Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-03 > 1078995951

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Henry Beaufort and his illegitimate daugher, Joan
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:05:51 -0000
References: <> <1PX3c.98335$>

In my carefully considered opinion, anyone who has been following
Richardson's posts to this newsgroup over the years and who has NOT come
to the conclusion that Richardson is a sly, manipulative charlatan and
an utter fraud is clearly naive, none-too-swift and a damned fool to

I've been reading him for eight years now and have seen nothing to
change my mind on that considered judgment. Further, folks here will
know I used to DEFEND Richardson and encourage folks to cut him some

Well, we DID cut him some slack --- far more than he deserved -- and
Richardson proceeded to hang himself with it.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <> wrote in message

| Douglas Richardson wrote:
| <chomp>
| > On the whole, it seems all sources stand in agreement that Joan
| > Beaufort was Henry Beaufort's illegitimate daughter. Although
| > sources state that Alice Arundel was Joan Beaufort's mother, I find
| > direct evidence to support this statement. I also know no evidence
| > which would refute it. As such, I believe it is correct to merely
| > that Joan Beaufort, wife of Edward Stradling, was the illegitimate
| > daughter of Cardinal Henry Beaufort, it is said by Alice Arundel.
| I will leave the putrid mess of Richardson's post to others, merely
| noting that most of the paragraph above is a mere nullity, a kind of
| verbal blancmange, a slippery evasion of responsibility for his own
| previous statements about purported "new research" on his part and
| methodological irresponsibility on the part of others.
| No-one has taken issue from the start with the fact that Cardinal
| Beaufort had an illegitimate daughter Joan, wife of Edward Stradling;
| while the third sentence claiming ignorance (always a safe ambit claim
| for Richardson) can only prove that he has not been paying due
| to the posts of Rosie Bevan and Brad Verity.
| Picking and choosing favourable - or popularly saleable - aspects of a
| complex argument cannot be a legitimate means of advancing the study
| genealogy. There is no sound basis whatever for retaining the
| that Beaufort sired Joan before he took orders while simultaneously
| discounting the connected claim that Alice Arundel was her mother.
| is simply no rationale put forward to allow for such a line-item
| criticism of the Stradling account from the mid-16th century.
| As to his own methodology, cross-referencing secondary works as
| independent "authorities" for a statement of which the known common
| primary source is not even directly acknowledged, much less openly
| examined & assessed, I wonder if any SGM member is prepared to go on
| record for the newsgroup as believing that Richardson still has a
| trained, professional leg to stand on?
| Peter Stewart

This thread: