GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1127768043


From: "Douglas Richardson " <>
Subject: Re: N.N. de Crevequor, wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Date: 26 Sep 2005 13:54:03 -0700
References: <26126651.1127524031732.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <1127625555.533734.222600@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127714156.963189.149110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127746909.280227.324350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1127752053.763787.273910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127754056.061344.145180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1127754056.061344.145180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>


Dear CED ~

How typical of you to turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up.
If you're going to make wild allegations, I'm afraid you will have to
stand and answer for your misspoken words and unfounded logic.

For starters, I once again ask that you provide us with your definition
of a "qualified person" and "good work." If Dr. Stringer, a trained
historian with a superior reputation, is not "qualified" and capable of
"good work," then I'd hate to guess who you think falls into that
category. Since you now admit that you were aware that Dr. Stringer
was the author of the original conclusion about Alan Fitz Roland's
wife, then perhaps you can tell us why you failed to mention that fact
in your original post. And, why did you attack me, and not Dr.
Stringer? Your statements to the contrary, I gave Dr. Stringer full
credit for his discovery here on the newsgroup back in 2002. And, as
you are fully aware, I also posted additional evidence which confirmed
his findings.

When you have the opportunity, I ask once again that you state your
credentials to offer us a review of Dr. Stringer's work. I suspect you
have no credentials, but I could be wrong. I hope for your sake that
you have something in your background besides an uninformed opinion.
SImply reading Dr. Stringer's works doesn't make you a scholar, or make
you qualified to pass judgement on his work.

Lastly, perhaps you can explain to us how Mr. Bradford identified the
father of John de Lacy, the Magna Carta baron, as Richard de Crevecour,
the attorney of Alan Fitz Roland. This conclusion is beyond me.
Surely you know that the Crevecour family never owned Kippax,
Yorkshire. As I have posted, this property belonged to the Lacy family
since the time of the Domesday survey in 1086. And, are you suggesting
that Alan Fitz Roland, the plaintiff in 1214, had the father of the
defendant as his own attorney? Surely you gest. If this is not what
you are saying, please say so and tell us that Mr. Bradford's
conclusions are wrong.

Aside to the newgroup lurkers: I predict that CED will ignore my
request for the definitions of his words. He will not post his
qualifications. He will dodge the statement about Richard de Crevecour
being John de Lacy's father. He will ignore the fact that the Lacy
family were the owners of Kippax, Yorkshire. He will ignore Mr.
Bradford's conclusion that the plaintiff, Alan Fitz Roland's attorney
was the father of the defendant. He will also fail to admit that his
real motive in posting in this thread was to attack me personally, not
to address the question of the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife.

I think that about covers it, CED. The ball as they say is now in your
court.

Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net


This thread: