Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter, El
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter, El
Dear Newsgroup ~
Jasper Tudor, K.G., Duke of Bedford, Earl of Pembroke (died 1495), the
enigmatic uncle of King Henry VII of England, had one known
illegitimate daughter, Ellen (or Helen), who became the wife of
William Gardiner, Citizen and Grocer of London. Ellen and her
husband, William, in turn had one known child, Thomas Gardiner, who
was Prior of Tynemouth.
For evidence and particulars of the Gardiner family, see the following
sources:
Gibson, A descriptive and historical guide to Tynemouth (1849): 106-
108.
Memoirs Chiefly Illustrative of the Hist. & Antiqs.of Northumberland 1
(1858): 166.
Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530, 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 122
(Owen pedigree).
Broadley, Doctor Johnson and Mrs. Thrale (1910): 280-281.
Chrimes, Henry VII (1972): 54, footnote 3.
Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (1970).
The first source listed above (Gibson) may be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYMHAA ... #PPA106,M1
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 73, footnote d (sub Bedford) alleges
without foundation or any documentation that Jasper Tudor's daughter,
Ellen (or Helen), was the mother of Stephen Gardiner, the famous
Bishop of Winchester. Bishop Gardiner is known, however. to have been
the son of a John Gardiner, of Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, possibly by
a wife named Agnes [Reference: ODNB, biog. of Stephen Gardiner].
I might note that Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands database repeats
this same error regarding Bishop Gardiner, and, like Complete Peerage,
supplies no documentation. I assume Cawley got his information from
Burke on whom he seems to rely for much of his information. The same
error can be found in Burke as early as 1831. See the following
weblink for Burke:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1ysWkX ... dor+Jasper
If anyone has furrther particulars of Ellen Tudor and William
Gardiner, or their issue, I'd very much appreciate hearing from them
here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Jasper Tudor, K.G., Duke of Bedford, Earl of Pembroke (died 1495), the
enigmatic uncle of King Henry VII of England, had one known
illegitimate daughter, Ellen (or Helen), who became the wife of
William Gardiner, Citizen and Grocer of London. Ellen and her
husband, William, in turn had one known child, Thomas Gardiner, who
was Prior of Tynemouth.
For evidence and particulars of the Gardiner family, see the following
sources:
Gibson, A descriptive and historical guide to Tynemouth (1849): 106-
108.
Memoirs Chiefly Illustrative of the Hist. & Antiqs.of Northumberland 1
(1858): 166.
Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530, 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 122
(Owen pedigree).
Broadley, Doctor Johnson and Mrs. Thrale (1910): 280-281.
Chrimes, Henry VII (1972): 54, footnote 3.
Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (1970).
The first source listed above (Gibson) may be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYMHAA ... #PPA106,M1
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 73, footnote d (sub Bedford) alleges
without foundation or any documentation that Jasper Tudor's daughter,
Ellen (or Helen), was the mother of Stephen Gardiner, the famous
Bishop of Winchester. Bishop Gardiner is known, however. to have been
the son of a John Gardiner, of Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, possibly by
a wife named Agnes [Reference: ODNB, biog. of Stephen Gardiner].
I might note that Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands database repeats
this same error regarding Bishop Gardiner, and, like Complete Peerage,
supplies no documentation. I assume Cawley got his information from
Burke on whom he seems to rely for much of his information. The same
error can be found in Burke as early as 1831. See the following
weblink for Burke:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1ysWkX ... dor+Jasper
If anyone has furrther particulars of Ellen Tudor and William
Gardiner, or their issue, I'd very much appreciate hearing from them
here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
-
Lockehead
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
On Aug 28, 5:39 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
O.K.-
I kinda started this, so I will be first to go:
All of my information (for the most part) comes from "Gardiner:
Generations and Relations" by Thomas Richard Gardiner, self-published
1991. Here is what he has to say:
"Wyllyam Gardynyr, son of (father unknown) and of (mother unknown),
born in 1450 in Midlands, Oxfordshire, England; died 1495 in The Bank,
Surrey, England. He married in 1485, in London, England to Helen
Tudor, daughter of Jasper Tudor. William Gardiner, who was born circa
1450, married Helen Tudor, first cousin to Henry VII, as found on
Betham's Genealogical Table DCX in Guildhall Library, London, England.
William Gardiner and his wife, Helen Tudor, resided on the south bank
of the Thames River just accross from the walled city of London, prior
to the establishment of any town, in an area that was then known
simply as "The Bank". His magnificent home was located somewhere
between the more recent towns of Bermondey and Southwalk in the county
of Surrey. He also retained many of his holdings in the Midlands near
Oxon Ford, now known as Oxford.
Children of Wyllyam and Heln (Tudor) Gardynyr were as follows:
2. i. Richard Gardiner, born 1486 in London, England; died 1548 in
London, England. This Richard Gardiner may have been the eldest son of
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. There is no document to prove this
assumption. He may have also been the father of Germain Gardiner (b.
1505) and also of Richard (b. 1507) Sargeant at Arms to Henry VIII,
who was reported to have been executed for alloegedly witholding
testimony in the trial of Anne Bolyn. Since I am unable to identifyn
this person more fully, I have not included him and his two sons to
definitely be in the line of descent from William Gardiner and Helen
Tudor, although in the book, STEPHEN GARDINER AND THE TUDOR REACTION,
the author mentions Germain as the nephew of Stephen. In another bit
of information on Germain, he was spoken of as a cousin of Stephen, so
the exact identity of these three individuals are not clear.
+3. ii. William Gardiner, born 1488
4. iii. Steven Gardiner, born 1490 in Holborn, London, England; died
12 Nov 1555 in Whitehall, Southwark, Surrey, England. See a special
section on this Steven Gardiner. Steven has sometimes been named as
the son of John Gardiner of Bury St. Edmunds, England but there are
several things that do not fit into place on this Stephen. First of
all his first name is spelled differently. The Letters and Papers of
Henry VIII, in the manuscript section of the British Museum use the
spelling "Steven Gardynyr" just the way Steven signed his name. The
man who spelled his name Stephen was almost out of the time frame in
which "Steven" was estimated by historians to have been born. But, the
greatest bit of evidence supporting "Steven" vs. "Stephen" as the
Bishop of Winchester, is James Betham's Genealogical Table, DCX (610)
in the Guildhall Library, London, which gives Steven's parents as
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. Although the Gardiner family name
has undergone a number of changes down through the ages, as have all
other families, the name is being carried in the computer as Gardiner,
to reduce the possibility of error in the programing of an ancestral
line.
3. WIlliam Gardiner, (Wyllyam), born 1488 in London, Live awhile in
Hertfordshire, England; died 1549 in The Grange, Bermondsey, Surrey,
England. He married 1520, in England to Elizabeth Mitchell. There
seems to be onlya alinited amount of information available on this
William Gardiner, brother of Steven, Bishop of Winchester. It is
believed that he may have been the presbyter at Canterbury whom Steven
Gardiner stopped by to visit on one of his trips back from France
which is mentioned under Steven Gardiner in this book. It was also
brought to the attention of those sitting in judgement at the
Excommunication trial of Steven Gardiner, that he had a brother
William, and this William lived for a while in Herefordshire. William
married Elizabeth Mitchell, of Yorkshire, and died in Bermondsey,
Surrey. It is quite probable that William had an older brother since
it is an Old English custom to name the second son after his father
and the eldest son after the grandfather, which this Gardiner family
has followed with remarkable consistancy down through the generations.
The grandfather could come from either side of the family, as this
was not followed quite as closely as in the use of the father's name.
The was a Richard Gardiner, born about 1486 who was quite prominent in
the London area, who may have been an older member of this family,
which I have listed as a probability since I can find no other who
would more easily fit the situation. He was listed in the service of
Henry VIII as "Seargent at Arms"."
So, obviously, Mr. Gardiner, the author is not as astute as many on
this list and jumps (no, leaps) to many conclusions.
His main source is Betham's Genealogical Table. I am not familiar with
this document.
Dear Newsgroup ~
Jasper Tudor, K.G., Duke of Bedford, Earl of Pembroke (died 1495), the
enigmatic uncle of King Henry VII of England, had one known
illegitimate daughter, Ellen (or Helen), who became the wife of
William Gardiner, Citizen and Grocer of London. Ellen and her
husband, William, in turn had one known child, Thomas Gardiner, who
was Prior of Tynemouth.
For evidence and particulars of the Gardiner family, see the following
sources:
Gibson, A descriptive and historical guide to Tynemouth (1849): 106-
108.
Memoirs Chiefly Illustrative of the Hist. & Antiqs.of Northumberland 1
(1858): 166.
Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530, 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 122
(Owen pedigree).
Broadley, Doctor Johnson and Mrs. Thrale (1910): 280-281.
Chrimes, Henry VII (1972): 54, footnote 3.
Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (1970).
The first source listed above (Gibson) may be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYMHAA ... William+...
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 73, footnote d (sub Bedford) alleges
without foundation or any documentation that Jasper Tudor's daughter,
Ellen (or Helen), was the mother of Stephen Gardiner, the famous
Bishop of Winchester. Bishop Gardiner is known, however. to have been
the son of a John Gardiner, of Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, possibly by
a wife named Agnes [Reference: ODNB, biog. of Stephen Gardiner].
I might note that Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands database repeats
this same error regarding Bishop Gardiner, and, like Complete Peerage,
supplies no documentation. I assume Cawley got his information from
Burke on whom he seems to rely for much of his information. The same
error can be found in Burke as early as 1831. See the following
weblink for Burke:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1ysWkX ... ke+Dorma...
If anyone has furrther particulars of Ellen Tudor and William
Gardiner, or their issue, I'd very much appreciate hearing from them
here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
O.K.-
I kinda started this, so I will be first to go:
All of my information (for the most part) comes from "Gardiner:
Generations and Relations" by Thomas Richard Gardiner, self-published
1991. Here is what he has to say:
"Wyllyam Gardynyr, son of (father unknown) and of (mother unknown),
born in 1450 in Midlands, Oxfordshire, England; died 1495 in The Bank,
Surrey, England. He married in 1485, in London, England to Helen
Tudor, daughter of Jasper Tudor. William Gardiner, who was born circa
1450, married Helen Tudor, first cousin to Henry VII, as found on
Betham's Genealogical Table DCX in Guildhall Library, London, England.
William Gardiner and his wife, Helen Tudor, resided on the south bank
of the Thames River just accross from the walled city of London, prior
to the establishment of any town, in an area that was then known
simply as "The Bank". His magnificent home was located somewhere
between the more recent towns of Bermondey and Southwalk in the county
of Surrey. He also retained many of his holdings in the Midlands near
Oxon Ford, now known as Oxford.
Children of Wyllyam and Heln (Tudor) Gardynyr were as follows:
2. i. Richard Gardiner, born 1486 in London, England; died 1548 in
London, England. This Richard Gardiner may have been the eldest son of
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. There is no document to prove this
assumption. He may have also been the father of Germain Gardiner (b.
1505) and also of Richard (b. 1507) Sargeant at Arms to Henry VIII,
who was reported to have been executed for alloegedly witholding
testimony in the trial of Anne Bolyn. Since I am unable to identifyn
this person more fully, I have not included him and his two sons to
definitely be in the line of descent from William Gardiner and Helen
Tudor, although in the book, STEPHEN GARDINER AND THE TUDOR REACTION,
the author mentions Germain as the nephew of Stephen. In another bit
of information on Germain, he was spoken of as a cousin of Stephen, so
the exact identity of these three individuals are not clear.
+3. ii. William Gardiner, born 1488
4. iii. Steven Gardiner, born 1490 in Holborn, London, England; died
12 Nov 1555 in Whitehall, Southwark, Surrey, England. See a special
section on this Steven Gardiner. Steven has sometimes been named as
the son of John Gardiner of Bury St. Edmunds, England but there are
several things that do not fit into place on this Stephen. First of
all his first name is spelled differently. The Letters and Papers of
Henry VIII, in the manuscript section of the British Museum use the
spelling "Steven Gardynyr" just the way Steven signed his name. The
man who spelled his name Stephen was almost out of the time frame in
which "Steven" was estimated by historians to have been born. But, the
greatest bit of evidence supporting "Steven" vs. "Stephen" as the
Bishop of Winchester, is James Betham's Genealogical Table, DCX (610)
in the Guildhall Library, London, which gives Steven's parents as
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. Although the Gardiner family name
has undergone a number of changes down through the ages, as have all
other families, the name is being carried in the computer as Gardiner,
to reduce the possibility of error in the programing of an ancestral
line.
