Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-12 > 1133810557

From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Lancaster Descent...All To Todd
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:22:37 -0700
References: <> <dmvktd$7b$> <> <dn0b0a$c6h$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>

butlergrt wrote:

> The idea is not for
> me to change it for you, as you see it, but for you to change it as you
> see it, it was a rough draft-good or no- right or wrong, it is a start.

But I am not asking you to change it - I am asking you to explain it, as
you see it. Without understanding it, I cannot evaluate whether I think
it needs changed or not.

> 3. If this line "IS SO WELL ACCEPTED", as you seem to propose? then why
> has there been so much activity on this particular subject material?

With regard to the part of the pedigree running from William I to
William III, there has not been much activity other than you posting
alternatives, the basis for which I am trying to get you to reveal.

> 4. Debate (argument) for the sake of debate and argument is a senseless
> waste of time and energy and leads to nothing but confusion, why bother?

I am not (yet) debating. I am asking you to explain the basis for your
proposal. Only then can I determine whether debate is merited.

> This not a
> matter of convincing but one of understanding!! No one person will ever
> convince another if that person does not understand to begin with and all
> arguments and matters of debate will then have failed.


> 6. I will try to endeavor a lineage as I have written and understand it,
> with relevant materials thusly posted to extant point, primary sources
> footnoted and see what ensues. All who wish to do the same are more than
> welcome, IF, should you feel hesitant about it, feel free to e-mail your
> lineages and I will re-post for the "Group" as Submitter A,B,C, ad
> shall remain unknown unless you should later feel
> otherwise.
> 7. I noted than I have NOT seen a complete lineage listing from you Todd?

Nor will you on this issue. The different parts of this debate, early
and late, are unrelated. They need to be evaluated independently, on
their own merits, and presenting an extended descent only mixes the
important but separate issues. Whether Ketel is grandson of Ivo or not
has no bearing on whether Helwise is daughter of William II or Gilbert.
They can and should be discussed separately if anything productive is
to come out of it.

> so that I may be able to better UNDERSTAND your position! I hope you are
> not hesitant? or that it is not to much work.

My 'position' is that I don't understand why you are proposing Gilbert
as father of Helwise.

I simply can't figure out what this little misunderstanding of ours is
about. There appears to be a fundamental difference in our approaches.
You keep telling me to present my version and then we will compare,
but I don't view genealogy as necessarily involving comparison among
competing versions. I evaluate each option independently, not picking
the best among alternatives but figuring out whether each specific claim
has any basis. Nothing wins by default, just because it is better than
the alternatives (and "we don't know" is the only default alternative).
This does require, though, that someone making a proposal explain the
basis for it so that it can be evaluated, hence our impasse. You
request that I first post my version, then you will discuss yours. I
have no version to present, but still want to understand and discuss yours.


This thread: