Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
butlergrt

Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av butlergrt » 02 aug 2005 19:49:08

Good Afternoon,
Maude(Matilda) married Walter fitzRobert, ancestors of the Fitz Walters
and Rohais married Fulbert de Dover, Lord of Chilham in Kent. While Rohais
inherited the whole livery of her fathers barony, Maude did indeed,
inherit Angre and the Essex property. There may be some confusion, but it
appears, "Richard de Redver" is phonetically de Dover. Richard de Lucys'
son Geoffrey died before he did and Geoffreys son died s.p. Hubert, also
called Godfrey, had no issue. No other daughters than the above, no other
sons than those two.
Richard de Lucys other brothers, Waler was the 5th Abbot of Battle for 33
yrs. Richards other brother Reginald de Lucy married Amabel de Roumeli,
they did have a son named Richard whose wife was Ada de Morville but with
no male issue the lands were divided between his two daughters who married
two brothers, Lambert and Alan de Multon, Amabel married Lambert and
brought the barony of Egremont while the other daughter. Alice, married to
Alan de Multan, who's son was seated at Cockermouth but retained his
mothers maiden name(de Lucy) instead of de Multon, he was summoned to
parliment 16 EdII.,called Lord Lucy......etc....etc...
I must apologize in my last post "curious confusion" I had Richards two
daughters marriages turned around.
Best Regards,
Emmett Butler

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 02 aug 2005 22:01:08

Dear Emmett ~

Thank you for your good post.

I'm not sure what sources you are using for the Lucy family, but they
are not very accurate. It would help greatly if you worked with
primary contemporary documents, instead of out-of-date, inaccurate, and
erroneous secondary works. When you do quote from a source, please
give the author, title, and page reference, so people who read your
post can find your sources.

As for the Lucy inheritance itself, I find that on Sir Richard de
Lucy's death in 1179, his properties went first to his minor grandson,
Richard de Lucy (d. before Michaelmas 1282), then to the younger
Richard's brother, Herbert (d. before 1189), and then to Herbert's two
full sisters, Rohese (wife of John de Dover, not Fulk de Dover) and
Maud (wife of William de Beauchamp). Maud de Lucy (wife of William de
Beauchamp) died soon afterwards and her share of the Lucy estates fell
to her two daughters, Maud (wife of Geoffrey de Lascelles and Richard
de Rivers) and Sarah (wife of William de Lascelles).

In partition of their share of the inheritance, Sarah de Lucy, wife of
William de Lascelles, was given the French land holdings of Richard de
Lucy. So, in the end, the English estates of Sir Richard de Lucy were
divided between Rohese de Lucy (wife of John de Dover) and her niece,
Maud de Lucy (wife of Geoffrey de Lascelles and Richard de Rivers),
whereas Sarah de Lucy, wife of William de Lascelles, inherited the
French estates. Rohese de Lucy also settled part of the manor of
Newington, Kent on her half-brother, Geoffrey de Lucy. As heir of the
half-blood, Geoffrey de Lucy was entitled to none of the Lucy
inheritance, even though he was the heir male of Sir Richard de Lucy.

This is no confusion, by the way, about Richard de Rivers being a
member of the Dover family. The Rivers and Dover families are entirely
separate and distinct families. Also, I must emphasize once again that
Rohese de Lucy's husband was John de Dover, not Fulbert de Dover,
regardless of what you read in print.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

butlergrt wrote:
Good Afternoon,
Maude(Matilda) married Walter fitzRobert, ancestors of the Fitz Walters
and Rohais married Fulbert de Dover, Lord of Chilham in Kent. While Rohais
inherited the whole livery of her fathers barony, Maude did indeed,
inherit Angre and the Essex property. There may be some confusion, but it
appears, "Richard de Redver" is phonetically de Dover. Richard de Lucys'
son Geoffrey died before he did and Geoffreys son died s.p. Hubert, also
called Godfrey, had no issue. No other daughters than the above, no other
sons than those two.
Richard de Lucys other brothers, Waler was the 5th Abbot of Battle for 33
yrs. Richards other brother Reginald de Lucy married Amabel de Roumeli,
they did have a son named Richard whose wife was Ada de Morville but with
no male issue the lands were divided between his two daughters who married
two brothers, Lambert and Alan de Multon, Amabel married Lambert and
brought the barony of Egremont while the other daughter. Alice, married to
Alan de Multan, who's son was seated at Cockermouth but retained his
mothers maiden name(de Lucy) instead of de Multon, he was summoned to
parliment 16 EdII.,called Lord Lucy......etc....etc...
I must apologize in my last post "curious confusion" I had Richards two
daughters marriages turned around.
Best Regards,
Emmett Butler

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 aug 2005 22:24:53

In message of 2 Aug, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Emmett ~

And copied to the rest of the newsgroup for their education and benefit.

