Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-09 > 1252175430

From: binky <>
Subject: Re: Society Of Genealogists (London)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 11:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
References: <><h7rq2o$pm8$><><> <h7s7o1$38h$><><h7taed$qh5$><><> <>


Let me put it this way: there is NO contemporary evidence that is
acceptable genetic evidence that any medieval royal bastard was really
the biological offspring of a king. It's not a matter of opinion:
it's a matter of science. No medieval monarch had scientific means to
prove paternity, which is exactly what a modern court requires.

What in your view is the reason a modern court requires scientific
evidence of paternity in cases of bastardy, as opposed to some other
method? Think it might have something to do with the unreliability of
previous methods of determining paternity? Yeah, probably that's the
reason, huh?

Why do you think William Saxbe agreed with me? He wasn't choosing
sides--there are no sides to this issue. Are you oblivious to the
fact that scientific knowledge has advanced since the Middle Ages?

Go ahead and post any of this documentation--I can tell you right now
all it proves is that the reputed father accepted the child. THAT'S
NOT ENOUGH. Your problem, along with Roberts, is that your books are
so saturated with this baloney you can't rewrite them. They would be
eviscerated. It's a fool's paradise. Yes, there are sources that
King John had an illegitimate daughter named Joan--specifically, why
do you think these sources constitute scientific proof of paternity?

This thread: