Diana Skipwith (Final thoughts)
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/10/01 5:12:35 PM, nlt...@pop.uky.edu writes:
<< 3) Diana's use of her maiden name in 1655 seems to throw a wrench into
things, unless a corroborating example of maiden-name use can be found
*from the period, place and social stratum* and *from a wife, not a
widow*. Dave Greene has said he does not know of any fitting the bill. >>
This use by Diana Dale of her maiden name in 1655 is the entire basis of the
discussion. It is the very point that instituted an investigation by Mr. Ward
on the traditional ancestry assigned to the descendants of Katherine Dale
Carter.
I have spent considerable time reviewing the materials that have been
discussed and find that there is no real evidence to overturn the traditional
descent except this vague usage of her maiden name at a point in time when
she should have been married.
Tim Powys-Lybbe came up with one contemporary example of a highborn woman
using her maiden name of Winifred Hastings, so it is evident that there are
at least some contemporary examples of this practice. However, even without
such an example, I do not see that there is enough real evidence to overturn
a traditional royal descent. I certainly feel that the discovery of the use
of her maiden name deserved the further research and an article on the
subject. Yet, to come up with negative pronouncements about a royal line
based upon such a small piece if evidence seems patently unfair when similar
links rest on much more flimsy evidence than this.
I think that David Greene was mistaken when he wrote: "Hence the only
possible conclusion -- the one that Occam’s Razor forces us to accept -- is
that Diana Skipwith twice signed with her maiden name in 1655 because that
was indeed her name at the time and she had not yet married Edward Dale."
Occam's Razor is quite sharp and often cuts in both directions. It means that
the best explanation for an event is the simplest explanation, the one using
the fewest assumptions or hypotheses. This quaint idea was named for William
of Ockham, who practiced the idea, and it has always had serious flaws. It is
a good thing for humanity that Einstein ignored this idea when Newtonian
physics was the present state of the art. Though there is much emphasis
placed upon the simplicity of things these days, the fact is that reality is
a complicated mass of events that are sorted according to our perspectives
and these conclusions can and do change as we change this perspective.
Even if there were no examples of highborn English women in Virginia using
their maiden names, there is always a first case ... and this could be one of
them. One must take into account the idiosyncrasies of the individual
personalities, the desire among some people to be quite different for the
sake of being different and standing out in a crowd. One must take into
consideration the fact that Diana Skipworth had an illustrious ancestry which
she undoubtedly would want to be known to her offspring and descendants. The
problem, as I see it, is that there is a tendency to want to deconstruct in
our era. The natural process seems to be that if one cannot build something
because of the constructions already in the way, then those constructions
need to be taken out so that 'progress' can continue. I am definitely not
accusing either Mr. Ward or Mr. Greene of wanting to do this. I do feel
strongly that the subject should have been explored at length. Once the
discovery was made that Diana Skipworth had used her maiden name at such a
time that brings a question as to whether of not she was married to Edward
Dale at the time of the birth of daughter Katherine. This discovery was
definitely worth pursuing and writing about. It should be made known to both
the public at large and the descendants of the daughter.
However, Douglas Richardson did show us ten other pieces of evidence that
point to the fact that Katherine was indeed the daughter of Diana. These
were argued by Mr. Ward point by point in a very interesting manner, yet we
still come away uncertain, as many assumptions must be used to disprove that
Katherine was not Diana's daughter. In fact, if we use Occam's Razor on these
points, the blade will cut the other way. That is one reason a distrust this
'razor theorem' as being a meaningful tool for genealogical research.
I want to personally thank Charles Ward for writing this article and calling
our attention to something that we should know about this family. Also, I
thank David Greene for seeing fit to print it. I do not, however, agree that
great doubt has been cast upon the legitimacy of this family line as a result
of this most interesting investigation.
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>
KHF...@AOL.com
PDel...@aol.com
will is dated 28th June 1654, married a Thomas TAYLOR, of Ashbourne, mercer.
Her will, in secretary hand, says " Dame Audrey Milward, relict of Tomas
Tayelor" - she is previously mentioned within her husband's lifetime as Dame
Audree Milward - their married daughters seem also to retain their maiden
names yet are " ux. John PORT, of Ilam " etc -it seems similar to the french
where even now, the wife retains her maiden name but is stated as wife or
widow of such and such. My mother for example was always Claire A.C. Huth
Jackson , épouse/ veuve de Loriol Chandieu in official documents.
Just a thought.
Peter de Loriol
74 Elms Road
London, SW4 9EW, GB
Fax: (0)207 622 4505
Tel : (0)207 622 9623
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
<KHF...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ff.fb8ee8...@aol.com...
douglasr...@hotmail.com
This is an excellent and near contemporary example to Diana Skipwith of
a woman who used her maiden name in a document. I assume you have
conclusive evidence that Millward was this lady's maiden name. If so,
can you share that evidence with us. Also, I'm curious to know what
record (or records) mention her as Dame Audree Millward in her
husband's life? Can you dredge up that information for us?
By the way, the term "Dame" implies Audrey was the wife of a knight.
Since you don't state Thomas Taylor was a knight, is it possible Audrey
had an earlier or later marriage than to Thomas Taylor? An example of
a Skipwith woman who was called a Dame, was Dame Anne Skipwith, the
widow of Diana (Skipwith) Dale's brother, Sir Gray Skipwith, baronet.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - -
In article <a9.105a9de...@aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
CMW12635
>>>>
I do not see that there is enough real evidence to overturn a traditional royal
descent.
>>>
Mr. Finton,
I thank you for your kind words. They are sincerely appreciated. I respect
your opinion, even though I don't agree with it.
I respectfully disagree with you regarding the statement quoted above. I feel
there is insufficient evidence to identify Katherine (Dale) Carter's mother
and until some conclusive proof can be offered that her alleged mother, Diana
Skipwith, was in fact married at the time that she signed her name, "Diana
Skipwith," to conclude she was married is premature. I feel the
identification of Diana Skipwith as the mother of Katherine (Dale) Carter is
questionable, at the very least.
I would argue there is more substantial proof to argue Diana was not the mother
of Katherine, than to argue that Diana was the mother of Katherine. At least
based on the evidence as we know it today.
You also wrote:
>>>>
However, Douglas Richardson did show us ten other pieces of evidence that
point to the fact that Katherine was indeed the daughter of Diana. These were
argued by Mr. Ward point by point in a very interesting manner, yet we still
come away uncertain, as many assumptions must be used to disprove that
Katherine was not Diana's daughter.
>>>>
None of the ten points, I would argue, are conclusive as to the identity of
Katherine (Dale) Carter's mother. I won't rehash what I have already posted.
Needless to say, I think it only stresses the point that the identity of
Katherine (Dale) Carter's mother remains questionable.
We differ in our interpretation of the evidence.
May I also take this opportunity to ask about THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION?
Thank you.
Charles Ward
CMW1...@aol.com
John Steele Gordon
> possible conclusion -- the one that Occam's Razor forces us to accept --
is
> that Diana Skipwith twice signed with her maiden name in 1655 because that
> was indeed her name at the time and she had not yet married Edward Dale."
>
> Occam's Razor is quite sharp and often cuts in both directions. It means
that
> the best explanation for an event is the simplest explanation, the one
using
> the fewest assumptions or hypotheses. This quaint idea was named for
William
> of Ockham, who practiced the idea, and it has always had serious flaws.
This "quaint idea" is one of the most powerful intellectual tools to come
out of medieval times. I only wish that everyone had to be acquainted with
it. We might be spared a few million conspiracy theories a year that way.
> It is
> a good thing for humanity that Einstein ignored this idea when Newtonian
> physics was the present state of the art.
You are completely mischaracterizing what Einstein did. Newtonian physics
could not explain certain observations that were made in the 19th century,
notably the perturbation of the orbit of Mercury and the outcome of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. All attempts to shoehorn these observations
into the Newtonian system failed. For instance, it was determined that a
putative planet (hopefully named Vulcan) closer to the sun that might be
pertrubing Mercury's orbit could not exist as it would be inside the sun's
Roche limit (in other words, tidal forces would destroy it).
Einstein simply took the observed results--such as the apparent universality
of the speed of light shown in the Michelson-Morley experiment--and drew the
logical conclusions to create the Special Theory. Likewise, he explained
Mercury's orbit by deducing the curvature of space-time in close proximity
to massive gravitational fields (in this case the sun's), leading him to the
General Theory.
But Einstein used the simplest (note that it's the simplest, not simple)
means to explain the observed phenomena. In other words, he used Occam's
razor.
I might point out that Sir Isaac was not wrong in his theory. Einstien did
not "correct" it. He merely showed that it was just a little more limited in
its application than at first thought. It is intriguing, to say the least,
that at the beginning of the Principia, Newton thought it necessary to note
that "I assume space to be everywhere and always the same." This strongly
suggests he might have had some doubts. No one else would for two hundred
years, untikl Einstein came along.
> Though there is much emphasis
> placed upon the simplicity of things these days, the fact is that reality
is
> a complicated mass of events that are sorted according to our perspectives
> and these conclusions can and do change as we change this perspective.
Again, you are confusing simple and simplest.
JSG