GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-07 > 1058244570
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: La Zouche and Lubbesthorpe, co. Leics. - A Constable Connection?
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:49:30 -0600
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3F11C7E7.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3F123B83.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message news:<>...
>>Bastard, then, as Sheppard explicitly calls Joyce William's "sole
>>daughter and heiress".
> Specifically, what evidence does Sheppard cite that Joyce was William
> la Zouche's "sole daughter and heiress?"
None. For his summary of the Zouche family, he is drawing from
an unpublished genealogy of the family, compiled by John Hunt.
To reveal the basis for this statement, it would appear that
someone would have to locate the Hunt manuscript. Happy Hunting.
> As far as I know Joyce
> received property at Norton, co. Northampton as her maritagium, but
> this was not an inheritance. And, the Essex lands of William la
> Zouche's wife, Maud de Howbridge, fell to her son by her 1st Trailly
> marriage. I don't know of anything Joyce inherited. Do you? If so,
> please name the properties and cite your sources.
Do you know of any properties Roger of Lubbesthorpe inherited
from William? If so, please name the properties and cite your
>>I am underwhelmed by the late evidence of the visitation.
> Your cynicism and lack of experience are showing.
Don't condescend, it is unbecoming of a scholar and gentleman.
(Your egomania, conclusion-jumping and tunnel vision are showing
- see what I mean. Were I to say that, it would only diminish my
position, due to the fallacious nature of the ad hominem, and
further, it would make me look petty and vindictive. Thus, I
will refrain from saying it.)
> You have dismissed
> a piece of valid evidence before examining its worthiness.
I did examine it's worthiness - it is recorded 300+ years after
the events it pretends authority on, and thus it's worthiness is
subject to question. So I questioned it. If you wish to argue
in support of it, then do so without the ad hominem.