Update to genealogics David owen and Anne Devereux

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Clagett, Brice

Update to genealogics David owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Clagett, Brice » 08 aug 2005 21:16:01

Sir David Owen was born about 1458/9, since he deposed on June 28,
that he was about 70 years of age, and was born in the county of
Pembroke. Cott. Ms. Vitellius B xii, f. 117d, as quoted in Sir William
H.
St. John Hope, _Cowdray and Easebourne Priory in the County of
Sussex_ (1919) pp. 11, 15. I see no reason to doubt the received
account that he was a bastard son of Sir Owen Tudor and thus half-
uncle of Henry VII. In a codicil to his will he directed the keeping of
obits for the souls of King Henry VII, Henry [sic; Edmund) Tudor, Earl
of Richmond, Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, and his mother and
father. PCC Spert 6, quoted at Hope, id. p. 12. He gave two of his
sons the Tudor names Henry and (distinctively) Jasper; the other son,
John, was named for the boy's maternal grandfather, John Bohun.

There are many descendants of Sir David Owen through his daugh-
ter Ann, wife of Sir Arthur Hopton, of Cockfield Hall in Yoxford, etc,
Suffolk, including descendants in the United States.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Update to genealogics David owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 08 aug 2005 21:16:02

Dear Brice ~

David Owen's father, Owen Tudor, was an esquire, never a knight. This
is indicated by a record in the patent or close rolls dated the year of
his death, which record you should be able to find easily on your end.


He is likewise called esquire in the following Welsh pedigree:

"Owen Tudyr Esqe = Catrin unig æres Charles brenin Fraingke."
[Reference: Dwnn, Heraldic Vis. of Wales, 2 (1846): 108 (Tudor
pedigree)].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Clagett, Brice" wrote:
< I see no reason to doubt the received account that he was a bastard
son of <Sir Owen Tudor and thus half-uncle of Henry VII. In a codicil
to his will he
< directed the keeping of obits for the souls of King Henry VII, Henry
[sic;
< Edmund) Tudor, Earl of Richmond, Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, and
his
< mother and father. PCC Spert 6, quoted at Hope, id. p. 12. He gave
two of his
sons the Tudor names Henry and (distinctively) Jasper; the other son,
John, was named for the boy's maternal grandfather, John Bohun.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Update to genealogics David owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 08 aug 2005 21:16:02

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Brice ~

David Owen's father, Owen Tudor, was an esquire, never a knight. This
is indicated by a record in the patent or close rolls dated the year of
his death, which record you should be able to find easily on your end.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Dear Brice ~

I believe the record which calls Owen Tudor an esquire within a year of
his death is the royal grant dated 1460, by which he was given the
office of parker of the parks of Moeliwrch, Garsnodiok, etc. in the
lordship of Denbigh in Wales. This record should be in the Patent
rolls. I also find that Owen Tudor was granted an annuity of £100 for
life in 1459 by his step-son, King Henry VI.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics David owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 aug 2005 00:58:02

In a message dated 8/8/05 12:15:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bclagett@cov.com
writes:

<< I see no reason to doubt the received
account that he was a bastard son of Sir Owen Tudor >>

None other than the fact that there is no primary evidence which supports it,
and DNB calls it into question saying that David is "supposed to be ...".
Leading to the obvious next step which is ... he is not. It was an assumption,
based on nothing.

While it is true he names the two Tudor brothers, Edmund and Jasper, and he
names Henry in his will, AND that he then says "my father and mother" evidently
showing that none of those were his father. This does not prove that the
OWEN family is not otherwise connected to the Tudors.

Perhaps Owen Tudor's mother was an OWEN, making all these persons his cousins
and so named because of their prominence more than their closeness. We just
don't know.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics David owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 aug 2005 01:02:01

In a message dated 8/8/05 12:15:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bclagett@cov.com
writes:

<< He gave two of his
sons the Tudor names Henry and (distinctively) Jasper; the other son,
John, was named for the boy's maternal grandfather, John Bohun. >>

I am not sure there were three sons, the way I read the will it looks like
four sons.
Harry is the only one made to be specifically off Anne Devereux, while the
mother of the others is not named. Owen names "Harry" and also "Henry" in his
will. I am sure most people who be willing to consider these synonyms.
However ....

In his will he makes specific mention that Harry is the son of Anne.
I have already posted, but will do so again the proof that HENRY is NOT the
son of Anne. Thus Harry and Henry are two distinct sons.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------------
Montague Family
Catalogue Ref. SAS-BA
Creator(s): Montague family, Viscounts Montague

DEEDS
Cowdray Estate
FILE - Counterpart of Deed - ref. SAS-BA/2 - date: 24 Jan 1528
[from Scope and Content] Between Sir WILLIAM FITZWILLIAM, knt., Treasurer
of the King's Household, of the one part, and Sir HENRY OWEN, knt., son and
heir of Dame Mary Owen decd. late wife of Sir David Owen, knt., father of the
said Sir Henry, of the other part
[from Scope and Content] The said Sir Henry requiring to have quicker
payment of the sum of £1433. 6. 8., residue of the said £2193. 6. 8. appointed to
be paid after the death of the said Sir David Owen And that the said Sir
William should have and enjoy the said manor and premises without any condition of
payment of the said sum of £760, the said Sir William Fitzwilliam covenanted
by the present deed to pay to Sir Henry Owen the said sum of £1433. 6. 8. as
therein mentioned
[from Scope and Content] Signature, Sr Henry Owen, seal gone

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics David owen and Anne Devereux

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

Will Johnson wrie


snip


In his will he makes specific mention that Harry is the son of Anne.
I have already posted, but will do so again the proof that HENRY is NOT the
son of Anne. Thus Harry and Henry are two distinct sons.
Will Johnson
<<<<<<



In fact what you posted was a very small portion of his will. Try looking
at the catalogue in full on the A2A site, and you will find more

Adrian

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics David owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 aug 2005 02:12:01

In a message dated 8/8/05 4:52:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:

<< In fact what you posted was a very small portion of his will. Try
looking
at the catalogue in full on the A2A site, and you will find more
Adrian >>

I did read the whole will. My proof that Harry and Henry were two distinct
sons is still sound. Harry was the son of Anne, Henry was the son of Mary
Bohun.

Apparently he was making his will in order to ensure that his youngest son by
Anne got something more than he normally would.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 09 aug 2005 21:55:32

Dear Will ~

Sir David Owen is not a ficticious son of Owen Tudor, Esquire. Rather,
he is identified as Owen Tudor's illegitimate son in a visitation
pedigree of the Owen family. C'est la vie!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/9/05 8:45:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bclagett@cov.com
writes:

According to the Hope book that I cited previously, p.11, Sir David Owen
by his first wife, Mary Bohun, had
children Henry, Jasper and Anne, and by his third wife, Anne Devereux, had
three more -- another Henry, John,
and Elizabeth. So it seems that John was indeed named after his maternal
grandfather, but that was John
Devereux (2d Lord Ferrers), not John Bohun.

This however is just replacing one secondary source for another. We have no
guarentee that the Hope book is any more accurate than any other secondary
source. As we have seen this David has been given two and three wives, and
anywhere from three to six children. Obviously only using secondary sources is
going to get us all in trouble on this. Added to that the apparently fictitious
addition of him being a son of Owen Tudor, made only probable by his naming
the two known sons of Owen in his will, and we get a recipe for disaster.

Of course if more primary documents come to light that can shed light on this
family, esp this mysterious Anne and Elizabeth who've just popped up that
would be helpful.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 aug 2005 21:59:02

In a message dated 8/9/05 8:45:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bclagett@cov.com
writes:

<< According to the Hope book that I cited previously, p.11, Sir David Owen
by his first wife, Mary Bohun, had
children Henry, Jasper and Anne, and by his third wife, Anne Devereux, had
three more -- another Henry, John,
and Elizabeth. So it seems that John was indeed named after his maternal
grandfather, but that was John
Devereux (2d Lord Ferrers), not John Bohun. >>

This however is just replacing one secondary source for another. We have no
guarentee that the Hope book is any more accurate than any other secondary
source. As we have seen this David has been given two and three wives, and
anywhere from three to six children. Obviously only using secondary sources is
going to get us all in trouble on this. Added to that the apparently fictitious
addition of him being a son of Owen Tudor, made only probable by his naming
the two known sons of Owen in his will, and we get a recipe for disaster.

Of course if more primary documents come to light that can shed light on this
family, esp this mysterious Anne and Elizabeth who've just popped up that
would be helpful.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 09 aug 2005 22:46:35

Dear Will ~

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and
other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking. In this instance, Sir David Owen referred to
the Tudors in his will, which lends additional support for the alleged
kinship.

You can find the visitation pedigree of the Owen family which I
mentioned in an earlier post in the following source:

Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530 & 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905):
94-95, 122.

With a bit of research, I suspect that Sir David Owen's paternity can
be fully proven. Good luck in your sleuthing!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/9/05 1:56:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Sir David Owen is not a ficticious son of Owen Tudor, Esquire. Rather,
he is identified as Owen Tudor's illegitimate son in a visitation
pedigree of the Owen family. C'est la vie!

And I also direct your attention to DNB where they say something along the
lines of "he is said to be..." indicating [at least to me] that the author is
not quite comfortable with the idea.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 aug 2005 23:08:02

In a message dated 8/9/05 1:56:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Sir David Owen is not a ficticious son of Owen Tudor, Esquire. Rather,
he is identified as Owen Tudor's illegitimate son in a visitation
pedigree of the Owen family. C'est la vie! >>

Douglas thank you for your good post.
I did not say he was a "fictitious son". I said that putting him as a son to
Owen Tudor is fictitious. Can you cite the particular visitation that you
are supporting?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 aug 2005 23:10:02

In a message dated 8/9/05 1:56:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Sir David Owen is not a ficticious son of Owen Tudor, Esquire. Rather,
he is identified as Owen Tudor's illegitimate son in a visitation
pedigree of the Owen family. C'est la vie! >>

And I also direct your attention to DNB where they say something along the
lines of "he is said to be..." indicating [at least to me] that the author is
not quite comfortable with the idea.
Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 aug 2005 23:33:17

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123623994.957288.303400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Will ~

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and
other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking.

This is grossly misleading - the term "said to be" is a perfectly accurate
description of hearsay - wherever this came from - used when the information
cannot be proved or contradicted from better evidence. It is certainly NOT a
"euphemism" for unsatisfactory statements of any particular origin, and is
NOT confined to visistation records (which were of course drawn from
hearsay) and unpublished pedigrees.

Also it does not imply that primary evidence was necessarily lacking for the
originator of the statement, but only that - whatever its basis - the
hearsay cannot be confirmed from a more proximate and/or reliable source
available to the writer.

In other words "said to be" means EXACTLY what it says, nothing more and
nothing less.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 09 aug 2005 23:48:19

Dear Newsgroup ~

I'll repeat my statement again. The term "said to be" is a euphemism
employed by Complete Peerage and other British works for a relationship
which is stated in a visitation or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and
nowhere else. It's a cordial way of saying that primary evidence to
document the alleged relationship is lacking. It's that simple.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123623994.957288.303400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Will ~

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and
other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking.

This is grossly misleading - the term "said to be" is a perfectly accurate
description of hearsay - wherever this came from - used when the information
cannot be proved or contradicted from better evidence. It is certainly NOT a
"euphemism" for unsatisfactory statements of any particular origin, and is
NOT confined to visistation records (which were of course drawn from
hearsay) and unpublished pedigrees.

Also it does not imply that primary evidence was necessarily lacking for the
originator of the statement, but only that - whatever its basis - the
hearsay cannot be confirmed from a more proximate and/or reliable source
available to the writer.

In other words "said to be" means EXACTLY what it says, nothing more and
nothing less.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2005 00:40:09

Comments interspersed:

Richardson wrote:

I'll repeat my statement again.

Not yet, but I suppose you will. This is the first time you have
repeated your statement, so can we take your redundant "again" to be a
euphemism for further nonsense to come?

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete
Peerage and other British works for a relationship which is
stated in a visitation or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and
nowhere else.

Again, rubbish - the term is plain English, used on both sides of the
Atlantic. It means just what it says and has no connotation limiting
its use to statements in these two categories. Sometimes, for instance,
you will find "said by Dugdale to be...", "said by Anthony à Wood to
be...", or "said to be" by some other particular antiquarian or by some
unnamed (whether or not anonymous) published authority that for
whatever reason cannot now be traced back towards the original source
beyond an oral or unpublished transmission of the information at some
stage before that authority.

