Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Under normal conditions, when a father, in this case Richard de Vernon,
Sr. (born ca. 1262), settled lands on his son and his son's wife, in
this case, Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say 1278/80, and Eleanor de
Fiennes, and to their issue, the property would NOT revert back to the
father, unless BOTH the son and his wife died without issue.
Are you telling us then that both Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say
1278/80,
Well, for starters, I am certainly not telling you that he was born,
say, 1278/80. That is you telling us that.
and his wife, Eleanor de Fiennes, died without issue before
1302?
Let's see. I said "It would also be consistent if Richard was younger -
was engaged in early childhood, and was still a minor in 1302." Now
that you have had another chance to read it, what do you think? Am I
telling you that Richard Jr. died without issue before 1302? Hmmmm:
"still a minor in 1302"; "died without issue before 1302". Are these
two the same?
(You do realize that intentionally mischaracterizing another's post is
not an approach likely to "make friends", as you keep telling us is the
purpose of this group?)
If this is not what you are saying, then you should explain to us why
the manor of Pitchcott reverted back to the father before 1302, when
the property had been settled on the son and his wife back in 1290?
I asked how you justify it in light of your belief that Junior and
Eleanor survived, and rather than answer the question, you simply
pretend that you thought of it as a challenge to what I had suggested
(conveniently, in the process, ignoring that I addressed the very
issue). The old "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach to answering a
question directed at you.
And, if the reason you are claiming that the property reverted back to
the father is because the son's marriage was childless, surely the land
would remain in the son's hands for his life, regardless of his wife's
early death without issue. A settlement is a settlement.
Yes, a settlement is a settlement, yet, in the paragraph you cited, it
states that the property was back with dear old dad by 1302. If that
devolution is hard to explain with one of the pair still living, how
much harder is it with BOTH still living, as you insist was the case?
Let's go back over it. Giles was holding it in trust for his daughter
and her (prospective ?) husband in 1292. Then Richard Senior, as you
reported, was holding it in 1302 while Giles was still alive. Under
your hypothesis, Giles must have either transfered the trust back to
Senior in spite of him having a vested interest in protecting the rights
of his blood kin, his daughter and grandson, or else the trusteeship
must have terminated itself upon the majority of Junior, and then Junior
must have granted it back to his father in spite of it being the
couple's only documented holding. Your theory _requires_ one of these
two options. Mine requires Giles to have transfered the trusteeship to
Senior after his daughter died childless, perhaps even prior to
consumation, and his family interest was thereby nill. I trust you can
see a difference between Giles's potential interests under these two
scenarios: a living daughter and grandson vs. a daughter dead s.p.
It seems necessary therefore that you examine the documents that you
claim show that Richard de Vernon the father re-possessed the manor of
Pitchcott before 1302.
Funny how _you_ entered the claim into the discussion (via the VCH
quote), but when I point out that it conflicts with your own theory, it
miraculously becomes _my_ claim and my responsibility to confirm its
accuracy. I can't say I am surprised, just amused.
(Now tomorrow when you are at the FHL, or Sunday at UU, just stroll on
over to the appropriate shelf - you know which one just as well as I do
- and DO YOUR OWN LOOKUP rather than insisting on the necessity of me
driving several hours to do it for you.)
I think we can safely assume that Richard de Vernon, Jr., and Eleanor
de Fiennes who were married in 1290 likely consummated their marriage
in or before 1292.
Considering that there is not a shred of evidence that Richard and
Eleanor were married in 1290, nor that they ever consumated their
marriage, you must have a unique concept of safety. (Although I am not
sure what to make of it being safe to assume that something is likely -
a high probability estimate of the accuracy of a probability estimate?)
The fact that Richard de Vernon was a minor under
21 in 1292 does not preclude he and his wife from having a raft of
children before he became 21.
.. . . nor does it preclude his wife from being a corpse by Christmas, 1292.
Producing a large number of children was
the whole point of such early childhood marriages.
Certainly not the whole point - otherwise, the bride would have been
selected for fecundity, independent of social status, family connections
or dowery.
Anyhow, it is much harder to produce a "raft of children" when you are
looking up at the grass - when you have relocated to the bottom of the
food chain. Death invariably results in infertility.
Surely the
historian Farrer was aware of this. One of his versions of the Vernon
family pedigree had three Richard de Vernons in rapid succession, just
as I have done. This is nothing new.
Is the fact that you must qualify this statement with "One of his
versions" not the least bit disconcerting? "I agree with _one_ of
Farrer's versions" is an argument in support of your hypothesis, but the
implicit, "I disagree with _the other_" is incidental, not worth
mentioning? I guess there is comfort in numbers to be able to say that,
"if I'm wrong, so was he". Still, I would think "the evidence supports
my reconstruction over the alternative" would be a more preferable
argument than "Farrer couldn't agree with himself, but one of his
versions agrees with me".
Bear in mind that, as Luke pointed out, Farrer erred in supposing that
Richard I died in 1292. That would have forced the Richards who died
1330 and 1324 to be II & III respectively: his error mandated a
three-Richard reconstruction. Knowing that Richard I did not die in
1292, we are not so constrained.
As for the chronological issues, we know for a fact that we have one
short generation between Richard de Vernon I and Richard de Vernon II.
I guess it depends on your definition of "fact" - we know that Richard I
married by 16, that Richard II was affianced by his father in 1290 and
was not holding his land (presumably due to minority) in 1292 (when his
father was 30), and that William was born in 1314. Those are
chronological _facts_. The rest is hypothesis or spin.
We also know for a fact that Richard de Vernon II was married when he
was married very young when his own father was 28.
We know that when Richard I was 28, he and Giles agreed that their
children should marry. That is the fact. We can only speculate when
Richard II married Eleanor, if at all.
These facts are
well documented in the records.
I am still waiting for a "fact" that is actually a _fact_. You have
taken actual documented facts, interpreted them in light of your
reconstruction, and then presented these interpretations as if they were
the actual facts.
That being said, here are some actual documented facts:
1. William's father was named Richard.
2. William's grandfather was named Richard.
3. The widow of William's father in 1324 was named Maud.
4. The widow of William's grandfather in 1330 was named Isabella.
5. Immediately prior to his 1324 death, William's father was holding of
his father, and the primary holders at that time were named Richard and
Isabella.
6. Richard I married Isabella de Hartcla
7. Richard I and Giles de Fenes agreed that Richard II should marry
Eleanor de Fenes.
The problem is in how to relate the 'top-down facts', #s 6 and 7, to the
'bottom up ones' #s 1-5. Specifically, is Richard II William's father
or grandfather. One tool is chronology, which favors Richard the
grandfather being Richard I (only favors, mind you - don't twist this
into suggesting I am calling your tight chronology impossible, just less
likely). A second possible clue is more obvious - too obvious to
ignore, as you have done to date. Look at #s 4, 5 and 6. Why are these
not references to the same woman? This is not the first time you have
had this brought to your attention and been asked how you reconcile it,
yet no answer has been forthcoming.
Suffice to say that this totals up to
a short chronology to me.
I am not surprised, but the the addition of irrational numbers produces
a total that is also irrational. When you make up your mind and then
recast the evidence to fit the conclusion, it is no wonder that the
evidence looks like what you wish it to look like.
Simply put, you found a possible route for the connection in question,
based on a well-known marriage agreement. Without a shred of supporting
evidence, you threw out all other possible avenues, and advanced this
one from being possible to it being a fact, glossing over the
significant difference between possibility (including everything down to
the infinitely improbable) and certainty. Without doing a detailed
study of the Vernons, you jumped to an uninformed conclusion, claiming
that modern researchers had dismissed the possibility of issue based on
simple assumption, not the evidence of the case - an unwarrented
assumption on your part. However, once adopted, it would seem, the
position cannot be abandonned or even reconsidered in an unbiased
manner, but rather must be advocated with all of the tricks of the
trade. So we now see you dig in your heals, entrench your position and
fortify it with 'facts' while ducking legitimate shots from the other
side. Unfortunately, your 'facts' are of the nature of Quaker guns -
superficially formitable, but on close examination not facts at all, and
unable to disguise the weakness of the position.
taf