C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of the
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson royala
C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of the
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 514, footnote g (sub Fitzwilliam)
identifies Robert Fitz Ralph (born c. 1277, died 1317), male line
ancestor of the Greystoke family, as the son and heir of Ralph Fitz
William, Knt. (died 1317), of Grimthorpe, Yorkshire, by an unidentified
first wife. In the footnote cited, Complete Peerage gives rather solid
and compelling evidence that Robert Fitz Ralph could not possibly be
the son of Ralph Fitz William's later wife, Margery de Bolebec, widow
of Sir Nicholas Corbet (died 1280), as commonly thought to be the case
by genealogists.
Recently I located a lawsuit dated 1329-1330 which lends support to
Complete Peerage's conclusions. The lawsuit in question concerns
property in Northamptonshire which was part of the Bolebec inheritance.
According to the lawsuit, Margery, wife of Ralph Fitz William, gave
her part of the Bolebec family property to Ralph Fitz William (her
husband), "and Ralph gave it to his son Robert." [Reference: The Eyre
of Northamptonshire 3-4 Edward III, A.D. 1329-1330, 1 (Selden Soc. 97)
(1983): 118-119]. The operative words here are "his son," rather than
"their son," as Margery was not the mother of Robert at all, but rather
she was his step-mother. The suit further indicates that at the time
of the lawsuit, the property in question was held in dower by
Elizabeth, widow of Robert Fitz Ralph.
Curiously, Margery, wife of Ralph Fitz William, is identified in the
lawsuit not as the daughter of Hugh de Bolebec, but, rather as the
daughter of Nicholas Corbet, by Joan, daughter and co-heiress of Hugh
de Bolebec. Thus, an additional generation is inserted between Margery
and her reputed father, Hugh de Bolebec, which is generation is
ficticious. Margery de Bolebec's first husband, Nicholas Corbet, is
strangely turned into her father.
I haven't studied the documents regarding the Bolebec family to see if
it is possible for Margery to be granddaughter, rather than daughter of
Hugh de Bolebec. But, my own impression is that the the lawsuit is
probably faulty as to Margery's parentage. I note that her Bolebec
sisters, Maud, Alice, and Philippe, are incorrectly styled Lora,
Hawise, and Cecily in the lawsuit, although all are assigned their
correct respective husbands. So, clearly the plaintiff or defendant in
the lawsuit was ignorant of several important facts regarding the
Bolebec family.
Regardless, the important point in the lawsuit is that Robert Fitz
Ralph is not in any sense identified as a blood heir of the Bolebec
family, rather the lawsuit makes it clear that Robert Fitz Ralph only
obtained his interest by conveyance by one of the Bolebec heirs to his
father, Ralph Fitz William. This agrees with Complete Peerage.
Incidentally, for those interested in the current discussion regarding
the Dunbar family of Scotland, I see that Complete Peerage identifies
Sir Nicholas Corbet (1st husband of Margery de Bolebec) as "son and
heir of William, a son of Patric, Earl of Dunbar." [Reference: Complete
Peerage, 5 (1926): 515, footnote a (sub Fitzwilliam)].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 514, footnote g (sub Fitzwilliam)
identifies Robert Fitz Ralph (born c. 1277, died 1317), male line
ancestor of the Greystoke family, as the son and heir of Ralph Fitz
William, Knt. (died 1317), of Grimthorpe, Yorkshire, by an unidentified
first wife. In the footnote cited, Complete Peerage gives rather solid
and compelling evidence that Robert Fitz Ralph could not possibly be
the son of Ralph Fitz William's later wife, Margery de Bolebec, widow
of Sir Nicholas Corbet (died 1280), as commonly thought to be the case
by genealogists.
Recently I located a lawsuit dated 1329-1330 which lends support to
Complete Peerage's conclusions. The lawsuit in question concerns
property in Northamptonshire which was part of the Bolebec inheritance.
According to the lawsuit, Margery, wife of Ralph Fitz William, gave
her part of the Bolebec family property to Ralph Fitz William (her
husband), "and Ralph gave it to his son Robert." [Reference: The Eyre
of Northamptonshire 3-4 Edward III, A.D. 1329-1330, 1 (Selden Soc. 97)
(1983): 118-119]. The operative words here are "his son," rather than
"their son," as Margery was not the mother of Robert at all, but rather
she was his step-mother. The suit further indicates that at the time
of the lawsuit, the property in question was held in dower by
Elizabeth, widow of Robert Fitz Ralph.
Curiously, Margery, wife of Ralph Fitz William, is identified in the
lawsuit not as the daughter of Hugh de Bolebec, but, rather as the
daughter of Nicholas Corbet, by Joan, daughter and co-heiress of Hugh
de Bolebec. Thus, an additional generation is inserted between Margery
and her reputed father, Hugh de Bolebec, which is generation is
ficticious. Margery de Bolebec's first husband, Nicholas Corbet, is
strangely turned into her father.
I haven't studied the documents regarding the Bolebec family to see if
it is possible for Margery to be granddaughter, rather than daughter of
Hugh de Bolebec. But, my own impression is that the the lawsuit is
probably faulty as to Margery's parentage. I note that her Bolebec
sisters, Maud, Alice, and Philippe, are incorrectly styled Lora,
Hawise, and Cecily in the lawsuit, although all are assigned their
correct respective husbands. So, clearly the plaintiff or defendant in
the lawsuit was ignorant of several important facts regarding the
Bolebec family.
Regardless, the important point in the lawsuit is that Robert Fitz
Ralph is not in any sense identified as a blood heir of the Bolebec
family, rather the lawsuit makes it clear that Robert Fitz Ralph only
obtained his interest by conveyance by one of the Bolebec heirs to his
father, Ralph Fitz William. This agrees with Complete Peerage.
Incidentally, for those interested in the current discussion regarding
the Dunbar family of Scotland, I see that Complete Peerage identifies
Sir Nicholas Corbet (1st husband of Margery de Bolebec) as "son and
heir of William, a son of Patric, Earl of Dunbar." [Reference: Complete
Peerage, 5 (1926): 515, footnote a (sub Fitzwilliam)].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123477541.297921.175160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The evidence is a bit more compelling and simple than that set out in the
footnote cited above: according to the article itself Margery married Ralph
Fitzwilliam under a royal license dated 1 November 1281, citing Fine Roll 10
Edward I, membrane 17. The same citation had been given for their marriage
taking place in 1282, by James Wilson in his paper on the Greystoke family
[_The Ancestor_ 6 (1903) p. 129 note 3].
Since CP goes on to show Ralph's elder son William marrying before 15 May
1290, and his younger son Robert being aged 40, or 40 and more, at his death
in February 1316/7, it's clear that both of his sons were born before
Margery could have had any children to him in 1282 at the earliest.
So why make a song and dance about this already established fact, based on a
mere pronoun contained in a third-hand account of a later transaction?
Peter Stewart
news:1123477541.297921.175160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 514, footnote g (sub Fitzwilliam)
identifies Robert Fitz Ralph (born c. 1277, died 1317), male line
ancestor of the Greystoke family, as the son and heir of Ralph Fitz
William, Knt. (died 1317), of Grimthorpe, Yorkshire, by an unidentified
first wife. In the footnote cited, Complete Peerage gives rather solid
and compelling evidence that Robert Fitz Ralph could not possibly be
the son of Ralph Fitz William's later wife, Margery de Bolebec, widow
of Sir Nicholas Corbet (died 1280), as commonly thought to be the case
by genealogists.
Recently I located a lawsuit dated 1329-1330 which lends support to
Complete Peerage's conclusions. The lawsuit in question concerns
property in Northamptonshire which was part of the Bolebec inheritance.
According to the lawsuit, Margery, wife of Ralph Fitz William, gave
her part of the Bolebec family property to Ralph Fitz William (her
husband), "and Ralph gave it to his son Robert." [Reference: The Eyre
of Northamptonshire 3-4 Edward III, A.D. 1329-1330, 1 (Selden Soc. 97)
(1983): 118-119]. The operative words here are "his son," rather than
"their son," as Margery was not the mother of Robert at all, but rather
she was his step-mother. The suit further indicates that at the time
of the lawsuit, the property in question was held in dower by
Elizabeth, widow of Robert Fitz Ralph.
The evidence is a bit more compelling and simple than that set out in the
footnote cited above: according to the article itself Margery married Ralph
Fitzwilliam under a royal license dated 1 November 1281, citing Fine Roll 10
Edward I, membrane 17. The same citation had been given for their marriage
taking place in 1282, by James Wilson in his paper on the Greystoke family
[_The Ancestor_ 6 (1903) p. 129 note 3].
Since CP goes on to show Ralph's elder son William marrying before 15 May
1290, and his younger son Robert being aged 40, or 40 and more, at his death
in February 1316/7, it's clear that both of his sons were born before
Margery could have had any children to him in 1282 at the earliest.
So why make a song and dance about this already established fact, based on a
mere pronoun contained in a third-hand account of a later transaction?
Peter Stewart
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Peter Stewart wrote:
Peter:
Isn't it strange that DR would use a document that he himself knows to
be badly flawed as to important facts to make a point of no great
importance with an ambiguous pronoun. If nouns, i.e. personal names,
are wrong, how can one take seriously the reading of a pronoun which
could lend itself to more than one meaning.
It makes one wonder about his knowledge and of medieval documents in
other cases. Could it be that he is trying to increase the number of
CP additions and corrections for which he can take credit?
CED
Peter:
Isn't it strange that DR would use a document that he himself knows to
be badly flawed as to important facts to make a point of no great
importance with an ambiguous pronoun. If nouns, i.e. personal names,
are wrong, how can one take seriously the reading of a pronoun which
could lend itself to more than one meaning.
It makes one wonder about his knowledge and of medieval documents in
other cases. Could it be that he is trying to increase the number of
CP additions and corrections for which he can take credit?
CED
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123477541.297921.175160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 514, footnote g (sub Fitzwilliam)
identifies Robert Fitz Ralph (born c. 1277, died 1317), male line
ancestor of the Greystoke family, as the son and heir of Ralph Fitz
William, Knt. (died 1317), of Grimthorpe, Yorkshire, by an unidentified
first wife. In the footnote cited, Complete Peerage gives rather solid
and compelling evidence that Robert Fitz Ralph could not possibly be
the son of Ralph Fitz William's later wife, Margery de Bolebec, widow
of Sir Nicholas Corbet (died 1280), as commonly thought to be the case
by genealogists.
Recently I located a lawsuit dated 1329-1330 which lends support to
Complete Peerage's conclusions. The lawsuit in question concerns
property in Northamptonshire which was part of the Bolebec inheritance.
According to the lawsuit, Margery, wife of Ralph Fitz William, gave
her part of the Bolebec family property to Ralph Fitz William (her
husband), "and Ralph gave it to his son Robert." [Reference: The Eyre
of Northamptonshire 3-4 Edward III, A.D. 1329-1330, 1 (Selden Soc. 97)
(1983): 118-119]. The operative words here are "his son," rather than
"their son," as Margery was not the mother of Robert at all, but rather
she was his step-mother. The suit further indicates that at the time
of the lawsuit, the property in question was held in dower by
Elizabeth, widow of Robert Fitz Ralph.
The evidence is a bit more compelling and simple than that set out in the
footnote cited above: according to the article itself Margery married Ralph
Fitzwilliam under a royal license dated 1 November 1281, citing Fine Roll 10
Edward I, membrane 17. The same citation had been given for their marriage
taking place in 1282, by James Wilson in his paper on the Greystoke family
[_The Ancestor_ 6 (1903) p. 129 note 3].
Since CP goes on to show Ralph's elder son William marrying before 15 May
1290, and his younger son Robert being aged 40, or 40 and more, at his death
in February 1316/7, it's clear that both of his sons were born before
Margery could have had any children to him in 1282 at the earliest.
So why make a song and dance about this already established fact, based on a
mere pronoun contained in a third-hand account of a later transaction?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Dear Peter ~
Thank you for your good post. You've made an excellent point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
Thank you for your good post. You've made an excellent point.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123477541.297921.175160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 514, footnote g (sub Fitzwilliam)
identifies Robert Fitz Ralph (born c. 1277, died 1317), male line
ancestor of the Greystoke family, as the son and heir of Ralph Fitz
William, Knt. (died 1317), of Grimthorpe, Yorkshire, by an unidentified
first wife. In the footnote cited, Complete Peerage gives rather solid
and compelling evidence that Robert Fitz Ralph could not possibly be
the son of Ralph Fitz William's later wife, Margery de Bolebec, widow
of Sir Nicholas Corbet (died 1280), as commonly thought to be the case
by genealogists.
Recently I located a lawsuit dated 1329-1330 which lends support to
Complete Peerage's conclusions. The lawsuit in question concerns
property in Northamptonshire which was part of the Bolebec inheritance.
According to the lawsuit, Margery, wife of Ralph Fitz William, gave
her part of the Bolebec family property to Ralph Fitz William (her
husband), "and Ralph gave it to his son Robert." [Reference: The Eyre
of Northamptonshire 3-4 Edward III, A.D. 1329-1330, 1 (Selden Soc. 97)
(1983): 118-119]. The operative words here are "his son," rather than
"their son," as Margery was not the mother of Robert at all, but rather
she was his step-mother. The suit further indicates that at the time
of the lawsuit, the property in question was held in dower by
Elizabeth, widow of Robert Fitz Ralph.
The evidence is a bit more compelling and simple than that set out in the
footnote cited above: according to the article itself Margery married Ralph
Fitzwilliam under a royal license dated 1 November 1281, citing Fine Roll 10
Edward I, membrane 17. The same citation had been given for their marriage
taking place in 1282, by James Wilson in his paper on the Greystoke family
[_The Ancestor_ 6 (1903) p. 129 note 3].
Since CP goes on to show Ralph's elder son William marrying before 15 May
1290, and his younger son Robert being aged 40, or 40 and more, at his death
in February 1316/7, it's clear that both of his sons were born before
Margery could have had any children to him in 1282 at the earliest.
So why make a song and dance about this already established fact, based on a
mere pronoun contained in a third-hand account of a later transaction?
Peter Stewart
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Peter Stewart wrote:
Right up until the end, I was expecting the conclusion to come from the
nature of the transaction, not from the pronoun usage. She grants it to
her husband and he to his son - it seems a lot of pointless work if the
son was her heir anyhow (and there seems no list of remainers, the
reordering of which sometimes served as motivation for such gymnastics),
but perfectly understandable if he was step-son.
taf
So why make a song and dance about this already established fact, based on a
mere pronoun contained in a third-hand account of a later transaction?
Right up until the end, I was expecting the conclusion to come from the
nature of the transaction, not from the pronoun usage. She grants it to
her husband and he to his son - it seems a lot of pointless work if the
son was her heir anyhow (and there seems no list of remainers, the
reordering of which sometimes served as motivation for such gymnastics),
but perfectly understandable if he was step-son.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
CED wrote:
I don't know - an awful lot of sgm bandwidth does seem to be taken up
with these almost contentless posts, MacGenealogy.
If Richardson hasn't got enough to do now that the Magna Carta book is
out, it would surely be a far better use of his time to gain a
smattering of French and Latin so that he could check the pronouns
actually used by the principals in their own documents.
And this would certainly be more useful than his tedious, unctuous
"friendliness" campaign that impresses no-one.
Peter Stewart
Peter:
Isn't it strange that DR would use a document that he himself knows
to be badly flawed as to important facts to make a point of no great
importance with an ambiguous pronoun. If nouns, i.e. personal names,
are wrong, how can one take seriously the reading of a pronoun which
could lend itself to more than one meaning.
It makes one wonder about his knowledge and of medieval documents
in other cases. Could it be that he is trying to increase the number of
CP additions and corrections for which he can take credit?
I don't know - an awful lot of sgm bandwidth does seem to be taken up
with these almost contentless posts, MacGenealogy.
