Douglas Richardson, awaiting answers

From RoyalWeb
Jump to: navigation, search

A page of questions that Douglas Richardson has yet to answer.

People who make public statements, when questioned usually will explain, justify or withdraw their original statement. Sadly, not so Douglas Charles Richardson. For several years Douglas Richardson has placed himself on a pedestal of superior knowledge of medieval genealogy and medieval Latin. This places responsibility on Richardson, the responsibility of being beyond question, as his reputation as a professional genealogist stands or falls with his actions. Too often he has ignored questions or remarks.

He has stated that he thinks people assessing Gen-Med "expect him to teach them". However not clearing up questions he has caused, can only create havoc and more questions. When can he be relied upon to provide acceptable information? Most of the time he does, but as a trained historian and genealogist he owes his "pedestal position" that he explains, justifies or withdraws his statements when questioned. Silence should not be an option for him.

It is unproductive to keep asking the same questions on Gen-Med, therefore it seems better to create a collection of these questions to help Douglas Richardson remember what the outstanding questions, pending his answers, are. If we go to the archives of Gen-Med, no doubt, more unanswered questions can be found.


Question 1

As a supporter of crossposting, he has been asked how or if it has benefitted Gen-Med, can he advise what are the positive results. And does he still support it?

Question 2

He has stated that "Countess" was a first name used in medieval times. He has been asked to supply just one sample in either England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

Question 3

He proclaimed that Edward III had at least one son by Alice Perrers, John de Sotheray. Since then it has been noted that Alice Perrers may not even be the mother, let alone Edward III the father.

Question 4

He has been asked for the proof that Ida was Ida de Tosny, and who actually made that discovery. This has been answered by Todd Farmerie "Mr. Richardson wrote: For newly published evidence that Countess Ida was a member of the Tony family, see Morris, The Bigod Earls of Norfolk in the 13th century (2005); 2, who cites a royal inquest dated 1275, in which jurors affirmed that Earl Roger le Bigod had received the manors of Acler, Halvergate, and South Walsham, Norfolk from King Henry II, in marriage with his wife, Ida de Tony (see Rotuli Hundredprum 1 (1812); 504, 537". To which he added : "Assuming that this has been appropriately extracted, this would seem to be strong evidence that Ida did in fact belong to this family. Her exact placement remains to be documented." The credit question centers around discovery of evidence that 'Countess Ida', mother of William Longespee, is identical to Ida, wife of Roger Bigod. Ray Phar discovered the evidence that William Longespee was "brother" of a Bigod. The original document had been published in the 19th century, but the author did not address the significance - he just published the list of names. The information was lost to posterity until Ray found it and published a paper demonstrating exactly what this proved. In a post a couple of weeks ago, Richardson gave credit to the original (clueless) editor, and completely ignored the contribution of Ray Phar.

Question 5

Don Stone asked (17 October 2007): "What is the exact wording of this reference to Robert, brother of John Botetourt? If no surname is given, it occurs to me that it might be a Robert de Saham, (half) brother of John Botetourt, since John is elsewhere specified as a brother of William de Saham."

Question 6

Leo van de Pas asked (29 October 2007) whether Richardson could tell how many times on gen-med it has been said that it is against the rules to offer professional services or to offer wares. It was wondered whether Richardson just did what suited him, as with crossposting of messages. On 29 October 2007, Richardson sent a message : "C.P. Addition: Marriage date of Hugh le Despenser & Isabel de Beauchamp". This message, sent to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval, alt.history.british, and the gen-medieval mailing list, contained the following passage: "For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World colonists that descend from Sir Hugh le Despencer and his wife, Isabel de Beauchamp. For the connecting links down to the indivudual colonists, please see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), which is available for purchase directly through me."

Question 7

Douglas Richardson (29 October 2007): "My research indicates that the Fitzalan family dropped the surname Fitzalan, in favor of Arundel about 1313. Thereafter all members of the family were known exclusively as Arundel (or de Arundel)." Will Johnson (30 October 2007): "But you didn't mention that among historians, you appear to be singularly alone in this theory. Isn't that a bit odd?" Leo van de Pas (31 October 2007) in The Complete Peerage, Volume I 249, we find Thomas (FitzAlan otherwise Arundell otherwise Mautravers) Earl of Arundel. On page 250 we find the last two Earls of Arundel, both with the name Fitzalan. Also CP XIV does not correct any of the surnames mentioned. Vance Mead (5 November 2007) : "The visitations of Kent is on-line. On page 217 you can see the pedigree of Browne. It says that Sir Thomas Browne married Ellyn the daughter and co-heir of "Sir Thomas FitzAlan kt". You can also search the PRO catalogue or A2A and find several references to Thomas Fitzalan during the 15th century."

Question 8

Will Johnson points out (1 November 2007) how Douglas Richardson in his Plantagenet Ancestry, Page 302 recorded : "15.Anne (or Agnes) Gascoigne married Thomas Fairfax (will dated 1520 proved 1521), son and heir of Thomas Fairfax, Master of the Horse to King Edward VI...", and that this was impossible (as Edward VI wasn't born until 1537). To this Leo van de Pas added : "Dear Will, Could this be a simple typo? The son was born about 1476 and it is his father who was Master of the Horse. Could it be that Edward IV (king 1461-1470 1471-1483) who was meant?"

Question 9

Will Johnson (2 November 2007) adds : "A further correction on the death date of Sir Henry Curwen : Plantagenet Ancestry page 302 generation 17, "Sir Henry Curwen died about 1553". However this from A2A showing Henry was yet living 18 April 1588: "FILE (no title) - ref. ID Cu/4/29 - date: 18 April 1588 (from Scrope and Content) Quitclaim by Nicholas Curwen of Stainburne esqr. to Sir Henry Curwen of Wirkington, his father, of all claims on his father's estate."

Question 10

John Briggs (11 November 2007) asked: "As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the King himself was sitting on it?" At first Richardson replied: "Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John Sparrowhawk was brought 'before the king.'" When told Richardson had misrepresented the situation, he removed his original reply from the Google archives, re-wrote his reply, incorporating information given to him, re-sent it to gen-med pretending that this was what his opinion had been, without acknowledging he had been wrong in the first place, nor acknowledging the person who had put him straight. When his deception was revealed, he abused one of the people who had revealed his action.

Question 11

Robert O'Connor (14 November 2007) : "I note that Douglas Richardson in 'Magna Carta Ancestry' at page 448 refers to the marriage of Isabel de Huntingfield and James de Paunton (died before 1279) as being childless. The various references to this couple at VCH Rutland II, pp 182-8 & VCH Northants, pp 249-52 suggest that they indeed had issue, a son Philip de Paunton who succeeded to his father's manor of Glaston, Rutland and Grendon, Northants. Perhaps James de Paunton had a prior marriage to that with Isabel de Huntingfield and it was from this unknown marriage that the son Philip descended? Can Douglas yield any light on this question? Many thanks, Robert O'Connor."

Personal tools
Google AdSense