To the Newsgroup:
We seem to have forgotten that our discussion of the parentage of
Hubert de Burgh began with Richardson's post of 02 January, in which he
stated that if he understood the --
"implications of an ancient document correctly, it appears that
Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the name of Earl
Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's mother was
actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress of John
Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham, Norfolk."
Richardson the proceeds to quote the "ancient" document to show that
Hubert de Burgh's brother had an "aunt" named Alice.
In addtion,he remembers reading someplace that a wife of Hubert de
Burgh was named "Alice."
In essence this long discussion was started with an "ancient" document
and something Richardson remembers form an unknown source. This
remembrance is probably nothing more than a figment upon which
Richardson is attempting to lay some false ground-work for some theory
to create more descendants of somebody. He should produce the document
that shows Hubert to have a wife named Alice or mention it no more.
For somebody, uninformed about his methods and motives, might come to
believe that Hubert de Burgh had a wife named Alice.
Regarding the "ancient" document: this it turns out is a foundation
history for Creake Abbey. When Richardson was asked to tells us who
wrote the document and when it was written, he did not respond. It
would seem that the Richardson, who is always (most often
inappropriately and unfairly) demanding of others that they supply
sources, should at least tell us who wrote the foundation history and
when it was written.
It would seem that the question of Hubert de Burgh's parentage is
approaching exhaustion, we should be cognizant of how this dicussion
began and how two of its prompting parts were based on Richardson's
apparent falsehoods.
CED
Recap on Hubert de Burgh's mother
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
CED
Re: Recap on Hubert de Burgh's mother
CED wrote:
Sorry about the duplicate messages! On the first, my server came back
with a 'sorry' note - 'try again.' (That was late Saturday) So I did,
with this result.
CED
To the Newsgroup:
Sorry about the duplicate messages! On the first, my server came back
with a 'sorry' note - 'try again.' (That was late Saturday) So I did,
with this result.
CED
We seem to have forgotten that our discussion of the parentage of
Hubert de Burgh began with Richardson's post of 02 January, in which he
stated that if he understood the --
"implications of an ancient document correctly, it appears that
Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the name of Earl
Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's mother was
actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress of John
Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham, Norfolk."
Richardson the proceeds to quote the "ancient" document to show that
Hubert de Burgh's brother had an "aunt" named Alice.
In addtion,he remembers reading someplace that a wife of Hubert de
Burgh was named "Alice."
In essence this long discussion was started with an "ancient" document
and something Richardson remembers form an unknown source. This
remembrance is probably nothing more than a figment upon which
Richardson is attempting to lay some false ground-work for some theory
to create more descendants of somebody. He should produce the document
that shows Hubert to have a wife named Alice or mention it no more.
For somebody, uninformed about his methods and motives, might come to
believe that Hubert de Burgh had a wife named Alice.
Regarding the "ancient" document: this it turns out is a foundation
history for Creake Abbey. When Richardson was asked to tells us who
wrote the document and when it was written, he did not respond. It
would seem that the Richardson, who is always (most often
inappropriately and unfairly) demanding of others that they supply
sources, should at least tell us who wrote the foundation history and
when it was written.
It would seem that the question of Hubert de Burgh's parentage is
approaching exhaustion, we should be cognizant of how this dicussion
began and how two of its prompting parts were based on Richardson's
apparent falsehoods.
CED
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Recap on Hubert de Burgh's mother
It was interesting enough to read twice. Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Recap on Hubert de Burgh's mother
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Recap on Hubert de Burgh's mother
CED wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Sorry about the duplicate messages! On the first, my server came back
with a 'sorry' note - 'try again.' (That was late Saturday) So I did,
with this result.
CED
We seem to have forgotten that our discussion of the parentage of
Hubert de Burgh began with Richardson's post of 02 January, in which he
stated that if he understood the --
"implications of an ancient document correctly, it appears that
Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the name of Earl
Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's mother was
actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress of John
Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham, Norfolk."
Richardson the proceeds to quote the "ancient" document to show that
Hubert de Burgh's brother had an "aunt" named Alice.
In addtion,he remembers reading someplace that a wife of Hubert de
Burgh was named "Alice."
In essence this long discussion was started with an "ancient" document
and something Richardson remembers form an unknown source. This
remembrance is probably nothing more than a figment upon which
Richardson is attempting to lay some false ground-work for some theory
to create more descendants of somebody. He should produce the document
that shows Hubert to have a wife named Alice or mention it no more.
For somebody, uninformed about his methods and motives, might come to
believe that Hubert de Burgh had a wife named Alice.
Regarding the "ancient" document: this it turns out is a foundation
history for Creake Abbey. When Richardson was asked to tells us who
wrote the document and when it was written, he did not respond. It
would seem that the Richardson, who is always (most often
inappropriately and unfairly) demanding of others that they supply
sources, should at least tell us who wrote the foundation history and
when it was written.
It would seem that the question of Hubert de Burgh's parentage is
approaching exhaustion, we should be cognizant of how this dicussion
began and how two of its prompting parts were based on Richardson's
apparent falsehoods.
CED