It's a cordial way of saying that primary evidence to document
the alleged relationship is lacking. It's that simple.

There's nothing "cordial" or otherwise about it, and nothing
"euphemistic", it's just an unvarnished statement of fact: the
information, whatever this is and wherever this came from, is based
only on hearsay as far as the writer can tell.

Peter Stewart

Leo van de Pas

Semantics weas Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 10 aug 2005 01:15:02

Is Richardson trying to say that _said to be_ is a term _only_ used by
Complete Peerage and other British (presumably genealogical) works? Or is it
a normal part of the English language, also used by CP?

Gary Boyd Roberts uses terms like SETH, ARD, NDTPS. Has he coined those
abbreviations or are they used only/mainly in his works, or also in others?

What I am trying to say is, _said to be_ seems to me a straightforward
English expression, meaning what is says, whereas those abbreviations have
been established solely for genealogical works, which means that _said to
be_ is not to be claimed as having a specific genealogical meaning, which
Richardson seems to be advocating.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux


Dear Newsgroup ~

I'll repeat my statement again. The term "said to be" is a euphemism
employed by Complete Peerage and other British works for a relationship
which is stated in a visitation or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and
nowhere else. It's a cordial way of saying that primary evidence to
document the alleged relationship is lacking. It's that simple.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart wrote:
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123623994.957288.303400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Will ~

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and
other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking.

This is grossly misleading - the term "said to be" is a perfectly
accurate
description of hearsay - wherever this came from - used when the
information
cannot be proved or contradicted from better evidence. It is certainly
NOT a
"euphemism" for unsatisfactory statements of any particular origin, and
is
NOT confined to visistation records (which were of course drawn from
hearsay) and unpublished pedigrees.

Also it does not imply that primary evidence was necessarily lacking for
the
originator of the statement, but only that - whatever its basis - the
hearsay cannot be confirmed from a more proximate and/or reliable source
available to the writer.

In other words "said to be" means EXACTLY what it says, nothing more and
nothing less.

Peter Stewart


Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 10 aug 2005 07:00:52

Dear Peter ~

I'll repeat my earlier statement once again:

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and
other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking. It's that simple. END OF STATEMENT.

There is no need to make my statement anything more or less than it is.
The English language expresses the exact sentiments I wish to convey.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, Peter, I recommend you take
it up in private. I welcome any and all dialogue from newsgroup
posters, yourself included. I only request that you keep it civil and
friendly. Thanks!

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart wrote:
Comments interspersed:

Richardson wrote:

I'll repeat my statement again.

Not yet, but I suppose you will. This is the first time you have
repeated your statement, so can we take your redundant "again" to be a
euphemism for further nonsense to come?

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete
Peerage and other British works for a relationship which is
stated in a visitation or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and
nowhere else.

Again, rubbish - the term is plain English, used on both sides of the
Atlantic. It means just what it says and has no connotation limiting
its use to statements in these two categories. Sometimes, for instance,
you will find "said by Dugdale to be...", "said by Anthony à Wood to
be...", or "said to be" by some other particular antiquarian or by some
unnamed (whether or not anonymous) published authority that for
whatever reason cannot now be traced back towards the original source
beyond an oral or unpublished transmission of the information at some
stage before that authority.

It's a cordial way of saying that primary evidence to document
the alleged relationship is lacking. It's that simple.

There's nothing "cordial" or otherwise about it, and nothing
"euphemistic", it's just an unvarnished statement of fact: the
information, whatever this is and wherever this came from, is based
only on hearsay as far as the writer can tell.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Meaning of "Said to be" [was: Re: Update to genealogics Davi

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2005 08:13:20

Richardson wrote:

I'll repeat my earlier statement once again:

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage
and other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking. It's that simple. END OF STATEMENT.

No it's NOT that simple because it's NOT TRUE.

Your abysmal lack of comprehension is letting you down once again. And,
just as typically, Hines has chimed in to endorse your latest
nonsense....How long can it be before we hear from Brandon, to complete
the triumvirate of inanity?

Before you repeat this foolishness one more time, try a simple search
of the sgm archive using "said to be" and "CP" as the terms - you will
then see a VAST array of usages that have NOTHING whatever to do with
visitations or manuscript pedigrees. The term is very commonly used for
hearsay in evidence given at IPMs, for instance, that are NEITHER
visitations nor pedigrees. It is very commonly used for statements made
in many different records and various contexts.

There is no need to make my statement anything more or less than it is.
The English language expresses the exact sentiments I wish to convey.

NO, you are claiming that "said to be" is a very precisely limited
technical term of British genealogists, used only for unverifiable
statements in visitations and unpublished pedigrees. That is sheer,
unadulterated RUBBISH. Leo and I have said that the term is plain and
common English, meaning exactly what it says - your repeated
interpretation FLIES IN THE FACE of that.

If you wish to discuss this matter further, Peter, I recommend you
take it up in private.

Why? It's not a private matter, but a necessary correction of some
idiosyncratic garbage that you have unaccountably made public. You
can't expect to make categorical statements of your homespun, patently
wrong ideas and get away with these unremarked in a newsgroup devoted
to the subject of your follies.

I welcome any and all dialogue from newsgroup posters, yourself
included. I only request that you keep it civil and friendly. Thanks!

You will get civil replies when you learn to deal civilly with
criticisms and corrections. My original post on this subject was
perfectly civil, merely pointing out that you had posted a grossly
misleading notion, and correcting this for the record so that no-one
should be misled.

If you wish to take civil issue over the question, why not try to
substantiate your bizarre claim about the narrow parameters of meaning
that you allege in usage of "said to be" by British genealogists,
rather than merely, obtusely, rudely, repeating this balderdash?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2005 11:20:21

<ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c.4a9b4dcc.302b2bfc@aol.com...
In a message dated 10/08/2005 07:11:37 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Douglas wrote,



Dear Peter ~

I'll repeat my earlier statement once again:

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and
other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking. It's that simple. END OF STATEMENT.

There is no need to make my statement anything more or less than it is.
The English language expresses the exact sentiments I wish to convey.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, Peter, I recommend you take
it up in private. I welcome any and all dialogue from newsgroup
posters, yourself included. I only request that you keep it civil and
friendly. Thanks!

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net





I really can't understand why such a song and dance is being made of a
perfectly ordinary phrase. Perhaps there is a difference between English
English
and US English?


No, Richardson is trying to claim that BRITISH genealogists intend "said to
be" to mean "stated in a visitation record....", or "stated in an
unpublished manuscript pedigree....", "AND NOWHERE ELSE".

The lack of comprehension in this is astounding, even from him.

Yet again he is voluntarily making an incivil twit of himself by persisting
without thought. Yet again, repeatedly, he WON'T BE TOLD....

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 10 aug 2005 11:47:19

Peter Stewart wrote:
No, Richardson is trying to claim that BRITISH genealogists intend "said
to
be" to mean "stated in a visitation record....", or "stated in an
unpublished manuscript pedigree....", "AND NOWHERE ELSE".

I wonder if there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. I think by "and
nowhere else" Douglas Richardson meant that the phrase was used in cases
where the allegation came from a secondary source and nowhere else (i.e.
that nowhere else was there better evidence for it). I don't think he meant
to imply that the phrase "said to be" was used only in the contexts he
mentioned, and nowhere else.

For what it's worth, my impression is that when CP uses the phrase "said to
be" without specifying a source, it usually is referring either to a
visitation pedigree or some other pedigree, published or unpublished.
Another variation is the rather scathing "according to the genealogists" -
perhaps something of a hangover from the time before J. H. Round cleansed
the Augean Stables and made genealogy respectable.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2005 11:53:37

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:003e01c59d95$585d3ac0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Dear Adrian,

What I think is the issue, it seems Richardson seems to make the
expression a specific genealogical expression, whereas Peter Stewart and
myself regard is as a common language expression, applicable and useable
elsewhere.


It's worse than that, Leo. Richardson is claiming, flatly against the
clearest imaginable evidence, that the authors and editors of CP actually
agreed with his view: he has several times stated 'The term "said to be" is
a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and other British works for a
relationship which is stated in a visitation or unpublished manuscript
pedigree, and nowhere else'.

