Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tony Hoskins
Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Object lesson. Answers may lie under one's very nose.
My question in re: the mother of Sueva Orsini, Duchessa d'Andria, could
have been answered easily, had I but considered a moment. A lesson for
us all about the folly of sending off emails too hastily!
My good friend and neighbor here in Northern California, Col. Charles
M. Hansen, FASG, just brought me some pages from his ongoing series
(with Neil D. Thompson) "The Ancestry of Charles II," in _The
Genealogist_ , regarding the identity of the mother of Sueva. This
information would seem to cinch the received view that Sueva's mother
was in fact Jeanne (Gorizia) de Sabran.
Under ancestor numbers 1574 and 1575, Col. Hansen and Dr. Thompson
state,
"1574. Niccolo Orsini, called "des Ursins," Count of Nola, [born] 27
August 1331, [died] Nola (after 14 February) 1399, ... [married] to
1575. Jeanne de Sabran, called "Gorizia," her testament dated 1357
[note 250].
Note 250: Casanovas, _Henri IV 83, evidently following Litta,
incorrectly gives Niccolo Orsini a second wife, Marie des Baux [Balzo],
only child and heiress of Raymond des Baux, Count of Soleto, d.s.p. 5
Aug. 1375 (_ES_ [new ed.] 3:4:752), and by letters dated 18 Oct. 1375,
Queen Joanna of Naples granted John d'Arcussia di Capra, Count of
Minervino, the castle and bourgs which had reverted to the crown by the
death of Raymond, Count of Soleto, without legitimate issue, "to the
exclusion of Nicholas Orsini, Count Palatine and of Nola, his nephew,
who had himself acknowledged that he has no rights in the feudal goods
of his uncle' (Watson, "Seize Quartiers' [supra note 203], 12:248, n.
15)."
I had suspected Davide Shama had relied on Litta for this proposed
second wife of Niccolo Orsini, Count of Nola. So it appears to be.
Many thanks to Charles Hansen for his splendid work, also for his
courtesy and interest. And, thanks again to Douglas Richardson for
taking the time and trouble to send us the 1363 letter of Pope Urban V,
which adds importantly to the documentation of this case.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
My question in re: the mother of Sueva Orsini, Duchessa d'Andria, could
have been answered easily, had I but considered a moment. A lesson for
us all about the folly of sending off emails too hastily!
My good friend and neighbor here in Northern California, Col. Charles
M. Hansen, FASG, just brought me some pages from his ongoing series
(with Neil D. Thompson) "The Ancestry of Charles II," in _The
Genealogist_ , regarding the identity of the mother of Sueva. This
information would seem to cinch the received view that Sueva's mother
was in fact Jeanne (Gorizia) de Sabran.
Under ancestor numbers 1574 and 1575, Col. Hansen and Dr. Thompson
state,
"1574. Niccolo Orsini, called "des Ursins," Count of Nola, [born] 27
August 1331, [died] Nola (after 14 February) 1399, ... [married] to
1575. Jeanne de Sabran, called "Gorizia," her testament dated 1357
[note 250].
Note 250: Casanovas, _Henri IV 83, evidently following Litta,
incorrectly gives Niccolo Orsini a second wife, Marie des Baux [Balzo],
only child and heiress of Raymond des Baux, Count of Soleto, d.s.p. 5
Aug. 1375 (_ES_ [new ed.] 3:4:752), and by letters dated 18 Oct. 1375,
Queen Joanna of Naples granted John d'Arcussia di Capra, Count of
Minervino, the castle and bourgs which had reverted to the crown by the
death of Raymond, Count of Soleto, without legitimate issue, "to the
exclusion of Nicholas Orsini, Count Palatine and of Nola, his nephew,
who had himself acknowledged that he has no rights in the feudal goods
of his uncle' (Watson, "Seize Quartiers' [supra note 203], 12:248, n.
15)."
I had suspected Davide Shama had relied on Litta for this proposed
second wife of Niccolo Orsini, Count of Nola. So it appears to be.
Many thanks to Charles Hansen for his splendid work, also for his
courtesy and interest. And, thanks again to Douglas Richardson for
taking the time and trouble to send us the 1363 letter of Pope Urban V,
which adds importantly to the documentation of this case.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Peter Stewart wrote:
Dear Peter ~
It strikes me as rather humorous that you have repeatedly bashed Dr.
David Kelley, FASG, over confusing the given names, Godfrey and
Geoffrey, but now seem clueless about Gorizia/Giovanna. I personally
don't think Gorizia is the same wife as Giovanna (nor does Tony
Hoskins). Gorizia supposedly left a testament dated 1357, whereas I
have shown that Giovanna was living in 1363.
Where is your evidence that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna?
Or, are you going to hide behind the Litta figleaf?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mark_bridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121248668.882217.292130@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Italian site looks interesting but seems loaded with errors. A few:
1) Simon de Montfort is listed as Duca di Leicester. Shouldn't Earl
become Conte?
2) De Montfort's wife is listed as sister of the Re di Gran Bretagna.
Inghilterra?
3) Guy de Montfort's wife - and the suggested mother of his daughter
Anastasia - is listed as Margherita Orsini. Surely she was Margherita
Aldobrandeschi(?)
Perhaps errors 1 and 2 are unimportant. Still, it's clear that the site
can't be relied on. Maybe the identification of Niccolo's Sabran wife
as Gorizia is taken from a decent source. It's a shame there are no
endnotes or bibliography.
This name for Giovanna is taken from Litta, who wrongly gave her husband a
second wife named Maria del Balzo (des Baux).
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
It strikes me as rather humorous that you have repeatedly bashed Dr.
David Kelley, FASG, over confusing the given names, Godfrey and
Geoffrey, but now seem clueless about Gorizia/Giovanna. I personally
don't think Gorizia is the same wife as Giovanna (nor does Tony
Hoskins). Gorizia supposedly left a testament dated 1357, whereas I
have shown that Giovanna was living in 1363.
Where is your evidence that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna?
Or, are you going to hide behind the Litta figleaf?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121360756.614181.191730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source of
the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is unknown
to me. That's all there is to it. Litta calls the woman otherwise known as
Giovanna by another name. He doesn't name a Giovanna as well in this
context, mistakenly giving the man a second wife called Maria del Balzo.
Lots of people make a will and live on for six years or more.
If you are interested in researching this further, by all means do so. But
do it for yourself without, trying to goad others and smear them with your
rancid idea of "collegiality". Get out your ouija board, as I'm sure you are
expert in psychic studies, and ask Litta why he did this.
Kelley didn't just "confuse" two different given names, he fabricated a
nonsensical case for making two quite distinct people into one - without
bothering to check the medieval sources - and used this figment of his own
incompetence to sneer at others who knew better.
You are now trying to make two women out of one who happens to have been
given a different name by a modern genealogist, clearly intending the same
person, on the basis of no further evidence whatsoever.
I haven't used a "figleaf", there is nothing to be hidden here in the first
place, and I patently didn't make any claim beyond the indisputable fact
that Litta is where the name Gorizia came from into the more recent
literature.
Peter Stewart
news:1121360756.614181.191730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
mark_bridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121248668.882217.292130@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Italian site looks interesting but seems loaded with errors. A few:
1) Simon de Montfort is listed as Duca di Leicester. Shouldn't Earl
become Conte?
2) De Montfort's wife is listed as sister of the Re di Gran Bretagna.
Inghilterra?
3) Guy de Montfort's wife - and the suggested mother of his daughter
Anastasia - is listed as Margherita Orsini. Surely she was Margherita
Aldobrandeschi(?)
Perhaps errors 1 and 2 are unimportant. Still, it's clear that the site
can't be relied on. Maybe the identification of Niccolo's Sabran wife
as Gorizia is taken from a decent source. It's a shame there are no
endnotes or bibliography.
This name for Giovanna is taken from Litta, who wrongly gave her husband
a
second wife named Maria del Balzo (des Baux).
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
It strikes me as rather humorous that you have repeatedly bashed Dr.
David Kelley, FASG, over confusing the given names, Godfrey and
Geoffrey, but now seem clueless about Gorizia/Giovanna. I personally
don't think Gorizia is the same wife as Giovanna (nor does Tony
Hoskins). Gorizia supposedly left a testament dated 1357, whereas I
have shown that Giovanna was living in 1363.
Where is your evidence that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna?
Or, are you going to hide behind the Litta figleaf?
What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source of
the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is unknown
to me. That's all there is to it. Litta calls the woman otherwise known as
Giovanna by another name. He doesn't name a Giovanna as well in this
context, mistakenly giving the man a second wife called Maria del Balzo.
Lots of people make a will and live on for six years or more.
If you are interested in researching this further, by all means do so. But
do it for yourself without, trying to goad others and smear them with your
rancid idea of "collegiality". Get out your ouija board, as I'm sure you are
expert in psychic studies, and ask Litta why he did this.
Kelley didn't just "confuse" two different given names, he fabricated a
nonsensical case for making two quite distinct people into one - without
bothering to check the medieval sources - and used this figment of his own
incompetence to sneer at others who knew better.
You are now trying to make two women out of one who happens to have been
given a different name by a modern genealogist, clearly intending the same
person, on the basis of no further evidence whatsoever.
I haven't used a "figleaf", there is nothing to be hidden here in the first
place, and I patently didn't make any claim beyond the indisputable fact
that Litta is where the name Gorizia came from into the more recent
literature.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
So, you're saying you think Gorizia is the same woman as Giovanna? Is
that right? Mmmmm .....
Litta calls the woman otherwise known as
Actually Litta made two major mistakes. He confused Gorizia with
Giovanna, and he fabricated a ficticious second wife Maria del Balzo
for Count Niccolo Orsini. These sound like major errors to me. Why
aren't you ranting and raving about Litta's incompetence?
You seem to be avoiding the obvious, Peter. I don't think Gorizia is
the same woman as Giovanna. You apparently think they are the same
woman. Either you are right, or I am. Anyone want to take bets? Naw,
I think it's pretty obvious who is right.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart wrote:
What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source of
the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is unknown
to me. That's all there is to it.
So, you're saying you think Gorizia is the same woman as Giovanna? Is
that right? Mmmmm .....
Litta calls the woman otherwise known as
Giovanna by another name. He doesn't name a Giovanna as well in this
context, mistakenly giving the man a second wife called Maria del Balzo.
Lots of people make a will and live on for six years or more.
Actually Litta made two major mistakes. He confused Gorizia with
Giovanna, and he fabricated a ficticious second wife Maria del Balzo
for Count Niccolo Orsini. These sound like major errors to me. Why
aren't you ranting and raving about Litta's incompetence?
I haven't used a "figleaf", there is nothing to be hidden here in the first
place, and I patently didn't make any claim beyond the indisputable fact
that Litta is where the name Gorizia came from into the more recent
literature.
You seem to be avoiding the obvious, Peter. I don't think Gorizia is
the same woman as Giovanna. You apparently think they are the same
woman. Either you are right, or I am. Anyone want to take bets? Naw,
I think it's pretty obvious who is right.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
The foolishness of Richardson is staggering, day after day.
Litta called "Gorizia" a woman whose details in other respects make it plain
that she was the same as "Giovanna", that is Jeanne de Sabran.
Anomalous names are by no means uncommmon in medieval records. However, I
have no way of retracing Litta's steps in this matter. Nor, quite obviously,
has Richardson, but that doesn't sop him lurching & reeling to unwarranted
conclusions.
Litta made many mistakes. But he didn't sit back on his laurels, as a
professor and FASG like Kelley, undertaking NO research into important
matters while making absurd conjectures that mislead enquirers, backing
these up with nothing more than demonstrably baseless, wrong assertions -
and getting away with it for decades because no-one in the US genealogical
community checked the readily available sources and exposed the stupid
fraud.
Indeed in this case a biography of Godfrey de Bouillon had been published,
including an accurate chronology obviating his identification with the
English landholder Geoffrey fitz Eustace, as recently as 1985. But still
no-one bothered to look, including Richardson himself who was ignorantly
content to be associated in print with Kelley's drivel, just in case there
might be a smidgin of credit in this for himself.
Now he is trying to cover his own disgrace by making ludicrous
misinterpretations of Litta and of my straightforward answer about the
information given by that estimable, but not infallible, scholar.
Pathetic.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121383610.411854.183110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Litta called "Gorizia" a woman whose details in other respects make it plain
that she was the same as "Giovanna", that is Jeanne de Sabran.
Anomalous names are by no means uncommmon in medieval records. However, I
have no way of retracing Litta's steps in this matter. Nor, quite obviously,
has Richardson, but that doesn't sop him lurching & reeling to unwarranted
conclusions.
Litta made many mistakes. But he didn't sit back on his laurels, as a
professor and FASG like Kelley, undertaking NO research into important
matters while making absurd conjectures that mislead enquirers, backing
these up with nothing more than demonstrably baseless, wrong assertions -
and getting away with it for decades because no-one in the US genealogical
community checked the readily available sources and exposed the stupid
fraud.
Indeed in this case a biography of Godfrey de Bouillon had been published,
including an accurate chronology obviating his identification with the
English landholder Geoffrey fitz Eustace, as recently as 1985. But still
no-one bothered to look, including Richardson himself who was ignorantly
content to be associated in print with Kelley's drivel, just in case there
might be a smidgin of credit in this for himself.
Now he is trying to cover his own disgrace by making ludicrous
misinterpretations of Litta and of my straightforward answer about the
information given by that estimable, but not infallible, scholar.
Pathetic.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121383610.411854.183110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source
of
the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is
unknown
to me. That's all there is to it.
So, you're saying you think Gorizia is the same woman as Giovanna? Is
that right? Mmmmm .....
Litta calls the woman otherwise known as
Giovanna by another name. He doesn't name a Giovanna as well in this
context, mistakenly giving the man a second wife called Maria del Balzo.
Lots of people make a will and live on for six years or more.
Actually Litta made two major mistakes. He confused Gorizia with
Giovanna, and he fabricated a ficticious second wife Maria del Balzo
for Count Niccolo Orsini. These sound like major errors to me. Why
aren't you ranting and raving about Litta's incompetence?
I haven't used a "figleaf", there is nothing to be hidden here in the
first
place, and I patently didn't make any claim beyond the indisputable fact
that Litta is where the name Gorizia came from into the more recent
literature.
You seem to be avoiding the obvious, Peter. I don't think Gorizia is
the same woman as Giovanna. You apparently think they are the same
woman. Either you are right, or I am. Anyone want to take bets? Naw,
I think it's pretty obvious who is right.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121383610.411854.183110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
O dear, Richardson's esteemed colleague and admirer Gary Boyd Roberts must
enter the betting here, at the same odds with me for a change - see
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/educ ... _9_5_3.asp
He at least is able to interpret Litta's plain meaning: he names Sueva
Orsini's mother, otherwise known as Giovanna, as "Gorizia Sabrano" (see no.
6 in the first list). The source is described as "Litta's great set, the
bibliographical base for this column".
Richardson on the other hand assumed that Litta must have meant a woman
named only Gorizia, different from another woman called Giovanna. This
foolish idea of his represents the flip-side of folly from "the name's the
same....".
Feeling secure in his misunderstanding, as always, he then tried to taunt me
with his nonsense & offered to take bets. Any punters, I wonder?
Peter Stewart
news:1121383610.411854.183110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source
of
the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is
unknown
to me. That's all there is to it.
So, you're saying you think Gorizia is the same woman as Giovanna? Is
that right? Mmmmm .....
<snip>
You seem to be avoiding the obvious, Peter. I don't think Gorizia is
the same woman as Giovanna. You apparently think they are the same
woman. Either you are right, or I am. Anyone want to take bets? Naw,
I think it's pretty obvious who is right.
O dear, Richardson's esteemed colleague and admirer Gary Boyd Roberts must
enter the betting here, at the same odds with me for a change - see
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/educ ... _9_5_3.asp
He at least is able to interpret Litta's plain meaning: he names Sueva
Orsini's mother, otherwise known as Giovanna, as "Gorizia Sabrano" (see no.
6 in the first list). The source is described as "Litta's great set, the
bibliographical base for this column".
Richardson on the other hand assumed that Litta must have meant a woman
named only Gorizia, different from another woman called Giovanna. This
foolish idea of his represents the flip-side of folly from "the name's the
same....".
Feeling secure in his misunderstanding, as always, he then tried to taunt me
with his nonsense & offered to take bets. Any punters, I wonder?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Dear Newsgroup ~
Surely Mr. Stewart can do better than this bowl of mamby pampy mush!
Either Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna, or she isn't. Either
Litta based his work on solid evidence, or he didn't. Which is it?
Mr. Stewart tells is that Litta makes it "plain" that the woman he
calls "Gorizia" is the same wife as Giovanna. But Mr. Stewart
provides us no documentation to verify this. Do we just have to take
Mr. Stewart's word for this? I hope not!
I don't find anything "plain" in medieval records, unless there is
adequate documentation to prove it. So, perhaps Mr. Stewart can stop
hiding behind the little Litta figleaf and tell us the evidence Litta
used to conclude that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna.
Enquiring minds want to know!
Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
prove it.
I predict Mr. Stewart will run for the tall grasses in his next post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Surely Mr. Stewart can do better than this bowl of mamby pampy mush!
Either Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna, or she isn't. Either
Litta based his work on solid evidence, or he didn't. Which is it?
Mr. Stewart tells is that Litta makes it "plain" that the woman he
calls "Gorizia" is the same wife as Giovanna. But Mr. Stewart
provides us no documentation to verify this. Do we just have to take
Mr. Stewart's word for this? I hope not!
I don't find anything "plain" in medieval records, unless there is
adequate documentation to prove it. So, perhaps Mr. Stewart can stop
hiding behind the little Litta figleaf and tell us the evidence Litta
used to conclude that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna.
Enquiring minds want to know!
Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
prove it.
I predict Mr. Stewart will run for the tall grasses in his next post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
The foolishness of Richardson is staggering, day after day.
Litta called "Gorizia" a woman whose details in other respects make it plain
that she was the same as "Giovanna", that is Jeanne de Sabran.
Anomalous names are by no means uncommmon in medieval records. However, I
have no way of retracing Litta's steps in this matter. Nor, quite obviously,
has Richardson, but that doesn't sop him lurching & reeling to unwarranted
conclusions.
Litta made many mistakes. But he didn't sit back on his laurels, as a
professor and FASG like Kelley, undertaking NO research into important
matters while making absurd conjectures that mislead enquirers, backing
these up with nothing more than demonstrably baseless, wrong assertions -
and getting away with it for decades because no-one in the US genealogical
community checked the readily available sources and exposed the stupid
fraud.
Indeed in this case a biography of Godfrey de Bouillon had been published,
including an accurate chronology obviating his identification with the
English landholder Geoffrey fitz Eustace, as recently as 1985. But still
no-one bothered to look, including Richardson himself who was ignorantly
content to be associated in print with Kelley's drivel, just in case there
might be a smidgin of credit in this for himself.
Now he is trying to cover his own disgrace by making ludicrous
misinterpretations of Litta and of my straightforward answer about the
information given by that estimable, but not infallible, scholar.
Pathetic.
Peter Stewart
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121383610.411854.183110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
What on earth are you ranting about? The poster wondered about the source
of
the name Gorizia, and I answered that this was Litta. His source is
unknown
to me. That's all there is to it.
So, you're saying you think Gorizia is the same woman as Giovanna? Is
that right? Mmmmm .....
Litta calls the woman otherwise known as
Giovanna by another name. He doesn't name a Giovanna as well in this
context, mistakenly giving the man a second wife called Maria del Balzo.
Lots of people make a will and live on for six years or more.
Actually Litta made two major mistakes. He confused Gorizia with
Giovanna, and he fabricated a ficticious second wife Maria del Balzo
for Count Niccolo Orsini. These sound like major errors to me. Why
aren't you ranting and raving about Litta's incompetence?
I haven't used a "figleaf", there is nothing to be hidden here in the
first
place, and I patently didn't make any claim beyond the indisputable fact
that Litta is where the name Gorizia came from into the more recent
literature.
You seem to be avoiding the obvious, Peter. I don't think Gorizia is
the same woman as Giovanna. You apparently think they are the same
woman. Either you are right, or I am. Anyone want to take bets? Naw,
I think it's pretty obvious who is right.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
O the tedium. Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121420159.851830.58440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Of course you don't - take the word of Gary Boyd Roberts instead. He can
evidently make sense of Italian, unlike you. "Mamby pampy" is presumably a
nonce term of your own, perhaps substituted for "namby pamby"? In any case
it is meaningless applied to me.
This has nothing yet to DO with medieval records - Litta, researching in the
19th century, may or may not have used a medieval record for calling the
count of Nola's Sabran wife Gorizia rather than Giovanna as others before
and since his time have done. The only point at issue is whether or not
Litta used that name intending the Sabran mother of Sueva, or another
person. Roberts and I assert that he did mean the same lady: Richardson is
now trying to obfuscate his earlier claim that he didn't, and was talking
instead about a different women entirely.
Yes, you have missed ANY evidence that a Gorizia died and that a Giovanna
was a subsequent wife - all you have to go on is a different name used by
one historian that you have not even traced to a medieval source. The notion
that you can opine about this with authority is risible.
It's absolutely NOT the same thing at all: Giovanna and Gorizia are NOT
falsely claimed to be the same name, and NOT a conflation of one of the most
famous personages of the medieval era with a nonentity. Mr Stewart hasn't
"collapsed" anyone, but simply read Litta as he intended to be understood,
and as G.B. Roberts agrees, to mean that Niccolo married Gorizia Sabrano who
was mother of Sueva.
If you think I am going to transcribe Litta for you to save you the trouble
of looking this up, you are mistaken. I am not a party to your filching work
and references, and obtaining free research assistance, here. Several people
have stopped posting regularly to SGM to avoid this, while others now omit
detailed citations that formerly would have been given more liberally.
Others again provide information or references with a variety of indicators
planted to see if you merely copy or actually check.
But I have never done such a thing - yet again you imagine that you can
falsely characterise someone else and your self-serving misrepresentation
will somehow become true, or at least credible to others, in the making. It
doesn't happen. Ever.
I have plainly stated that Litta called Niccolo Orsini's Sabran wife, mother
of his daughter Sueva, by the unexplained name Gorizia, wheras she is
otherwise called Giovanna (including by Pope Urban V). If you need to verify
this, the place to do it is in Litta's work, not in a Usenet group. There
are several other published works where you can find support for everything
I have said about this, such as in G.W. Watson's 'The Seize Quartiers of the
Kings and Queens of England', Table XXX, _The Genealogist_ new series 12
(1896) p. 244 ("Jane, da. of William di Sabrano") and p. 248 note 15
(Litta...calls her Gorizia"). NOTHING offered by Richardson provides a
skerrick of evidence that the one woman was not alternatively known as
Giovanna and Gorizia, the latter either to Litta alone in error or else also
by some earlier (perhaps medieval) writer/s known to him but not to us. That
is all I have claimed, and it is beyond dispute, so that there could be no
reason to high-tail it into the grass even if I were disposed to flight in
the first place - which, sadly for Richardson, I am clearly not.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121420159.851830.58440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Surely Mr. Stewart can do better than this bowl of mamby pampy mush!
Either Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna, or she isn't. Either
Litta based his work on solid evidence, or he didn't. Which is it?
Mr. Stewart tells is that Litta makes it "plain" that the woman he
calls "Gorizia" is the same wife as Giovanna. But Mr. Stewart
provides us no documentation to verify this. Do we just have to take
Mr. Stewart's word for this? I hope not!
Of course you don't - take the word of Gary Boyd Roberts instead. He can
evidently make sense of Italian, unlike you. "Mamby pampy" is presumably a
nonce term of your own, perhaps substituted for "namby pamby"? In any case
it is meaningless applied to me.
I don't find anything "plain" in medieval records, unless there is
adequate documentation to prove it. So, perhaps Mr. Stewart can stop
hiding behind the little Litta figleaf and tell us the evidence Litta
used to conclude that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna.
Enquiring minds want to know!
This has nothing yet to DO with medieval records - Litta, researching in the
19th century, may or may not have used a medieval record for calling the
count of Nola's Sabran wife Gorizia rather than Giovanna as others before
and since his time have done. The only point at issue is whether or not
Litta used that name intending the Sabran mother of Sueva, or another
person. Roberts and I assert that he did mean the same lady: Richardson is
now trying to obfuscate his earlier claim that he didn't, and was talking
instead about a different women entirely.
Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
Yes, you have missed ANY evidence that a Gorizia died and that a Giovanna
was a subsequent wife - all you have to go on is a different name used by
one historian that you have not even traced to a medieval source. The notion
that you can opine about this with authority is risible.
I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
prove it.
It's absolutely NOT the same thing at all: Giovanna and Gorizia are NOT
falsely claimed to be the same name, and NOT a conflation of one of the most
famous personages of the medieval era with a nonentity. Mr Stewart hasn't
"collapsed" anyone, but simply read Litta as he intended to be understood,
and as G.B. Roberts agrees, to mean that Niccolo married Gorizia Sabrano who
was mother of Sueva.
If you think I am going to transcribe Litta for you to save you the trouble
of looking this up, you are mistaken. I am not a party to your filching work
and references, and obtaining free research assistance, here. Several people
have stopped posting regularly to SGM to avoid this, while others now omit
detailed citations that formerly would have been given more liberally.
Others again provide information or references with a variety of indicators
planted to see if you merely copy or actually check.
I predict Mr. Stewart will run for the tall grasses in his next post.
But I have never done such a thing - yet again you imagine that you can
falsely characterise someone else and your self-serving misrepresentation
will somehow become true, or at least credible to others, in the making. It
doesn't happen. Ever.
I have plainly stated that Litta called Niccolo Orsini's Sabran wife, mother
of his daughter Sueva, by the unexplained name Gorizia, wheras she is
otherwise called Giovanna (including by Pope Urban V). If you need to verify
this, the place to do it is in Litta's work, not in a Usenet group. There
are several other published works where you can find support for everything
I have said about this, such as in G.W. Watson's 'The Seize Quartiers of the
Kings and Queens of England', Table XXX, _The Genealogist_ new series 12
(1896) p. 244 ("Jane, da. of William di Sabrano") and p. 248 note 15
(Litta...calls her Gorizia"). NOTHING offered by Richardson provides a
skerrick of evidence that the one woman was not alternatively known as
Giovanna and Gorizia, the latter either to Litta alone in error or else also
by some earlier (perhaps medieval) writer/s known to him but not to us. That
is all I have claimed, and it is beyond dispute, so that there could be no
reason to high-tail it into the grass even if I were disposed to flight in
the first place - which, sadly for Richardson, I am clearly not.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
My comments are interspersed among Mr. Stewart interspersements. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
Gary Boyd Roberts doesn't know a word of Italian, much less Latin. He
seldom does research in original records. He usually just copies from
secondary sources. Asking Gary for his opinion of Litta would be like
asking a bush African for his opinion of the Dalai Lama.
Documentation has nothing to do with medieval records? Geez? Now
I've heard everything on the newsgroup. I guess you'd said that,
Peter, if you didn't have any evidence to support your case. Using
Roberts as your authority is really very lame. Roberts would be the
first to tell you he has no idea if Gorizia and Giovanna are the same
person.
I can give my opinion if I like. If you find it "risible," too bad
for you.
Yes, Gorizia has falsely been claimed to be the same wife as Giovanna.
That's Litta mistake number one. He also gave Count Niccolo another
wife named Maria del Balzo. That's mistake number two. Litta is a
flawed source who is not trustworthy.
Now I see it. You're perfectly willing for me to post long transcripts
of Pope Urbain's Lettres Communes and then pontificate on their
meaning. But, when it is your turn to post something of value, you beg
off. This makes you a newsgroup sponger, Peter. Big time.
How did I know Peter wouldn't provide anything from Litta? It's not
Sponge Bob Squarepants .... it's Sponge Peter Squarepants.
Peter Stewart ran for the tall grasses just as I predicted. He has no
evidence, no documentation.
I see. So now we're not supposed to discuss the Orsini family because
you can't handle it. Let me get my violin.
There are several other published works where you can find support for
everything
I've seen Watson already thank you.
Spoken as Mr. Stewart runs for the tall grasses. All Mr. Stewart has
left is his little Litta figleaf to hide behind.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
O the tedium. Comments interspersed:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121420159.851830.58440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Surely Mr. Stewart can do better than this bowl of mamby pampy mush!
Either Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna, or she isn't. Either
Litta based his work on solid evidence, or he didn't. Which is it?
Mr. Stewart tells is that Litta makes it "plain" that the woman he
calls "Gorizia" is the same wife as Giovanna. But Mr. Stewart
provides us no documentation to verify this. Do we just have to take
Mr. Stewart's word for this? I hope not!
Of course you don't - take the word of Gary Boyd Roberts instead. He can
evidently make sense of Italian, unlike you. "Mamby pampy" is presumably a
nonce term of your own, perhaps substituted for "namby pamby"? In any case
it is meaningless applied to me.
Gary Boyd Roberts doesn't know a word of Italian, much less Latin. He
seldom does research in original records. He usually just copies from
secondary sources. Asking Gary for his opinion of Litta would be like
asking a bush African for his opinion of the Dalai Lama.
I don't find anything "plain" in medieval records, unless there is
adequate documentation to prove it. So, perhaps Mr. Stewart can stop
hiding behind the little Litta figleaf and tell us the evidence Litta
used to conclude that Gorizia is the same person as Giovanna.
Enquiring minds want to know!
This has nothing yet to DO with medieval records - Litta, researching in the
19th century, may or may not have used a medieval record for calling the
count of Nola's Sabran wife Gorizia rather than Giovanna as others before
and since his time have done. The only point at issue is whether or not
Litta used that name intending the Sabran mother of Sueva, or another
person. Roberts and I assert that he did mean the same lady: Richardson is
now trying to obfuscate his earlier claim that he didn't, and was talking
instead about a different women entirely.
Documentation has nothing to do with medieval records? Geez? Now
I've heard everything on the newsgroup. I guess you'd said that,
Peter, if you didn't have any evidence to support your case. Using
Roberts as your authority is really very lame. Roberts would be the
first to tell you he has no idea if Gorizia and Giovanna are the same
person.
Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
Yes, you have missed ANY evidence that a Gorizia died and that a Giovanna
was a subsequent wife - all you have to go on is a different name used by
one historian that you have not even traced to a medieval source. The notion
that you can opine about this with authority is risible.
I can give my opinion if I like. If you find it "risible," too bad
for you.
I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
prove it.
It's absolutely NOT the same thing at all: Giovanna and Gorizia are NOT
falsely claimed to be the same name, and NOT a conflation of one of the most
famous personages of the medieval era with a nonentity. Mr Stewart hasn't
"collapsed" anyone, but simply read Litta as he intended to be understood,
and as G.B. Roberts agrees, to mean that Niccolo married Gorizia Sabrano who
was mother of Sueva.
Yes, Gorizia has falsely been claimed to be the same wife as Giovanna.
That's Litta mistake number one. He also gave Count Niccolo another
wife named Maria del Balzo. That's mistake number two. Litta is a
flawed source who is not trustworthy.
If you think I am going to transcribe Litta for you to save you the trouble
of looking this up, you are mistaken. I am not a party to your filching work
and references, and obtaining free research assistance, here. Several people
have stopped posting regularly to SGM to avoid this, while others now omit
detailed citations that formerly would have been given more liberally.
Others again provide information or references with a variety of indicators
planted to see if you merely copy or actually check.
Now I see it. You're perfectly willing for me to post long transcripts
of Pope Urbain's Lettres Communes and then pontificate on their
meaning. But, when it is your turn to post something of value, you beg
off. This makes you a newsgroup sponger, Peter. Big time.
How did I know Peter wouldn't provide anything from Litta? It's not
Sponge Bob Squarepants .... it's Sponge Peter Squarepants.
I predict Mr. Stewart will run for the tall grasses in his next post.
But I have never done such a thing - yet again you imagine that you can
falsely characterise someone else and your self-serving misrepresentation
will somehow become true, or at least credible to others, in the making. It
doesn't happen. Ever.
Peter Stewart ran for the tall grasses just as I predicted. He has no
evidence, no documentation.
I have plainly stated that Litta called Niccolo Orsini's Sabran wife, mother
of his daughter Sueva, by the unexplained name Gorizia, wheras she is
otherwise called Giovanna (including by Pope Urban V). If you need to verify
this, the place to do it is in Litta's work, not in a Usenet group.
I see. So now we're not supposed to discuss the Orsini family because
you can't handle it. Let me get my violin.
There are several other published works where you can find support for
everything
I have said about this, such as in G.W. Watson's 'The Seize Quartiers of the
Kings and Queens of England', Table XXX, _The Genealogist_ new series 12
(1896) p. 244 ("Jane, da. of William di Sabrano") and p. 248 note 15
(Litta...calls her Gorizia").
I've seen Watson already thank you.
NOTHING offered by Richardson provides a
skerrick of evidence that the one woman was not alternatively known as
Giovanna and Gorizia, the latter either to Litta alone in error or else also
by some earlier (perhaps medieval) writer/s known to him but not to us. That
is all I have claimed, and it is beyond dispute, so that there could be no
reason to high-tail it into the grass even if I were disposed to flight in
the first place - which, sadly for Richardson, I am clearly not.
Spoken as Mr. Stewart runs for the tall grasses. All Mr. Stewart has
left is his little Litta figleaf to hide behind.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
R. Battle
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
(if I can intrude...)
Lest the argument, such as it is, gets lost in the multiply-interspersed
re-replies, here (as I see it) are the pertinent questions:
(1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"?
(2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by Litta for
his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when it was
written or when it was acted upon?
-Robert Battle
Lest the argument, such as it is, gets lost in the multiply-interspersed
re-replies, here (as I see it) are the pertinent questions:
(1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"?
(2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by Litta for
his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when it was
written or when it was acted upon?
-Robert Battle
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Dear Robert ~
I predict Peter Stewart will dodge these questions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
R. Battle wrote:
I predict Peter Stewart will dodge these questions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
R. Battle wrote:
(if I can intrude...)
Lest the argument, such as it is, gets lost in the multiply-interspersed
re-replies, here (as I see it) are the pertinent questions:
(1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"?
(2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by Litta for
his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when it was
written or when it was acted upon?
-Robert Battle
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Mr. Richardson:
You should answer the second question, namely:
"(2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by Litta
for
his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when it
was
written or when it was acted upon? "
It is you who has placed so much reliance on the testament. You should
authenticate the testament. Is this one of those questions to be
dodged?
CED
You should answer the second question, namely:
"(2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by Litta
for
his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when it
was
written or when it was acted upon? "
It is you who has placed so much reliance on the testament. You should
authenticate the testament. Is this one of those questions to be
dodged?
CED
-
R. Battle
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Hi Doug,
I'd actually like answers from *anyone* who is either engaged in the
debate or who has access to the information requested. Peter Stewart has
already implicity answered the first question in the negative, but I would
be interested in hearing from anyone who would answer in the positive.
The second question has not, to the best of my knowledge, been answered by
anyone yet (and obviously bears on whether or not the "Gorizia" of the
testament could chronologically be the "Giovanna" of other sources). Do
you have any insights on either question?
-Robert Battle
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
I'd actually like answers from *anyone* who is either engaged in the
debate or who has access to the information requested. Peter Stewart has
already implicity answered the first question in the negative, but I would
be interested in hearing from anyone who would answer in the positive.
The second question has not, to the best of my knowledge, been answered by
anyone yet (and obviously bears on whether or not the "Gorizia" of the
testament could chronologically be the "Giovanna" of other sources). Do
you have any insights on either question?
-Robert Battle
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Robert ~
I predict Peter Stewart will dodge these questions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
R. Battle wrote:
(if I can intrude...)
Lest the argument, such as it is, gets lost in the multiply-interspersed
re-replies, here (as I see it) are the pertinent questions:
(1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"?
(2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by Litta for
his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when it was
written or when it was acted upon?
-Robert Battle
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Mr. Richardson:
Come to think of it, you are the one who insists that Gorizia and
Giovanna de Sabran are separate individuals; then you should answer the
first question as well, namely:
'(1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"? '
If there is no documented evidence of Gorizia other than Litta, then
you must have independent documentation. Show us the independent
documentation.
CED
Come to think of it, you are the one who insists that Gorizia and
Giovanna de Sabran are separate individuals; then you should answer the
first question as well, namely:
'(1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"? '
If there is no documented evidence of Gorizia other than Litta, then
you must have independent documentation. Show us the independent
documentation.
CED
-
Gjest
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Ced or whoever you
Since you have the knowledge maybe you would like to answer the
question's. Or are you a sponger and like to sit back and still other's
research and not give them credit.
Mike
Unlike CED who has no name and is posting under somebody else email
account
Since you have the knowledge maybe you would like to answer the
question's. Or are you a sponger and like to sit back and still other's
research and not give them credit.
Mike
Unlike CED who has no name and is posting under somebody else email
account
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Mike:
I am no genealogist and have no need for the information sought. I
want, just for once, that Mr. Richardson give an honest answer to his
own question. He, not any of the rest of us, raised the question and
made a point of it. He should provide the documentaion for his own
position, just as he himself demanded of others so many times in the
past. No one else has taken the position he holds. He is obligated to
document it with his own citations.
If I were he, I would be rude to you with some kind of degrading,
abusive, or humiliating comment. But fortunately I am not and will
spare you the treatment he has given so many others. However, if you
do not see that the obligation is upon him, you yourself have a problem
for which I have no solution.
As for my name, when you can prove that I am the only poster using
initials, false or otherwise, or a pen name, then I will consider
dropping my pen name. The use of pen names is an old and honored
tradition in the literary world. Or, did'nt you and Mr. Richardson
know that?
I once thought that you were Mr. Richardson were the same person; but
later, I discovered that he was not clever enough purposely to carry
out two personalities, so I concluded that either you two were separate
persons or he does it unknowingly.
CED
I am no genealogist and have no need for the information sought. I
want, just for once, that Mr. Richardson give an honest answer to his
own question. He, not any of the rest of us, raised the question and
made a point of it. He should provide the documentaion for his own
position, just as he himself demanded of others so many times in the
past. No one else has taken the position he holds. He is obligated to
document it with his own citations.
If I were he, I would be rude to you with some kind of degrading,
abusive, or humiliating comment. But fortunately I am not and will
spare you the treatment he has given so many others. However, if you
do not see that the obligation is upon him, you yourself have a problem
for which I have no solution.
As for my name, when you can prove that I am the only poster using
initials, false or otherwise, or a pen name, then I will consider
dropping my pen name. The use of pen names is an old and honored
tradition in the literary world. Or, did'nt you and Mr. Richardson
know that?
I once thought that you were Mr. Richardson were the same person; but
later, I discovered that he was not clever enough purposely to carry
out two personalities, so I concluded that either you two were separate
persons or he does it unknowingly.
CED
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Peter Stewart does indeed model himself on Dickens' Artful Dodger -- but
he proves himself to be a poor man's imitation in the crunch.
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121458255.639692.197550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Robert ~
|
| I predict Peter Stewart will dodge these questions.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
|
| R. Battle wrote:
| > (if I can intrude...)
| >
| > Lest the argument, such as it is, gets lost in the
multiply-interspersed
| > re-replies, here (as I see it) are the pertinent questions:
| >
| > (1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
| > indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"?
| >
| > (2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by
Litta for
| > his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when
it was
| > written or when it was acted upon?
| >
| > -Robert Battle
he proves himself to be a poor man's imitation in the crunch.
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121458255.639692.197550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Robert ~
|
| I predict Peter Stewart will dodge these questions.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
|
| R. Battle wrote:
| > (if I can intrude...)
| >
| > Lest the argument, such as it is, gets lost in the
multiply-interspersed
| > re-replies, here (as I see it) are the pertinent questions:
| >
| > (1) Does any source besides Litta and works that rely directly or
| > indirectly on Litta name any wife of the count of Nola "Gorizia"?
| >
| > (2) What is the nature of the "testament" and its date cited by
Litta for
| > his Gorizia? Is it a will of some sort, and if so is the date when
it was
| > written or when it was acted upon?
| >
| > -Robert Battle
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Damn!
You are SLOW!
It is a well-known fact that Richardson, Stewart and Hines are all the
same person.
And do stop hiding behind that silly pseudonym....
It completely abrogates any shred of credibility you might have had _ab
initio_.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121462377.108323.33060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I once thought that you were [sic] Mr. Richardson were the same
person; but
| later, I discovered that he was not clever enough purposely to carry
| out two personalities, so I concluded that either you two were
separate
| persons or he does it unknowingly. [sic]
|
| CED
You are SLOW!
It is a well-known fact that Richardson, Stewart and Hines are all the
same person.
And do stop hiding behind that silly pseudonym....
It completely abrogates any shred of credibility you might have had _ab
initio_.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121462377.108323.33060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I once thought that you were [sic] Mr. Richardson were the same
person; but
| later, I discovered that he was not clever enough purposely to carry
| out two personalities, so I concluded that either you two were
separate
| persons or he does it unknowingly. [sic]
|
| CED
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Once more:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121446717.279676.27480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
No-one is asking G.B. Robert for his opinion - he has already given this.
Whether or not he can read Italian is immaterial - he only had to consult a
table in Litta for this information, something that Richardson is bizarrely
unwilling to do for himself.
[I wrote:]
No, that is not at all what I said: the discussion is about a person's name
that as far as I know can't be traced beyond 19th-century genealogist, and
this discussion can have nothing to do with medieval records when NONE
ILLUMINATING THIS QUESTION IS KNOWN.
My "case" is simply that the name Gorizia was given by Litta for the woman
otherwise known as Giovanna. Nothing more, nothing less. You can embroider
this plain cloth however you like, but the handiwork is all your own.
On the contrary, Roberts clearly considered that they were the same: why
else would he repeat Litta naming "Gorizia Sabrano"?
For the rest, I didn't adduce Roberts as an "authority" on this question but
simply to show that he had read Litta correctly whereas his idioitic friend
Richardson had not.
And if Richardson is now correct about the ignorance of his friend, the
statement by Roberts that I quoted earlier ("Litta's great set, the
bibliographical base for this column") is either a bald lie or he engaged a
translator to help him - the latter is something that Richardson would be
well advised to do instead of resorting always to the former.
No-one suggested you are not welcome to give us all a laugh with your oafish
ponderings on subjects about which you know nothing.
NO - so far "Gorizia" has only been used as the name of a woman otherwise
called Giovanna. There is NO evidence that this was false - for all we know
yet, Litta might have found Gorizia in a medieval document that belonged or
referred to Giovanna, and preferred to call her by the more distinctive
name. On the other hand, he might have found the term aplied to her by an
earlier genealogist (I haven't looked into Imhoff, who wrote in Latin - for
all I known Litta might even have misconstrued something of his recording a
link to a place rather than a personal name).
No-one asked you to waste time on the useless transcripts from Urban V, that
you didn't understand and hoped to have clarified for you in further
discussion. These were utterly irrelevant to the questions at hand, except
for the date and name of the first and shorter extract, and the very brief
genealogical outline contained in the much longer second. You couldn't even
sort this out from the rest unaided, and were hoping for some free
assistance instead of seeking this professionally from someone who knows
more than yourself.
I have provided the information given by Litta, and backed up my reading of
it with unequivocal concurrence from Watson and Roberts. I am not going to
provide a complete citation much less a transcription from Litta, as I am
NOT here to give Richardson short-cuts for his next published work.
Another flat lie. I have stood still, maintaining the simple and
undisputable facts that I started with.
What we "discuss" on SGM and what Ricahrdson "verifies" for himself or not
in the relevant books ARE TWO COMPETELY DIFFERENT MATTERS. No-one said we
should not discuss the Orsini - Richardson's contribution so far on this has
been to provide a red-herring citation to a genealogy of the Sabran family,
and I corrected this to save anyone the trouble of following his mislead.
The why have you ignored what he had to say, without even checking Litta to
see if he was right or wrong?
The question starting all this was about the source for the name Gorizia.
The ONLY answer given so far is....LITTA. In a manner of speaking he is
BEHIND the fig-leaf of uncertainty on this sole point, but in any case
CANNOT provide one since the problem hasn't yet been traced any further to
something else that he might be covering.
Richardson is too busy digging himself into a deeper hole to see this.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121446717.279676.27480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Gary Boyd Roberts doesn't know a word of Italian, much less Latin. He
seldom does research in original records. He usually just copies from
secondary sources. Asking Gary for his opinion of Litta would be like
asking a bush African for his opinion of the Dalai Lama.
No-one is asking G.B. Robert for his opinion - he has already given this.
Whether or not he can read Italian is immaterial - he only had to consult a
table in Litta for this information, something that Richardson is bizarrely
unwilling to do for himself.
[I wrote:]
This has nothing yet to DO with medieval records - Litta, researching in
the
19th century, may or may not have used a medieval record for calling the
count of Nola's Sabran wife Gorizia rather than Giovanna as others before
and since his time have done. The only point at issue is whether or not
Litta used that name intending the Sabran mother of Sueva, or another
person. Roberts and I assert that he did mean the same lady: Richardson
is
now trying to obfuscate his earlier claim that he didn't, and was talking
instead about a different women entirely.
Documentation has nothing to do with medieval records? Geez? Now
I've heard everything on the newsgroup.
No, that is not at all what I said: the discussion is about a person's name
that as far as I know can't be traced beyond 19th-century genealogist, and
this discussion can have nothing to do with medieval records when NONE
ILLUMINATING THIS QUESTION IS KNOWN.
I guess you'd said that, Peter, if you didn't have any evidence to
support
your case.
My "case" is simply that the name Gorizia was given by Litta for the woman
otherwise known as Giovanna. Nothing more, nothing less. You can embroider
this plain cloth however you like, but the handiwork is all your own.
Using Roberts as your authority is really very lame. Roberts would be the
first to tell you he has no idea if Gorizia and Giovanna are the same
person.
On the contrary, Roberts clearly considered that they were the same: why
else would he repeat Litta naming "Gorizia Sabrano"?
For the rest, I didn't adduce Roberts as an "authority" on this question but
simply to show that he had read Litta correctly whereas his idioitic friend
Richardson had not.
And if Richardson is now correct about the ignorance of his friend, the
statement by Roberts that I quoted earlier ("Litta's great set, the
bibliographical base for this column") is either a bald lie or he engaged a
translator to help him - the latter is something that Richardson would be
well advised to do instead of resorting always to the former.
Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
Yes, you have missed ANY evidence that a Gorizia died and that a Giovanna
was a subsequent wife - all you have to go on is a different name used by
one historian that you have not even traced to a medieval source. The
notion
that you can opine about this with authority is risible.
I can give my opinion if I like. If you find it "risible," too bad
for you.
No-one suggested you are not welcome to give us all a laugh with your oafish
ponderings on subjects about which you know nothing.
I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
prove it.
It's absolutely NOT the same thing at all: Giovanna and Gorizia are NOT
falsely claimed to be the same name, and NOT a conflation of one of the
most
famous personages of the medieval era with a nonentity. Mr Stewart hasn't
"collapsed" anyone, but simply read Litta as he intended to be
understood,
and as G.B. Roberts agrees, to mean that Niccolo married Gorizia Sabrano
who
was mother of Sueva.
Yes, Gorizia has falsely been claimed to be the same wife as Giovanna.
That's Litta mistake number one. He also gave Count Niccolo another
wife named Maria del Balzo. That's mistake number two. Litta is a
flawed source who is not trustworthy.
NO - so far "Gorizia" has only been used as the name of a woman otherwise
called Giovanna. There is NO evidence that this was false - for all we know
yet, Litta might have found Gorizia in a medieval document that belonged or
referred to Giovanna, and preferred to call her by the more distinctive
name. On the other hand, he might have found the term aplied to her by an
earlier genealogist (I haven't looked into Imhoff, who wrote in Latin - for
all I known Litta might even have misconstrued something of his recording a
link to a place rather than a personal name).
If you think I am going to transcribe Litta for you to save you the
trouble
of looking this up, you are mistaken. I am not a party to your filching
work
and references, and obtaining free research assistance, here. Several
people
have stopped posting regularly to SGM to avoid this, while others now
omit
detailed citations that formerly would have been given more liberally.
Others again provide information or references with a variety of
indicators
planted to see if you merely copy or actually check.
Now I see it. You're perfectly willing for me to post long transcripts
of Pope Urbain's Lettres Communes and then pontificate on their
meaning. But, when it is your turn to post something of value, you beg
off. This makes you a newsgroup sponger, Peter. Big time.
No-one asked you to waste time on the useless transcripts from Urban V, that
you didn't understand and hoped to have clarified for you in further
discussion. These were utterly irrelevant to the questions at hand, except
for the date and name of the first and shorter extract, and the very brief
genealogical outline contained in the much longer second. You couldn't even
sort this out from the rest unaided, and were hoping for some free
assistance instead of seeking this professionally from someone who knows
more than yourself.
How did I know Peter wouldn't provide anything from Litta? It's not
Sponge Bob Squarepants .... it's Sponge Peter Squarepants.
I have provided the information given by Litta, and backed up my reading of
it with unequivocal concurrence from Watson and Roberts. I am not going to
provide a complete citation much less a transcription from Litta, as I am
NOT here to give Richardson short-cuts for his next published work.
Peter Stewart ran for the tall grasses just as I predicted. He has no
evidence, no documentation.
Another flat lie. I have stood still, maintaining the simple and
undisputable facts that I started with.
I have plainly stated that Litta called Niccolo Orsini's Sabran wife,
mother
of his daughter Sueva, by the unexplained name Gorizia, wheras she is
otherwise called Giovanna (including by Pope Urban V). If you need to
verify
this, the place to do it is in Litta's work, not in a Usenet group.
I see. So now we're not supposed to discuss the Orsini family because
you can't handle it. Let me get my violin.
What we "discuss" on SGM and what Ricahrdson "verifies" for himself or not
in the relevant books ARE TWO COMPETELY DIFFERENT MATTERS. No-one said we
should not discuss the Orsini - Richardson's contribution so far on this has
been to provide a red-herring citation to a genealogy of the Sabran family,
and I corrected this to save anyone the trouble of following his mislead.
There are several other published works where you can find support for
everything
I have said about this, such as in G.W. Watson's 'The Seize Quartiers of
the
Kings and Queens of England', Table XXX, _The Genealogist_ new series 12
(1896) p. 244 ("Jane, da. of William di Sabrano") and p. 248 note 15
(Litta...calls her Gorizia").
I've seen Watson already thank you.
The why have you ignored what he had to say, without even checking Litta to
see if he was right or wrong?
NOTHING offered by Richardson provides a
skerrick of evidence that the one woman was not alternatively known as
Giovanna and Gorizia, the latter either to Litta alone in error or else
also
by some earlier (perhaps medieval) writer/s known to him but not to us.
That
is all I have claimed, and it is beyond dispute, so that there could be
no
reason to high-tail it into the grass even if I were disposed to flight
in
the first place - which, sadly for Richardson, I am clearly not.
Spoken as Mr. Stewart runs for the tall grasses. All Mr. Stewart has
left is his little Litta figleaf to hide behind.
The question starting all this was about the source for the name Gorizia.
The ONLY answer given so far is....LITTA. In a manner of speaking he is
BEHIND the fig-leaf of uncertainty on this sole point, but in any case
CANNOT provide one since the problem hasn't yet been traced any further to
something else that he might be covering.
Richardson is too busy digging himself into a deeper hole to see this.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Dear Peter ~
There's no need to get hot under the collar. Count Niccolo Orsini's
wives, Gorizia and Giovanna, have been dead for centuries.
If you can show us an example of a woman named Gorizia who was also
known as Giovanna, I could probably buy your "theory" that Giovanna di
Sabrano was also known as Gorizia. Otherwise, I think we must make the
prudent assumption that the two women were separate and distinct
people.
Right now we have one record dated 1363 which names Count Niccolo's
wife as Giovanna, not Gorizia. That's evidence, not opinion. Where is
your evidence?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
There's no need to get hot under the collar. Count Niccolo Orsini's
wives, Gorizia and Giovanna, have been dead for centuries.
If you can show us an example of a woman named Gorizia who was also
known as Giovanna, I could probably buy your "theory" that Giovanna di
Sabrano was also known as Gorizia. Otherwise, I think we must make the
prudent assumption that the two women were separate and distinct
people.
Right now we have one record dated 1363 which names Count Niccolo's
wife as Giovanna, not Gorizia. That's evidence, not opinion. Where is
your evidence?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Once more:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121446717.279676.27480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip
Gary Boyd Roberts doesn't know a word of Italian, much less Latin. He
seldom does research in original records. He usually just copies from
secondary sources. Asking Gary for his opinion of Litta would be like
asking a bush African for his opinion of the Dalai Lama.
No-one is asking G.B. Robert for his opinion - he has already given this.
Whether or not he can read Italian is immaterial - he only had to consult a
table in Litta for this information, something that Richardson is bizarrely
unwilling to do for himself.
[I wrote:]
This has nothing yet to DO with medieval records - Litta, researching in
the
19th century, may or may not have used a medieval record for calling the
count of Nola's Sabran wife Gorizia rather than Giovanna as others before
and since his time have done. The only point at issue is whether or not
Litta used that name intending the Sabran mother of Sueva, or another
person. Roberts and I assert that he did mean the same lady: Richardson
is
now trying to obfuscate his earlier claim that he didn't, and was talking
instead about a different women entirely.
Documentation has nothing to do with medieval records? Geez? Now
I've heard everything on the newsgroup.
No, that is not at all what I said: the discussion is about a person's name
that as far as I know can't be traced beyond 19th-century genealogist, and
this discussion can have nothing to do with medieval records when NONE
ILLUMINATING THIS QUESTION IS KNOWN.
I guess you'd said that, Peter, if you didn't have any evidence to
support
your case.
My "case" is simply that the name Gorizia was given by Litta for the woman
otherwise known as Giovanna. Nothing more, nothing less. You can embroider
this plain cloth however you like, but the handiwork is all your own.
Using Roberts as your authority is really very lame. Roberts would be the
first to tell you he has no idea if Gorizia and Giovanna are the same
person.
On the contrary, Roberts clearly considered that they were the same: why
else would he repeat Litta naming "Gorizia Sabrano"?
For the rest, I didn't adduce Roberts as an "authority" on this question but
simply to show that he had read Litta correctly whereas his idioitic friend
Richardson had not.
And if Richardson is now correct about the ignorance of his friend, the
statement by Roberts that I quoted earlier ("Litta's great set, the
bibliographical base for this column") is either a bald lie or he engaged a
translator to help him - the latter is something that Richardson would be
well advised to do instead of resorting always to the former.
Personally I have trouble believing that the wife named Gorizia who
allegedly left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife named Giovanna
who was living in 1363. In fact, I've seen some sources allege that
Giovanna lived until the year 1379. Something is terribly wrong if Mr.
Stewart thinks Gorizia who left a testament dated 1357 is the same wife
as Giovanna who died in 1379. Or have we missed something?
Yes, you have missed ANY evidence that a Gorizia died and that a Giovanna
was a subsequent wife - all you have to go on is a different name used by
one historian that you have not even traced to a medieval source. The
notion
that you can opine about this with authority is risible.
I can give my opinion if I like. If you find it "risible," too bad
for you.
No-one suggested you are not welcome to give us all a laugh with your oafish
ponderings on subjects about which you know nothing.
I find it humorous that the same thing for which Mr. Stewart attacked
Dr. Kelley is now the same thing he is now guilty of. Mr. Stewart has
collapsed two women into one person and seems clueless about his error.
It's Litta's doing he says. Is it really? I say let Mr. Stewart
prove it.
It's absolutely NOT the same thing at all: Giovanna and Gorizia are NOT
falsely claimed to be the same name, and NOT a conflation of one of the
most
famous personages of the medieval era with a nonentity. Mr Stewart hasn't
"collapsed" anyone, but simply read Litta as he intended to be
understood,
and as G.B. Roberts agrees, to mean that Niccolo married Gorizia Sabrano
who
was mother of Sueva.
Yes, Gorizia has falsely been claimed to be the same wife as Giovanna.
That's Litta mistake number one. He also gave Count Niccolo another
wife named Maria del Balzo. That's mistake number two. Litta is a
flawed source who is not trustworthy.
NO - so far "Gorizia" has only been used as the name of a woman otherwise
called Giovanna. There is NO evidence that this was false - for all we know
yet, Litta might have found Gorizia in a medieval document that belonged or
referred to Giovanna, and preferred to call her by the more distinctive
name. On the other hand, he might have found the term aplied to her by an
earlier genealogist (I haven't looked into Imhoff, who wrote in Latin - for
all I known Litta might even have misconstrued something of his recording a
link to a place rather than a personal name).
If you think I am going to transcribe Litta for you to save you the
trouble
of looking this up, you are mistaken. I am not a party to your filching
work
and references, and obtaining free research assistance, here. Several
people
have stopped posting regularly to SGM to avoid this, while others now
omit
detailed citations that formerly would have been given more liberally.
Others again provide information or references with a variety of
indicators
planted to see if you merely copy or actually check.
Now I see it. You're perfectly willing for me to post long transcripts
of Pope Urbain's Lettres Communes and then pontificate on their
meaning. But, when it is your turn to post something of value, you beg
off. This makes you a newsgroup sponger, Peter. Big time.
No-one asked you to waste time on the useless transcripts from Urban V, that
you didn't understand and hoped to have clarified for you in further
discussion. These were utterly irrelevant to the questions at hand, except
for the date and name of the first and shorter extract, and the very brief
genealogical outline contained in the much longer second. You couldn't even
sort this out from the rest unaided, and were hoping for some free
assistance instead of seeking this professionally from someone who knows
more than yourself.
How did I know Peter wouldn't provide anything from Litta? It's not
Sponge Bob Squarepants .... it's Sponge Peter Squarepants.
I have provided the information given by Litta, and backed up my reading of
it with unequivocal concurrence from Watson and Roberts. I am not going to
provide a complete citation much less a transcription from Litta, as I am
NOT here to give Richardson short-cuts for his next published work.
Peter Stewart ran for the tall grasses just as I predicted. He has no
evidence, no documentation.
Another flat lie. I have stood still, maintaining the simple and
undisputable facts that I started with.
I have plainly stated that Litta called Niccolo Orsini's Sabran wife,
mother
of his daughter Sueva, by the unexplained name Gorizia, wheras she is
otherwise called Giovanna (including by Pope Urban V). If you need to
verify
this, the place to do it is in Litta's work, not in a Usenet group.
I see. So now we're not supposed to discuss the Orsini family because
you can't handle it. Let me get my violin.
What we "discuss" on SGM and what Ricahrdson "verifies" for himself or not
in the relevant books ARE TWO COMPETELY DIFFERENT MATTERS. No-one said we
should not discuss the Orsini - Richardson's contribution so far on this has
been to provide a red-herring citation to a genealogy of the Sabran family,
and I corrected this to save anyone the trouble of following his mislead.
There are several other published works where you can find support for
everything
I have said about this, such as in G.W. Watson's 'The Seize Quartiers of
the
Kings and Queens of England', Table XXX, _The Genealogist_ new series 12
(1896) p. 244 ("Jane, da. of William di Sabrano") and p. 248 note 15
(Litta...calls her Gorizia").
I've seen Watson already thank you.
The why have you ignored what he had to say, without even checking Litta to
see if he was right or wrong?
NOTHING offered by Richardson provides a
skerrick of evidence that the one woman was not alternatively known as
Giovanna and Gorizia, the latter either to Litta alone in error or else
also
by some earlier (perhaps medieval) writer/s known to him but not to us.
That
is all I have claimed, and it is beyond dispute, so that there could be
no
reason to high-tail it into the grass even if I were disposed to flight
in
the first place - which, sadly for Richardson, I am clearly not.
Spoken as Mr. Stewart runs for the tall grasses. All Mr. Stewart has
left is his little Litta figleaf to hide behind.
The question starting all this was about the source for the name Gorizia.
The ONLY answer given so far is....LITTA. In a manner of speaking he is
BEHIND the fig-leaf of uncertainty on this sole point, but in any case
CANNOT provide one since the problem hasn't yet been traced any further to
something else that he might be covering.
Richardson is too busy digging himself into a deeper hole to see this.
Peter Stewart
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Mr Richardson:
The proper question is: can you document that Gorizia ever existed as a
separate person from Giovanna de Sabran? The existence of Giovanna de
Sabran has not been in doubt. The burden of proof is upon you. What
is your evidence? What primary source do you have?
CED
The proper question is: can you document that Gorizia ever existed as a
separate person from Giovanna de Sabran? The existence of Giovanna de
Sabran has not been in doubt. The burden of proof is upon you. What
is your evidence? What primary source do you have?
CED
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121507514.792865.200620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
IN LITTA. It's only evidence for what he called the woman, and that IS ALL
THAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED FOR IT.
This blantant abuse of SGM readers for your own unprofessional purposes is
degrading even to your contemptible name in the study of genealogy.
Peter Stewart.
news:1121507514.792865.200620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
There's no need to get hot under the collar. Count Niccolo Orsini's
wives, Gorizia and Giovanna, have been dead for centuries.
If you can show us an example of a woman named Gorizia who was also
known as Giovanna, I could probably buy your "theory" that Giovanna di
Sabrano was also known as Gorizia. Otherwise, I think we must make the
prudent assumption that the two women were separate and distinct
people.
Right now we have one record dated 1363 which names Count Niccolo's
wife as Giovanna, not Gorizia. That's evidence, not opinion. Where is
your evidence?
IN LITTA. It's only evidence for what he called the woman, and that IS ALL
THAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED FOR IT.
This blantant abuse of SGM readers for your own unprofessional purposes is
degrading even to your contemptible name in the study of genealogy.
Peter Stewart.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121508482.671427.213050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richardson will not recognise his obligations in these matters. He can't be
taught.
Getting his work done by others, through foul or fouler means, is his idea
of "collegiality" - and it doesn't extend any further than that.
Peter Stewart
news:1121508482.671427.213050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mr Richardson:
The proper question is: can you document that Gorizia ever existed as a
separate person from Giovanna de Sabran? The existence of Giovanna de
Sabran has not been in doubt. The burden of proof is upon you. What
is your evidence? What primary source do you have?
Richardson will not recognise his obligations in these matters. He can't be
taught.
Getting his work done by others, through foul or fouler means, is his idea
of "collegiality" - and it doesn't extend any further than that.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Dear Newsgroup ~
Peter Stewart is bobbing and weaving again - what a hoot!
I claimed that Count Niccolo Orsini's wife was named Giovanna in 1363.
And I produced a document to prove it. Within twenty four hours, no
less.
Peter Stewart claimed that Giovanna is the same person as Count
Niccolo's alleged wife, Gorizia. I asked him to produced his evidence.
He says he has none and that he's not going to provide any. Well, I
say if you have no evidence, then withdraw your allegation then. Shut
up or put up, Peter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Peter Stewart is bobbing and weaving again - what a hoot!
I claimed that Count Niccolo Orsini's wife was named Giovanna in 1363.
And I produced a document to prove it. Within twenty four hours, no
less.
Peter Stewart claimed that Giovanna is the same person as Count
Niccolo's alleged wife, Gorizia. I asked him to produced his evidence.
He says he has none and that he's not going to provide any. Well, I
say if you have no evidence, then withdraw your allegation then. Shut
up or put up, Peter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121508482.671427.213050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mr Richardson:
The proper question is: can you document that Gorizia ever existed as a
separate person from Giovanna de Sabran? The existence of Giovanna de
Sabran has not been in doubt. The burden of proof is upon you. What
is your evidence? What primary source do you have?
Richardson will not recognise his obligations in these matters. He can't be
taught.
Getting his work done by others, through foul or fouler means, is his idea
of "collegiality" - and it doesn't extend any further than that.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Dear Newsgroup ~
I love to see Peter Stewart bob and weave when he has no evidence.
It's such a hoot!
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
I love to see Peter Stewart bob and weave when he has no evidence.
It's such a hoot!
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121507514.792865.200620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~
There's no need to get hot under the collar. Count Niccolo Orsini's
wives, Gorizia and Giovanna, have been dead for centuries.
If you can show us an example of a woman named Gorizia who was also
known as Giovanna, I could probably buy your "theory" that Giovanna di
Sabrano was also known as Gorizia. Otherwise, I think we must make the
prudent assumption that the two women were separate and distinct
people.
Right now we have one record dated 1363 which names Count Niccolo's
wife as Giovanna, not Gorizia. That's evidence, not opinion. Where is
your evidence?
IN LITTA. It's only evidence for what he called the woman, and that IS ALL
THAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED FOR IT.
This blantant abuse of SGM readers for your own unprofessional purposes is
degrading even to your contemptible name in the study of genealogy.
Peter Stewart.
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Mr. Richardson:
The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
that of Gorizia which is the question.
You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna but
have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
I have been warned that when you get pushed into a tight spot you
attempt to change the subject. That won't work this time. The record
is clear and I shall ensure that you do not twist it. Show us your
evidence about Gorizia.
CED
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
that of Gorizia which is the question.
You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna but
have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
I have been warned that when you get pushed into a tight spot you
attempt to change the subject. That won't work this time. The record
is clear and I shall ensure that you do not twist it. Show us your
evidence about Gorizia.
CED
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
I have evidence to prove that Count Niccolo Orsini had a wife named
Giovanna in 1363. That's it.
Where is your evidence? Or, do you just have an opinion?
DR
CED wrote:
Mr. Richardson:
So you agree! You have no evidence, only opinion.
CED
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121530238.965251.244330@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart has never once bobbed or weaved: I stand exactly where I
started, maintaining exactly what I said in the first place.
No-one has questioned that Orsini's wife in 1363 was Giovanna Sabrano. The
proof you found cited in another secondary work that you have failed to
disclose - since we know that you still can't even identify the information
in Urban V's document relating specifically to this question - DOES NOT
BEGIN TO PROVE THE WOMAN WAS NOT ALSO KNOWN AS GORIZIA.
The claim I made is that Gorizia is another name for the Sabrano wife of
Niccolo otherwise called Giovanna. The latter name is established from
medieval records, the former only from the 19th-century work of Litta as far
as I know. The evidence for that statement CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN LITTA, and
this cannot change unless the name should be traced back beyond him. I have
never represented that I have done this - on the contrary I have said as
plainly as can be that I have not.
I don't believe that any document is now likely to come to notice
elucidating Litta's conclusion, that Niccolo Orsini's Sabrano wife and
mother of his daughter Sueva was somewhere called Gorizia rather than - or
in addition to - Giovanna.
Richardson refuses to see this inexorable logic or to undermine it with his
posturings. He insults the intelligence of his readers by trying to do this.
He also demeans even his own already low level of craftiness by trying to
make out that I have committed some kind of error that he can't specify.
Bringing in Kelley is a typical ploy: in this case, Richardson wants to
associate me with the statements of Litta just because I answered a question
pointing out that he is the first known source of a variant name for a
particular person. At the same time he wants to blame me for following a
published statement associating him in full with Kelley's nonsensical
conclusions on another matter, a claim that over years he chose not to deny.
It's hard to describe this as a flagrant double standard, since it lacks any
standards at all and is indeed mere stupidity unhinged.
Richardson fails to remember that influential members of the genealogical
community in which he wants to be honoured can read SGM, and certainly
others hear about his shennanigans here.
His Hinesian rubbish about "bobbing and weaving" or "running for the tall
grass" only goes to show that silence in the face of his crude
misrepresentations will not achieve anything. For the good of genealogy as a
study, some more people ought to speak up against his abuse of this
newsgroup, his self-interested traching of logic, his disregards for truth
and his flouting of all professional standards.
Peter Stewart
news:1121530238.965251.244330@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Peter Stewart is bobbing and weaving again - what a hoot!
Peter Stewart has never once bobbed or weaved: I stand exactly where I
started, maintaining exactly what I said in the first place.
I claimed that Count Niccolo Orsini's wife was named Giovanna in 1363.
And I produced a document to prove it. Within twenty four hours, no
less.
No-one has questioned that Orsini's wife in 1363 was Giovanna Sabrano. The
proof you found cited in another secondary work that you have failed to
disclose - since we know that you still can't even identify the information
in Urban V's document relating specifically to this question - DOES NOT
BEGIN TO PROVE THE WOMAN WAS NOT ALSO KNOWN AS GORIZIA.
Peter Stewart claimed that Giovanna is the same person as Count
Niccolo's alleged wife, Gorizia. I asked him to produced his evidence.
He says he has none and that he's not going to provide any. Well, I
say if you have no evidence, then withdraw your allegation then. Shut
up or put up, Peter.
The claim I made is that Gorizia is another name for the Sabrano wife of
Niccolo otherwise called Giovanna. The latter name is established from
medieval records, the former only from the 19th-century work of Litta as far
as I know. The evidence for that statement CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN LITTA, and
this cannot change unless the name should be traced back beyond him. I have
never represented that I have done this - on the contrary I have said as
plainly as can be that I have not.
I don't believe that any document is now likely to come to notice
elucidating Litta's conclusion, that Niccolo Orsini's Sabrano wife and
mother of his daughter Sueva was somewhere called Gorizia rather than - or
in addition to - Giovanna.
Richardson refuses to see this inexorable logic or to undermine it with his
posturings. He insults the intelligence of his readers by trying to do this.
He also demeans even his own already low level of craftiness by trying to
make out that I have committed some kind of error that he can't specify.
Bringing in Kelley is a typical ploy: in this case, Richardson wants to
associate me with the statements of Litta just because I answered a question
pointing out that he is the first known source of a variant name for a
particular person. At the same time he wants to blame me for following a
published statement associating him in full with Kelley's nonsensical
conclusions on another matter, a claim that over years he chose not to deny.
It's hard to describe this as a flagrant double standard, since it lacks any
standards at all and is indeed mere stupidity unhinged.
Richardson fails to remember that influential members of the genealogical
community in which he wants to be honoured can read SGM, and certainly
others hear about his shennanigans here.
His Hinesian rubbish about "bobbing and weaving" or "running for the tall
grass" only goes to show that silence in the face of his crude
misrepresentations will not achieve anything. For the good of genealogy as a
study, some more people ought to speak up against his abuse of this
newsgroup, his self-interested traching of logic, his disregards for truth
and his flouting of all professional standards.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8UhCe.59$ds5.613@eagle.america.net...
Prove it - post any two statements of mine that demur one from another.
There's no use posting misrepresentations that you can't back up, as you so
often tell others.
No, he has the idea that capitalisations are necessary to get the essential
points through to Richardson, since comprehension skills are so demonstably
lacking in him, and to make it unmistakable to anyone else that he MUST
understand the logic presented to him, whether or not he acknowledges doing
so.
If Richardson has explained this, post his explanation - I'm sure I didn't
see it. He claimed that the editorial statement made by Sheppard was untrue
all along, but we only have his unsupported word for this. It doesn't begin
to explain why Richardnson left it on the record uncorrected for so long.
The latter fact undermines the former assertion.
Of course, Hines would know - we can all see every day how expert a
genealogist (or not) he is, from the detailed analysis of evidence that he
keeps favouring us with (or not)....
Peter Stewart
news:8UhCe.59$ds5.613@eagle.america.net...
Hmmmmmm...
Yes, Stewart definitely bobs and weaves -- he also bucks and weaves [a
form of tap dance].
Prove it - post any two statements of mine that demur one from another.
There's no use posting misrepresentations that you can't back up, as you so
often tell others.
Further, Stewart has the thoroughly buggered idea that all he has to do
is shout and everyone will stand silent and intimidated -- while he
rants on.
No, he has the idea that capitalisations are necessary to get the essential
points through to Richardson, since comprehension skills are so demonstably
lacking in him, and to make it unmistakable to anyone else that he MUST
understand the logic presented to him, whether or not he acknowledges doing
so.
Hilarious!
He's Brain-Damaged -- and it's getting worse.
Stewart also keeps harping, bluffing and puffing on the Kelley matter.
Douglas Richardson has fully explained what happened there and has been
exonerated of blame -- but Stewart is solely in transmit mode -- unable
to read the incoming posts and interpret them.
If Richardson has explained this, post his explanation - I'm sure I didn't
see it. He claimed that the editorial statement made by Sheppard was untrue
all along, but we only have his unsupported word for this. It doesn't begin
to explain why Richardnson left it on the record uncorrected for so long.
The latter fact undermines the former assertion.
He is damned funny though, I'll give him that.
He should quit his day job and do stand-up comedy in Australia and New
Zealand.
As it is, he's wasting his time mucking about with Genealogy.
Of course, Hines would know - we can all see every day how expert a
genealogist (or not) he is, from the detailed analysis of evidence that he
keeps favouring us with (or not)....
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Hmmmmmm...
Yes, Stewart definitely bobs and weaves -- he also bucks and weaves [a
form of tap dance].
Further, Stewart has the thoroughly buggered idea that all he has to do
is shout and everyone will stand silent and intimidated -- while he
rants on.
Hilarious!
He's Brain-Damaged -- and it's getting worse.
Stewart also keeps harping, bluffing and puffing on the Kelley matter.
Douglas Richardson has fully explained what happened there and has been
exonerated of blame -- but Stewart is solely in transmit mode -- unable
to read the incoming posts and interpret them.
He is damned funny though, I'll give him that.
He should quit his day job and do stand-up comedy in Australia and New
Zealand.
As it is, he's wasting his time mucking about with Genealogy.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Yes, Stewart definitely bobs and weaves -- he also bucks and weaves [a
form of tap dance].
Further, Stewart has the thoroughly buggered idea that all he has to do
is shout and everyone will stand silent and intimidated -- while he
rants on.
Hilarious!
He's Brain-Damaged -- and it's getting worse.
Stewart also keeps harping, bluffing and puffing on the Kelley matter.
Douglas Richardson has fully explained what happened there and has been
exonerated of blame -- but Stewart is solely in transmit mode -- unable
to read the incoming posts and interpret them.
He is damned funny though, I'll give him that.
He should quit his day job and do stand-up comedy in Australia and New
Zealand.
As it is, he's wasting his time mucking about with Genealogy.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
CED wrote:
Its not required that Richardson prove anything. He can happily and
logically and without contradiction say "I agree that Giovanna de Sabran
existed in the year X and was married to Y. Others have suggested that a
woman called "Gorizia" either was the same person as Giovanna or was
a different person, who may have been married to Y also. I have seen
no good evidence as to either possibility".
Doug McDonald
Mr. Richardson:
The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
that of Gorizia which is the question.
You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna but
have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
Its not required that Richardson prove anything. He can happily and
logically and without contradiction say "I agree that Giovanna de Sabran
existed in the year X and was married to Y. Others have suggested that a
woman called "Gorizia" either was the same person as Giovanna or was
a different person, who may have been married to Y also. I have seen
no good evidence as to either possibility".
Doug McDonald
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Doug McDonald wrote:
Dear Mr. McDonald:
I assume that you have not followed this thread from the beginning.
Therefore, I shall attempt to review it for you.
Mr. Richardson originally raised the question, using an "Italian
language" website of no genealogical value as evidence, that Niccolo
Orsini had a wife named Gorizia, therefore Niccolo had two wives,
Gorizia and Giovanna. He had no other evidence.
Peter Stewart did not agree.
Mr. Richardson began demanding, in most abusive language, that Stewart
put forward evidence that the two, Gorizia and Giovanna, were the same
women, a postion to which only Mr. Richardson had been firmly and
insistantly opposed.
Mr. Richardson offered no further evidence, but did continue to demand
that Stewart do so.
(Only one other person had questioned whether Gorizia and Giovanna
might be two different women.)
I hope this has been helpful for you in gaining an understanding of
what has been happening on this thread. If I have not done so, please
review the thread.
With best regards,
CED
CED wrote:
Dear Mr. McDonald:
I assume that you have not followed this thread from the beginning.
Therefore, I shall attempt to review it for you.
Mr. Richardson originally raised the question, using an "Italian
language" website of no genealogical value as evidence, that Niccolo
Orsini had a wife named Gorizia, therefore Niccolo had two wives,
Gorizia and Giovanna. He had no other evidence.
Peter Stewart did not agree.
Mr. Richardson began demanding, in most abusive language, that Stewart
put forward evidence that the two, Gorizia and Giovanna, were the same
women, a postion to which only Mr. Richardson had been firmly and
insistantly opposed.
Mr. Richardson offered no further evidence, but did continue to demand
that Stewart do so.
(Only one other person had questioned whether Gorizia and Giovanna
might be two different women.)
I hope this has been helpful for you in gaining an understanding of
what has been happening on this thread. If I have not done so, please
review the thread.
With best regards,
CED
CED wrote:
Mr. Richardson:
The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
that of Gorizia which is the question.
You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna but
have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
Its not required that Richardson prove anything. He can happily and
logically and without contradiction say "I agree that Giovanna de Sabran
existed in the year X and was married to Y. Others have suggested that a
woman called "Gorizia" either was the same person as Giovanna or was
a different person, who may have been married to Y also. I have seen
no good evidence as to either possibility".
Doug McDonald
-
fairthorne
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Sorry to disagree - Mr. Richardson originally raised the question
The start of the thread was a query from Tony Hoskins on 7th July
which I quote below
I am one of the despised breed of lurkers and I too am interested in the
answer
ES III 750 gives the third wife of Franceso del Balzo as Sveva Orsini,
daughter of Niccolo Conte di Nola
and
ES XIV 183 gives Giovanna de Sabran d1379 married 1332 Niccolo Orsini Conte
di Nola
ES III 750 does not give Sveva's mother - does that mean there was doubt, or
it was of no interest?
I find it a bit suspicious that Shama's website gives both with the family
name of Balzo - but maybe they were cousins etc
A supplementary embarassing question - how reliable is the website
(Genealogie Delle Dinastie Nobili Italiane) - apologies to Davide Shama for
asking this, but I am in such a state of ignorance of this period that I'm
not able to judge
cheers
Simon
--------------
Giovanna/Jeanne de Sabran or Maria del Balzo?
I read conflicting accounts of the mother of Sueva Orsini, daughter of
Niccolo Orsini, Conte di Nola (will 1399), and wife (1381) of Francesco
del Balzo, Duca d'Andria (d.1422).
1) Leo van de Pas' site "Genealogics", Ronny Bodine's _The Ancestry of
Dorothea Poyntz_ , and Doug Richardson's _Plantagenet Ancestry_ all
call Sueva's mother Giovanna/Jeanne de Sabran. But Mr. Richardson's book
also cites a source which in fact names another woman as Sueva's
mother:
2) <www.sardimpex.com> [Genealogie Delle Dinastie Nobili Italiane], sub
"Orsini del Balzo, Orsini di Pitigliano" shows Sueva's mother as maria
del Balzo:
"K1. Nicola (* 27-8-1331 + testamento: 14-2-1399, morto poco dopo a
Nola), 3° Conte di Nola, Gran Giustiziere del Regno di Napoli...Nobile
Romano; Senatore di Roma nel 1356
a) = Napoli 1352/1355 Giovanna (o Garizia) de Sabran, figlia di
Guglielmo Conte di Ariano e di Francesca dei Conti di Celano
b) = ca. 1359 Maria del Balzo, figlia di Raimondo Conte di Soleto
e di Isabella d'Eppes (d'Appia) (* 1340/1341 + ?) (v.)
L1. (ex 1°) Beatrice (* 1352/1355 ca. + ?), Nobile Romana. = ca.
1368/1370 Luigi Antonio della Ratta 3° Conte di Caserta (v.)
L2. (ex 2°) Roberto (* 1360 ca. + ca. 1400), 4° Conte di Nola
L3. (ex 2°) Sveva, Nobile Romana. = 8-12-1381 Francesco I del Balzo 1°
Duca d'Andria (v.)
L4. (ex 2°) Raimondo detto "Raimondello" Orsini del Balzo (+
Taranto 17-1-1406), 1° Principe di Taranto, Conte di Soleto (occupata
nel 1382), Duca di Benevento."
Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.
----------------
The start of the thread was a query from Tony Hoskins on 7th July
which I quote below
I am one of the despised breed of lurkers and I too am interested in the
answer
ES III 750 gives the third wife of Franceso del Balzo as Sveva Orsini,
daughter of Niccolo Conte di Nola
and
ES XIV 183 gives Giovanna de Sabran d1379 married 1332 Niccolo Orsini Conte
di Nola
ES III 750 does not give Sveva's mother - does that mean there was doubt, or
it was of no interest?
I find it a bit suspicious that Shama's website gives both with the family
name of Balzo - but maybe they were cousins etc
A supplementary embarassing question - how reliable is the website
(Genealogie Delle Dinastie Nobili Italiane) - apologies to Davide Shama for
asking this, but I am in such a state of ignorance of this period that I'm
not able to judge
cheers
Simon
--------------
Giovanna/Jeanne de Sabran or Maria del Balzo?
I read conflicting accounts of the mother of Sueva Orsini, daughter of
Niccolo Orsini, Conte di Nola (will 1399), and wife (1381) of Francesco
del Balzo, Duca d'Andria (d.1422).
1) Leo van de Pas' site "Genealogics", Ronny Bodine's _The Ancestry of
Dorothea Poyntz_ , and Doug Richardson's _Plantagenet Ancestry_ all
call Sueva's mother Giovanna/Jeanne de Sabran. But Mr. Richardson's book
also cites a source which in fact names another woman as Sueva's
mother:
2) <www.sardimpex.com> [Genealogie Delle Dinastie Nobili Italiane], sub
"Orsini del Balzo, Orsini di Pitigliano" shows Sueva's mother as maria
del Balzo:
"K1. Nicola (* 27-8-1331 + testamento: 14-2-1399, morto poco dopo a
Nola), 3° Conte di Nola, Gran Giustiziere del Regno di Napoli...Nobile
Romano; Senatore di Roma nel 1356
a) = Napoli 1352/1355 Giovanna (o Garizia) de Sabran, figlia di
Guglielmo Conte di Ariano e di Francesca dei Conti di Celano
b) = ca. 1359 Maria del Balzo, figlia di Raimondo Conte di Soleto
e di Isabella d'Eppes (d'Appia) (* 1340/1341 + ?) (v.)
L1. (ex 1°) Beatrice (* 1352/1355 ca. + ?), Nobile Romana. = ca.
1368/1370 Luigi Antonio della Ratta 3° Conte di Caserta (v.)
L2. (ex 2°) Roberto (* 1360 ca. + ca. 1400), 4° Conte di Nola
L3. (ex 2°) Sveva, Nobile Romana. = 8-12-1381 Francesco I del Balzo 1°
Duca d'Andria (v.)
L4. (ex 2°) Raimondo detto "Raimondello" Orsini del Balzo (+
Taranto 17-1-1406), 1° Principe di Taranto, Conte di Soleto (occupata
nel 1382), Duca di Benevento."
Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.
----------------
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"fairthorne" wrote:
To fairthorne:
I'm sorry that I did not make my summary clear. I had only intended to
summarize the controversy which began with the thread begun on 12 July
2005 and the posting of Mr. Richardson from the website in the "Italian
laguage." That is when the question of one or two women arose, that
is: that Gorizia was not the same person as Giovanna. Such a
distinction was not the subject of the earlier thread.
I should have made myself more nearly clear. Sorry.
Best regards,
CED
Sorry to disagree - Mr. Richardson originally raised the question
To fairthorne:
I'm sorry that I did not make my summary clear. I had only intended to
summarize the controversy which began with the thread begun on 12 July
2005 and the posting of Mr. Richardson from the website in the "Italian
laguage." That is when the question of one or two women arose, that
is: that Gorizia was not the same person as Giovanna. Such a
distinction was not the subject of the earlier thread.
I should have made myself more nearly clear. Sorry.
Best regards,
CED
The start of the thread was a query from Tony Hoskins on 7th July
which I quote below
I am one of the despised breed of lurkers and I too am interested in the
answer
ES III 750 gives the third wife of Franceso del Balzo as Sveva Orsini,
daughter of Niccolo Conte di Nola
and
ES XIV 183 gives Giovanna de Sabran d1379 married 1332 Niccolo Orsini Conte
di Nola
ES III 750 does not give Sveva's mother - does that mean there was doubt, or
it was of no interest?
I find it a bit suspicious that Shama's website gives both with the family
name of Balzo - but maybe they were cousins etc
A supplementary embarassing question - how reliable is the website
(Genealogie Delle Dinastie Nobili Italiane) - apologies to Davide Shama for
asking this, but I am in such a state of ignorance of this period that I'm
not able to judge
cheers
Simon
--------------
Giovanna/Jeanne de Sabran or Maria del Balzo?
I read conflicting accounts of the mother of Sueva Orsini, daughter of
Niccolo Orsini, Conte di Nola (will 1399), and wife (1381) of Francesco
del Balzo, Duca d'Andria (d.1422).
1) Leo van de Pas' site "Genealogics", Ronny Bodine's _The Ancestry of
Dorothea Poyntz_ , and Doug Richardson's _Plantagenet Ancestry_ all
call Sueva's mother Giovanna/Jeanne de Sabran. But Mr. Richardson's book
also cites a source which in fact names another woman as Sueva's
mother:
2) <www.sardimpex.com> [Genealogie Delle Dinastie Nobili Italiane], sub
"Orsini del Balzo, Orsini di Pitigliano" shows Sueva's mother as maria
del Balzo:
"K1. Nicola (* 27-8-1331 + testamento: 14-2-1399, morto poco dopo a
Nola), 3° Conte di Nola, Gran Giustiziere del Regno di Napoli...Nobile
Romano; Senatore di Roma nel 1356
a) = Napoli 1352/1355 Giovanna (o Garizia) de Sabran, figlia di
Guglielmo Conte di Ariano e di Francesca dei Conti di Celano
b) = ca. 1359 Maria del Balzo, figlia di Raimondo Conte di Soleto
e di Isabella d'Eppes (d'Appia) (* 1340/1341 + ?) (v.)
L1. (ex 1°) Beatrice (* 1352/1355 ca. + ?), Nobile Romana. = ca.
1368/1370 Luigi Antonio della Ratta 3° Conte di Caserta (v.)
L2. (ex 2°) Roberto (* 1360 ca. + ca. 1400), 4° Conte di Nola
L3. (ex 2°) Sveva, Nobile Romana. = 8-12-1381 Francesco I del Balzo 1°
Duca d'Andria (v.)
L4. (ex 2°) Raimondo detto "Raimondello" Orsini del Balzo (+
Taranto 17-1-1406), 1° Principe di Taranto, Conte di Soleto (occupata
nel 1382), Duca di Benevento."
Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.
----------------
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:dbe1bn$d46$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
If Richardson bothered to look into Litta, he would see - as he has been
told often - that the woman called "Gorizia" Sabrano is given the same
background as the woman elsewhere known as Giovanna Sabrano. Insofar as this
is "evidence" for anything it is only for an alternative name for the same
individual, unless we are to suppose on such a flimsy basis that Niccolo
Orsini married two sisters.
The ONLY reasons Richardson has stated or implied for supposing these names
must refer to two different women are (1) that he doesn't have a clue how
frequently dual names are found for medieval individuals, and (2) he doesn't
understand that any person in 14th-century Italy could make a will and yet
not die promptly.
These add up to the silliest load of stuff & nonsense that he has
perpetrated for some time.
And all the while HE has insisted that someone else has a burden of proof on
a question that HE has invented from ignorance while refusing to check the
source for himself as advised.
Hardly worth our attention, except that HE didn't have the nous to shut up.
Peter Stewart
news:dbe1bn$d46$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
CED wrote:
Mr. Richardson:
The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
that of Gorizia which is the question.
You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna but
have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
Its not required that Richardson prove anything. He can happily and
logically and without contradiction say "I agree that Giovanna de Sabran
existed in the year X and was married to Y. Others have suggested that a
woman called "Gorizia" either was the same person as Giovanna or was
a different person, who may have been married to Y also. I have seen
no good evidence as to either possibility".
If Richardson bothered to look into Litta, he would see - as he has been
told often - that the woman called "Gorizia" Sabrano is given the same
background as the woman elsewhere known as Giovanna Sabrano. Insofar as this
is "evidence" for anything it is only for an alternative name for the same
individual, unless we are to suppose on such a flimsy basis that Niccolo
Orsini married two sisters.
The ONLY reasons Richardson has stated or implied for supposing these names
must refer to two different women are (1) that he doesn't have a clue how
frequently dual names are found for medieval individuals, and (2) he doesn't
understand that any person in 14th-century Italy could make a will and yet
not die promptly.
These add up to the silliest load of stuff & nonsense that he has
perpetrated for some time.
And all the while HE has insisted that someone else has a burden of proof on
a question that HE has invented from ignorance while refusing to check the
source for himself as advised.
Hardly worth our attention, except that HE didn't have the nous to shut up.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
No evidence = opinion.
Where's your evidence, Peter?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart wrote:
Where's your evidence, Peter?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:dbe1bn$d46$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
CED wrote:
Mr. Richardson:
The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
that of Gorizia which is the question.
You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna but
have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
Its not required that Richardson prove anything. He can happily and
logically and without contradiction say "I agree that Giovanna de Sabran
existed in the year X and was married to Y. Others have suggested that a
woman called "Gorizia" either was the same person as Giovanna or was
a different person, who may have been married to Y also. I have seen
no good evidence as to either possibility".
If Richardson bothered to look into Litta, he would see - as he has been
told often - that the woman called "Gorizia" Sabrano is given the same
background as the woman elsewhere known as Giovanna Sabrano. Insofar as this
is "evidence" for anything it is only for an alternative name for the same
individual, unless we are to suppose on such a flimsy basis that Niccolo
Orsini married two sisters.
The ONLY reasons Richardson has stated or implied for supposing these names
must refer to two different women are (1) that he doesn't have a clue how
frequently dual names are found for medieval individuals, and (2) he doesn't
understand that any person in 14th-century Italy could make a will and yet
not die promptly.
These add up to the silliest load of stuff & nonsense that he has
perpetrated for some time.
And all the while HE has insisted that someone else has a burden of proof on
a question that HE has invented from ignorance while refusing to check the
source for himself as advised.
Hardly worth our attention, except that HE didn't have the nous to shut up.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
If you mean where is my evidence that you don't have the nous to shut up,
you just provided it.
If you mean on the pointless question you raised, what part of "Litta" do
you still not understand?
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121643858.403571.200820@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
you just provided it.
If you mean on the pointless question you raised, what part of "Litta" do
you still not understand?
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121643858.403571.200820@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No evidence = opinion.
Where's your evidence, Peter?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:dbe1bn$d46$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
CED wrote:
Mr. Richardson:
The existence of Giovanna de Sabran has never been the question; it is
that of Gorizia which is the question.
You have maintained that Gorizia is a separate person from Giovanna
but
have not offered one shred of documentary evidence to support that
position. Don't shift the question. Do you have any documentary
evidence to prove that Gorizia existed as a sparate person from
Giovanna or, for that matter, that Gorizia existed at all?
Its not required that Richardson prove anything. He can happily and
logically and without contradiction say "I agree that Giovanna de
Sabran
existed in the year X and was married to Y. Others have suggested that
a
woman called "Gorizia" either was the same person as Giovanna or was
a different person, who may have been married to Y also. I have seen
no good evidence as to either possibility".
If Richardson bothered to look into Litta, he would see - as he has been
told often - that the woman called "Gorizia" Sabrano is given the same
background as the woman elsewhere known as Giovanna Sabrano. Insofar as
this
is "evidence" for anything it is only for an alternative name for the
same
individual, unless we are to suppose on such a flimsy basis that Niccolo
Orsini married two sisters.
The ONLY reasons Richardson has stated or implied for supposing these
names
must refer to two different women are (1) that he doesn't have a clue how
frequently dual names are found for medieval individuals, and (2) he
doesn't
understand that any person in 14th-century Italy could make a will and
yet
not die promptly.
These add up to the silliest load of stuff & nonsense that he has
perpetrated for some time.
And all the while HE has insisted that someone else has a burden of proof
on
a question that HE has invented from ignorance while refusing to check
the
source for himself as advised.
Hardly worth our attention, except that HE didn't have the nous to shut
up.
Peter Stewart
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Mr. Richardson:
Admit it you have no documentary evidence for the existence of Gorizia
as a separate person from Giovanna de Sabran. If you have no such
evidence, then say so and end this tedious, tiring discussion.
This thread had such promise until you introduced that website in the
"Italian language" and with it your idea that Gorizia was a different
person from Giovanna. Now just admit that it was a mistake to post
that website and be done with it.
Let us proceed to another subject. Possibly we can get back to
Giovanna de Sabran again when you are not party to the discussion.
CED
Admit it you have no documentary evidence for the existence of Gorizia
as a separate person from Giovanna de Sabran. If you have no such
evidence, then say so and end this tedious, tiring discussion.
This thread had such promise until you introduced that website in the
"Italian language" and with it your idea that Gorizia was a different
person from Giovanna. Now just admit that it was a mistake to post
that website and be done with it.
Let us proceed to another subject. Possibly we can get back to
Giovanna de Sabran again when you are not party to the discussion.
CED
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1121646402.950833.93880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You seem to be assuming that Richardson is genuine in his "idea" that
Gorizia is a different person from Giovanna. This is not so.
All he wants is to have the matter expounded for him, with full
transcription and particularisation of the relevant sources, that he can't
understand and won't engage a professional to help him with.
More than enough evidence has already been posted to resolve the question
that he moronically persists in repeating.
First, that Litta is the source for the name "Gorizia" applied to a wife of
Niccolo Orsini: this can only be verified by consulting Litta. The absence
of a medieval document to back up the information can't be remedied, as far
as anybody knows. The absence of any other source or authority for "Gorizia"
before Litta could only be evidenced by checking every published and
unpublished record preceding his time, something that Richardson is welcome
to attempt - at least this would save him from wasting everyone else's time
and anyone's remaining goodwill on the matter.
Richardson has chosen to credit Litta on one aspect, that Niccolo may or may
not had a wife named "Gorizia", yet to be proven, but at the same time
arbitrarily to disregard the details given in this context that clearly
identify her with the woman otherwise known as Giovanna. No cogent reason
has been offered for this.
Maintaining this nonsense, Richardson further worries that Litta's "Gorizia"
made a will long before Giovanna died. Now, if these women were separate
individuals (as he demands I prove), and yet both daughters of Guillaume de
Sabran, count of Ariano (as the only available source leaves us no
alternative but to imagine), then why on earth would Pope Urban V extend a
favour to Niccolo and Giovanna while they were flouting the Church's
prohibition against marriage within such close affinity as a widowed husband
to his own sister-in-law? Or does Richardson expect that a dispensation
should be found for this, merely on the basis of his lack of understanding
and failure to comprehend what he is told?
Richardson doesn't have a clue what favour I am talking about, since he
doesn't know what the document he clumsily transcribed ("duxtaxat" for
"dumtaxat") actually means. That is proof, once more, that he is unskilled
and basically incompetent for the field of study he has adopted.
And yet he doesn't have the nous to shut up, and nor do the members of his
equally ignorant claque.
Peter Stewart
news:1121646402.950833.93880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Richardson:
Admit it you have no documentary evidence for the existence of Gorizia
as a separate person from Giovanna de Sabran. If you have no such
evidence, then say so and end this tedious, tiring discussion.
This thread had such promise until you introduced that website in the
"Italian language" and with it your idea that Gorizia was a different
person from Giovanna. Now just admit that it was a mistake to post
that website and be done with it.
Let us proceed to another subject. Possibly we can get back to
Giovanna de Sabran again when you are not party to the discussion.
You seem to be assuming that Richardson is genuine in his "idea" that
Gorizia is a different person from Giovanna. This is not so.
All he wants is to have the matter expounded for him, with full
transcription and particularisation of the relevant sources, that he can't
understand and won't engage a professional to help him with.
More than enough evidence has already been posted to resolve the question
that he moronically persists in repeating.
First, that Litta is the source for the name "Gorizia" applied to a wife of
Niccolo Orsini: this can only be verified by consulting Litta. The absence
of a medieval document to back up the information can't be remedied, as far
as anybody knows. The absence of any other source or authority for "Gorizia"
before Litta could only be evidenced by checking every published and
unpublished record preceding his time, something that Richardson is welcome
to attempt - at least this would save him from wasting everyone else's time
and anyone's remaining goodwill on the matter.
Richardson has chosen to credit Litta on one aspect, that Niccolo may or may
not had a wife named "Gorizia", yet to be proven, but at the same time
arbitrarily to disregard the details given in this context that clearly
identify her with the woman otherwise known as Giovanna. No cogent reason
has been offered for this.
Maintaining this nonsense, Richardson further worries that Litta's "Gorizia"
made a will long before Giovanna died. Now, if these women were separate
individuals (as he demands I prove), and yet both daughters of Guillaume de
Sabran, count of Ariano (as the only available source leaves us no
alternative but to imagine), then why on earth would Pope Urban V extend a
favour to Niccolo and Giovanna while they were flouting the Church's
prohibition against marriage within such close affinity as a widowed husband
to his own sister-in-law? Or does Richardson expect that a dispensation
should be found for this, merely on the basis of his lack of understanding
and failure to comprehend what he is told?
Richardson doesn't have a clue what favour I am talking about, since he
doesn't know what the document he clumsily transcribed ("duxtaxat" for
"dumtaxat") actually means. That is proof, once more, that he is unskilled
and basically incompetent for the field of study he has adopted.
And yet he doesn't have the nous to shut up, and nor do the members of his
equally ignorant claque.
Peter Stewart
-
CED
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Mr. Richardson:
Obviously you have no pride. Please spare us more, lest you have no
shame.
You put yourself in this box. Now just stop struggling against it; and
you'll find a way to ease your way out, unnoticed.
CED
> Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121652244.903444.264780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No matter how long he goes on making a fool of himself, I will go on
pointing this out - but I will not do his work for him.
Peter Stewart
When Peter has some evidence, then we can talk. Until then, Peter is
wasting everyone's time.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. Richardson:
Obviously you have no pride. Please spare us more, lest you have no
shame.
You put yourself in this box. Now just stop struggling against it; and
you'll find a way to ease your way out, unnoticed.
CED
> Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
This one by CED who thinks he or she is a author is best one yet. I
haven't stopped laughing at this since it was posted. He still can't
use his or her real name. So you can't be taken seriously. Maybe he or
she has no pride in himself or herself.
Mike Welch
haven't stopped laughing at this since it was posted. He still can't
use his or her real name. So you can't be taken seriously. Maybe he or
she has no pride in himself or herself.
Mike Welch
-
Leo
OT Whats in a name was Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de
Dear Mike,
You seem to be rattled by someone calling him/herself CED. Why?
What we call ourselves or how we sign our messages is our own business.
There are several people who use words which obviously are not their names.
So what? That does not invalidate their message. For all we know CED could
be his/her initials but that is not our businness.
What you did here is in a way come to the defense of Richardson. You really
shouldn't do it this way. If you think you _can_ support Richardson, stick
to the points, quote a source but do not try to belittle a person because
you do not like the way they present themselves.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
You seem to be rattled by someone calling him/herself CED. Why?
What we call ourselves or how we sign our messages is our own business.
There are several people who use words which obviously are not their names.
So what? That does not invalidate their message. For all we know CED could
be his/her initials but that is not our businness.
What you did here is in a way come to the defense of Richardson. You really
shouldn't do it this way. If you think you _can_ support Richardson, stick
to the points, quote a source but do not try to belittle a person because
you do not like the way they present themselves.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
This one by CED who thinks he or she is a author is best one yet. I
haven't stopped laughing at this since it was posted. He still can't
use his or her real name. So you can't be taken seriously. Maybe he or
she has no pride in himself or herself.
Mike Welch
-
Gjest
Re: OT Whats in a name was Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne
Dear Leo
No not rattled in the least. Not coming to the support of Doug either
he doesn't need me to speak for him. I would hope we are all adults
here even if we don't act like sometime's.
Best Wishes
Mike Welch
No not rattled in the least. Not coming to the support of Doug either
he doesn't need me to speak for him. I would hope we are all adults
here even if we don't act like sometime's.
Best Wishes
Mike Welch
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
My comments are interspersed. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
< I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
< not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table.
So, Peter finally confesses he only has notes from Litta, not Litta
itself. Peter could have saved much time and needless excuses if he
had made this confession earlier. He implied he had access to a copy
of Litta, when he did not. This explains Peter's continued bob and
weave, and his refusal to answer direct questions about Litta. Peter's
dishonesty is now laid bare.
< The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not found
an
< earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining it.
Again, another confession. So, Peter had no evidence all along. No
evidence = opinion. Peter's been making it up as he goes along. How
can anyone take Peter seriously now?
< Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
< I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
< not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table.
So, Peter finally confesses he only has notes from Litta, not Litta
itself. Peter could have saved much time and needless excuses if he
had made this confession earlier. He implied he had access to a copy
of Litta, when he did not. This explains Peter's continued bob and
weave, and his refusal to answer direct questions about Litta. Peter's
dishonesty is now laid bare.
< The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not found
an
< earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining it.
Again, another confession. So, Peter had no evidence all along. No
evidence = opinion. Peter's been making it up as he goes along. How
can anyone take Peter seriously now?
< Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121669936.843201.54500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Rubbish - I said Litta is not on my shelves, but this does not in any way
mean that I don't have access. Can't you comprehend the plainest statement
in English?
I use plenty of books without owning them. That is what libraries - such as
FHL - are for. At the moment I am at home, and not at the library a few
minutes walk away where a set of Litta is held. I don't intend to go there
at your behest.
I never claimed to have Litta in front of me. I made extensive and detailed
notes from the work years ago, and these include what I believe to be an
accurate transcription of the relevant information. My notes accord exactly
with the statements of Roberts and Watson. However, without checking the
original again, I would not be so irresponsible as to post this even if I
considered it necessary and appropriate to do so when Richardson only wants
it so as to avoid looking into an Italian book that he can't understand.
THE ABOVE IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG. Your lies are NOT working,
and your shameless, disgraceful opportunism is misplaced.
Is there ANYONE here, Welch, Hines and Brandon included, who actually
endorses Richardon's comments throughout this thread and who will undertake
to defend these?
Peter Stewart
news:1121669936.843201.54500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table.
So, Peter finally confesses he only has notes from Litta, not Litta
itself. Peter could have saved much time and needless excuses if he
had made this confession earlier. He implied he had access to a copy
of Litta, when he did not. This explains Peter's continued bob and
weave, and his refusal to answer direct questions about Litta. Peter's
dishonesty is now laid bare.
Rubbish - I said Litta is not on my shelves, but this does not in any way
mean that I don't have access. Can't you comprehend the plainest statement
in English?
I use plenty of books without owning them. That is what libraries - such as
FHL - are for. At the moment I am at home, and not at the library a few
minutes walk away where a set of Litta is held. I don't intend to go there
at your behest.
I never claimed to have Litta in front of me. I made extensive and detailed
notes from the work years ago, and these include what I believe to be an
accurate transcription of the relevant information. My notes accord exactly
with the statements of Roberts and Watson. However, without checking the
original again, I would not be so irresponsible as to post this even if I
considered it necessary and appropriate to do so when Richardson only wants
it so as to avoid looking into an Italian book that he can't understand.
The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not found
an
earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining it.
Again, another confession. So, Peter had no evidence all along. No
evidence = opinion. Peter's been making it up as he goes along. How
can anyone take Peter seriously now?
THE ABOVE IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG. Your lies are NOT working,
and your shameless, disgraceful opportunism is misplaced.
Is there ANYONE here, Welch, Hines and Brandon included, who actually
endorses Richardon's comments throughout this thread and who will undertake
to defend these?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
Peter Stewart wrote:
Litta stated that Count Niccolo Orsini married Maria del Balzo. It is
now apparent that Litta made up this marriage. This should be a red
flag to tell us that Litta is a seriously flawed secondary work which
should be used with extreme caution.
In Peter's attempt to explain Litta's confusion over the given names,
Gorizia/Giovanna, Peter has suggested that the name of Count Niccolo's
alleged wife, Gorizia, is actually a placename. A 30 second search of
the internet indicates that the given name, Gorizia/Garizia, occurs in
Italy in medieval times. I find, for example, that Guidone,
"feudatario di Massino, Albezzate e Besnate," living c. 1140, had a
wife named Garizia.
http://www.sardimpex.com/visconti/VISCONTIDUCALI.htm.
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/italy/visconti1.html.
I fail to understand why Peter would think Gorizia would be a place
name, when it is a perfectly good Italian given name in this time
period. Go figure.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
As to the place, it's conceivable that Jeanne de Sabran had married a lord
from (or indeed in) Gorizia before she married Niccolo Orsini, or had some
other connection ther that can't now be found - but this is going a step
past Litta by assuming that he had perhaps misunderstood a reference,
something that he certainly did not do frequently.
Peter Stewart
Litta stated that Count Niccolo Orsini married Maria del Balzo. It is
now apparent that Litta made up this marriage. This should be a red
flag to tell us that Litta is a seriously flawed secondary work which
should be used with extreme caution.
In Peter's attempt to explain Litta's confusion over the given names,
Gorizia/Giovanna, Peter has suggested that the name of Count Niccolo's
alleged wife, Gorizia, is actually a placename. A 30 second search of
the internet indicates that the given name, Gorizia/Garizia, occurs in
Italy in medieval times. I find, for example, that Guidone,
"feudatario di Massino, Albezzate e Besnate," living c. 1140, had a
wife named Garizia.
http://www.sardimpex.com/visconti/VISCONTIDUCALI.htm.
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/italy/visconti1.html.
I fail to understand why Peter would think Gorizia would be a place
name, when it is a perfectly good Italian given name in this time
period. Go figure.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121672563.235161.5850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
NO - I said it MIGHT be connected to the place, not that it is.
Gorizia IS the name of a place as well as a name given to females. That is
NOT debatable.
Will you ever learn that you can't just say "Up is Down, East is West, Black
is White" and make it so? People DON'T buy into your lies, they simply think
you are grossly foolish for offering these.
Peter Stewart
news:1121672563.235161.5850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
As to the place, it's conceivable that Jeanne de Sabran had married a
lord
from (or indeed in) Gorizia before she married Niccolo Orsini, or had
some
other connection ther that can't now be found - but this is going a step
past Litta by assuming that he had perhaps misunderstood a reference,
something that he certainly did not do frequently.
Peter Stewart
Litta stated that Count Niccolo Orsini married Maria del Balzo. It is
now apparent that Litta made up this marriage. This should be a red
flag to tell us that Litta is a seriously flawed secondary work which
should be used with extreme caution.
In Peter's attempt to explain Litta's confusion over the given names,
Gorizia/Giovanna, Peter has suggested that the name of Count Niccolo's
alleged wife, Gorizia, is actually a placename.
NO - I said it MIGHT be connected to the place, not that it is.
A 30 second search of
the internet indicates that the given name, Gorizia/Garizia, occurs in
Italy in medieval times. I find, for example, that Guidone,
"feudatario di Massino, Albezzate e Besnate," living c. 1140, had a
wife named Garizia.
http://www.sardimpex.com/visconti/VISCONTIDUCALI.htm.
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/italy/visconti1.html.
I fail to understand why Peter would think Gorizia would be a place
name, when it is a perfectly good Italian given name in this time
period. Go figure.
Gorizia IS the name of a place as well as a name given to females. That is
NOT debatable.
Will you ever learn that you can't just say "Up is Down, East is West, Black
is White" and make it so? People DON'T buy into your lies, they simply think
you are grossly foolish for offering these.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121672563.235161.5850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All secondary work should be used with caution - it is Richardson's habitual
failure to do this that gets him into so much trouble, along with his
inability to use primary sources.
And it has NOT been established that Litta "made up" the purported second
marriage of Niccolo Orsini. What is your evidence that he is the first or
only author to state this?
Peter Stewart
news:1121672563.235161.5850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Litta stated that Count Niccolo Orsini married Maria del Balzo. It is
now apparent that Litta made up this marriage. This should be a red
flag to tell us that Litta is a seriously flawed secondary work which
should be used with extreme caution.
All secondary work should be used with caution - it is Richardson's habitual
failure to do this that gets him into so much trouble, along with his
inability to use primary sources.
And it has NOT been established that Litta "made up" the purported second
marriage of Niccolo Orsini. What is your evidence that he is the first or
only author to state this?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
Peter Stewart has me utterly confused. He implied he had access to a
set of Litta. But he has since confessed that he merely consulted his
own cribbed notes of Litta made years ago. He's positive his notes are
accurate, but he won't post them.
Now he confesses he could have consulted Litta nearby if he wanted.
But he didn't care to do that. But, even if he had access to Litta, he
wouldn't post what Litta says.
Peter is sure Litta is accurate, but he confesses Litta made up Count
Niccolo's marriage to Maria del Balzo.
So, we are left again and again with conflicting statements from Peter
Stewart. And, still no evidence.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
set of Litta. But he has since confessed that he merely consulted his
own cribbed notes of Litta made years ago. He's positive his notes are
accurate, but he won't post them.
Now he confesses he could have consulted Litta nearby if he wanted.
But he didn't care to do that. But, even if he had access to Litta, he
wouldn't post what Litta says.
Peter is sure Litta is accurate, but he confesses Litta made up Count
Niccolo's marriage to Maria del Balzo.
So, we are left again and again with conflicting statements from Peter
Stewart. And, still no evidence.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121669936.843201.54500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table.
So, Peter finally confesses he only has notes from Litta, not Litta
itself. Peter could have saved much time and needless excuses if he
had made this confession earlier. He implied he had access to a copy
of Litta, when he did not. This explains Peter's continued bob and
weave, and his refusal to answer direct questions about Litta. Peter's
dishonesty is now laid bare.
Rubbish - I said Litta is not on my shelves, but this does not in any way
mean that I don't have access. Can't you comprehend the plainest statement
in English?
I use plenty of books without owning them. That is what libraries - such as
FHL - are for. At the moment I am at home, and not at the library a few
minutes walk away where a set of Litta is held. I don't intend to go there
at your behest.
I never claimed to have Litta in front of me. I made extensive and detailed
notes from the work years ago, and these include what I believe to be an
accurate transcription of the relevant information. My notes accord exactly
with the statements of Roberts and Watson. However, without checking the
original again, I would not be so irresponsible as to post this even if I
considered it necessary and appropriate to do so when Richardson only wants
it so as to avoid looking into an Italian book that he can't understand.
The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not found
an
earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining it.
Again, another confession. So, Peter had no evidence all along. No
evidence = opinion. Peter's been making it up as he goes along. How
can anyone take Peter seriously now?
THE ABOVE IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE SAID ALL ALONG. Your lies are NOT working,
and your shameless, disgraceful opportunism is misplaced.
Is there ANYONE here, Welch, Hines and Brandon included, who actually
endorses Richardon's comments throughout this thread and who will undertake
to defend these?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
Peter Stewart wrote:
I believe I'm the only person so far to post any primary evidence
regarding Count Niccolo Orsini's wife, Giovanna di Sabrano. In sharp
contrast, all you have offered so far has been your opinions.
This must be why you are so upset, Peter. I have evidence, you have
opinions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Will you ever learn that you can't just say "Up is Down, East is West, Black
is White" and make it so? People DON'T buy into your lies, they simply think
you are grossly foolish for offering these.
Peter Stewart
I believe I'm the only person so far to post any primary evidence
regarding Count Niccolo Orsini's wife, Giovanna di Sabrano. In sharp
contrast, all you have offered so far has been your opinions.
This must be why you are so upset, Peter. I have evidence, you have
opinions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Leo
Re: OT Whats in a name was Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne
If you were not being rattled and you were not supporting Richardson, what
were you doing?
You were trying to give CED an earful because he is exposing Richarson and
you tried to belittle him because you find CED unacceptable. Again, if you
were not being rattled and you were not supporting Richardson what were you
doing in that message which you have removed?
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: OT Whats in a name was Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de
Sabran
were you doing?
You were trying to give CED an earful because he is exposing Richarson and
you tried to belittle him because you find CED unacceptable. Again, if you
were not being rattled and you were not supporting Richardson what were you
doing in that message which you have removed?
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: OT Whats in a name was Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de
Sabran
Dear Leo
No not rattled in the least. Not coming to the support of Doug either
he doesn't need me to speak for him. I would hope we are all adults
here even if we don't act like sometime's.
Best Wishes
Mike Welch
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
Richardson has evidently fallen for the Brandon-Hines notion that I must
become exasperated by his obdurate stupidity & quite the thead. Not so.
Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121673489.147127.30520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I have access to a set of Litta and consult this whenever I wish. I said in
plain English that my notes were "extensive and detailed", not "cribbed". I
have no reason to post my notes literally, as I have stated (and
restated....) precisely what these contain. Any more could only be a
representation of what Litta himself said, and without verifying this from
the page I would never do such a thing - I respect the newsgroup and would
not insult readers by fiddling with the words of another.
This is no "confession", merely an explanation to counter your deliberate
twisting of my words into your falsehood. I have said fr44om the start that
I will not transcribe Litta for you, as your scholarly duty is to consult
the work directly on a point of interest in it. I am not your research
assistant.
I have NEVER said that Litta is "accurate", but only that he said what he
said. I have maintained from the satrt that I don't know where he found the
naem "Gorizia" and can't track this to ascertain if he was right, wrong or
somewhere in between.
There is no conflict whatsoever, and your misrepresentations are quite
ineffectual.
You have idiotically chosen to ignore the evidence, such as it is. Guillaume
de Sabran cannot have had two distinct daughters, one Gorizia and one
Giovanna, who both married Niccolo Orsini and bore his daughter Sueva. All
we have is that Litta in the 19th century called the single woman in this
genealogy "Gorizia" while others including contemporaries call her
"Giovanna" instead. Since Litta is the end of the line for "Gorizia", there
cannot be any further evidence unless this is newly discovered. We can't
even know that there is anything behind his statement to BE discovered, and
there is little value in speculating far beyond the possibility that the
place MIGHT have been involved in a misunderstanding on his part - and that
only because the alternative name is a rather peculiar one.
All that I have said on this is adequately supported.
Peter Stewart
become exasperated by his obdurate stupidity & quite the thead. Not so.
Comments interspersed:
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121673489.147127.30520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart has me utterly confused. He implied he had access to a
set of Litta. But he has since confessed that he merely consulted his
own cribbed notes of Litta made years ago. He's positive his notes are
accurate, but he won't post them.
I have access to a set of Litta and consult this whenever I wish. I said in
plain English that my notes were "extensive and detailed", not "cribbed". I
have no reason to post my notes literally, as I have stated (and
restated....) precisely what these contain. Any more could only be a
representation of what Litta himself said, and without verifying this from
the page I would never do such a thing - I respect the newsgroup and would
not insult readers by fiddling with the words of another.
Now he confesses he could have consulted Litta nearby if he wanted.
But he didn't care to do that. But, even if he had access to Litta, he
wouldn't post what Litta says.
This is no "confession", merely an explanation to counter your deliberate
twisting of my words into your falsehood. I have said fr44om the start that
I will not transcribe Litta for you, as your scholarly duty is to consult
the work directly on a point of interest in it. I am not your research
assistant.
Peter is sure Litta is accurate, but he confesses Litta made up Count
Niccolo's marriage to Maria del Balzo.
I have NEVER said that Litta is "accurate", but only that he said what he
said. I have maintained from the satrt that I don't know where he found the
naem "Gorizia" and can't track this to ascertain if he was right, wrong or
somewhere in between.
So, we are left again and again with conflicting statements from Peter
Stewart. And, still no evidence.
There is no conflict whatsoever, and your misrepresentations are quite
ineffectual.
You have idiotically chosen to ignore the evidence, such as it is. Guillaume
de Sabran cannot have had two distinct daughters, one Gorizia and one
Giovanna, who both married Niccolo Orsini and bore his daughter Sueva. All
we have is that Litta in the 19th century called the single woman in this
genealogy "Gorizia" while others including contemporaries call her
"Giovanna" instead. Since Litta is the end of the line for "Gorizia", there
cannot be any further evidence unless this is newly discovered. We can't
even know that there is anything behind his statement to BE discovered, and
there is little value in speculating far beyond the possibility that the
place MIGHT have been involved in a misunderstanding on his part - and that
only because the alternative name is a rather peculiar one.
All that I have said on this is adequately supported.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121673859.971371.119680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Here we go again - I am not "upset": this is your hope, but not
accomplished. You are wasting only minutes of my time and have no lingering
effect on me whatsoever as soon as I turn my attention away.
You are also confirming to the newsgroup that no sensible discussion with
you is possible, since you can't or won't take in the simplest statements
accurately if these embarrass you in any way. Once you have painted yourself
into a corner, you will wield the brush crazily & splatter everyone and
everything with lurid colours rather than admit your own error.
Your primary evidence so far is only for the name Giovanna, that isn't in
dispute, not that this was uniquely the name of Niccolo Orsini's Sabran
wife. The primary evidence for Litta's use of "Gorizia" for the same person
is in Litta, not in a medieval document. That is ALL there is to it.
If this has to be said over and over again, you are the loser by it.
Peter Stewart
news:1121673859.971371.119680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Will you ever learn that you can't just say "Up is Down, East is West,
Black
is White" and make it so? People DON'T buy into your lies, they simply
think
you are grossly foolish for offering these.
Peter Stewart
I believe I'm the only person so far to post any primary evidence
regarding Count Niccolo Orsini's wife, Giovanna di Sabrano. In sharp
contrast, all you have offered so far has been your opinions.
This must be why you are so upset, Peter. I have evidence, you have
opinions.
Here we go again - I am not "upset": this is your hope, but not
accomplished. You are wasting only minutes of my time and have no lingering
effect on me whatsoever as soon as I turn my attention away.
You are also confirming to the newsgroup that no sensible discussion with
you is possible, since you can't or won't take in the simplest statements
accurately if these embarrass you in any way. Once you have painted yourself
into a corner, you will wield the brush crazily & splatter everyone and
everything with lurid colours rather than admit your own error.
Your primary evidence so far is only for the name Giovanna, that isn't in
dispute, not that this was uniquely the name of Niccolo Orsini's Sabran
wife. The primary evidence for Litta's use of "Gorizia" for the same person
is in Litta, not in a medieval document. That is ALL there is to it.
If this has to be said over and over again, you are the loser by it.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q%JCe.154$ds5.1165@eagle.america.net...
What deep idiocy - of course I don't have in front of me every source that I
cite here. Litta is not "obscure" and there is no "cachet", much less
secrecy, in looking things up and taking notes for later. My notes on this
particular matter were not "scribbled" but written quite legibly, and I
can't see any point (even distorted, as usually by you) in a complaint about
the timing of my research.
The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta. The
inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while reporting
what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought. How do you suppose
scholarship was done before photo-reproduction? Do you suppose that every
word must have been written straight from the source, never relayed in
notes?
Perhaps for once you might try to ANSWER a question or two rather than
bobbing and weaving.
Peter Stewart
news:q%JCe.154$ds5.1165@eagle.america.net...
Peter Stewart seems to do this quite often.
He quotes and cites some obscure source -- as if he had it in front of
him.
He seems to think it gives him some sort of secret cachet.
Now we know all he has is some scribbled notes "made years ago" -- and
he doesn't even have the Orsini Table either.
What deep idiocy - of course I don't have in front of me every source that I
cite here. Litta is not "obscure" and there is no "cachet", much less
secrecy, in looking things up and taking notes for later. My notes on this
particular matter were not "scribbled" but written quite legibly, and I
can't see any point (even distorted, as usually by you) in a complaint about
the timing of my research.
The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta. The
inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while reporting
what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought. How do you suppose
scholarship was done before photo-reproduction? Do you suppose that every
word must have been written straight from the source, never relayed in
notes?
Perhaps for once you might try to ANSWER a question or two rather than
bobbing and weaving.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
As Peter Stewart turns his attention away from the newsgroup, I suggest
we review his record in this thread. False claims, no evidence,
misleading statements, assurances about sources which have been found
to be faulty, and now a goose hunt into a search for Gorizia as a
placename. In all, a very poor performance.
He lacks evidence, so he attacks those that provide it. It's very sad.
Here we come back to Peter Stewart's cribbed notes from Litta. He
won't post them. Nor will he post Litta's sources. He won't even
check a set of Litta he says he has available nearby. Is this man lazy
or what?
Peter Stewart is doing an elaborate song and dance routine with the
Orsini family as his stage. He thought he would impress everyone with
his "notes" from Litta. When he got pinned down on that, it was wing
and buck, bob and weave until even he admitted he had no evidence. A
poor showing at that. I honestly don't know why the man bothered to
post if this was the best he could do. Time to pack it in, Peter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Here we go again - I am not "upset": this is your hope, but not
accomplished. You are wasting only minutes of my time and have no lingering
effect on me whatsoever as soon as I turn my attention away.
As Peter Stewart turns his attention away from the newsgroup, I suggest
we review his record in this thread. False claims, no evidence,
misleading statements, assurances about sources which have been found
to be faulty, and now a goose hunt into a search for Gorizia as a
placename. In all, a very poor performance.
You are also confirming to the newsgroup that no sensible discussion with
you is possible, since you can't or won't take in the simplest statements
accurately if these embarrass you in any way. Once you have painted yourself
into a corner, you will wield the brush crazily & splatter everyone and
everything with lurid colours rather than admit your own error.
He lacks evidence, so he attacks those that provide it. It's very sad.
Your primary evidence so far is only for the name Giovanna, that isn't in
dispute, not that this was uniquely the name of Niccolo Orsini's Sabran
wife. The primary evidence for Litta's use of "Gorizia" for the same person
is in Litta, not in a medieval document. That is ALL there is to it.
Here we come back to Peter Stewart's cribbed notes from Litta. He
won't post them. Nor will he post Litta's sources. He won't even
check a set of Litta he says he has available nearby. Is this man lazy
or what?
If this has to be said over and over again, you are the loser by it.
Peter Stewart is doing an elaborate song and dance routine with the
Orsini family as his stage. He thought he would impress everyone with
his "notes" from Litta. When he got pinned down on that, it was wing
and buck, bob and weave until even he admitted he had no evidence. A
poor showing at that. I honestly don't know why the man bothered to
post if this was the best he could do. Time to pack it in, Peter.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
Once again - is there ANYONE here who endorses Richardson's comments and
will undertake to defend these?
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121678369.252564.69660@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
will undertake to defend these?
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121678369.252564.69660@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
Here we go again - I am not "upset": this is your hope, but not
accomplished. You are wasting only minutes of my time and have no
lingering
effect on me whatsoever as soon as I turn my attention away.
As Peter Stewart turns his attention away from the newsgroup, I suggest
we review his record in this thread. False claims, no evidence,
misleading statements, assurances about sources which have been found
to be faulty, and now a goose hunt into a search for Gorizia as a
placename. In all, a very poor performance.
You are also confirming to the newsgroup that no sensible discussion with
you is possible, since you can't or won't take in the simplest statements
accurately if these embarrass you in any way. Once you have painted
yourself
into a corner, you will wield the brush crazily & splatter everyone and
everything with lurid colours rather than admit your own error.
He lacks evidence, so he attacks those that provide it. It's very sad.
Your primary evidence so far is only for the name Giovanna, that isn't in
dispute, not that this was uniquely the name of Niccolo Orsini's Sabran
wife. The primary evidence for Litta's use of "Gorizia" for the same
person
is in Litta, not in a medieval document. That is ALL there is to it.
Here we come back to Peter Stewart's cribbed notes from Litta. He
won't post them. Nor will he post Litta's sources. He won't even
check a set of Litta he says he has available nearby. Is this man lazy
or what?
If this has to be said over and over again, you are the loser by it.
Peter Stewart is doing an elaborate song and dance routine with the
Orsini family as his stage. He thought he would impress everyone with
his "notes" from Litta. When he got pinned down on that, it was wing
and buck, bob and weave until even he admitted he had no evidence. A
poor showing at that. I honestly don't know why the man bothered to
post if this was the best he could do. Time to pack it in, Peter.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Well, well, I see we have still more bobbing and weaving from Peter
Stewart. It's excuses galore from here on out, folks. Peter is too
lazy to consult a nearby copy of Litta. All he wants to do is wave his
yellowed cribbed notes from Litta in the air thinking that will impress
us. That, plus make wild accusations against anyone doing serious
research. That's so impressive, Peter!
I honestly don't know why this man has bothered to post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Stewart. It's excuses galore from here on out, folks. Peter is too
lazy to consult a nearby copy of Litta. All he wants to do is wave his
yellowed cribbed notes from Litta in the air thinking that will impress
us. That, plus make wild accusations against anyone doing serious
research. That's so impressive, Peter!
I honestly don't know why this man has bothered to post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
What deep idiocy - of course I don't have in front of me every source that I
cite here. Litta is not "obscure" and there is no "cachet", much less
secrecy, in looking things up and taking notes for later. My notes on this
particular matter were not "scribbled" but written quite legibly, and I
can't see any point (even distorted, as usually by you) in a complaint about
the timing of my research.
The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta. The
inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while reporting
what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought. How do you suppose
scholarship was done before photo-reproduction? Do you suppose that every
word must have been written straight from the source, never relayed in
notes?
Perhaps for once you might try to ANSWER a question or two rather than
bobbing and weaving.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
Peter Stewart wrote:
If anyone said yes, you'd immediately attack them, Peter.
No one is going to give you the opportunity for you to slam them this
way. No one.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Once again - is there ANYONE here who endorses Richardson's comments and
will undertake to defend these?
Peter Stewart
If anyone said yes, you'd immediately attack them, Peter.
No one is going to give you the opportunity for you to slam them this
way. No one.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Peter Stewart seems to do this quite often.
He quotes and cites some obscure source -- as if he had it in front of
him.
He seems to think it gives him some sort of secret cachet.
Now we know all he has is some scribbled notes "made years ago" -- and
he doesn't even have the Orsini Table either.
Hilarious!
Stewart The Fraud & Charlatan.
No Surprises There....
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121669936.843201.54500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| My comments are interspersed. DR
|
| Peter Stewart wrote:
|
| < I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
| < not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table.
|
| So, Peter finally confesses he only has notes from Litta, not Litta
| itself. Peter could have saved much time and needless excuses if he
| had made this confession earlier. He implied he had access to a copy
| of Litta, when he did not. This explains Peter's continued bob and
| weave, and his refusal to answer direct questions about Litta.
| Peter's dishonesty is now laid bare.
|
| < The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not
| < found an earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining
| < it.
|
| Again, another confession. So, Peter had no evidence all along. No
| evidence = opinion. Peter's been making it up as he goes along. How
| can anyone take Peter seriously now?
|
| < Peter Stewart
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
He quotes and cites some obscure source -- as if he had it in front of
him.
He seems to think it gives him some sort of secret cachet.
Now we know all he has is some scribbled notes "made years ago" -- and
he doesn't even have the Orsini Table either.
Hilarious!
Stewart The Fraud & Charlatan.
No Surprises There....
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121669936.843201.54500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| My comments are interspersed. DR
|
| Peter Stewart wrote:
|
| < I have at hand only my notes on this, made years ago - Litta is
| < not on my shelves and I don't have a photocopy of the Orsini table.
|
| So, Peter finally confesses he only has notes from Litta, not Litta
| itself. Peter could have saved much time and needless excuses if he
| had made this confession earlier. He implied he had access to a copy
| of Litta, when he did not. This explains Peter's continued bob and
| weave, and his refusal to answer direct questions about Litta.
| Peter's dishonesty is now laid bare.
|
| < The name "Gorizia" is definitely given by Litta, and I have not
| < found an earlier authority for the name or a later one explaining
| < it.
|
| Again, another confession. So, Peter had no evidence all along. No
| evidence = opinion. Peter's been making it up as he goes along. How
| can anyone take Peter seriously now?
|
| < Peter Stewart
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121679449.450983.35650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Self-serving rubbish to cover your humiliation that even your claqueurs
won't come to your defense.
Hines is managing to get himself "slammed" without supporting you. Welch got
civil replies to civil posts. Brandon has taken to the hills.
Peter Stewart
news:1121679449.450983.35650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Once again - is there ANYONE here who endorses Richardson's comments and
will undertake to defend these?
Peter Stewart
If anyone said yes, you'd immediately attack them, Peter.
No one is going to give you the opportunity for you to slam them this
way. No one.
Self-serving rubbish to cover your humiliation that even your claqueurs
won't come to your defense.
Hines is managing to get himself "slammed" without supporting you. Welch got
civil replies to civil posts. Brandon has taken to the hills.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
My claquers? You want to use normal English, dude.
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121679449.450983.35650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Once again - is there ANYONE here who endorses Richardson's comments and
will undertake to defend these?
Peter Stewart
If anyone said yes, you'd immediately attack them, Peter.
No one is going to give you the opportunity for you to slam them this
way. No one.
Self-serving rubbish to cover your humiliation that even your claqueurs
won't come to your defense.
Hines is managing to get himself "slammed" without supporting you. Welch got
civil replies to civil posts. Brandon has taken to the hills.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
The word is "claqueurs", from "claque" that you will find it in any good
English dictionary. It means, acording to Funk & Wagnalls, "Any set of
persons concerting to praise or applaud from interested motives".
It comes from Franch (NB not "franqais"), a language that anyone
professionally studying Anglo-Norman genealogy should take the trouble to
learn. You, of course, are content to remain in total ignorance of this and
to cadge primary source information from others.
Bad show! as Hines might say - O wait....as Hines DID say, in his own
equally accurate words, in November 2003.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121680780.225910.286390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
English dictionary. It means, acording to Funk & Wagnalls, "Any set of
persons concerting to praise or applaud from interested motives".
It comes from Franch (NB not "franqais"), a language that anyone
professionally studying Anglo-Norman genealogy should take the trouble to
learn. You, of course, are content to remain in total ignorance of this and
to cadge primary source information from others.
Bad show! as Hines might say - O wait....as Hines DID say, in his own
equally accurate words, in November 2003.
Peter Stewart
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121680780.225910.286390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My claquers? You want to use normal English, dude.
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121679449.450983.35650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Once again - is there ANYONE here who endorses Richardson's comments
and
will undertake to defend these?
Peter Stewart
If anyone said yes, you'd immediately attack them, Peter.
No one is going to give you the opportunity for you to slam them this
way. No one.
Self-serving rubbish to cover your humiliation that even your claqueurs
won't come to your defense.
Hines is managing to get himself "slammed" without supporting you. Welch
got
civil replies to civil posts. Brandon has taken to the hills.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo
OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de
A few days ago Richardson described as fantasy my description of him as a
bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be correct.
Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should withdraw
from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise he and
his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains
genealogical discussion]
bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be correct.
Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should withdraw
from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise he and
his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains
genealogical discussion]
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
Here we go again - I am not "upset": this is your hope, but not
accomplished. You are wasting only minutes of my time and have no
lingering
effect on me whatsoever as soon as I turn my attention away.
As Peter Stewart turns his attention away from the newsgroup, I suggest
we review his record in this thread. False claims, no evidence,
misleading statements, assurances about sources which have been found
to be faulty, and now a goose hunt into a search for Gorizia as a
placename. In all, a very poor performance.
You are also confirming to the newsgroup that no sensible discussion with
you is possible, since you can't or won't take in the simplest statements
accurately if these embarrass you in any way. Once you have painted
yourself
into a corner, you will wield the brush crazily & splatter everyone and
everything with lurid colours rather than admit your own error.
He lacks evidence, so he attacks those that provide it. It's very sad.
Your primary evidence so far is only for the name Giovanna, that isn't in
dispute, not that this was uniquely the name of Niccolo Orsini's Sabran
wife. The primary evidence for Litta's use of "Gorizia" for the same
person
is in Litta, not in a medieval document. That is ALL there is to it.
Here we come back to Peter Stewart's cribbed notes from Litta. He
won't post them. Nor will he post Litta's sources. He won't even
check a set of Litta he says he has available nearby. Is this man lazy
or what?
If this has to be said over and over again, you are the loser by it.
Peter Stewart is doing an elaborate song and dance routine with the
Orsini family as his stage. He thought he would impress everyone with
his "notes" from Litta. When he got pinned down on that, it was wing
and buck, bob and weave until even he admitted he had no evidence. A
poor showing at that. I honestly don't know why the man bothered to
post if this was the best he could do. Time to pack it in, Peter.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Leo
OT Richardson Go Away !!!! Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeann
This bar room brawlers needs glasses, a course in English and a dictionary.
In my dictionary (Chambers 20th Century) one meaning is given : a body of
hired applauders. By the way, Richardson you spelled claqueurs wrong, and
Peter Stewart has it as it is in my dictionary.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains
genealogical discussion]
In my dictionary (Chambers 20th Century) one meaning is given : a body of
hired applauders. By the way, Richardson you spelled claqueurs wrong, and
Peter Stewart has it as it is in my dictionary.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains
genealogical discussion]
My claquers? You want to use normal English, dude.
DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121679449.450983.35650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Once again - is there ANYONE here who endorses Richardson's comments
and
will undertake to defend these?
Peter Stewart
If anyone said yes, you'd immediately attack them, Peter.
No one is going to give you the opportunity for you to slam them this
way. No one.
Self-serving rubbish to cover your humiliation that even your claqueurs
won't come to your defense.
Hines is managing to get himself "slammed" without supporting you. Welch
got
civil replies to civil posts. Brandon has taken to the hills.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
In message of 18 Jul, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
I have used the on-line Webster's dictionary and find that cribbed
means:
"To pilfer or purloin; hence, to steal from an author; to
appropriate; to plagiarize; as, to crib a line from Milton. [Colloq.]
[1913 Webster]"
In other words PS is accused of copying notes from Litta, presumably
those made by someone else. This has no justification from anything
anyoen has written. So far the only possible position is that PS made
his own notes many years ago, in the days before photocopiers. The
accusation of "cribbing" is a lie and should be withdrawn.
<snip>
Best? When lies are freely uttered?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
Here we come back to Peter Stewart's cribbed notes from Litta.
I have used the on-line Webster's dictionary and find that cribbed
means:
"To pilfer or purloin; hence, to steal from an author; to
appropriate; to plagiarize; as, to crib a line from Milton. [Colloq.]
[1913 Webster]"
In other words PS is accused of copying notes from Litta, presumably
those made by someone else. This has no justification from anything
anyoen has written. So far the only possible position is that PS made
his own notes many years ago, in the days before photocopiers. The
accusation of "cribbing" is a lie and should be withdrawn.
<snip>
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Best? When lies are freely uttered?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeann
In message of 18 Jul, leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote:
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
A few days ago Richardson described as fantasy my description of him as a
bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be correct.
Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should withdraw
from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise he and
his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
fairthorne
Orsini and names of contributors
Hi Gang
I was most disappointed - logging in this morning there were almost 50
messages re Orsini yet the answer to the original question from Tony has
moved forward about epsilon distance
I tried to resist joining in the bun fight but I couldn't let pass the
message below from Mike
what does it matter what the real name of CED is?
If they are an author they could be JKRowling in which case they would have
every reason to keep their real name hidden - and CED is honest about it and
not using a fake name
I know nothing about CED, they may be a politician (unlikely, quality of the
postings is too high), film star or someone prominent in another field and
just wants to pursue their hobby away from the glare of publicity.
There are many good reasons why contributors to this, or any other
conference, should wish to remain anonymous.
Which leads on to the question: How do we know that any of the contributors
names are their real names?
How do we know that the Douglas Richardson who posts here is the same as the
Douglas Richardson the author?, that the photo of a kindly-looking middle
aged man on Leo's website is actually Leo himself? How do you know that I am
who I say I am - probably, since if I were going to hide under an alias I
wouldn't choose a name which is quite so rare, (over the last 300 years
there are only two people with my name.)
Does it matter - in my view very little
Surely what matters is the quality of the postings - if someone produces a
posting with a logical argument accompanied with sources then I am
moderately trusting. If they produce several of similar quality over a
period I am more trusting. If they are open minded to reasoned criticism
then I am even more trusting. Who they are outsidse is almost irrelevenat. I
say almost because if I knew someone was a professional historian then I
would have slightly more confidence is their contributions.
(I am deliberately trying not to think of any particular individuals whilst
typing this.)
One last thought
Does it matter if a contributor actually has the book they refer to on their
shelves.
Surely not - otherwise almost all posting would become invalid - I don't
have ES nor Anselme but the first I can access at a library 40 miles away
and the other is viewable on the web (grateful thanks to a posting in this
conference some time ago giving the details)
OK that my head of steam released and now off to clear my desk of work ready
for 10.30 on Thursday (Lord's)
cheers
Simon (Fairthorne)
<semi-retired mathematics lecturer at King's College, London and Open
University, absolute novice in genealogy>
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
I was most disappointed - logging in this morning there were almost 50
messages re Orsini yet the answer to the original question from Tony has
moved forward about epsilon distance
I tried to resist joining in the bun fight but I couldn't let pass the
message below from Mike
what does it matter what the real name of CED is?
If they are an author they could be JKRowling in which case they would have
every reason to keep their real name hidden - and CED is honest about it and
not using a fake name
I know nothing about CED, they may be a politician (unlikely, quality of the
postings is too high), film star or someone prominent in another field and
just wants to pursue their hobby away from the glare of publicity.
There are many good reasons why contributors to this, or any other
conference, should wish to remain anonymous.
Which leads on to the question: How do we know that any of the contributors
names are their real names?
How do we know that the Douglas Richardson who posts here is the same as the
Douglas Richardson the author?, that the photo of a kindly-looking middle
aged man on Leo's website is actually Leo himself? How do you know that I am
who I say I am - probably, since if I were going to hide under an alias I
wouldn't choose a name which is quite so rare, (over the last 300 years
there are only two people with my name.)
Does it matter - in my view very little
Surely what matters is the quality of the postings - if someone produces a
posting with a logical argument accompanied with sources then I am
moderately trusting. If they produce several of similar quality over a
period I am more trusting. If they are open minded to reasoned criticism
then I am even more trusting. Who they are outsidse is almost irrelevenat. I
say almost because if I knew someone was a professional historian then I
would have slightly more confidence is their contributions.
(I am deliberately trying not to think of any particular individuals whilst
typing this.)
One last thought
Does it matter if a contributor actually has the book they refer to on their
shelves.
Surely not - otherwise almost all posting would become invalid - I don't
have ES nor Anselme but the first I can access at a library 40 miles away
and the other is viewable on the web (grateful thanks to a posting in this
conference some time ago giving the details)
OK that my head of steam released and now off to clear my desk of work ready
for 10.30 on Thursday (Lord's)
cheers
Simon (Fairthorne)
<semi-retired mathematics lecturer at King's College, London and Open
University, absolute novice in genealogy>
----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
This one by CED who thinks he or she is a author is best one yet. I
haven't stopped laughing at this since it was posted. He still can't
use his or her real name. So you can't be taken seriously. Maybe he or
she has no pride in himself or herself.
Mike Welch
-
Douglas Richardson royala
OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!
Actually Tim, I went on vacation earlier this month for five days.
You, Mr. Stewart, and Leo fought with everyone the ENTIRE time I was
gone. I felt sorry for everyone who had to put up with your sick
abuse.
You clearly don't need me to cause trouble. You guys are trouble
enough.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
You, Mr. Stewart, and Leo fought with everyone the ENTIRE time I was
gone. I felt sorry for everyone who had to put up with your sick
abuse.
You clearly don't need me to cause trouble. You guys are trouble
enough.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 18 Jul, leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote:
A few days ago Richardson described as fantasy my description of him as a
bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be correct.
Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should withdraw
from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise he and
his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
CED
Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Mr. Richardson,
What is your evidence that Tim, Stewart and Leo "fought with everyone
the ENTIRE time I was gone." If you can't prove it, it must be mere
opinion. Go to the archives and show how they "fought" with everybody.
Speaking of the archives, I've spent a couple of hours looking at your
postings over the years.
Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
being caught in error; hammer those with whom you disagree without
qualm, conscience, or mercy, using abusive and humiliating language;
and tend toward megalomania (note the number of times you refer to "my
book" and otherwise advertise your work).
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!
I am not a genealogist; but I have a fairly good knowledge of medieval
history (and a respectable library to back it up) and was educated at
one of those last bastions offering a liberal education. Logic and
sound argumentation were at the center of that offering. Together with
your inability to handle languages, your weak, almost nonexistent,
logic and your twisted, unethical approach to argumentation will find
you wanting.
I shall not challenge you on your attempts at genealogy. The archives
contain charges that you steal the work of others without attribution,
publish false connections in order to find "new discoveries," and that
your material is so shoddy that a better equipped editor is necesary to
give it a gloss of scholarly respect. These matters I shall leave to
the well prepared and respected genealogist members of this group. I
am certain that they will.
I have seen the suggestions respecting your mental condition; of this I
have no knowledge. I shall refrain from entering upon that matter.
Be assured of this: as you hammer others with abuse, you will, most
assuredly, find at your ankles and heals an incessant nipping, with
dogged insistancy, concerning your use of language, your lack of logic,
and your method of argument.
CED
Actually Tim, I went on vacation earlier this month for five days.
You, Mr. Stewart, and Leo fought with everyone the ENTIRE time I was
gone. I felt sorry for everyone who had to put up with your sick
abuse.
You clearly don't need me to cause trouble. You guys are trouble
enough.
Mr. Richardson,
What is your evidence that Tim, Stewart and Leo "fought with everyone
the ENTIRE time I was gone." If you can't prove it, it must be mere
opinion. Go to the archives and show how they "fought" with everybody.
Speaking of the archives, I've spent a couple of hours looking at your
postings over the years.
Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
being caught in error; hammer those with whom you disagree without
qualm, conscience, or mercy, using abusive and humiliating language;
and tend toward megalomania (note the number of times you refer to "my
book" and otherwise advertise your work).
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!
I am not a genealogist; but I have a fairly good knowledge of medieval
history (and a respectable library to back it up) and was educated at
one of those last bastions offering a liberal education. Logic and
sound argumentation were at the center of that offering. Together with
your inability to handle languages, your weak, almost nonexistent,
logic and your twisted, unethical approach to argumentation will find
you wanting.
I shall not challenge you on your attempts at genealogy. The archives
contain charges that you steal the work of others without attribution,
publish false connections in order to find "new discoveries," and that
your material is so shoddy that a better equipped editor is necesary to
give it a gloss of scholarly respect. These matters I shall leave to
the well prepared and respected genealogist members of this group. I
am certain that they will.
I have seen the suggestions respecting your mental condition; of this I
have no knowledge. I shall refrain from entering upon that matter.
Be assured of this: as you hammer others with abuse, you will, most
assuredly, find at your ankles and heals an incessant nipping, with
dogged insistancy, concerning your use of language, your lack of logic,
and your method of argument.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 18 Jul, leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote:
A few days ago Richardson described as fantasy my description of him as a
bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be correct.
Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should withdraw
from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise he and
his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!
Dear CED ~
You don't need me to cause trouble. You have yourself.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
You don't need me to cause trouble. You have yourself.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Actually Tim, I went on vacation earlier this month for five days.
You, Mr. Stewart, and Leo fought with everyone the ENTIRE time I was
gone. I felt sorry for everyone who had to put up with your sick
abuse.
You clearly don't need me to cause trouble. You guys are trouble
enough.
Mr. Richardson,
What is your evidence that Tim, Stewart and Leo "fought with everyone
the ENTIRE time I was gone." If you can't prove it, it must be mere
opinion. Go to the archives and show how they "fought" with everybody.
Speaking of the archives, I've spent a couple of hours looking at your
postings over the years.
Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
being caught in error; hammer those with whom you disagree without
qualm, conscience, or mercy, using abusive and humiliating language;
and tend toward megalomania (note the number of times you refer to "my
book" and otherwise advertise your work).
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!
I am not a genealogist; but I have a fairly good knowledge of medieval
history (and a respectable library to back it up) and was educated at
one of those last bastions offering a liberal education. Logic and
sound argumentation were at the center of that offering. Together with
your inability to handle languages, your weak, almost nonexistent,
logic and your twisted, unethical approach to argumentation will find
you wanting.
I shall not challenge you on your attempts at genealogy. The archives
contain charges that you steal the work of others without attribution,
publish false connections in order to find "new discoveries," and that
your material is so shoddy that a better equipped editor is necesary to
give it a gloss of scholarly respect. These matters I shall leave to
the well prepared and respected genealogist members of this group. I
am certain that they will.
I have seen the suggestions respecting your mental condition; of this I
have no knowledge. I shall refrain from entering upon that matter.
Be assured of this: as you hammer others with abuse, you will, most
assuredly, find at your ankles and heals an incessant nipping, with
dogged insistancy, concerning your use of language, your lack of logic,
and your method of argument.
CED
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 18 Jul, leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote:
A few days ago Richardson described as fantasy my description of him as a
bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be correct.
Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should withdraw
from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise he and
his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
In two recent posts Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote [to Peter Stewart]:
Rather than merely state an opinion, Peter redundantly made several
factual statements about secondary sources. He reported that:
1. In his account of Niccolo Orsini, Litta names 'Gorizia' as his wife;
he does not name a separate wife Giovanna or Jeanne. (Litta also
incorrectly gives a second wife, Marie des Baux, who is irrelevant here,
having already been dismissed).
2. Litta does not provide sources or cite or quote documents for this
Gorizia.
3. No source antedating Litta's Orsini fascicle (published in the 1840s)
has been found, which names Gorizia--though perhaps one will come to
light. Later secondary sources which name her appear to derive the name
uncritically from Litta.
Based on these statements, Peter expressed his opinion (shared by
Thompson & Hansen, Roberts, and most of the people who have commented on
this thread), that Gorizia appears to be the same person as the Jeanne /
Giovanna de Sabran elsewhere attested as the wife of Niccolo Orsini.
Now, Douglas has stated a different opinion, that Jeanne and Gorizia
were separate people. Note that Douglas' statement is just an opinion.
The fact that Douglas posted a primary source naming Niccolo's wife as
Jeanne in 1363 does nothing to support the opinion that Jeanne and
Gorizia were separate people.
Perhaps Douglas would be interested in looking up Thompson and Hansen's
seven other sources on Niccolo and Jeanne-Gorizia (other than Litta) to
see whether they offer any support for the identity of Jeanne and
Gorizia, or whether they support his opinion that they are distinct. If
Douglas doubts the veracity of Peter's reporting of the contents of
Litta, he is free to look up Litta as well. I have looked at one of the
other sources--Turton--and it does not support either position, so there
are only six left to peruse.
Douglas could possibly find support for his opinion. For example, if a
1357 testament is found, written by a Gorizia, wife of Niccolo Orsini,
count of Nola, *and demonstrably probated prior to 1363*, then Douglas
would have support for his opinion that she and Jeanne are distinct.
Last night, I listed Thompson & Hansen's sources. They are:
Judging from the titles on the list, I think the best bet for a
reference to the 1357 testament might be Savio.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
wrote [to Peter Stewart]:
I believe I'm the only person so far to post any primary evidence
regarding Count Niccolo Orsini's wife, Giovanna di Sabrano. In sharp
contrast, all you have offered so far has been your opinions.
... False claims, no evidence,
misleading statements, assurances about sources which have been found
to be faulty, and now a goose hunt into a search for Gorizia as a
placename. In all, a very poor performance.
Rather than merely state an opinion, Peter redundantly made several
factual statements about secondary sources. He reported that:
1. In his account of Niccolo Orsini, Litta names 'Gorizia' as his wife;
he does not name a separate wife Giovanna or Jeanne. (Litta also
incorrectly gives a second wife, Marie des Baux, who is irrelevant here,
having already been dismissed).
2. Litta does not provide sources or cite or quote documents for this
Gorizia.
3. No source antedating Litta's Orsini fascicle (published in the 1840s)
has been found, which names Gorizia--though perhaps one will come to
light. Later secondary sources which name her appear to derive the name
uncritically from Litta.
Based on these statements, Peter expressed his opinion (shared by
Thompson & Hansen, Roberts, and most of the people who have commented on
this thread), that Gorizia appears to be the same person as the Jeanne /
Giovanna de Sabran elsewhere attested as the wife of Niccolo Orsini.
Now, Douglas has stated a different opinion, that Jeanne and Gorizia
were separate people. Note that Douglas' statement is just an opinion.
The fact that Douglas posted a primary source naming Niccolo's wife as
Jeanne in 1363 does nothing to support the opinion that Jeanne and
Gorizia were separate people.
Perhaps Douglas would be interested in looking up Thompson and Hansen's
seven other sources on Niccolo and Jeanne-Gorizia (other than Litta) to
see whether they offer any support for the identity of Jeanne and
Gorizia, or whether they support his opinion that they are distinct. If
Douglas doubts the veracity of Peter's reporting of the contents of
Litta, he is free to look up Litta as well. I have looked at one of the
other sources--Turton--and it does not support either position, so there
are only six left to peruse.
Douglas could possibly find support for his opinion. For example, if a
1357 testament is found, written by a Gorizia, wife of Niccolo Orsini,
count of Nola, *and demonstrably probated prior to 1363*, then Douglas
would have support for his opinion that she and Jeanne are distinct.
Last night, I listed Thompson & Hansen's sources. They are:
1. Litta 8 (62): xi. [sic: though fascicle 62, on the Orsini, is in
vol. 7, not vol. 8.]
2. Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini di Monterotondo...," Bollettino
della Societa umbria di storia patria 2 (1896): 89-112, at 99-106.
3. la Chesnaye-Desbois, _Dictionnaire de la noblesse_, 3d ed., 19 vols.
(Paris, 1863-76), 18:13-14.
4. Turton, 224-5.
5. Emile Leonard, _Les Angevins de Naples (Paris, 1954), 421, 454, 464.
6. Joannis 460, 524 [? = J-D Joannis, _Les seize quartiers genealogiques
des Capetiens, 4 vols. (Lyon, 1958-65)].
7. Alessandro Cutolo, _Re Ladislao d'angio Durazzo (Naples, 1969), 46,
57, 75, 129n23, 132n44, 143n52, 179n85.
8. Casanovas, _Henri IV_, 83. [=Francis M. Casanovas, _Les ancetres
d'Henri IV: 512 quartiers_ (Paris, 1991)]
Judging from the titles on the list, I think the best bet for a
reference to the 1357 testament might be Savio.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
John Brandon
Re: OT: You guys fought the ENTIRE time!
All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!
Speaking of megalomania ...
-
John Brandon
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
his work does not interest me: truth and the facts do.
My, how virtuous! Too bad we can't all be like you ...
-
John Brandon
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
It comes from Franch (NB not "franqais")
NB not "Franch," either.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Dear Nat ~
Since the eight sources you've quoted for the Orsini family come from
Neil Thompson's Charles II series, Neil is certainly in a much better
position than I am to share with us what they say. As you know, Neil
posts as Gryphon801. Let's have Thompson alias Gryphon 901 post his
evidence that Gorizia and Giovanna are the same woman. I frankly would
like very much like to see his evidence.
You've already posted the information from Turton, Source No. 4. It
gave no evidence. That leaves seven sources for Mr. Thompson to
provide us.
Incidentally, I don't accept your explanation for the origin of the
given name, Gorizia. I very much doubt that Giovanna di Sabrano
married a lord of Gorizia before she married Count Niccolo Orsini.
That's a stretch, Nat, even for you. Gorizia is an Italian given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Since the eight sources you've quoted for the Orsini family come from
Neil Thompson's Charles II series, Neil is certainly in a much better
position than I am to share with us what they say. As you know, Neil
posts as Gryphon801. Let's have Thompson alias Gryphon 901 post his
evidence that Gorizia and Giovanna are the same woman. I frankly would
like very much like to see his evidence.
You've already posted the information from Turton, Source No. 4. It
gave no evidence. That leaves seven sources for Mr. Thompson to
provide us.
Incidentally, I don't accept your explanation for the origin of the
given name, Gorizia. I very much doubt that Giovanna di Sabrano
married a lord of Gorizia before she married Count Niccolo Orsini.
That's a stretch, Nat, even for you. Gorizia is an Italian given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In two recent posts Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com
wrote [to Peter Stewart]:
I believe I'm the only person so far to post any primary evidence
regarding Count Niccolo Orsini's wife, Giovanna di Sabrano. In sharp
contrast, all you have offered so far has been your opinions.
... False claims, no evidence,
misleading statements, assurances about sources which have been found
to be faulty, and now a goose hunt into a search for Gorizia as a
placename. In all, a very poor performance.
Rather than merely state an opinion, Peter redundantly made several
factual statements about secondary sources. He reported that:
1. In his account of Niccolo Orsini, Litta names 'Gorizia' as his wife;
he does not name a separate wife Giovanna or Jeanne. (Litta also
incorrectly gives a second wife, Marie des Baux, who is irrelevant here,
having already been dismissed).
2. Litta does not provide sources or cite or quote documents for this
Gorizia.
3. No source antedating Litta's Orsini fascicle (published in the 1840s)
has been found, which names Gorizia--though perhaps one will come to
light. Later secondary sources which name her appear to derive the name
uncritically from Litta.
Based on these statements, Peter expressed his opinion (shared by
Thompson & Hansen, Roberts, and most of the people who have commented on
this thread), that Gorizia appears to be the same person as the Jeanne /
Giovanna de Sabran elsewhere attested as the wife of Niccolo Orsini.
Now, Douglas has stated a different opinion, that Jeanne and Gorizia
were separate people. Note that Douglas' statement is just an opinion.
The fact that Douglas posted a primary source naming Niccolo's wife as
Jeanne in 1363 does nothing to support the opinion that Jeanne and
Gorizia were separate people.
Perhaps Douglas would be interested in looking up Thompson and Hansen's
seven other sources on Niccolo and Jeanne-Gorizia (other than Litta) to
see whether they offer any support for the identity of Jeanne and
Gorizia, or whether they support his opinion that they are distinct. If
Douglas doubts the veracity of Peter's reporting of the contents of
Litta, he is free to look up Litta as well. I have looked at one of the
other sources--Turton--and it does not support either position, so there
are only six left to peruse.
Douglas could possibly find support for his opinion. For example, if a
1357 testament is found, written by a Gorizia, wife of Niccolo Orsini,
count of Nola, *and demonstrably probated prior to 1363*, then Douglas
would have support for his opinion that she and Jeanne are distinct.
Last night, I listed Thompson & Hansen's sources. They are:
1. Litta 8 (62): xi. [sic: though fascicle 62, on the Orsini, is in
vol. 7, not vol. 8.]
2. Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini di Monterotondo...," Bollettino
della Societa umbria di storia patria 2 (1896): 89-112, at 99-106.
3. la Chesnaye-Desbois, _Dictionnaire de la noblesse_, 3d ed., 19 vols.
(Paris, 1863-76), 18:13-14.
4. Turton, 224-5.
5. Emile Leonard, _Les Angevins de Naples (Paris, 1954), 421, 454, 464.
6. Joannis 460, 524 [? = J-D Joannis, _Les seize quartiers genealogiques
des Capetiens, 4 vols. (Lyon, 1958-65)].
7. Alessandro Cutolo, _Re Ladislao d'angio Durazzo (Naples, 1969), 46,
57, 75, 129n23, 132n44, 143n52, 179n85.
8. Casanovas, _Henri IV_, 83. [=Francis M. Casanovas, _Les ancetres
d'Henri IV: 512 quartiers_ (Paris, 1991)]
Judging from the titles on the list, I think the best bet for a
reference to the 1357 testament might be Savio.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Peter Stewart wrote:
If Litta can be consulted in person, why are you referring to your old
notes? Are you housebound?
DR
The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta. The
inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while reporting
what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought.
Peter Stewart
If Litta can be consulted in person, why are you referring to your old
notes? Are you housebound?
DR
-
John Brandon
Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.
Oh please. There's nothing wrong with Douglas--he only offends the
righteous, as someone said of Shakespeare's character Falstaff.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Dear Spencer ~
I'm sure claqueur is perfectly a good word, but it's one that I won't
be adding to my vocabulary anytime soon. It sounds rather effete to
me. I'll leave it to Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim
Powys-Lybbe to be the claqueurs of the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
I'm sure claqueur is perfectly a good word, but it's one that I won't
be adding to my vocabulary anytime soon. It sounds rather effete to
me. I'll leave it to Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim
Powys-Lybbe to be the claqueurs of the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Hilarious!
Leo van de Pas steps forward as a CLAQUER for Pogue Stewart.
No, Leo, the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke can't save
this one.
DSH
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:023001c58b80$a2fd9650$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| This bar room [sic] brawlers [sic] needs glasses, a course in English
and a
dictionary.
|
| In my dictionary (Chambers 20th Century) one meaning is given : a body
of
| hired applauders. By the way, Richardson [sic] you spelled claqueurs
wrong,
and
| Peter Stewart has it as it is in my dictionary.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Yes, you're quite right, Spencer. CED is a filthy coward. I sign my
posts with my real name. That's how CED can find them so easily in the
archives.
Perhaps CED thinks my dog is going to bite him. I don't have a dog.
DR
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
posts with my real name. That's how CED can find them so easily in the
archives.
Perhaps CED thinks my dog is going to bite him. I don't have a dog.
DR
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"CED" -- the coward who hides behind a pseudonym -- runs out of the
bushes and tries to bite DR on the ankle.
Give him a good kick in the ribs, Douglas -- like the filthy cur he is.
Insults and ankle bites from a dirty little coward who won't even post
under his Real Name...
DSH
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne
John Brandon wrote:
The problem is not me. The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas,
and Tim Powys-Lybbe. They're constantly complaining about something or
someone. They're the noisy claqueurs of the newsgroup. They think
they're better than the rest of us. They aren't.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I will second that. We had a very pleasant time on this group when DR
went off to some conference for a week or two.
Oh please. There's nothing wrong with Douglas--he only offends the
righteous, as someone said of Shakespeare's character Falstaff.
The problem is not me. The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas,
and Tim Powys-Lybbe. They're constantly complaining about something or
someone. They're the noisy claqueurs of the newsgroup. They think
they're better than the rest of us. They aren't.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Hilarious!
DR has Pogue Stewart on the run to the tall grass.
Stewart is whining and kvetching as he runs -- but he's still running.
The buck and weave tap dance didn't work -- Pogue Stewart is exposed as
a fraud and charlatan -- implying he had data in front of him from Litta
that he does not -- only scribbled notes.
DR is holding his own quite well and doesn't need any additional help.
After all, only one person can kick Stewart in the arse at a time.
Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
DR has Pogue Stewart on the run to the tall grass.
Stewart is whining and kvetching as he runs -- but he's still running.
The buck and weave tap dance didn't work -- Pogue Stewart is exposed as
a fraud and charlatan -- implying he had data in front of him from Litta
that he does not -- only scribbled notes.
DR is holding his own quite well and doesn't need any additional help.
After all, only one person can kick Stewart in the arse at a time.
Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this.
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
Peter Stewart wrote:
It comes from what? I've never heard of Franch.
DR
It comes from Franch (NB not "franqais"), a language that anyone
professionally studying Anglo-Norman genealogy should take the trouble to
learn. You, of course, are content to remain in total ignorance of this and
to cadge primary source information from others.
Peter Stewart
It comes from what? I've never heard of Franch.
DR
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Hilarious!
Leo van de Pas steps forward as a CLAQUER for Pogue Stewart.
No, Leo, the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke can't save
this one.
DSH
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:023001c58b80$a2fd9650$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| This bar room [sic] brawlers [sic] needs glasses, a course in English
and a
dictionary.
|
| In my dictionary (Chambers 20th Century) one meaning is given : a body
of
| hired applauders. By the way, Richardson [sic] you spelled claqueurs
wrong,
and
| Peter Stewart has it as it is in my dictionary.
Leo van de Pas steps forward as a CLAQUER for Pogue Stewart.
No, Leo, the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke can't save
this one.
DSH
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:023001c58b80$a2fd9650$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| This bar room [sic] brawlers [sic] needs glasses, a course in English
and a
dictionary.
|
| In my dictionary (Chambers 20th Century) one meaning is given : a body
of
| hired applauders. By the way, Richardson [sic] you spelled claqueurs
wrong,
and
| Peter Stewart has it as it is in my dictionary.
-
John Brandon
Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne
The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim Powys-Lybbe
Yep, the non-Americans. Most of the Americans realize (or are
beginning to realize, I think) that they owe you a debt of gratitude
for your good work on the new lines in _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and
_MCA_.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1dLCe.51854$oJ.32790@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| It comes from Franch [sic] (NB not "franqais"), a language that anyone
| professionally studying Anglo-Norman genealogy should take the trouble
| to learn.
------Cordon Sanitaire--------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart The Illiterate Australian.
Yes, everyone needs to learn "Franch" ---
Hoist With His Own Petar, Yet Again....
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
news:1dLCe.51854$oJ.32790@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| It comes from Franch [sic] (NB not "franqais"), a language that anyone
| professionally studying Anglo-Norman genealogy should take the trouble
| to learn.
------Cordon Sanitaire--------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart The Illiterate Australian.
Yes, everyone needs to learn "Franch" ---
Hoist With His Own Petar, Yet Again....
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: OT Time to stand back? Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne
John Brandon wrote:
Thanks for the complement, John. I know you meant it sincerely. It's
good to hear someone say something nice for a change.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim Powys-Lybbe
Yep, the non-Americans. Most of the Americans realize (or are
beginning to realize, I think) that they owe you a debt of gratitude
for your good work on the new lines in _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and
_MCA_.
Thanks for the complement, John. I know you meant it sincerely. It's
good to hear someone say something nice for a change.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:poKCe.51806$oJ.16707@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| ...The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta.
| The inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while
| reporting what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought....
------Cordon Sanitaire----------------
Pogue Stewart is lying again -- and directly contradicting himself.
Stewart HIMSELF has previously stated he can't be sure he copied the
material from Litta correctly -- so he would not post it to the
newsgroup. He realizes that would be sloppy and unforgivably
fraudulent.
NOW he is trying to back away from that position and give us the old
Buck & Wing -- Back & Fill.
No Sale.
And:
Dumbarsed.
DSH
news:poKCe.51806$oJ.16707@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| ...The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta.
| The inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while
| reporting what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought....
------Cordon Sanitaire----------------
Pogue Stewart is lying again -- and directly contradicting himself.
Stewart HIMSELF has previously stated he can't be sure he copied the
material from Litta correctly -- so he would not post it to the
newsgroup. He realizes that would be sloppy and unforgivably
fraudulent.
NOW he is trying to back away from that position and give us the old
Buck & Wing -- Back & Fill.
No Sale.
And:
Dumbarsed.
DSH
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Balderdash!
Hysterical Nonsense.
Take a hot toddy and a long nap, Leo.
You sound like a little old lady who is frightened of night sounds as
the house cools.
And DO clean up your English.
| If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ [sic]
DSH
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:021e01c58b7d$79e76d70$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| A few days ago Richardson described as fantasy my description of him
as a
| bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be
correct.
|
| Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
| several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
| disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
|
| If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should
withdraw
| from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise
he and
| his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
Hysterical Nonsense.
Take a hot toddy and a long nap, Leo.
You sound like a little old lady who is frightened of night sounds as
the house cools.
And DO clean up your English.
| If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ [sic]
DSH
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:021e01c58b7d$79e76d70$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
| A few days ago Richardson described as fantasy my description of him
as a
| bar room brawler. I think lately he has proven my remark to be
correct.
|
| Standing back I would also like to remind him of something I have said
| several times, Richardson is the cause and beginning of almost all
| disharmony on gen-med, now for quite some time.
|
| If he has any decency, and wants to behave _collegial_ he should
withdraw
| from gen-med and allow gen-med to return to some normalcy. Otherwise
he and
| his cronies seem to be out on destroying gen-med for everyone else.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Dear Nat ~
Since the eight sources you've quoted for the Orsini family come from
Neil Thompson's Charles II series, Neil is certainly in a much better
position than I am to share with us what they say. As you know, Neil
posts as Gryphon801. Let's have Thompson alias Gryphon 801 post his
evidence that Gorizia and Giovanna are the same woman. I frankly would
like very much like to see his evidence.
You've already posted the information from Turton, Source No. 4. It
gave no evidence. That leaves seven sources for Mr. Thompson to
provide us.
Incidentally, I don't accept your explanation for the origin of the
given name, Gorizia. I very much doubt that Giovanna di Sabrano
married a lord of Gorizia before she married Count Niccolo Orsini.
That's a stretch, Nat, even for you. Gorizia is an Italian given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
Since the eight sources you've quoted for the Orsini family come from
Neil Thompson's Charles II series, Neil is certainly in a much better
position than I am to share with us what they say. As you know, Neil
posts as Gryphon801. Let's have Thompson alias Gryphon 801 post his
evidence that Gorizia and Giovanna are the same woman. I frankly would
like very much like to see his evidence.
You've already posted the information from Turton, Source No. 4. It
gave no evidence. That leaves seven sources for Mr. Thompson to
provide us.
Incidentally, I don't accept your explanation for the origin of the
given name, Gorizia. I very much doubt that Giovanna di Sabrano
married a lord of Gorizia before she married Count Niccolo Orsini.
That's a stretch, Nat, even for you. Gorizia is an Italian given name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In two recent posts Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com
wrote [to Peter Stewart]:
I believe I'm the only person so far to post any primary evidence
regarding Count Niccolo Orsini's wife, Giovanna di Sabrano. In sharp
contrast, all you have offered so far has been your opinions.
... False claims, no evidence,
misleading statements, assurances about sources which have been found
to be faulty, and now a goose hunt into a search for Gorizia as a
placename. In all, a very poor performance.
Rather than merely state an opinion, Peter redundantly made several
factual statements about secondary sources. He reported that:
1. In his account of Niccolo Orsini, Litta names 'Gorizia' as his wife;
he does not name a separate wife Giovanna or Jeanne. (Litta also
incorrectly gives a second wife, Marie des Baux, who is irrelevant here,
having already been dismissed).
2. Litta does not provide sources or cite or quote documents for this
Gorizia.
3. No source antedating Litta's Orsini fascicle (published in the 1840s)
has been found, which names Gorizia--though perhaps one will come to
light. Later secondary sources which name her appear to derive the name
uncritically from Litta.
Based on these statements, Peter expressed his opinion (shared by
Thompson & Hansen, Roberts, and most of the people who have commented on
this thread), that Gorizia appears to be the same person as the Jeanne /
Giovanna de Sabran elsewhere attested as the wife of Niccolo Orsini.
Now, Douglas has stated a different opinion, that Jeanne and Gorizia
were separate people. Note that Douglas' statement is just an opinion.
The fact that Douglas posted a primary source naming Niccolo's wife as
Jeanne in 1363 does nothing to support the opinion that Jeanne and
Gorizia were separate people.
Perhaps Douglas would be interested in looking up Thompson and Hansen's
seven other sources on Niccolo and Jeanne-Gorizia (other than Litta) to
see whether they offer any support for the identity of Jeanne and
Gorizia, or whether they support his opinion that they are distinct. If
Douglas doubts the veracity of Peter's reporting of the contents of
Litta, he is free to look up Litta as well. I have looked at one of the
other sources--Turton--and it does not support either position, so there
are only six left to peruse.
Douglas could possibly find support for his opinion. For example, if a
1357 testament is found, written by a Gorizia, wife of Niccolo Orsini,
count of Nola, *and demonstrably probated prior to 1363*, then Douglas
would have support for his opinion that she and Jeanne are distinct.
Last night, I listed Thompson & Hansen's sources. They are:
1. Litta 8 (62): xi. [sic: though fascicle 62, on the Orsini, is in
vol. 7, not vol. 8.]
2. Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini di Monterotondo...," Bollettino
della Societa umbria di storia patria 2 (1896): 89-112, at 99-106.
3. la Chesnaye-Desbois, _Dictionnaire de la noblesse_, 3d ed., 19 vols.
(Paris, 1863-76), 18:13-14.
4. Turton, 224-5.
5. Emile Leonard, _Les Angevins de Naples (Paris, 1954), 421, 454, 464.
6. Joannis 460, 524 [? = J-D Joannis, _Les seize quartiers genealogiques
des Capetiens, 4 vols. (Lyon, 1958-65)].
7. Alessandro Cutolo, _Re Ladislao d'angio Durazzo (Naples, 1969), 46,
57, 75, 129n23, 132n44, 143n52, 179n85.
8. Casanovas, _Henri IV_, 83. [=Francis M. Casanovas, _Les ancetres
d'Henri IV: 512 quartiers_ (Paris, 1991)]
Judging from the titles on the list, I think the best bet for a
reference to the 1357 testament might be Savio.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"CED" -- the coward who hides behind a pseudonym -- runs out of the
bushes and tries to bite DR on the ankle.
Give him a good kick in the ribs, Douglas -- like the filthy cur he is.
Insults and ankle bites from a dirty little coward who won't even post
under his Real Name...
DSH
bushes and tries to bite DR on the ankle.
Give him a good kick in the ribs, Douglas -- like the filthy cur he is.
Insults and ankle bites from a dirty little coward who won't even post
under his Real Name...
DSH
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Yep -- _claqueur_ IS an effete word and rather prissy -- from
"Franch" -- as the jumped-up Australian, Stewart, would say.
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121713914.512740.14760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Spencer ~
|
| I'm sure claqueur is perfectly a good word, but it's one that I won't
| be adding to my vocabulary anytime soon. It sounds rather effete to
| me. I'll leave it to Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim
| Powys-Lybbe to be the claqueurs of the newsgroup.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
|
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > Hilarious!
| >
| > Leo van de Pas steps forward as a CLAQUER for Pogue Stewart.
| >
| > No, Leo, the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke can't save
| > this one.
| >
| > DSH
"Franch" -- as the jumped-up Australian, Stewart, would say.
DSH
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121713914.512740.14760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Dear Spencer ~
|
| I'm sure claqueur is perfectly a good word, but it's one that I won't
| be adding to my vocabulary anytime soon. It sounds rather effete to
| me. I'll leave it to Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim
| Powys-Lybbe to be the claqueurs of the newsgroup.
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
| Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
|
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > Hilarious!
| >
| > Leo van de Pas steps forward as a CLAQUER for Pogue Stewart.
| >
| > No, Leo, the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke can't save
| > this one.
| >
| > DSH
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [contains some g
In article <1121712942.776133.127070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote:
Or for you to look up, if you're interested in testing the truth of your
theory about a separate Gorizia. Perhaps you could ask Thompson or
Hansen to comment on those sources, the basis for concluding Jeanne is
the same as Gorizia, and the location of the 1357 testament? That might
be the most efficient way to proceed. I believe you know Dr. Thompson?
I have never met him and have only corresponded with him twice. But if
you are uncomfortable asking him yourself, I'd be happy to do so. Just
let me know.
As for Turton: in fact he contributes an interesting datum, a death date
for Jeanne de Sabran around 1379, for some reason omitted by Thompson &
Hansen. Aren't you interested in tracing the evidence for Turton's
statement? Now, as you know, Turton generally lists (in his index) only
a single tabular source for each family covered in his compendium. In
this case, it is Litta. Good luck!
[If the false second spouse Marie des Baux was alleged by Litta or
others to have been married to Niccolo in or about 1379, this might
account for Turton's insertion of that year as a presumed estimated
death date for Jeanne. But I have not read Litta, so I don't know
whether this might be the case.]
As for the name Gorizia: I would be delighted to learn about its use as
a given name in medieval Italy, since as I said in my post on the
subject I had no knowledge of it and I'm happy to learn new things (and
admit errors) on this group.
Can you cite a trustworthy reference on medieval Italian onomastics that
discusses the name? You must understand I'm a bit wary of the unsourced
genealogical website you previously cited for a single example of the
name (other than that imputed to the subject of this thread). And by
the way, neither Peter nor I claimed that the most likely explanation
lay in a marriage of Jeanne de Sabran in Gorizia or to a person from
that place. Please do not impute straw men to your correspondents: it
generates unnecessary rancor.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote:
Dear Nat ~
You've already posted the information from Turton, Source No. 4. It
gave no evidence. That leaves seven sources for Mr. Thompson to
provide us.
Or for you to look up, if you're interested in testing the truth of your
theory about a separate Gorizia. Perhaps you could ask Thompson or
Hansen to comment on those sources, the basis for concluding Jeanne is
the same as Gorizia, and the location of the 1357 testament? That might
be the most efficient way to proceed. I believe you know Dr. Thompson?
I have never met him and have only corresponded with him twice. But if
you are uncomfortable asking him yourself, I'd be happy to do so. Just
let me know.
As for Turton: in fact he contributes an interesting datum, a death date
for Jeanne de Sabran around 1379, for some reason omitted by Thompson &
Hansen. Aren't you interested in tracing the evidence for Turton's
statement? Now, as you know, Turton generally lists (in his index) only
a single tabular source for each family covered in his compendium. In
this case, it is Litta. Good luck!
[If the false second spouse Marie des Baux was alleged by Litta or
others to have been married to Niccolo in or about 1379, this might
account for Turton's insertion of that year as a presumed estimated
death date for Jeanne. But I have not read Litta, so I don't know
whether this might be the case.]
Incidentally, I don't accept your explanation for the origin of the
given name, Gorizia. I very much doubt that Giovanna di Sabrano
married a lord of Gorizia before she married Count Niccolo Orsini.
That's a stretch, Nat, even for you. Gorizia is an Italian given name.
As for the name Gorizia: I would be delighted to learn about its use as
a given name in medieval Italy, since as I said in my post on the
subject I had no knowledge of it and I'm happy to learn new things (and
admit errors) on this group.
Can you cite a trustworthy reference on medieval Italian onomastics that
discusses the name? You must understand I'm a bit wary of the unsourced
genealogical website you previously cited for a single example of the
name (other than that imputed to the subject of this thread). And by
the way, neither Peter nor I claimed that the most likely explanation
lay in a marriage of Jeanne de Sabran in Gorizia or to a person from
that place. Please do not impute straw men to your correspondents: it
generates unnecessary rancor.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
John Brandon
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
They resent DR's ROYALTIES -- as does Nat Taylor -- the Harvard mole,
sans tenure.
Yes, the profound _ressentiment_ that Nietzsche found at the root of
many modern attitudes ...
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Yep....
They resent DR's ROYALTIES -- as does Nat Taylor -- the Harvard mole,
sans tenure.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121715408.507472.301810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| >>The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim Powys-Lybbe
|
| Yep, the non-Americans. Most of the Americans realize (or are
| beginning to realize, I think) that they owe you a debt of gratitude
| for your good work on the new lines in _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and
| _MCA_.
They resent DR's ROYALTIES -- as does Nat Taylor -- the Harvard mole,
sans tenure.
DSH
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121715408.507472.301810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| >>The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim Powys-Lybbe
|
| Yep, the non-Americans. Most of the Americans realize (or are
| beginning to realize, I think) that they owe you a debt of gratitude
| for your good work on the new lines in _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and
| _MCA_.
-
CED
Nationalism rears its ugly head Re: OT Time to stand back?
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Mr. Richardson:
I am an American, an American for thirteen generations, and proud to be
an American. Your rudeness, lack of integrity, and other misconduct
give us a bad name.
What does nationality have to do with this thread? Most of our best
scholars in this field are not Americans.
CED
Mr. Richardson:
I am an American, an American for thirteen generations, and proud to be
an American. Your rudeness, lack of integrity, and other misconduct
give us a bad name.
What does nationality have to do with this thread? Most of our best
scholars in this field are not Americans.
CED
John Brandon wrote:
The problem is Peter Stewart, Leo van de Pas, and Tim Powys-Lybbe
Yep, the non-Americans. Most of the Americans realize (or are
beginning to realize, I think) that they owe you a debt of gratitude
for your good work on the new lines in _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and
_MCA_.
Thanks for the complement, John. I know you meant it sincerely. It's
good to hear someone say something nice for a change.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
fairthorne
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
That is unnecessarily insulting
read my posting of 8 hours earlier
Simon
read my posting of 8 hours earlier
Simon
"CED" -- the coward who hides behind a pseudonym -- runs out of the
bushes and tries to bite DR on the ankle.
Give him a good kick in the ribs, Douglas -- like the filthy cur he is.
Insults and ankle bites from a dirty little coward who won't even post
under his Real Name...
DSH
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121711068.961756.68780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So Brandon informs us he is not interested in truth and the facts. Or maybe
he is trying for another little joke & unable to bring it off.
Peter Stewart
news:1121711068.961756.68780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
his work does not interest me: truth and the facts do.
My, how virtuous! Too bad we can't all be like you ...
So Brandon informs us he is not interested in truth and the facts. Or maybe
he is trying for another little joke & unable to bring it off.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121713430.838290.104170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
None of your business.
Despite your outrageous claim that I am somehow "lazy" for not doing your
bidding, I have no reason to make a special trip to a library to look up
something on which I have notes from previous consultation that are quite
satisfactory for my purposes. When I am there next - maybe tody, maybe not -
I will double-check, but still I will not transcribe Litta for you.
On the other hand you have good reason to look up Litta, either to prove me
wrong or to verify that I am right on a matter thatis concerning YOU. We are
told that a copy of Litta is held in the FHL. How lazy must you be then to
fail to check this?
Peter Stewart
news:1121713430.838290.104170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta. The
inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while reporting
what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought.
Peter Stewart
If Litta can be consulted in person, why are you referring to your old
notes? Are you housebound?
None of your business.
Despite your outrageous claim that I am somehow "lazy" for not doing your
bidding, I have no reason to make a special trip to a library to look up
something on which I have notes from previous consultation that are quite
satisfactory for my purposes. When I am there next - maybe tody, maybe not -
I will double-check, but still I will not transcribe Litta for you.
On the other hand you have good reason to look up Litta, either to prove me
wrong or to verify that I am right on a matter thatis concerning YOU. We are
told that a copy of Litta is held in the FHL. How lazy must you be then to
fail to check this?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's mother, Jeanne de Sabran [NB: contains ge
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121714980.696987.30250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How very witty - but you have surely heard of typos. I don't know how I came
up with this one - perhaps I set out to write Français instead of French.
It was demonstrated however that your "franqais" was NOT a typo but a
deliberate change to something you had copy-pasted, not recognising the
cedilla in the very NAME of the language of a document you were trying to
represent yourself as having read.
You keep on doing yourself the disservice of bringing your past frauds to
everyone's attention - why is that?
You are only managing to convince a few doubters that my criticisms of you
are NOT exaggerated after all.
Peter Stewart
news:1121714980.696987.30250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
It comes from Franch (NB not "franqais"), a language that anyone
professionally studying Anglo-Norman genealogy should take the trouble to
learn. You, of course, are content to remain in total ignorance of this
and
to cadge primary source information from others.
Peter Stewart
It comes from what? I've never heard of Franch.
How very witty - but you have surely heard of typos. I don't know how I came
up with this one - perhaps I set out to write Français instead of French.
It was demonstrated however that your "franqais" was NOT a typo but a
deliberate change to something you had copy-pasted, not recognising the
cedilla in the very NAME of the language of a document you were trying to
represent yourself as having read.
You keep on doing yourself the disservice of bringing your past frauds to
everyone's attention - why is that?
You are only managing to convince a few doubters that my criticisms of you
are NOT exaggerated after all.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
We are back to no. 1 of D. Spencer Humpty's repertoire of satire. At least
it makes a change from the endless repetition of nos. 2 and 3.
But STILL he hasn't tackled any issue of substance, either in defense of
Richardson or in criticism of me.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qLSCe.181$ds5.1283@eagle.america.net...
it makes a change from the endless repetition of nos. 2 and 3.
But STILL he hasn't tackled any issue of substance, either in defense of
Richardson or in criticism of me.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qLSCe.181$ds5.1283@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1dLCe.51854$oJ.32790@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| It comes from Franch [sic] (NB not "franqais"), a language that anyone
| professionally studying Anglo-Norman genealogy should take the trouble
| to learn.
------Cordon Sanitaire--------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Stewart The Illiterate Australian.
Yes, everyone needs to learn "Franch" ---
Hoist With His Own Petar, Yet Again....
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sueva Orsini's Mother, Jeanne de Sabran
Even allowing for the dishonesty and stupidity of Hines, I can't make out
what he might think is the point of the message below.
Does ANYBODY understand what contradiction he is alleging?
Far from backing away, I would be interested to know if there is any
rational thought in this apparent gibberish.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nVSCe.182$ds5.1305@eagle.america.net...
what he might think is the point of the message below.
Does ANYBODY understand what contradiction he is alleging?
Far from backing away, I would be interested to know if there is any
rational thought in this apparent gibberish.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nVSCe.182$ds5.1305@eagle.america.net...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:poKCe.51806$oJ.16707@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| ...The notes I am talking about are FROM the Orsini material in Litta.
| The inane idea that anyone must have a specific page in sight while
| reporting what it says doesn't warrant a moment's thought....
------Cordon Sanitaire----------------
Pogue Stewart is lying again -- and directly contradicting himself.
Stewart HIMSELF has previously stated he can't be sure he copied the
material from Litta correctly -- so he would not post it to the
newsgroup. He realizes that would be sloppy and unforgivably
fraudulent.
NOW he is trying to back away from that position and give us the old
Buck & Wing -- Back & Fill.
No Sale.
And:
Dumbarsed.
DSH