Check out RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of Pet

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Check out RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of Pet

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 mar 2005 04:01:01

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of Peter Stanley, Esq. (d.1592)
of Moor Hall and Bickerstaffe._
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1109581973)


Thank you for the clarification on Anne Blundell's identity. You seem to
have added a number of sources for identifying the Peter Stanley family since
the publication of your book. I am aware of the baptism and marriage record
for Anne Stanley in Ormskirk but since neither identified her parentage that
left a little open to interpretation. After discovering the reference of Anne
Blundvell (sic) as a daughter of Peter Stanley, I was confused by the two
different identifications for Peter's daughter Anne since they obviously
referred to two separate individuals. I was trying to make sense out of the
sources I had at hand. I appreciate your expertise and help in this matter.

While I have you on the line, may I ask another question about the Stanley
family? In your recent book you state that Alice de Hoghton was a second wife
of William Stanley of Hooton, and not the mother of his son William. But
there are two charters at the John Rylands Library at Manchester University
that indicate that she is the mother of his son and heir William. One from 1465
[ref. RYCH/1677] states Alicia Stanley was the widow of William Stanley of
Hooton and mother of the next William. Another from 1510 [ref. RYCH/1678]
called William Stanley of Hooton kinsman and heir of Henry Hoghton, esq. (namely
the son of Alicia, sister of Henry). Can you help me make sense of these
items that contradict what is published in your book? I greatly appreciate
your assistance.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Check out RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 02 mar 2005 16:36:56

ToddWhitesides@aol.com wrote:
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of Peter Stanley, Esq.
(d.1592)
of Moor Hall and Bickerstaffe._

(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1109581973)


While I have you on the line, may I ask another question about the
Stanley
family?

While you have me on the line? Ha - you must think I'm a fish. Don't
think so, Todd. "Grin."

I recommend you get my new Magna Carta Ancestry book. I believe it
will answer your questions on the Stanley family. I've added new
material to the section on the Stanley, Sutton, and Eltonhead families.
I've also acknowledged you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Check out RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 03 mar 2005 06:06:31

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
ToddWhitesides@aol.com wrote:

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of Peter Stanley, Esq.

(d.1592)

of Moor Hall and Bickerstaffe._


(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1109581973)


While I have you on the line, may I ask another question about the

Stanley

family?


I recommend you get my new Magna Carta Ancestry book. I believe it
will answer your questions on the Stanley family. I've added new
material to the section on the Stanley, Sutton, and Eltonhead families.
I've also acknowledged you.

So does this mean that you accept this correction of Plantagenet
Ancestry - that Alice de Houghton was, in fact, mother of William
de Stanley?

taf

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Check out RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 03 mar 2005 08:22:33

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

So does this mean that you accept this correction of Plantagenet
Ancestry - that Alice de Houghton was, in fact, mother of William
de Stanley?

taf

Nice try, Todd. I'm afraid you're going to have to wait in line like
everyone else for your copy of Magna Carta Ancestry.

In the meantime, I can tell everyone that the manuscript is looking
awesome. It's bigger than Plantagenet Ancestry, better documented,
larger bibliography, and has more extensive index. In short, Kim
Everingham and I have made good use of our time this past year to
produce an even better book than the last one.

The last minute touches are being added right now. I'm VERY happy with
the way things are going. It won't be long now.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Leo van de Pas

Re: Check out RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 mar 2005 08:40:02

Douglas is back to his commercial tricks. He expects everyone to answer his
questions but if you ask him the reply, again, is "buy my book".

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Check out RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of Peter
Stanley, Esq.


Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

So does this mean that you accept this correction of Plantagenet
Ancestry - that Alice de Houghton was, in fact, mother of William
de Stanley?

taf

Nice try, Todd. I'm afraid you're going to have to wait in line like
everyone else for your copy of Magna Carta Ancestry.

In the meantime, I can tell everyone that the manuscript is looking
awesome. It's bigger than Plantagenet Ancestry, better documented,
larger bibliography, and has more extensive index. In short, Kim
Everingham and I have made good use of our time this past year to
produce an even better book than the last one.

The last minute touches are being added right now. I'm VERY happy with
the way things are going. It won't be long now.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Todd A. Farmerie

Correction to Plantagenet Ancestry (was Re: Check out RootsW

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 03 mar 2005 16:07:06

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

So does this mean that you accept this correction of Plantagenet
Ancestry - that Alice de Houghton was, in fact, mother of William
de Stanley?

Nice try, Todd. I'm afraid you're going to have to wait in line like
everyone else for your copy of Magna Carta Ancestry.

Try, nothing. The question was not about the new book, but the
old. In fact, the question was about a medieval genealogical
relationship that you are on record as disagreeing with.
Discussing medieval genealogy is what this list is for, but
instead, all we get from you is "buy my next book", which is not
what this list is for. (I don't suppose it would do any good to
ask what, specifically, was the reference that led to the
conclusion William was not son of Alice?)

Still, I guess this is as close as we are going to get to an
admission of error. Given the nature of the information provided
and the failure to support or defend the original account, it is
fair to enter Mr. Whitesides's information as a correction to
Plantagenet Ancestry.

taf

Gordon Johnson

Re: Check out RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of

Legg inn av Gordon Johnson » 04 mar 2005 17:50:02

ToddWhitesides@aol.com wrote:

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Anne, daughter of Peter Stanley, Esq. (d.1592)
of Moor Hall and Bickerstaffe._
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1109581973)


Thank you for the clarification on Anne Blundell's identity. You seem to
have added a number of sources for identifying the Peter Stanley family since
the publication of your book. I am aware of the baptism and marriage record
for Anne Stanley in Ormskirk but since neither identified her parentage that
left a little open to interpretation. After discovering the reference of Anne
Blundvell (sic) as a daughter of Peter Stanley, I was confused by the two
different identifications for Peter's daughter Anne since they obviously
referred to two separate individuals. I was trying to make sense out of the
sources I had at hand. I appreciate your expertise and help in this matter.

While I have you on the line, may I ask another question about the Stanley
family? In your recent book you state that Alice de Hoghton was a second wife
of William Stanley of Hooton, and not the mother of his son William. But
there are two charters at the John Rylands Library at Manchester University
that indicate that she is the mother of his son and heir William. One from 1465
[ref. RYCH/1677] states Alicia Stanley was the widow of William Stanley of
Hooton and mother of the next William. Another from 1510 [ref. RYCH/1678]
called William Stanley of Hooton kinsman and heir of Henry Hoghton, esq. (namely
the son of Alicia, sister of Henry). Can you help me make sense of these
items that contradict what is published in your book? I greatly appreciate
your assistance.

** A point to note is that a second wife is inclided to start treating

ALL the children as her own. I have an instance in my own tree of a lady
in the 1800s who erected a gravestone in which she refers to "my son",
when in fact he was a son of her husband's first marriage. I am sure
this is not a modern phenomenon!
Gordon Johnson.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Correction to Plantagenet Ancestry (was Re: Check out Ro

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 04 mar 2005 20:18:54

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Try, nothing. The question was not about the new book, but the
old. In fact, the question was about a medieval genealogical
relationship that you are on record as disagreeing with.
Discussing medieval genealogy is what this list is for, but
instead, all we get from you is "buy my next book", which is not
what this list is for. (I don't suppose it would do any good to
ask what, specifically, was the reference that led to the
conclusion William was not son of Alice?)

Still, I guess this is as close as we are going to get to an
admission of error. Given the nature of the information provided
and the failure to support or defend the original account, it is
fair to enter Mr. Whitesides's information as a correction to
Plantagenet Ancestry.

taf

Mr. Farmerie's post reminds of a tactic my former mother-in-law used to
use. She'd said something outrageous about you, and, then when you
failed to deny it, she announced trimphantly that she was right. This
ploy didn't work for her, and it's not working for Todd Farmerie.

At the present time I'm busy finishing my Magna Carta Ancestry book.
As soon as I have more time (in a few weeks), I'll be glad to answer
all of Mr. Whiteside's questions in depth. The issue is not catching
Douglas Richardson or anyone else here on the newsgroup in a
genealogical error. Our goal should be a true and accurate
presentation of the facts of the medieval period, as best we know them.
Having said that, even good scholars disagree on things. If Mr.
Farmerie wants to personalize it, I truly feel sorry for him.

In the meantime, perhaps Mr. Farmerie would be so gracious as to
produce his much ballyhooed Robert Holand document for the newsgroup.
He said he had one, then he slipped away. That's peek and boo
genealogy, folks. I have a friend who says the Holand document will
never see the light of day. Will Farmerie produce the document, or
won't he? I'll guess we'll know soon enough.

They say size matters. So do character and integrity.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Correction to Plantagenet Ancestry (was Re: Check out Ro

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 mar 2005 20:30:02

| Mr. Farmerie's post reminds of a tactic my former mother-in-law used
| to use. She'd say something outrageous about you, and, then when
| you failed to deny it, she announced triumphantly that she was right.
| This ploy didn't work for her, and it's not working for Todd Farmerie.

Yes, it's a standard USENET tactic -- practiced regularly by
flimflammers, frauds and charlatans.