Thank you for your good post.

I'm not sure what sources you are using for the Lucy family, but they
are not very accurate. It would help greatly if you worked with
primary contemporary documents, instead of out-of-date, inaccurate, and
erroneous secondary works. When you do quote from a source, please
give the author, title, and page reference, so people who read your
post can find your sources.

Excellent advice. Though impractical for most of us who do not have
access even to transcripts or abstracts of primary contemporary
documents.

But in what follows, that advice is not followed at all. So is the
following a joke?

As for the Lucy inheritance itself, I find that on Sir Richard de
Lucy's death in 1179, his properties went first to his minor grandson,
Richard de Lucy (d. before Michaelmas 1282), then to the younger
Richard's brother, Herbert (d. before 1189), and then to Herbert's two
full sisters, Rohese (wife of John de Dover, not Fulk de Dover) and
Maud (wife of William de Beauchamp). Maud de Lucy (wife of William de
Beauchamp) died soon afterwards and her share of the Lucy estates fell
to her two daughters, Maud (wife of Geoffrey de Lascelles and Richard
de Rivers) and Sarah (wife of William de Lascelles).

In partition of their share of the inheritance, Sarah de Lucy, wife of
William de Lascelles, was given the French land holdings of Richard de
Lucy. So, in the end, the English estates of Sir Richard de Lucy were
divided between Rohese de Lucy (wife of John de Dover) and her niece,
Maud de Lucy (wife of Geoffrey de Lascelles and Richard de Rivers),
whereas Sarah de Lucy, wife of William de Lascelles, inherited the
French estates. Rohese de Lucy also settled part of the manor of
Newington, Kent on her half-brother, Geoffrey de Lucy. As heir of the
half-blood, Geoffrey de Lucy was entitled to none of the Lucy
inheritance, even though he was the heir male of Sir Richard de Lucy.

This is no confusion, by the way, about Richard de Rivers being a
member of the Dover family. The Rivers and Dover families are entirely
separate and distinct families. Also, I must emphasize once again that
Rohese de Lucy's husband was John de Dover, not Fulbert de Dover,
regardless of what you read in print.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 02 aug 2005 23:46:12

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Excellent advice.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

I love the new found unity we have here on the newsgroup. It's
beginning to be a pleasure to post again. Let's keep it up!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 aug 2005 00:37:19

In message of 2 Aug, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

Excellent advice.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

I love the new found unity we have here on the newsgroup. It's
beginning to be a pleasure to post again. Let's keep it up!

Particularly there would be unity if the posts did not include a swipe
at raw participants, and did not tell them what they should have done
without even practicing what was preached. Let alone giving them a
precept of excellence that they had not a hope of implementing, in
common with almost everyone else who participates in or lurks on this
newsgroup.

At the very least such swipes should be done privately. Further there
should either be practicing what is preached or an explanation why this
cannot be done.

Or was is a joke to contradict such an impossible precept?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Douglas Richardson royala

It's time to be collegial and helpful

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 03 aug 2005 00:47:25

Dear Tim ~

It's time to be collegial and helpful. Let's keep it friendly.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 2 Aug, "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com"
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

Excellent advice.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

I love the new found unity we have here on the newsgroup. It's
beginning to be a pleasure to post again. Let's keep it up!

Particularly there would be unity if the posts did not include a swipe
at raw participants, and did not tell them what they should have done
without even practicing what was preached. Let alone giving them a
precept of excellence that they had not a hope of implementing, in
common with almost everyone else who participates in or lurks on this
newsgroup.

At the very least such swipes should be done privately. Further there
should either be practicing what is preached or an explanation why this
cannot be done.

Or was is a joke to contradict such an impossible precept?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

butlergrt

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover,my source

Legg inn av butlergrt » 03 aug 2005 01:04:57

Good Evening Gentlemen and Ladies,
The source that I used was "The Battle Abbey Roll
with some Account of the Norman Lineages" by the Duchess of Cleveland,
published by John Murray, Ablemarle Street,London,England, 1889-Vol
II,p198-204.
MSS of the Cotton Libr.Tib. D. II.
Mon. ii.302,Mannings Surrey
Itin., vol. VI
Mayhaps second-hand, but then are not most all documents second hand? but
willingly yield to those who have greater knowledge and access to
documents unobtainable, until otherwise proven.
Best Regards and Good Evening to All,
Emmett L. Butler

Gjest

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2005 01:09:53

Please lets keep it civil. This is a newsgroup about genealogy. If you
don't like what someone says you have two options. Say it in private or
don't say anything at all.
Mike

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover,my source

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 03 aug 2005 01:44:32

butlergrt wrote:
Good Evening Gentlemen and Ladies,
The source that I used was "The Battle Abbey Roll
with some Account of the Norman Lineages" by the Duchess of Cleveland,
published by John Murray, Ablemarle Street,London,England, 1889-Vol
II,p198-204.
MSS of the Cotton Libr.Tib. D. II.
Mon. ii.302,Mannings Surrey
Itin., vol. VI
Mayhaps second-hand, but then are not most all documents second hand? but
willingly yield to those who have greater knowledge and access to
documents unobtainable, until otherwise proven.

