Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-11 > 1006833319

From: "Paul C. Reed" <>
Subject: Re: Scholarship [long personal rant, was Re: Clemence]
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:55:19 -0700
References: <>, <>, <>

"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:

> "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > I would think that rather than being angry about the discussion that has
> > taken place on this group, Doug would be grateful. He stated his
> > intent to put into print, in the immediate future, the statement that Joan
> > might be daughter of Clemence de Dauntsey, daughter of Sir Roger de
> > Dauntsey and wife of Nicholas de Verdun.
> Actually, it has already been put into print - several years ago
> in RD500.
> taf

I was aware that the statement had been made giving the name and
announcing a forthcoming article to be published in The Genealogist,
but in my mind that would simply make most people ask where they
should look.

In my mind, this was a more urgent situation because David Faris
had built up reputable trust and faith in the first two editions, by
including sources in most generations. His care is reviewing material
before adding it has resulted in fewer corrections than had been
necessary in publications like Ancestral Roots.

If this discussion were merely an opinion expressed about something
that was to stay on this group, I would not have endeavored to delve
into things so deeply so quickly (though curiosity gets me going from
time to time, as I expect it does for us all). But the expectation has
been put forth that what will appear in Plantagenet Ancestry 3 will be
of a high level of scholarship, and because of the standards adhered
to in the first two editions under the direction of David Faris, readers
of PA3 would put more faith in a statement it contains about such
ancestry than a similar statement made in an older edition of RD500.

That was my thinking, right or wrong.


This thread: