The problem with Pole

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

The problem with Pole

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 01 des 2004 21:58:21

Dear Newsgroup ~

The newsgroup is currently discussing two alleged Champernoun descents
from King John, both of whom involve the identity of Joan, wife of
Richard Champernoun. Mr. Farmerie has based these descents on
statements made by Sir William Pole in his landmark book, Collections
towards a history of the county of Devonshire, published in 1791. To
the best of my knowledge, Mr. Farmerie has no primary evidence which
proves Joan's parentage. Red Flag.

Past experience has taught me that placing too great a reliance on
secondary antiquarian source can be a dangerous thing. Below is a
case in point. The same William Pole now under discussion also
included information on the baronial Tracy family in his book. Below
is a transcript of his statements on pages 14-15:

"King John granted the barony of Barnstaple unto Henry de Tracy. The
laste Henry Tracy, wch died about the latter end of ye raigne of Kinge
H. 3, maried Matild, daughtr of Reginald de Brewse, unto whom Loretta
her aunt, wief (of) Robert Fitz Pernell, Erle of Lecestr, daughtr of
Willam, & sister of Reginald Brewes, gave Tavistoke, wch was the
dwellinge howse of the said Lo. Henry Tracy. For you must understand,
ye Willam Brewes had given formly in mariage unto the said Erle of
Lecestr, 3 knightes fees of the honor of Barnstaple with the said
Loretta his daughter. Henry Lord Tracy left issue by the said Matild
on only daughter called Matild, first maried unto ye Lord Nicolas
Martyn, Lo. of Dertington, & secondly, unto Sir Jeffrey Camvill, & had
issue by bothe."

Reviewing Mr. Pole's words, we find several errors of omission and
commission. First, he states that Henry de Tracy's wife, Matild
(should be Maud - Matilda is the Latin form), was the daughter of
Reginald de Brewse. Actually, Henry de Tracy's wife, Maud, was the
daughter of William de Brewes, and niece of Reginald de Brewes. Pole
states correctly that Laurette, Countess of Leicester, was the
paternal aunt of Maud de Tracy. He is evidently correct that Countess
Laurette passed the manor of Tawstock, Devon to her niece, Maud de
Tracy, as a gift. He then states that Henry de Tracy had an only
daughter, Maud, who married (1st) Nicholas Martin and (2nd) Geoffrey
de Camville. Actually, Maud, wife of Nicholas Martin and Geoffrey de
Camville, was Henry de Tracy's granddaughter! My research shows that
Henry de Tracy actually had five children in all, four sons, Henry
(presumed son and heir apparent), Thomas (of Cornwall), John (a
clerk), and Oliver (a clerk), and one daughter, Eve (wife of Guy de
Bryan). Upon the failure of all four sons to leave issue, Henry de
Tracy's heir at his death in 1274 was his daughter Eve's only
surviving child, Maud de Bryan, who married Martin and Camville as
stated.

Given the serious flaws in Pole's account of the Tracy family, I find
it difficult to accept anything he says on ANY family without primary
evidence to back up his statements. Using secondary sources is
acceptable when the source is found to be reliable. However, when the
source has been found to be tainted by multiple errors such as Pole,
the source should be used with great caution and only in conjuction
with primary evidence found in original records.

So, I ask Mr. Farmerie again .... where is his primary evidence?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: The problem with Pole

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 02 des 2004 01:00:43

Douglas Richardson wrote:

The newsgroup is currently discussing two alleged Champernoun descents
from King John, both of whom involve the identity of Joan, wife of
Richard Champernoun.

We have been discussing Joan's parentage. Do you have anything to add
to the discussion?

taf

Nathaniel Taylor

antiquarian witnesses to medieval charters (was re: problem

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 02 des 2004 01:36:20

In article <5cf47a19.0412011258.50bcbe61@posting.google.com>,
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

The newsgroup is currently discussing two alleged Champernoun descents
from King John, both of whom involve the identity of Joan, wife of
Richard Champernoun. Mr. Farmerie has based these descents on
statements made by Sir William Pole in his landmark book, Collections
towards a history of the county of Devonshire, published in 1791. To
the best of my knowledge, Mr. Farmerie has no primary evidence which
proves Joan's parentage. Red Flag.

Past experience has taught me that placing too great a reliance on
secondary antiquarian source can be a dangerous thing. Below is a
case in point...

This impugns the Champernoun case through a false analogy, and there is
an important point worth making here. While Pole's genealogical
reconstructions or accounts may be error-prone, in the Champernoun case
he is used only as witness to an apparently probative document that can
no longer be found. No one is relying on Pole's extrapolation from the
document or reconstruction of a pedigree--merely on a one-sentence
paraphrase of a single stated relationship (Joan Champernoun as sister
to Edmund of Cornwall) attributed to a specific lost document.

How skeptical should we be? Even if Pole is found generally unreliable
in his genealogical intrepretations or reconstructions, this would only
be relevant to this document-witness if a pattern can be shown of
misreading, misrepresenting, or inventing primary sources, separate from
the incidence of flaws in Pole's deductions.

Medievalists are conditioned to a sort of provisional acceptance of
early-modern antiquarian witnesses of sources which are now lost or
cannot be located--this happens all the time. Of course we can't simply
take all such statement at face value, but they are treated in a
different category than the credulous and perhaps faulty genealogical or
historical deductions made by the same people. Not every early-modern
antiquary was a Mabillon, but they all knew their Latin better than 99%
of us; and they had many, many sources lying around which are no longer
with us.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

John Higgins

Re: The problem with Pole

Legg inn av John Higgins » 02 des 2004 02:31:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:58 PM
Subject: The problem with Pole

[large snip]

Given the serious flaws in Pole's account of the Tracy family, I find
it difficult to accept anything he says on ANY family without primary
evidence to back up his statements. Using secondary sources is
acceptable when the source is found to be reliable. However, when the
source has been found to be tainted by multiple errors such as Pole,
the source should be used with great caution and only in conjuction
with primary evidence found in original records.


Perhaps we should apply this Richardson standard equally to contemporary
publications:

"Given the serious flaws in RPA's account of the [fill-in-the blank] family,
I find it difficult to accept anything he says on ANY family without
primary evidence to back up his statements. Using secondary sources is
acceptable when the source is found to be reliable. However, when the
source has been found to be tainted by multiple errors such as RPA, the
source should be used with great caution and only in conjuction [sic] with
primary evidence found in original records."

Peter Stewart

Re: The problem with Pole

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 des 2004 03:08:45

John Higgins wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:58 PM
Subject: The problem with Pole

[large snip]


Given the serious flaws in Pole's account of the Tracy family, I find
it difficult to accept anything he says on ANY family without primary
evidence to back up his statements. Using secondary sources is
acceptable when the source is found to be reliable. However, when the
source has been found to be tainted by multiple errors such as Pole,
the source should be used with great caution and only in conjuction
with primary evidence found in original records.



Perhaps we should apply this Richardson standard equally to contemporary
publications:

"Given the serious flaws in RPA's account of the [fill-in-the blank] family,
I find it difficult to accept anything he says on ANY family without
primary evidence to back up his statements. Using secondary sources is
acceptable when the source is found to be reliable. However, when the
source has been found to be tainted by multiple errors such as RPA, the
source should be used with great caution and only in conjuction [sic] with
primary evidence found in original records."

Well said, John - if I had a copy of RPA I'm sure from the sound that I
would use it only "in conjuction", as the author puts it. Indeed I would
juck it away.

Todd has been careful to explain that he cited a reported source only
for lack of any direct evidence. Errors of "omission and commission" by
an antiquarian in making unsupported statements about one family don't
indicate that he might be duped or lying about a document relating to
another.

And just because a secondary source may be found reliable in general
doesn't make it safe in every particular, so that the flip side of
Richardson's argument is equally specious.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»