Fw: Fw: Scots Peerage Correction: Robert de Brus (died 1304)

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Fw: Scots Peerage Correction: Robert de Brus (died 1304)

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 19 nov 2007 09:41:48

----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Scots Peerage Correction: Robert de Brus (died 1304), Earl of Carrick in 1296


Dear Leo, James, et al.,

Seeking to set the record straight, I would like to point out
that the identification of Maud (Fitz Alan or Arundel) as a hitherto
unknown wife of Robert _the_ Bruce, King of Scots was not the theory
of, and certainly not claimed to have been confirmed by, Andrew
MacEwen. In the post copied below, from 2002, Doug Richardson
recounted details of a conversation with Andrew which shows he was
confirming the veracity of the known marriage to Isabel of Mar. This
also shows Andrew's cautious approach to this issue, in particular.

And in this conversation Andrew MacEwan clearly failed to point Richardson to the relevant sources, or to appropriate caution, instead leaving him with this false impression as reported back to the newsgroup:

"The upshot of this discussion is basically you have two 14th Century Scottish chronicles, both of which mention Robert de Brus' marriage to Isabel of Mar, as opposed to two contemporary records which mention Robert de Brus' marriage to Maud Fitz Alan. The question is: Did Robert de Brus have only one wife, or two?"

This gross error about such highly prominent medieval figures, compounded by ignorance of the readily available sources of evidence for them, their marriages, offspring and titles (that in the last case even Richardson can find when tipped off), would hardly be the upshot of discussion on these points with anyone whom most genealogists could recognise as an "expert" in Scottish research.

Andrew MacEwen is in fact a scholar, and a gentleman. His
generosity in sharing his knowledge, and his opinion, can be vouched
be several of this list (those associated with TG included).
Statements to the contrary can be made: they are not valid.

And no gentleman ever would allow someone to go on over years publicly calling him "the resident expert in all things Scottish". Whether or not he has claims from other work to be considered an expert elsewhere in this field, as he clearly is not on the Brus family, Andrew MacEwan is not resident on sgm, or apparently in SLC, Utah, and his living in the US is not relevant to an international forum. The implication that he is the leading authority wherever he does happen to reside is not sustained by the showing on this subject.

It is unfortunate that Richardson coined the phrase "the resident expert in all things Scottish" wihout specifying, resident of what or where. I suppose it was said as a show of appreciation to MacEwen, but it places MacEwen in a rather awkward situation and he should have asked Richardson to stop calling him that a long time ago.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»