Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-11 > 1006899584

From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun: Dispensations and Hostages
Date: 27 Nov 2001 14:19:44 -0800
References: <>, <>, <>

Dear Stewart ~

Thank you for your good post.

I explained my theory regarding Clemence de Verdun in a rational and
coherent fashion. I made five points which are as follows:

1. I cited the evidence in which the mother of Joan, wife of Prince
Llywelyn, was named as Clemence.

2. I noted that Susanna, daughter of Joan and Llywelyn, was placed as
a hostage in the custody of Nicholas and Clemence de Verdun.

3. I noted that the name Clemence is extremely rare. Mr. Philips
provided a given name frequency for this period which backed my
assertion. He found the name Clemence occured only twice out of 1,407
occurrences of female given names in Essex fines for this specific
period. Two occurrences out of 1,407 makes the name Clemence rare

Since Mr. Philips posted, a grand total of six contemporary women
named Clemence have turned up, out of 150 or so families of baronial
rank and possibly 2000 families of knightly rank. Of the six
Clemences, only two were of baronial rank. One woman of baronial rank
is known to have been childless. She is not likely to have been Joan's
mother. The other woman of baronial rank who is known to have had
issue was Clemence de Verdun. These facts make Clemence de Verdun a
prime candidate to be Joan's mother.

4. I stated that I previously had observed a pattern of foreign born
hostages being placed with English relatives. I cited the example of
Alan Fitz Roland's daughter in specific and the example of Scottish
hostages in general. I stated my belief that if such a pattern was
correct, then it was highly likely that Susanna was closely related to
Nicholas and Clemence de Verdun, her guardians.

So far, no one has step forward to refute either my observation or my
examples. Alan Fitz Roland whose daughter was a hostage was a
contemporary to Joan and Llywellyn, and held the same rank as Llewelyn
did at the English court. He was a blood kinsman of the king, just as
Joan was a blood kinswoman. Moreover, Alan's wife was the sister of
an English baron and the niece of another English baron. Surely, his
daughter would have received similar treatment as Joan's daughter,
Susanna. In Alan Fitz Roland, you have a contemporary person of
similar rank with a female child. His daughter was placed with her
uncle, an English baron. You couldn't ask for a better example. In
fact, it is tailor made.

5. I stated that the inclusion of Clemence de Verdun in the grant of
Susanna's custody was significant, if for no other reason that we have
primary evidence of a woman named Clemence associated with the family
of Princess Joan. I surmised that Clemence de Verdun had a personal
interest in Susanna, otherwise there would be no need for her to have
been included in the custody grant. Furthermore, I pointed out that
the wife of the next custodian of Susanna was not named in that grant.
The failure to name the wife of the second guardian underscores the
likelihood that Clemence de Verdun had a personal interest in Susanna.
This is basic deductive reasoning, not a "sweeping" claim.

Those were my five points and my evidence to support my theory. To
date, a worthwhile attempt has been made by Mr. Reed to discredit my
theory on a chronological basis. However, with the discovery of
Rohese de Verdun's hitherto unknown first marriage, Mr. Reed's
chronological argument has collapsed. The chronology between the
families of Princess Joan and Clemence de Verdun is now perfectly

If the discussion is to proceed further, it is necessary that Mr. Reed
cite his evidence and rebut my theory point by point on a factual
basis. The burden is on him. I've made my case as clearly and
cogently as I can. It is his turn to do the same. The newsgroup
wants to see his evidence. We already know his opinions.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


(Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<>...
> On 26 Nov 2001 11:25:25 -0800, (Douglas
> Richardson) wrote:
> >"Paul C. Reed" <> wrote in message news:<>...
> >> "Paul C. Reed" wrote:
> >> Before one can state, "Hostages were put with relatives, so there
> >> must be a relationship in this situation" one must show that female
> >> hostages were indeed usually placed with relatives. The burden
> >> of proof is on the person making the claim. He should not expect
> >> others to go out and find the proof for him. He should be capable
> >> of proving his point, if it is correct.
> >
> >I believe the burden is on you, Paul. I cited my evidence. You only
> >gave us your opinion. Your evidence please.
> On the contrary, the purely anecdotal "evidence" that you cited is far
> from sufficient to establish your case. Since you are the one making
> the claim, the burden of proof (which you have not supplied) rests
> with you and you alone. For a claim as sweeping as the one you have
> made, examples simply do not suffice, and some sort of statistical
> evidence must be presented. It is not appropriate for you to demand
> evidence from those who are making the simple (and obvious)
> observation that you have not presented any significant evidence to
> support your claims about hostages and relatives.
> Stewart Baldwin

This thread: