Parentage of Hubert De Burgh

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
CED

Parentage of Hubert De Burgh

Legg inn av CED » 08 jan 2006 19:13:36

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 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 addition 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 coome to
believe that Hubert de Burgh had a wife named Alice.

Regarding the "ancient" document: this it turns out is not an "ancient"
docuement. It 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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Hubert De Burgh

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 09 jan 2006 10:49:12

CED wrote:

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

The question of Hubert de Burgh's parentage is approaching exhaustion?
Not hardly. I'm just getting warmed up.

DR

CED

Re: Parentage of Hubert De Burgh

Legg inn av CED » 09 jan 2006 11:06:05

Douglas Richardson wrote:
CED wrote:

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

The question of Hubert de Burgh's parentage is approaching exhaustion?
Not hardly. I'm just getting warmed up.

DR

To the Newsgroup:

If Richardson is "just getting warmed up," he should do a better job
than we have seen so far. He should start by telling us who wrote the
"ancient" document and the document he remembers that gave Hubert de
Burgh a wife named Alice.

Those two items should be followed by an explanation of his methodolgy
and motives. At this point his motives, if not his competence, are in
serious question. The idea of trying to sell us a foundation history
as a prinmary source is an example of attempted fraud on the newsgroup
or incompetence.

CED

CED

Chris Phillips

Re: Parentage of Hubert De Burgh

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 09 jan 2006 11:18:47

Douglas Richardson wrote:
The question of Hubert de Burgh's parentage is approaching exhaustion?
Not hardly. I'm just getting warmed up.


In that case, I think it would be useful if you could clarify your earlier
comments about Ellis's evidence that Hubert was a brother of William de
Burgh.

Are you still disposed to dispute the conclusion that Hubert was the younger
brother of William?

If so, are you also disputing that they were brothers at all? And if that's
the case, what alternative interpretation do you have in mind for the
document that (apparently) calls Hubert the uncle of William's son?

Chris Phillips

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»