Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Dear Newsgroup ~
The esteemed Mr. Hines has asked that I post reviews of my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, as they appear. I have several of them in hand
to post, all of them favorable, but have had limited time to post them
here on the newsgroup. As time permits, I will post the others.
The review below was written by Scott Andrew Bartley, editor of the
journal, Mayflower Descendant. Mr. Bartley was previously employed as
Manuscripts Curator for New England Historic Genealogical Society in
Boston, Massachusetts, 1984 to 1999. He is currently a professional
genealogical researcher and archival consultant. He is also a book
reviewer for The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, The
American Genealogist, and the National Genealogical Society Quarterly.
Mr. Bartley's personal website can be found at the following web
address:
http://www.yourgenealogist.com
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Mayflower Descendant, 53 No. 2 (Summer 2004): 186-187:
Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families by
Douglas Richardson and edited by Kimball G. Everingham (Baltimore,
2004), hardcover, xxix + 945 pp, index, $85.00.
Richardson's work is an expansion of works previously published by
David Faris (his former co-author, see the review for Faris' last book
in 1999 [MD. 49 [2000], 188] and Frederick Lewis Weis before him, but
greatly add to the mix by including all of the early Plantagenet kings
not covered in Faris and follows all known illegitimate lines never
before covered in other works. Lineages are in the standard
configuration of royal lineages (and will not be discussed here).
A list of colonial immigtrants who have royal ancestry is given in the
introductory pages. The author proudly details the major discoveries
found here along with minor ones, corrections, and additions. There
is also a list of those whose parentage has been corrected. The book
starts with Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou and Maine
(1113-1151). Each lineage generation is followed by a paragraph of
reference sources for the information given (which is a bit difficult
to read - but it is thorough cited, through ideally it should be
referenced individually to the fact). The children and then the
illegitimate children are listed. If a child marries into another
documented line, the reader is directed elsewhere. Little is given
under the children unless they are notable in themselves and do not
have a descenmdant to an immigrant.
There is a lengthy bibliography divided into book/series and
periodicals that covers almost 80 pages. The index has highlighted
names for the people who are the subject of sketches. This is only
the first of four volumes. Future volumes will cover descents from
the Magna Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and the
Emperor Charlemagne. Regardless of the chatter online about this book
(and I, too, am no authority of medieval genealogy), this will be a
major reference work for future generations. It is the culmination of
the best authors from the past and the latest findings in the field
making it the first stop when searching for medieval genealogy." END
OF QUOTE.
The esteemed Mr. Hines has asked that I post reviews of my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, as they appear. I have several of them in hand
to post, all of them favorable, but have had limited time to post them
here on the newsgroup. As time permits, I will post the others.
The review below was written by Scott Andrew Bartley, editor of the
journal, Mayflower Descendant. Mr. Bartley was previously employed as
Manuscripts Curator for New England Historic Genealogical Society in
Boston, Massachusetts, 1984 to 1999. He is currently a professional
genealogical researcher and archival consultant. He is also a book
reviewer for The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, The
American Genealogist, and the National Genealogical Society Quarterly.
Mr. Bartley's personal website can be found at the following web
address:
http://www.yourgenealogist.com
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Mayflower Descendant, 53 No. 2 (Summer 2004): 186-187:
Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families by
Douglas Richardson and edited by Kimball G. Everingham (Baltimore,
2004), hardcover, xxix + 945 pp, index, $85.00.
Richardson's work is an expansion of works previously published by
David Faris (his former co-author, see the review for Faris' last book
in 1999 [MD. 49 [2000], 188] and Frederick Lewis Weis before him, but
greatly add to the mix by including all of the early Plantagenet kings
not covered in Faris and follows all known illegitimate lines never
before covered in other works. Lineages are in the standard
configuration of royal lineages (and will not be discussed here).
A list of colonial immigtrants who have royal ancestry is given in the
introductory pages. The author proudly details the major discoveries
found here along with minor ones, corrections, and additions. There
is also a list of those whose parentage has been corrected. The book
starts with Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou and Maine
(1113-1151). Each lineage generation is followed by a paragraph of
reference sources for the information given (which is a bit difficult
to read - but it is thorough cited, through ideally it should be
referenced individually to the fact). The children and then the
illegitimate children are listed. If a child marries into another
documented line, the reader is directed elsewhere. Little is given
under the children unless they are notable in themselves and do not
have a descenmdant to an immigrant.
There is a lengthy bibliography divided into book/series and
periodicals that covers almost 80 pages. The index has highlighted
names for the people who are the subject of sketches. This is only
the first of four volumes. Future volumes will cover descents from
the Magna Carta Sureties of 1215, early feudal English barons, and the
Emperor Charlemagne. Regardless of the chatter online about this book
(and I, too, am no authority of medieval genealogy), this will be a
major reference work for future generations. It is the culmination of
the best authors from the past and the latest findings in the field
making it the first stop when searching for medieval genealogy." END
OF QUOTE.
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
On 16 Nov 2004 10:26:18 -0800, douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net
(Douglas Richardson) wrote:
[review snipped]
Now that several "reviews" of RPA have been posted here, it seems to
me that the ones which I have seen so far fall short of the kind of
information which I would like to see in an informative review. So
far, not a single one of the posted reviews which I have seen has had
any significant discussion about the quality of the documentation.
The only comments I have seen along those lines in these posted
reviews are that there are lots of sources listed (which I think we
already knew), and the present review is the only one which I have
seen complaining that the claims made are not keyed to specific
sources (a flaw which has been pointed out in this newsgroup on a
number of occasions, and should, in my opinion, be mentioned in any
thorough review of this book).
To date, none of the reviews which I have seen so far have any
detailed comments about the quality (as opposed to the quantity) of
the documentation, nor do these reviews even make it clear whether or
not the reviewers have done sufficient medieval genealogical research
in the primary sources to make such comments. (For example, looking
at Mr. Bartley's website, I see that his areas of research are
American and Canadian genealogy, and that he makes no claim to be an
expert in medieval genealogy.) Given that any reference work of this
size is going to have SOME flaws, it seems to me that a well-written
review ought to at least have some constructive criticism about the
documentation of one or more examples in the book, even if the review
is extremely positive over all.
Thus, I see little use for posting "puff pieces" posing as "reviews"
on this newsgroup, in which the "reviewer" tells you little more about
the book than what you could find out by reading the advertising. I
assume that at least some of the scholarly genealogical journals will
be publishing reviews of this book, hopefully done by scholars who are
experienced at medieval genealogy and who will discuss some specific
examples from the book.
Stewart Baldwin
(Douglas Richardson) wrote:
The esteemed Mr. Hines has asked that I post reviews of my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, as they appear. I have several of them in hand
to post, all of them favorable, but have had limited time to post them
here on the newsgroup. As time permits, I will post the others.
The review below was written by Scott Andrew Bartley, editor of the
journal, Mayflower Descendant. Mr. Bartley was previously employed as
Manuscripts Curator for New England Historic Genealogical Society in
Boston, Massachusetts, 1984 to 1999. He is currently a professional
genealogical researcher and archival consultant. He is also a book
reviewer for The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, The
American Genealogist, and the National Genealogical Society Quarterly.
Mr. Bartley's personal website can be found at the following web
address:
http://www.yourgenealogist.com
[review snipped]
Now that several "reviews" of RPA have been posted here, it seems to
me that the ones which I have seen so far fall short of the kind of
information which I would like to see in an informative review. So
far, not a single one of the posted reviews which I have seen has had
any significant discussion about the quality of the documentation.
The only comments I have seen along those lines in these posted
reviews are that there are lots of sources listed (which I think we
already knew), and the present review is the only one which I have
seen complaining that the claims made are not keyed to specific
sources (a flaw which has been pointed out in this newsgroup on a
number of occasions, and should, in my opinion, be mentioned in any
thorough review of this book).
To date, none of the reviews which I have seen so far have any
detailed comments about the quality (as opposed to the quantity) of
the documentation, nor do these reviews even make it clear whether or
not the reviewers have done sufficient medieval genealogical research
in the primary sources to make such comments. (For example, looking
at Mr. Bartley's website, I see that his areas of research are
American and Canadian genealogy, and that he makes no claim to be an
expert in medieval genealogy.) Given that any reference work of this
size is going to have SOME flaws, it seems to me that a well-written
review ought to at least have some constructive criticism about the
documentation of one or more examples in the book, even if the review
is extremely positive over all.
Thus, I see little use for posting "puff pieces" posing as "reviews"
on this newsgroup, in which the "reviewer" tells you little more about
the book than what you could find out by reading the advertising. I
assume that at least some of the scholarly genealogical journals will
be publishing reviews of this book, hopefully done by scholars who are
experienced at medieval genealogy and who will discuss some specific
examples from the book.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
OK, so here is my review (of sorts). Given that I wanted to spend as
little time as possible on it, being the busy (and lazy) person that I
am, I decided to focus on one specific line, and further, given the
number of citations per generation, on one generation of one line.
Likewise, as the author has previously been questioned, "what was your
source for . . . ?" and answered with the demand that the questioner
first look up all of the references, I picked an individual about whom I
had enough knowledge that I would be able to evaluate the reference on
sight. And so . . . :
In his book, Plantagenet Ancestry, which is derived directly and
indirectly from earlier works of the same theme by other authors, Mr.
Richardson presents lineages of individuals descended from the Angevin
royalty of England, frequently called 'Plantagenet' after their ancestor
Geoffrey Plantagenet, father of King Henry II. He shows in each
generation all of the children of the generation in question, and not
just the one followed in the next generation as has been done with
similar earlier works, and as he has pointed out in several posts here,
his intent was to provide contemporary (or near-contemporary)
documentation for each statement of relationship and chronology, and to
only include those connections that could be so documented.
Certainly the number of citations entered after each name is indicative
of the degree to which documentation was stressed in the compilation,
yet this alone does not tell us the quality of the work. My father used
to joke that he would score term papers by throwing them down the stairs
and award grades by how far each went - suggesting a rough equating of
quantity and quality which in fact does not apply (sometimes quantity is
used to disguise lack of quality - "If you can't dazzle them with data,.
.. . ."). Thus a single specific example was selected and evaluated for
the quality of the references in documenting the relationship provided.
In presenting the discussion of the so-called "Bastards of Exeter" (p.
301), the author makes Robert Holand a son of John, Duke of Exeter and
brother of Duke Henry. Based on his own criterion of only maintaining
relationships that are attested to in contemporary documentation, a
survey was done of the cited reference to determine which, if any,
documents this relationship. Unfortunately, in this case none does
anything of the sort.
As usual, we have the long list of references with no indication of
which is the relevant source, a problem throughout the work. The reader
is frequently left guessing as to which of a half-dozen or more
citations provided the critical link - a problem easily avoided through
either in-text citation, or the inclusion of parenthetical annotations
in the bibliographical list (i.e. "C.I.M.P. [d.b.]" to indicate the
source for the birthdate). Thus each reference must be consulted, and
one not infrequently discovers that several of the sources are not
independent, in this case one entirely reliant on information in
another, which itself is a secondary work, deriving its statements from
documents not consulted or cited but Mr. Richardson.
Looking at the specific references cited for Robert Holand, there are
six - Vivian's Cornwall Visitations, Sandford's work on the royal
family, Sheppard's Royal Bye Blows II article in NEHGR, a Patent Roll
entry, a TAG article on Robert Holand, and Scofield's Edward IV. Of
these, the last is entirely unhelpful in addressing any of the specific
information presented regarding Robert. No specific page reference is
given, and further, the work fails to mention Robert at all - the author
seems entirely unaware of his existence. On p. 121 she refers to "one
of two illegitimate brothers" of Henry, Duke of Exeter, and on p. 156
notes that a reference to "both Bastards of Exeter" refers to Thomas and
William - hence if she knew of Robert, she was not including him as one
of the two brothers of Henry.
The Patent Roll citation refers to a case addressing a non-appearance at
court, relating to an earlier trial where he was sued for debts owed to
Robert Holand and others (curiously, Richardson says "formerly owed",
but there is no indication in the record that the debt itself was ever
resolved), and provides no indication of Robert's paternity (nor of
whether or not he was still living).
Of the remaining references, one is of no independent value, Sheppard
deriving his material entirely from Sandford, while two (Vivian and
Sandford), far from stating that Robert is son of John and brother of
Henry, Dukes of Exeter, instead state that Robert is son of Henry. This
brings up a flaw of many works that appear to be more interested in
stuffing their bibliography than analysing the data - for contested
relationships, when contradictory sources are cited, some indication
should be given that the source actually disagrees with the author's
conclusions, rather than just citing it and leaving the reader to
discover that it is contradictory and to guess at what the author was
thinking in including it in reference to a claim with which it
disagrees. Finally, he cites a TAG article which concludes that Vivian
and Sandford are erroneous, but draws no conclusion (beyond implication)
regarding the correct relationship.
Thus, to document that Robert Holand is illegitimate son of John Holand,
Duke of Exeter, he cites one source that knows nothing of Robert, one
that is not relevant to his paternity, three (two original, one
derivitive) that provide him with a different paternity than the one
presented, and one that indicates these three are wrong, but does not
supply an alternative. He provides none that supply the relationship he
presents, nor does he discuss why it is a reasonable conclusion based on
what is known (although this would violate his stated intent of
including only those relationships that can be directly documented in
primary records). Clearly, this is the author's own speculation, given
an unwarrented luster of truth by an impressively long but irrelevant
list of citations.
Just as an aside, the author repeats the claim that Robert Holand may be
one of the two bastard sons of the Duke of Exeter who died at Towton, 29
Mar, 1461. He does so based on the reference of Sandford to the Stow
Chronicle, but does not directly refer to the Stow Chronicle, which also
states that Edward, Duke of Exeter, also was killed there - a statement
that is clearly problematic, as the Duke of Exeter was Henry, and he was
not killed at Towton. This should throw the value of this chronicle
into question, and the issue was raised by the TAG article cited, but
Mr. Richardson gives no indication that the source is problematic. (In
fact, it is likely that no Exeter bastards were killed on 29 March, two
already being dead and one surviving to raise further troubles for the
victor.) In the account of Robert, there are further inaccuracies and
unconfirmed statements only documented by impeached sources that will
not be detailed here. In the same vane, though more humorously, he
states in regard to Thomas Holand, Bastard of Exeter, that he "was
reportedly executed by Warwick at Coventry, Warwickshire in March
1460/1. He may also be one of the two bastard sons of the Duke of
Exeter slain at the Battle of Towton 29 March 1461." One has visions of
a cross between Washington Irving and Monte Python, with a beheaded
knight ("Just a flesh wound") going from Covenry to Towton, only to be
killed in battle there two weeks later.
Now this exercise represents a rare case, where a reader has already
seen all of the references cited and is able to evaluate the line
on-sight. In most cases where a significant degree of effort is
required to locate all of the cited sources, such a presentation style
makes it virtually assured that the average reader will have no basis to
evaluate any of the relationships stated. With this as an example, it
is not clear that, even looking up the entire string of references, a
satisfactory conclusion may be reached. While, certainly, a look at a
single generation in just one of the hundreds of lines shown is far
short of a statistical survey of the accuracy of the work, and it is
possible that this reader, through an unlucky coincidence, happened to
pick the weakest link in the entire collection to evaluate, this
analysis suggests that the impressive lists of references at the end of
each entry may not be representative of a detailed evaluation of the
individual relationships shown. Either way, this reader is left without
the certainty that these lists of citations document the claimed
relationships, requiring a tedious search through a list of sometimes
obscure and difficult to access references, which may or may not be
relevant to the question at hand, in order to evaluate each individual
generation. While the book has already been portrayed as the new
gold-standard for such works by those who have clearly not gone through
this exercise, it is far from clear that this is the case, and, knowing
the use that most uncritical readers will put it to, the work may give
rise to any number of connections with the widespread but inappropriate
sense of accuracy that appearance in such a 'well-documented' work gives
them.
Just to conclude with good news regarding this specific relationship, a
contemporary document has recently been uncovered that reveals the true
paternity of Robert Holand, as well as the precise details of his death
and the fate of his holdings. Further it confirms the connection with
the Kendall family of Cornwall (the route of the claimed descents from
him) and in so doing proves contemporary proof of a link in a potential
royal descent for those who can prove linkage to this family.
taf
I
assume that at least some of the scholarly genealogical journals will
be publishing reviews of this book, hopefully done by scholars who are
experienced at medieval genealogy and who will discuss some specific
examples from the book.
OK, so here is my review (of sorts). Given that I wanted to spend as
little time as possible on it, being the busy (and lazy) person that I
am, I decided to focus on one specific line, and further, given the
number of citations per generation, on one generation of one line.
Likewise, as the author has previously been questioned, "what was your
source for . . . ?" and answered with the demand that the questioner
first look up all of the references, I picked an individual about whom I
had enough knowledge that I would be able to evaluate the reference on
sight. And so . . . :
In his book, Plantagenet Ancestry, which is derived directly and
indirectly from earlier works of the same theme by other authors, Mr.
Richardson presents lineages of individuals descended from the Angevin
royalty of England, frequently called 'Plantagenet' after their ancestor
Geoffrey Plantagenet, father of King Henry II. He shows in each
generation all of the children of the generation in question, and not
just the one followed in the next generation as has been done with
similar earlier works, and as he has pointed out in several posts here,
his intent was to provide contemporary (or near-contemporary)
documentation for each statement of relationship and chronology, and to
only include those connections that could be so documented.
Certainly the number of citations entered after each name is indicative
of the degree to which documentation was stressed in the compilation,
yet this alone does not tell us the quality of the work. My father used
to joke that he would score term papers by throwing them down the stairs
and award grades by how far each went - suggesting a rough equating of
quantity and quality which in fact does not apply (sometimes quantity is
used to disguise lack of quality - "If you can't dazzle them with data,.
.. . ."). Thus a single specific example was selected and evaluated for
the quality of the references in documenting the relationship provided.
In presenting the discussion of the so-called "Bastards of Exeter" (p.
301), the author makes Robert Holand a son of John, Duke of Exeter and
brother of Duke Henry. Based on his own criterion of only maintaining
relationships that are attested to in contemporary documentation, a
survey was done of the cited reference to determine which, if any,
documents this relationship. Unfortunately, in this case none does
anything of the sort.
As usual, we have the long list of references with no indication of
which is the relevant source, a problem throughout the work. The reader
is frequently left guessing as to which of a half-dozen or more
citations provided the critical link - a problem easily avoided through
either in-text citation, or the inclusion of parenthetical annotations
in the bibliographical list (i.e. "C.I.M.P. [d.b.]" to indicate the
source for the birthdate). Thus each reference must be consulted, and
one not infrequently discovers that several of the sources are not
independent, in this case one entirely reliant on information in
another, which itself is a secondary work, deriving its statements from
documents not consulted or cited but Mr. Richardson.
Looking at the specific references cited for Robert Holand, there are
six - Vivian's Cornwall Visitations, Sandford's work on the royal
family, Sheppard's Royal Bye Blows II article in NEHGR, a Patent Roll
entry, a TAG article on Robert Holand, and Scofield's Edward IV. Of
these, the last is entirely unhelpful in addressing any of the specific
information presented regarding Robert. No specific page reference is
given, and further, the work fails to mention Robert at all - the author
seems entirely unaware of his existence. On p. 121 she refers to "one
of two illegitimate brothers" of Henry, Duke of Exeter, and on p. 156
notes that a reference to "both Bastards of Exeter" refers to Thomas and
William - hence if she knew of Robert, she was not including him as one
of the two brothers of Henry.
The Patent Roll citation refers to a case addressing a non-appearance at
court, relating to an earlier trial where he was sued for debts owed to
Robert Holand and others (curiously, Richardson says "formerly owed",
but there is no indication in the record that the debt itself was ever
resolved), and provides no indication of Robert's paternity (nor of
whether or not he was still living).
Of the remaining references, one is of no independent value, Sheppard
deriving his material entirely from Sandford, while two (Vivian and
Sandford), far from stating that Robert is son of John and brother of
Henry, Dukes of Exeter, instead state that Robert is son of Henry. This
brings up a flaw of many works that appear to be more interested in
stuffing their bibliography than analysing the data - for contested
relationships, when contradictory sources are cited, some indication
should be given that the source actually disagrees with the author's
conclusions, rather than just citing it and leaving the reader to
discover that it is contradictory and to guess at what the author was
thinking in including it in reference to a claim with which it
disagrees. Finally, he cites a TAG article which concludes that Vivian
and Sandford are erroneous, but draws no conclusion (beyond implication)
regarding the correct relationship.
Thus, to document that Robert Holand is illegitimate son of John Holand,
Duke of Exeter, he cites one source that knows nothing of Robert, one
that is not relevant to his paternity, three (two original, one
derivitive) that provide him with a different paternity than the one
presented, and one that indicates these three are wrong, but does not
supply an alternative. He provides none that supply the relationship he
presents, nor does he discuss why it is a reasonable conclusion based on
what is known (although this would violate his stated intent of
including only those relationships that can be directly documented in
primary records). Clearly, this is the author's own speculation, given
an unwarrented luster of truth by an impressively long but irrelevant
list of citations.
Just as an aside, the author repeats the claim that Robert Holand may be
one of the two bastard sons of the Duke of Exeter who died at Towton, 29
Mar, 1461. He does so based on the reference of Sandford to the Stow
Chronicle, but does not directly refer to the Stow Chronicle, which also
states that Edward, Duke of Exeter, also was killed there - a statement
that is clearly problematic, as the Duke of Exeter was Henry, and he was
not killed at Towton. This should throw the value of this chronicle
into question, and the issue was raised by the TAG article cited, but
Mr. Richardson gives no indication that the source is problematic. (In
fact, it is likely that no Exeter bastards were killed on 29 March, two
already being dead and one surviving to raise further troubles for the
victor.) In the account of Robert, there are further inaccuracies and
unconfirmed statements only documented by impeached sources that will
not be detailed here. In the same vane, though more humorously, he
states in regard to Thomas Holand, Bastard of Exeter, that he "was
reportedly executed by Warwick at Coventry, Warwickshire in March
1460/1. He may also be one of the two bastard sons of the Duke of
Exeter slain at the Battle of Towton 29 March 1461." One has visions of
a cross between Washington Irving and Monte Python, with a beheaded
knight ("Just a flesh wound") going from Covenry to Towton, only to be
killed in battle there two weeks later.
Now this exercise represents a rare case, where a reader has already
seen all of the references cited and is able to evaluate the line
on-sight. In most cases where a significant degree of effort is
required to locate all of the cited sources, such a presentation style
makes it virtually assured that the average reader will have no basis to
evaluate any of the relationships stated. With this as an example, it
is not clear that, even looking up the entire string of references, a
satisfactory conclusion may be reached. While, certainly, a look at a
single generation in just one of the hundreds of lines shown is far
short of a statistical survey of the accuracy of the work, and it is
possible that this reader, through an unlucky coincidence, happened to
pick the weakest link in the entire collection to evaluate, this
analysis suggests that the impressive lists of references at the end of
each entry may not be representative of a detailed evaluation of the
individual relationships shown. Either way, this reader is left without
the certainty that these lists of citations document the claimed
relationships, requiring a tedious search through a list of sometimes
obscure and difficult to access references, which may or may not be
relevant to the question at hand, in order to evaluate each individual
generation. While the book has already been portrayed as the new
gold-standard for such works by those who have clearly not gone through
this exercise, it is far from clear that this is the case, and, knowing
the use that most uncritical readers will put it to, the work may give
rise to any number of connections with the widespread but inappropriate
sense of accuracy that appearance in such a 'well-documented' work gives
them.
Just to conclude with good news regarding this specific relationship, a
contemporary document has recently been uncovered that reveals the true
paternity of Robert Holand, as well as the precise details of his death
and the fate of his holdings. Further it confirms the connection with
the Kendall family of Cornwall (the route of the claimed descents from
him) and in so doing proves contemporary proof of a link in a potential
royal descent for those who can prove linkage to this family.
taf
-
Martin E. Hollick
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
"OK, so here is my review (of sorts). Given that I wanted to spend as
little time as possible on it, being the busy (and lazy) person that I
am, I decided to focus on one specific line, and further, given the
number of citations per generation, on one generation of one line.
Likewise, as the author has previously been questioned, "what was your
source for . . . ?" and answered with the demand that the questioner
first look up all of the references, I picked an individual about whom
I
had enough knowledge that I would be able to evaluate the reference on
sight. And so . . . :"
*rest SNIPPED*
The problem with this logic is that if the rest of the book is correct
in all lines and all generations, then 99% is correct and 1%
incorrect. That's pretty damn good.
Having read many of the so-called reviews on this forum of Mr.
Richardson's work, I want to weigh in with my opinion. Mr. Van der
Pas astutely points out on his webpage that there are two types of
genealogists: hunters and gatherers. Another distinction in genealogy
are those who publish and those who don't. As someone who does
publish his work, I know what it is like to put your integrity, your
hard work, and your reputation on the line bravely in print. There
are many on this forum who find it easy to criticize but have not done
anything of substance for scholarly genealogy themselves. If you are
unsatisfied with the results of a given work, any work, then publish
your own article.
Mr. Richardson's book is aimed at a large audience of a wide range of
capabilities and needs. For the true expert, such as a Mr. Farmerie
or Mr. Baldwin, it must present a frustration. However, for the idle
researcher, it is truly a gift of good and sound research. It does
what any good work of this type ought to do. It presents a line and
gives the motivated researcher the tools to follow-up on the research
should he or she wish to. I agree with Mr. Farmerie that it would be
helpful to add notes in the bibliography, which would indicate which
works were used for which information. However, that would be a wise
upgrade for the next edition and does not diminish the worth of this
volume.
If the experts on this forum want a work that speaks to them
specifically, someone needs to write it. It is likely that no one
would publish such a technical work because the audience is so small.
Clearly, there is the dilemma.
In any case, I have read such really mean-spirited and, what can only
be termed jealous, rants when it comes to Doug Richardson and PA3.
The big reviews will appear in TAG, NEHGR, etc. but even then will an
"expert" be writing the review? I don't know. PA3 is the best kind
of work of its type. It is not perfect, nor could a work of this
breadth be so. It should foster discussion and constructive
criticism. I think PA3 accomplishes this.
little time as possible on it, being the busy (and lazy) person that I
am, I decided to focus on one specific line, and further, given the
number of citations per generation, on one generation of one line.
Likewise, as the author has previously been questioned, "what was your
source for . . . ?" and answered with the demand that the questioner
first look up all of the references, I picked an individual about whom
I
had enough knowledge that I would be able to evaluate the reference on
sight. And so . . . :"
*rest SNIPPED*
The problem with this logic is that if the rest of the book is correct
in all lines and all generations, then 99% is correct and 1%
incorrect. That's pretty damn good.
Having read many of the so-called reviews on this forum of Mr.
Richardson's work, I want to weigh in with my opinion. Mr. Van der
Pas astutely points out on his webpage that there are two types of
genealogists: hunters and gatherers. Another distinction in genealogy
are those who publish and those who don't. As someone who does
publish his work, I know what it is like to put your integrity, your
hard work, and your reputation on the line bravely in print. There
are many on this forum who find it easy to criticize but have not done
anything of substance for scholarly genealogy themselves. If you are
unsatisfied with the results of a given work, any work, then publish
your own article.
Mr. Richardson's book is aimed at a large audience of a wide range of
capabilities and needs. For the true expert, such as a Mr. Farmerie
or Mr. Baldwin, it must present a frustration. However, for the idle
researcher, it is truly a gift of good and sound research. It does
what any good work of this type ought to do. It presents a line and
gives the motivated researcher the tools to follow-up on the research
should he or she wish to. I agree with Mr. Farmerie that it would be
helpful to add notes in the bibliography, which would indicate which
works were used for which information. However, that would be a wise
upgrade for the next edition and does not diminish the worth of this
volume.
If the experts on this forum want a work that speaks to them
specifically, someone needs to write it. It is likely that no one
would publish such a technical work because the audience is so small.
Clearly, there is the dilemma.
In any case, I have read such really mean-spirited and, what can only
be termed jealous, rants when it comes to Doug Richardson and PA3.
The big reviews will appear in TAG, NEHGR, etc. but even then will an
"expert" be writing the review? I don't know. PA3 is the best kind
of work of its type. It is not perfect, nor could a work of this
breadth be so. It should foster discussion and constructive
criticism. I think PA3 accomplishes this.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Martin E. Hollick wrote:
Yes, and the problem with your logic is that you only know that this 1%
is incorrect, and you are assuming the best-case scenario concerning the
rest. Unfortunately, you don't know, and neitehr do I. With this one
section failing so miserably, I have no basis to assume that the rest
can be trusted, and neither do you.
Look up the TAG article mentioned in the review - note who the author
was. Note that the author refrained from making a reasonable
speculation regarding the paternity of the person in question
specifically *because* there was no direct evidence for it. Once
published, if such speculation proves wrong, it can never be
unpublished. That is the responsibility that every genealogical author
takes on when they publish, and is the reason (along with simple
honesty) that one should be extremely careful regarding publishing
speculation, and when one does, they should certainly label it as such
rather than pretending it is supported by the citations given.
Again, the assumption that it is good and sound. At least that specific
line did not represent good and sound research, and that is exactly the
point. In reality, readers will not consult the references - they will
assume, as you have, that it is right, load the information onto their
web pages, and we will all have to deal with it. There are cases where
Mr. Richardson has jumped to conclusions. He could at least indicate
this, but putting in the word "probably" or "possibly", or "it can be
concluded", or "some sources say otherwise", but he has, at least in
this line, intentionally buried any doubt, giving the reader the
impression that the line is supported, rather than contradicted, by the
references given. Is it truly a gift for an author to hide the fact
that a particular connection has been guessed at, rather than (as
claimed) being directly documented?
If it's addition would improve the work, then its absense does diminish
the value of the current work.
Yes.
Bear in mind that I reviewed Mr. Richardson's work based on his own
criteria (that he would only include those connections supported by
contemporary evidence). He has specifically used this standard to
advertise his book in this forum, so it is fair game to see if this
claim is accurate.
taf
"OK, so here is my review (of sorts). Given that I wanted to spend as
little time as possible on it, being the busy (and lazy) person that I
am, I decided to focus on one specific line, and further, given the
number of citations per generation, on one generation of one line.
Likewise, as the author has previously been questioned, "what was your
source for . . . ?" and answered with the demand that the questioner
first look up all of the references, I picked an individual about whom
I
had enough knowledge that I would be able to evaluate the reference on
sight. And so . . . :"
*rest SNIPPED*
The problem with this logic is that if the rest of the book is correct
in all lines and all generations, then 99% is correct and 1%
incorrect. That's pretty damn good.
Yes, and the problem with your logic is that you only know that this 1%
is incorrect, and you are assuming the best-case scenario concerning the
rest. Unfortunately, you don't know, and neitehr do I. With this one
section failing so miserably, I have no basis to assume that the rest
can be trusted, and neither do you.
Having read many of the so-called reviews on this forum of Mr.
Richardson's work, I want to weigh in with my opinion. Mr. Van der
Pas astutely points out on his webpage that there are two types of
genealogists: hunters and gatherers. Another distinction in genealogy
are those who publish and those who don't. As someone who does
publish his work, I know what it is like to put your integrity, your
hard work, and your reputation on the line bravely in print. There
are many on this forum who find it easy to criticize but have not done
anything of substance for scholarly genealogy themselves. If you are
unsatisfied with the results of a given work, any work, then publish
your own article.
Look up the TAG article mentioned in the review - note who the author
was. Note that the author refrained from making a reasonable
speculation regarding the paternity of the person in question
specifically *because* there was no direct evidence for it. Once
published, if such speculation proves wrong, it can never be
unpublished. That is the responsibility that every genealogical author
takes on when they publish, and is the reason (along with simple
honesty) that one should be extremely careful regarding publishing
speculation, and when one does, they should certainly label it as such
rather than pretending it is supported by the citations given.
Mr. Richardson's book is aimed at a large audience of a wide range of
capabilities and needs. For the true expert, such as a Mr. Farmerie
or Mr. Baldwin, it must present a frustration. However, for the idle
researcher, it is truly a gift of good and sound research.
Again, the assumption that it is good and sound. At least that specific
line did not represent good and sound research, and that is exactly the
point. In reality, readers will not consult the references - they will
assume, as you have, that it is right, load the information onto their
web pages, and we will all have to deal with it. There are cases where
Mr. Richardson has jumped to conclusions. He could at least indicate
this, but putting in the word "probably" or "possibly", or "it can be
concluded", or "some sources say otherwise", but he has, at least in
this line, intentionally buried any doubt, giving the reader the
impression that the line is supported, rather than contradicted, by the
references given. Is it truly a gift for an author to hide the fact
that a particular connection has been guessed at, rather than (as
claimed) being directly documented?
It does
what any good work of this type ought to do. It presents a line and
gives the motivated researcher the tools to follow-up on the research
should he or she wish to. I agree with Mr. Farmerie that it would be
helpful to add notes in the bibliography, which would indicate which
works were used for which information. However, that would be a wise
upgrade for the next edition and does not diminish the worth of this
volume.
If it's addition would improve the work, then its absense does diminish
the value of the current work.
The big reviews will appear in TAG, NEHGR, etc. but even then will an
"expert" be writing the review?
Yes.
Bear in mind that I reviewed Mr. Richardson's work based on his own
criteria (that he would only include those connections supported by
contemporary evidence). He has specifically used this standard to
advertise his book in this forum, so it is fair game to see if this
claim is accurate.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Dear Martin, Leo et als,
From a strictly personal standpoint, I
enjoy Douglas Richardson`s work. Is it perfect? I doubt it`s meant to be, though
it could hardly be termed slipshod. It is in fact, quite good in terms of
breadth and depth. I have written a few very small articles for The Maine
Genealogist, likely so few and so small I have no professional reputation to speak
of. I think of myself as both a hunter, because I do try to seek out the truth
of the matter when possible and as a gatherer (if a whole bunch of reputed
ancestors falls into my lap, I tend to accept them until an error becomes evident,
which unfortunately can lead to a lot of deletions)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
From a strictly personal standpoint, I
enjoy Douglas Richardson`s work. Is it perfect? I doubt it`s meant to be, though
it could hardly be termed slipshod. It is in fact, quite good in terms of
breadth and depth. I have written a few very small articles for The Maine
Genealogist, likely so few and so small I have no professional reputation to speak
of. I think of myself as both a hunter, because I do try to seek out the truth
of the matter when possible and as a gatherer (if a whole bunch of reputed
ancestors falls into my lap, I tend to accept them until an error becomes evident,
which unfortunately can lead to a lot of deletions)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
In message of 21 Nov, mhollick@mac.com (Martin E. Hollick) wrote:
In fact the next paragraph was quoted from Todd Farmerie, so I have
given it the traditional double cheverons:
Unfortunately the snipped parts contains some interesting arguments.
Once snipped, they are no longer there to be discussed.
Let's see if I can remember them. The general principles are:
1. Give references for all the facts you relate.
2. Make it clear which reference applies to which fact.
3. In matters of doubt, share that doubt and explain why you have come
to the conclusion you have.
Because you have snipped the argument, you have missed the point. The
argument was that some supposed facts were uncertain and neither the
text not the references allowed the reader to see such problems. This
was illustrated by but one example - out of laziness - but the general
principle was applied to all facts, that they were poorly referenced.
So the conclusion was not that 1% was wrong - and one example would have
been far less than this - but that a much larger percentage suffered
from the same problem of method and indicated a poorly presented work.
This is easer said than done. Personally I have every admiration for
anyone who comes into print. I have the greatest respect for those
who follow something along the above three principles. But I do not
have access to the source documents, nor do I have the skills to read
and understand them.
This is the point. The method of presenting the references is weak.
It does not represent good and sound research. The established method,
over centuries, is to footnote the text with precise notes of where the
facts came from. This does not make the work difficult to read. But
it does show that clear reasoning has been used in deciding what
evidence supports what reported facts.
There are genealogical books that have clearly done this. Complete
Peerage and Scots Peerage are both excellent examples. It does not mean
that they have got everything right, as new documents are being found
every moment, It is these continued discoveries that makes genealogy
a living and exciting science.
Not what was said. The criticism was made was that none of the
referenced works was relevant to the reported facts.
Agreed.
But if the volume just gets some facts wrong because of the method of
research?
Here you are saying that an adequately referenced work would not appeal.
I do not follow this argument. The appeal is in the manner of
presenting the facts and the language used. A good researcher can
write and present well - or badly. So can a weak researcher.
But you have not considered the arguments. You snipped them. This is
why it pays to take the contribution and go through it point by point.
Then both you see what is being said and your comments become relevant.
Are you defining "expert" as someone who writes and present their
material badly? If so, we have to agree, But there are experts who
make their subjects interesting as well as present their arguments - and
references - well.
I simply don't follow this. Genealogy requires that you provide
evidence for the facts that you report. A wide ranging work can just as
easily provide evidence as a narrow study.
In many ways the first thing in any genealogical or historical work is
to decide and explain the method of your research. If you are doing a
popular work and summarising only popular reference books, say so and
we will all know what you are trying to do. But if you are seeking to
uncover correct facts and present new information, say how you have gone
about this and what limitations there might be in your research
methods. It only takes a page or two. And it will be very useful to
you as author to realise explicitly what you are doing and trying to do.
And it is this criticism that you seem to be objecting to. And deleting
all this criticism results in your failure to base your comments on
those actually made.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In fact the next paragraph was quoted from Todd Farmerie, so I have
given it the traditional double cheverons:
"OK, so here is my review (of sorts). Given that I wanted to spend as
little time as possible on it, being the busy (and lazy) person that I
am, I decided to focus on one specific line, and further, given the
number of citations per generation, on one generation of one line.
Likewise, as the author has previously been questioned, "what was your
source for . . . ?" and answered with the demand that the questioner
first look up all of the references, I picked an individual about whom
I
had enough knowledge that I would be able to evaluate the reference on
sight. And so . . . :"
*rest SNIPPED*
Unfortunately the snipped parts contains some interesting arguments.
Once snipped, they are no longer there to be discussed.
Let's see if I can remember them. The general principles are:
1. Give references for all the facts you relate.
2. Make it clear which reference applies to which fact.
3. In matters of doubt, share that doubt and explain why you have come
to the conclusion you have.
The problem with this logic is that if the rest of the book is correct
in all lines and all generations, then 99% is correct and 1%
incorrect. That's pretty damn good.
Because you have snipped the argument, you have missed the point. The
argument was that some supposed facts were uncertain and neither the
text not the references allowed the reader to see such problems. This
was illustrated by but one example - out of laziness - but the general
principle was applied to all facts, that they were poorly referenced.
So the conclusion was not that 1% was wrong - and one example would have
been far less than this - but that a much larger percentage suffered
from the same problem of method and indicated a poorly presented work.
Having read many of the so-called reviews on this forum of Mr.
Richardson's work, I want to weigh in with my opinion. Mr. Van der
Pas astutely points out on his webpage that there are two types of
genealogists: hunters and gatherers. Another distinction in genealogy
are those who publish and those who don't. As someone who does
publish his work, I know what it is like to put your integrity, your
hard work, and your reputation on the line bravely in print. There
are many on this forum who find it easy to criticize but have not done
anything of substance for scholarly genealogy themselves. If you are
unsatisfied with the results of a given work, any work, then publish
your own article.
This is easer said than done. Personally I have every admiration for
anyone who comes into print. I have the greatest respect for those
who follow something along the above three principles. But I do not
have access to the source documents, nor do I have the skills to read
and understand them.
Mr. Richardson's book is aimed at a large audience of a wide range of
capabilities and needs. For the true expert, such as a Mr. Farmerie
or Mr. Baldwin, it must present a frustration. However, for the idle
researcher, it is truly a gift of good and sound research.
This is the point. The method of presenting the references is weak.
It does not represent good and sound research. The established method,
over centuries, is to footnote the text with precise notes of where the
facts came from. This does not make the work difficult to read. But
it does show that clear reasoning has been used in deciding what
evidence supports what reported facts.
There are genealogical books that have clearly done this. Complete
Peerage and Scots Peerage are both excellent examples. It does not mean
that they have got everything right, as new documents are being found
every moment, It is these continued discoveries that makes genealogy
a living and exciting science.
It does what any good work of this type ought to do. It presents a
line and gives the motivated researcher the tools to follow-up on the
research should he or she wish to.
Not what was said. The criticism was made was that none of the
referenced works was relevant to the reported facts.
I agree with Mr. Farmerie that it would be helpful to add notes in the
bibliography, which would indicate which works were used for which
information.
Agreed.
However, that would be a wise upgrade for the next edition and does
not diminish the worth of this volume.
But if the volume just gets some facts wrong because of the method of
research?
If the experts on this forum want a work that speaks to them
specifically, someone needs to write it. It is likely that no one
would publish such a technical work because the audience is so small.
Clearly, there is the dilemma.
Here you are saying that an adequately referenced work would not appeal.
I do not follow this argument. The appeal is in the manner of
presenting the facts and the language used. A good researcher can
write and present well - or badly. So can a weak researcher.
In any case, I have read such really mean-spirited and, what can only
be termed jealous, rants when it comes to Doug Richardson and PA3.
But you have not considered the arguments. You snipped them. This is
why it pays to take the contribution and go through it point by point.
Then both you see what is being said and your comments become relevant.
The big reviews will appear in TAG, NEHGR, etc. but even then will an
"expert" be writing the review?
Are you defining "expert" as someone who writes and present their
material badly? If so, we have to agree, But there are experts who
make their subjects interesting as well as present their arguments - and
references - well.
I don't know. PA3 is the best kind of work of its type. It is not
perfect, nor could a work of this breadth be so.
I simply don't follow this. Genealogy requires that you provide
evidence for the facts that you report. A wide ranging work can just as
easily provide evidence as a narrow study.
In many ways the first thing in any genealogical or historical work is
to decide and explain the method of your research. If you are doing a
popular work and summarising only popular reference books, say so and
we will all know what you are trying to do. But if you are seeking to
uncover correct facts and present new information, say how you have gone
about this and what limitations there might be in your research
methods. It only takes a page or two. And it will be very useful to
you as author to realise explicitly what you are doing and trying to do.
It should foster discussion and constructive criticism. I think PA3
accomplishes this.
And it is this criticism that you seem to be objecting to. And deleting
all this criticism results in your failure to base your comments on
those actually made.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Leo van de Pas wrote:
<snip>
Well said, Leo. A logical extension of this flawed idea about the
validity of negative criticism is that in a well-regulated legal system
every judge and prosecution attorney should have committed a crime
before becoming eligible to assess evidence.
Of course, the people who make this kind of complaint only apply their
false standard to those who disagree with their own opinions -
otherwise, favourable views from people who haven't published would be
scoffed at too, and for just the same reason.
Even before the Internet and its newsgroups were available for sharing
research, mere publication was no reliable qualifier for genealogical
expertise. Many of the problems discussed on SGM originated in print.
And many of the contributors here do not have the time, resources or
interest to publish their research. Some might be in the course of
preparing work to share eventually, maybe even on a scale and at a level
of detail that would eclipse the less conscientious attempts of others,
but not yet in a state of readiness for publication.
Todd Farmerie has published work in the field - and although I haven't
read any of his papers in scholarly journals, this does not in any way
lessen the high respect I have for his undoubted expertise as shown in
SGM posts.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
Also a remark was made about people who haven't produced books cannot/should
not judge the work of others. I do not agree with this. I heard a remark
about the musical world which should have similarity. "People who can
compose, compose, People who cannot compose, perform, People who cannot
compose or perform become critics." I think the proper saying may be
slightly different, but this is roughly it. Why wouldn't a person unable to
compose or perform be able to pass judgement? I bet many people will say the
works by Margaret Campbell Barnes, Anya Seton, Victoria Holt, Sir Laurence
Gardiner, "Prince Michael of Albany" and such are historical rubbish, even
Shakespeare could fall into this catergory, but have those people,
maintaining this, published themselves? Do they have to?
Well said, Leo. A logical extension of this flawed idea about the
validity of negative criticism is that in a well-regulated legal system
every judge and prosecution attorney should have committed a crime
before becoming eligible to assess evidence.
Of course, the people who make this kind of complaint only apply their
false standard to those who disagree with their own opinions -
otherwise, favourable views from people who haven't published would be
scoffed at too, and for just the same reason.
Even before the Internet and its newsgroups were available for sharing
research, mere publication was no reliable qualifier for genealogical
expertise. Many of the problems discussed on SGM originated in print.
And many of the contributors here do not have the time, resources or
interest to publish their research. Some might be in the course of
preparing work to share eventually, maybe even on a scale and at a level
of detail that would eclipse the less conscientious attempts of others,
but not yet in a state of readiness for publication.
Todd Farmerie has published work in the field - and although I haven't
read any of his papers in scholarly journals, this does not in any way
lessen the high respect I have for his undoubted expertise as shown in
SGM posts.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Dear James,
I am trying to stay out of this, as I don't have the time or inclination to
get stuck into it. My main reason, however, is that I do not have access to
the primary sources to be able to make judgements. Nor do I have access to
sources quoted by Douglas Richardson.
Martin Hollick used my remarks about Hunters and Gatherers. In my opinion,
which is likely to be flawed, Douglas Richardson is a Gatherer pretending to
be a Hunter.
To be a Hunter you have to have the tools to access Primary Sources and then
present them. To quote sources and basically say "your sort them out to see
whether they apply" in my opinion is not what a true Hunter would/should do.
Also a remark was made about people who haven't produced books cannot/should
not judge the work of others. I do not agree with this. I heard a remark
about the musical world which should have similarity. "People who can
compose, compose, People who cannot compose, perform, People who cannot
compose or perform become critics." I think the proper saying may be
slightly different, but this is roughly it. Why wouldn't a person unable to
compose or perform be able to pass judgement? I bet many people will say the
works by Margaret Campbell Barnes, Anya Seton, Victoria Holt, Sir Laurence
Gardiner, "Prince Michael of Albany" and such are historical rubbish, even
Shakespeare could fall into this catergory, but have those people,
maintaining this, published themselves? Do they have to?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
I am trying to stay out of this, as I don't have the time or inclination to
get stuck into it. My main reason, however, is that I do not have access to
the primary sources to be able to make judgements. Nor do I have access to
sources quoted by Douglas Richardson.
Martin Hollick used my remarks about Hunters and Gatherers. In my opinion,
which is likely to be flawed, Douglas Richardson is a Gatherer pretending to
be a Hunter.
To be a Hunter you have to have the tools to access Primary Sources and then
present them. To quote sources and basically say "your sort them out to see
whether they apply" in my opinion is not what a true Hunter would/should do.
Also a remark was made about people who haven't produced books cannot/should
not judge the work of others. I do not agree with this. I heard a remark
about the musical world which should have similarity. "People who can
compose, compose, People who cannot compose, perform, People who cannot
compose or perform become critics." I think the proper saying may be
slightly different, but this is roughly it. Why wouldn't a person unable to
compose or perform be able to pass judgement? I bet many people will say the
works by Margaret Campbell Barnes, Anya Seton, Victoria Holt, Sir Laurence
Gardiner, "Prince Michael of Albany" and such are historical rubbish, even
Shakespeare could fall into this catergory, but have those people,
maintaining this, published themselves? Do they have to?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Dear Martin, Leo et als,
From a strictly personal standpoint, I
enjoy Douglas Richardson`s work. Is it perfect? I doubt it`s meant to be,
though
it could hardly be termed slipshod. It is in fact, quite good in terms of
breadth and depth. I have written a few very small articles for The Maine
Genealogist, likely so few and so small I have no professional reputation
to speak
of. I think of myself as both a hunter, because I do try to seek out the
truth
of the matter when possible and as a gatherer (if a whole bunch of reputed
ancestors falls into my lap, I tend to accept them until an error becomes
evident,
which unfortunately can lead to a lot of deletions)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Leo van de Pas wrote:
The more I think about this the more I think it is backwards - you can't
really write a good work of scholarship _until_ you have judged the work
of others. Until you can adequately distinguish good scholarship from
bad, you do not have a sound basis for evaluating the sources you will
use in your research, nor can you appropriately appreciate the strengths
and weaknesses of your own arguments and conclusions (which ego makes
hard enough for the best trained and most conscientious of scholars).
(Part of my professional training involved a weekly session where we
discussed a published journal article. It was picked apart in minute
detail by everyone in the room. This was invaluable - I learned what
makes a good paper, and what flaws to avoid in my own scholarly writing.
It also brought home the fact that my own writing will be similarly
treated, so I had better do my best at anticipating the critique by
making sure my arguments are sound, and addressing the problematic
details accordingly.
taf
Also a remark was made about people who haven't produced books cannot/should
not judge the work of others. I do not agree with this.
The more I think about this the more I think it is backwards - you can't
really write a good work of scholarship _until_ you have judged the work
of others. Until you can adequately distinguish good scholarship from
bad, you do not have a sound basis for evaluating the sources you will
use in your research, nor can you appropriately appreciate the strengths
and weaknesses of your own arguments and conclusions (which ego makes
hard enough for the best trained and most conscientious of scholars).
(Part of my professional training involved a weekly session where we
discussed a published journal article. It was picked apart in minute
detail by everyone in the room. This was invaluable - I learned what
makes a good paper, and what flaws to avoid in my own scholarly writing.
It also brought home the fact that my own writing will be similarly
treated, so I had better do my best at anticipating the critique by
making sure my arguments are sound, and addressing the problematic
details accordingly.
taf
-
Martin E. Hollick
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41a1118c@news.ColoState.EDU>...
*SNIPPED*
I came to this forum only say six months ago with a newfound interest
in medieval genealogy. Since then reading the posts, one can only
wonder what Douglas Richardson did to engender such animosity. Did he
publish a book or run over your cat?
In any case, I think it is unfair to judge any work by looking at just
a small portion of it. This is what you did and to what I objected.
You have reviewed many works in TAG that are of a medieval nature.
Will you be reviewing PA3 in TAG or will they haul out the big guns
for that (Neil Thompson, Charles Hansen or Paul Reed)?
Mr. Richardson was asked to post reviews and when he does, and when
they are favorable, everyone qualified the claim that no "expert" had
done the reviewing. I helped with the Mayflower Descendant review (I
am the associate editor of the journal), so I was interested that poor
Scott's good review was lambasted merely because he is not an
"expert."
One of your reviews in TAG noted you as the co-owner of this list. Is
that still so? If so, please start deleting all those idiotic
political messages.
Also, you cannot worry about what others do with research, good or
bad. You cannot stop the majority of genealogists whose only concern
is to fill up names on a chart and put them on a webpage. I mean
where do you start to eliminate the bad research? Do you sneak into
the LDS library and kill the Ancestral File? There's a start. Then
do the same for all projects that have submitted and unvetted
research.
Too bad there isn't a genealogical definition and sound law for the
use of probably, possibly, likely, and most likely. They are all
judgment calls now. Maybe we should all define what they should be.
However, in my experience, some people are not satisfied that things
are proven until they dig up the bodies and get an answer from the
source themselves. So . . .
You are a fine scholar no doubt, but clearly Mr. Richardon's work,
particularly on your line, has stuck in your craw. He inherited
Faris's work and Faris's style. Can things be improved? Certainly.
However, the over the top, non-constructive criticism has just go to
stop. It's really sad.
*SNIPPED*
I came to this forum only say six months ago with a newfound interest
in medieval genealogy. Since then reading the posts, one can only
wonder what Douglas Richardson did to engender such animosity. Did he
publish a book or run over your cat?
In any case, I think it is unfair to judge any work by looking at just
a small portion of it. This is what you did and to what I objected.
You have reviewed many works in TAG that are of a medieval nature.
Will you be reviewing PA3 in TAG or will they haul out the big guns
for that (Neil Thompson, Charles Hansen or Paul Reed)?
Mr. Richardson was asked to post reviews and when he does, and when
they are favorable, everyone qualified the claim that no "expert" had
done the reviewing. I helped with the Mayflower Descendant review (I
am the associate editor of the journal), so I was interested that poor
Scott's good review was lambasted merely because he is not an
"expert."
One of your reviews in TAG noted you as the co-owner of this list. Is
that still so? If so, please start deleting all those idiotic
political messages.
Also, you cannot worry about what others do with research, good or
bad. You cannot stop the majority of genealogists whose only concern
is to fill up names on a chart and put them on a webpage. I mean
where do you start to eliminate the bad research? Do you sneak into
the LDS library and kill the Ancestral File? There's a start. Then
do the same for all projects that have submitted and unvetted
research.
Too bad there isn't a genealogical definition and sound law for the
use of probably, possibly, likely, and most likely. They are all
judgment calls now. Maybe we should all define what they should be.
However, in my experience, some people are not satisfied that things
are proven until they dig up the bodies and get an answer from the
source themselves. So . . .
You are a fine scholar no doubt, but clearly Mr. Richardon's work,
particularly on your line, has stuck in your craw. He inherited
Faris's work and Faris's style. Can things be improved? Certainly.
However, the over the top, non-constructive criticism has just go to
stop. It's really sad.
Again, the assumption that it is good and sound. At least that specific
line did not represent good and sound research, and that is exactly the
point. In reality, readers will not consult the references - they will
assume, as you have, that it is right, load the information onto their
web pages, and we will all have to deal with it. There are cases where
Mr. Richardson has jumped to conclusions. He could at least indicate
this, but putting in the word "probably" or "possibly", or "it can be
concluded", or "some sources say otherwise", but he has, at least in
this line, intentionally buried any doubt, giving the reader the
impression that the line is supported, rather than contradicted, by the
references given. Is it truly a gift for an author to hide the fact
that a particular connection has been guessed at, rather than (as
claimed) being directly documented?
-
David Greene
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
To this entire discussion, I should add that there is a review of
Plantagenet Ancestry in the most recent issue of The New Hampshire
Genealogical Record, by the editor, Melinde Lutz Sanborn, FASG. So far
as I know, this review has not been mentioned previously in this
discussion. It is generally favorable but states that problems have
been pointed out in this News Group / mailing list.
It has been noted correctly that major reviews are scheduled to appear
in TAG and NEHGR, by two different experts in medieval genealogy (like
others, I wonder why the word "experts" was placed in quotation
marks). I know who both of these reviewers are and they are indeed
major experts, but it would be invidious to give their names before
their reviews appear, nor can I predict what either review will say.
The one is TAG will be a major-length review article and will probably
appear in the October or January issue.
DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]
Plantagenet Ancestry in the most recent issue of The New Hampshire
Genealogical Record, by the editor, Melinde Lutz Sanborn, FASG. So far
as I know, this review has not been mentioned previously in this
discussion. It is generally favorable but states that problems have
been pointed out in this News Group / mailing list.
It has been noted correctly that major reviews are scheduled to appear
in TAG and NEHGR, by two different experts in medieval genealogy (like
others, I wonder why the word "experts" was placed in quotation
marks). I know who both of these reviewers are and they are indeed
major experts, but it would be invidious to give their names before
their reviews appear, nor can I predict what either review will say.
The one is TAG will be a major-length review article and will probably
appear in the October or January issue.
DAVID L. GREENE, FASG
Coeditor and publisher
The American Genealogist [TAG]
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Martin E. Hollick wrote:
So you think that a person must have published work in the same field in
order to express a valid criticism, and yet observing SGM exchanges for
a mere six months qualifies you to question other people's motives?
Ho hum....the very reason you gave - allowing that publication in itself
is a criterion you seem to attach to expertise - for not respecting the
negative opinions of others.
Unfortunately for your case, Douglas Richardson helped too with the all
of the "reviews" he has posted so far - some of each having been drawn
directly from the publisher's blurb and/or from text in his book. That
is not exactly the way that experts (or even "experts") go about writing
reviews.
Todd Farmerie's review concentrated on a part of the book, and such a
book CAN BE no more than the sum of its parts. The correctness and
amplitude of details make up its raison d'être. There is no narrative
sweep or grand intellectual thrust behind it, no matter what you think
of Richardson.
Clearly in the instance studied by Todd the book didn't justify itself,
and yet you blandly assume that in all other matters it is bound to be
adequate. If in six months you haven't taken in the gross deficiencies
of its author's methods and judgement, and you haven't come across
discussions of other examples from the book, maybe it would be better to
consider more carefully the unbiased and measured opinion of Todd.
Peter Stewart
I came to this forum only say six months ago with a newfound interest
in medieval genealogy. Since then reading the posts, one can only
wonder what Douglas Richardson did to engender such animosity. Did he
publish a book or run over your cat?
In any case, I think it is unfair to judge any work by looking at just
a small portion of it. This is what you did and to what I objected.
You have reviewed many works in TAG that are of a medieval nature.
Will you be reviewing PA3 in TAG or will they haul out the big guns
for that (Neil Thompson, Charles Hansen or Paul Reed)?
So you think that a person must have published work in the same field in
order to express a valid criticism, and yet observing SGM exchanges for
a mere six months qualifies you to question other people's motives?
Mr. Richardson was asked to post reviews and when he does, and when
they are favorable, everyone qualified the claim that no "expert" had
done the reviewing. I helped with the Mayflower Descendant review (I
am the associate editor of the journal), so I was interested that poor
Scott's good review was lambasted merely because he is not an
"expert."
Ho hum....the very reason you gave - allowing that publication in itself
is a criterion you seem to attach to expertise - for not respecting the
negative opinions of others.
Unfortunately for your case, Douglas Richardson helped too with the all
of the "reviews" he has posted so far - some of each having been drawn
directly from the publisher's blurb and/or from text in his book. That
is not exactly the way that experts (or even "experts") go about writing
reviews.
Todd Farmerie's review concentrated on a part of the book, and such a
book CAN BE no more than the sum of its parts. The correctness and
amplitude of details make up its raison d'être. There is no narrative
sweep or grand intellectual thrust behind it, no matter what you think
of Richardson.
Clearly in the instance studied by Todd the book didn't justify itself,
and yet you blandly assume that in all other matters it is bound to be
adequate. If in six months you haven't taken in the gross deficiencies
of its author's methods and judgement, and you haven't come across
discussions of other examples from the book, maybe it would be better to
consider more carefully the unbiased and measured opinion of Todd.
Peter Stewart
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Martin E. Hollick wrote:
I feel no animosity toward Mr. Richardson. Don't personalize this. I
do find the style he adopted in this book to be unhelpful to the
researcher because it makes it difficult to evaluate the lines, and his
claim that everything is directly supported by documentation to be
untrue, which I only learned when I went through the tedious effort of
evaluating one line, and was regrettably disappointed.
As to the animosity which certain individuals display towards Mr.
Richardson, and he towards them (to portray this as one sided is to
mischaracterize it), all I can do is recommend that you read the
archives from before you started participating.
I explained my reasoning for this at the start of my post and I admitted
that I MAY have just picked the one line that was not well supported
(imagine the odds - I should go to Vegas). Let's not mince words. I
could tell at first site that Mr. Richardson was cheating on that line.
It was not an error or a typo - he guessed, and then hid the fact
under a pile of references, two thirds of which directly contradicted
his solution, while the remaining ones did not support it. How many
others has he similarly cut corners on? I don't know and neither do
you, but if he has done it on one, he is likely to have done it
elsewhere because the treatment of even a single problematic line is
indicative of an author's approach to all lines. It would take me a
month to dig out the specific references for any of the other 'novel'
solutions he offers, and you are not likely to even try - you just
assume that the one I pointed out is the only one that is wrong. How
likely is that?
TAG has not asked, and I would refuse if it did - specifically _because_
I don't have the time or ready resources to take several lines through
the same process. (Still, my one line appears to be one more than was
followed through by any of the reviewers whose work has been posted here
to date.)
As you said, you have only been here six months. There is a long
history, both with Mr. Richardson's book _and_ with the request for
reviews. The requester was the group gadfly, and made it only after a
couple of 'fluff' reviews were posted, and others complained about their
postings. The request was made because the requester knew that Mr.
Richardson was just looking for an excuse to publicize his book, and
that several other members of the group were bound to complain about him
doing it. The request was made with the intention of stirring the pot,
and Mr. Richardson has played along, excusing his actions based on the
disingenuous request. I can't tell who is using whom more, but there is
a lot more to this than someone getting criticized for obeying a request.
Again - it was nothing personal. It is simply a fact that most
non-expert reviews come off like "it had a nice beat, it was easy to
dance to, and I thought the lyrics were cool", but don't address the
critical substance.
Yes, but the list is set up in a unique manner, such that there can be
no moderation, other than through gentle, and sometimes not-so-gentle
suggestion. Nothing can be blocked if the poster doesn't want it
blocked, and nothing can be deleted. In many ways, things might be
easier were this not the case, and in many ways it would be more
tedious, but it is moot. It can't be changed now without literally
dividing the group in two, and both remnants would suffer more from this
than they do from the occasional political hooha.
You start by not publishing bad research yourself. Most of these
hole-fillers don't know enough to make it up on their own, so don't give
them anything you will later regret - make sure that your claims are
well founded, and don't _DON'T_ guess (as I said, you cannot unpublish a
jumped conclusion that proves wrong). You can also start by pointing
out bad research and correcting it when you see it. The barn door is
already open, but at least some of the horses can be led back in. "If
you can't say anything nice, . . ." is certainly not going to improve
the quality of genealogy.
The problem is that the book in question used no such qualifiers, giving
the impression that none of it is a judgement call - that all is
certain, and not just the impression. He has said several times and in
several places that it is all directly documented. If his definition of
"is" differs so significantly from that which most people use, then it
is doing them a favor to point this out.
The citation style makes this prohibitively tedious, so some who might
otherwise have done it will likely convince themselves that it is
probably OK. That is why I posted my review of that line - to
demonstrate that this assumption is not the case.
This is really going nowhere fast. Tell you what - pick a line and dig
up all of the references cited. Tell us what you find. Then we will
have two for comparison. Maybe we can convince someone else to do it to
a third.
And we haven't heard from Mr. Richardson yet - what say you, Doug, on
Robert Holand's paternity? Did you mistakenly fail to include the
critical reference or was it just a guess (or did you have a _Psychic
Roots_ moment)?
taf
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41a1118c@news.ColoState.EDU>...
I came to this forum only say six months ago with a newfound interest
in medieval genealogy. Since then reading the posts, one can only
wonder what Douglas Richardson did to engender such animosity. Did he
publish a book or run over your cat?
I feel no animosity toward Mr. Richardson. Don't personalize this. I
do find the style he adopted in this book to be unhelpful to the
researcher because it makes it difficult to evaluate the lines, and his
claim that everything is directly supported by documentation to be
untrue, which I only learned when I went through the tedious effort of
evaluating one line, and was regrettably disappointed.
As to the animosity which certain individuals display towards Mr.
Richardson, and he towards them (to portray this as one sided is to
mischaracterize it), all I can do is recommend that you read the
archives from before you started participating.
In any case, I think it is unfair to judge any work by looking at just
a small portion of it. This is what you did and to what I objected.
I explained my reasoning for this at the start of my post and I admitted
that I MAY have just picked the one line that was not well supported
(imagine the odds - I should go to Vegas). Let's not mince words. I
could tell at first site that Mr. Richardson was cheating on that line.
It was not an error or a typo - he guessed, and then hid the fact
under a pile of references, two thirds of which directly contradicted
his solution, while the remaining ones did not support it. How many
others has he similarly cut corners on? I don't know and neither do
you, but if he has done it on one, he is likely to have done it
elsewhere because the treatment of even a single problematic line is
indicative of an author's approach to all lines. It would take me a
month to dig out the specific references for any of the other 'novel'
solutions he offers, and you are not likely to even try - you just
assume that the one I pointed out is the only one that is wrong. How
likely is that?
You have reviewed many works in TAG that are of a medieval nature.
Will you be reviewing PA3 in TAG or will they haul out the big guns
for that (Neil Thompson, Charles Hansen or Paul Reed)?
TAG has not asked, and I would refuse if it did - specifically _because_
I don't have the time or ready resources to take several lines through
the same process. (Still, my one line appears to be one more than was
followed through by any of the reviewers whose work has been posted here
to date.)
Mr. Richardson was asked to post reviews and when he does, and when
they are favorable, everyone qualified the claim that no "expert" had
done the reviewing.
As you said, you have only been here six months. There is a long
history, both with Mr. Richardson's book _and_ with the request for
reviews. The requester was the group gadfly, and made it only after a
couple of 'fluff' reviews were posted, and others complained about their
postings. The request was made because the requester knew that Mr.
Richardson was just looking for an excuse to publicize his book, and
that several other members of the group were bound to complain about him
doing it. The request was made with the intention of stirring the pot,
and Mr. Richardson has played along, excusing his actions based on the
disingenuous request. I can't tell who is using whom more, but there is
a lot more to this than someone getting criticized for obeying a request.
I helped with the Mayflower Descendant review (I
am the associate editor of the journal), so I was interested that poor
Scott's good review was lambasted merely because he is not an
"expert."
Again - it was nothing personal. It is simply a fact that most
non-expert reviews come off like "it had a nice beat, it was easy to
dance to, and I thought the lyrics were cool", but don't address the
critical substance.
One of your reviews in TAG noted you as the co-owner of this list. Is
that still so? If so, please start deleting all those idiotic
political messages.
Yes, but the list is set up in a unique manner, such that there can be
no moderation, other than through gentle, and sometimes not-so-gentle
suggestion. Nothing can be blocked if the poster doesn't want it
blocked, and nothing can be deleted. In many ways, things might be
easier were this not the case, and in many ways it would be more
tedious, but it is moot. It can't be changed now without literally
dividing the group in two, and both remnants would suffer more from this
than they do from the occasional political hooha.
Also, you cannot worry about what others do with research, good or
bad. You cannot stop the majority of genealogists whose only concern
is to fill up names on a chart and put them on a webpage. I mean
where do you start to eliminate the bad research?
You start by not publishing bad research yourself. Most of these
hole-fillers don't know enough to make it up on their own, so don't give
them anything you will later regret - make sure that your claims are
well founded, and don't _DON'T_ guess (as I said, you cannot unpublish a
jumped conclusion that proves wrong). You can also start by pointing
out bad research and correcting it when you see it. The barn door is
already open, but at least some of the horses can be led back in. "If
you can't say anything nice, . . ." is certainly not going to improve
the quality of genealogy.
Too bad there isn't a genealogical definition and sound law for the
use of probably, possibly, likely, and most likely. They are all
judgment calls now.
The problem is that the book in question used no such qualifiers, giving
the impression that none of it is a judgement call - that all is
certain, and not just the impression. He has said several times and in
several places that it is all directly documented. If his definition of
"is" differs so significantly from that which most people use, then it
is doing them a favor to point this out.
However, in my experience, some people are not satisfied that things
are proven until they dig up the bodies and get an answer from the
source themselves. So . . .
The citation style makes this prohibitively tedious, so some who might
otherwise have done it will likely convince themselves that it is
probably OK. That is why I posted my review of that line - to
demonstrate that this assumption is not the case.
This is really going nowhere fast. Tell you what - pick a line and dig
up all of the references cited. Tell us what you find. Then we will
have two for comparison. Maybe we can convince someone else to do it to
a third.
And we haven't heard from Mr. Richardson yet - what say you, Doug, on
Robert Holand's paternity? Did you mistakenly fail to include the
critical reference or was it just a guess (or did you have a _Psychic
Roots_ moment)?
taf
-
Martin E. Hollick
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Peter Stewart <p m stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<8Jxod.45387$K7.44922@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
SNIPPED
Using this logic no one can cite to CP anymore on this list. Clearly
full of errors, which are pointed out all the time on this forum, it
is "no more than the sum of its parts." So too all the visitations
can be tossed out as well. Your logic, is flawed.
SNIPPED
Todd Farmerie's review concentrated on a part of the book, and such a
book CAN BE no more than the sum of its parts. The correctness and
amplitude of details make up its raison d' tre. There is no narrative
sweep or grand intellectual thrust behind it, no matter what you think
of Richardson.
Clearly in the instance studied by Todd the book didn't justify itself,
and yet you blandly assume that in all other matters it is bound to be
adequate. If in six months you haven't taken in the gross deficiencies
of its author's methods and judgement, and you haven't come across
discussions of other examples from the book, maybe it would be better to
Using this logic no one can cite to CP anymore on this list. Clearly
full of errors, which are pointed out all the time on this forum, it
is "no more than the sum of its parts." So too all the visitations
can be tossed out as well. Your logic, is flawed.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<419f8839@news.ColoState.EDU>...
Dear Todd ~
I'm glad to hear you found a document which bears on the issue of
Robert Holand's parentage. When you have a moment, please post a
summary of the document and state your source(s). If you have a
correction for my book, please send me a private e-mail, including
your source(s). Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Just to conclude with good news regarding this specific relationship, a
contemporary document has recently been uncovered that reveals the true
paternity of Robert Holand, as well as the precise details of his death
and the fate of his holdings. Further it confirms the connection with
the Kendall family of Cornwall (the route of the claimed descents from
him) and in so doing proves contemporary proof of a link in a potential
royal descent for those who can prove linkage to this family.
taf
Dear Todd ~
I'm glad to hear you found a document which bears on the issue of
Robert Holand's parentage. When you have a moment, please post a
summary of the document and state your source(s). If you have a
correction for my book, please send me a private e-mail, including
your source(s). Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Bingo!
A killer point.
No more citations to CP folks.
<Groak!>
DSH
"Martin E. Hollick" <mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:5d20e7f.0411231000.5ca14d65@posting.google.com...
| Peter Stewart <p m stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<8Jxod.45387$K7.44922@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
| SNIPPED
| > Todd Farmerie's review concentrated on a part of the book, and such
a
| > book CAN BE no more than the sum of its parts. The correctness and
| > amplitude of details make up its raison d' tre. There is no
narrative
| > sweep or grand intellectual thrust behind it, no matter what you
think
| > of Richardson.
| >
| > Clearly in the instance studied by Todd the book didn't justify
itself,
| > and yet you blandly assume that in all other matters it is bound to
be
| > adequate. If in six months you haven't taken in the gross
deficiencies
| > of its author's methods and judgement, and you haven't come across
| > discussions of other examples from the book, maybe it would be
better to
| >
|
| Using this logic no one can cite to CP anymore on this list. Clearly
| full of errors, which are pointed out all the time on this forum, it
| is "no more than the sum of its parts." So too all the visitations
| can be tossed out as well. Your logic, is flawed.
A killer point.
No more citations to CP folks.
<Groak!>
DSH
"Martin E. Hollick" <mhollick@mac.com> wrote in message
news:5d20e7f.0411231000.5ca14d65@posting.google.com...
| Peter Stewart <p m stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<8Jxod.45387$K7.44922@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
| SNIPPED
| > Todd Farmerie's review concentrated on a part of the book, and such
a
| > book CAN BE no more than the sum of its parts. The correctness and
| > amplitude of details make up its raison d' tre. There is no
narrative
| > sweep or grand intellectual thrust behind it, no matter what you
think
| > of Richardson.
| >
| > Clearly in the instance studied by Todd the book didn't justify
itself,
| > and yet you blandly assume that in all other matters it is bound to
be
| > adequate. If in six months you haven't taken in the gross
deficiencies
| > of its author's methods and judgement, and you haven't come across
| > discussions of other examples from the book, maybe it would be
better to
| >
|
| Using this logic no one can cite to CP anymore on this list. Clearly
| full of errors, which are pointed out all the time on this forum, it
| is "no more than the sum of its parts." So too all the visitations
| can be tossed out as well. Your logic, is flawed.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Todd A. Farmerie is posting MERETRICIOUS NONSENSE again.
I AM the PERSON who requested that Douglas Richardson post the reviews
of his book and that others join in as well -- posting reviews and/or
additions and comments. Mr. Richardson HIMSELF has acknowledged that --
on several occasions.
I did NOT do it for the loony conspiratorial reasons alleged by Mr.
Farmerie below -- but for the quite straightforward reasons I STATED at
the TIME -- namely to elicit a TRUE APPRECIATION of the merits and
deficiencies of Mr. Richardson's book -- sans favor, special pleading or
bias. There was NOTHING DISINGENUOUS about my motives.
OF COURSE, we are going to see all sorts of reviews, including PUFF
PIECES and HATCHET JOBS.
THAT'S what the FREE MARKET OF IDEAS is all about.
TRUTH comes out of CONFLICT.
Pitifully, Farmerie is congenitally driven to lie about and distort my
motives -- and then to propagate said lies and distortions to SGM and
GEN-MEDIEVAL.
NO OTHER book, with the possible exception of _Royalty For Commoners_,
has received such CRITICAL TREATMENT here as has Richardson's PA3. And
in that case, the author threatened lawsuits against his critics.
Richardson has done nothing of the sort. He has, to date, been above
board and honest in dealing with the reviews.
I, and MANY OTHERS, have raked Douglas Richardson over the coals on this
book for SEVERAL YEARS -- even as he was preparing it -- and subsequent
to its publication.
We should ALL understand that -- and give due credit to Douglas for
being willing to undergo this ordeal -- examination under the
MICROSCOPE.
How many of YOU could withstand such an EXAMINATION?
As to Farmerie, he is callow, temperamental, excitable, shows poor
judgment and is subject to frequent episodes of LYING, DISTORTING and
MISREPRESENTING the posts of others to this newsgroup and this sister
genealogical list.
As to the SPECIFIC line Farmerie has examined, however. he has raised
some quite valid points and questions and THOSE are what we NEED to be
DISCUSSING.
Farmerie is ALSO LYING when he says he has NO PERSONAL ANIMUS against
Douglas Richardson. He tells Martin Hollick there is "NOTHING PERSONAL
HERE" and "DON'T PERSONALIZE IT."
NONSENSE. Farmerie has ALREADY PERSONALIZED IT -- including LYING about
my MOTIVES in requesting the REVIEWS.
NOW we need to be looking at ADDITIONAL LINES in PA3, and other books
and articles, and pointing out POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS.
THAT is the way GENEALOGICAL SCHOLARSHIP PROCEEDS.
NOT with sniggling, personalized, error-ridden attacks of the sort
Farmerie INDULGES in below. He is like a small boy who, no doubt
frustrated by SOMETHING ELSE in his LIFE -- strikes out blindly and
viciously at an alleged antagonist -- without getting his ducks in a row
and his facts straight.
SO ---- we discuss the genealogical lines ---- there are thousands of
them to pursue ---- and we don't follow Farmerie into childish tantrums
and callow, emotional attacks -- not anchored in FACT and EVIDENCE.
Exitus Acta Probat.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:41a2ae5a@news.ColoState.EDU...
[...]
| As you said, you have only been here six months. There is a long
| history, both with Mr. Richardson's book _and_ with the request for
| reviews. The requester was the group gadfly, and made it only after a
| couple of 'fluff' reviews were posted, and others complained about
their
| postings. The request was made because the requester knew that Mr.
| Richardson was just looking for an excuse to publicize his book, and
| that several other members of the group were bound to complain about
him
| doing it. The request was made with the intention of stirring the
pot,
| and Mr. Richardson has played along, excusing his actions based on the
| disingenuous request. I can't tell who is using whom more, but there
is
| a lot more to this than someone getting criticized for obeying a
request.
|
| > I helped with the Mayflower Descendant review (I
| > am the associate editor of the journal), so I was interested that
poor
| > Scott's good review was lambasted merely because he is not an
| > "expert."
|
| Again - it was nothing personal. It is simply a fact that most
| non-expert reviews come off like "it had a nice beat, it was easy to
| dance to, and I thought the lyrics were cool", but don't address the
| critical substance....
I AM the PERSON who requested that Douglas Richardson post the reviews
of his book and that others join in as well -- posting reviews and/or
additions and comments. Mr. Richardson HIMSELF has acknowledged that --
on several occasions.
I did NOT do it for the loony conspiratorial reasons alleged by Mr.
Farmerie below -- but for the quite straightforward reasons I STATED at
the TIME -- namely to elicit a TRUE APPRECIATION of the merits and
deficiencies of Mr. Richardson's book -- sans favor, special pleading or
bias. There was NOTHING DISINGENUOUS about my motives.
OF COURSE, we are going to see all sorts of reviews, including PUFF
PIECES and HATCHET JOBS.
THAT'S what the FREE MARKET OF IDEAS is all about.
TRUTH comes out of CONFLICT.
Pitifully, Farmerie is congenitally driven to lie about and distort my
motives -- and then to propagate said lies and distortions to SGM and
GEN-MEDIEVAL.
NO OTHER book, with the possible exception of _Royalty For Commoners_,
has received such CRITICAL TREATMENT here as has Richardson's PA3. And
in that case, the author threatened lawsuits against his critics.
Richardson has done nothing of the sort. He has, to date, been above
board and honest in dealing with the reviews.
I, and MANY OTHERS, have raked Douglas Richardson over the coals on this
book for SEVERAL YEARS -- even as he was preparing it -- and subsequent
to its publication.
We should ALL understand that -- and give due credit to Douglas for
being willing to undergo this ordeal -- examination under the
MICROSCOPE.
How many of YOU could withstand such an EXAMINATION?
As to Farmerie, he is callow, temperamental, excitable, shows poor
judgment and is subject to frequent episodes of LYING, DISTORTING and
MISREPRESENTING the posts of others to this newsgroup and this sister
genealogical list.
As to the SPECIFIC line Farmerie has examined, however. he has raised
some quite valid points and questions and THOSE are what we NEED to be
DISCUSSING.
Farmerie is ALSO LYING when he says he has NO PERSONAL ANIMUS against
Douglas Richardson. He tells Martin Hollick there is "NOTHING PERSONAL
HERE" and "DON'T PERSONALIZE IT."
NONSENSE. Farmerie has ALREADY PERSONALIZED IT -- including LYING about
my MOTIVES in requesting the REVIEWS.
NOW we need to be looking at ADDITIONAL LINES in PA3, and other books
and articles, and pointing out POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS.
THAT is the way GENEALOGICAL SCHOLARSHIP PROCEEDS.
NOT with sniggling, personalized, error-ridden attacks of the sort
Farmerie INDULGES in below. He is like a small boy who, no doubt
frustrated by SOMETHING ELSE in his LIFE -- strikes out blindly and
viciously at an alleged antagonist -- without getting his ducks in a row
and his facts straight.
SO ---- we discuss the genealogical lines ---- there are thousands of
them to pursue ---- and we don't follow Farmerie into childish tantrums
and callow, emotional attacks -- not anchored in FACT and EVIDENCE.
Exitus Acta Probat.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:41a2ae5a@news.ColoState.EDU...
[...]
| As you said, you have only been here six months. There is a long
| history, both with Mr. Richardson's book _and_ with the request for
| reviews. The requester was the group gadfly, and made it only after a
| couple of 'fluff' reviews were posted, and others complained about
their
| postings. The request was made because the requester knew that Mr.
| Richardson was just looking for an excuse to publicize his book, and
| that several other members of the group were bound to complain about
him
| doing it. The request was made with the intention of stirring the
pot,
| and Mr. Richardson has played along, excusing his actions based on the
| disingenuous request. I can't tell who is using whom more, but there
is
| a lot more to this than someone getting criticized for obeying a
request.
|
| > I helped with the Mayflower Descendant review (I
| > am the associate editor of the journal), so I was interested that
poor
| > Scott's good review was lambasted merely because he is not an
| > "expert."
|
| Again - it was nothing personal. It is simply a fact that most
| non-expert reviews come off like "it had a nice beat, it was easy to
| dance to, and I thought the lyrics were cool", but don't address the
| critical substance....
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Martin E. Hollick wrote:
This is utterly specious - CP is indeed more than the sum of its parts,
a complete survey of members of the peerage over the entire history of
this institution at the centre of British social and political history.
It doesn't aim to be a catch-all genealogy. And it doesn't depend for
its worth on getting every detail right ANY MORE THAN DOES Ricahrdson's
book. Of course there are bound to be errors and omissions in such a
book: otherwise the previous work of Faris & Richardson would be
demeaned by revising it in the first place, as there should be no need.
The point about Richardson's solo work is that he makes unnecessary
mistakes, largely through ignorance and overweening self-regard. Even
when problems are pointed out to him he often sticks to unsupported
conclusions, preferring to insult others rather than admit error on his
own part.
As a medievalist he isn't fit to black the boots of a real scholar. That
isn't a crime - but he chooses to proclaim himself an expert and to
impose his alleged expertise on newcomers to the subject. That is fraud.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart <p m stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<8Jxod.45387$K7.44922@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
SNIPPED
Todd Farmerie's review concentrated on a part of the book, and such a
book CAN BE no more than the sum of its parts. The correctness and
amplitude of details make up its raison d' tre. There is no narrative
sweep or grand intellectual thrust behind it, no matter what you think
of Richardson.
Clearly in the instance studied by Todd the book didn't justify itself,
and yet you blandly assume that in all other matters it is bound to be
adequate. If in six months you haven't taken in the gross deficiencies
of its author's methods and judgement, and you haven't come across
discussions of other examples from the book, maybe it would be better to
Using this logic no one can cite to CP anymore on this list. Clearly
full of errors, which are pointed out all the time on this forum, it
is "no more than the sum of its parts." So too all the visitations
can be tossed out as well. Your logic, is flawed.
This is utterly specious - CP is indeed more than the sum of its parts,
a complete survey of members of the peerage over the entire history of
this institution at the centre of British social and political history.
It doesn't aim to be a catch-all genealogy. And it doesn't depend for
its worth on getting every detail right ANY MORE THAN DOES Ricahrdson's
book. Of course there are bound to be errors and omissions in such a
book: otherwise the previous work of Faris & Richardson would be
demeaned by revising it in the first place, as there should be no need.
The point about Richardson's solo work is that he makes unnecessary
mistakes, largely through ignorance and overweening self-regard. Even
when problems are pointed out to him he often sticks to unsupported
conclusions, preferring to insult others rather than admit error on his
own part.
As a medievalist he isn't fit to black the boots of a real scholar. That
isn't a crime - but he chooses to proclaim himself an expert and to
impose his alleged expertise on newcomers to the subject. That is fraud.
Peter Stewart
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I did not find the document, so the decision to say anything more than
has already been said does not rest with me.
taf
I'm glad to hear you found a document which bears on the issue of
Robert Holand's parentage. When you have a moment, please post a
summary of the document and state your source(s).
I did not find the document, so the decision to say anything more than
has already been said does not rest with me.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
While I do not endorse any of the remarks about Todd Farmerie above, or
in the rest of the post quoted, I think Spencer Hines has made a valid
point in his own defense on the matter.
Spemcer may be too liberal in handing out discredit on SGM, but he is
also scrupulous and fair in giving credit where he sees it as due - and
is often if not quite always reliable in his positive assessments.
Credit is occasionally due to Douglas Richardson for his own unaided
efforts, as I have no doubt it must be for many aspects of his new book.
Whether this is enough, or even remotely so, to cover the undoubted
defects in it is the nub of this discussion.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie is posting MERETRICIOUS NONSENSE again.
I AM the PERSON who requested that Douglas Richardson post the reviews
of his book and that others join in as well -- posting reviews and/or
additions and comments. Mr. Richardson HIMSELF has acknowledged that --
on several occasions.
I did NOT do it for the loony conspiratorial reasons alleged by Mr.
Farmerie below -- but for the quite straightforward reasons I STATED at
the TIME -- namely to elicit a TRUE APPRECIATION of the merits and
deficiencies of Mr. Richardson's book -- sans favor, special pleading or
bias. There was NOTHING DISINGENUOUS about my motives.
OF COURSE, we are going to see all sorts of reviews, including PUFF
PIECES and HATCHET JOBS.
THAT'S what the FREE MARKET OF IDEAS is all about.
While I do not endorse any of the remarks about Todd Farmerie above, or
in the rest of the post quoted, I think Spencer Hines has made a valid
point in his own defense on the matter.
Spemcer may be too liberal in handing out discredit on SGM, but he is
also scrupulous and fair in giving credit where he sees it as due - and
is often if not quite always reliable in his positive assessments.
Credit is occasionally due to Douglas Richardson for his own unaided
efforts, as I have no doubt it must be for many aspects of his new book.
Whether this is enough, or even remotely so, to cover the undoubted
defects in it is the nub of this discussion.
Peter Stewart
-
R. Battle
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Peter Stewart wrote (in reply to Martin Hollick's
assertion that the "sum-of-its-parts" argument works as well against CP
as against PA3/RPA):
<snip>
The problem that PA3/RPA has that is not shared by CP is that it does not
have the same number or type of "parts" to evaluate.
First, because CP (usually) cites each individual fact, each of those
fact-citation pairs is an evaluable "part" that stands or falls on its own
merits, without greatly impacting the whole. Thus, additions and
corrections can be shuffled in and out of each article rather easily
without affecting the other pieces of that article. The lines in PA3/RPA
(the closest equivalent to the CP articles) are not nearly so modular in
nature and thus are not easily evaluated or corrected--each generation,
with all of its (hopefully supported) facts, is all one "piece."
Second, the articles in CP were written by a number of different authors,
while PA3/RPA has, at least ostensibly, just one. That means that an
analysis of the author's methods in one section has much more bearing on
the rest of the work; it is thus more valid to judge the "sum" based on a
single "part" in the case of PA3/RPA than it would be for CP.
-Robert Battle
assertion that the "sum-of-its-parts" argument works as well against CP
as against PA3/RPA):
<snip>
This is utterly specious - CP is indeed more than the sum of its parts, a
complete survey of members of the peerage over the entire history of this
institution at the centre of British social and political history.
It doesn't aim to be a catch-all genealogy. And it doesn't depend for its
worth on getting every detail right ANY MORE THAN DOES Ricahrdson's book. Of
course there are bound to be errors and omissions in such a book: otherwise
the previous work of Faris & Richardson would be demeaned by revising it in
the first place, as there should be no need.
snip
The problem that PA3/RPA has that is not shared by CP is that it does not
have the same number or type of "parts" to evaluate.
First, because CP (usually) cites each individual fact, each of those
fact-citation pairs is an evaluable "part" that stands or falls on its own
merits, without greatly impacting the whole. Thus, additions and
corrections can be shuffled in and out of each article rather easily
without affecting the other pieces of that article. The lines in PA3/RPA
(the closest equivalent to the CP articles) are not nearly so modular in
nature and thus are not easily evaluated or corrected--each generation,
with all of its (hopefully supported) facts, is all one "piece."
Second, the articles in CP were written by a number of different authors,
while PA3/RPA has, at least ostensibly, just one. That means that an
analysis of the author's methods in one section has much more bearing on
the rest of the work; it is thus more valid to judge the "sum" based on a
single "part" in the case of PA3/RPA than it would be for CP.
-Robert Battle
-
Brad Verity
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
mhollick@mac.com (Martin E. Hollick) wrote in message news:
I'm glad you are a participant. From your background, you seem to
specialize in lines of descent. Much of the work in medieval
genealogy is focused on lines of descent from royalty, so your
expertise can be very helpful.
He published a book this year that he has been hyping, promoting and
at one point selling for over two years. You are lucky to have
avoided all of that. He started selling his book with the indication
that publication was a few months away. It turned out to take more
than two years to see print.
He never bothered to directly respond to the concerns when raised, nor
has he since explained why there was a two-year delay in publication.
This of course is his choice. This newsgroup is unmoderated and no
one is forced to respond to any one else's post - nor should they be.
True.
Todd looked at a line he was familiar enough with to not have to track
down all of the sources cited by Douglas. This Robert Holand line is
one that is new to PA3, since it doesn't appear in PA1, and as far as
I know Dr. Faris did not focus on illegitimate lines of descent in his
work, with very rare exceptions.
I feel it is proper when reviewing PA3 to focus on the material that
Douglas has written and researched. I haven't seen the book, so I
don't know what percentage of it is taken from the previous PA1 and
PA2. I'm assuming at least 40%. At any rate, an excerpt that Douglas
posted to this newsgroup earlier this year - the
Beaufort/Stradling/Dennis line - was vetted by Louise Staley, myself
and some others, and found to be lacking in much the same way the
Robert Holand line was. These two lines specifically are additions
from Douglas to the format created by Faris, and should carry more
weight in reviews than the lines carried over from Faris, IMHO.
No, not everyone. Some people have pointed out, as they have every
right to, that these reviews were written by people who do not have
much experience in medieval genealogy.
Look, PA3 or RPA or whatever its called is a work of compilation that
will be used by a wide audience. Some will be new to royal descent
research, some will already be adept at research in medieval
documents. It could be quite an aid to the former and of no help to
the latter, or vice versa. I'd hope that reviews will help ascertain
what type of user the book will most benefit. $75 or whatever the
cost is today, is quite an investment to make.
Scott's review was basically a summary of the format of the new book,
which of course is quite useful to those who are thinking of
purchasing it and have never seen PA1 or PA2. The only part of the
review that is opinion as opposed to descriptive fact is the end:
"Regardless of the chatter online about this book
(and I, too, am no authority of medieval genealogy), this will be a
major reference work for future generations. It is the culmination of
the best authors from the past and the latest findings in the field
making it the first stop when searching for medieval genealogy."
In my own opinion, a major reference work is fairly useless for future
generations if much of the material contained in it is inaccurate. I
don't know if this is the case throughout the material Douglas has
expanded on and added for PA3, but I do now know that two of his lines
are questionable.
All Stewart Baldwin did is point out that none of the reviews posted
so far have focused on the quality of the documentation (and
deductions from it, I'll add). He surmised that perhaps a reason for
this is that the reviewers were not familiar enough with medieval
research to offer an opinion on it either way. Todd, who is familiar
enough with medieval research, then did a great service to those of us
who want this kind of review, by pointing out the documentation and
methodology (or, in that case, lack thereof).
Are you saying you would like the documentation throughtout the entire
book vetted before a judgment is made as to the worth of Richardson's
research?
He can if he so chooses.
This is true.
By pointing it out. Todd did just that with Douglas's Robert Holand
line. Louise and I did so with the Beaufort/Stradling/Dennis one.
I know you're exaggerating to make a point. No, don't kill the
Ancestral File - point out when it is in error. And let users of it
know it is not to be viewed as a definitive source for information.
We could argue about the worth of publishing unvetted research, but
that would be a digression.
We could try to come to a consensus as a newsgroup, but that would be
quite an undertaking.
So we should leave standards of proof up to each individual.
Douglas's book can be used by those for whom it falls within their
standards of proof, and ignored by those for whom it doesn't.
That's fine by me as long as we can evaluate it before people spend
their money.
But that's what Douglas was supposed to have done with PA3 - improve
and expand on Faris. If the resulting tome now needs expansive
revision and improvement itself, is it worth $75?
Criticism should not stop at all. Any good work should be able to
stand up to it. I don't know that Todd's review was non-constructive
either. He pointed out a way to improve a current deficiency in the
book's format (ie., specifically indicating which source was used to
determine each statement presented in the biographies).
Cheers, ------Brad
I came to this forum only say six months ago with a newfound interest
in medieval genealogy.
I'm glad you are a participant. From your background, you seem to
specialize in lines of descent. Much of the work in medieval
genealogy is focused on lines of descent from royalty, so your
expertise can be very helpful.
Since then reading the posts, one can only
wonder what Douglas Richardson did to engender such animosity. Did he
publish a book or run over your cat?
He published a book this year that he has been hyping, promoting and
at one point selling for over two years. You are lucky to have
avoided all of that. He started selling his book with the indication
that publication was a few months away. It turned out to take more
than two years to see print.
He never bothered to directly respond to the concerns when raised, nor
has he since explained why there was a two-year delay in publication.
This of course is his choice. This newsgroup is unmoderated and no
one is forced to respond to any one else's post - nor should they be.
In any case, I think it is unfair to judge any work by looking at just
a small portion of it.
True.
This is what you did and to what I objected.
Todd looked at a line he was familiar enough with to not have to track
down all of the sources cited by Douglas. This Robert Holand line is
one that is new to PA3, since it doesn't appear in PA1, and as far as
I know Dr. Faris did not focus on illegitimate lines of descent in his
work, with very rare exceptions.
I feel it is proper when reviewing PA3 to focus on the material that
Douglas has written and researched. I haven't seen the book, so I
don't know what percentage of it is taken from the previous PA1 and
PA2. I'm assuming at least 40%. At any rate, an excerpt that Douglas
posted to this newsgroup earlier this year - the
Beaufort/Stradling/Dennis line - was vetted by Louise Staley, myself
and some others, and found to be lacking in much the same way the
Robert Holand line was. These two lines specifically are additions
from Douglas to the format created by Faris, and should carry more
weight in reviews than the lines carried over from Faris, IMHO.
Mr. Richardson was asked to post reviews and when he does, and when
they are favorable, everyone qualified the claim that no "expert" had
done the reviewing.
No, not everyone. Some people have pointed out, as they have every
right to, that these reviews were written by people who do not have
much experience in medieval genealogy.
Look, PA3 or RPA or whatever its called is a work of compilation that
will be used by a wide audience. Some will be new to royal descent
research, some will already be adept at research in medieval
documents. It could be quite an aid to the former and of no help to
the latter, or vice versa. I'd hope that reviews will help ascertain
what type of user the book will most benefit. $75 or whatever the
cost is today, is quite an investment to make.
I helped with the Mayflower Descendant review (I
am the associate editor of the journal), so I was interested that poor
Scott's good review was lambasted merely because he is not an
"expert."
Scott's review was basically a summary of the format of the new book,
which of course is quite useful to those who are thinking of
purchasing it and have never seen PA1 or PA2. The only part of the
review that is opinion as opposed to descriptive fact is the end:
"Regardless of the chatter online about this book
(and I, too, am no authority of medieval genealogy), this will be a
major reference work for future generations. It is the culmination of
the best authors from the past and the latest findings in the field
making it the first stop when searching for medieval genealogy."
In my own opinion, a major reference work is fairly useless for future
generations if much of the material contained in it is inaccurate. I
don't know if this is the case throughout the material Douglas has
expanded on and added for PA3, but I do now know that two of his lines
are questionable.
All Stewart Baldwin did is point out that none of the reviews posted
so far have focused on the quality of the documentation (and
deductions from it, I'll add). He surmised that perhaps a reason for
this is that the reviewers were not familiar enough with medieval
research to offer an opinion on it either way. Todd, who is familiar
enough with medieval research, then did a great service to those of us
who want this kind of review, by pointing out the documentation and
methodology (or, in that case, lack thereof).
Are you saying you would like the documentation throughtout the entire
book vetted before a judgment is made as to the worth of Richardson's
research?
Also, you cannot worry about what others do with research, good or
bad.
He can if he so chooses.
You cannot stop the majority of genealogists whose only concern
is to fill up names on a chart and put them on a webpage.
This is true.
I mean
where do you start to eliminate the bad research?
By pointing it out. Todd did just that with Douglas's Robert Holand
line. Louise and I did so with the Beaufort/Stradling/Dennis one.
Do you sneak into
the LDS library and kill the Ancestral File? There's a start.
I know you're exaggerating to make a point. No, don't kill the
Ancestral File - point out when it is in error. And let users of it
know it is not to be viewed as a definitive source for information.
Then
do the same for all projects that have submitted and unvetted
research.
We could argue about the worth of publishing unvetted research, but
that would be a digression.
Too bad there isn't a genealogical definition and sound law for the
use of probably, possibly, likely, and most likely. They are all
judgment calls now. Maybe we should all define what they should be.
We could try to come to a consensus as a newsgroup, but that would be
quite an undertaking.
However, in my experience, some people are not satisfied that things
are proven until they dig up the bodies and get an answer from the
source themselves. So . . .
So we should leave standards of proof up to each individual.
Douglas's book can be used by those for whom it falls within their
standards of proof, and ignored by those for whom it doesn't.
That's fine by me as long as we can evaluate it before people spend
their money.
You are a fine scholar no doubt, but clearly Mr. Richardon's work,
particularly on your line, has stuck in your craw. He inherited
Faris's work and Faris's style. Can things be improved? Certainly.
But that's what Douglas was supposed to have done with PA3 - improve
and expand on Faris. If the resulting tome now needs expansive
revision and improvement itself, is it worth $75?
However, the over the top, non-constructive criticism has just go to
stop. It's really sad.
Criticism should not stop at all. Any good work should be able to
stand up to it. I don't know that Todd's review was non-constructive
either. He pointed out a way to improve a current deficiency in the
book's format (ie., specifically indicating which source was used to
determine each statement presented in the biographies).
Cheers, ------Brad
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:10:11 -0700, "Todd A. Farmerie"
<farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
[snip]
I have only examined a copy of RPA for a few minutes. However, the
part of the book which overlaps most heavily with my research on the
Henry Project, i.e., the family king Henry II (and of his father
Geoffrey) has been posted by Doug Richardson to his website at:
http://www.royalancestry.net/PA1/Text.htm
In comparison, my own account of Henry II's family can be found at:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... nry002.htm
In general, my examination of the parts of RPA which I have seen would
tend to confirm the opinion given by Todd regarding this work.
Although many details are given (much more than on my Henry Project
page, for example), it is only occasionally that there is any
indication of which "fact" is backed up by which source, making the
statements extremely difficult to check. This lack of checkability is
a severe flaw, in my opinion.
This aspect is especially undesirable in those cases where the
documentation is difficult to find. For example, years of death are
usually easier to document that exact days of death (in those cases in
which they are known), and dates of birth (often unknown) are even
more difficult. In many cases, it is not clear whether the author
knew the primary sources giving a certain date, or just followed one
of the cited secondary sources.
The case of Morgan, illegitimate son of Henry II, is another example.
So far as I can see, there is only one primary source listed (Letters
& Charters of Cardinal Guala Bicchiere), and it does not provide
documentation for the statement that Morgan was a son of Henry. (The
fact that the editor stated this in a footnote is irrelevant). I
should point out that anyone who read (the old) DNB's biography of
Henry II would be immediately lead to one of the primary sources for
Morgan as a son of Henry ("Historiæ Dunelmensis", Surtees Soc. vol. 9,
available at the Family History Library). Under the claim in RPA that
Morgan's mother was Nest ferch Iorwerth, we also see a "red herring"
bibliographic note in the citation of "Dict. Welsh Biog. (1959): 638
(biog. of Morgan ap Hywel)." This citation, which mentions Iorwerth
(brother of Morgan ap Hywel), Nest's alleged father, but makes no
mention of Nest, is of no direct relevance to any statment made in the
entry on Morgan.
More "bibliography padding' with irrelevant citations can be found
under the account of Henry II, where a number of items are shown
naming some individual as a kinsman/kinswoman of Henry II. Such
entries have no relevance to the entry on Henry II itself, which
concerns the deeds and family of Henry. Regulars on this newgroup
know that we have often received postings from Doug announcing such
"discoveries" (to use that word in a loose sense), and it would be
hard to blame us for believing that such bibliography padding has been
done at least in part in order to rush such "discoveries" into print.
One inevitable result (intended or not) of such padding is that it
makes the citations harder to check for correctness.
Also disturbing is the tendency to treat controversial items as
settled, without any indication of controversy. For example, RPA
mentions Henry II's alleged illegitimate "daughter" by Alice of France
as if it is a commonly accepted fact (and evidently not noticing that
some of the early primary authorities making the claim call this
alleged child a son), ignoring the fact that this is a matter of
debate (see, e.g., W. L. Warren, Henry II (University of California
Press, 1973). If a matter is known to be controversial among
respected scholars, should somebody present it as a done deal in one
direction, without mentioning that controversy?
As a follow up to the previous paragraph, I would suggest that the
group examine the treatment in RPA regarding matters of contention in
which Doug Richardson has played a major role, since it would be
expected that an author would exercise extra care with regard to the
tratment of such controverial matters. Although getting it right is
also important, the extent to which the existence of opposing points
of view are acknowledged is an important factor in deciding how an
author treats his material. Some examples of heated debates in which
Doug played a major role would include:
1. Gwladus, daughter of Llywelyn (was she a daughter of Joan or not?).
2. Amy de Gaveston.
3. Skipwith-Dale.
4. Walter Aston.
(Some of these are "controversial" only in the sense that Doug was
arguing against overwhelming contrary opinion.) No doubt other
examples could be listed. Since I do not have access to RPA, I cannot
check this myself, but in each case, it would be nice to know:
a. What (if anything) is said about the matter in RPA?
b. To what degree (if any) is doubt indicated?
c. To what degree (if any) is the existence of opposing views
ackonwledged?
Stewart Baldwin
<farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
OK, so here is my review (of sorts).
[snip]
I have only examined a copy of RPA for a few minutes. However, the
part of the book which overlaps most heavily with my research on the
Henry Project, i.e., the family king Henry II (and of his father
Geoffrey) has been posted by Doug Richardson to his website at:
http://www.royalancestry.net/PA1/Text.htm
In comparison, my own account of Henry II's family can be found at:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... nry002.htm
In general, my examination of the parts of RPA which I have seen would
tend to confirm the opinion given by Todd regarding this work.
Although many details are given (much more than on my Henry Project
page, for example), it is only occasionally that there is any
indication of which "fact" is backed up by which source, making the
statements extremely difficult to check. This lack of checkability is
a severe flaw, in my opinion.
This aspect is especially undesirable in those cases where the
documentation is difficult to find. For example, years of death are
usually easier to document that exact days of death (in those cases in
which they are known), and dates of birth (often unknown) are even
more difficult. In many cases, it is not clear whether the author
knew the primary sources giving a certain date, or just followed one
of the cited secondary sources.
The case of Morgan, illegitimate son of Henry II, is another example.
So far as I can see, there is only one primary source listed (Letters
& Charters of Cardinal Guala Bicchiere), and it does not provide
documentation for the statement that Morgan was a son of Henry. (The
fact that the editor stated this in a footnote is irrelevant). I
should point out that anyone who read (the old) DNB's biography of
Henry II would be immediately lead to one of the primary sources for
Morgan as a son of Henry ("Historiæ Dunelmensis", Surtees Soc. vol. 9,
available at the Family History Library). Under the claim in RPA that
Morgan's mother was Nest ferch Iorwerth, we also see a "red herring"
bibliographic note in the citation of "Dict. Welsh Biog. (1959): 638
(biog. of Morgan ap Hywel)." This citation, which mentions Iorwerth
(brother of Morgan ap Hywel), Nest's alleged father, but makes no
mention of Nest, is of no direct relevance to any statment made in the
entry on Morgan.
More "bibliography padding' with irrelevant citations can be found
under the account of Henry II, where a number of items are shown
naming some individual as a kinsman/kinswoman of Henry II. Such
entries have no relevance to the entry on Henry II itself, which
concerns the deeds and family of Henry. Regulars on this newgroup
know that we have often received postings from Doug announcing such
"discoveries" (to use that word in a loose sense), and it would be
hard to blame us for believing that such bibliography padding has been
done at least in part in order to rush such "discoveries" into print.
One inevitable result (intended or not) of such padding is that it
makes the citations harder to check for correctness.
Also disturbing is the tendency to treat controversial items as
settled, without any indication of controversy. For example, RPA
mentions Henry II's alleged illegitimate "daughter" by Alice of France
as if it is a commonly accepted fact (and evidently not noticing that
some of the early primary authorities making the claim call this
alleged child a son), ignoring the fact that this is a matter of
debate (see, e.g., W. L. Warren, Henry II (University of California
Press, 1973). If a matter is known to be controversial among
respected scholars, should somebody present it as a done deal in one
direction, without mentioning that controversy?
As a follow up to the previous paragraph, I would suggest that the
group examine the treatment in RPA regarding matters of contention in
which Doug Richardson has played a major role, since it would be
expected that an author would exercise extra care with regard to the
tratment of such controverial matters. Although getting it right is
also important, the extent to which the existence of opposing points
of view are acknowledged is an important factor in deciding how an
author treats his material. Some examples of heated debates in which
Doug played a major role would include:
1. Gwladus, daughter of Llywelyn (was she a daughter of Joan or not?).
2. Amy de Gaveston.
3. Skipwith-Dale.
4. Walter Aston.
(Some of these are "controversial" only in the sense that Doug was
arguing against overwhelming contrary opinion.) No doubt other
examples could be listed. Since I do not have access to RPA, I cannot
check this myself, but in each case, it would be nice to know:
a. What (if anything) is said about the matter in RPA?
b. To what degree (if any) is doubt indicated?
c. To what degree (if any) is the existence of opposing views
ackonwledged?
Stewart Baldwin
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
In message of 30 Nov, Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com>
<snip of valuable points of methodology>
To these should be added Ida wife of Walter fitz Robert.
On p. 459 in the list of the children of William Longespee and Ela of
Salisbury, she is included with no references, unlike all her siblings
for whom impressive recitals are given.
On p. 326, showing her as the wife of Walter FitzRobert, there is indeed
an impressive recital.
None.
None. Here is it worth noting:
(a) The first confirming source is from the 'Longspee pedigree in the
Laycock records: "Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walteris
filii Roberti, de qua genuit Catherinam et Liricam, quam velatae
erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam duxit primo Guillelmus de
Dodingseles, de qua genuit Robertum" '. My limited knowledge of
latin says this has nothing to do with Ida's supposed parentage
from Wm. Longspee.
(b) A subsequent confirming source is 'CP 5 (1926): 472 (sub
FitzWalter) [identifies wife Ida as "da. of William (Longspee),
Earl of Salisbury"]'. This is quite true of CP. However what is
strikingly omitted is from CP XIV, p. 326 where it has for page
472 line 14 of Vol V: 'delete "William (LONGSPEE), EARL OF
SALISBURY" and replace by "__"'. CP then refers us to Vol XII(1),
p. 111, of the Somery article. None of this is discussed in this
book.
(c) The other references are either modern histories or documents with
no quoted text so I have no idea what the latter say, not having
access to those documents.
Neither the core text nor these references are to the involved temporal
arguments that were given on many occasions on this newsgroup over the
past few years.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<snip of valuable points of methodology>
As a follow up to the previous paragraph, I would suggest that the
group examine the treatment in RPA regarding matters of contention in
which Doug Richardson has played a major role, since it would be
expected that an author would exercise extra care with regard to the
tratment of such controverial matters. Although getting it right is
also important, the extent to which the existence of opposing points
of view are acknowledged is an important factor in deciding how an
author treats his material. Some examples of heated debates in which
Doug played a major role would include:
1. Gwladus, daughter of Llywelyn (was she a daughter of Joan or not?).
2. Amy de Gaveston.
3. Skipwith-Dale.
4. Walter Aston.
To these should be added Ida wife of Walter fitz Robert.
(Some of these are "controversial" only in the sense that Doug was
arguing against overwhelming contrary opinion.) No doubt other
examples could be listed. Since I do not have access to RPA, I cannot
check this myself, but in each case, it would be nice to know:
a. What (if anything) is said about the matter in RPA?
On p. 459 in the list of the children of William Longespee and Ela of
Salisbury, she is included with no references, unlike all her siblings
for whom impressive recitals are given.
On p. 326, showing her as the wife of Walter FitzRobert, there is indeed
an impressive recital.
b. To what degree (if any) is doubt indicated?
None.
c. To what degree (if any) is the existence of opposing views
ackonwledged?
None. Here is it worth noting:
(a) The first confirming source is from the 'Longspee pedigree in the
Laycock records: "Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walteris
filii Roberti, de qua genuit Catherinam et Liricam, quam velatae
erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam duxit primo Guillelmus de
Dodingseles, de qua genuit Robertum" '. My limited knowledge of
latin says this has nothing to do with Ida's supposed parentage
from Wm. Longspee.
(b) A subsequent confirming source is 'CP 5 (1926): 472 (sub
FitzWalter) [identifies wife Ida as "da. of William (Longspee),
Earl of Salisbury"]'. This is quite true of CP. However what is
strikingly omitted is from CP XIV, p. 326 where it has for page
472 line 14 of Vol V: 'delete "William (LONGSPEE), EARL OF
SALISBURY" and replace by "__"'. CP then refers us to Vol XII(1),
p. 111, of the Somery article. None of this is discussed in this
book.
(c) The other references are either modern histories or documents with
no quoted text so I have no idea what the latter say, not having
access to those documents.
Neither the core text nor these references are to the involved temporal
arguments that were given on many occasions on this newsgroup over the
past few years.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gryphon801
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
Amy de Gaveston does not seem to be mentioned at all, while Walter Aston is
"fudged" - a pedigree is shown for a Walter Aston but he is not identified with
the emigrant to Virginia.
"fudged" - a pedigree is shown for a Walter Aston but he is not identified with
the emigrant to Virginia.
-
John Higgins
Re: Review of Plantagenet Ancestry: Mayflower Descendant
In message of 30 Nov, Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com
As a follow up to the previous paragraph, I would suggest that the
group examine the treatment in RPA regarding matters of contention in
which Doug Richardson has played a major role, since it would be
expected that an author would exercise extra care with regard to the
tratment of such controverial matters. Although getting it right is
also important, the extent to which the existence of opposing points
of view are acknowledged is an important factor in deciding how an
author treats his material. Some examples of heated debates in which
Doug played a major role would include:
1. Gwladus, daughter of Llywelyn (was she a daughter of Joan or not?).
2. Amy de Gaveston.
3. Skipwith-Dale.
4. Walter Aston.
With respect to the Skipwith/Dale question discussed at length in this
group, it should be noted that RPA does NOT suggest that there is any
question about the parentage (specifically the maternity) of the children of
Capt. Thomas Carter. It also does not indicate that the supposed marriage
date of "before 1652" for Diana Skipwith and Thomas Dale is simply a guess,
which happens to conveniently fit the birth date of the daughter Katherine.
In contrast, Gary Boyd Roberts in RD600 states clearly that Katherine's
maternity has been disputed.
Richardson's certainty in this matter is especially interesting, since he
cites as one of his sources Charles Ward's TAG article of 2000 without
noting that Richardson himself in 2001 characterized that article as
"flawed". This is hardly an accurate or balanced portrayal of the question,
and it is certainly not honest or scholarly to cite a source which one
considers to be "flawed" without so noting that.