Godfather John Bulkley 1472

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
paul bulkley

Godfather John Bulkley 1472

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 15 mar 2007 17:51:02

Dear MJCar:

You are correct. 13 Dec 11 Edw IV is 1471 not 1472.

However as the date is only 17 days shy of 1472, 1472
has been chosen.

As you no doubt appreciate, our ancestors were pretty
hazy about their age. Perhaps one should not be too
critical because I often forget my own age.

Anyhow when one reads for example Calendar Close Rolls
1456 p93, and one learns that William Bulkley
Assistant and Acting Chief Justice of Chester gives
his age as 60 or more when the escheator awarded
livery of the Ripariis properties in Hampshire, one
realises that one is fortunate if one can determine a
birth date or whatever within five years.

So whether the data is 1471 or 1472 does not seem
overly important.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley



____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

Gjest

Re: Godfather John Bulkley 1472

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mar 2007 16:17:04

On Mar 15, 4:21 pm, paul bulkley <designecono...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear MJCar:

You are correct. 13 Dec 11 Edw IV is 1471 not 1472.

However as the date is only 17 days shy of 1472, 1472
has been chosen.

As you no doubt appreciate, our ancestors were pretty
hazy about their age. Perhaps one should not be too
critical because I often forget my own age.

Anyhow when one reads for example Calendar Close Rolls
1456 p93, and one learns that William Bulkley
Assistant and Acting Chief Justice of Chester gives
his age as 60 or more when the escheator awarded
livery of the Ripariis properties in Hampshire, one
realises that one is fortunate if one can determine a
birth date or whatever within five years.

So whether the data is 1471 or 1472 does not seem
overly important.

You knew it was 1471 but "chose" to cite it as 1472, and consider that
facts are "not overly important"??? If I provide a reference to a
book and tell you it's in the second reading room in the British
Library, when really it's in the first reading room but close to the
end of the last set of shelves, would that also be "not overly
important"? Sometimes, exactness with facts can make an enormous
difference.

It would be interesting if you took the time to share what you
actually know about your ascent to the Middle Ages - perhaps others
here could then assist you with practical guidance instead of debates
about generic origins.

Regards, Michael

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»