Lancaster Descent...All Please Read

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
butlergrt

Lancaster Descent...All Please Read

Legg inn av butlergrt » 04 des 2005 20:48:28

Good Afternoon All,
I am slowly losing some hold on this(inter-relationships, etc.) and
thought of a "Great Experiment" which I think will also help others that
may be to shy to say so and to help all of us to focus generation by
generation and then 'cast' them or 'wipe' them off the list.
Below is listed all or at least a majority of the keyplayers in this
family, I will put forth, based, more-or-less, on the proposed descent as
discussed lately and as I understand it. "ALL" are to feel free to move
and mix and match names etc. as they view it,(could turn out to be a
historical,educational genealogy game!) with the understanding as to why
they view it as such. Initially the idea is to add dates, (birth, marriage
and death, etc). with a capital 'P' for primary source such as Wills,
Inquisitions, pipe rolls, close rolls, Charters, Grants and an 'S' for
secondary and yes, an 'IDK' for I don't know just a guess, which there is
nothing wrong with that either, sometimes intuitive logic opens new paths
of investigations. I think you "ALL" get the idea of what is about to
transpire, once we have an initial descent it can always be further
dissected, and HOPEFULLY, one of you who is good at writing(not me as you
all know) will be able to put this in a proper format, webpage or other,
and can be used as a reference and guide to those starting out in their
search and studies and can see the errors of the past and how to do it
right!!! We Begin:
Rough draft----Basic Names
Ivo Taillebois Ralph Taillebois Ivo dau. #1 Ivo dau. #2 Lucy
Beatrice Eldred Ketel Christiana William Gilbert William I
Willam II William III Godith Gilbert I Gilbert II Gilbert
fitzReinfrid Jordan Orm Gospatric fitzOrm Helewise Helewise de
Stuteville Gundred(reda) dau of William, Earl of Warren Gundred(reda)
dau of Roger, Earl of Warwick, Roger fitzReinfrid Rainfrid Gunnilda
Nicholas Taillebois Avica Richard de Morville Hugh de Morvill others.

Rough, Very Rough Descent..................

Ivo Taillebois mar. Lucy
dau #1
dau #2
IDK where this goes from here
Ralph Taillebois IDK
Eldred had;
son #1 Orm mar. Gunnilda dau. of Gospatric Earl o Dunbar
son. Gospatrick fitzOrm
son #2 Ketel mar. Christiana
son #1 William
son #3 Nicholas de Taillebois

Parentage?
Gilbert I mar. Godith
son #1 William lancaster I
son #2 Robertus de Lancaster

William Lancaster I mar.1 Gundred dau. William, Earl of Warrenne
William Lancaster I mar.2 Gundreda dau. of Roger, Earl of Warwick
Son #1 William Lancaster II mar. Helowise who mar. 2nd Hugh de Morville
father of Richard below
Son #2 Jordan
Son #3 Gilbert II
Dau #1 Avica mar. Richard de Morvil

Gilbert II Lancaster mar. Helewise de Stuteville
Dau. Helewise mar. Gilbert fitzReinfrid See Below
Son. Warin who had Henry fitzWarin of manor English Tea

Rainfrid mar.?
son Roger fitzReinfrid
Roger fitzReinfrid mar?
Son. Gilbert FitzReinfrid mar Helewise dau of Gilbert II Lancaster(see
Above)
Son William III Lancaster mar. ?
Dau #1
Dau #2
Last of the Lancasters it becomes Royal line of Lancasters

I do not know how to draw the lines as somse do nor do I know how to make
the print smaller on this format(slightly computer challenged) buat any
who know of a better way to do this, I am game, this is an evolving format
and hopefully by this Friday we will have something fairly concrete.

Please help and let us ALL do this, I promise it will not only be fun but
educational and we may be the ones to actually get this line right and
that is an ear-mark in and of itself.!!!!!!!
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Gjest

Re: Lancaster Descent...All Please Read

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 des 2005 21:14:02

In a message dated 12/4/2005 11:53:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:


Please help and let us ALL do this, I promise it will not only be fun but
educational and we may be the ones to actually get this line right and
that is an ear-mark in and of itself.!!!!!!!

This method is flawed from the get-go, imho.
I think it would be more prudent to present ONLY the primary documentation
and then draw inferences from that. Any presentation of ANY secondary
documentation INCLUDING but not limited to CP, Keats, or Dr MotherGoose is bound to
only confuse the issues.

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Lancaster Descent...All Please Read

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 des 2005 21:51:49

I will have to come back to the rest later, but . . . .

butlergrt wrote:

William Lancaster I mar.1 Gundred dau. William, Earl of Warrenne
William Lancaster I mar.2 Gundreda dau. of Roger, Earl of Warwick
Son #1 William Lancaster II mar. Helowise who mar. 2nd Hugh de Morville
father of Richard below
Son #2 Jordan
Son #3 Gilbert II
Dau #1 Avica mar. Richard de Morvil

Gilbert II Lancaster mar. Helewise de Stuteville
Dau. Helewise mar. Gilbert fitzReinfrid See Below
Son. Warin who had Henry fitzWarin of manor English Tea

Now 'Helewise de Stuteville' is wife of Gilbert? This is the third
different husband given her, but on what basis? You have yet to explain
why Helewide de Lancaster is not the heir of William de Lancaster II and
Helewise de Stuteville, just as most reconstructions have it.

taf

butlergrt

Re: Re: Lancaster Descent...All Please Reply

Legg inn av butlergrt » 05 des 2005 02:22:41

Good Evening Will and All,
Will, that is fine then DO IT that way!
There are probably several different lines of descent, some have been in
existance for 300-400 years or more and flawed. The ideas is, especially,
amongst the more knowledgeable as yourself, that in the end there will be
2 or 3 lines that will be nearly identical with only minor variation in a
few places. Those few places, we all concentrate on, to discover(If
Possible) the raw primary data and debate, if not, then it is at least as
accurate for available records as it will ever be for now. Either way, it
is a win situation in Genealogy and History. Let us do it, I am sure the
rough draft I provided as a start is just that, very rough, but it is a
beginning, so let us begin there, the first step.
Best REgards,
Emmet L. Buatl;er

butlergrt

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To Tod

Legg inn av butlergrt » 05 des 2005 02:37:29

Good Evening Tod,
Then CHANGE it, and note it as per immediate preceeding post to Will,
primary documentation only. This is the concept, not to debate or argue
but as you see it with primary source documentation only, I just put it
there as a beginning we need to start somewhere, YOU take it, Will,
Michael Andrew,Richard, Anne Michael, and any others and list it as you
see it with primary documentation. The idea is to show a final family and
lines of descent and as close to a final draft with primary sources listed
from the begining, let us say, Ivo and siblings thru William de lancaster
III. I believe that we will see an end draft with only minor differences
and it will be those differences that can be debated, the first round is
names and descents and relations, 2nd round would be dates all with
primary sources.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To Tod

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 05 des 2005 04:08:48

butlergrt wrote:
Good Evening Tod,
Then CHANGE it, and note it as per immediate preceeding post to Will,
primary documentation only.

You are demanding of us what you are refusing yourself to provide.

This is the concept, not to debate or argue
but as you see it with primary source documentation only, I just put it
there as a beginning we need to start somewhere, YOU take it,

Here is the thing - the core Lancaster pedigree, running

William I-William II-Helwise-William III

has been the accepted version for over a century. You have now proposed
two alternatives:

William I-William II-Gilbert-Warin-Helwise-William III

and now

William I-Gilbert-Helwise-William III.

Now, were you to make a negative claim - that the existing peigree isn't
supported by the data - then a brief explanation would be sufficient to
shift the burden of proof onto those who support the existing pedigree.
However, you are making a fundamentally different claim, a positive
one. You are saying "my version is better". Well, a positive claim
demands evidence, but your response to the expected request for that
evidence is basically "I won't tell you why, and now it is your
responsibility to prove me wrong with primary documents". Do you see
the problem with this? You are asking us to prove a negative - that she
was _not_ daughter of Gilbert, and you are expecting us to do it with no
idea exactly what we are trying to disprove.

It is just this kind of approach - putting forward descents without
sufficient explanation or documentation, that leads to the mess we are
now struggling with in the earlier generations.

The idea is to show a final family and
lines of descent and as close to a final draft with primary sources listed
from the begining,

And yet you are refusing to do this with your proposition.

let us say, Ivo and siblings thru William de lancaster
III. I believe that we will see an end draft with only minor differences
and it will be those differences that can be debated, the first round is
names and descents and relations, 2nd round would be dates all with
primary sources.

This makes no sense - just throw strings of names out and we will worry
about the whether there is any basis for them later. There is no sense
in considering a possibility if there is nothing to support it.

Further, why must one part of the pedigree require simultaneous debate
on an entirely different part - each connection is independent, and the
descent from Ivo to William I has no bearing whatsoever on whether
William II or Gilbert was the father of Helwise. That can (in fact,
probably should, to avoid confusion) be addressed separately.

You have paraded out this Gilbert connection, and I would like to know
if it has any basis. Why won't you tell me?

taf

butlergrt

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To Todd

Legg inn av butlergrt » 05 des 2005 18:13:52

Good Morning Todd et al,
1. I demand nothing of you or anyone, the sentence "then Change it" was
to be part of the process, If you question it, then put it down as you see
it, a footnote to primary source and then run with it. The idea is not for
me to change it for you, as you see it, but for you to change it as you
see it, it was a rough draft-good or no- right or wrong, it is a start. I
do not mind going to the front, nor does criticism bother me or to be
wrong bother me; I can correct that which is not right or wrong, but if I
never started-I will have never done anything.
2. There are now enough names, dates and primary sources and secondary
sources-I felt it was time for those of us who are not as adept at doing
this as you and others are, to give us a base run down or idea as to where
this line and all relevant data is at....and headed to. Nothing wrong with
that is there???
3. If this line "IS SO WELL ACCEPTED", as you seem to propose? then why
has there been so much activity on this particular subject material?
4. Debate (argument) for the sake of debate and argument is a senseless
waste of time and energy and leads to nothing but confusion, why bother?
one gains nothing from it except an exercise of vocal chords or finger
dexterity, what has one accomplished then? Nothing!
5.There are many positions you hold that I do agree with, there are some
that I question not because I question your judgment in them, but I
question my own ability at understanding your positioning. This not a
matter of convincing but one of understanding!! No one person will ever
convince another if that person does not understand to begin with and all
arguments and matters of debate will then have failed.
6. I will try to endeavor a lineage as I have written and understand it,
with relevant materials thusly posted to extant point, primary sources
footnoted and see what ensues. All who wish to do the same are more than
welcome, IF, should you feel hesitant about it, feel free to e-mail your
lineages and I will re-post for the "Group" as Submitter A,B,C, ad
infinitum.....you shall remain unknown unless you should later feel
otherwise.
7. I noted than I have NOT seen a complete lineage listing from you Todd?
so that I may be able to better UNDERSTAND your position! I hope you are
not hesitant? or that it is not to much work.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To Todd

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 05 des 2005 20:22:37

butlergrt wrote:

The idea is not for
me to change it for you, as you see it, but for you to change it as you
see it, it was a rough draft-good or no- right or wrong, it is a start.

But I am not asking you to change it - I am asking you to explain it, as
you see it. Without understanding it, I cannot evaluate whether I think
it needs changed or not.


3. If this line "IS SO WELL ACCEPTED", as you seem to propose? then why
has there been so much activity on this particular subject material?

With regard to the part of the pedigree running from William I to
William III, there has not been much activity other than you posting
alternatives, the basis for which I am trying to get you to reveal.


4. Debate (argument) for the sake of debate and argument is a senseless
waste of time and energy and leads to nothing but confusion, why bother?

I am not (yet) debating. I am asking you to explain the basis for your
proposal. Only then can I determine whether debate is merited.


This not a
matter of convincing but one of understanding!! No one person will ever
convince another if that person does not understand to begin with and all
arguments and matters of debate will then have failed.

Bingo!


6. I will try to endeavor a lineage as I have written and understand it,
with relevant materials thusly posted to extant point, primary sources
footnoted and see what ensues. All who wish to do the same are more than
welcome, IF, should you feel hesitant about it, feel free to e-mail your
lineages and I will re-post for the "Group" as Submitter A,B,C, ad
infinitum.....you shall remain unknown unless you should later feel
otherwise.
7. I noted than I have NOT seen a complete lineage listing from you Todd?

Nor will you on this issue. The different parts of this debate, early
and late, are unrelated. They need to be evaluated independently, on
their own merits, and presenting an extended descent only mixes the
important but separate issues. Whether Ketel is grandson of Ivo or not
has no bearing on whether Helwise is daughter of William II or Gilbert.
They can and should be discussed separately if anything productive is
to come out of it.


so that I may be able to better UNDERSTAND your position! I hope you are
not hesitant? or that it is not to much work.

My 'position' is that I don't understand why you are proposing Gilbert
as father of Helwise.

I simply can't figure out what this little misunderstanding of ours is
about. There appears to be a fundamental difference in our approaches.
You keep telling me to present my version and then we will compare,
but I don't view genealogy as necessarily involving comparison among
competing versions. I evaluate each option independently, not picking
the best among alternatives but figuring out whether each specific claim
has any basis. Nothing wins by default, just because it is better than
the alternatives (and "we don't know" is the only default alternative).
This does require, though, that someone making a proposal explain the
basis for it so that it can be evaluated, hence our impasse. You
request that I first post my version, then you will discuss yours. I
have no version to present, but still want to understand and discuss yours.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To Todd

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 05 des 2005 21:09:48

Todd is, of course, quite correct here.

DSH

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:dn2428$6k6$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...

butlergrt wrote:

The idea is not for
me to change it for you, as you see it, but for you to change it as you
see it, it was a rough draft-good or no- right or wrong, it is a start.

But I am not asking you to change it - I am asking you to explain it, as
you see it. Without understanding it, I cannot evaluate whether I think
it needs changed or not.


3. If this line "IS SO WELL ACCEPTED", as you seem to propose? then why
has there been so much activity on this particular subject material?

With regard to the part of the pedigree running from William I to William
III, there has not been much activity other than you posting alternatives,
the basis for which I am trying to get you to reveal.


4. Debate (argument) for the sake of debate and argument is a senseless
waste of time and energy and leads to nothing but confusion, why bother?

I am not (yet) debating. I am asking you to explain the basis for your
proposal. Only then can I determine whether debate is merited.


This not a
matter of convincing but one of understanding!! No one person will ever
convince another if that person does not understand to begin with and all
arguments and matters of debate will then have failed.

Bingo!


6. I will try to endeavor a lineage as I have written and understand it,
with relevant materials thusly posted to extant point, primary sources
footnoted and see what ensues. All who wish to do the same are more than
welcome, IF, should you feel hesitant about it, feel free to e-mail your
lineages and I will re-post for the "Group" as Submitter A,B,C, ad
infinitum.....you shall remain unknown unless you should later feel
otherwise.
7. I noted than I have NOT seen a complete lineage listing from you Todd?

Nor will you on this issue. The different parts of this debate, early and
late, are unrelated. They need to be evaluated independently, on their
own merits, and presenting an extended descent only mixes the important
but separate issues. Whether Ketel is grandson of Ivo or not has no
bearing on whether Helwise is daughter of William II or Gilbert. They can
and should be discussed separately if anything productive is to come out
of it.


so that I may be able to better UNDERSTAND your position! I hope you are
not hesitant? or that it is not to much work.

My 'position' is that I don't understand why you are proposing Gilbert as
father of Helwise.

I simply can't figure out what this little misunderstanding of ours is
about. There appears to be a fundamental difference in our approaches.
You keep telling me to present my version and then we will compare, but I
don't view genealogy as necessarily involving comparison among competing
versions. I evaluate each option independently, not picking the best
among alternatives but figuring out whether each specific claim has any
basis. Nothing wins by default, just because it is better than the
alternatives (and "we don't know" is the only default alternative). This
does require, though, that someone making a proposal explain the basis for
it so that it can be evaluated, hence our impasse. You request that I
first post my version, then you will discuss yours. I have no version to
present, but still want to understand and discuss yours.

taf

butlergrt

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To ToddReply

Legg inn av butlergrt » 05 des 2005 21:24:37

Good afternoon Todd et al,
I now understand your position in relation to mine.
It is the methodology that is different;
a. You like dissecting the individual leaves and limbs, i.e. the
microcosm, not a put down so don't take it that way.
b. I like dissecting the whole tree to see how it all relates, i.e. the
macrocosm, how they relate to each other.
Both studies are equally appropraite and precise in their own defining way
and one form of study cannot do without the other. You are say "a
botanist" a specialist, I am an "enviromentalist", the broad overviewer.
I shall do as I stated in the previous post regarding this issue and you
may dissect to your hearts content, only you must be precise and show
where it is wrong and why as opposed to generalist statements as to why it
is that way.
I shall in return give foot notes to the primary sources, if there are two
dia-metric sources in opposition, then that will be the room for debate.
I am glad to see that we agree on so many things in the course of this
quest and can work further together in coming to a common understanding.
It may take till tomorrow morning to have it all posted so be patient.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To Todd

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 05 des 2005 21:37:39

Balderdash!

Todd and others here have no obligation to "Prove You Wrong".

The Burden of Proof is clearly on your shoulders to defend and support YOUR
proposed genealogical connections.

If you can't do that in a convincing manner -- you lose.

DSH

"butlergrt" <butlergrt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ef317e6c2b6f54701e4a190163b265f7@localhost.talkabouteducation.com...

Good afternoon Todd et al,
I now understand your position in relation to mine.
It is the methodology that is different;
a. You like dissecting the individual leaves and limbs, i.e. the
microcosm, not a put down so don't take it that way.
b. I like dissecting the whole tree to see how it all relates, i.e. the
macrocosm, how they relate to each other.
Both studies are equally appropraite and precise in their own defining way
and one form of study cannot do without the other. You are say "a
botanist" a specialist, I am an "enviromentalist", the broad overviewer.
I shall do as I stated in the previous post regarding this issue and you
may dissect to your hearts content, only you must be precise and show
where it is wrong and why as opposed to generalist statements as to why it
is that way.
I shall in return give foot notes to the primary sources, if there are two
dia-metric sources in opposition, then that will be the room for debate.
I am glad to see that we agree on so many things in the course of this
quest and can work further together in coming to a common understanding.
It may take till tomorrow morning to have it all posted so be patient.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

butlergrt

Re: Lancaster Descent...DSH

Legg inn av butlergrt » 06 des 2005 14:54:28

Good Morning DSH,
It is quite obvious you do not understand what I was proposing. It was a
group concensus based on available evidence to have a complete descent
that is as accurate as possible.

It is not that I am RIGHT or WRONG, or that somebody else is RIGHT or
WRONG, but a JOINT effort to reach this conclusion. I base this on the
concept on the availablity of time by many, access to documents etc,
language interpretation, experience in this field such as yourself, that I
am sure surpasses mine, but, everyone gets to be a part.
My offer to Todd was to be a start, if he saw something that other records
show contrary, he would add/detract to it, likewise someone else would
continue into the foray in the same fashion.
You see, I am not afraid to be wrong in my understanding and then have it
corrected, as I do not lose-but rather win, one only loses when one
maintains pre-concieved ideas and holds onto them such as .....

Unfortunately by your comment "You lose", it appears obvious that rather
than understanding the descents and the historicities of the people
involved it has become a matter of who is right and who is wrong, (I
win-you lose) mental construct, rather than what is correct and what is
not. I hope this furthers your understanding of what I was attempting to
establish.

Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Lancaster Descent...DSH

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 des 2005 15:11:49

Do rabbit and warble on.

As Entertainment....

It's like watching a dog play the piano.

DSH

"butlergrt" <butlergrt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:69b9e5ffa39da6d67e575a52bb855b1c@localhost.talkabouteducation.com...

<baldersnip>

butlergrt

Re: Lancaster Descent...DSH

Legg inn av butlergrt » 06 des 2005 19:49:33

Good Afternoon DHS,
I've noticed you have not bandied your intellectual abilities in this
endeavor and I see as to why, rightfully so, from what I have read of
your posts, thus far.
Mum, always did say something about those from "the wrong side of the
blanket". Something about "class" and not being "our kind of people".
I do believe, that Mum was right.

Jim King

Re: Lancaster Descent...DSH

Legg inn av Jim King » 06 des 2005 20:16:40

My Dog plays Mendelsohn!!!



"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O_glf.270$Dh6.1270@eagle.america.net...
Do rabbit and warble on.

As Entertainment....

It's like watching a dog play the piano.

DSH

"butlergrt" <butlergrt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:69b9e5ffa39da6d67e575a52bb855b1c@localhost.talkabouteducation.com...

baldersnip

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Lancaster Descent...DSH

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 des 2005 20:37:42

My dog is smarter than your dog!

My dog plays the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto # 3. <g>

DSH

"Jim King" <mffKing@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YoOdnaU2qf0BfgjeRVn-qA@comcast.com...

My Dog plays Mendelsohn!!!

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:O_glf.270$Dh6.1270@eagle.america.net...

Do rabbit and warble on.

Purely As Entertainment....

It's like watching a dog play the piano.

DSH

"butlergrt" <butlergrt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:69b9e5ffa39da6d67e575a52bb855b1c@localhost.talkabouteducation.com...

baldersnip

Jim King

Re: Lancaster Descent...DSH

Legg inn av Jim King » 06 des 2005 21:22:48

I was being modest, he also does Paganini Moto Perpetuo at 3x tempo on the
violin, in double stop artificial harmonics, bowing flying staccato while
jumping on the bed and barking Nessun Dorma!!!
Your dog can't possibly beat that!


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VMllf.294$Dh6.1549@eagle.america.net...
My dog is smarter than your dog!

My dog plays the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto # 3. <g

DSH

"Jim King" <mffKing@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YoOdnaU2qf0BfgjeRVn-qA@comcast.com...

My Dog plays Mendelsohn!!!

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:O_glf.270$Dh6.1270@eagle.america.net...

Do rabbit and warble on.

Purely As Entertainment....

It's like watching a dog play the piano.

DSH

"butlergrt" <butlergrt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:69b9e5ffa39da6d67e575a52bb855b1c@localhost.talkabouteducation.com...

baldersnip


butlergrt

Re: Lancaster Descent...DSH

Legg inn av butlergrt » 07 des 2005 00:13:05

Yes, well I do play Rachmaninoff's prelude in C# minor and I would be
willing to bet I do play it better than both your dogs or either of you
for that matter.
All pretenses of niceness aside, schmucks, lets get down to the business
of genealogy. You have your way and I have mine, no half-way or
understanding, no problem!!!
Besides I hear your mommies calling you in because it is past your
bedtime. I figure you like cave-man mentality as that is what seems you
are good at and I am quite good at it
too. Oh, and by the way Hines, I'm not into rutabagas and apples either.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»