de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
David Webb
de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of Elizabeth,
sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out and there were no
living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced the descent till 1672 to
Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the White Rose 5th Duke. Are there
definitely no living descendants?
sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out and there were no
living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced the descent till 1672 to
Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the White Rose 5th Duke. Are there
definitely no living descendants?
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
David Webb
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:03050c364d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
No, that is wrong. The Poles and the de la Poles were different. The Poles
descended from George Duke of Clarence, the de la Poles from his sister
Elizabeth. That Hull Uni site is just wrong.
news:03050c364d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
No, that is wrong. The Poles and the de la Poles were different. The Poles
descended from George Duke of Clarence, the de la Poles from his sister
Elizabeth. That Hull Uni site is just wrong.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear Tim:
Mr. Webb didn't want a laugh, he wanted an answer. His question was:
Are there definitely no living descendants of Richard [de la] Pole
nicknamed the White Rose?
And, Mr. Webb certainly wasn't speaking about Richard Pole, husband of
Margaret Plantagenet, which is the link you provided to the Hull
database. He was talking about Richard de la Pole, the younger son of
John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk (died 1491/2).
So, do you have an answer for Mr. Webb, or not? Or, are we just
playing games, Tim?
Sincerely yours, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe Jan 31, 12:33 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:33:11 GMT
Local: Mon, Jan 31 2005 12:33 pm
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Reply
Mr. Webb didn't want a laugh, he wanted an answer. His question was:
Are there definitely no living descendants of Richard [de la] Pole
nicknamed the White Rose?
And, Mr. Webb certainly wasn't speaking about Richard Pole, husband of
Margaret Plantagenet, which is the link you provided to the Hull
database. He was talking about Richard de la Pole, the younger son of
John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk (died 1491/2).
So, do you have an answer for Mr. Webb, or not? Or, are we just
playing games, Tim?
Sincerely yours, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe Jan 31, 12:33 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:33:11 GMT
Local: Mon, Jan 31 2005 12:33 pm
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Reply
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
And it has been worng for at least seven years, ever since I first told
them. I said it was a laugh.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:03050c364d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
No, that is wrong. The Poles and the de la Poles were different. The Poles
descended from George Duke of Clarence, the de la Poles from his sister
Elizabeth. That Hull Uni site is just wrong.
And it has been worng for at least seven years, ever since I first told
them. I said it was a laugh.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear Tim,
Thanks for pointing this out. It is clearly that information has been mixed
up on the Hull site. Several years ago it was made clear that the Hull site
is not in a hurry to amend errors.
Sadly, the message you so clearly give is : stay away from that site. It is
always good to be aware of what is good and what is bad. The Pole family
has many many descendants to the present, whereas the de La Pole Dukes of
Suffolk, so far, only have been continued via an illegitimate link and only
for a few generations. That line displayed is far from complete and
therefor, yes, possibly, there could be descendants today. However,
apparently they have to be found on the continent.
Again thanks for the warning you gave.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Thanks for pointing this out. It is clearly that information has been mixed
up on the Hull site. Several years ago it was made clear that the Hull site
is not in a hurry to amend errors.
Sadly, the message you so clearly give is : stay away from that site. It is
always good to be aware of what is good and what is bad. The Pole family
has many many descendants to the present, whereas the de La Pole Dukes of
Suffolk, so far, only have been continued via an illegitimate link and only
for a few generations. That line displayed is far from complete and
therefor, yes, possibly, there could be descendants today. However,
apparently they have to be found on the continent.
Again thanks for the warning you gave.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 31 Jan, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
If you were really replying to me, you would have sent it to me
privately.
But I was offering a laugh; he might even have enjoyed it, he certainly
saw the error. I agree that I did not put a smiley after it, but I did
say it was a laugh. This means that it is not a serious answer but a
side bit of entertainment. Or is it not allowed ever to entertain? (Or
to try to!)
No, I was providing a laugh, as I said.
No game there at all. It was a plain laugh, nothing subtle.
I wonder if the phrase "if you want a laugh" has a different meaning
across the atlantic? What is the meaning in the US of A? And in other
countries?
Over here, if I really have to draw it out to a dreary conclusion, the
phrase in this context means that the item related is wrong and
incongruously wrong and further by a person who should know enormously
better. Further because the laughing matter is easy to see as rubbish,
it gives the readers confidence and raises their own sense of worth.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Tim:
If you were really replying to me, you would have sent it to me
privately.
Mr. Webb didn't want a laugh, he wanted an answer.
But I was offering a laugh; he might even have enjoyed it, he certainly
saw the error. I agree that I did not put a smiley after it, but I did
say it was a laugh. This means that it is not a serious answer but a
side bit of entertainment. Or is it not allowed ever to entertain? (Or
to try to!)
His question was: Are there definitely no living descendants of
Richard [de la] Pole nicknamed the White Rose?
And, Mr. Webb certainly wasn't speaking about Richard Pole, husband of
Margaret Plantagenet, which is the link you provided to the Hull
database. He was talking about Richard de la Pole, the younger son of
John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk (died 1491/2).
So, do you have an answer for Mr. Webb, or not?
No, I was providing a laugh, as I said.
Or, are we just playing games, Tim?
No game there at all. It was a plain laugh, nothing subtle.
I wonder if the phrase "if you want a laugh" has a different meaning
across the atlantic? What is the meaning in the US of A? And in other
countries?
Over here, if I really have to draw it out to a dreary conclusion, the
phrase in this context means that the item related is wrong and
incongruously wrong and further by a person who should know enormously
better. Further because the laughing matter is easy to see as rubbish,
it gives the readers confidence and raises their own sense of worth.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
David Webb
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
I agree with Douglas Richardson. your reply just wasted my time.
-
David Webb
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Funnily enough the Marquis de Ruvigny in the preface either to the Tudor
Roll of the B. R. or to the Clarence volume promised that the next volume
would contain descendant of Anne Duchess of Exeter and Elizabeth who
marriedd John de la Pole, but in the event didn't follow through. When he
had done the Clarence volume, he stated that the 3 earliest volumes
completed all the descendants o f Richard Duke of York, which they clearly
didn't...
Roll of the B. R. or to the Clarence volume promised that the next volume
would contain descendant of Anne Duchess of Exeter and Elizabeth who
marriedd John de la Pole, but in the event didn't follow through. When he
had done the Clarence volume, he stated that the 3 earliest volumes
completed all the descendants o f Richard Duke of York, which they clearly
didn't...
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
But I said "if you want a laugh". That meant it was not serious as an
answer, but was something to chuckle over. How much plainer can I put
it?
So knowing that it was something to have a laugh over, yet not wanting
to waste any time in a chuckle, some have nevertheless followed up my
reference. This is most odd.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I agree with Douglas Richardson. your reply just wasted my time.
But I said "if you want a laugh". That meant it was not serious as an
answer, but was something to chuckle over. How much plainer can I put
it?
So knowing that it was something to have a laugh over, yet not wanting
to waste any time in a chuckle, some have nevertheless followed up my
reference. This is most odd.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
As far as I understand the work of Ruvigny never intended to supply ALL
descendants, only those lines which continued to people alive at the time of
Ruvigny.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
descendants, only those lines which continued to people alive at the time of
Ruvigny.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Funnily enough the Marquis de Ruvigny in the preface either to the Tudor
Roll of the B. R. or to the Clarence volume promised that the next volume
would contain descendant of Anne Duchess of Exeter and Elizabeth who
marriedd John de la Pole, but in the event didn't follow through. When he
had done the Clarence volume, he stated that the 3 earliest volumes
completed all the descendants o f Richard Duke of York, which they clearly
didn't...
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Tim added knowledge to your question, he warned you where not to look for
factual details. His message took your question in another direction----this
happens all the time on gen-med.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
factual details. His message took your question in another direction----this
happens all the time on gen-med.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
I agree with Douglas Richardson. your reply just wasted my time.
-
joy mceldowney
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
G'day Leo
I was interested in your comment that the Duke of Suffolk's ancestors can be traced to this day. Well, I've met THE REAL DUKE OF SUFFOLK, at a party right here, in Piersons Point, Tasmania, south of Hobart!!! He has a vineyard down the road from us. A nice lilttle fellow who first asked me if I was a Pom and, not being a coward I replied that, indeed, I was. Then came the information. No, I didn't get his name I was wondering if a curtsy was appropriate but even more interested in his nice little wife doing a 'Cherie Blair' by draping herself around her bloke as he spoke of his title. ..we'd all had a few by then. However, Leo, if you'd like to know his name I guess my grape-growing neighbour will let me have it...they have a 'Get-together' every Friday evening to discuss and 'taste' their Boutique wines! (No, no, we don't grow grapes, too much like hard yakka, we just drink the stuff)
You wrote...'apparently they have to be found on the continent.' Oh tut tut, what a blow! No Duke in Oz? Heavens.. a bloke called Richardson has found THE REAL MONARCH OF ENGLAND in the outback. Personally I think Richardson should have stayed with 'Black Adder'.
Cheers
Joy
Tasmania
Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: Leo van de Pas
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear Tim,
Thanks for pointing this out. It is clearly that information has been mixed
up on the Hull site. Several years ago it was made clear that the Hull site
is not in a hurry to amend errors.
Sadly, the message you so clearly give is : stay away from that site. It is
always good to be aware of what is good and what is bad. The Pole family
has many many descendants to the present, whereas the de La Pole Dukes of
Suffolk, so far, only have been continued via an illegitimate link and only
for a few generations. That line displayed is far from complete and
therefor, yes, possibly, there could be descendants today. However,
apparently they have to be found on the continent.
Again thanks for the warning you gave.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
______________________________
I was interested in your comment that the Duke of Suffolk's ancestors can be traced to this day. Well, I've met THE REAL DUKE OF SUFFOLK, at a party right here, in Piersons Point, Tasmania, south of Hobart!!! He has a vineyard down the road from us. A nice lilttle fellow who first asked me if I was a Pom and, not being a coward I replied that, indeed, I was. Then came the information. No, I didn't get his name I was wondering if a curtsy was appropriate but even more interested in his nice little wife doing a 'Cherie Blair' by draping herself around her bloke as he spoke of his title. ..we'd all had a few by then. However, Leo, if you'd like to know his name I guess my grape-growing neighbour will let me have it...they have a 'Get-together' every Friday evening to discuss and 'taste' their Boutique wines! (No, no, we don't grow grapes, too much like hard yakka, we just drink the stuff)
You wrote...'apparently they have to be found on the continent.' Oh tut tut, what a blow! No Duke in Oz? Heavens.. a bloke called Richardson has found THE REAL MONARCH OF ENGLAND in the outback. Personally I think Richardson should have stayed with 'Black Adder'.
Cheers
Joy
Tasmania
Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: Leo van de Pas
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear Tim,
Thanks for pointing this out. It is clearly that information has been mixed
up on the Hull site. Several years ago it was made clear that the Hull site
is not in a hurry to amend errors.
Sadly, the message you so clearly give is : stay away from that site. It is
always good to be aware of what is good and what is bad. The Pole family
has many many descendants to the present, whereas the de La Pole Dukes of
Suffolk, so far, only have been continued via an illegitimate link and only
for a few generations. That line displayed is far from complete and
therefor, yes, possibly, there could be descendants today. However,
apparently they have to be found on the continent.
Again thanks for the warning you gave.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
______________________________
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear Tim ~
I'm afraid you're treating Mr. Webb like a small child. This is so
sad. David doesn't want a chuckle, he wants an answer.
Here is Mr. Webb's question one more time:
"It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth,
sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out and there
were no
living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced the descent till
1672 to
Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the White Rose 5th Duke. Are
there
definitely no living descendants?"
If you know the answer to the question, please reply. If not, let
someone else more qualified and knowledgeable than you answer Mr.
Webb's question. Please, no more games, Tim. A courteous reply will
suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
:
I'm afraid you're treating Mr. Webb like a small child. This is so
sad. David doesn't want a chuckle, he wants an answer.
Here is Mr. Webb's question one more time:
"It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth,
sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out and there
were no
living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced the descent till
1672 to
Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the White Rose 5th Duke. Are
there
definitely no living descendants?"
If you know the answer to the question, please reply. If not, let
someone else more qualified and knowledgeable than you answer Mr.
Webb's question. Please, no more games, Tim. A courteous reply will
suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
:
-
David Webb
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
this has got nothing to do with my question
""joy mceldowney"" <pompey27@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:001101c508bb$cd052460$c787a4cb@desk...
party right here, in Piersons Point, Tasmania, south of Hobart!!! He has a
vineyard down the road from us. A nice lilttle fellow who first asked me if
I was a Pom and, not being a coward I replied that, indeed, I was. Then came
the information. No, I didn't get his name I was wondering if a curtsy was
appropriate but even more interested in his nice little wife doing a 'Cherie
Blair' by draping herself around her bloke as he spoke of his title. ..we'd
all had a few by then. However, Leo, if you'd like to know his name I guess
my grape-growing neighbour will let me have it...they have a 'Get-together'
every Friday evening to discuss and 'taste' their Boutique wines! (No, no,
we don't grow grapes, too much like hard yakka, we just drink the stuff)
found THE REAL MONARCH OF ENGLAND in the outback. Personally I think
Richardson should have stayed with 'Black Adder'.
""joy mceldowney"" <pompey27@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:001101c508bb$cd052460$c787a4cb@desk...
G'day Leo
I was interested in your comment that the Duke of Suffolk's ancestors
can be traced to this day. Well, I've met THE REAL DUKE OF SUFFOLK, at a
party right here, in Piersons Point, Tasmania, south of Hobart!!! He has a
vineyard down the road from us. A nice lilttle fellow who first asked me if
I was a Pom and, not being a coward I replied that, indeed, I was. Then came
the information. No, I didn't get his name I was wondering if a curtsy was
appropriate but even more interested in his nice little wife doing a 'Cherie
Blair' by draping herself around her bloke as he spoke of his title. ..we'd
all had a few by then. However, Leo, if you'd like to know his name I guess
my grape-growing neighbour will let me have it...they have a 'Get-together'
every Friday evening to discuss and 'taste' their Boutique wines! (No, no,
we don't grow grapes, too much like hard yakka, we just drink the stuff)
You wrote...'apparently they have to be found on the continent.' Oh
tut tut, what a blow! No Duke in Oz? Heavens.. a bloke called Richardson has
found THE REAL MONARCH OF ENGLAND in the outback. Personally I think
Richardson should have stayed with 'Black Adder'.
Cheers
Joy
Tasmania
Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: Leo van de Pas
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear Tim,
Thanks for pointing this out. It is clearly that information has been
mixed
up on the Hull site. Several years ago it was made clear that the Hull
site
is not in a hurry to amend errors.
Sadly, the message you so clearly give is : stay away from that site. It
is
always good to be aware of what is good and what is bad. The Pole
family
has many many descendants to the present, whereas the de La Pole Dukes
of
Suffolk, so far, only have been continued via an illegitimate link and
only
for a few generations. That line displayed is far from complete and
therefor, yes, possibly, there could be descendants today. However,
apparently they have to be found on the continent.
Again thanks for the warning you gave.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 31 Jan, "David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole
the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?
If you want a laugh, go to this page for a Pole duke of Suffolk on the
Hull "Royal" site:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedl ... ?royal2275
If you follow the line of the eldest heirs you will find a line
leading
to the present day. (The site seems a bit slow currently, though.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
______________________________
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
David Webb wrote:
Bingo, David. You're getting the point. They don't want to answer
your question. They'd rather play games with you. This is so sad.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
This has got nothing to do with my question
""joy mceldowney"" <pompe...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:001101c508bb$cd052460$c787a4cb@desk...
Bingo, David. You're getting the point. They don't want to answer
your question. They'd rather play games with you. This is so sad.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
David Webb
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Douglas, the statement in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of John
de la Pole died out seems according to Leo's post to have been premature.
What do you think? It is just no one has bothered to trace that line, not
that it definitely died out.
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107318601.844372.255610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
de la Pole died out seems according to Leo's post to have been premature.
What do you think? It is just no one has bothered to trace that line, not
that it definitely died out.
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107318601.844372.255610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Webb wrote:
This has got nothing to do with my question
""joy mceldowney"" <pompe...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:001101c508bb$cd052460$c787a4cb@desk...
Bingo, David. You're getting the point. They don't want to answer
your question. They'd rather play games with you. This is so sad.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 2 Feb, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
As I have written before, you are not addressing this to me, this is
hypocrisy to pretend you are doing so. If you were to wish to do so,
you would have written privately. As you have written publicly, I am
replying publicly with no specific addressing.
Let's continue to be courteous? Let's not treat others as children by
lecturing them at length on perceived offences?
This group is one for discussing medieval genealogy. A question was
asked on medieval genealogy. A slightly humorous answer was given,
with a clear statement that it was humorous. The answer nevertheless
was on topic for the newsgroup and made a contribution to providing
correct genealogy. What is wrong with that?
Like all discussion groups people make points and others respond.
Sometimes the response breaks the exchange out of the mould and broadens
it out. Sometimes the response gives some light relief. But this is
what good discussion groups are about. You get exactly the same thing in
the correspondence columns of a newspaper.
But I would question whether long and sanctimonious strictures about
the conduct of someone else is on topic.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Tim ~
As I have written before, you are not addressing this to me, this is
hypocrisy to pretend you are doing so. If you were to wish to do so,
you would have written privately. As you have written publicly, I am
replying publicly with no specific addressing.
I'm afraid you're treating Mr. Webb like a small child. This is so
sad. David doesn't want a chuckle, he wants an answer.
Here is Mr. Webb's question one more time:
"It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth,
sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out and there
were no
living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced the descent till
1672 to
Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the White Rose 5th Duke. Are
there
definitely no living descendants?"
If you know the answer to the question, please reply. If not, let
someone else more qualified and knowledgeable than you answer Mr.
Webb's question. Please, no more games, Tim.
A courteous reply will suffice.
Let's continue to be courteous? Let's not treat others as children by
lecturing them at length on perceived offences?
This group is one for discussing medieval genealogy. A question was
asked on medieval genealogy. A slightly humorous answer was given,
with a clear statement that it was humorous. The answer nevertheless
was on topic for the newsgroup and made a contribution to providing
correct genealogy. What is wrong with that?
Like all discussion groups people make points and others respond.
Sometimes the response breaks the exchange out of the mould and broadens
it out. Sometimes the response gives some light relief. But this is
what good discussion groups are about. You get exactly the same thing in
the correspondence columns of a newspaper.
But I would question whether long and sanctimonious strictures about
the conduct of someone else is on topic.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter Stewart
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:d068d7364d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
<snip>
Well, after his swingeing criticisism of others for supposedly failing to
answer satisfactorily, now that Douglas Richardson personally has been asked
a direct question by David Webb, one to which he must know the answer ("What
do you think?"), we will no doubt get the benefit of his collegial, serious
and informative response.
Peter Stewart
news:d068d7364d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 2 Feb, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Tim ~
<snip>
If you know the answer to the question, please reply. If not, let
someone else more qualified and knowledgeable than you answer Mr.
Webb's question. Please, no more games, Tim.
<snip>
But I would question whether long and sanctimonious strictures about
the conduct of someone else is on topic.
Well, after his swingeing criticisism of others for supposedly failing to
answer satisfactorily, now that Douglas Richardson personally has been asked
a direct question by David Webb, one to which he must know the answer ("What
do you think?"), we will no doubt get the benefit of his collegial, serious
and informative response.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Mr. Webb's question was an honest one. I will repeat it again for Tim,
Leo, and now for Peter. The question concerns Richard de la Pole "the
White Rose" and his alleged descendants.
"It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?" END
OF QUOTE.
Tim, Leo, and Peter are playing games with Mr. Webb. This is so sad.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Leo, and now for Peter. The question concerns Richard de la Pole "the
White Rose" and his alleged descendants.
"It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?" END
OF QUOTE.
Tim, Leo, and Peter are playing games with Mr. Webb. This is so sad.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In a message dated 02/02/2005 18:00:13 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?" END
Its is François de BUADE
Am I the peter involved or is it another?Methinks it is another.......
regards
Peter de loriol
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?" END
Its is François de BUADE
Am I the peter involved or is it another?Methinks it is another.......
regards
Peter de loriol
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear David ~
If you examine the various sources cited in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004), you will find that the line of John de la Pole appears
to have died out. Specifically, regarding the lack of issue of his
son, Richard de la Pole "the White Rose," there is an excellent article
on him in Ricardian 7 (1985-87): 18-25. The article is entitled
"The Mystery of Richard de la Pole." The author is Barrie Williams.
Mr. Williams found no evidence that Richard de la Pole ever married, or
had children. In 1519 Richard is known to have seduced the wife of a
worthy goldsmith of Metz, a certain Nicholas Sébille. Mr. Williams
states the following regarding this matter: "This amour (which put his
biographer in mind of the adventures of Edward IV) caused a public
scandal. Richard seems to have regarded it all as a passing flight of
fancy, and left Metz for Toul."
Williams cites as his source: F. des Robert, Un pensionnaire des rois
de France à Metz (Nancy 1878) (n. 10), pp. 28-31.
On the other hand, John de la Pole's sister, Anne de la Pole, wife of
Gaillard du Fort IV, seigneur of Duras, does have traceable
descendants. You can find information on her family in the following
sources:
Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 5 (1730): 734. Beltz,
Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (1841): clxiii, clxv
(footnote 3). Vallet de Viriville, Hist. de Charles VII 3 (1865): 229.
Durand, La Maison de Durfort à l'Époque Moderne (1975): 28-30.
Peña, Docs. sur la Maison de Durfort (XIe-XVe Siècle) (1977). TG 4
(1983): 131-136. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln 10 (1986):
113 (sub Durfort). Archives Historiques de Département de la Gironde
7 (1865): 444-446; 16 (1878): 258-259.
Likewise, there are modern descendants of John de la Pole's bastard
sister, Joan (or Jane) de la Pole, wife of Thomas Stonor, Esq., of
Stonor (in Pyrton), Oxfordshire. You can find information on this
family and their descendants in the following sources:
Burke, Dict. of the Peerages... Extinct, Dormant, and in Abeyance
(1831): 435-438. Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 2 (1834): 440-441.
Harvey et al., Vis. of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 & 1574 (H.S.P. 5)
(1871): 143-144 (Stonor pedigree: "Thomas Stoner, armiger. Johanni filia naturalis ... Delapole, ducis Suffolciæ."). Cal. IPMs
Henry VII 1 (1898): 436. VCH Buckingham 2 (1908): 321-322 (Stonor
arms: Azure two bars dancetty or and a chief argent). Kingsford Stonor
Letters & Papers 1290-1483 1 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 29) (1919):
128-129 (Thomas styled "cousin" by Lady Katherine Arundell (née
Chidiock)). Wedgwood, Hist. of Parliament 1 (1936): 814-815 (biog.
of Thomas Stonor). Lamborn, Armorial Glass of the Oxford Diocese
(1949): 65-70, 86, 125-127. Stonor, Stonor (1952): 131 ([Edward]
Langford styled "cousin" by Joan Stonor in 1463). VCH Oxford 8
(1964): 154. Chancery Miscellanea Vol. III (List & Index Soc. 26)
(1967): 43-59. Jones, Gentry and Lesser Nobility in Late Medieval
Europe (1986): 68-70. Roskell, House of Commons 1386-1421 4
(1992): 483-485 (biog. of Thomas Stonor).
I note above that Joan (de la Pole) Stonor referred to Edward Langford
as her cousin in 1463. As such, there appears to have been an
interesting link between her and the other Richard Pole, husband of the
well known Margaret Plantagenet, whose hitherto unknown first wife was
Alice, daughter of Edward Langford. You can find Alice (Langford) Pole
mentioned in the archives of the newsgroup and also in my book sub
POLE.
I trust this answers your question. My delay in answering was required
by the need to find a copy of the Williams article published in the
Ricardian journal which I have cited above. Before I replied, I wanted
to make sure that I quoted Mr. Williams exactly as to his statements
regarding Richard de la Pole's lack of surviving posterity.
Feel free to contact me anytime, David. It's always a pleasure
exchanging posts with you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
If you examine the various sources cited in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004), you will find that the line of John de la Pole appears
to have died out. Specifically, regarding the lack of issue of his
son, Richard de la Pole "the White Rose," there is an excellent article
on him in Ricardian 7 (1985-87): 18-25. The article is entitled
"The Mystery of Richard de la Pole." The author is Barrie Williams.
Mr. Williams found no evidence that Richard de la Pole ever married, or
had children. In 1519 Richard is known to have seduced the wife of a
worthy goldsmith of Metz, a certain Nicholas Sébille. Mr. Williams
states the following regarding this matter: "This amour (which put his
biographer in mind of the adventures of Edward IV) caused a public
scandal. Richard seems to have regarded it all as a passing flight of
fancy, and left Metz for Toul."
Williams cites as his source: F. des Robert, Un pensionnaire des rois
de France à Metz (Nancy 1878) (n. 10), pp. 28-31.
On the other hand, John de la Pole's sister, Anne de la Pole, wife of
Gaillard du Fort IV, seigneur of Duras, does have traceable
descendants. You can find information on her family in the following
sources:
Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 5 (1730): 734. Beltz,
Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (1841): clxiii, clxv
(footnote 3). Vallet de Viriville, Hist. de Charles VII 3 (1865): 229.
Durand, La Maison de Durfort à l'Époque Moderne (1975): 28-30.
Peña, Docs. sur la Maison de Durfort (XIe-XVe Siècle) (1977). TG 4
(1983): 131-136. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln 10 (1986):
113 (sub Durfort). Archives Historiques de Département de la Gironde
7 (1865): 444-446; 16 (1878): 258-259.
Likewise, there are modern descendants of John de la Pole's bastard
sister, Joan (or Jane) de la Pole, wife of Thomas Stonor, Esq., of
Stonor (in Pyrton), Oxfordshire. You can find information on this
family and their descendants in the following sources:
Burke, Dict. of the Peerages... Extinct, Dormant, and in Abeyance
(1831): 435-438. Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 2 (1834): 440-441.
Harvey et al., Vis. of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 & 1574 (H.S.P. 5)
(1871): 143-144 (Stonor pedigree: "Thomas Stoner, armiger. Johanni filia naturalis ... Delapole, ducis Suffolciæ."). Cal. IPMs
Henry VII 1 (1898): 436. VCH Buckingham 2 (1908): 321-322 (Stonor
arms: Azure two bars dancetty or and a chief argent). Kingsford Stonor
Letters & Papers 1290-1483 1 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 29) (1919):
128-129 (Thomas styled "cousin" by Lady Katherine Arundell (née
Chidiock)). Wedgwood, Hist. of Parliament 1 (1936): 814-815 (biog.
of Thomas Stonor). Lamborn, Armorial Glass of the Oxford Diocese
(1949): 65-70, 86, 125-127. Stonor, Stonor (1952): 131 ([Edward]
Langford styled "cousin" by Joan Stonor in 1463). VCH Oxford 8
(1964): 154. Chancery Miscellanea Vol. III (List & Index Soc. 26)
(1967): 43-59. Jones, Gentry and Lesser Nobility in Late Medieval
Europe (1986): 68-70. Roskell, House of Commons 1386-1421 4
(1992): 483-485 (biog. of Thomas Stonor).
I note above that Joan (de la Pole) Stonor referred to Edward Langford
as her cousin in 1463. As such, there appears to have been an
interesting link between her and the other Richard Pole, husband of the
well known Margaret Plantagenet, whose hitherto unknown first wife was
Alice, daughter of Edward Langford. You can find Alice (Langford) Pole
mentioned in the archives of the newsgroup and also in my book sub
POLE.
I trust this answers your question. My delay in answering was required
by the need to find a copy of the Williams article published in the
Ricardian journal which I have cited above. Before I replied, I wanted
to make sure that I quoted Mr. Williams exactly as to his statements
regarding Richard de la Pole's lack of surviving posterity.
Feel free to contact me anytime, David. It's always a pleasure
exchanging posts with you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 2 Feb, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Again there is this accusation of playing games with an individual who
subscribes to this newsgroup. This is manifestly untrue, my comments
were addressed to the whole newsgroup not to one individual. Further,
as I have made very clear, they were a deliberate and stated piece of
levity about some other, related but incorrect, public data which leads
to farcical conclusions. This was not playing games with an individual
in this newsgroup.
I am astonished that the (possibly weak) humour of my contribution
cannot be seen. This is so sad.
Further it is noteworthy that this assertion, about playing games, is
made without producing the evidence in the normal method of discussion
on a newsgroup. My previous statements, restating the obvious, have
been ignored and no arguments or points made about them. I think it is
arrogant to make assertions about another without listening to the
points made by that other person. It is also so sad.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Mr. Webb's question was an honest one. I will repeat it again for Tim,
Leo, and now for Peter. The question concerns Richard de la Pole "the
White Rose" and his alleged descendants.
"It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?" END
OF QUOTE.
Tim, Leo, and Peter are playing games with Mr. Webb. This is so sad.
Again there is this accusation of playing games with an individual who
subscribes to this newsgroup. This is manifestly untrue, my comments
were addressed to the whole newsgroup not to one individual. Further,
as I have made very clear, they were a deliberate and stated piece of
levity about some other, related but incorrect, public data which leads
to farcical conclusions. This was not playing games with an individual
in this newsgroup.
I am astonished that the (possibly weak) humour of my contribution
cannot be seen. This is so sad.
Further it is noteworthy that this assertion, about playing games, is
made without producing the evidence in the normal method of discussion
on a newsgroup. My previous statements, restating the obvious, have
been ignored and no arguments or points made about them. I think it is
arrogant to make assertions about another without listening to the
points made by that other person. It is also so sad.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear Tim ~
Mr. Webb didn't ask for a chuckle (at Mr. Tompsett's expense, I might
add). He asked for information on the de la Pole family. It was a
simple, straightforward, and honest question.
This is now the sixth time you have replied to Mr. Webb's post and
still have not answered his question. This is so sad. I'm going to
need a box of kleenex soon to dry all my tears.
Just teasing you, Tim.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Mr. Webb didn't ask for a chuckle (at Mr. Tompsett's expense, I might
add). He asked for information on the de la Pole family. It was a
simple, straightforward, and honest question.
This is now the sixth time you have replied to Mr. Webb's post and
still have not answered his question. This is so sad. I'm going to
need a box of kleenex soon to dry all my tears.
Just teasing you, Tim.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107366616.907395.112380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
First, playing games is not usually thought to be sad.
Secondly, no-one is playing with David Webb here except Douglas Richardson,
who thinks there is something to gain from unwarranted criticism of Tim and
Leo.
David asked "Are there definitely no living descendants?" and Leo replied
"Yes, possibly, there could be descendants today. However, apparently they
have to be found on the continent".
Tim added a sidelight on the question, offered for amusement as well as
instruction.
For some reason David complained that subsequent posts were not direct
answers to him, as if he had proprietorial rights over a subject that he
raised publicly. Douglas Richardson still insisted that Leo & others were
playing games, when obviously enough none of the respondents was able to say
"definitely yes"or "no", and none of them was phoney enough to dissemble
about it.
Then David asked Douglas Richardson "What do you think"? And Douglas
Richardson has taken time out in order to inform us all what Barrie Williams
thought, and to dump yet another list of secondary sources on the newsgroup.
But still we don't get a straight answer to a direct question, beyond the
tedious, unhelpful, uncollegial and constant refrain "If you examine the
various sources cited in my book".
So, once more, the question that Richardson found so precious was "Are there
definitely no living descendants?" NB NOT "Did Barrie Williams find any
evidence of children, or opine about this despite finding evidence that
Richard played at seduction?", but "Are there definitely no living
descendants"? and later "What do you think?"
Richardson's failure to answer is not playing games, it is bare-faced
hypocrisy. This is so sad.
Peter Stewart
news:1107366616.907395.112380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Webb's question was an honest one. I will repeat it again for Tim,
Leo, and now for Peter. The question concerns Richard de la Pole "the
White Rose" and his alleged descendants.
"It was stated in Plantagenet Ancestry that the descendants of
Elizabeth, sister of Edward IV, who married John de la Pole died out
and there were no living descendants. But Leo van der Pas has traced
the descent till 1672 to Francois de Baude via Richard de la Pole the
White Rose 5th Duke. Are there definitely no living descendants?" END
OF QUOTE.
Tim, Leo, and Peter are playing games with Mr. Webb. This is so sad.
First, playing games is not usually thought to be sad.
Secondly, no-one is playing with David Webb here except Douglas Richardson,
who thinks there is something to gain from unwarranted criticism of Tim and
Leo.
David asked "Are there definitely no living descendants?" and Leo replied
"Yes, possibly, there could be descendants today. However, apparently they
have to be found on the continent".
Tim added a sidelight on the question, offered for amusement as well as
instruction.
For some reason David complained that subsequent posts were not direct
answers to him, as if he had proprietorial rights over a subject that he
raised publicly. Douglas Richardson still insisted that Leo & others were
playing games, when obviously enough none of the respondents was able to say
"definitely yes"or "no", and none of them was phoney enough to dissemble
about it.
Then David asked Douglas Richardson "What do you think"? And Douglas
Richardson has taken time out in order to inform us all what Barrie Williams
thought, and to dump yet another list of secondary sources on the newsgroup.
But still we don't get a straight answer to a direct question, beyond the
tedious, unhelpful, uncollegial and constant refrain "If you examine the
various sources cited in my book".
So, once more, the question that Richardson found so precious was "Are there
definitely no living descendants?" NB NOT "Did Barrie Williams find any
evidence of children, or opine about this despite finding evidence that
Richard played at seduction?", but "Are there definitely no living
descendants"? and later "What do you think?"
Richardson's failure to answer is not playing games, it is bare-faced
hypocrisy. This is so sad.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
In message of 2 Feb, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Again, you are addressing me personally. If you were you would have
sent me a private e-mail.
What has to be remembered is that I originally gave the amendment to Mr
Tompsett privately at least seven years ago. I reminded him of it in
1999. He replied that he did not handle such corrections. The error
has been repeated in all subsequent rebuilds of this Hull University
site. I think it is fair to remark on this site with some hilarity.
Mind you it may be not be correct to assert that he has responsibility
for the data so a chuckle at that site cannot be at his expense, only
at the site's expense.
So it is legitimate to tease someone but not legitimate to have a
laugh. Weird.
This is not a reply, again, to the points that I have made so I am
closing this sad (lack of) exchange.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Tim ~
Again, you are addressing me personally. If you were you would have
sent me a private e-mail.
Mr. Webb didn't ask for a chuckle (at Mr. Tompsett's expense, I might
add).
What has to be remembered is that I originally gave the amendment to Mr
Tompsett privately at least seven years ago. I reminded him of it in
1999. He replied that he did not handle such corrections. The error
has been repeated in all subsequent rebuilds of this Hull University
site. I think it is fair to remark on this site with some hilarity.
Mind you it may be not be correct to assert that he has responsibility
for the data so a chuckle at that site cannot be at his expense, only
at the site's expense.
He asked for information on the de la Pole family. It was a simple,
straightforward, and honest question.
This is now the sixth time you have replied to Mr. Webb's post and
still have not answered his question. This is so sad. I'm going to
need a box of kleenex soon to dry all my tears.
Just teasing you, Tim.
So it is legitimate to tease someone but not legitimate to have a
laugh. Weird.
This is not a reply, again, to the points that I have made so I am
closing this sad (lack of) exchange.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
CED
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Dear Mr. Richardson,
I was quite pleased with your response to Mr. Webb's inquiry regarding
descendants of John de la Pole. It appears to be definitive. However,
I do have a question about your method for citing authorities.
In my experience, each item for which authority is cited is given
specifically. (example: so-and-so was born xxx; authority) It appears
that you aggregate all citations on a subject together in a single,
sometimes lengthy, paragraph; thus forcing the following writers either
to search out each of the sources supplied in your paragraph in order
to find that which is appropriate or to cite you as the authority. The
later would be inappropriate because we (as least, I) do not know your
qualifications or have experience with your handling the sources you
cite. I know of students who were very good about citations of
authority in the technical sense, but who were less than competent when
it came to interpreting the authorites cited.
You could be more helpful if you would break out the citations so that
each fact stated would be accompanied by the appropriate citation.
Best wishes,
CED
I was quite pleased with your response to Mr. Webb's inquiry regarding
descendants of John de la Pole. It appears to be definitive. However,
I do have a question about your method for citing authorities.
In my experience, each item for which authority is cited is given
specifically. (example: so-and-so was born xxx; authority) It appears
that you aggregate all citations on a subject together in a single,
sometimes lengthy, paragraph; thus forcing the following writers either
to search out each of the sources supplied in your paragraph in order
to find that which is appropriate or to cite you as the authority. The
later would be inappropriate because we (as least, I) do not know your
qualifications or have experience with your handling the sources you
cite. I know of students who were very good about citations of
authority in the technical sense, but who were less than competent when
it came to interpreting the authorites cited.
You could be more helpful if you would break out the citations so that
each fact stated would be accompanied by the appropriate citation.
Best wishes,
CED
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Peter Stewart wrote:
Yes, I know how sad it is for you, Peter. Tragic even. I'm pulling my
violin out and playing it for you right now.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
This is so sad.
Peter Stewart
Yes, I know how sad it is for you, Peter. Tragic even. I'm pulling my
violin out and playing it for you right now.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107418206.102900.287040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
And Richardson thought this parody of his own words, along with his
(extremely wet) damp squib, worth drawing to the attention of three
newsgroups!
His total lack of judgement is, indeed, sad.
Peter Stewart
news:1107418206.102900.287040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This is so sad.
Peter Stewart
Yes, I know how sad it is for you, Peter. Tragic even. I'm pulling my
violin out and playing it for you right now.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
And Richardson thought this parody of his own words, along with his
(extremely wet) damp squib, worth drawing to the attention of three
newsgroups!
His total lack of judgement is, indeed, sad.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Did you say something, Peter?
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107418206.102900.287040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This is so sad.
Peter Stewart
Yes, I know how sad it is for you, Peter. Tragic even. I'm
pulling my
violin out and playing it for you right now.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
And Richardson thought this parody of his own words, along with his
(extremely wet) damp squib, worth drawing to the attention of three
newsgroups!
His total lack of judgement is, indeed, sad.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
DR
Do you ever say anything? When do you stop messing about? Or is it so
important to you to have the last word?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Do you ever say anything? When do you stop messing about? Or is it so
important to you to have the last word?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Did you say something, Peter?
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107418206.102900.287040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This is so sad.
Peter Stewart
Yes, I know how sad it is for you, Peter. Tragic even. I'm
pulling my
violin out and playing it for you right now.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
And Richardson thought this parody of his own words, along with his
(extremely wet) damp squib, worth drawing to the attention of three
newsgroups!
His total lack of judgement is, indeed, sad.
Peter Stewart
______________________________
-
Gjest
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
On 3 Feb 2005 00:10:06 -0800, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Can you children please confine your little pissing contests to your own
playpen?
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
This is so sad.
Peter Stewart
Yes, I know how sad it is for you, Peter. Tragic even. I'm pulling my
violin out and playing it for you right now.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Can you children please confine your little pissing contests to your own
playpen?
-
David Webb
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
Thank you! There are descendants then!
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107368698.164698.74870@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear David ~
If you examine the various sources cited in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004), you will find that the line of John de la Pole appears
to have died out. Specifically, regarding the lack of issue of his
son, Richard de la Pole "the White Rose," there is an excellent article
on him in Ricardian 7 (1985-87): 18-25. The article is entitled
"The Mystery of Richard de la Pole." The author is Barrie Williams.
Mr. Williams found no evidence that Richard de la Pole ever married, or
had children. In 1519 Richard is known to have seduced the wife of a
worthy goldsmith of Metz, a certain Nicholas Sébille. Mr. Williams
states the following regarding this matter: "This amour (which put his
biographer in mind of the adventures of Edward IV) caused a public
scandal. Richard seems to have regarded it all as a passing flight of
fancy, and left Metz for Toul."
Williams cites as his source: F. des Robert, Un pensionnaire des rois
de France à Metz (Nancy 1878) (n. 10), pp. 28-31.
On the other hand, John de la Pole's sister, Anne de la Pole, wife of
Gaillard du Fort IV, seigneur of Duras, does have traceable
descendants. You can find information on her family in the following
sources:
Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 5 (1730): 734. Beltz,
Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (1841): clxiii, clxv
(footnote 3). Vallet de Viriville, Hist. de Charles VII 3 (1865): 229.
Durand, La Maison de Durfort à l'Époque Moderne (1975): 28-30.
Peña, Docs. sur la Maison de Durfort (XIe-XVe Siècle) (1977). TG 4
(1983): 131-136. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln 10 (1986):
113 (sub Durfort). Archives Historiques de Département de la Gironde
7 (1865): 444-446; 16 (1878): 258-259.
Likewise, there are modern descendants of John de la Pole's bastard
sister, Joan (or Jane) de la Pole, wife of Thomas Stonor, Esq., of
Stonor (in Pyrton), Oxfordshire. You can find information on this
family and their descendants in the following sources:
Burke, Dict. of the Peerages... Extinct, Dormant, and in Abeyance
(1831): 435-438. Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 2 (1834): 440-441.
Harvey et al., Vis. of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 & 1574 (H.S.P. 5)
(1871): 143-144 (Stonor pedigree: "Thomas Stoner, armiger. =
Johanni filia naturalis ... Delapole, ducis Suffolciæ."). Cal. IPMs
Henry VII 1 (1898): 436. VCH Buckingham 2 (1908): 321-322 (Stonor
arms: Azure two bars dancetty or and a chief argent). Kingsford Stonor
Letters & Papers 1290-1483 1 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 29) (1919):
128-129 (Thomas styled "cousin" by Lady Katherine Arundell (née
Chidiock)). Wedgwood, Hist. of Parliament 1 (1936): 814-815 (biog.
of Thomas Stonor). Lamborn, Armorial Glass of the Oxford Diocese
(1949): 65-70, 86, 125-127. Stonor, Stonor (1952): 131 ([Edward]
Langford styled "cousin" by Joan Stonor in 1463). VCH Oxford 8
(1964): 154. Chancery Miscellanea Vol. III (List & Index Soc. 26)
(1967): 43-59. Jones, Gentry and Lesser Nobility in Late Medieval
Europe (1986): 68-70. Roskell, House of Commons 1386-1421 4
(1992): 483-485 (biog. of Thomas Stonor).
I note above that Joan (de la Pole) Stonor referred to Edward Langford
as her cousin in 1463. As such, there appears to have been an
interesting link between her and the other Richard Pole, husband of the
well known Margaret Plantagenet, whose hitherto unknown first wife was
Alice, daughter of Edward Langford. You can find Alice (Langford) Pole
mentioned in the archives of the newsgroup and also in my book sub
POLE.
I trust this answers your question. My delay in answering was required
by the need to find a copy of the Williams article published in the
Ricardian journal which I have cited above. Before I replied, I wanted
to make sure that I quoted Mr. Williams exactly as to his statements
regarding Richard de la Pole's lack of surviving posterity.
Feel free to contact me anytime, David. It's always a pleasure
exchanging posts with you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107368698.164698.74870@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear David ~
If you examine the various sources cited in my book, Plantagenet
Ancestry (2004), you will find that the line of John de la Pole appears
to have died out. Specifically, regarding the lack of issue of his
son, Richard de la Pole "the White Rose," there is an excellent article
on him in Ricardian 7 (1985-87): 18-25. The article is entitled
"The Mystery of Richard de la Pole." The author is Barrie Williams.
Mr. Williams found no evidence that Richard de la Pole ever married, or
had children. In 1519 Richard is known to have seduced the wife of a
worthy goldsmith of Metz, a certain Nicholas Sébille. Mr. Williams
states the following regarding this matter: "This amour (which put his
biographer in mind of the adventures of Edward IV) caused a public
scandal. Richard seems to have regarded it all as a passing flight of
fancy, and left Metz for Toul."
