GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-08 > 0996681151


From: Martin Reboul <>
Subject: Re: Joan Holland
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:52:31 +0100
References: <Q4J97.1158$jf6.40843@eagle.america.net>, <3B675FFB.100A7C60@virgin.net>, <mhK97.1197$jf6.41633@eagle.america.net>




"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

> Hmmmmmm.
>
> Reboul just blunders from one Historical and/or Genealogical error to
> another. It's remarkable. Gibbons chained to keyboards should be able
> to do better.

Oh dear....once more into the breach again.....

> He's wrong too about this Henry Holand [Holland], 4th Duke of
> Exeter ---- the new fellow he's decided to attach himself to ---- rather
> than to the 1st Duke.

Er, no Spencer, I'm afraid not.

> Henry Holand [Holland], 4th Duke of Exeter did NOT die at Barnet [14
> April 1471], nor was he killed with poison ---- as Reboul thought
> before. Neither did his father, John, the 3rd Duke, die of poisoning ,
> according to CP. If Reboul has evidence to the contrary ---- yes I said
> EVIDENCE ---- he should bring it forward and post it, post-haste.

I have EVIDENCE that you are mistaken David, will that do?

If you look carefully, you will see that I wrote "came a cropper" at Barnet
- remenmber? That he did indeed - concussed from a heavy blow to the head I
suspect, and found (without his armour) by a servant at about 4PM - which
means he was out cold for several hours. He took Henry to a surgeon, and he
made it into Westminster Sanctuary........

> The 4th Duke of Exeter was severely wounded at the Battle of Barnet and
> left for dead, but he was discovered and brought to sanctuary at
> Westminster. He recovered.
>
> How did he meet his end?
>
> He was drowned, at age 45, between Calais and Dover in September 1475,
> when returning from a Royal expedition to France. That's more than FOUR
> years after the Battle of Barnet.

Quite correct. He was thrown overboard by some hit men employed by Charles
Duke of Burgundy - probably at the request of Edward IV, a little favour to
his bro. in law.

I did actually mention all these facts to someone who kindly replied to me
privately with a correction about Joan..... I was mistaken, I admit. I also
remember engaging in a discussion about the fate of Henry Holland several
years ago - thanks to the person who filled me in with the details of his
demise then.

If you still doubt that I was aware, you should read my book on the Battle
of Barnet, which explains all.

> Further, the 4th Duke's father, John, the 3rd Duke, did not die "some
> hundred odd years later" than the 1st Duke. He died in 1447, less than
> 50 years later ---- than his FATHER, the 1st Duke, who died in very
> early 1400.

I didn't mention numbers - a simple confusion between contributers about
'Holland Dukes of Exeter' name Thomas and John, nothing to crow about David.
I am at fault, I didn't make my meaning very clear.

> Continuing into the odoriferous morass of Reboulian error ---- which he
> has compounded with generous portions of codswallop, balderdash and
> twaddle, the 3rd Duke of Exeter was not "some three generations
> out" ---- but only ONE generation out. The 3rd Duke of Exeter, John
> Holand, is a second son of the 1st Duke of Exeter, John de Holand.

See above.....

> It is interesting to track the massive errors of fact and interpretation
> that Reboul makes in these matters of Mediaeval Genealogy and
> History ---- where we have a *yardstick* of accuracy by which to measure
> his performance.

Errors due to my poor wording, true. However, if that my *yardstick*
compares very favourably to your *inches*, and if you continue this
nonsense, you'll feel it thrashing your sorry backside yet again.

> That is not the case with respect to his continuing forays into
> high-school chicanery, character assassination and malicious fantasy,
> however ---- and he can more easily employ his weapons of smoke,
> mirrors, obfuscation, distortion, misrepresentation, prevarication and
> simple lying when he is employed in those ultimately self-defeating
> exercises in futility.

One has to first have a 'character' to assassinate my dear Spencer! As for
your other claims about my 'forays', I think a more appropriate description
would be blowing away all those fuggy concealments with the clear, fresh air
of truth...... not very good, I'll work out something better when I've got
time.

> There are additional errors in Reboul's post, infra ---- but bastante.

I didn't know you wore one?

I forgive you Spencer for your unkind words. But then I can afford to be
generous.
Cheers
Martin

This thread: