Re: Another C.P. Addition: Margaret Neville, wife of Sir William

On May 16, 9:45 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 16, 9:23 am, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> < Perhaps it is a bit premature to draw so definitive a conclusion
> based
> < on a self-serving assumption of what an unseen source might say.
> <
> < taf
>
> "Ermentrude" specifically says she was "confirmed by Harl. MS. 807 in
> the conclusion" that Margaret Neville, wife of William Lucy, was the
> daughter of Sir John Neville, by his wife, Elizabeth Holand.  That's a
> rather definite statement.

A definitive statement that she saw something that she thought
confirmed the relation****p. That and $4 will get you a latte. You have
no idea what this do***ent was, nor who Ermengarde was, nor what her
basis for 'confirmation' might have been. Curiously, just the other
day, you suggested that a known county historian citing contem****ary
court records could not be trusted to because various secondary
sources failed to take interest in his conclusion. Now you are saying
that this pseudonymous contributor to the 19th century equivalent of
an internet newsgroup is to be trusted, simply because she says so.
The old double standard rears its head again.

>   Moreover, as you know, I've found
> additional evidence which proved that Sir John Neville had a daughter,
> Margaret, which evidence Ermentrude never saw.   Thus, I concur with
> Ermentrude's conclusion.


Of course, that would make this family unique, having a daughter named
Margaret.


> In any event, Earl Edmund Mortimer would hardly have settled so much
> property on his kinswoman, Margaret Neville, and her husband, Sir
> William Lucy, unless she was closely related to him.

And begging the question.

taf