More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 okt 2005 05:15:53

Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my earlier posts on Richard [le] Scrope and his wife,
Agnes de Gant, I've learned that "Ricardo Scrop" [Richard Scrop] served
as a witness to a charter issued by Supir de Bayeux, who granted the
church of Little Wykeham with a toft, plus land in East Wykeham (in
Ludford), to Sixle (or Sixhill) Priory in Lincolnshire [Reference: F.M.
Stenton, Transcripts of Charters relating to the Gilbertine Houses of
Sixle, Ormsby, Catley, Bullington, and Alvingham (Lincoln Rec. Soc. 18)
(1922): 5].

The editor, Mr. Stenton, dated this charter as being "before 1162,
probably circa 1155." However, judging from the dates of three of the
other witnesses to the charter who held ecclesiastical positions, the
charter appears to date from the early 1150's to 1158. This is a
slightly better fix on the dating of the charter. All the same, the
date circa 1155 provided by Mr. Stenton would be about right.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 14 okt 2005 09:02:47

Douglas Richardson wrote:
As a followup to my earlier posts on Richard [le] Scrope and his wife,
Agnes de Gant, ...

Isn't this identification of Agnes still rather speculative, based on
circumstantial evidence and the assumption that in her niece's charter
"matertera" indicated a paternal aunt?

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 okt 2005 16:05:17

Dear Chris ~

If "matertera" can mean either paternal aunt or maternal aunt, then I
think it's clear that Countess Alice de Gant's aunt, Agnes Scrope, was
a Gant (paternal aunt), not a Clare (maternal aunt). The Scropes lived
in Lincolnshire, and were tenants of the Gant family. They served
regularly as witnesses for Gant charters. This would put them in
position for an intermarriage between the Scrope and Gant families. By
comparison, Alice de Gant's maternal side, the Clare family, resided
elsewhere in England. I also know of no association between them and
the Scrope family. So right there the evidence has tipped heavily in
favor of Agnes Scrope being a Gant.

Furthermore, we already know that Walter de Gant had a daughter named
Agnes whose husband William de Mohun last appears in the records about
1142. If we assume that Agnes was widowed about then, she would be
free to marry Richard Scrope who occurs in the records from c. 1147
through c. 1155. I find it especially important that Richard Scrope,
her putative husband, witnessed a charter for her brother, Gilbert de
Gant, c. 1147, which date is after William de Mohun's last known
appearance in the records. So that fits nicely.

What is needed for conclusive evidence is to find a woman named Agnes
Scrope dealing with Mohun family properties after c. 1142. I'll put my
lucky rabbit's foot in my pocket the next time I go to the library.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 14:18:26

Not for the first time, I am astonished that people who are interested in
the subject of this thread have chosen to leave Richardson's arbitrary
musings unchallenged.

What is the point of even having a newsgroup devoted to medieval genealogy
if tripe like this can go unremarked by those who (unlike myself) are
interested in the matter? Do the readers of this thread think that mere
silence on their part is somehow dignified and/or progressive?

Comments interspersed:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1129302317.747462.183960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Chris ~

If "matertera" can mean either paternal aunt or maternal aunt, then I
think it's clear that Countess Alice de Gant's aunt, Agnes Scrope, was
a Gant (paternal aunt), not a Clare (maternal aunt). The Scropes lived
in Lincolnshire, and were tenants of the Gant family. They served
regularly as witnesses for Gant charters. This would put them in
position for an intermarriage between the Scrope and Gant families. By
comparison, Alice de Gant's maternal side, the Clare family, resided
elsewhere in England. I also know of no association between them and
the Scrope family. So right there the evidence has tipped heavily in
favor of Agnes Scrope being a Gant.

Where families resided and what Richarson knows about them are NOT points of
evidence, or untested weights in the balance of evidence. Families
demonstrably allied themselves at court and in other contexts that cut
across the proximity of landholdings, and Richardson's patchy research is
not by ANY means a standard that can be held up for proof, or for any useful
purpose whatsoever.

Furthermore, we already know that Walter de Gant had a daughter named
Agnes whose husband William de Mohun last appears in the records about
1142. If we assume that Agnes was widowed about then, she would be
free to marry Richard Scrope who occurs in the records from c. 1147
through c. 1155. I find it especially important that Richard Scrope,
her putative husband, witnessed a charter for her brother, Gilbert de
Gant, c. 1147, which date is after William de Mohun's last known
appearance in the records. So that fits nicely.

IF we assume X then Y becomes possible....After that, any remote coincidence
of persons can be adduced to magnify NOTHING into SOMETHING, possibility
magically transformed without rationale into plausibiliy - and "nicely" so?

What is needed for conclusive evidence is to find a woman named Agnes
Scrope dealing with Mohun family properties after c. 1142. I'll put my
lucky rabbit's foot in my pocket the next time I go to the library.

What is needed for conclusive evidence must be everything that is so far
lacking. Supposition of the kind proposed by Richardson, a mere convenience
of solution by his lights, does NOT enter into the serious attempt to
resolve a specific question of relationship. Failing actual evidence, direct
or indirect, circumstantial indicators may be useful, but these must first
be clear in themselves or else must be cogently argued into clarity. None of
the above can be said to achieve this, or any reasonable simulacrum of it.

Why has this not been said before now, by others? Is this from acquiescence
in Richardson's vague process of wishful thinking and weakly approximate
analysis? If so, could the silent readers tell us why? Or if keeping quiet
from the limp desire for peace and quiet, could they tell us why we should
credit or even take note of their contributions whenever they DO finally
choose to speak up?

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 15 okt 2005 15:01:31

In message of 15 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Not for the first time, I am astonished that people who are interested
in the subject of this thread have chosen to leave Richardson's
arbitrary musings unchallenged.

<snip>

Why has this not been said before now, by others? Is this from
acquiescence in Richardson's vague process of wishful thinking and
weakly approximate analysis? If so, could the silent readers tell us
why? Or if keeping quiet from the limp desire for peace and quiet,
could they tell us why we should credit or even take note of their
contributions whenever they DO finally choose to speak up?

I am one for a (fairly) quiet (amd limp) life. So I have kill-filed
Richardson and given away his book, thus removing him from my plane of
existence, save for quoted extracts that surface from time to time in
the postings of others. I wonder how many others have done the same?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Peter Stewart

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 okt 2005 17:07:30

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:15ff41ba4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 15 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Not for the first time, I am astonished that people who are interested
in the subject of this thread have chosen to leave Richardson's
arbitrary musings unchallenged.

snip

Why has this not been said before now, by others? Is this from
acquiescence in Richardson's vague process of wishful thinking and
weakly approximate analysis? If so, could the silent readers tell us
why? Or if keeping quiet from the limp desire for peace and quiet,
could they tell us why we should credit or even take note of their
contributions whenever they DO finally choose to speak up?

I am one for a (fairly) quiet (amd limp) life. So I have kill-filed
Richardson and given away his book, thus removing him from my plane of
existence, save for quoted extracts that surface from time to time in
the postings of others. I wonder how many others have done the same?

Your eminently sensible kill-filing is perfectly understandable, Tim - but
the lack of response by people who clearly _were_ reading the posts in
question is puzzling. This is what Richardson counts on for gettting away
with his impostures, and apparently he is justified in doing so.

Peter Stewart

Don Stone

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Don Stone » 15 okt 2005 18:14:28

Peter Stewart wrote:
Not for the first time, I am astonished that people who are interested in
the subject of this thread have chosen to leave Richardson's arbitrary
musings unchallenged.

What is the point of even having a newsgroup devoted to medieval genealogy
if tripe like this can go unremarked by those who (unlike myself) are
interested in the matter? Do the readers of this thread think that mere
silence on their part is somehow dignified and/or progressive?


Some people may lack enthusiasm for joining your campaign because of the
venom and belittling that often appear in your posts, tending to make the
proceedings look more like a partisan or ego battle than a dispassionate
search for truth.

And here, you seem to be saying to the newsgroup, "I'm astonished that more
of you confused, misguided, cowardly readers haven't joined my campaign."
Well, I'm exaggerating a little...

-- Don Stone

Richard Smyth at UNC-CH

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at UNC-CH » 15 okt 2005 20:04:01

Peter,

I am not the smartest horse in the barn and I certainly will not complain if you kick me in the right direction on this matter. However, what I found in Richardson's posting was the proposal of an hypothesis, one which suggested to him evidence which could confirm it---evidence which he is on the way to a library in the hope of finding. I have already expressed my view that people who want to defend Richardson would probably do best to defend him along other lines than as a scientist whose usefulness is in the discovery of truth. However, in the case at hand, I cannot see that he has violated any important canon of the ethics of research.

You certainly have not solicited my advice on how to attack Richardson, but were one to do so, I would suggest publicizing a book which can be identified and defended as a better compendium of information than one or both of his books covering the same subject matter.

Regards,

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

What is the point of even having a newsgroup devoted to medieval genealogy
if tripe like this can go unremarked by those who (unlike myself) are
interested in the matter? Do the readers of this thread think that mere
silence on their part is somehow dignified and/or progressive?

Peter Stewart

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 okt 2005 00:19:20

"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:UNa4f.4562$p_.568@trndny05...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Not for the first time, I am astonished that people who are interested in
the subject of this thread have chosen to leave Richardson's arbitrary
musings unchallenged.

What is the point of even having a newsgroup devoted to medieval
genealogy if tripe like this can go unremarked by those who (unlike
myself) are interested in the matter? Do the readers of this thread think
that mere silence on their part is somehow dignified and/or progressive?


Some people may lack enthusiasm for joining your campaign because of the
venom and belittling that often appear in your posts, tending to make the
proceedings look more like a partisan or ego battle than a dispassionate
search for truth.

And here, you seem to be saying to the newsgroup, "I'm astonished that
more of you confused, misguided, cowardly readers haven't joined my
campaign." Well, I'm exaggerating a little...

No, you are exaggerating a lot.

I am not suggesting that anyone should have "joined my campaign" or spouted
"venom". I have not suggested that anyone is confused or misguided, but only
that people are too inclinced to sit back and wait for someone else to take
up the issues (NOT a vendetta, but logical discourse, on topic) that ought
to be raised in this matter.

Courage is not required to point out that a mere hunch doesn't amount to
"evidence". No indication had been put forward that "matertera" didn't carry
its usual meaning, and a known husband had to be arbitrarily killed off in
order to make an unnecessary speculation even possible.

I am suggesting that people who read this - that is, the many who are
interested principally in the English nobility and gentry - could see that a
specious case was being made, and could see this without reference to
sources or access to further information. Once again a mere possibility is
being levered into a bogus conclusion, and no-one remarked on the problems
that are blithely ignored by Richardson in this habitual process.

No personal attack on him - nor yours on me - was necessary.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 okt 2005 00:41:55

Thanks Merilyn, but I really didn't mean that other people should get stuck
into Richardson, only that it might help him & others if more people were
heard from, simply registering a protest over deceptive methods and blatant
hypocrisy. I don't for a moment expect a lot of people to put in a lot of
time or go beyond their comfort zones in personal disputation.

My eyes glaze over too, but I think SGM can and should be a valuable forum
for making progress in medieval genealogy. It can't be so if it is bogged
down in endless wrangling from people who can't see how weak and/or
dishonest their positions often are, and quite obviously they can't be
convinced of this by responses from just a few regular posters.

The alternatives are to lose more people from the readily accessible SGM to
a moderated group that may attract less new and casual readers (who can make
great contributions), or to have a dysfunctional SGM without what Don calls
"venom" but at the cost of leaving it a free self-promotion vehicle for
shonks and trolls.

If anyone - including GEN_MED listowners - thinks that I am unduly harsh,
belittling or egotistical, they are able to say so. It would be courteous of
them to offer examples, and to do this at the time of the alleged offense so
that the supposed victim is given support. The difference in the case of
accusations against me is that I will take these in and respond rationally
if a rational case is made.

Peter Stewart


""Merilyn Pedrick"" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:43518542.000001.03640@MERILYNS...
My eyes tend to glaze over when I see all this stuff. I don't have your
terrier-like tenacity Peter, but I do admire it. You are right to keep up
the pressure on those who have no integrity, and much as I would like to
join the fray at times, just haven't the willpower, when I could be
getting
on with something more productive.
If all of us who agree with you were to get stuck in too, as you suggest,
I
don't really think it would have any effect on Doug Richardson, who just
keeps plonking away anyway, and it would just make it harder to see the
more interesting posts.
Just know that there are many of us who are glad that you are.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: Peter Stewart
Date: 10/16/05 01:45:58
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:15ff41ba4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 15 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Not for the first time, I am astonished that people who are interested
in the subject of this thread have chosen to leave Richardson's
arbitrary musings unchallenged.

snip

Why has this not been said before now, by others? Is this from
acquiescence in Richardson's vague process of wishful thinking and
weakly approximate analysis? If so, could the silent readers tell us
why? Or if keeping quiet from the limp desire for peace and quiet,
could they tell us why we should credit or even take note of their
contributions whenever they DO finally choose to speak up?

I am one for a (fairly) quiet (amd limp) life. So I have kill-filed
Richardson and given away his book, thus removing him from my plane of
existence, save for quoted extracts that surface from time to time in
the postings of others. I wonder how many others have done the same?

Your eminently sensible kill-filing is perfectly understandable, Tim - but
the lack of response by people who clearly _were_ reading the posts in
question is puzzling. This is what Richardson counts on for gettting away
with his impostures, and apparently he is justified in doing so.

