Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-10 > 1003310910

From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Parentage of Alice (Camoys) Hastings
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:28:30 +0800
References: <B96z7.5175$>, <iR7z7.1988$>, <qyaz7.7736$> <78bz7.2007$>

I think we are starting to overlook what is important. The knowledge, or
lack thereof, of Elizabeth Widville is impossible to establish. The link
proposed by Douglas Richardson is important but sadly Rosie Bevan has
established, in my opinion, that the link is still not "acceptable".

Let us stick to what is important.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Parentage of Alice (Camoys) Hastings

> Sutliff has tried ---- quite unsuccessfully ---- to change the
> subject ---- as well as move the goal posts.
> Verity has made an assertion, as follows:
> > It's POSSIBLE Jacquetta was descended from Henry III of England
> > through his daughter Beatrice's many Brittany descendants, but
> > Elizabeth Woodville was likely not aware of the details of this
> > descent, if so.
> Brad Verity
> ----------------------
> Hines has pointed out that Elizabeth Woodville IS reportedly descended
> from Henry III, as well as from other Royals. Leo van de Pas provided
> the names of additional Royals from whom Elizabeth Woodville is
> reportedly descended.
> Hines further pointed out that Verity has put HIMSELF in the position
> [Hines did not put him there] of having to prove the anserine assertion,
> supra ---- indeed, to prove a negative of sorts ---- as to the lack of
> Elizabeth Woodville's awareness of her own Royal Ancestry. That was
> quite unwise of Mr. Verity ---- unless he has evidence of same. Perhaps
> a letter in Elizabeth's own hand:
> "Cor blimey! I don't know the names of all me own
> Great-Grandparents ---- much less any of those further back. How
> frustrating to a young girl with my ambitions!"
> Yes, I should think that would suffice. <g>
> Then, Sutliff, acting like a buffoon, turned what was up until that
> point just a simple mistake by Verity into a Grand Comedy.
> Hilarious!
> Sutliff chastised Hines and insisted that the Burden of Proof for
> Verity's statement was NOT on Verity but on someone else ---- someone
> conveniently unidentified.
> Sutliff appears not even to have been able to follow the bouncing ball
> of the conversation and remember Verity's argument ---- or was too lazy
> to look it up ---- perhaps a combination of both. Yes, Sutliff was
> quite careless. He was focused on his own points and simply wanted to
> fire off a shot at Hines ---- without much forethought. Most Unwise.
> So, Sutliff, thereby leaping clumsily into the breach ---- commits
> Egregious Pratfall.
> How Sweet It Is!
> Lesson Learned.
> Sutliff should not stick his nose into a matter where he is both
> ignorant and lazy ---- and he should not stupidly attempt to move the
> goal posts on Hines ---- or he will get caught and thrashed again.
> John 5:14
> Finally, the Burden of Proof for Verity's anserine assertion ---- vide
> supra ---- remains on Verity's shoulders ---- not on those of Hines or
> anyone else ---- regardless of what Sutliff insists on and prattles
> about ---- fearfully.
> Deus Vult.
> <Groak!>

This thread: