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

On May 16, 12:11 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 16, 11:12 am, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> < 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.
> <
> < taf
>
> "Ermengarde" made many contibutions to the Notes & Queries journal.
> I've read a variety of her posts.  For her time, she was quite good.
> If she said Harleian MS. 807 confirmed that Margaret Neville, the wife
> of Sir William Lucy, was the daughter of Sir John Neville and his
> wife, Elizabeth Holand, I think you can accept the fact that it
> does.

You think wrong.  For all we know it is a 17th century pedigree, which
would be way to late to have probative value.  You are only willing to
give it the benefit of the doubt because you want it to be true.


> And, as I've stated already, I have independently established
> that Sir John Neville and his wife, Elizabeth, had a daughter,
> Margaret, who was living in 1423.

As did other couples at the time.


> Ermengarde was evidently not aware
> of this evidence.  Next thing taf will say is that I haven't found
> Margaret Neville's  birth certificate.  Right.

Don't be a prat.  You are trying to use hearsay to claim something is
proven, when you haven't even bothered to figure out what the evidence
is.


> In any event, taf hasn't asked the pertinent question yet.  What is
> Harleian MS. 807?  Anyone have a clue?

Actually, he did. "You have no idea what this do***ent was" is
indicating this precise flaw in your knowledge.  You haven't a clue,
yet you are willing to boldly draw conclusions based on someone else
saying they have seen it, but neither describing it nor saying what it
contained, only the conclusion she happened to draw from it.

taf