GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-03 > 1047740674


From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
Subject: Re: Fw: List of Bastard Children of King Edward IV of England
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:58:06 +1100
References: <ECELJLLLKGANJMKHGAIDGEKBCOAA.kevanbarton@adelphia.net>


Sorry Kevan,
There was a certain amount of gibberish in that e-mail. He did not make it
clear whose descendants had not been traced nor by whom they had not been
traced and in the same e-mail he stated that Gary Boyd Roberts had, and even
had found descendants in the USA. Is he going to mention "descendants not
traced" by everyone? Because they are not displayed it does not mean they
have not been traced (by him or anyone else). I presume he sticks to certain
guide lines in his book, those people outside those guide line do not need
to be discussed. I certainly found it a weird observation.
Also he was not discussing the number of children Elizabeth Plantagenet, he
simply stated them as one son and three daughters. Had he looked better at
the book by Gary Boyd Roberts, he would have found at least one more son, he
did mention that book. Also he is acquainted with Cahiers de Saint Louis and
there he would have found more. Two sources he has access to, both glossed
over or ignored. We do need to do his homework and this is not something we
should. He should exhaust his own abilities first and then, as a last
resource, as for our help.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevan Barton" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:38 AM
Subject: RE: Fw: List of Bastard Children of King Edward IV of England


> Sam, Leo,
>
> I'm not sure what Leo is really saying. Douglas asks that "If anyone has
> any corrections or additions to the list below, I'd appreciate it if they
> would post them here on the newsgroup". This is a worthy request as
Douglas
> obviously does not believe that the book has been closed on the subject,
but
> then Leo appears to be snagging Douglas for admitting he may not have all
> the data and for asking for "additions and corrections". It's very
apparent
> from what Douglas wrote that he feels the main value of the posting was
the
> parentage evidence of Elizabeth. He even states that he hadn't traced the
> decedents. I'd certainly wish for folks to take a politer, kinder approach
> to how they respond to other folks on the list.
>
> Cheers,
> Kevan
>
>
>



This thread: