GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-03 > 0922474570


From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Judith of Lens
Date: 26 Mar 1999 18:56:10 GMT


Vide infra.

No, that's not 'the issue' at all.

There are several issues here --- they overlap, cluster and
inter-penetrate each other.

1. Why do you see the need to downput Colonel Hansen and pass on
treacly genealogical gossip and innuendo about him?

2. Why do you do it about others as well?

3. Do you think it builds up your own reputation to do so?

4. Do you think folks here will find it entertaining and get a
*frisson* from it?

5. Who gives a rat's tail what Colonel Hansen may or may not have
said to a friend and colleague, Henry Hoff, while Hansen was working
up an article? Perhaps he was just bouncing ideas off Hoff, using him
as a sounding board; writers and intellectuals in general often do
that. Perhaps Hansen was unsure at that point about the affiliations.
It's always best to start from a firm ground of absolute doubt in
Genealogy and then be forced to prove a solid case of ascent or
descent, without any preconceptions.

6. What Colonel Hansen said to anyone about his work before he
published it is interesting perhaps, in a gossipy sort of way, I'd not
seek to proscribe it. [N.B. Nor could I if I tried.] But, the
important thing is what did he publish, or lecture or write and pass
out?

7. Are you implying that Colonel Hansen poached or stole genealogical
information from you? You pussy-foot around that issue. Is that why
you are afraid to talk about 'Countess Ida'?

8. You wrote:

"Following that meeting, Dr. Faris and I researched the matter in
depth. We found excellent evidence which fully proved Count Lambert's
existence. Likewise we found evidence that Lambert was the father of
King William the Conqueror's niece, Countess Judith.

In due time, Col. Hansen published his opinion on this subject in The
Genealogist, which piece fortunately did not include his earlier
position that Count Lambert of Lens was a ficticious [sic] person.
However, he still was uncertain if Count Lambert was Judith's father."

A. First off, the writing has a curious sort of 'behind-the-hand'
quality --- as if you were going to reveal some deep, dark, secret but
are not quite ready to do so yet. Curiouser and curiouser.

B. Did you and Faris publish your findings? If so, when? Did you
tell Colonel Hansen, but not publish? Did you tell him AND publish?
Man you write like a 12 year-old girl waxing emotional to a girlfriend
about her first kiss, but afraid her Mother might find the letter and
read it. It's a peek-a-boo style --- most unbecoming in a grown man.
Agatha Christie, on her worst day, doesn't even go as far into the
peek-a-boo style as do you.

C. How long is 'in due time'? Are you implying that Hansen made off
with the goods from you and Faris? Why 'fortunately'? You are glad
he didn't make a mistake, or it was fortunate for him that he did not
disagree with you and Faris?

D. You say Colonel Hansen was still uncertain if Count Lambert was
Judith's father. Did his article, which you've not cited, even deal
with that issue? You've not even given us the title of his piece.

E. Are you implying that he incorporated some of your work, i.e,, the
fact that Count Lambert of Lens did exist but not that he was Judith
of Lens's Father into his article?

Say what you mean man and mean what you say. Chuck the girlish
peek-a-boo style and behind-the-hand cheap innuendo and insinuations
about the reputation of Colonel Hansen and other respected
Genealogists.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas
--

D. Spencer Hines --- "I like to think of him [William Shakespeare
(1564-1616)] as poacher, as village ne'er-do-well, denounced by the
local grammar-school master." J. K. Jerome, "Second Thoughts of Idle
Fellow" p. 266 [1898]

Dcrdcr4 <> wrote in message
news:...

> The important thing is what I posted originally. That Col. Charles
Hansen
> unwisely relied on an secondary source to form a conclusion on a
medieval
> genealogical problem. That was the issue then. That is the issue
now. Not
> what who said to whom. There's a lesson in there for all of us,
including me.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson
>

This thread: