Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 nov 2004 13:51:02

Burke's Peerage said Kerry was a distant cousin to Britain's Queen Elizabeth
and had more royal blood than any presidential candidate in U.S. history,
including Bush, who has plenty of blue blood of his own. Burke's also said the
candidate with more royal blood wins.

How does this figure in?

Maggie

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 nov 2004 16:08:57

Vondoering@aol.com wrote:
Burke's Peerage said Kerry was a distant cousin to Britain's Queen Elizabeth
and had more royal blood than any presidential candidate in U.S. history,
including Bush, who has plenty of blue blood of his own. Burke's also said the
candidate with more royal blood wins.

They keep parading out this ridiculous claim and ignoring the facts - it
is pure hype. In the first contested election in 1796, (I am not
counting Washington) Adams defeated Jefferson. In the next in 1800,
Jefferson defeated Adams. Did Jefferson acquire more royal ancestry in
the intervening 4 years? This rule of theirs didn't even survive the
first contested change of power. There are several additional examples
of the same men running with different results.

taf

John Brandon

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av John Brandon » 04 nov 2004 23:21:07

That twit Harold Brooks-Baker is fond of trotting out this foolishness
every four years, but it's nonsense.

Sort of like another tired myth, that the outcome of the Redskins'
game predicts the winner of the presidential race ...

Sutliff

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Sutliff » 05 nov 2004 03:53:43

Indeed, Brooks-Baker has been riding this nonsense for years. In 1996 he
wrote about all of President Clinton's illustrious Royal Descents as opposed
to Senator Dole's lesser Royal ancestry. Only problem was that Brooks-Baker
claimed Clinton descended from the Barons Clinton which we all know is
really foolish as Clinton was adopted and born with the surname Blythe.
Unfortunately Brooks-Baker does this again and again and no one ever
challenges him on this. Most of this is to create publicity for himself and
his publications.

HS


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:942d5b80.0411041421.49721946@posting.google.com...
That twit Harold Brooks-Baker is fond of trotting out this foolishness
every four years, but it's nonsense.

Sort of like another tired myth, that the outcome of the Redskins'
game predicts the winner of the presidential race ...

Bronwen Edwards

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 05 nov 2004 09:02:11

Vondoering@aol.com wrote in message news:<25.518f5ed1.2ebb7db8@aol.com>...
Burke's Peerage said Kerry was a distant cousin to Britain's Queen Elizabeth
and had more royal blood than any presidential candidate in U.S. history,
including Bush, who has plenty of blue blood of his own. Burke's also said the
candidate with more royal blood wins.

I didn't think anyone other than a couple of our own posters believed
this sort of thing into the 21st century! Bronwen

Douglas Richardson

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 nov 2004 17:54:30

"Sutliff" <suthen@redshift.com> wrote in message news:<10olqposvckflfd@corp.supernews.com>...

Indeed, Brooks-Baker has been riding this nonsense for years .,,,
Most of this is to create publicity for himself and
his publications.

HS

He sounds like a good businessman to me.

DR

Peter Stewart

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 nov 2004 23:27:42

Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Sutliff" <suthen@redshift.com> wrote in message news:<10olqposvckflfd@corp.supernews.com>...


Indeed, Brooks-Baker has been riding this nonsense for years .,,,
Most of this is to create publicity for himself and
his publications.

HS


He sounds like a good businessman to me.

From spruiking his wares with a falsehood?

In that line of business practice, Douglas Richardson is right up there
with Brooks-Baker, almost in the "goodness" league of Donald Trump and
Gordon Gecko.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 nov 2004 20:53:20

Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<y7Tid.17090$K7.10945@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Sutliff" <suthen@redshift.com> wrote in message news:<10olqposvckflfd@corp.supernews.com>...


Indeed, Brooks-Baker has been riding this nonsense for years .,,,
Most of this is to create publicity for himself and
his publications.

HS


He sounds like a good businessman to me.

From spruiking his wares with a falsehood?

In that line of business practice, Douglas Richardson is right up there
with Brooks-Baker, almost in the "goodness" league of Donald Trump and
Gordon Gecko.

Peter Stewart

Everyone knows that Donald Trump has made a lot of money from creating
publicity for himself and his business projects. All the same, I
suppose it's easy for Mr. Stewart to criticize Mr. Trump when Mr.
Stewart spends his days reading Latin dictionaries and doing precious
little else.

We're still waiting for Mr. Stewart to produce evidence proving that
"cognatus" is the "usual" meaning of "brother-in-law" in post-Conquest
England. I wonder if Mr. Stewart can set down his Latin dictionary
long enough to do this? Mmmmmmm ..... I doubt it. Mr. Stewart is a
fraud.

DR

Peter Stewart

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 nov 2004 00:23:09

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<y7Tid.17090$K7.10945@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

Douglas Richardson wrote:

"Sutliff" <suthen@redshift.com> wrote in message news:<10olqposvckflfd@corp.supernews.com>...



Indeed, Brooks-Baker has been riding this nonsense for years .,,,
Most of this is to create publicity for himself and
his publications.

HS


He sounds like a good businessman to me.

From spruiking his wares with a falsehood?

In that line of business practice, Douglas Richardson is right up there
with Brooks-Baker, almost in the "goodness" league of Donald Trump and
Gordon Gecko.

Peter Stewart


Everyone knows that Donald Trump has made a lot of money from creating
publicity for himself and his business projects. All the same, I
suppose it's easy for Mr. Stewart to criticize Mr. Trump when Mr.
Stewart spends his days reading Latin dictionaries and doing precious
little else.

We're still waiting for Mr. Stewart to produce evidence proving that
"cognatus" is the "usual" meaning of "brother-in-law" in post-Conquest
England. I wonder if Mr. Stewart can set down his Latin dictionary
long enough to do this? Mmmmmmm ..... I doubt it. Mr. Stewart is a
fraud.

And of course Richardson is also in Trump's league for the shameless
repetition of nonsense.

No matter how many time he tries to misrepresent what I wrote, and to
belittle the evidence given from an unimpeachable authority, his version
can't become true. "(Male)-In-law" rather than "blood kinsman" was a
usual (i.e. NOT exclusive, but not UNusual) meaning of "cognatus"
throughout the Middle Ages, everywhere that the word was used.

Richardson is so completely ignorant of the cultural significance of
Latin and of holy writ that he supposes a plain meaning in the Vulgate
could somehow vanish into thin air.

Latin was considered to be the language of eternity. Words could gain
new shades of meaning deliberately, or from carelessness or clumsiness;
but a word could not LOSE a meaning given to it beyond any shadow of
doubt by St Jerome.

I have posted an example of "mater" being used for a woman who was not a
biological parent, step-mother or mother-in-law. That wasn't done just
on a whim of mine, but to show how misleading it can be to skim medieval
documents, as Douglas Richardson necessarily does, in a word-spotting
exercise without understanding enmough Latin to realise the context.

As for not admiring Donald Trump just because he has made a lot of
money, being a foreign user of dictionaries doesn't single me out in
this respect from many US citizens who are businessmen themselves. Trump
and his almost ceaseless, baseless hyping of his alleged contributions
of expertise and capital to major projects make plenty of flesh creep on
Wall Street as well as in Australia.

So does Douglas Richardson's constant self-glorification as a medieval
scholar.

Peter Stewart

David Webb

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av David Webb » 07 nov 2004 06:45:29

This is just another way of saying that the American elite has normally
provided the presidents.


"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0411050002.69b63e76@posting.google.com...
Vondoering@aol.com wrote in message news:<25.518f5ed1.2ebb7db8@aol.com>...
Burke's Peerage said Kerry was a distant cousin to Britain's Queen
Elizabeth
and had more royal blood than any presidential candidate in U.S.
history,
including Bush, who has plenty of blue blood of his own. Burke's also
said the
candidate with more royal blood wins.

I didn't think anyone other than a couple of our own posters believed
this sort of thing into the 21st century! Bronwen

Paulo Gomes Jardim

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Paulo Gomes Jardim » 08 nov 2004 16:14:43

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:42:43 +0000 (UTC), <Vondoering@aol.com> wrote:

Burke's also said the
candidate with more royal blood wins.

Is this supposed to be taken seriously? :)


--
" Pallida mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas regumque turres." --
Horacio

marshall kirk

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av marshall kirk » 08 nov 2004 17:34:43

If by "the ... elite" you mean merely, 'the people with more money and
better [= more useful] social connections than the rest of us' --
well, yes, that does cover most of the presidents. Given your
previous postings, tho', I have to wonder whether that's all you mean.

It's also probably true that there's *some* positive correlation
between (a) how much royal ancestry you have and how how recent it is,
and (b) how much money you have ande how useful your social
connections are. It's certainly not a perfect, probably only a
modest, correlation; but it would be bootless to deny that wealth,
social connections, and power have a tendency to concentrate and
perpetuate themselves. Certainly the children of billionaires and
kings have, on average, a massive advantage over poor off-white trash
like me; and the tendency of this advantage to attenuate down the
generations must be offset, to some extent, by the opportunity to make
'power' marriages.

But why bother to speculate? Let's trace the ancestry of all
presidential candidates who *lost*, and see whether they're 'less
royal' in their ancestry than the winners. The data are imperfect,
but should be sufficient to allow a trend of any magnitude to emerge.
(I think it would probably be stronger, tho', as a prognosticator of
who wins each party's nomination, as opposed to the also-rans.)

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ZDijd.2409$hp4.577@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
This is just another way of saying that the American elite has normally
provided the presidents.


"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0411050002.69b63e76@posting.google.com...
Vondoering@aol.com wrote in message news:<25.518f5ed1.2ebb7db8@aol.com>...
Burke's Peerage said Kerry was a distant cousin to Britain's Queen
Elizabeth
and had more royal blood than any presidential candidate in U.S.
history,
including Bush, who has plenty of blue blood of his own. Burke's also
said the
candidate with more royal blood wins.

I didn't think anyone other than a couple of our own posters believed
this sort of thing into the 21st century! Bronwen

marshall kirk

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av marshall kirk » 08 nov 2004 17:34:47

If by "the ... elite" you mean merely, 'the people with more money and
better [= more useful] social connections than the rest of us' --
well, yes, that does cover most of the presidents. Given your
previous postings, tho', I have to wonder whether that's all you mean.

It's also probably true that there's *some* positive correlation
between (a) how much royal ancestry you have and how how recent it is,
and (b) how much money you have ande how useful your social
connections are. It's certainly not a perfect, probably only a
modest, correlation; but it would be bootless to deny that wealth,
social connections, and power have a tendency to concentrate and
perpetuate themselves. Certainly the children of billionaires and
kings have, on average, a massive advantage over poor off-white trash
like me; and the tendency of this advantage to attenuate down the
generations must be offset, to some extent, by the opportunity to make
'power' marriages.

But why bother to speculate? Let's trace the ancestry of all
presidential candidates who *lost*, and see whether they're 'less
royal' in their ancestry than the winners. The data are imperfect,
but should be sufficient to allow a trend of any magnitude to emerge.
(I think it would probably be stronger, tho', as a prognosticator of
who wins each party's nomination, as opposed to the also-rans.)

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ZDijd.2409$hp4.577@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
This is just another way of saying that the American elite has normally
provided the presidents.


"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0411050002.69b63e76@posting.google.com...
Vondoering@aol.com wrote in message news:<25.518f5ed1.2ebb7db8@aol.com>...
Burke's Peerage said Kerry was a distant cousin to Britain's Queen
Elizabeth
and had more royal blood than any presidential candidate in U.S.
history,
including Bush, who has plenty of blue blood of his own. Burke's also
said the
candidate with more royal blood wins.

I didn't think anyone other than a couple of our own posters believed
this sort of thing into the 21st century! Bronwen

Glyn Jones

Re: Scudamore - Owen Glendower of Wales

Legg inn av Glyn Jones » 08 nov 2004 18:11:01

Since this is an English language forum and my name 'Glyn', means 'valley',
should I expect to be addressed as 'valley?

There are more than occasional articles in the Welsh History Review, by
genealogists and historians from North America and all, invariably, use the
Welsh name rather than an anglicised form.

Glyn

Glyn Jones FRPS

Remember Tryweryn
http://www.glynphoto.com
Join the Royal Photographic Society

Leo van de Pas

Re: Scudamore - Owen Glendower of Wales

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 08 nov 2004 18:51:01

If you look on my website you can see how it is used.
http://www.genealogics.org

Even though Owen Glendower for many is an obscure historical figure, I think
more people recognise Owen Glendower quicker, the same as William the
Conqueror, who in his lifetime never was addressed as such, or Charlemagne.
I asked a simple question, I was not writing an article for a genealogical
magazine..........the "English speaking" articles, usually translate into
English continental names, Henry The Fowler, Louis the German, Frederick the
Great, William of Orange, Henry the Lion and so on.

For instance, just on one page of Gary Boyd Roberts' The Royal descent of
600 immigrants, page 459,

Henry I, Count of Champagne = Henri
Baldwin IX, Count of Flanders = Baudouin
John I, Count of Hainault = Jean
John II, Count of Hainault = Jean

By the way, my question which you overlooked, was about a correct name,
never mind spellings, of a daughter of Owen/Owain------any suggestions?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Glyn Jones" <glynphoto@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: Scudamore - Owen Glendower of Wales


Since this is an English language forum and my name 'Glyn', means
'valley',
should I expect to be addressed as 'valley?

There are more than occasional articles in the Welsh History Review, by
genealogists and historians from North America and all, invariably, use
the
Welsh name rather than an anglicised form.

Glyn

Glyn Jones FRPS

Remember Tryweryn
http://www.glynphoto.com
Join the Royal Photographic Society




Glyn Jones

Re: Scudamore - Owen Glendower of Wales

Legg inn av Glyn Jones » 08 nov 2004 19:31:02

I understand your reply. There are relatively few Welsh speaking people in
Wales. In spite of this and repeated efforts to destroy the language, it's
usage is now increasing. To some of the European countries, translating
names into other languages is of no consequence. In Wales, it does nothing
to preserve Welsh.

Not being much of a genealogist, I can only quote J.E.Griffith, 'Pedigrees
of Anglesey and Carnarvonshire Families' - Sir John Scudamore's wife was
Lady Alice (Ales).

Glyn Jones FRPS

Remember Tryweryn
http://www.glynphoto.com
Join the Royal Photographic Society
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: "Glyn Jones" <glynphoto@btinternet.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Scudamore - Owen Glendower of Wales


If you look on my website you can see how it is used.
http://www.genealogics.org

Even though Owen Glendower for many is an obscure historical figure, I
think
more people recognise Owen Glendower quicker, the same as William the
Conqueror, who in his lifetime never was addressed as such, or
Charlemagne.
I asked a simple question, I was not writing an article for a genealogical
magazine..........the "English speaking" articles, usually translate into
English continental names, Henry The Fowler, Louis the German, Frederick
the
Great, William of Orange, Henry the Lion and so on.

For instance, just on one page of Gary Boyd Roberts' The Royal descent of
600 immigrants, page 459,

Henry I, Count of Champagne = Henri
Baldwin IX, Count of Flanders = Baudouin
John I, Count of Hainault = Jean
John II, Count of Hainault = Jean

By the way, my question which you overlooked, was about a correct name,
never mind spellings, of a daughter of Owen/Owain------any suggestions?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Glyn Jones" <glynphoto@btinternet.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: Scudamore - Owen Glendower of Wales


Since this is an English language forum and my name 'Glyn', means
'valley',
should I expect to be addressed as 'valley?

There are more than occasional articles in the Welsh History Review, by
genealogists and historians from North America and all, invariably, use
the
Welsh name rather than an anglicised form.

Glyn

Glyn Jones FRPS

Remember Tryweryn
http://www.glynphoto.com
Join the Royal Photographic Society






Nathaniel Taylor

Llewelyn sarcophagus (was Re: Scudamore)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 08 nov 2004 22:23:35

In article <001701c4c5c0$ae9c7b60$ac979851@glyn>,
glynphoto@btinternet.com ("Glyn Jones") wrote:


Glyn,

Having browsed your intriguing web portfolio, I just want to bring to
notice the fine photograph of the open sarcophagus of Llewelyn the
Great, in the 'Miscellaneous' gallery.

I see from other references that this sarcophagus is in Capel Gwydir in
Llanrwst, which is 12 mi. south of Llewelyn's original burial place of
Aberconwy Abbey, at or near what became Conwy Castle. At what time was
the sarcophagus transferred to this other chapel? At what time,
presumably, had the sarcophagus been emptied--at the time of the
Edwardian fortification of Conwy?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

David Webb

Re: Scudamore - Owen Glendower of Wales

Legg inn av David Webb » 08 nov 2004 23:37:19

It's dumbing down and false authenticity.

""Glyn Jones"" <glynphoto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:001301c4c5b5$2c564420$ac979851@glyn...
Since this is an English language forum and my name 'Glyn', means
'valley',
should I expect to be addressed as 'valley?

There are more than occasional articles in the Welsh History Review, by
genealogists and historians from North America and all, invariably, use
the
Welsh name rather than an anglicised form.

Glyn

Glyn Jones FRPS

Remember Tryweryn
http://www.glynphoto.com
Join the Royal Photographic Society

marshall kirk

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av marshall kirk » 09 nov 2004 15:42:15

Apologies for the double posting and at least two typos ("how how" and
"ande"). My fingers must be getting shaky. Or perhaps I shouldn't be
fooling around with that homemade electroshock machine ...

mkkirk@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote in message news:<1c74a9e5.0411080834.162d9910@posting.google.com>...
If by "the ... elite" you mean merely, 'the people with more money and
better [= more useful] social connections than the rest of us' --
well, yes, that does cover most of the presidents. Given your
previous postings, tho', I have to wonder whether that's all you mean.

It's also probably true that there's *some* positive correlation
between (a) how much royal ancestry you have and how how recent it is,
and (b) how much money you have ande how useful your social
connections are. It's certainly not a perfect, probably only a
modest, correlation; but it would be bootless to deny that wealth,
social connections, and power have a tendency to concentrate and
perpetuate themselves. Certainly the children of billionaires and
kings have, on average, a massive advantage over poor off-white trash
like me; and the tendency of this advantage to attenuate down the
generations must be offset, to some extent, by the opportunity to make
'power' marriages.

But why bother to speculate? Let's trace the ancestry of all
presidential candidates who *lost*, and see whether they're 'less
royal' in their ancestry than the winners. The data are imperfect,
but should be sufficient to allow a trend of any magnitude to emerge.
(I think it would probably be stronger, tho', as a prognosticator of
who wins each party's nomination, as opposed to the also-rans.)

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ZDijd.2409$hp4.577@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
This is just another way of saying that the American elite has normally
provided the presidents.


"Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54ca55f1.0411050002.69b63e76@posting.google.com...
Vondoering@aol.com wrote in message news:<25.518f5ed1.2ebb7db8@aol.com>...
Burke's Peerage said Kerry was a distant cousin to Britain's Queen
Elizabeth
and had more royal blood than any presidential candidate in U.S.
history,
including Bush, who has plenty of blue blood of his own. Burke's also
said the
candidate with more royal blood wins.

I didn't think anyone other than a couple of our own posters believed
this sort of thing into the 21st century! Bronwen

Roger Tansey

Re: Burke's Peerage - off topic but interesting

Legg inn av Roger Tansey » 09 nov 2004 19:46:13

Indeed. Consider the source. From what I recall from my years in
England, Mr. "Brooks-Baker" is an American who has not only developed
a British accent, but whose surname has miraculously become
double-barrelled......







starbuck95@hotmail.com (John Brandon) wrote in message news:<942d5b80.0411041421.49721946@posting.google.com>...
That twit Harold Brooks-Baker is fond of trotting out this foolishness
every four years, but it's nonsense.

Sort of like another tired myth, that the outcome of the Redskins'
game predicts the winner of the presidential race ...

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»