The problem with this source is that it was compiled hundreds of years
after the fact, and based on such a credulous mix of authentic source
material, dubious source material and downright invention that it is
imprudent to trust anything without confirming it in the primary record.

taf

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 03 aug 2005 06:25:02

mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Please lets keep it civil. This is a newsgroup about genealogy. If you
don't like what someone says you have two options. Say it in private or
don't say anything at all.
Mike

Yep, I agree, Mike. You're 1000 percent right. The newsgroup is about
genealogy and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover,my source

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 03 aug 2005 06:42:09

Dear Emmett ~

Todd Farmerie is entirely right. The Battle Abbey Roll, while
interesting to read, is untrustworthy. I wouldn't place much stock in
anything you read in it, unless you confirm it with other sources you
know to be reliable.

I appreciate your posts, Emmett, and hope you'll continue to share your
information with everyone. Thank you for posting today.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
butlergrt wrote:
Good Evening Gentlemen and Ladies,
The source that I used was "The Battle Abbey Roll
with some Account of the Norman Lineages" by the Duchess of Cleveland,
published by John Murray, Ablemarle Street,London,England, 1889-Vol
II,p198-204.
MSS of the Cotton Libr.Tib. D. II.
Mon. ii.302,Mannings Surrey
Itin., vol. VI
Mayhaps second-hand, but then are not most all documents second hand? but
willingly yield to those who have greater knowledge and access to
documents unobtainable, until otherwise proven.

The problem with this source is that it was compiled hundreds of years
after the fact, and based on such a credulous mix of authentic source
material, dubious source material and downright invention that it is
imprudent to trust anything without confirming it in the primary record.

taf

Chris Phillips

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover,my source

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 03 aug 2005 09:14:24

butlergrt wrote:
Good Evening Gentlemen and Ladies,
The source that I used was "The Battle Abbey Roll
with some Account of the Norman Lineages" by the Duchess of Cleveland,
published by John Murray, Ablemarle Street,London,England, 1889-Vol
II,p198-204.

Todd A. Farmerie replied:
The problem with this source is that it was compiled hundreds of years
after the fact, and based on such a credulous mix of authentic source
material, dubious source material and downright invention that it is
imprudent to trust anything without confirming it in the primary record.


To be fair to the Duchess of Cleveland, her work was considered very
respectable in its time (and of course must be distinguished from the
various early-modern manuscript lists of the same name). J. H. Round said
that it contained "much excellent genealogy".

Unfortunately a work of this age dealing with the 12th century and earlier
is inevitably outdated now.

Chris Phillips

John Brandon

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 aug 2005 17:12:19

Repairs need to be made, the damage should not be glossed over.

But it shouldn't be exaggerated or, as is often the case, entirely
fabricated ...

John Brandon

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 aug 2005 17:25:13

but sadly those cows haven't come home yet.

But apparently a tired old cow named Leo stays at home, chewing the
same bitter cud endlessly.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 03 aug 2005 17:46:29

Dear Leo ~

We've have enough rancor on the newsgroup. It's time to be civil,
collegial, and pleasant. Friendly also works for me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
This kind of agreeing with each other could, and perhaps should, be done
offlist.

If I am not wrong, the messages these refer to are in regards to the way
Richardson was treating an apparently new person on gen-med. Apparently he
was poisoning that person with his usual honeyed tongue. Tim Powys-Lybbe
pointed this out but Mike Welch doesn't want criticism on gen-med. Some
people _need_ to be told and told again, but sadly those cows haven't come
home yet.


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Please lets keep it civil. This is a newsgroup about genealogy. If you
don't like what someone says you have two options. Say it in private or
don't say anything at all.
Mike

Yep, I agree, Mike. You're 1000 percent right. The newsgroup is about
genealogy and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Leo van de Pas

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 aug 2005 18:05:02

The selective snipping is just mindboggling. Richardson kicks in the door,
the chilly draft is still there......but it is a pleasure fo post again. For
whom? Repairs need to be made, the damage should not be glossed over.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

Excellent advice.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

I love the new found unity we have here on the newsgroup. It's
beginning to be a pleasure to post again. Let's keep it up!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Leo van de Pas

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 aug 2005 18:21:01

This kind of agreeing with each other could, and perhaps should, be done
offlist.