Such a misunderstanding as the last three words of that sentence betray
would, you might think, be quite impossible for anyone interested in the
subject to start out with in studying genealogy, much less to maintain after
turning a dozen pages of CP.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2005 12:07:05

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ddcm0g$1qc$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Peter Stewart wrote:
No, Richardson is trying to claim that BRITISH genealogists intend "said
to
be" to mean "stated in a visitation record....", or "stated in an
unpublished manuscript pedigree....", "AND NOWHERE ELSE".

I wonder if there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. I think by "and
nowhere else" Douglas Richardson meant that the phrase was used in cases
where the allegation came from a secondary source and nowhere else (i.e.
that nowhere else was there better evidence for it). I don't think he
meant
to imply that the phrase "said to be" was used only in the contexts he
mentioned, and nowhere else.

Not sustainable for a moment, Chris - when Richardson was told that his
orginal statement was grossly misleading, he persisted in it, restating the
nonsense several times.

Richardson's words were 'The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by
Complete Peerage and other British works for a relationship which is stated
in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else'. The idea that such
statements could have been made "nowehere else" but in the proximate source
is quite different, and quite illogical: this could only mean that whoever
"said" a thing "to be" had himself invented it.

For what it's worth, my impression is that when CP uses the phrase "said
to
be" without specifying a source, it usually is referring either to a
visitation pedigree or some other pedigree, published or unpublished.
Another variation is the rather scathing "according to the genealogists" -
perhaps something of a hangover from the time before J. H. Round cleansed
the Augean Stables and made genealogy respectable.

Then I suggest you perform the search I recommended, and you will quickly
find several of your own posts where "said to be" in CP has NOTHING whatever
to do with visitations or pedigrees. It refers only to HEARSAY, from
wherever and however this came to be recorded. Hearsay can obviously occur
in numberless contexts, whenever people assert or imply something, in
speaking or in writing, without known proof. "Said to be" is a simple and
sensible way to express "according to hearsay he or she was allegedly...."

Getting hung up on visitation reports and pedigrees, just because these are
common, is not sensible or excusable. Even the most obsessive-compulsive of
genealogical students should realise that these are not the be-all and the
end-all of unverifiable information.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 aug 2005 12:09:02

In a message dated 10/08/2005 07:11:37 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Douglas wrote,


Dear Peter ~

I'll repeat my earlier statement once again:

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and
other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking. It's that simple. END OF STATEMENT.

There is no need to make my statement anything more or less than it is.
The English language expresses the exact sentiments I wish to convey.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, Peter, I recommend you take
it up in private. I welcome any and all dialogue from newsgroup
posters, yourself included. I only request that you keep it civil and
friendly. Thanks!

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

<<<<<



I really can't understand why such a song and dance is being made of a
perfectly ordinary phrase. Perhaps there is a difference between English English
and US English?

Adrian (Surrey, UK)

Leo van de Pas

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 10 aug 2005 12:23:02

Dear Adrian,

What I think is the issue, it seems Richardson seems to make the expression
a specific genealogical expression, whereas Peter Stewart and myself regard
is as a common language expression, applicable and useable elsewhere.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux


In a message dated 10/08/2005 07:11:37 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Douglas wrote,



Dear Peter ~

I'll repeat my earlier statement once again:

The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by Complete Peerage and
other British works for a relationship which is stated in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else. It's a cordial
way of saying that primary evidence to document the alleged
relationship is lacking. It's that simple. END OF STATEMENT.

There is no need to make my statement anything more or less than it is.
The English language expresses the exact sentiments I wish to convey.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, Peter, I recommend you take
it up in private. I welcome any and all dialogue from newsgroup
posters, yourself included. I only request that you keep it civil and
friendly. Thanks!

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net





I really can't understand why such a song and dance is being made of a
perfectly ordinary phrase. Perhaps there is a difference between English
English
and US English?

Adrian (Surrey, UK)



Chris Phillips

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 10 aug 2005 12:44:33

I wrote:
I wonder if there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. I think by "and
nowhere else" Douglas Richardson meant that the phrase was used in cases
where the allegation came from a secondary source and nowhere else (i.e.
that nowhere else was there better evidence for it). I don't think he
meant
to imply that the phrase "said to be" was used only in the contexts he
mentioned, and nowhere else.

Peter Stewart replied:
Not sustainable for a moment, Chris - when Richardson was told that his
orginal statement was grossly misleading, he persisted in it, restating
the
nonsense several times.

Richardson's words were 'The term "said to be" is a euphemism employed by
Complete Peerage and other British works for a relationship which is
stated
in a visitation
or unpublished manuscript pedigree, and nowhere else'. The idea that such
statements could have been made "nowehere else" but in the proximate
source
is quite different, and quite illogical: this could only mean that whoever
"said" a thing "to be" had himself invented it.

Sorry, but I still think the natural reading is that "nowhere else" was
intended to refer to "stated", not to "employed by". Admittedly, it would
have been clearer to write something like "but for which no other evidence
is known".

Anyhow, at least this is one argument that it should be possible to settle
if Douglas Richardson clarifies the point (not that it's worth the number of
posts that have already been devoted to it).

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2005 13:38:55

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:ddcpbq$5tk$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

Sorry, but I still think the natural reading is that "nowhere else" was
intended to refer to "stated", not to "employed by". Admittedly, it would
have been clearer to write something like "but for which no other evidence
is known".

Anyhow, at least this is one argument that it should be possible to settle
if Douglas Richardson clarifies the point (not that it's worth the number
of
posts that have already been devoted to it).

Your attempted elucidation doesn't make much more sense than Richardson's
original post: why on earth would he specify just two of the countless
sources of hearsay in the first place, muddying his water with "and nowhere
else", and then not clarify his meaning at once when he must have realised
that this had been misstated?

Of course he might have meant "and stated nowhere else that the author could
discover", but this goes no way to explain his absurdly narrowing the
immediate sources down to visitations and unpublished pedigrees to start
with, committing and then repeating an ambiguity that is equally nonsensical
both ways.

It's not unimportant - the statement was grossly misleading and yet
apparently he holds to it, in the original form.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 10 aug 2005 16:03:03

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
I really can't understand why such a song and dance is being made of a
perfectly ordinary phrase. Perhaps there is a difference between English English
and US English?

Adrian (Surrey, UK)

Dear Adrian ~

I think the difference is between English English and Stewartian
English.

DR

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 10 aug 2005 17:38:44

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Chris Phillips wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
No, Richardson is trying to claim that BRITISH genealogists intend "said
to
be" to mean "stated in a visitation record....", or "stated in an
unpublished manuscript pedigree....", "AND NOWHERE ELSE".

I wonder if there is a bit of a misunderstanding here.

There's no misunderstanding, Chris. Stewart is trying to miscontrue my
words to mean something I didn't say. He's just trying to cause a
fight. It won't work. The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and to
make friends. If he has issues with someone, he should to take it to
private, not make the newsgroup his gripe board.

Stewart hides behind a fake name, and a fake e-mail address. How can
anyone take him seriously?

For what it's worth, my impression is that when CP uses the phrase "said to
be" without specifying a source, it usually is referring either to a
visitation pedigree or some other pedigree, published or unpublished.

Your impression is correct. One thousand percent correct.

Chris Phillips

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Update to genealogics David Owen and Anne Devereux

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2005 23:31:15

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123691924.852647.265140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR

Chris Phillips wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
No, Richardson is trying to claim that BRITISH genealogists intend
"said
to
be" to mean "stated in a visitation record....", or "stated in an
unpublished manuscript pedigree....", "AND NOWHERE ELSE".

I wonder if there is a bit of a misunderstanding here.

There's no misunderstanding, Chris. Stewart is trying to miscontrue my
words to mean something I didn't say. He's just trying to cause a
fight. It won't work. The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and to
make friends. If he has issues with someone, he should to take it to
private, not make the newsgroup his gripe board.

Stewart hides behind a fake name, and a fake e-mail address. How can
anyone take him seriously?

Prove it.

And how can an e-mail address be "fake" anyway? Have I made any claims about
mine as a true reflection of something? Have I not stated from the first
that it doesn't work for contacting me? My e-mail address used in sgm posts
is inactive, a defunct account. But fake? You mean like "starbuck" or "Mr
Gifford"? Or "royalancestry"? Or is this now your own legal name, as used on
the title pages of your books?

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»