Ada of Huntingdon, Heiress of Yardley - From Doug Richardson on the reliability of Archaeologica

How funny. It appears you misrepresented what Erica and Janet have said ("Mr richardson.. I have a person who cites this book as a example that Sir William de Brereton, Kt. is a total fraud ")

Then Doug brushes you off with a polite form letter.

And saying Archaeologia as a "primary source"? How do you get that?

This is similar to what you did with the Cheshire Heraldry Society. They confirmed that the quarter in the Brereton arms is Huntingdon, then you came back to Geni and reported that they had said the arms proved the Huntingdon descent. You got caught on that one only because I knew enough to go back to them and ask.

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:58:23 +0000
From: mikem000 yahoo.com

The inquiry was not from Pamela.

Yes, I saw that. Do you think he got his info from someone else?

I have not given an opinion on whether sources are reliable. I am not knowledgeable about medieval, latin, or french sources.

I do know that women do not generally remarry after their death.

Doug Richardson's books are a very good reliable source. Well researched. He is very respected. Swell also has similar info out there.

A lot of his info can be found in NEHG in Boston . They easy to follow back lines, using books they have on their shelves. They can be found in other libraries too.

Janet, regarding remarriage of Norman heiresses: it was absolutely the custom. All property belonged to the king, and the king decided who would protect it. That's the problem, lack of historical expertise on Geni. Doug Richardson has now confirmed the materials I submitted as good source material for the marriage of Ada de Huntingdon to Ralph Brereton. It is according to him considered very relatable, and one he himself uses. Now you see the frustration of working with a curator who simply ignores history, research practices, preponderance of evidence, and could have written to Richardson herself if she was interested in truth.

Reply to Justin: nobody got " caught" on anything. I stand behind all my research. You are the one who is wrong. Go argue with Richardson and Thornber. I have always provided multiple sources, which you have not. I could care less about your opinions, as you surly know by now, as I have built my tree. Geni however, has lost the confidence of many people who would have loved to participate in this discussion except for people like you Justin.

"Doug Richardson has now confirmed the materials I submitted as good source material for the marriage of Ada de Huntingdon to Ralph Brereton"

False. He gave a nice noncommittal reply that said he had found it useful, but nobody and nothing was perfect (himself included).

In NO WAY did he confirm, affirm, or approve your claim that anything whatsoever "proved" a "marriage" between a corpse bride and anyone.

Nobody and nothing is perfect, and that includes Ormerod too.

I wonder how long the curators are going to stand for violation of "About" sections in pursuit of a theory that is at best highly implausible.

Exactly the same as what happened with the Cheshire Heraldry Society. She reported that the Cheshire Heraldry Society had confirmed the Brereton descent from Ada of Huntingdon, when in fact they had only confirmed one of the quarters in the later Brereton coat of arms. There seem to be leaps of logic here.

As for "multiple sources", Pamela, YOU have NEVER provided a contemporary or near-contemporary source supporting your argument. (Probably because the only contemporary or near-contemporary records *demolish* it.)

You have relied on second-hand information from three, four, five and six centuries after the fact (seven centuries, counting Richardson). That's plenty of time for information to get garbled and persons of similar name and close association to get mixed up with each other.

Bullying and bashing is no substitute for facts, Pamela. I hope you learn that some day.