Magna Carta Ancestry
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Magna Carta Ancestry
Dear Douglas and others,
I recieved my copy of Magna Carta
Ancestry yesterday. I noted that some of the identifications given in RPA have
been qualified as possibly or in the case of Alice de Arundel , reputedly
mistress of Henry Beaufort, Cardinal - Bishop of Winchester.
By and large I like what I`ve seen so far, even if You have to pick through
the citations, at least They appear to be there. One Quibble, however, One of
Douglas`s lines advertised, that of James Cudworth of Scituate, Massachusetts
is in fact, a footnote on page 877 (sub Welles) that He descends from Edward
Lewknor and Margaret Copley. I like that the footnote was included and am
happy that an all out legal battle will not occur with Paul C Reed, whose Cudworth
article I`m looking forward to seeing.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I recieved my copy of Magna Carta
Ancestry yesterday. I noted that some of the identifications given in RPA have
been qualified as possibly or in the case of Alice de Arundel , reputedly
mistress of Henry Beaufort, Cardinal - Bishop of Winchester.
By and large I like what I`ve seen so far, even if You have to pick through
the citations, at least They appear to be there. One Quibble, however, One of
Douglas`s lines advertised, that of James Cudworth of Scituate, Massachusetts
is in fact, a footnote on page 877 (sub Welles) that He descends from Edward
Lewknor and Margaret Copley. I like that the footnote was included and am
happy that an all out legal battle will not occur with Paul C Reed, whose Cudworth
article I`m looking forward to seeing.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
John Brandon
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
One Quibble, however, One of Douglas`s lines advertised, that of James Cudworth of Scituate, Massachusetts is in fact, a footnote on page 877 (sub Welles) that He descends from Edward
Lewknor and Margaret Copley. I like that the footnote was included and
am happy that an all out legal battle will not occur with Paul C Reed,
whose Cudworth article I`m looking forward to seeing.
Very similarly to Peter Stewart and Brice Claggett, Paul is of the
"promises, promises" school of genealogical teasing. I wonder how long
you will have to wait for the Cudworth article. Others have been
awaiting Paul's promised Wentworth and Holland articles for ten or
fifteen years now.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120920446.946105.130190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wrong again.
As far as I can observe, Brice Clagett is a gentleman and a scholar, who is
engaged in a large genealogical study on principles & following methods that
are thorough, meticulous and scrupulous.
Paul Reed is a busy and highly expert researcher, whose priorities are not
to be determined by a griping wannabe.
None of us has advertised wares to the genealogical community seeking
pre-payment - like Richardson, the stupor-hero at whose feet Brandon
worships.
It is typical of this man's mindless egocentricity that when he learns what
another person is doing he takes the information as a promise to himself.
Peter Stewart
news:1120920446.946105.130190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One Quibble, however, One of Douglas`s lines advertised, that of James
Cudworth of Scituate, Massachusetts is in fact, a footnote on page 877
(sub Welles) that He descends from Edward
Lewknor and Margaret Copley. I like that the footnote was included and
am happy that an all out legal battle will not occur with Paul C Reed,
whose Cudworth article I`m looking forward to seeing.
Very similarly to Peter Stewart and Brice Claggett, Paul is of the
"promises, promises" school of genealogical teasing. I wonder how long
you will have to wait for the Cudworth article. Others have been
awaiting Paul's promised Wentworth and Holland articles for ten or
fifteen years now.
Wrong again.
As far as I can observe, Brice Clagett is a gentleman and a scholar, who is
engaged in a large genealogical study on principles & following methods that
are thorough, meticulous and scrupulous.
Paul Reed is a busy and highly expert researcher, whose priorities are not
to be determined by a griping wannabe.
None of us has advertised wares to the genealogical community seeking
pre-payment - like Richardson, the stupor-hero at whose feet Brandon
worships.
It is typical of this man's mindless egocentricity that when he learns what
another person is doing he takes the information as a promise to himself.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
No, I was correct in what I said. Brice used to advise the newsgroup,
about every year, that his book was "expected next year." Thankfully,
he has stopped doing that.
Paul also used to claim from time to time that such and such an article
(Wentworth or Cudworth, for instance) was coming out someplace in the
next couple issues of NEHGR, whenever and wherever the editor could fit
it in. But currently he is busy fulfilling obligations to clients
(some of whom he ignored for years [literally]). I know about this
firsthand, as I paid a considerable amount for some research in Sept.
1998 and still haven't heard anything about it!
However, I probably shouldn't have lumped you in with Reed and
Claggett. Their research, if ever completed and published, will be the
object of considerable interest. On the other hand, no one will give a
squalid sh** about the finished results of your fiddling and diddling
among the remote (? hypothetical) Carolingians.
about every year, that his book was "expected next year." Thankfully,
he has stopped doing that.
Paul also used to claim from time to time that such and such an article
(Wentworth or Cudworth, for instance) was coming out someplace in the
next couple issues of NEHGR, whenever and wherever the editor could fit
it in. But currently he is busy fulfilling obligations to clients
(some of whom he ignored for years [literally]). I know about this
firsthand, as I paid a considerable amount for some research in Sept.
1998 and still haven't heard anything about it!
However, I probably shouldn't have lumped you in with Reed and
Claggett. Their research, if ever completed and published, will be the
object of considerable interest. On the other hand, no one will give a
squalid sh** about the finished results of your fiddling and diddling
among the remote (? hypothetical) Carolingians.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121014322.069498.131970@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You were NOT correct - "expected next year" by the author is not the same as
"promised next year" to prospective readers.
I thought you represented yourself as someone with the skills to undertake
his own research....
But in any case, Paul has not asked people to subscribe in advance to
receive his work at a certain time and then failed to deliver on a promise:
this was the repeated behaviour of your stupor-hero Richardson, so perhaps
you could take up your grip with him.
O what corruscating repartee, my mental timbers ought to be splintered into
a heap.....
I will say it again: I am not offering my work to anyone else. When finished
and if I choose, it will be made available online. The Carolingians are a
most important part of European history, and their time is not absolutely
"remote" from ours but only relatively more so than yesterday or the 17th
century. Children who have not yet started lessons might understand this,
but not Brandon.
Meanwhile if everyone doesn't take any interest in what I have to say about
them or on other subjects, I am perfectly content. They should simply
kill-file me or not open my messages. Then, perhaps, we will hear less from
the precious whingers who keep announcing that they can't help themselves.
And less from Brandon, who of course won't read this as he is so
scatalogically uninterested.
Peter Stewart
news:1121014322.069498.131970@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, I was correct in what I said. Brice used to advise the newsgroup,
about every year, that his book was "expected next year." Thankfully,
he has stopped doing that.
You were NOT correct - "expected next year" by the author is not the same as
"promised next year" to prospective readers.
Paul also used to claim from time to time that such and such an article
(Wentworth or Cudworth, for instance) was coming out someplace in the
next couple issues of NEHGR, whenever and wherever the editor could fit
it in. But currently he is busy fulfilling obligations to clients
(some of whom he ignored for years [literally]). I know about this
firsthand, as I paid a considerable amount for some research in Sept.
1998 and still haven't heard anything about it!
I thought you represented yourself as someone with the skills to undertake
his own research....
But in any case, Paul has not asked people to subscribe in advance to
receive his work at a certain time and then failed to deliver on a promise:
this was the repeated behaviour of your stupor-hero Richardson, so perhaps
you could take up your grip with him.
However, I probably shouldn't have lumped you in with Reed and
Claggett. Their research, if ever completed and published, will be the
object of considerable interest. On the other hand, no one will give a
squalid sh** about the finished results of your fiddling and diddling
among the remote (? hypothetical) Carolingians.
O what corruscating repartee, my mental timbers ought to be splintered into
a heap.....
I will say it again: I am not offering my work to anyone else. When finished
and if I choose, it will be made available online. The Carolingians are a
most important part of European history, and their time is not absolutely
"remote" from ours but only relatively more so than yesterday or the 17th
century. Children who have not yet started lessons might understand this,
but not Brandon.
Meanwhile if everyone doesn't take any interest in what I have to say about
them or on other subjects, I am perfectly content. They should simply
kill-file me or not open my messages. Then, perhaps, we will hear less from
the precious whingers who keep announcing that they can't help themselves.
And less from Brandon, who of course won't read this as he is so
scatalogically uninterested.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
But in any case, Paul has not asked people to subscribe in advance to
receive his work at a certain time and then failed to deliver on a
promise:
this was the repeated behaviour of your stupor-hero Richardson, so
perhaps
you could take up your grip with him.
But he has taken my money ($400 or 500 of it), and failed to do
anything in 6 years. This makes Doug look like a paragon of virtue.
And less from Brandon, who of course won't read this as he is so
scatalogically uninterested.
Unlike you, who have accused me of "odd erratic dumps," playing with my
own rear, and pissing my pants ...
-
John Brandon
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
I'd have to look at my checkbook for the amount and exact date. I
actually sent the check to Caleb Johnson of the Mayflower webpages, and
he was to pay Paul for the research (Palmer family related to my
ancestor, Stephen Hopkins).
actually sent the check to Caleb Johnson of the Mayflower webpages, and
he was to pay Paul for the research (Palmer family related to my
ancestor, Stephen Hopkins).
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
Was it $400 or $500 -- and when did you allegedly pay Paul Reed?
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121090649.968098.58590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| But he has taken my money ($400 or 500 of it), and failed to do
| anything in 6 years. This makes Doug look like a paragon of virtue.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121090649.968098.58590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| But he has taken my money ($400 or 500 of it), and failed to do
| anything in 6 years. This makes Doug look like a paragon of virtue.
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
In message of 11 Jul, "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:
What does Celeb Johnson say about the failure to fulfil the contract he
appears to have made with you?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I'd have to look at my checkbook for the amount and exact date. I
actually sent the check to Caleb Johnson of the Mayflower webpages,
and he was to pay Paul for the research (Palmer family related to my
ancestor, Stephen Hopkins).
What does Celeb Johnson say about the failure to fulfil the contract he
appears to have made with you?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
John Brandon
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
He says (or said, the last time I checked) that Paul still hasn't done
the work.
I have emails from Paul acknowledging receipt of the money and making
it clear that he knows that the funds came from me. So Caleb is not at
fault in this.
the work.
I have emails from Paul acknowledging receipt of the money and making
it clear that he knows that the funds came from me. So Caleb is not at
fault in this.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
Hmmmmmmmmmm...
Ahhhhh, yes, Stephen Hopkins. Good Family.
How do you know Caleb Johnson ever paid Paul Reed?
Are you in the market for a beautiful bridge? Lovely view.
It's in New York City.
Only $150,000.
Send the money to Hiram Bingham, P.O. Box 32465, Honolulu, Hawaii,
96818. Cashier's Check.
I'll send you a lovely Certificate of Ownership.
Are you over 18?
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121099720.428814.28830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| I'd have to look at my checkbook for the amount and exact date. I
| actually sent the check to Caleb Johnson of the Mayflower webpages,
| and he was to pay Paul for the research (Palmer family related to my
| ancestor, Stephen Hopkins).
Ahhhhh, yes, Stephen Hopkins. Good Family.
How do you know Caleb Johnson ever paid Paul Reed?
Are you in the market for a beautiful bridge? Lovely view.
It's in New York City.
Only $150,000.
Send the money to Hiram Bingham, P.O. Box 32465, Honolulu, Hawaii,
96818. Cashier's Check.
I'll send you a lovely Certificate of Ownership.
Are you over 18?
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121099720.428814.28830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| I'd have to look at my checkbook for the amount and exact date. I
| actually sent the check to Caleb Johnson of the Mayflower webpages,
| and he was to pay Paul for the research (Palmer family related to my
| ancestor, Stephen Hopkins).
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121090649.968098.58590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
In the first example you are reading something into a common word that is as
unpleasant as it was unintended.
However, I can't follow your thought - how could any of this from me
(expressed with much less indelicacy) alter or negate the way you expressed
the allegedly widespread lack of interest that was claimed by you?
Really it's just a case of not taking responsibility for your own
statements, accurately characterised, yet again.
Peter Stewart
news:1121090649.968098.58590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
And less from Brandon, who of course won't read this as he is so
scatalogically uninterested.
Unlike you, who have accused me of "odd erratic dumps," playing with my
own rear, and pissing my pants ...
In the first example you are reading something into a common word that is as
unpleasant as it was unintended.
However, I can't follow your thought - how could any of this from me
(expressed with much less indelicacy) alter or negate the way you expressed
the allegedly widespread lack of interest that was claimed by you?
Really it's just a case of not taking responsibility for your own
statements, accurately characterised, yet again.
Peter Stewart
-
Rick Eaton
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
Spencer,
Which Hiram Bingham?
The Hiram's I knew are dead.
Rick
"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net
Which Hiram Bingham?
The Hiram's I knew are dead.
Rick
"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net
Hmmmmmmmmmm...
Ahhhhh, yes, Stephen Hopkins. Good Family.
How do you know Caleb Johnson ever paid Paul Reed?
Are you in the market for a beautiful bridge? Lovely view.
It's in New York City.
Only $150,000.
Send the money to Hiram Bingham, P.O. Box 32465, Honolulu, Hawaii,
96818. Cashier's Check.
I'll send you a lovely Certificate of Ownership.
Are you over 18?
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121099720.428814.28830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| I'd have to look at my checkbook for the amount and exact date. I
| actually sent the check to Caleb Johnson of the Mayflower webpages,
| and he was to pay Paul for the research (Palmer family related to my
| ancestor, Stephen Hopkins).
-
Paul
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121090649.968098.58590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John, I was alerted to this thread and these statements. I also contacted
Caleb Johnson.
I was under the impression that though you had initially wanted me to work
on the possible connection between the Palmer family and Stephen Hopkins, I
didn't think that origin was likely to pan out. We eventually agreed that I
would work on something else you were interested in.
What I spent the time you paid for on was the English origin of John
Giffard, of Lynn and Boston, wasn't it? I did more than one project on that
possible origin, and we came up with some material concerning
Gloucestershire, and the mining interests, but could not find the last piece
in the puzzle to prove the origin, no?
And, in fact, at that time did you not email me and state that you have
given one Douglas Richardson money to work on this very Giffard project, but
received nothing from him? I have the emails, but it would take some time
to dig them up, as they are archived on my computer (and printed out and in
storage).
Is my memory failling about the above, or did I work on John Giffard and the
possible connections concerning St. Katherine-by-the-Tower, the mint, etc.,
for someone else? (If the above is not correct, then I will resolve the
outstanding matter - I wish you had contacted me about this.)
Paul C. Reed
news:1121090649.968098.58590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But he has taken my money ($400 or 500 of it), and failed to do
anything in 6 years. This makes Doug look like a paragon of virtue.
John, I was alerted to this thread and these statements. I also contacted
Caleb Johnson.
I was under the impression that though you had initially wanted me to work
on the possible connection between the Palmer family and Stephen Hopkins, I
didn't think that origin was likely to pan out. We eventually agreed that I
would work on something else you were interested in.
What I spent the time you paid for on was the English origin of John
Giffard, of Lynn and Boston, wasn't it? I did more than one project on that
possible origin, and we came up with some material concerning
Gloucestershire, and the mining interests, but could not find the last piece
in the puzzle to prove the origin, no?
And, in fact, at that time did you not email me and state that you have
given one Douglas Richardson money to work on this very Giffard project, but
received nothing from him? I have the emails, but it would take some time
to dig them up, as they are archived on my computer (and printed out and in
storage).
Is my memory failling about the above, or did I work on John Giffard and the
possible connections concerning St. Katherine-by-the-Tower, the mint, etc.,
for someone else? (If the above is not correct, then I will resolve the
outstanding matter - I wish you had contacted me about this.)
Paul C. Reed
-
John Brandon
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
Yes, Paul, your memory is very defective!! Are you on drugs? I
believe that you did look at the parish register of St.
Katherine-by-the-Tower (but whether the filmed register or merely the
published edition, I'm not sure). But how you could think that could
use up that whole, huge wad of money, I'm not sure. You certainly
didn't state that you were doing the Gifford "research" in lieu of the
Palmer-Hopkins thing. In fact, you said that Bob Anderson had found
something new on Palmer-Hopkins, and that's part of why I thought it
was taking so long.
Paul, I DID contact you MANY MANY times on this! I gave up after about
three years of waiting.
Paul, *I* was the one who came up with the Gloucestershire theory on
Giffard's origin, and the mining interests in the Forest of Dean
(remember the newsgroup?!). You may have done "projects" on Giffard,
but you didn't share anything with me beyond the fact that you'd
checked the St. Katherine Parish register. I certainly didn't know
that that was supposed to use up all the money you received.
Never mind about Douglas and Giffard. I gave him a small amount of
money ($100) and he did finally do a little checking for me.
believe that you did look at the parish register of St.
Katherine-by-the-Tower (but whether the filmed register or merely the
published edition, I'm not sure). But how you could think that could
use up that whole, huge wad of money, I'm not sure. You certainly
didn't state that you were doing the Gifford "research" in lieu of the
Palmer-Hopkins thing. In fact, you said that Bob Anderson had found
something new on Palmer-Hopkins, and that's part of why I thought it
was taking so long.
Paul, I DID contact you MANY MANY times on this! I gave up after about
three years of waiting.
Paul, *I* was the one who came up with the Gloucestershire theory on
Giffard's origin, and the mining interests in the Forest of Dean
(remember the newsgroup?!). You may have done "projects" on Giffard,
but you didn't share anything with me beyond the fact that you'd
checked the St. Katherine Parish register. I certainly didn't know
that that was supposed to use up all the money you received.
Never mind about Douglas and Giffard. I gave him a small amount of
money ($100) and he did finally do a little checking for me.
-
John Brandon
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
Paul,
as far as I know, you only checked the St. Katherine register (which I
thought you did because you were guilty about the Palmer stuff taking
so long), and posted the following tiny snippet on July 25, 2002:
suit 7].
That is hardly research to the tune of $400 ... (unless you're now
charging $400 an hour, a possibility, I suppose).
as far as I know, you only checked the St. Katherine register (which I
thought you did because you were guilty about the Palmer stuff taking
so long), and posted the following tiny snippet on July 25, 2002:
I can't remember if i posted this before. There was a deposition for a John
Gifford of Barton Regis, Gloucs., aged 60 in 1648 [Chanc. Dep., N1,
suit 7].
That is hardly research to the tune of $400 ... (unless you're now
charging $400 an hour, a possibility, I suppose).
-
Paul
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121166978.610553.315370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I checked a whole slew of records on this matter, in London,
Gloucestershire, concerning mines, the mint, etc., and you wanted me to keep
checking things beyond what I had been paid for! In fact, I did go beyond,
as I always end up doing! And in spite of that, when you made posts on this
newsgroup, I took time to respond in details, even though that was certainly
not for pay.
Huge wad of money? How many hours did you compute that to be? As to me not
deciding to do a different project in lieu of Palmer:
From Caleb Johnson, "you and John Brandon had reached an agreement where the
current Palmer-Hopkins research was cancelled."
You asked me on 11/10/2001 "if you have any interest in working on the
Gifford thing" and how would I know that you had paid Doug Richardson, but
not received anything back at that time unless you complained to me when I
was working on it for you?
Now you are confusing the Mansfield material with this! Bob Anderson had
found something on the Mansfield origin when he was at the FHL, and asked me
to look at it to verify the possible connection, which we did. He then
swore me to secrecy, but two years later when you approached Jane Fiske with
some speculative published accounts from secondary material, she asked that
Bob and I do an article together with you as coauthors.
During that experience as coauthor with you on the Mansfield article that
appeared in NEHGR, I experienced wildly erratic emails from you, ranging
from attacks that I had "insinuated" myself into that article, trying to
squeeze in on your glory, to your stating that the research and writing done
were so wonderful compared to your contribution that your name shouldn't
even be listed as coauthor (but ignored that request and did not remove your
name, did we?). And I received an especially strange email that I printed
out and saved, where you basically stated that I should not think my
research (on Mansfield) was so remarkable, because it was only because I
lived in Salt Lake City that I could do it, and that if you lived here and
had access to the same sources, you would show yourself to be superior to
all of the rest of us (paraphrased here, the original being more direct).
Yes, you approached me with the problem, which was a particular obsession,
and was frustrated that I could not find the final piece of evidence to
prove the connection. Aside from going through the London parish resisters,
and checking Giffard and Gifford lines throughout England which might have
had any bearing, I checked Gloucester muster lists, probate records, focused
on Gloucestershire parishes, etc. I had also responded kindly in great
detail about a number of queries you made concerning it, such as posts on
this group on 11, 13 and 18 July 2001. Your replies were quite pleasant
and thankful, rather than a disgruntled or vicious attack.
"a little checking"? (anything we had not already found?) The point of
your post seemed to be to belittle and defame me, in my absence, while
making Douglas Richardson out to be a "paragon of virtue" because he hadn't
done exactly what you accuse me of (yet at that time the apposite was true).
My research may be late or delayed, but no one has quibbled before about the
depth and accuracy of the material. It seems you have recently formed an
alliance with Spencer Hines and DR, and gone about together attacking other
respectable scholars such as David Green and Nat Taylor. I have been
dismayed to see Spencer attack Nat for not being tenured. Much of his past
has been posted on soc.history.medieval, and it's a matter of public record
that in spite of attending Yale, Johns Hopkins and Pepperdine, that he
eventually retired at Hawaii Pacific University as an assistant professor in
business. [From those archived messages, Yale (Timothy Dwight College) BA
(1963), Johns Hopkins AM (1976), Pepperdine MBA (1982), retiring from HPU in
1999 at about age 60.] To attack Nat for not already having tenure is a
rather hypocritical red herring. These personal attacks to discredit
individuals, rather than addressing scholarly points at hand which sparked
your discussion have been, to be blunt, disgusting. Now I am your focus,
and I was not even participating on this group. I should have realized you
would attempt to do this. Neil Thompson remembers research I did for you on
this problem.
news:1121166978.610553.315370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Paul, your memory is very defective!! Are you on drugs? I
believe that you did look at the parish register of St.
Katherine-by-the-Tower (but whether the filmed register or merely the
published edition, I'm not sure).
I checked a whole slew of records on this matter, in London,
Gloucestershire, concerning mines, the mint, etc., and you wanted me to keep
checking things beyond what I had been paid for! In fact, I did go beyond,
as I always end up doing! And in spite of that, when you made posts on this
newsgroup, I took time to respond in details, even though that was certainly
not for pay.
But how you could think that could
use up that whole, huge wad of money, I'm not sure. You certainly
didn't state that you were doing the Gifford "research" in lieu of the
Palmer-Hopkins thing.
Huge wad of money? How many hours did you compute that to be? As to me not
deciding to do a different project in lieu of Palmer:
From Caleb Johnson, "you and John Brandon had reached an agreement where the
current Palmer-Hopkins research was cancelled."
You asked me on 11/10/2001 "if you have any interest in working on the
Gifford thing" and how would I know that you had paid Doug Richardson, but
not received anything back at that time unless you complained to me when I
was working on it for you?
In fact, you said that Bob Anderson had found
something new on Palmer-Hopkins, and that's part of why I thought it
was taking so long.
Now you are confusing the Mansfield material with this! Bob Anderson had
found something on the Mansfield origin when he was at the FHL, and asked me
to look at it to verify the possible connection, which we did. He then
swore me to secrecy, but two years later when you approached Jane Fiske with
some speculative published accounts from secondary material, she asked that
Bob and I do an article together with you as coauthors.
During that experience as coauthor with you on the Mansfield article that
appeared in NEHGR, I experienced wildly erratic emails from you, ranging
from attacks that I had "insinuated" myself into that article, trying to
squeeze in on your glory, to your stating that the research and writing done
were so wonderful compared to your contribution that your name shouldn't
even be listed as coauthor (but ignored that request and did not remove your
name, did we?). And I received an especially strange email that I printed
out and saved, where you basically stated that I should not think my
research (on Mansfield) was so remarkable, because it was only because I
lived in Salt Lake City that I could do it, and that if you lived here and
had access to the same sources, you would show yourself to be superior to
all of the rest of us (paraphrased here, the original being more direct).
Paul, I DID contact you MANY MANY times on this! I gave up after about
three years of waiting.
Paul, *I* was the one who came up with the Gloucestershire theory on
Giffard's origin, and the mining interests in the Forest of Dean
(remember the newsgroup?!).
Yes, you approached me with the problem, which was a particular obsession,
and was frustrated that I could not find the final piece of evidence to
prove the connection. Aside from going through the London parish resisters,
and checking Giffard and Gifford lines throughout England which might have
had any bearing, I checked Gloucester muster lists, probate records, focused
on Gloucestershire parishes, etc. I had also responded kindly in great
detail about a number of queries you made concerning it, such as posts on
this group on 11, 13 and 18 July 2001. Your replies were quite pleasant
and thankful, rather than a disgruntled or vicious attack.
You may have done "projects" on Giffard,
but you didn't share anything with me beyond the fact that you'd
checked the St. Katherine Parish register. I certainly didn't know
that that was supposed to use up all the money you received.
Never mind about Douglas and Giffard. I gave him a small amount of
money ($100) and he did finally do a little checking for me.
"a little checking"? (anything we had not already found?) The point of
your post seemed to be to belittle and defame me, in my absence, while
making Douglas Richardson out to be a "paragon of virtue" because he hadn't
done exactly what you accuse me of (yet at that time the apposite was true).
My research may be late or delayed, but no one has quibbled before about the
depth and accuracy of the material. It seems you have recently formed an
alliance with Spencer Hines and DR, and gone about together attacking other
respectable scholars such as David Green and Nat Taylor. I have been
dismayed to see Spencer attack Nat for not being tenured. Much of his past
has been posted on soc.history.medieval, and it's a matter of public record
that in spite of attending Yale, Johns Hopkins and Pepperdine, that he
eventually retired at Hawaii Pacific University as an assistant professor in
business. [From those archived messages, Yale (Timothy Dwight College) BA
(1963), Johns Hopkins AM (1976), Pepperdine MBA (1982), retiring from HPU in
1999 at about age 60.] To attack Nat for not already having tenure is a
rather hypocritical red herring. These personal attacks to discredit
individuals, rather than addressing scholarly points at hand which sparked
your discussion have been, to be blunt, disgusting. Now I am your focus,
and I was not even participating on this group. I should have realized you
would attempt to do this. Neil Thompson remembers research I did for you on
this problem.
-
Paul
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121178708.753759.140820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Neil Thompson, a neighbor and colleague, remembers all the searching I did
for you on this Giffard matter. And the above citation is from the Beneau
Index (something I thought Douglas Richardson about years ago). I searched
original parish registers, probate records for London, Gloucestershire and
elsewhere, Chancery suits, the Bernau Index and Sherwood Research
Collection, aside from State Papers, wills of others thought to be involved,
muster lists, visitations, things concerning the mint, mining interests, teh
Thomson Tracts series of publications during the Civil War and Commonwelath,
in fact, EVERY SOURCE WHICH WE THOUGHT MIGHT POSSIBLE CONTAIN AN ANSWER.
But you were still not then satisfied, because we had not found conclusive
proof, even though it all made sense. Perhaps that stuck in your craw, and
this is why your memory is so selective now. It took time to check all
those records. You had even posted both under the newly coined identity
MRGIFFORD and your work address (john.brandon@sc.edu ?). I assume you have
tenure there.
news:1121178708.753759.140820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Paul,
as far as I know, you only checked the St. Katherine register (which I
thought you did because you were guilty about the Palmer stuff taking
so long), and posted the following tiny snippet on July 25, 2002:
I can't remember if i posted this before. There was a deposition for a
John
Gifford of Barton Regis, Gloucs., aged 60 in 1648 [Chanc. Dep., N1,
suit 7].
That is hardly research to the tune of $400 ... (unless you're now
charging $400 an hour, a possibility, I suppose).
Neil Thompson, a neighbor and colleague, remembers all the searching I did
for you on this Giffard matter. And the above citation is from the Beneau
Index (something I thought Douglas Richardson about years ago). I searched
original parish registers, probate records for London, Gloucestershire and
elsewhere, Chancery suits, the Bernau Index and Sherwood Research
Collection, aside from State Papers, wills of others thought to be involved,
muster lists, visitations, things concerning the mint, mining interests, teh
Thomson Tracts series of publications during the Civil War and Commonwelath,
in fact, EVERY SOURCE WHICH WE THOUGHT MIGHT POSSIBLE CONTAIN AN ANSWER.
But you were still not then satisfied, because we had not found conclusive
proof, even though it all made sense. Perhaps that stuck in your craw, and
this is why your memory is so selective now. It took time to check all
those records. You had even posted both under the newly coined identity
MRGIFFORD and your work address (john.brandon@sc.edu ?). I assume you have
tenure there.
-
John Brandon
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
Paul, you are delusional.
I'm not denying that you may have done much research (I can't prove or
disprove that)--but, the point is, I never received it (beyond a very
brief, impressionistic account of the Gifford entries in the St.
Katherine parish register). You know how distracted, disjointed, and
just plain forgetful you get when you are in the midst of a project.
You must have forgotten to share it with me.
If you can round up the copies of what you did, I'd still like to see
it (OF COURSE).
I'm not denying that you may have done much research (I can't prove or
disprove that)--but, the point is, I never received it (beyond a very
brief, impressionistic account of the Gifford entries in the St.
Katherine parish register). You know how distracted, disjointed, and
just plain forgetful you get when you are in the midst of a project.
You must have forgotten to share it with me.
If you can round up the copies of what you did, I'd still like to see
it (OF COURSE).
-
Dolly Ziegler
OT discussion, research job (was: Magna Carta Ancestry
Hello, John Brandon, Paul Reed. Please, please, take this discussion
of a 4-year-old research job, off-list. The two of you can work it
out in private. (Do not feed the trolls.) Thank you. Dolly in Maryland
of a 4-year-old research job, off-list. The two of you can work it
out in private. (Do not feed the trolls.) Thank you. Dolly in Maryland
-
Paul
Re: OT discussion, research job (was: Magna Carta Ancestry
"Dolly Ziegler" <dsz@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.62.0507121628500.6517@mail...
The only reason I brought it out here was because I had not been contacted
to clarify the matter and surrilous attacks and statements had been made.
David Green and Nat Taylor had the good sense not to reply to the attacks
posted on them, but this was a claim I felt I had to address, and I have.
In an effort not to play further into the hands and plans of that new
triumvirate Hines-Richardson-Brandon, I will withdraw from this list again
to attend to matters of work and public interest.
As to the Cudworth/Machell article, I was awaiting a trip my friend and
colleague John Anderson Brayton to London, where he was able to talk with
Thomas Woodcock, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, who checked original
visitation pedigrees, the Vincent MSS, funeral certificates, and other
things that they only hold. These things needed to be checked before the
article went to publication. That is now in the process of being done. As
to Brandon's complaint about Massey, I think it had already been announced
that the Massey articled (well over 100 pages) will be freely made available
to the public when the APSG web site goes fully public. These I am not
doing to earn great sums of money, or to force people to "but my book," but
in the interest of the public.
I wish that instead of personal attacks and much hypocrisy, that things
would tunr towards a genuine interest in helping and educating the public
and those who would like to learn from their participation here. It is a
pity that so many things have to be derailed by personal attacks which serve
as red herrings, and a distraction from factual material that is on topic.
Paul C. Reed
news:Pine.GSO.4.62.0507121628500.6517@mail...
Hello, John Brandon, Paul Reed. Please, please, take this discussion
of a 4-year-old research job, off-list. The two of you can work it
out in private. (Do not feed the trolls.) Thank you. Dolly in Maryland
The only reason I brought it out here was because I had not been contacted
to clarify the matter and surrilous attacks and statements had been made.
David Green and Nat Taylor had the good sense not to reply to the attacks
posted on them, but this was a claim I felt I had to address, and I have.
In an effort not to play further into the hands and plans of that new
triumvirate Hines-Richardson-Brandon, I will withdraw from this list again
to attend to matters of work and public interest.
As to the Cudworth/Machell article, I was awaiting a trip my friend and
colleague John Anderson Brayton to London, where he was able to talk with
Thomas Woodcock, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, who checked original
visitation pedigrees, the Vincent MSS, funeral certificates, and other
things that they only hold. These things needed to be checked before the
article went to publication. That is now in the process of being done. As
to Brandon's complaint about Massey, I think it had already been announced
that the Massey articled (well over 100 pages) will be freely made available
to the public when the APSG web site goes fully public. These I am not
doing to earn great sums of money, or to force people to "but my book," but
in the interest of the public.
I wish that instead of personal attacks and much hypocrisy, that things
would tunr towards a genuine interest in helping and educating the public
and those who would like to learn from their participation here. It is a
pity that so many things have to be derailed by personal attacks which serve
as red herrings, and a distraction from factual material that is on topic.
Paul C. Reed