If I am not wrong, the messages these refer to are in regards to the way
Richardson was treating an apparently new person on gen-med. Apparently he
was poisoning that person with his usual honeyed tongue. Tim Powys-Lybbe
pointed this out but Mike Welch doesn't want criticism on gen-med. Some
people _need_ to be told and told again, but sadly those cows haven't come
home yet.


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Please lets keep it civil. This is a newsgroup about genealogy. If you
don't like what someone says you have two options. Say it in private or
don't say anything at all.
Mike

Yep, I agree, Mike. You're 1000 percent right. The newsgroup is about
genealogy and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Leo van de Pas

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 aug 2005 23:04:02

You behaved like a thug, who hits people over the head then runs away
screaming "Don't hit me back, we have to be kind to each other."

You should have thought of that in the first place.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


Dear Leo ~

We've have enough rancor on the newsgroup. It's time to be civil,
collegial, and pleasant. Friendly also works for me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
This kind of agreeing with each other could, and perhaps should, be done
offlist.

If I am not wrong, the messages these refer to are in regards to the way
Richardson was treating an apparently new person on gen-med. Apparently
he
was poisoning that person with his usual honeyed tongue. Tim Powys-Lybbe
pointed this out but Mike Welch doesn't want criticism on gen-med. Some
people _need_ to be told and told again, but sadly those cows haven't
come
home yet.


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Please lets keep it civil. This is a newsgroup about genealogy. If you
don't like what someone says you have two options. Say it in private
or
don't say anything at all.
Mike

Yep, I agree, Mike. You're 1000 percent right. The newsgroup is about
genealogy and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net




Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 04 aug 2005 00:36:24

I'll repeat my statement once again: It's time to be civil, collegial,
and pleasant. Friendly also works for me.

Best wishes, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 04 aug 2005 00:41:50

I agree, Leo, repairs need to be made. I apologized to you. Now it's
your turn.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
The selective snipping is just mindboggling. Richardson kicks in the door,
the chilly draft is still there......but it is a pleasure fo post again. For
whom? Repairs need to be made, the damage should not be glossed over.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

Excellent advice.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

I love the new found unity we have here on the newsgroup. It's
beginning to be a pleasure to post again. Let's keep it up!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 04 aug 2005 00:56:00

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
You are the only one who can put this behind us for all. Only you.

No, Leo, you need to apologize, too. That's just being fair.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Leo van de Pas

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 aug 2005 01:52:02

You are the only one who can put this behind us for all. Only you.

To hit and run and then say it is time to be civil, and collegial and
pleasant, I suppose until the next time?

Make it obvious that we all can put it behind us.


----- Original essage -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


I'll repeat my statement once again: It's time to be civil, collegial,
and pleasant. Friendly also works for me.

Best wishes, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Leo van de Pas

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 aug 2005 02:05:02

Apologised? Because you stepped on my toe but you forget about the head
injury you caused? We do need to keep this in perspective.


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


I agree, Leo, repairs need to be made. I apologized to you. Now it's
your turn.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
The selective snipping is just mindboggling. Richardson kicks in the
door,
the chilly draft is still there......but it is a pleasure fo post again.
For
whom? Repairs need to be made, the damage should not be glossed over.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

Excellent advice.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

I love the new found unity we have here on the newsgroup. It's
beginning to be a pleasure to post again. Let's keep it up!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net




Leo van de Pas

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 aug 2005 02:16:01

For what?

I have spelled out what in your behaviour should be apologised for.

Do you want me to apologise for not accepting your token effort? I did
accept that and asked you whether you thought that was enough. So far you
have to replied to that.


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
You are the only one who can put this behind us for all. Only you.

No, Leo, you need to apologize, too. That's just being fair.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Gjest

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2005 10:17:27

If friendly works for you. Civil, collegial etc.

Then please answer another question.
I send you private emails ..you don't answer them.

But you have plenty of time to post on this Group and poke fun and
provoke people

On the 20th July you told me you hadn't posted my book. The book you
said would post air mail first 2 weeks in June. I sent you another
private message 2nd Aug no answer.

You told me You would send me an email when you posted my book.

To date 3/8/05 I've had no email. You have my money. why don't you
post my Book.

Have you sold them all? DHS said I was stupid. Yes I was in
trusting a man like you, You are not a man of your word. you should
pratice what you preach. post my book and let me know it is on its
way. OR send me my Money Back!

Brendan Wilson




I'll repeat my statement once again: It's time to be civil, collegial,
and pleasant. Friendly also works for me.

Best wishes, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Maude(Matilda) married Fulbert de Dover

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 04 aug 2005 13:58:43

Dear Brendan ~

If you wish to discuss a book order, I recommend you should do it
offline. That's the appropriate thing to do. As I indicated in a
post yesterday, I should be finished sending out the pre-ordered books
to customers within the next couple of weeks. I apologize for the the
delay and appreciate your patience very much.

Best always, Douglas Riochardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»