GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-02 > 1075848372
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: Katherine Deighton's new royal ancestry
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:46:12 GMT
In message of 3 Feb, ("Clagett, Brice") wrote:
> I am one of those who believe that Douglas Richardson has done
> much good work and who hope for more of it from his forthcoming
> However, I find his Beaufort-Stradling-Dennis text, as posted
> on February 1, quite disturbing. If it is characteristic of the
> book generally, then the book will be of much less value than
> many of us have hoped.
> The problem is that Doug presents as unquestioned fact the descent
> depending on Joan Beaufort as mother of Katherine Stradling,
> without the slightest recognition that this point is subject to
> uncertainty and controversy. He cites a host of references without
> revealing that not a single one of these sources (so far as I know)
> in fact identifies Joan as Katherine's mother. (If any of them
> do so identify her, why not say which one or ones?) He cites Clark
> without disclosing that Clark says that Sir Edward Stradling had many
> bastards. He characterizes RD500, without explanation, as containing
> an "erroneous identification of Katherine Stradling's parentage."
> Neither in this text nor in his posts to the newsgroup has Doug
> disclosed the reasoning behind his conclusion.
> If this approach is characteristic of the book, then it will be
> impossible to credit any new line in it without examining every cited
> source to see whether the aggregate of them fully supports each link
> in the line. Far better frankly to acknowledge uncertainty where it
> exists and to give the reasoning for one's preferred solution.
Oh no, not another reason for late delivery!
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
|Re: Katherine Deighton's new royal ancestry by Tim Powys-Lybbe <>|