Williams cites as his source: F. des Robert, Un pensionnaire des rois
de France à Metz (Nancy 1878) (n. 10), pp. 28-31.
On the other hand, John de la Pole's sister, Anne de la Pole, wife of
Gaillard du Fort IV, seigneur of Duras, does have traceable
descendants. You can find information on her family in the following
sources:
Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 5 (1730): 734. Beltz,
Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (1841): clxiii, clxv
(footnote 3). Vallet de Viriville, Hist. de Charles VII 3 (1865): 229.
Durand, La Maison de Durfort à l'Époque Moderne (1975): 28-30.
Peña, Docs. sur la Maison de Durfort (XIe-XVe Siècle) (1977). TG 4
(1983): 131-136. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln 10 (1986):
113 (sub Durfort). Archives Historiques de Département de la Gironde
7 (1865): 444-446; 16 (1878): 258-259.
Likewise, there are modern descendants of John de la Pole's bastard
sister, Joan (or Jane) de la Pole, wife of Thomas Stonor, Esq., of
Stonor (in Pyrton), Oxfordshire. You can find information on this
family and their descendants in the following sources:
Burke, Dict. of the Peerages... Extinct, Dormant, and in Abeyance
(1831): 435-438. Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 2 (1834): 440-441.
Harvey et al., Vis. of Oxford 1566, 1574, 1634 & 1574 (H.S.P. 5)
(1871): 143-144 (Stonor pedigree: "Thomas Stoner, armiger. =
Johanni filia naturalis ... Delapole, ducis Suffolciæ."). Cal. IPMs
Henry VII 1 (1898): 436. VCH Buckingham 2 (1908): 321-322 (Stonor
arms: Azure two bars dancetty or and a chief argent). Kingsford Stonor
Letters & Papers 1290-1483 1 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 29) (1919):
128-129 (Thomas styled "cousin" by Lady Katherine Arundell (née
Chidiock)). Wedgwood, Hist. of Parliament 1 (1936): 814-815 (biog.
of Thomas Stonor). Lamborn, Armorial Glass of the Oxford Diocese
(1949): 65-70, 86, 125-127. Stonor, Stonor (1952): 131 ([Edward]
Langford styled "cousin" by Joan Stonor in 1463). VCH Oxford 8
(1964): 154. Chancery Miscellanea Vol. III (List & Index Soc. 26)
(1967): 43-59. Jones, Gentry and Lesser Nobility in Late Medieval
Europe (1986): 68-70. Roskell, House of Commons 1386-1421 4
(1992): 483-485 (biog. of Thomas Stonor).
I note above that Joan (de la Pole) Stonor referred to Edward Langford
as her cousin in 1463. As such, there appears to have been an
interesting link between her and the other Richard Pole, husband of the
well known Margaret Plantagenet, whose hitherto unknown first wife was
Alice, daughter of Edward Langford. You can find Alice (Langford) Pole
mentioned in the archives of the newsgroup and also in my book sub
POLE.
I trust this answers your question. My delay in answering was required
by the need to find a copy of the Williams article published in the
Ricardian journal which I have cited above. Before I replied, I wanted
to make sure that I quoted Mr. Williams exactly as to his statements
regarding Richard de la Pole's lack of surviving posterity.
Feel free to contact me anytime, David. It's always a pleasure
exchanging posts with you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Did you say something, Leo?
Do you ever say anything? When do you stop messing about? Or is it so
important to you to have the last word?
Did you say something, Leo?
-
Leo van de Pas
OT Richardson continues to behave like an ass Re: de la Pole
I wasn't going to reply to this as it wastes everybody's time. DR have you
become a parrot?
Try to put some genealogy in your inane messages, preferably medieval
genealogy. You trying to throwing so childishly mud around, realise, it only
sticks on you as you display what kind of person you are. Don't try to say
you mean to be humorous because you lack a sense of humour and that has been
known for many a year.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
become a parrot?
Try to put some genealogy in your inane messages, preferably medieval
genealogy. You trying to throwing so childishly mud around, realise, it only
sticks on you as you display what kind of person you are. Don't try to say
you mean to be humorous because you lack a sense of humour and that has been
known for many a year.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Do you ever say anything? When do you stop messing about? Or is it so
important to you to have the last word?
Did you say something, Leo?
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk
David Webb wrote:
Dear David ~
As I stated in my earlier post, English/American sources indicate that
John de la Pole's legitimate sister, Anne (de la Pole) de Durfort, and
his illegitimate sister, Joan (de la Pole) Stonor, both have living
descendants.
If Peter de Loriol is correct, then John de la Pole's son, Richard de
la Pole (nicknamed the White Rose) also has living descendants. I
believe Peter has the documentation to prove his statements. If so,
this would be an important discovery. This new information corrects
Barrie Williams' interesting article on Richard de la Pole which
appeared in the journal, the Ricardian, which source I cited. Mr.
Williams was unable to find a marriage or children for Richard de la
Pole.
It is the joy of the newsgroup when something new turns up to add to
our knowledge. I greatly appreciate Mr. de Loriol sharing his
information with us. He has set an example of collegiality for all
of us. I also appreciate you, David, asking your original question and
waiting patiently for a reply.
If we keep asking questions, and if we work together, then new
discoveries will surely follow.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Thank you! There are descendants then!
Dear David ~
As I stated in my earlier post, English/American sources indicate that
John de la Pole's legitimate sister, Anne (de la Pole) de Durfort, and
his illegitimate sister, Joan (de la Pole) Stonor, both have living
descendants.
If Peter de Loriol is correct, then John de la Pole's son, Richard de
la Pole (nicknamed the White Rose) also has living descendants. I
believe Peter has the documentation to prove his statements. If so,
this would be an important discovery. This new information corrects
Barrie Williams' interesting article on Richard de la Pole which
appeared in the journal, the Ricardian, which source I cited. Mr.
Williams was unable to find a marriage or children for Richard de la
Pole.
It is the joy of the newsgroup when something new turns up to add to
our knowledge. I greatly appreciate Mr. de Loriol sharing his
information with us. He has set an example of collegiality for all
of us. I also appreciate you, David, asking your original question and
waiting patiently for a reply.
If we keep asking questions, and if we work together, then new
discoveries will surely follow.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net