Dear Bruce, You wrote: "It was suggested to me that what I have presented thus far for connections between the historical individuals I have discussed is ‘opinion’. This is outrageous. There are so few surviving documents from this period, that any assertion must be circumstantial by nature." Any assertion that is circumstantial by nature without any other evidence to support it must be a theory, or in others words an opinion or speculation. You have not proved circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence by any other facts supporting person A was the son or father of person B. You have not supplied an overwhelming case, but one of speculation. Because of the so few surviving documents, one can only suppose, or speculate or give opinion until some document (like a will or such) comes forth as proof. The bits and pieces of history that you have presented to this forum are valuable in the setting of the Carpenter Family puzzle. They provide clues but not proof that person A was related to person B. Your theory of the Carpenters not being related to nobility (at this time) but to merchants is interesting. But you also forget that nobles controlled the trade and made a great deal of money in it. Sincerely, An uneducated peasant with an Honorable Name ... John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA USA Bruce E. Carpenter wrote: > > With the help of Anne Crawfords book A History of the Vintners’ Company, a > good many of Carpenter family loose ends can be settled. Crawford tells us > that the main organization of London wine-merchants was known as the Mistery > of the Vintners, a curious enough name. The Mistery was not only involved > in the importation of wines, but also the retail end. In other words > important members of the club controlled and owned taverns. Law forbade non- > members of the Mistery to sell Bordeaux wine. A number of weeks ago I > published documents concerning none other than Bishop John Carpenter or > Worcester himself as an owner of two taverns. At the time I was surprised by > this, but no longer. Let any doubts as to the family identity of this > interesting man from now on be laid to rest. > Another loose end is Town Clerk John’s wife Kathrine and her connection to > St. Botolph’s church. This church was a favorite charity for the Mistery. > Also connected to the Mistery were properties on Fleetstreet, and again > Blackfriars, which appears in Town Clerk John’s will. An additional point > gleaned from Crawford is that important Mistery importers often had other > professional designations. Thus a dealer in pepper might be a behind the > scenes Mistery wine importer. This is important to remember in respect to > ‘chaundeler’ Richard on Fleetstreet. > > Finally, a note on the nature of evidence in a medieval history discussion: > It was suggested to me that what I have presented thus far for connections > between the historical individuals I have discussed is ‘opinion’. This is > outrageous. There are so few surviving documents from this period, that any > assertion must be circumstantial by nature. This shows a lack of education > in the individual in question. The evidence I have gathered makes an > overwhelming case. Again I repeat, it is time to abandon the ‘knights and > ladies’ mindset, and begin the investigation of this merchant family in > earnest. > > Sincerely, > Bruce E. Carpenter > professor