GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-01 > 1138217212
From: "CED" <>
Subject: Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II
Date: 25 Jan 2006 11:26:52 -0800
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> CED wrote:
> \> (1) The identifications made by Richardson are not conclusive, even
> > the basis of what he has chosen to post. He has jumped to a conclusion.
> > (The Thomas' de Burgh have long been confused. Just as was the case
> > with Bp. Geoffrey's aunt, the father of either of the two Thomas' he
> > mentions is not necessarily the father of Hubert.)
> > CED
> I've set forth evidence which I think is compelling and persuasive.
> The evidence speaks for itself.
> By the way, since you've mentioned Ellis once again, just what evidence
> did he publish regarding Earl Hubert de Burgh's parentage?
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson was the first to mention Ellis' Book on (I think) 02 January
2006. He led us to believe that he had read it. Now he he asks me to
explain Ellis' book.
Here Richardson goes again, twisting the evidence and shifting the
burden of proof. We should know that it is his oft used ploy; yet
somehow everytime he does it, I am taken aback at the brazen repetition
of this ploy.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> Website: www.royalancestry.net
|Re: Hubert de Burgh's brother, Sir Thomas de Burgh - Part II by "CED" <>|