I read with interest the excellent information
provided by Douglas Richardson.
Also the jaded criticism of Peter Stewart.
It is true it would be satisfactory if more definative
information was available. However Douglas Richardson
never claimed that status. Regardless the evidence as
given strongly suggests that Isabel was most likely a
Booth.
Excellent Douglas. And congratulations regarding the
Magna Carta Ancestry Book. Gen Med is very fortunate
that you have invested so much time and effort in your
investigations.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
C.P.Addition: Isabel Booth wife of Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl o
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: C.P.Addition: Isabel Booth wife of Ralph Neville, 3rd Ea
paul bulkley wrote:
Dear Paul ~
Thanks for heads up. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I read with interest the excellent information
provided by Douglas Richardson.
Excellent Douglas. And congratulations regarding the
Magna Carta Ancestry Book. Gen Med is very fortunate
that you have invested so much time and effort in your
investigations.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
Dear Paul ~
Thanks for heads up. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: C.P.Addition: Isabel Booth wife of Ralph Neville, 3rd Ea
paul bulkley wrote:
Dear Paul ~
Thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I read with interest the excellent information
provided by Douglas Richardson.
Excellent Douglas. And congratulations regarding the
Magna Carta Ancestry Book. Gen Med is very fortunate
that you have invested so much time and effort in your
investigations.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Bulkley
Dear Paul ~
Thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: C.P.Addition: Isabel Booth wife of Ralph Neville, 3rd Ea
"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050412171047.8601.qmail@web21327.mail.yahoo.com...
What on earth can you mean by this? I asked questions prompted by
Richardson's remarks about the language used in CP, and did not in any way
suggest that this lady was not a Booth.
Perhaps you should read the messages again, with your obvious bias set
aside.
Peter Stewart
news:20050412171047.8601.qmail@web21327.mail.yahoo.com...
I read with interest the excellent information
provided by Douglas Richardson.
Also the jaded criticism of Peter Stewart.
It is true it would be satisfactory if more definative
information was available. However Douglas Richardson
never claimed that status. Regardless the evidence as
given strongly suggests that Isabel was most likely a
Booth.
What on earth can you mean by this? I asked questions prompted by
Richardson's remarks about the language used in CP, and did not in any way
suggest that this lady was not a Booth.
Perhaps you should read the messages again, with your obvious bias set
aside.
Peter Stewart
-
CED
Re: C.P.Addition: Isabel Booth wife of Ralph Neville, 3rd Ea
Peter Stewart wrote:
Perhaps, Bulkley was so busy swallowing a toad that could not read your
message properly. Who supplied the toad?
CED
"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050412171047.8601.qmail@web21327.mail.yahoo.com...
I read with interest the excellent information
provided by Douglas Richardson.
Also the jaded criticism of Peter Stewart.
It is true it would be satisfactory if more definative
information was available. However Douglas Richardson
never claimed that status. Regardless the evidence as
given strongly suggests that Isabel was most likely a
Booth.
What on earth can you mean by this? I asked questions prompted by
Richardson's remarks about the language used in CP, and did not in
any way
suggest that this lady was not a Booth.
Perhaps you should read the messages again, with your obvious bias
set
aside.
Peter Stewart
Perhaps, Bulkley was so busy swallowing a toad that could not read your
message properly. Who supplied the toad?
CED
-
Peter Stewart
Re: C.P.Addition: Isabel Booth wife of Ralph Neville, 3rd Ea
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1113355736.298332.305640@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Was there a toad in the original message to be swallowed? I thought this was
as contentless as any of Richardson's many transparently bogus posts - in
this case claiming an "addition" to CP when all he gave was some much less
detailed examples of the "say so" that had been mentioned. He tried to
suggest that the CP account was less adequate or accurate than his own
because it did not cite (in his term indeed it actually "overlooked") a 1530
visitation record that only gave her father's surname as Booth, as if this
somehow indicated she must have been a niece of the archbishop of York. He
completely ignored the fact that the later visitation purporting to give
more detail called the lady Maud instead of Isabel. He then tried to imply
that one isolated enfeoffment in 1482/3 filled out the story of her married
life, evidently taking for granted that several feoffees named Booth were
her "near relations", while others named Claxton were perhaps not related to
her on the same shonky rationale.
All vintage Richardson, with a forthcoming book to plug. And then of course
the stooge congratulations flow....
Peter Stewart
news:1113355736.298332.305640@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"paul bulkley" <designeconomic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050412171047.8601.qmail@web21327.mail.yahoo.com...
I read with interest the excellent information
provided by Douglas Richardson.
Also the jaded criticism of Peter Stewart.
It is true it would be satisfactory if more definative
information was available. However Douglas Richardson
never claimed that status. Regardless the evidence as
given strongly suggests that Isabel was most likely a
Booth.
What on earth can you mean by this? I asked questions prompted by
Richardson's remarks about the language used in CP, and did not in
any way
suggest that this lady was not a Booth.
Perhaps you should read the messages again, with your obvious bias
set
aside.
Peter Stewart
Perhaps, Bulkley was so busy swallowing a toad that could not read your
message properly. Who supplied the toad?
Was there a toad in the original message to be swallowed? I thought this was
as contentless as any of Richardson's many transparently bogus posts - in
this case claiming an "addition" to CP when all he gave was some much less
detailed examples of the "say so" that had been mentioned. He tried to
suggest that the CP account was less adequate or accurate than his own
because it did not cite (in his term indeed it actually "overlooked") a 1530
visitation record that only gave her father's surname as Booth, as if this
somehow indicated she must have been a niece of the archbishop of York. He
completely ignored the fact that the later visitation purporting to give
more detail called the lady Maud instead of Isabel. He then tried to imply
that one isolated enfeoffment in 1482/3 filled out the story of her married
life, evidently taking for granted that several feoffees named Booth were
her "near relations", while others named Claxton were perhaps not related to
her on the same shonky rationale.
All vintage Richardson, with a forthcoming book to plug. And then of course
the stooge congratulations flow....
Peter Stewart