Richardson's Claim about Burghs and a Knightly Class

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
CED

Richardson's Claim about Burghs and a Knightly Class

Legg inn av CED » 31 jan 2006 04:54:40

To the Newsgroup:

The following is an exceprt from a post
(responding to M. L. Tompkins)


From: Douglas Richardson
Date: 25 Jan 2006 11:37:15 -0800
Subject: Re: Knightly class
"If you read my original post again, you'll see I stated that Earl
Hubert de Burgh's known kinswoman, Alice Pouchard, was the
granddaughter of Sir William Pouchard, of Wreningham, Norfolk, which
individual was certainly a knight. I've found evidence that Sir
William Pouchard was alive in 1166. This predates Hubert de Burgh's
rise to power by at least a generation."

I quote the exact language because these few words require response.

(1) Richardson repeats his earlier (but challenged) assertion that
Alice Pouchard was a "known kinswoman" of Hubert de Burgh. He has yet
to place before us evidence to prove that asserton. The only
documentation from which one could infer a relation is a foundation
history which is a secondary source and not good evidence. When
challenged, Richardson was not responsive.

(2) Richardson does this in a reply to one of our newer listers, one
who does not know the little tricks Richardson plays with his posts.
In this case, even though Richardson's assertion had been challenged,
he repeats it as though it were gospel. That is unfair.

(3) Even if the statements in the foundation history were true, that
Alice Pouchard (by what means we do not know) was an aunt of Bp
Geoffrey de Burgh who in turn was a brother of Hubert de Burgh, the
crucial connection between Alice and Hubert is not stated. She could
have been an aunt to Geoffrey and not an aunt to Hubert.

(4) Richardson states that the grandfather of Alice was a knight.
Even if true, the grandfather of an aunt of a brother is hardly a
knightly connection. What evidence do we have that Alice's grandfather
was a knight? We have a statement by Richardson that Alice said he was
a knight. What kind of proof is that? Who of us would rely upon the
word of a granddaughter given to us by Richardson, without clear
evidence? Then to top it off, Richardson puts a "sir" before William
Pouchard's name. A bold anachronism if there ever was one. Even the
badly informed Richardson should know better than do that. Where can
he find any evidence that William Pouchard had such a prefix? (Could
it be that he found a "sir" among the esquires he claims to have been a
class in 12th Century England? Or, maybe he does not know about 12th
Century esquires.)


The entire matter quoted above becomes a false statement designed to
mislead the uninformed. (Or, maybe it's repetition intended to wear
down the opposition; another Richardson tactic.)

More important than Richardson's lack of academic ethics, is the fact
that he seems to have no understanding of the early history of knights
in England. Knights were not a class defined by the rank of the
families into which they were born. Knights were mounted and armed
soldiers. It was function, not family. Whether they were landed was
not a factor. Many knights were horsed and equipped by their lords.


The king, the earls, and most barons had household knights who were
supported by their lords. For Richardson to contend that having a
distant relation who was a knight gave knightly rank to a family, is to
lend credence to my long-held belief that Richardson does not know
medieval history and to my more recent conclusion that he has not
understand English feudalism.

If Richardson would want to be better informed, I have a list of books
for his edification.

CED

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»