GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-03 > 0920364840


From: <Michelle.Murphy%>
Subject: Re:Subject: Re: Catherine of Valois / Owen Tudor debate
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 09:54 +0100 (BST)


I'll return to the content of this discussion in a moment, but I just want to
query the tone of the statements I've quoted below.

>This is a very risky statement. Arguments from silence are notoriously weak
>and few historians would rely on them unreserveely.

>Just because the
>records aren't there now doesn't mean they were never there.

>"Merely" a moral indiscretion? For a deeply religious society such as that
>of the medieval centuries, that's assuming a great deal.

>"Intuitively" is, again, a risky word for an historian to throw around.

>And finally, in the last sentence above you're
>arguing from silence again.

Considering that I have very extensive knowledge of the whole issue, and have
taken a particular interest in Owen Tudor and Catherine de Valois for the last
ten years, I don't think it's fair that I should be patronised just because
someone disagrees with my views on something that - given the current evidence -
we can't be completely sure of. The "arguing from silence" point is a rather
unfair way of backing up your argument at the expense of my very reasonable
assertion that since there is no hard evidence, we should continue to allow for
either side of the argument.

Also, in the case of correspondence with Catherine's family in France, you note
that just because there is no record of it does not mean it did not occur.
This, in fact, underlines your entire argument that a marriage took place.

But surely as historians, we must primarily focus on what we DO know? I mean,
the discussion of Isabella of France, widow of Edward II, briefly considered the
possibility that she had a second marriage. It also considered that she gave
birth to a child by Roger Mortimer. If there is a sufficient gap in detailed
records on Isabella's activities after Edward II's death, we could ascribe half
a dozen children to her - but because we have NO EVIDENCE of this, we would be
foolhardy to start speculating so fantastically on what she MIGHT have got up
to.

We have no record of correspondence between Catherine and her French family,
after the Philip of Burgundy/Humphrey of Gloucester conflict. I coupled that
with the fact that many medieval families did not stay in touch as a modern
family would - there were many sisters or brothers who would never even have
known each other, let alone developed a personal familial bond. Consider also
that England and France were actually at war - there is always the possibility
that correspondence between Catherine and the "Dauphin" might be viewed in a
very poor light by the Council. Given all of this evidence, can anyone really
assert that Catherine is likely to have written letters to her brother Charles
VII between 1422 and 1436/7? As I explained earlier, her father was dead, as
were two of her brothers and two of her sisters. Jeanne, Duchess of Brittany
barely knew Catherine, while Marie was a nun and probably did not spend time
writing letters to a sister in an enemy country whom she had not seen for years.

I feel that your replies to arguments such as the above are not really
considering the merits of what I am saying. The above is a perfectly reasonable
argument, but reading your last post, every single paragraph began with a
negative, and most of them impugned the validity of what I was saying, and my
whole approach to history!

I'm not "throwing" words around, but I thought this discussion was taking place
so that we could discuss the merits of the arguments put forward, not to also
hone in on individual words and use them to disparage the writer!

There aren't any prerequisites on this list - you don't have to have a PHd, or
half a dozen published history papers, in order to participate in a discussion.
I'm a well-educated person, to post-graduate standard, and have taken a great
lifelong interest in history. I think some of the comments in your last post
were rather too patronising to promote open exchange of ideas, which is part of
what this list is about. In history, where the facts are known, members of the
list can supply answers to questions. Where they are not conclusively known,
the idea is supposed to be that we engage in intelligent discussion, and
extrapolate the evidence we do have to come up with the most likely scenario. I
don't feel that any of what I have said in this discussion is in any way
ridiculous or improbable, and therefore I hope that in the future I won't feel
that I'm being "talked down to" in response. Since other people have complained
about this in the past, I'm having my say now, as I would like to continue
reading and contributing to this list.

thanks,

Michelle

This thread: