't any in
the first place or, maybe, because he thought that putting this out for
perusal could damage his reputation or turn away prospective sales.
In the latter case, he presumably thought that revising Katherine's
legitimacy could actually attract some sales to start with, hardly a
motive for his second thoughts that would generate confidence - or
surprise seasoned observers of his activities.
I have no history with Richardson - I've never met the man, have no
professional interest at stake, and have no agenda to serve apart from
wishing to see a higher standard of scholarship in medieval genealogy.
Peter Stewart
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> From: John Higgins [mailto:jhigg...@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 17:23
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: Katherine Deighton's new royal ancestry
>
<Snip>
> Instead of being a useful addition to the genealogical
> literature, PA3 may
> unfortunately acquire a reputation of being one of those
> works whose lines
> of descent cannot be fully trusted without further
> verification. This would
> be regrettable....
>
> John Higgins
>
Not to mention the damage to the reputation of the author, and thus to
any future career he desires in non-fictional literature. It only takes
a few reviews, pointing out unsubstantiated data or conclusions, in the
appropriate industry journals to damage a career for a long time.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
rosie bevan
Your observations strike several chords with many of us.
Richardson's unwillingness to discuss the evidence for the maternity of
Katherine Stradling leaves one with the impression that he is reluctant to
admit the speculative nature of this line. Posting the manuscript draft to
the newsgroup is a cynical attempt to quell concerns by drowning them with
references - any of which may, or may not, give information on the
genealogy. This is an insult to those who have seriously contributed to this
thread asking pertinent questions about whether any new information has come
to light. Indeed the dumping of references at the end of each potted
biography, is an unscholarly and unappealing feature of PA3 with which
buyers will have to negotiate. One almost suspects, as in this case, that
the more references given, the weaker the evidence for the link is likely to
be; otherwise a few well-chosen contemporary sources would have been more
than sufficient to adequately do the job. Without competent objective or
critical analysis of the material used, the value of the work rests merely
as a glorified bibliography, and his attempts to be both historian and
genealogist succeed on neither level.
As an example, the certainty by which Richardson places Alice fitzAlan of
Arundel as mother of Joan, despite the fact that Brad Verity very
competently exposed this as a manufactured Tudor invention in a compelling
post on 14 April 2003, sounds warning bells. (The two Stradling/Arundel
marriages in the 1400's are the most likely origin for this legend). By
accepting her identity as mother of Joan - with no mention of controversy
about this in the main text - Richardson has imposed artificial date
parameters on himself. It is ludicrous to insist that Joan was born before
1392, when Beaufort was aged 16/17 and studying civil and canon law in
Aachen, according to the DNB article from Richardson's very own citation.
And how likely is it in an age of early marriage, that Henry Stradling,
Edward and Joan's son and heir, was born when his mother was 30 and his
father 34? All the indications are that Joan was born a decade later - as
suggested by the 1480 inquisition post mortem of which Paul Reed presented
evidence last year. The dates also leave the possibility that Edward
Stradling may have had an earlier marriage.
Another aspect of Richardson's modus operandi regarding references, is the
possibility that some are unseen by him. We only have to remember back to
last year when he purported that there was a Lucy de St. John. He dumped
the text and citations for the entry for others to check because he had no
idea what in his citations pertained to the question at hand. Not only was
his statement discredited, he had included the citation from Paget without
stating it was from Paget, giving the impression he had actually checked a
source he hadn't.
If speculative lines abound in this volume, (as the ominous declarations of
two Idas are an indication), Richardson will undermine the careful
reputation established by Dr Faris, whose readership was never left
wondering which lines were valid and which were not.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Douglas Richardson
Dear Richard ~
I personally don't believe that reviews are important as you think.
Roderick Stewart's book, Royalty for Commoners, was panned here and
elsewhere, but sales have been excellent. Notoriety can actually
propel book sales, not to mention box office receipts. All the same,
when actual reviews of Plantagenet Ancestry are available, I'll post
them here on the newsgroup for all to see.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
P.S. I did get an off the cuff review from someone today who saw part
of the PA manuscript this past week. They were familiar with the
subject matter. Their comments were very favorable.
D. Spencer Hines
PA3 Reviews right here on SGM ---- copyrights permitting.
And it will be interesting to see how the charlatan-flimflammer gets
around that issue.
DSH
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.04020...@posting.google.com...