Farmerie is quite fond of it.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109963934.373586.78510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

| Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
| > Try, nothing. The question was not about the new book, but the
| > old. In fact, the question was about a medieval genealogical
| > relationship that you are on record as disagreeing with.
| > Discussing medieval genealogy is what this list is for, but
| > instead, all we get from you is "buy my next book", which is not
| > what this list is for. (I don't suppose it would do any good to
| > ask what, specifically, was the reference that led to the
| > conclusion William was not son of Alice?)
| >
| > Still, I guess this is as close as we are going to get to an
| > admission of error. Given the nature of the information provided
| > and the failure to support or defend the original account, it is
| > fair to enter Mr. Whitesides's information as a correction to
| > Plantagenet Ancestry.
| >
| > taf
|
| Mr. Farmerie's post reminds of a tactic my former mother-in-law used
to
| use. She'd said something outrageous about you, and, then when you
| failed to deny it, she announced trimphantly that she was right. This
| ploy didn't work for her, and it's not working for Todd Farmerie.
|
| At the present time I'm busy finishing my Magna Carta Ancestry book.
| As soon as I have more time (in a few weeks), I'll be glad to answer
| all of Mr. Whiteside's questions in depth. The issue is not catching
| Douglas Richardson or anyone else here on the newsgroup in a
| genealogical error. Our goal should be a true and accurate
| presentation of the facts of the medieval period, as best we know
them.
| Having said that, even good scholars disagree on things. If Mr.
| Farmerie wants to personalize it, I truly feel sorry for him.
|
| In the meantime, perhaps Mr. Farmerie would be so gracious as to
| produce his much ballyhooed Robert Holand document for the newsgroup.
| He said he had one, then he slipped away. That's peek and boo
| genealogy, folks. I have a friend who says the Holand document will
| never see the light of day. Will Farmerie produce the document, or
| won't he? I'll guess we'll know soon enough.
|
| They say size matters. So do character and integrity.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Correction to Plantagenet Ancestry (was Re: Check out Ro

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 mar 2005 21:44:33

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

Try, nothing. The question was not about the new book, but the
old. In fact, the question was about a medieval genealogical
relationship that you are on record as disagreeing with.
Discussing medieval genealogy is what this list is for, but
instead, all we get from you is "buy my next book", which is not
what this list is for. (I don't suppose it would do any good to
ask what, specifically, was the reference that led to the
conclusion William was not son of Alice?)

Still, I guess this is as close as we are going to get to an
admission of error. Given the nature of the information provided
and the failure to support or defend the original account, it is
fair to enter Mr. Whitesides's information as a correction to
Plantagenet Ancestry.

Mr. Farmerie's post reminds of a tactic my former mother-in-law used to
use. She'd said something outrageous about you, and, then when you
failed to deny it, she announced trimphantly that she was right. This
ploy didn't work for her, and it's not working for Todd Farmerie.

If you still have issues with your ex-mother-in-law, this is not the
place too work them out. I asked whether your comment that you were
going to acknowledge Mr. Whitesides in your new book meant that you
accepted his correction of the line you presented in Plantagenet
Ancestry. How dare I ask such a question. "Outrageous" indeed.

At the present time I'm busy finishing my Magna Carta Ancestry book.
As soon as I have more time (in a few weeks), I'll be glad to answer
all of Mr. Whiteside's questions in depth.

Considering how busy you must be, one wonders why you would post 28
lines of material in too posts to explain how you are too busy to post,
and how I am evil for asking, and how everyone should buy your book,
rather than just answering "Yes" or "No" to a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

The issue is not catching
Douglas Richardson or anyone else here on the newsgroup in a
genealogical error. Our goal should be a true and accurate
presentation of the facts of the medieval period, as best we know them.

Yes, exactly, but rather than answer whether you view Mr. Whitesides's
version, and not that presented in Plantagenet Ancestry as a true and
accurate presentation of the facts of the medieval period, as best we
know them," you reply with "nice try" and "something outrageous" and
"buy my book". It is OK to admit that Plantagenet Ancestry might have
an error (it would be a miracle of any work of that size did not) -
people will not think less of you for it, and they may think more.

Having said that, even good scholars disagree on things. If Mr.
Farmerie wants to personalize it, I truly feel sorry for him.

There is nothing personal here - just a genealogical connection in a
book. It just so happens that it is your book, so you seem the obvious
person to solicit for an opinion. It is your conclusion that is being
questioned, so who better to ask? You are, of course, free to refuse an
answer, but if you so choose not to respond (productively - "buy my
book" doesn't count), then others will be forced to reach conclusions
without your input. I reached such a conclusion, based on Mr.
Whitesides's post and the lack of any arguments countering his evidence,
and posted the conclusion (with the Correction heading so that those
keeping a list of corrections to Plantagenet Ancestry would note it,
since it was buried within a thread with a different heading). If you
don't like the conclusion I reached, you can always present counter
arguments, and then we can compare and contrast the relevant strengths
and weaknesses - that is how a discussion group is supposed to work, we
discuss. If you choose to withhold your input, don't pretend it is my
fault for reaching a conclusion without it.

Maybe we just got off on the wrong foot here, so let's start over. Do
you accept Mr. Whitesides's conclusion that, contrary to the line
presented in Plantagenet Ancestry, William de Stanley of Hooton was son
of Alice de Houghton? Yes or No will suffice for now - you can provide
more details as you find the time.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»