Arundel/FitzAlan-Stradling: case closed?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tony Hoskins

Arundel/FitzAlan-Stradling: case closed?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 15 sep 2005 18:40:02

Hello Brad,

No, I have not read your article, and you are correct that before
rushing to judgement I (and all other interested parties) need to read
it. I intend to do so.

Before going further, I'd like to note that this ongoing discussion (as
has been said before) is more properly examined in its two not
necessarily connected elements. And the failure to do do is largely
responsible in my view for the continued muddying of waters.

1) Was the mother of Jane (Beaufort) Stradling Alice Arundel/FitzAlan?

2) Was Joan/Katherine (Stradling) Dennis the daughter of Jane
(Beaufort) Stradling?

Future discussions would profit from the separation of these two
questions, it seems to me.

A couple of your statements warrant response.

"I don't feel literary interpretation is sound genealogy. If that
stance makes me "prejudiced", I'll accept that label."

Well, of course that is true. But nobody that I have read suggests
otherwise. What seems apparent to me on the other hand is the desire to
artificially simplify and ease the relegation-to-worthlessness of this
element of evidence by maintaining that it supposedly stands on its own
to prove anything. I, nor do I believe anyone else, has or would suggest
so. I maintain that 1) if Seaton can be shown to truly know her stuff,
and 2) that the reading of these anagrams/logogriphs is reasonably
accurate and plausible - then they should *not* be summarily rejected
because they do not in and of themselves constitute proof. That you seem
to wish to do so implied to me a kind of prejudice on your part. I hope
to learn that this is not so.

"I am entitled to my position that the case (Alice Lady Powis
asmistress of Cardinal Beaufort and mother of his daughter Jane
Stradling) is closed."

The case is closed? At least until I have the chance to read you
article, I will remain amazed at the categorical certitude of your
view.

"You are clearly disappointed that Alice is not Jane's mother, as you
seem to find "fascinating" anything that is presented which seems to
counter
this position."

You are correct that I am disappointed - but not "that Alice is not
Jane's mother" - rather that this discussion seems immutably mired in
(those words again) prejudice and partisanship.

Perhaps I'm wrong, Brad, and that reading and study of your article
will make all clear.

Regards,

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Arundel/FitzAlan-Stradling: case closed?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 15 sep 2005 19:22:06

Tony Hoskins wrote:
What seems apparent to me on the other hand is the desire to
artificially simplify and ease the relegation-to-worthlessness of this
element of evidence by maintaining that it supposedly stands on its own
to prove anything. I, nor do I believe anyone else, has or would suggest
so. I maintain that 1) if Seaton can be shown to truly know her stuff,
and 2) that the reading of these anagrams/logogriphs is reasonably
accurate and plausible - then they should *not* be summarily rejected
because they do not in and of themselves constitute proof.

This type of logic can prove problematic when misused. It is quite
common for some authors (we see some here from time to time) to take a
collection of sources, none of which have probative value, and claim
that any flaw with any one is overcome by the entire body, yet each
individual member of that body of evidence is flawed. You basically say
that an argument is stronger than the sum of its parts, but I have seen
arguments that were weaker than the worst of their parts, with authentic
documentation of something irrelevant being twisted to support a
'desired' theory. When this interpretation was viewed skeptically, the
same type of 'preponderance' argument has been used - the interpretation
fits with everything else so the interpretation of this particular item
must be correct and in turn then supports the overall interpretation.
In this sense these become circular arguments - the item in question
only supports the argument when viewed from the context of the validity
of the argument.

An example of this would be some of the arguments in favor of Ragnar
Lothbrok. By starting with the assumption that he is authentic, it has
been argued that like the blind men and the elephant, each individual
item of evidence represents some (perhaps confused but authentic) aspect
of the truth, and that with this preponderance of evidence, his
authenticity is 'proven'. The problem is that if you look at the
individual items used in this argument, they are either way too late and
anachronictic to be accepted as historical documentation, or they are
authentic documentation but make no reference to an authentic "Ragnar
Lothbrok". Pile them all up and all you have is a pile, not a proof.

taf

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Arundel/FitzAlan-Stradling: case closed?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 15 sep 2005 19:48:57

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

< An example of this would be some of the arguments in favor of Ragnar
< Lothbrok. By starting with the assumption that he is authentic, it
has
< been argued that like the blind men and the elephant, each individual

< item of evidence represents some (perhaps confused but authentic)
aspect
< of the truth, and that with this preponderance of evidence, his
< authenticity is 'proven'.
< taf

There's only one problem, Todd. We're not talking abut Ragnar
Lothbrok, blind men, or elephants. We're talking about the appropriate
use of genealogical evidence. I find that when some posters don't like
the person who is presenting the evidence, the evidence is dismissed by
a wave of the hand, and the words are uttered: "It's only a lucky
guess." Does this sound familiar?

