Fw: Fw: Maud Fitzalan

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Fw: Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 16 nov 2007 09:43:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret" <marschball@wanadoo.fr>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Maud Fitzalan


Hello Leo
Yes I've seen there used to be a lot more discussion as opposed to mud
slinging in the past - before I joined, I'm sorry to say.

snip>.

Dealing with mistakes is a different matter. But maybe the same thing
applies but the other way round. Mistakes must be challenged and
discussed. Refusal to answer honestly, using stubborn and sullen 'I am
right' retorts speaks for itself. I see that some people repeat the
challenge reminding us it hasn't been answered.

I think Douglas Richardson's inability to keep an open mind and accept
discussion of his work is his own undoing.

Dear Margaret,
Many thanks for your thoughtful message. The most important subject, to me,
is mistakes even perceived mistakes. Their mention can only improve
information. There is no skin of anyone's nose, people should be grateful
when attention is paid to their messages. Richardson sees "criticism" as a
negative, I see it as a positive. With my data base many people tell me
something is wrong, and I check out what I have and where it came
from---typos are always a possibility. When I find I was right, you will not
see me gloat, I will be glad that by double checking, yet another piece
information has been accepted by someone else. If I am wrong then I am no
longer wrong because I will correct the information.

The quicker a mistake is admitted, especially by Richardson, the quicker we
can get on with whatever we do, lingering on questions wastes so much time.
And when too many questions remain unanswered, you can only wonder what else
is wrong? Why does he rush from one error/question to the next?

The answer to all this, of course, lies with Richardson, either he
acknowledges that "critiscims" can only improve his date or else we remain
in this rediculous circle of having to remind him of his failing to reply to
questions, questions he caused in the first place.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Doug McDonald

Re: Fw: Fw: Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 17 nov 2007 00:24:54

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:fhl5us$854$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

Doug McDonald wrote:

OK, here is what I believe is the biggest mistake in your database:

Why is it the BIGGEST mistake?



OK, that's highly debatable I suppose. It's big because
making it Sinclair does give a lot of people some
fairly good royal connections that Douglas does not, if
I recall correctly from when I was doing this up.

What is undeniably true, and the reason my mind had that
fixed in it, is that using the proprietary computer tools I have developed for
comparing my own database with Leo's, swapping those two wives
makes the biggest "change list" for my own ahnentafel of any difference
I have found.

I have many differences between mine and Leo's. Most are just
simply because I stop going back into myth on a whim, and
Leo explicitly allows myths to remain if noted. There are some
other real differences of opinion, but most generate only a
few, or at most a few dozen people on the "change list" ...
this one generates thousands.

Doug McDonald

Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: Fw: Maud Fitzalan

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 nov 2007 06:15:59

Dear Doug,

I feel somewhat that I have to wonder about your motives for this message
and the subsequent ones on the same subject.

You looked at what I have (but did not investigate the sources) and then
rushed to your notes, and according to your notes
Lady Catherine Stewart, wife of John, 6th Lord Forbes was daughter of the
1st Earl of Atholl by his first wife.

I sincerely hope that this is my _biggest_ mistake :-)

You maintain that Burke's 1999 (to be precise page 1988) is the only place
that definitely places her with the second wife, Eleanor Sinclair.

I hand fed you my sources :

Burke's Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 509 makes her the 2nd daughter by
Eleanor Sinclair

Cahiers de Saint Louis, page 865 shows her and on page 857 by her father,
she is again shown as a 2nd daughter by the 2nd wife.

The Scots Peerage does not give any indication. "He had issue by both wives"
without indicating which was by which wife.

Now a suggestion, if you really want to catch my attention in regards to
corrections or additions on my website, if you look at the page of every
person, on the right hand top is a a tab which says "suggest" if you press
on that you have a prepared e-mail addressed to me. Also I receive it with
the file number of the person you are talking about. Those e-mails I
definitely see. E-mails on gen-med can skip through, the subject line as
above Re Fw:Fw; Maud Fitzalan does not tell me that I should read that
message. That subject line has become rather stale.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Maud Fitzalan


Leo van de Pas wrote:


Dear Margaret,
Many thanks for your thoughtful message. The most important subject, to
me, is mistakes even perceived mistakes. Their mention can only improve
information. There is no skin of anyone's nose, people should be
grateful when attention is paid to their messages. Richardson sees
"criticism" as a negative, I see it as a positive. With my data base
many people tell me something is wrong, and I check out what I have and
where it came from---typos are always a possibility. When I find I was
right, you will not see me gloat, I will be glad that by double
checking, yet another piece information has been accepted by someone
else. If I am wrong then I am no longer wrong because I will correct the
information.

OK, here is what I believe is the biggest mistake in your database:

you have Catherine Stewart, who married John Forbes, 6th Lord Forbes,
as the daughter of John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl (which is
correct) and Eleanor Sinclair, Atholl's second wife. I believe she
was the daughter of Atholl's first wife, Margaret Douglas.

Here is what the notes in my file say:

"We take her to be a daughter of Douglas because Burke's says Douglas had
two daughters, and she is listed 2nd in SP

Also, SP under Forbes, IV: 54 says she is second daughter of the Earl of
Atholl,
which would make her by Douglas

However, Burke's Peerage 1999 says she was by Sinclair

CP says Douglas"

Thus, only Burke's 1999 says Sinclair. The usually more reliable
CP says and SP implies Douglas.

Doug McDonald

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»