Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-11 > 1007059134

From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Clemence de Verdun: Dispensations and Hostages
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:38:54 GMT
References: <>, <>, <>

On 27 Nov 2001 14:19:44 -0800, (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:

[Note: It is obvious from the recent postings of several individuals
that the problem of identifying Joan's mother is a complicated case.
This posting concerns the specific general claim that hostages were
generally placed with relatives.]

>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.

But it comes nowhere near to establishing your claim that hostages
were were usually placed with relatives. It only shows the MUCH
weaker conclusion that hostages were SOMETIMES placed with relatives.
You seem to be completely missing the point here. If you claim a that
general pattern is true, then it simply does not suffice to give an
example or two and then claim that you have proven your point. The
logic there is simply not valid. It is a serious error of a very
fundamental type. (In fact, it is a point that some of my mathematics
students just never seem to get: you cannot prove a general statement
by simply giving a few examples.)

>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.

This is simply not true. You have used flawed logic to support a
claim that has not yet been demonstrated. As the proposer of the
"hostages were placed with relatives" theory, the burden rests on your
shoulders, and you can not legitimately shift that burden to somebody
else by simply claiming that you have established the point, when it
is quite clear that you have not. The claim may in fact be true, but
it has yet to be demonstrated, and if you would like to see it get
accepted as a valid observation, then you, as the proposer, should do
the research yourself instead of making the ridiculous suggestion that
it is somebody else's job to go to the trouble of assembling the
evidence to find out whether or not the examples you gave are part of
a pattern that is true in general.

Stewart Baldwin

This thread: