The Consanguinity Dispensation As Genealogical Proof -- An U

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
D. Spencer Hines

The Consanguinity Dispensation As Genealogical Proof -- An U

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 mar 2005 21:00:05

Yes, Leo pokes several gaping holes in the logic of Nat's long,
discursive, meandering, inconclusive and pontificatory screed found
below.

| Can you trust the paper dispensations were written on?
|
| Leo

Nat simply builds a house on sand -- based on a clearly False Premise:

| > I believe that one should generally be confident of the veracity of
| > the genealogy implied or stated in a consanguinity dispensation
| > for two reasons:...

Nat Taylor
---------------

Houses built on sand do not survive the first flood -- and neither does
Nat's totally unconvincing peroration below, which is based on
glittering generalities, artful hedges, hopeful expectations and
congealed naivete.

Nat also wants us all to know that he knows, and is quite fond of, the
word PARENTELAE.

Amusing...

We also note that Nat has not answered Leo.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:006c01c52210$49c38a60$c3b4fea9@email...

| Dear Nat,

| On my website I have the story of Philippe II of France who had
| arranged his marriage to Ingeborg of Denmark but when she
| arrived he did not like her and had people swear they were
| related within the forbidden degree basing his annulment
| on that.
|
| And then there was this French brother and his sister who hoodwinked
| the pope who then gave them permission to
| marry..........................
|
| Ferdinand of Aragon's father had forged a papal approval to fool
| Isabella so she would marry Ferdinand.
|
| Can you trust the paper dispensations were written on?
|
| Leo
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
| To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 4:15 PM
| Subject: dispensations as proof -- maternity of Alix of France
|
| > In article <1110042283.051853.88280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
| > "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
| > wrote:
| >
| > > Yes, the evidence is conclusive that Alice of France is the
daughter of
| > > Constance of Castile.
| >
| > As I said before, I am glad Douglas found the dispensation. I
suspect
| > that Douglas (and others who have put forward the theory) is right
that
| > Alix was daughter of Constance. However the dispensation cannot be
| > considered probative without some interpretation.
| >
| > Now, for some interpretation (and, following the other horn of this
| > thread, those who prefer genealogy with no 'interpretation'--perhaps
the
| > majority of you--can ignore this, I suppose). Whatever some might
say,
| > I am both interested in arriving at a convincing proof of this
| > genealogical revision, and willing to contribute to that end (and
I'm
| > sorry that, in contrast, there are some people who have looked into
the
| > parallel question of Anselme's sources for his contradictory view,
but
| > who have declined to share their findings with the group). So here
goes:
| >
| > I believe that one should generally be confident of the veracity of
the
| > genealogy implied or stated in a consanguinity dispensation for two
| > reasons:
| >
| > 1. The process of researching and requesting it would likely have
been
| > the subject of considerable care and due diligence on the part of
| > interested parties, who since they were dealing with their own
| > parentelae would therefore have had more reliable access to
| > knowledgeable informants than the average chronicler. However, what
if
| > the principals involved relied on expert testimony from outside
their
| > own family for information on their own ancestry? And what if that
| > testimony was erroneous? Would they have noticed? This is an
important
| > and difficult question: it is essentially a variation on the old,
| > general question, "how much did medieval people know about their own
| > ancestry?", which is very difficult to pin down.
| >
| > Based on some research I did on genealogical testimony in marriage
| > litigation for a Haskins Society conference last year, my hunch is
that
| > persons seeking dispensations would be more likely to rely on oral
| > testimony of witnesses within their extended parentelae for
genealogical
| > data, than on outside testimony from clergy. But I was focusing on
| > litigation which involved direct testimony by witnesses in lawsuits,
| > rather than the compilation of material accompanying a request for a
| > dispensation. Famously, Ivo of Chartres solicited genealogies to be
| > sent to him by parties to be married to daughters of Henry I, rather
| > than seeking the information from independent sources. Based on
these
| > inexact analogies I would tend to presume that we can expect isuch
| > information to be compiled by witness testimony rather than culled
from
| > chronicle texts.
| >
| > 2. Consanguinity allegations in dispensations by their very nature
would
| > be unlikely to be deliberately forged: if two parties want to be
| > married, why invent an impediment and then seek to surmount it?
There
| > is no easy presumptive motive for prevarication. (I would be
interested
|
| > to hear of any real or hypothetical case to the contrary.)
| >
| > So, if we assume that the parties seeking a dispensation (generally
the
| > spouses or their families) were acting in good faith on information
they
| > believed correct, and probably customarily relied on sources most
likely
| > to be correct, then I conclude that one should privilege the witness
of
| > a dispensation, even though its testimony is indirect (i.e., the
| > document doesn't usually explicitly name the common ancestor and
descent
| > path) and even though the date of the document might be 100 years
after
| > the floruit of the apparent common ancestor.
| >
| > And if the dispensation can be shown to refer to only one possible
| > relationship path (and this is often not determinable), then it
should
| > be considered as a very strong component of a proof of any and all
of
| > the filiations in that path. So in this particular case I would
| > conclude that the dispensation offers strong support for
Constance ->
| > Alix, following my assumption that it would be based on family
testimony
| > and likely reliable.
| >
| > Contrary to what another poster has implied, I have sustained this
| > discussion (1) to help build a consensual and sound argument for the
| > genealogical revision suggested by the dispensation; (2) to float my
| > ideas on the nature and value of genealogical evidence presented in
| > dispensations, in which I have a particular interest; and (3) to
replace
| > a bald and oversimplifying assertion of the form "document X proves
that
| > A is the mother of B" with something more accurate, even if less
| > headline-worthy.
| >
| > Nat Taylor
| >
| > a genealogist's sketchbook:
| > http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»