Interesting post. But I think your exasperation is a bit too hasty; this is what debates in monetary history are like. There are a lot of strong incentives for writers with certain political agendas to rush to draw conclusions from sloppy treatments of evidence, and they are indeed very cliquish and resistant to criticism.
As to the topic itself, the confusion seems to me to be generated by a lack of appreciation for the dynamics of a monetary system based on bills of exchange without par clearing, in which you can observe structural spreads between the value of the unit of account in different exchange places. the local moneys being quoted are the pound as it valued on the local exchange, which is necessarily different in different places because of the exchange hierarchy.
Interesting post. But I think your exasperation is a bit too hasty; this is what debates in monetary history are like. There are a lot of strong incentives for writers with certain political agendas to rush to draw conclusions from sloppy treatments of evidence, and they are indeed very cliquish and resistant to criticism.
As to the topic itself, the confusion seems to me to be generated by a lack of appreciation for the dynamics of a monetary system based on bills of exchange without par clearing, in which you can observe structural spreads between the value of the unit of account in different exchange places. the local moneys being quoted are the pound as it valued on the local exchange, which is necessarily different in different places because of the exchange hierarchy.