3. WIlliam Gardiner, (Wyllyam), born 1488 in London, Live awhile in
Hertfordshire, England; died 1549 in The Grange, Bermondsey, Surrey,
England. He married 1520, in England to Elizabeth Mitchell. There
seems to be onlya alinited amount of information available on this
William Gardiner, brother of Steven, Bishop of Winchester. It is
believed that he may have been the presbyter at Canterbury whom Steven
Gardiner stopped by to visit on one of his trips back from France
which is mentioned under Steven Gardiner in this book. It was also
brought to the attention of those sitting in judgement at the
Excommunication trial of Steven Gardiner, that he had a brother
William, and this William lived for a while in Herefordshire. William
married Elizabeth Mitchell, of Yorkshire, and died in Bermondsey,
Surrey. It is quite probable that William had an older brother since
it is an Old English custom to name the second son after his father
and the eldest son after the grandfather, which this Gardiner family
has followed with remarkable consistancy down through the generations.
The grandfather could come from either side of the family, as this
was not followed quite as closely as in the use of the father's name.
The was a Richard Gardiner, born about 1486 who was quite prominent in
the London area, who may have been an older member of this family,
which I have listed as a probability since I can find no other who
would more easily fit the situation. He was listed in the service of
Henry VIII as "Seargent at Arms"."
So, obviously, Mr. Gardiner, the author is not as astute as many on
this list and jumps (no, leaps) to many conclusions.
His main source is Betham's Genealogical Table. I am not familiar with
this document.
-
Lockehead
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
On Aug 30, 12:01 am, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
Another source is a wildly wonderful little book, "Blood Royal from
thr time of Alexander the Great to Queen Elizabeth II" A Golden
Jubilee memoir, 2952-2002 by Charles Mosley published by Smith's
Peerage Limited 2002
page 208:
"2 Jasper Tudor or "of Hatfield" 1st and last Earl of Pembroke 23 Nov
1452X20 Jan 1452/3-8 Sep 1468, 1470-71 and 1485-95 and 1st and last
Duke of Bedford, so cr 27 Oct 1485, KG 1459, PC 1485; b. Hatfield,
herts, c. 1431; ktd 1449; Lancastrian First Battle St. Albans 22 May
1455; defeated by Edward IV Mortimer's Cross 2 or 3 Feb 1460/1 but
escaped; attainted by Edward IV's parl 29 Dec 1461 and again on
Edward's restoration 1471; briefly invaded Wales July 1468 in
Lancastrian's cause, landing with three ships and 50 men near Harlech
Castle but after sacking Denbigh was beaten off and returned to
France; Ch Justice S Wales 1485; Lt Calais and Ld Lt Ireland
(absentee) 1486-94; Earl Marshal 1492; took leading part inb victory
of Stoke 16 Jun 1487 and invasion of France 1492; m 2 Nov 1483x7 Nov
1485 Catherine (m 3rd Sir Richard Wingfield), yst dau of 1st Earl
Rivers and sis of Edward IV's w, also widow of 2nd Duke of Buckingham,
and dsp by her 21 or 26 Dec 1495, when his titles expired, leaving
illegitimately by an unknown woman:
1(a) Helen; m William Gardiner, a Londoner and had:
1b Stephen Gardiner; b c 1483; sec to his cousin Henry VIII 1528-33;
Bp Winchester 1531-51 and 1553-22; Amb France 1535-38; promoted Henry
VIII's marriage to Catherine Howard; incarcerated FLeet Prison 1547-48
and Tower London 1548-53; Ld Chllr 1553-55 (as which called by foreign
diplomats 'prime minister', perhaps the earliest use of the term and
one which by his ascendancy he more or less earned) and Chllr Oxford
and Cambridge Us; author De Vera Obedientia ('On True Obedience')
(1535) and translation of Greek New Testament; d 12 Nov 1555"
On Aug 28, 5:39 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Jasper Tudor, K.G., Duke of Bedford, Earl of Pembroke (died 1495), the
enigmatic uncle of King Henry VII of England, had one known
illegitimate daughter, Ellen (or Helen), who became the wife of
William Gardiner, Citizen and Grocer of London. Ellen and her
husband, William, in turn had one known child, Thomas Gardiner, who
was Prior of Tynemouth.
For evidence and particulars of the Gardiner family, see the following
sources:
Gibson, A descriptive and historical guide to Tynemouth (1849): 106-
108.
Memoirs Chiefly Illustrative of the Hist. & Antiqs.of Northumberland 1
(1858): 166.
Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530, 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 122
(Owen pedigree).
Broadley, Doctor Johnson and Mrs. Thrale (1910): 280-281.
Chrimes, Henry VII (1972): 54, footnote 3.
Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (1970).
The first source listed above (Gibson) may be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYMHAA ... William+...
Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 73, footnote d (sub Bedford) alleges
without foundation or any documentation that Jasper Tudor's daughter,
Ellen (or Helen), was the mother of Stephen Gardiner, the famous
Bishop of Winchester. Bishop Gardiner is known, however. to have been
the son of a John Gardiner, of Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, possibly by
a wife named Agnes [Reference: ODNB, biog. of Stephen Gardiner].
I might note that Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands database repeats
this same error regarding Bishop Gardiner, and, like Complete Peerage,
supplies no documentation. I assume Cawley got his information from
Burke on whom he seems to rely for much of his information. The same
error can be found in Burke as early as 1831. See the following
weblink for Burke:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1ysWkX ... ke+Dorma...