If Richardson hasn't got enough to do now that the Magna Carta book is
out, it would surely be a far better use of his time to gain a
smattering of French and Latin so that he could check the pronouns
actually used by the principals in their own documents.
And this would certainly be more useful than his tedious, unctuous
"friendliness" campaign that impresses no-one.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Peter Stewart wrote:
Dear Peter ~
We're concentrating on genealogy now, and making friends. That's the
way it should be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
And this would certainly be more useful than his tedious, unctuous
"friendliness" campaign that impresses no-one.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
We're concentrating on genealogy now, and making friends. That's the
way it should be.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123587111.079269.268700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
WE are NOT making friends. That's the way it WILL be.
Peter Stewart
news:1123587111.079269.268700@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
And this would certainly be more useful than his tedious, unctuous
"friendliness" campaign that impresses no-one.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
We're concentrating on genealogy now, and making friends. That's the
way it should be.
WE are NOT making friends. That's the way it WILL be.
Peter Stewart
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Where is it that the purpose of the newsgroup is "making friends?"
Peter used the right adjective: "unctuous." A long history of abusive
language cannot be wiped out with a few cloyingly nice or smarmy
words. For those who do not have a ready reference, I would suggest
the archives:
From: "Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com"
<royalances...@msn.com> - Find messages by this author Date: 28 Jul
2005 12:01:39 -0700 Local: Thurs, Jul 28 2005 2:01 pm Subject: Re:
Rohese, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of England.
Who is to determine "[t]hat's the way it should be?" Being nice ought
not be used as a cover for weak genealogy.
CED
Peter Stewart wrote:
And this would certainly be more useful than his tedious, unctuous
"friendliness" campaign that impresses no-one.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
We're concentrating on genealogy now, and making friends. That's the
way it should be.
To the Newsgroup:
Where is it that the purpose of the newsgroup is "making friends?"
Peter used the right adjective: "unctuous." A long history of abusive
language cannot be wiped out with a few cloyingly nice or smarmy
words. For those who do not have a ready reference, I would suggest
the archives:
From: "Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com"
<royalances...@msn.com> - Find messages by this author Date: 28 Jul
2005 12:01:39 -0700 Local: Thurs, Jul 28 2005 2:01 pm Subject: Re:
Rohese, wife of Sir Richard de Lucy, Chief Justiciar of England.
Who is to determine "[t]hat's the way it should be?" Being nice ought
not be used as a cover for weak genealogy.
CED
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
CED
If you don't want to talk about genealogy. Please take it to private
email this will not be tolerated here. Do you have something that help
us in the study of genealogy.
Mike
If you don't want to talk about genealogy. Please take it to private
email this will not be tolerated here. Do you have something that help
us in the study of genealogy.
Mike
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Comments below:
The post to which you are responding did not mention your name.
Who are you to determine what is to be tolerated? Did you first get
permission from DR or DSH to post? Or, did DR write it for you? Let DR
speak for himself.
What have you contributed recently? At least I recognize an error when
I see one.
CED
> Mike
Comments below:
CED
If you don't want to talk about genealogy. Please take it to private
email this will not be tolerated here.
Mike:
The post to which you are responding did not mention your name.
Who are you to determine what is to be tolerated? Did you first get
permission from DR or DSH to post? Or, did DR write it for you? Let DR
speak for himself.
Do you have something that help us in the study of genealogy.
What have you contributed recently? At least I recognize an error when
I see one.
CED
> Mike
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Dear Mike ~
I agree with you totally. If CED doesn't want to talk about genealogy
(which seems to be the case), he or she should take it to private
e-mail. That's the right thing to do.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree with you totally. If CED doesn't want to talk about genealogy
(which seems to be the case), he or she should take it to private
e-mail. That's the right thing to do.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
CED
If you don't want to talk about genealogy. Please take it to private
email this will not be tolerated here. Do you have something that help
us in the study of genealogy.
Mike
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
If you want to study medieval genealogy, I would suggest that you find
a mentor other than DR.
I could give you some helpful advice, privately.
DR is so much easier to type than "Mr. Richarson")
CED
If you don't want to talk about genealogy. Please take it to private
email this will not be tolerated here. Do you have something that help
us in the study of genealogy.
If you want to study medieval genealogy, I would suggest that you find
a mentor other than DR.
I could give you some helpful advice, privately.
DR is so much easier to type than "Mr. Richarson")
Mike
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Ced
I gave my name as Mike. I have contributed I guess you didn't see the
Olive Welby line to Rohese. Like I said and i'm going to say again CDE
if you have a gripe on this board please post in private this is
totally unacceptable.
Signed
Mike
I gave my name as Mike. I have contributed I guess you didn't see the
Olive Welby line to Rohese. Like I said and i'm going to say again CDE
if you have a gripe on this board please post in private this is
totally unacceptable.
Signed
Mike
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Dear Mike ~
I agree totally. This is not a gripe board. This is a newsgroup for
medieval genealogy, and to make friends. If CED has issues with a
poster, he or she should take it up in private with the other person.
That's the right thing to do.
By the way, I very much enjoyed your great posts showing your descents
from Rohese of Boulogne through Olive (Welby) Farwell and Jane
(Lawrence) Giddings. I appreciate the time and effort you took to post
this information. Maybe some of our fellow posters can share their
descents from Rohese of Boulogne when they have the opportunity.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mwelch8...@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree totally. This is not a gripe board. This is a newsgroup for
medieval genealogy, and to make friends. If CED has issues with a
poster, he or she should take it up in private with the other person.
That's the right thing to do.
By the way, I very much enjoyed your great posts showing your descents
from Rohese of Boulogne through Olive (Welby) Farwell and Jane
(Lawrence) Giddings. I appreciate the time and effort you took to post
this information. Maybe some of our fellow posters can share their
descents from Rohese of Boulogne when they have the opportunity.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mwelch8...@yahoo.com wrote:
Ced
I gave my name as Mike. I have contributed I guess you didn't see the
Olive Welby line to Rohese. Like I said and i'm going to say again CDE
if you have a gripe on this board please post in private this is
totally unacceptable.
Signed
Mike
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
This whole thing is (again) bordering on the ridiculous. Am I the only
one who sees a certain inescapable irony in posted public complaints
that suggest that posted public complaints are totally unacceptable?
taf
I agree totally. This is not a gripe board. This is a newsgroup for
medieval genealogy, and to make friends. If CED has issues with a
poster, he or she should take it up in private with the other person.
That's the right thing to do.
[snip]
mwelch8...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
Like I said and i'm going to say again CDE
if you have a gripe on this board please post in private this is
totally unacceptable.
This whole thing is (again) bordering on the ridiculous. Am I the only
one who sees a certain inescapable irony in posted public complaints
that suggest that posted public complaints are totally unacceptable?
taf
-
CED
Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Welch:
You and DR call those lines of names, taken from unacknowledged
seondary sources, genealogy. Where are the dates and sources? From
whom did you copy those lines of names? Maybe in the early 20th
Century a simple line of names would have been acceptable to gullible
people, but not today. I would not have said these things about your
posts, for they were not worthy of comment; but you raised the issue
and I am responding
Is DR your mentor?
Yes, I do have a gripe with the manner in which both you and DR have
conducted yourselves. I shall continue to point out DR's weaknesses.
CED
Ced
I gave my name as Mike. I have contributed I guess you didn't see the
Olive Welby line to Rohese.
Welch:
You and DR call those lines of names, taken from unacknowledged
seondary sources, genealogy. Where are the dates and sources? From
whom did you copy those lines of names? Maybe in the early 20th
Century a simple line of names would have been acceptable to gullible
people, but not today. I would not have said these things about your
posts, for they were not worthy of comment; but you raised the issue
and I am responding
Is DR your mentor?
Like I said and i'm going to say again CDE
if you have a gripe on this board please post in private this is
totally unacceptable.
Yes, I do have a gripe with the manner in which both you and DR have
conducted yourselves. I shall continue to point out DR's weaknesses.
CED
Signed
Mike