Peter Stewart



Merilyn Pedrick

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 16 okt 2005 00:42:02

My eyes tend to glaze over when I see all this stuff. I don't have your
terrier-like tenacity Peter, but I do admire it. You are right to keep up
the pressure on those who have no integrity, and much as I would like to
join the fray at times, just haven't the willpower, when I could be getting
on with something more productive.
If all of us who agree with you were to get stuck in too, as you suggest, I
don't really think it would have any effect on Doug Richardson, who just
keeps plonking away anyway, and it would just make it harder to see the
more interesting posts.
Just know that there are many of us who are glad that you are.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: Peter Stewart
Date: 10/16/05 01:45:58
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:15ff41ba4d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 15 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Not for the first time, I am astonished that people who are interested
in the subject of this thread have chosen to leave Richardson's
arbitrary musings unchallenged.

snip

Why has this not been said before now, by others? Is this from
acquiescence in Richardson's vague process of wishful thinking and
weakly approximate analysis? If so, could the silent readers tell us
why? Or if keeping quiet from the limp desire for peace and quiet,
could they tell us why we should credit or even take note of their
contributions whenever they DO finally choose to speak up?

I am one for a (fairly) quiet (amd limp) life. So I have kill-filed
Richardson and given away his book, thus removing him from my plane of
existence, save for quoted extracts that surface from time to time in
the postings of others. I wonder how many others have done the same?

Your eminently sensible kill-filing is perfectly understandable, Tim - but
the lack of response by people who clearly _were_ reading the posts in
question is puzzling. This is what Richardson counts on for gettting away
with his impostures, and apparently he is justified in doing so.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 16 okt 2005 00:55:24

Peter Stewart wrote:
Courage is not required to point out that a mere hunch doesn't amount to
"evidence". No indication had been put forward that "matertera" didn't
carry
its usual meaning, and a known husband had to be arbitrarily killed off in
order to make an unnecessary speculation even possible.


Can we not aim at a bit more of a happy medium on matters like this?

I think the suggestion that Douglas Richardson has put forward is well worth
considering. It is still speculative, as I pointed out before. So it is
obviously wrong to present it as if it is a proven fact.

On the other hand, it is also wrong to come out with guns blazing and
dismiss it as "tripe". The charter of Countess Alice, granting to her cousin
(paternal or maternal?) lands held by his (paternal) ancestors of her
(paternal) ancestors could quite naturally suggest that he was her paternal
cousin, despite the word "matertera" used in the charter.

I think the best thing is to look for further evidence to confirm or deny
the suggestion - while keeping its speculative nature clearly in mind.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: More on Richard [le] Scrope, husband of Agnes de Gant

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 okt 2005 02:10:59

The "tripe" in question was not the possibility itself that you are
discussing below, but mischaracterisation such as "So right there the
evidence has tipped heavily in favor of Agnes Scrope being a Gant", and pure
nonsense such as "I find it especially important that Richard Scrope, her
putative husband, witnessed a charter for her brother, Gilbert de Gant, c.
1147, which date is after William de Mohun's last known appearance in the
records. So that fits nicely." As if Richard Scrope might not have
witnessed a charter of Gilbert de Gant if the latter's sister was still
married to someone else, when Richardson was basing his case on the
pre-existing closeness between the Scrope and Gant families in the first
place.

"Tripe" is insubstantial, lacking in nutrition, a poor substitute for meat,
in this case logically worthless in the form presented.

This may be a different or stronger term than you would use, but hardly a
blazing gun.

I have not dismissed the possibility that "matertera" in this instance meant
paternal aunt, but I am trying to suggest that the question should be
approached with due sense and caution.

Peter Stewart


"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dis4um$g01$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Courage is not required to point out that a mere hunch doesn't amount to
"evidence". No indication had been put forward that "matertera" didn't
carry
its usual meaning, and a known husband had to be arbitrarily killed off
in
order to make an unnecessary speculation even possible.


Can we not aim at a bit more of a happy medium on matters like this?

I think the suggestion that Douglas Richardson has put forward is well
worth
considering. It is still speculative, as I pointed out before. So it is
obviously wrong to present it as if it is a proven fact.

On the other hand, it is also wrong to come out with guns blazing and
dismiss it as "tripe". The charter of Countess Alice, granting to her
cousin
(paternal or maternal?) lands held by his (paternal) ancestors of her
(paternal) ancestors could quite naturally suggest that he was her
paternal
cousin, despite the word "matertera" used in the charter.

I think the best thing is to look for further evidence to confirm or deny
the suggestion - while keeping its speculative nature clearly in mind.

Chris Phillips



Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»