Tony Hoskins is right. The recent discussions regarding the
Beaufort-Arundel-Stradling-Dennis families have gotten immutably mired
in prejudice and partisanship (those words again). We can and should
do better than this.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Arundel/FitzAlan-Stradling: case closed?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 15 sep 2005 20:43:04

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

An example of this would be some of the arguments in favor of Ragnar
Lothbrok. By starting with the assumption that he is authentic, it
has
been argued that like the blind men and the elephant, each individual

item of evidence represents some (perhaps confused but authentic)
aspect
of the truth, and that with this preponderance of evidence, his
authenticity is 'proven'.
taf

There's only one problem, Todd.

Based on your response, there seems to be more than one.

We're not talking abut Ragnar
Lothbrok, blind men, or elephants. We're talking about the appropriate
use of genealogical evidence.

Are you familiar with the word "simile"? Anyhow, a discussion of
application of sources to the Ragnar Lothbrok question is very much a
discussion of the appropriate use of genealogical evidence, neither
simile nor metaphoor. The blind men and elephants were a simile to
describe the nature of a common genealogical argument in support of
Ragnar. I am sorry that this complexity went over your head. That
being said, your entire post seems to have little to do with
genealogical evidence at all, but rather a smarmy attack over something
(something accurate for that matter) that was said to you regarding an
entirely different issue. If you want to discuss that, then why don't
you open up a new thread, rather than injecting it into a discussion of
Seaton's theory.

I find that when some posters don't like
the person who is presenting the evidence, the evidence is dismissed by
a wave of the hand, and the words are uttered: "It's only a lucky
guess." Does this sound familiar?

Here is another word - "paranoia" (and, for that matter, "hipocrisy").

You really need to take a step back and consider the possibility that
all of the discussion in this group does not revolve around you.

As to "It's only a lucky guess", when one makes a guess with
insufficient supporting evidence and it proves correct, that is exactly
what it is. That does not apply in this case, as the relationship has
not been proven, one way or the other. Likewise, not enough details
been presented to determine the quality of the supporting evidence that
Seaton applies to her conclusion. (The only relevance of guesses to
this discussion was a single poster who couldn't resist crowing 'this
proves me right' with hardly a concern given to the appropriate use as
genealogical evidence. Does that sound familiar?) To suggest as you do
below that someone taking a skepical view of Seaton's hypothesis is
automatically prejudice and partisan is nothing more or less than an
attempt to stiffle appropriate critical evaluation.

Tony Hoskins is right. The recent discussions regarding the
Beaufort-Arundel-Stradling-Dennis families have gotten immutably mired
in prejudice and partisanship (those words again). We can and should
do better than this.

Why don't you begin by not attacking people who are actually discussing
the issue you claim the discussion to be about. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU -
it is about Seaton's hypothesis.

taf

Tony Hoskins

Re: Arundel/FitzAlan-Stradling: case closed?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 15 sep 2005 20:49:02

"You basically say that an argument is stronger than the sum of its
parts."

Actually, Todd, this is most emphatically *not* what I said. I
apologize if I gave the wrong impression. What I meant to convey was
that, regardless of a piece of evidence's coming from "out in left
field", taking a form we are not accustomed to seeing, or flying in the
face of our opinions, it should not be denigrated or shoved aside simply
for its (one might call) unexpectedness, "otherness". And I completely
agree that any case purporting to be "proved" by circumstantial evidence
must have no unresolved elements - no elements incongruent with the
conclusion drawn, or the "proof" fails.

And you are quite correct that certain types of logic are dangerous in
the wrong hands. That's why a forum of this sort is so valuable.

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»