I think he makes some quite trenchant points here.
"All things truly wicked start from an innocence." -- Ernest Hemingway _A
"Bernard Morgan" wrote in message
My problem is with the form of Rounds argument, i.e., that because Walter
Fitz Alan has potential some Anglo-Norman with surnames that could be found
in Shropshire - this tells us nothing about the origins of the Walter Fitz
If we start with the conclusion is Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from
Shropshire. How does Round justify this conclusion?
Attempting to put the argument in standard form:
Premise 1 Walter Fitz Alan has followers
Premise 2: Some of his followers are Anglo-Norman from Shropshire
Therefore: Walter Fitz Alan is an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire
A deductive case is not there, for there is the fallacy of undistributed
If someone medieval person has some followers who (speculatively) are
Anglo-Normans from Shropshire, doesn't mean that person is an Anglo-Norman
family from Shropshire. He might be from any where, include of the same
origin of this other followers.
If a pattern could be shown that those who have followers that include
Anglo-Normans from Shropshire are themselves are Anglo-Normans from
Shropshire, we would have an Induction from Generalization. Then we could
walk around and say that man has Anglo-Normans from Shropshire as followers
hence like all other with men with Anglo-Normans from Shropshire as
followers, he must be an Anglo-Norman from Shropshire.
However generalization are fragile things and simple broken by showing a
contradiction. The famous example is the former generalization that "All
swans are white", which held true until a Black swan was discovered in
Australia. In our case the Black Swan in David I, who had Anglo-Norman
followers and some allegedly from Shropshire. Yet he wasn't an Anglo-Normans
Nothing in Round argument shows us that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman
from Shropshire. Instead we are asked assume that Chalmers has provide this
point, which he hasn't.
Think about the negative, what if Walter Fitz Alan isn't an Anglo-Norman
from Shropshire. Is there any reason to believe that his followers are from
Anglo-Normans from Shropshire? Only Montgomery have some what of association
with Shropshire, that is purely because their surname matches an area in
Wales (used by French speakers?). Why should we think that the Scottish
Montgomery came from the place in France called Montgomery? And there are
even possible origins to the surname.
Simply put Round doesn't prove that Walter Fitz Alan was an Anglo-Norman
from Shropshire, instead he simply use it as a premise to see other
Anglo-Normans from Shropshire around him.
I also believe the yDNA evidence shows no recent relationship between the
Stewarts and the kings of Dal Riada.
<email@example.com> on behalf of
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: Royal Stewart line are Anglo-Norman?? Round
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 7:06:48 PM UTC-8, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> >> However Round's logic if applied to David I of Scotland, who is said to
> >> have
> >> Anglo-Norman followers, would require him to be an Anglo Norman, which
> >> he isn't.
> >Culturally he was, having been raised at the English court.
> Then can we then assume that Walter Fitz Alan is also a Scot raised at the
> English court. The Round's induction is week to the point of worthless.
On what basis would we assume this? Are you now suggesting that everyone
with ANglo-Norman retainers must have been raised at court simply because
this was true of David? Argument by imperfect analogy seems more convincing
superficially than it is when looking at the details. There is every reason
for David to have had a set of Anglo-Norman retainers independent of his
ethnicity: his documented time at court, being brother-in-law of the king,
being married to the heiress of Huntington. None of these are known to
apply to Walter, so we have to invoke William of Occam and accept that just
like with most people with Anglo-Norman retainers, if Walter had them the
most likely explanation is that he was Anglo-Norman.
Just to be clear, are we to reject Chalmers in favor of Eyton and Boace,
with Walter son of an Alan filius Fleance entirely distinct from Alan filius
Flaald, or are you suggesting something entirely new? Or is this simply a
visceral rejection of the imperialistic English historians intent on
depriving the Scots of a native dynasty, as has been claimed here before?
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVALfirstname.lastname@example.org with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message