On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:44:16 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-6, wbld....@gmail.com wrote: > > < The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion. > < > < William Acton > > Mr. Davis has alleged that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the 1620 > Visitation of Shropshire is the same person as the well known Sir Peter > de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire, who died in 1312. Or more accurately, he hasn't proven that the “Sr. Peter vel Peers de Bruse of co. Glos.” of the 1589 Herefordshire visitation is the same as Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire. > However, his paper lacks the simple evidence to prove either this idea or > even that alleged "Pierre Bruse" had the three daughters and co-heirs named > in the Visitation. You express this like it is a prerequisite. It is not. To prove this connection he need not prove that Peter de Brewes had three daughters, just the relevant one, and she need not have been an heiress. It sort of loses track of the goal to focus only on the 1620 visitation and insist that it must be perfectly accurate for the relationship to be true. > As far as working theories go, I believe it is flawed. Yes, and he believes it is not flawed. So far, the only reason you have given is that it is that the connection is hinted at in (but not exclusively in) an imperfect 1620 visitation. That may be reason to believe the solution is unproven, but doesn't really hit the mark in explaining why it is flawed. taf
I agree with Todd. The statement from Douglas: "Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. " Seems to lack the requisite proof required to make such a statement. Is there other evidence that truly rules this out that hasn't been presented? And before someone says "you can't prove a negative", the statement above is worded such that it does require proof to support. Certainly more proof than is needed to have a "working theory" that she was a daughter. It is reasonable to say that a link is not sufficiently proven, but this statement rules it out and indicates looking for more evidence would be a waste of time --Joe Cook