If anyone has furrther particulars of Ellen Tudor and William
Gardiner, or their issue, I'd very much appreciate hearing from them
here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
O.K.-
I kinda started this, so I will be first to go:
All of my information (for the most part) comes from "Gardiner:
Generations and Relations" by Thomas Richard Gardiner, self-published
1991. Here is what he has to say:
"Wyllyam Gardynyr, son of (father unknown) and of (mother unknown),
born in 1450 in Midlands, Oxfordshire, England; died 1495 in The Bank,
Surrey, England. He married in 1485, in London, England to Helen
Tudor, daughter of Jasper Tudor. William Gardiner, who was born circa
1450, married Helen Tudor, first cousin to Henry VII, as found on
Betham's Genealogical Table DCX in Guildhall Library, London, England.
William Gardiner and his wife, Helen Tudor, resided on the south bank
of the Thames River just accross from the walled city of London, prior
to the establishment of any town, in an area that was then known
simply as "The Bank". His magnificent home was located somewhere
between the more recent towns of Bermondey and Southwalk in the county
of Surrey. He also retained many of his holdings in the Midlands near
Oxon Ford, now known as Oxford.
Children of Wyllyam and Heln (Tudor) Gardynyr were as follows:
2. i. Richard Gardiner, born 1486 in London, England; died 1548 in
London, England. This Richard Gardiner may have been the eldest son of
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. There is no document to prove this
assumption. He may have also been the father of Germain Gardiner (b.
1505) and also of Richard (b. 1507) Sargeant at Arms to Henry VIII,
who was reported to have been executed for alloegedly witholding
testimony in the trial of Anne Bolyn. Since I am unable to identifyn
this person more fully, I have not included him and his two sons to
definitely be in the line of descent from William Gardiner and Helen
Tudor, although in the book, STEPHEN GARDINER AND THE TUDOR REACTION,
the author mentions Germain as the nephew of Stephen. In another bit
of information on Germain, he was spoken of as a cousin of Stephen, so
the exact identity of these three individuals are not clear.
+3. ii. William Gardiner, born 1488
4. iii. Steven Gardiner, born 1490 in Holborn, London, England; died
12 Nov 1555 in Whitehall, Southwark, Surrey, England. See a special
section on this Steven Gardiner. Steven has sometimes been named as
the son of John Gardiner of Bury St. Edmunds, England but there are
several things that do not fit into place on this Stephen. First of
all his first name is spelled differently. The Letters and Papers of
Henry VIII, in the manuscript section of the British Museum use the
spelling "Steven Gardynyr" just the way Steven signed his name. The
man who spelled his name Stephen was almost out of the time frame in
which "Steven" was estimated by historians to have been born. But, the
greatest bit of evidence supporting "Steven" vs. "Stephen" as the
Bishop of Winchester, is James Betham's Genealogical Table, DCX (610)
in the Guildhall Library, London, which gives Steven's parents as
William Gardiner and Helen Tudor. Although the Gardiner family name
has undergone a number of changes down through the ages, as have all
other families, the name is being carried in the computer as Gardiner,
to reduce the possibility of error in the programing of an ancestral
line.
3. WIlliam Gardiner, (Wyllyam), born 1488 in London, Live awhile in
Hertfordshire, England; died 1549 in The Grange, Bermondsey, Surrey,
England. He married 1520, in England to Elizabeth Mitchell. There
seems to be onlya alinited amount of information available on this
William Gardiner, brother of Steven, Bishop of Winchester. It is
believed that he may have been the presbyter at Canterbury whom Steven
Gardiner stopped by to visit on one of his trips back from France
which is mentioned under Steven Gardiner in this book. It was also
brought to the attention of those sitting in judgement at the
Excommunication trial of Steven Gardiner, that he had a brother
William, and this William lived for a while in Herefordshire. William
married Elizabeth Mitchell, of Yorkshire, and died in Bermondsey,
Surrey. It is quite probable that William had an older brother since
it is an Old English custom to name the second son after his father
and the eldest son after the grandfather, which this Gardiner family
has followed with remarkable consistancy down through the generations.
The grandfather could come from either side of the family, as this
was not followed quite as closely as in the use of the father's name.
The was a Richard Gardiner, born about 1486 who was quite prominent in
the London area, who may have been an older member of this family,
which I have listed as a probability since I can find no other who
would more easily fit the situation. He was listed in the service of
Henry VIII as "Seargent at Arms"."
So, obviously, Mr. Gardiner, the author is not as astute as many on
this list and jumps (no, leaps) to many conclusions.
His main source is Betham's Genealogical Table. I am not familiar with
this document.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another source is a wildly wonderful little book, "Blood Royal from
thr time of Alexander the Great to Queen Elizabeth II" A Golden
Jubilee memoir, 2952-2002 by Charles Mosley published by Smith's
Peerage Limited 2002
page 208:
"2 Jasper Tudor or "of Hatfield" 1st and last Earl of Pembroke 23 Nov
1452X20 Jan 1452/3-8 Sep 1468, 1470-71 and 1485-95 and 1st and last
Duke of Bedford, so cr 27 Oct 1485, KG 1459, PC 1485; b. Hatfield,
herts, c. 1431; ktd 1449; Lancastrian First Battle St. Albans 22 May
1455; defeated by Edward IV Mortimer's Cross 2 or 3 Feb 1460/1 but
escaped; attainted by Edward IV's parl 29 Dec 1461 and again on
Edward's restoration 1471; briefly invaded Wales July 1468 in
Lancastrian's cause, landing with three ships and 50 men near Harlech
Castle but after sacking Denbigh was beaten off and returned to
France; Ch Justice S Wales 1485; Lt Calais and Ld Lt Ireland
(absentee) 1486-94; Earl Marshal 1492; took leading part inb victory
of Stoke 16 Jun 1487 and invasion of France 1492; m 2 Nov 1483x7 Nov
1485 Catherine (m 3rd Sir Richard Wingfield), yst dau of 1st Earl
Rivers and sis of Edward IV's w, also widow of 2nd Duke of Buckingham,
and dsp by her 21 or 26 Dec 1495, when his titles expired, leaving
illegitimately by an unknown woman:
1(a) Helen; m William Gardiner, a Londoner and had:
1b Stephen Gardiner; b c 1483; sec to his cousin Henry VIII 1528-33;
Bp Winchester 1531-51 and 1553-22; Amb France 1535-38; promoted Henry
VIII's marriage to Catherine Howard; incarcerated FLeet Prison 1547-48
and Tower London 1548-53; Ld Chllr 1553-55 (as which called by foreign
diplomats 'prime minister', perhaps the earliest use of the term and
one which by his ascendancy he more or less earned) and Chllr Oxford
and Cambridge Us; author De Vera Obedientia ('On True Obedience')
(1535) and translation of Greek New Testament; d 12 Nov 1555"
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
I very much appreciate your response. Ellen Tudor had only one son,
Thomas Gardiner, who was Prior of Tynemouth, Northumberland. Ellen's
husband, William Gardiner, lived in London, not Surrey. Ellen was
definitely NOT the mother of Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester.
This is an old error which has been repeated again and again in print
(and most recently in Charles Cawley's online Medieval Lands
database).
As best I can tell, your sources have combined no less than three
different Gardiner families and turned them into one big happy
family. Most of the information you supplied is utterly bogus,
insofar as it applies to Ellen Tudor and her family.
I like James Betham's Genealogical Table, but the material is very
dated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thomas Gardiner, who was Prior of Tynemouth, Northumberland. Ellen's
husband, William Gardiner, lived in London, not Surrey. Ellen was
definitely NOT the mother of Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester.
This is an old error which has been repeated again and again in print
(and most recently in Charles Cawley's online Medieval Lands
database).
As best I can tell, your sources have combined no less than three
different Gardiner families and turned them into one big happy
family. Most of the information you supplied is utterly bogus,
insofar as it applies to Ellen Tudor and her family.
I like James Betham's Genealogical Table, but the material is very
dated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
On 30 Aug., 05:01, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
Indeed, and as you suggest, many of them are widely faulty. For
instance, trying to argue identity from the spelling of a name at a
time when orthography was far from settled is not very convincing.
Neither is identifying a man married in 1520 as a priest.
However, what Douglas has not done (apart from the possible Visitation
reference, which I have not reviewed) is to cite anything remotely
primary; his sources date from 1849 to 1972, although they deal with
an individual who died in 1555.
It is worth noting the reasons behind ODNB's statement:
"[He] was born, according to John Bale, at Bury St Edmunds, and thus
was probably the son of that name mentioned in the will of John
Gardiner, a clothmaker from Bury, of 18 January 1507."
It therefore seems that it is not certain, as Douglas would have it,
but merely a sound supposition that Gardiner's father was named John.
Regards, Michael
So, obviously, Mr. Gardiner, the author is not as astute as many on
this list and jumps (no, leaps) to many conclusions.
Indeed, and as you suggest, many of them are widely faulty. For
instance, trying to argue identity from the spelling of a name at a
time when orthography was far from settled is not very convincing.
Neither is identifying a man married in 1520 as a priest.
However, what Douglas has not done (apart from the possible Visitation
reference, which I have not reviewed) is to cite anything remotely
primary; his sources date from 1849 to 1972, although they deal with
an individual who died in 1555.
It is worth noting the reasons behind ODNB's statement:
"[He] was born, according to John Bale, at Bury St Edmunds, and thus
was probably the son of that name mentioned in the will of John
Gardiner, a clothmaker from Bury, of 18 January 1507."
It therefore seems that it is not certain, as Douglas would have it,
but merely a sound supposition that Gardiner's father was named John.
Regards, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
On 30 Aug., 06:16, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I think you meant to write "only one known son"
In fairness, it is also worth noting that differentiating Bermondsey
and Southwark from London is in essence splitting hairs, as they lie
within walking distance of each other and have long formed part of a
single metropolis.
MA-R
I very much appreciate your response. Ellen Tudor had only one son,
I think you meant to write "only one known son"
Thomas Gardiner, who was Prior of Tynemouth, Northumberland. Ellen's
husband, William Gardiner, lived in London, not Surrey.
In fairness, it is also worth noting that differentiating Bermondsey
and Southwark from London is in essence splitting hairs, as they lie
within walking distance of each other and have long formed part of a
single metropolis.
MA-R
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
I'll repeat my statements one more time for simple emphasis: Complete
Peerage has it wrong. Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, was not
the son of William Gardiner, of London, and his wife, Ellen Tudor.
William and Ellen had only one son, Thomas, who was the Prior of
Tynemouth, Northumberland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Peerage has it wrong. Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, was not
the son of William Gardiner, of London, and his wife, Ellen Tudor.
William and Ellen had only one son, Thomas, who was the Prior of
Tynemouth, Northumberland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
I'll repeat this again for simple emphasis. William Gardiner, husband
of Ellen Tudor, lived in London, not Surrey.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
of Ellen Tudor, lived in London, not Surrey.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Corrections to DNB and ODNB Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
Dear Newsgroup ~
The old Dicitionary of National Biography (DNB) states that Jasper
Tudor "left an illegitimate daughter, Helen, who is said to have
married William Gardiner, and to have been the mother of Stephen
Gardiner." Part of this information is correct, and part of it is
not. Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford (died 1495), had an illegitimate
daughter, Ellen (not Helen), who married William Gardiner, as stated
by the DNB. However, Ellen was not the mother of Stephen Gardiner,
Bishop of Winchester. Rather, as the Visitation of Sussex correctly
states, Ellen was the mother of ".... Gardiner Lord Prior of
Tinmouth." [Reference: Benolte et al. Vis. of Sussex 1530, 1633-4
(H.S.P. 53) (1905): 122 (Owen pedigree)]. The name of Ellen's son was
Thomas Gardiner. He was Prior of Tynemouth, Northumberland from 1528
to 1536.
The new account of Jasper Tudor in Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, however, falls even further afield from the truth. Even
through the author was surely aware of the above statement in the old
DNB about Jasper Tudor's illegitimate daughter, the new ODNB states
that Jasper Tudor "seems to have fathered no children, and the king
was his heir." There is no mention whatsoever of an illegitimate
daughter. The word "seems" is a poor choice of words, as it can be
clearly demonstrated that (a) Jasper Tudor left no legitimate issue,
and (b) that he had an illegitimate daughter, Ellen, who married
William Gardiner.
For what it is worth, I'm finding repeated and often glaring
genealogical errors in almost every account of the new ODNB.
Genealogy is clearly the short suit of many modern historians.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The old Dicitionary of National Biography (DNB) states that Jasper
Tudor "left an illegitimate daughter, Helen, who is said to have
married William Gardiner, and to have been the mother of Stephen
Gardiner." Part of this information is correct, and part of it is
not. Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford (died 1495), had an illegitimate
daughter, Ellen (not Helen), who married William Gardiner, as stated
by the DNB. However, Ellen was not the mother of Stephen Gardiner,
Bishop of Winchester. Rather, as the Visitation of Sussex correctly
states, Ellen was the mother of ".... Gardiner Lord Prior of
Tinmouth." [Reference: Benolte et al. Vis. of Sussex 1530, 1633-4
(H.S.P. 53) (1905): 122 (Owen pedigree)]. The name of Ellen's son was
Thomas Gardiner. He was Prior of Tynemouth, Northumberland from 1528
to 1536.
The new account of Jasper Tudor in Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, however, falls even further afield from the truth. Even
through the author was surely aware of the above statement in the old
DNB about Jasper Tudor's illegitimate daughter, the new ODNB states
that Jasper Tudor "seems to have fathered no children, and the king
was his heir." There is no mention whatsoever of an illegitimate
daughter. The word "seems" is a poor choice of words, as it can be
clearly demonstrated that (a) Jasper Tudor left no legitimate issue,
and (b) that he had an illegitimate daughter, Ellen, who married
William Gardiner.
For what it is worth, I'm finding repeated and often glaring
genealogical errors in almost every account of the new ODNB.
Genealogy is clearly the short suit of many modern historians.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
taf
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
[Silly crossposting removed]
On Aug 30, 10:31 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Yes, and that is all you are doing. Restating it, as if by simple
repetition the point becomes stronger. Well, if that is the case, I
will repeat what Michael said:
"However, what Douglas has not done (apart from the possible
Visitation reference, which I have not reviewed) is to cite anything
remotely primary; his sources date from 1849 to 1972, although they
deal with an individual who died in 1555."
Now, at least to me, " 'Tis so! " doesn't really address a lack of
evidence, but you may see things differently.
taf
On Aug 30, 10:31 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I'll repeat my statements one more time for simple emphasis:
Yes, and that is all you are doing. Restating it, as if by simple
repetition the point becomes stronger. Well, if that is the case, I
will repeat what Michael said:
"However, what Douglas has not done (apart from the possible
Visitation reference, which I have not reviewed) is to cite anything
remotely primary; his sources date from 1849 to 1972, although they
deal with an individual who died in 1555."
Now, at least to me, " 'Tis so! " doesn't really address a lack of
evidence, but you may see things differently.
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Sensible Crossposting To Genealogical, Cultural, Militar
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1188504721.891861.16270@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yes, quite true. Todd often fails to see the Bigger Picture.
He has what can best be described as a One-Track Mind.
Probably Also True.
Sensible...
Indeed.
Fair-Minded...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
news:1188504721.891861.16270@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Todd, we see things differently. For one thing, I'm a trained
historian, which you are not. That is why I crosspost to both
genealogical and historical newsgroups. As far as I can tell from
available Google guidelines, it is my right to simultaneously post to
more than one group. So I do so. In this instance, my various
corrections to ODNB, DNB, and Complete Peerage fall into the category
of being BOTH genealogical AND historical in nature. It's as simple
as that.
Yes, quite true. Todd often fails to see the Bigger Picture.
He has what can best be described as a One-Track Mind.
Whatever the case, I certainly don't crosspost to irritate you,
although you seem to pretend that I do. This is just a thought but
perhaps your negative and cynical attitude is why virtually no other
published historians are willing to post to your
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup.
Probably Also True.
With regard to the current matter, yes, I possess additional
unpublished original material regarding the Gardiner family. However,
rather than post it here, I've decided to publish it elsewhere in a
reputable historical journal. As such, I'm unable to say much beyond
the following bland statements: Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of
Winchester, was not the son of William Gardiner and Ellen Tudor. And,
William Gardiner and Ellen Tudor had only one son, Thomas Gardiner,
who was Prior to Tynemouth, Northumberland from 1528 to 1536.
Sensible...
In the meantime, please know that I appreciate all of your hard work
and Don's on our behalf to keep the newsgroup functioning in good
working order.
Indeed.
Fair-Minded...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
On 28 Aug., 22:39, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Douglas
It might have been easier if you had indicated that you had other
material, rather than post the later references; thank you for
explaining this.
Ellen, the daughter of Jasper Tudor, married at least twice, as is
detailed in the following PRO document:
"Peter Watson, of London, draper, and William Sybson, husband of
Ellen, late the wife of William Gardyner v the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Sheriffs of London: an action by the children of William Gardyner,
deceased, to recover the portion of his son Thomas, who has entered
Westminster abbey" (C 1/252/12, dated 1501-1502).
We also see from this that William Gardiner had "children", not just a
son Thomas.
A further clue about this second marriage is provided in a second PRO
document, this time dated to between 1486-1493:
"Thomas Dra...y, of London, mercer. v William Sibson, of London,
skinner, and Elyn, his wife: debt for furs supplied to the said
Elyn" (C 1/91/5).
This latter may assist in indicating the likely terminus ante quo for
William Gardiner's death, and the date by which the Sibson marriage
had taken place.
Regards, Michael
If anyone has furrther particulars of Ellen Tudor and William
Gardiner, or their issue, I'd very much appreciate hearing from them
here on the newsgroup.
Dear Douglas
It might have been easier if you had indicated that you had other
material, rather than post the later references; thank you for
explaining this.
Ellen, the daughter of Jasper Tudor, married at least twice, as is
detailed in the following PRO document:
"Peter Watson, of London, draper, and William Sybson, husband of
Ellen, late the wife of William Gardyner v the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Sheriffs of London: an action by the children of William Gardyner,
deceased, to recover the portion of his son Thomas, who has entered
Westminster abbey" (C 1/252/12, dated 1501-1502).
We also see from this that William Gardiner had "children", not just a
son Thomas.
A further clue about this second marriage is provided in a second PRO
document, this time dated to between 1486-1493:
"Thomas Dra...y, of London, mercer. v William Sibson, of London,
skinner, and Elyn, his wife: debt for furs supplied to the said
Elyn" (C 1/91/5).
This latter may assist in indicating the likely terminus ante quo for
William Gardiner's death, and the date by which the Sibson marriage
had taken place.
Regards, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
On 30 Aug., 07:38, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
For what it is worth, I have now had the chance to look at the
Visitation of Sussex from 1530, as cited by Douglas. It is relatively
contemporary but its utility is called into question by the manifest
errors it contains - eg it makes Edmund and Jasper Tudor the brothers-
in-law of Queen Catherine, rather than her sons...
MAR
On 30 Aug., 05:01, Lockehead <franklo...@mris.com> wrote:
So, obviously, Mr. Gardiner, the author is not as astute as many on
this list and jumps (no, leaps) to many conclusions.
Indeed, and as you suggest, many of them are widely faulty. For
instance, trying to argue identity from the spelling of a name at a
time when orthography was far from settled is not very convincing.
Neither is identifying a man married in 1520 as a priest.
However, what Douglas has not done (apart from the possible Visitation
reference, which I have not reviewed) is to cite anything remotely
primary
For what it is worth, I have now had the chance to look at the
Visitation of Sussex from 1530, as cited by Douglas. It is relatively
contemporary but its utility is called into question by the manifest
errors it contains - eg it makes Edmund and Jasper Tudor the brothers-
in-law of Queen Catherine, rather than her sons...
MAR
-
HardySpicer
Re: Sensible Crossposting To Genealogical, Cultural, Militar
On Aug 31, 8:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
ROFL!!! Ha ha....great stuff - keep it coming! You and AWS otta get
together!
"Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1188504721.891861.16270@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Todd, we see things differently. For one thing, I'm a trained
historian, which you are not.
ROFL!!! Ha ha....great stuff - keep it coming! You and AWS otta get
together!
-
John Briggs
Re: Another C.P. Correction: Jasper Tudor's bastard daughter
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Tynemouth was also Benedictine, so it is likely that he has the right
Thomas.
At least three children, in fact, and the younger ones at least were minors
in 1501-1502. At what age would you enter Westminster Abbey?
It seems mildly odd that a Grocer's widow should marry a Skinner, if only to
get furs...
--
John Briggs
On 28 Aug., 22:39, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
If anyone has furrther particulars of Ellen Tudor and William
Gardiner, or their issue, I'd very much appreciate hearing from them
here on the newsgroup.
It might have been easier if you had indicated that you had other
material, rather than post the later references; thank you for
explaining this.
Ellen, the daughter of Jasper Tudor, married at least twice, as is
detailed in the following PRO document:
"Peter Watson, of London, draper, and William Sybson, husband of
Ellen, late the wife of William Gardyner v the Mayor, Aldermen, and
Sheriffs of London: an action by the children of William Gardyner,
deceased, to recover the portion of his son Thomas, who has entered
Westminster abbey" (C 1/252/12, dated 1501-1502).
Tynemouth was also Benedictine, so it is likely that he has the right
Thomas.
We also see from this that William Gardiner had "children", not just a
son Thomas.
At least three children, in fact, and the younger ones at least were minors
in 1501-1502. At what age would you enter Westminster Abbey?
A further clue about this second marriage is provided in a second PRO
document, this time dated to between 1486-1493:
"Thomas Dra...y, of London, mercer. v William Sibson, of London,
skinner, and Elyn, his wife: debt for furs supplied to the said
Elyn" (C 1/91/5).
This latter may assist in indicating the likely terminus ante quo for
William Gardiner's death, and the date by which the Sibson marriage
had taken place.
It seems mildly odd that a Grocer's widow should marry a Skinner, if only to
get furs...
--
John Briggs
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical new
[Even sillier repeat cross-postings removed]
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1188504721.891861.16270@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Is this part of the training that historians receive in US institutions of
higher learning? Or is it, just maybe, a non sequitur of the kind most
frequently heard in a different sort of US institution altogether?
As simple _and_ as silly as that.
Todd is co-owner of the GEN-MED list, not the soc.genealogy.medieval
newsgroup.
unwilling....
anything useful...
unsupported....
That is beyond anyone's capacity, however hard they might work at it. Don
and Todd are not responsible for the problems, or for solving these, but
only for their statements here.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1188504721.891861.16270@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Todd, we see things differently. For one thing, I'm a trained
historian, which you are not. That is why I crosspost to both
genealogical and historical newsgroups.
Is this part of the training that historians receive in US institutions of
higher learning? Or is it, just maybe, a non sequitur of the kind most
frequently heard in a different sort of US institution altogether?
As far as I can tell from
available Google guidelines, it is my right to simultaneously post to
more than one group. So I do so. In this instance, my various
corrections to ODNB, DNB, and Complete Peerage fall into the category
of being BOTH genealogical AND historical in nature. It's as simple
as that.
As simple _and_ as silly as that.
Whatever the case, I certainly don't crosspost to irritate you,
although you seem to pretend that I do. This is just a thought but
perhaps your negative and cynical attitude is why virtually no other
published historians are willing to post to your
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup.
Todd is co-owner of the GEN-MED list, not the soc.genealogy.medieval
newsgroup.
With regard to the current matter, yes, I possess additional
unpublished original material regarding the Gardiner family. However,
rather than post it here, I've decided to publish it elsewhere in a
reputable historical journal. As such, I'm unable
unwilling....
to say much
anything useful...
beyond
the following bland
unsupported....
statements: Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of
Winchester, was not the son of William Gardiner and Ellen Tudor. And,
William Gardiner and Ellen Tudor had only one son, Thomas Gardiner,
who was Prior to Tynemouth, Northumberland from 1528 to 1536.
In the meantime, please know that I appreciate all of your hard work
and Don's on our behalf to keep the newsgroup functioning in good
working order.
That is beyond anyone's capacity, however hard they might work at it. Don
and Todd are not responsible for the problems, or for solving these, but
only for their statements here.
Peter Stewart
-
taf
Re: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical new
[Silly crossposting again removed]
On Aug 30, 1:12 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Oh, not this again. Training is a process, not an outcome. I know a
trained physician, with all the appropriate letters after his name to
prove it, but it would be the height of folly to allow the twit
anywhere near an actual human patient.
With that in mind, when you say "Yes, we see things differently", I
introduced this to the conversation to indicate that I didn't think "
'Tis so " is a strong argument to address a lack of evidence. If your
training as a historian gave you a different viewpoint, as your
statement in context would seem to imply, then the time you spent in
training was wasted.
If, on the other hand, you are referring to appropriate USENET
behavior, that would imply that your historical training included
instruction on the organization and operating principals of the
internet in general and USENET in particular. Given how long you have
been claiming to have been a trained historian, I find it hard to
believe that such essoterica (at the time you must have been trained)
would have been included in your training regimen. So, our choices
are that you were so badly trained that you think "Tis so" is
scholarly rebuttal, in which case we can safely dismiss your training
as having no value, or else you think that training in one field
(history) makes you an expert in another (computer network design and
operation), in which case we can safely dismiss your training as
entirely irrelevant. Either way this makes your training moot, and we
are left with determining the quality of your posts from their
content, just like everybody else's. (That is something I did learn
during my training - you evaluate a work by its content, not by the
letters that come after the author's name.)
Whether or not the author has been trained has nothing to do with the
appropriateness of crossposting. It is like saying that because you
are a trained historian, you can move library books to other shelves.
Google? When I use my phone to file my tax return, AT&T guidelines
don't tell me I have to report all of my income. All your training
and you think Google sets the guidelines for USENET? Google is an
avenue by which one reads and posts to USENET. It is not USENET. This
comes up every time we have this conversation. USENET is not
Google:Google is not USENET.
We have been over this before. What part of "the group most relevant"
is escaping you?
Yes, there are reasons for crossposting. It has to do with wanting to
engender discussion on a topic of interest to the participants in both
groups. Given that you don't even want to discuss the issue in _this_
group, but rather just repeat the same ex cathedra pronouncements,
this can hardly be your motivation.
This is not black and white. It is not about rights. It is about being
a member of a a community. If you don't respect that community, you
not only make a nuisance of yourself, you also risk damage to the
community. Crossposting is one of those things that seems like a good
idea, but with rare exceptions does not accomplish what it intends,
and it frequently ends badly. This would be the case even if a couple
readers of the groups in question hadn't expressly said that if you
crosspost this type of material there, they will post loads of
irrelevant crap to this group in revenge. (That being said, Hines'
crossposting has managed to bring so much crap into this group
already, it couldn't get much worse.)
Not this time. But your crossposting (everyone's crossposting)
irritates me none the less because it degrades the quality of the
discourse here.
Oh, that's it. Now we know. Because I object to inappropriate
crossposting all of the real historians have left. Like Nat Taylor,
the tosser. He hasn't posted since, . . . what was it . . .
yesterday? Who, exactly, among the published historians have I driven
off? There must be some cadre of grand published historians of which
I am unaware who live to crosspost and who would rather leave the
group than subject themselves to request for references from a member
of the great unwashed masses.
Anyhow (as you very well know) I make no claim to soc.gen.med being
mine, as you seem to imply. It is only mine to the degree that I am a
member of the community, and I wish it to remain useful and
enjoyable. Crossposts, no matter how well intended, are more likely
to lead to a degradation of the atmosphere than a productive
discussion involving the members of the groups in question. It is
unfortunate as the concept, in theory, should lead to more productive
interaction but in practice crossposting draws flies.
This very thread demonstrates it - you post to three groups, Hines
responds with pointlessness now spewed to 6 groups, then some moron
from God knows where (? soc.culture.scotland ?) posts his own idiocy -
that is what happens when you crosspost, and it will go on and on and
on until all of the people in all of the groups get bored with it. A
hundred posts later, how will this exchange have benefited the readers
of soc.genealogy.medieval? Of the posts brought into discussions in
soc.gen.med through crossposting, a proportion that closely
approximates 100% have nothing whatsoever to do with medieval
genealogy.
Well, you could have said that rather than simply repeating your
original pronouncement without further clarification.
Don and I work to keep the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list functioning in
good order. It is only because the mailing list has a link to the
newsgroup that our actions impact soc.gen.med. That is also why I am
left using persuasion on those whose actions in soc.gen.med have the
potential to negatively impact GEN-MEDIEVAL.
taf
On Aug 30, 1:12 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Yes, Todd, we see things differently. For one thing, I'm a trained
historian, which you are not.
Oh, not this again. Training is a process, not an outcome. I know a
trained physician, with all the appropriate letters after his name to
prove it, but it would be the height of folly to allow the twit
anywhere near an actual human patient.
With that in mind, when you say "Yes, we see things differently", I
introduced this to the conversation to indicate that I didn't think "
'Tis so " is a strong argument to address a lack of evidence. If your
training as a historian gave you a different viewpoint, as your
statement in context would seem to imply, then the time you spent in
training was wasted.
If, on the other hand, you are referring to appropriate USENET
behavior, that would imply that your historical training included
instruction on the organization and operating principals of the
internet in general and USENET in particular. Given how long you have
been claiming to have been a trained historian, I find it hard to
believe that such essoterica (at the time you must have been trained)
would have been included in your training regimen. So, our choices
are that you were so badly trained that you think "Tis so" is
scholarly rebuttal, in which case we can safely dismiss your training
as having no value, or else you think that training in one field
(history) makes you an expert in another (computer network design and
operation), in which case we can safely dismiss your training as
entirely irrelevant. Either way this makes your training moot, and we
are left with determining the quality of your posts from their
content, just like everybody else's. (That is something I did learn
during my training - you evaluate a work by its content, not by the
letters that come after the author's name.)
That is why I crosspost to both
genealogical and historical newsgroups.
Whether or not the author has been trained has nothing to do with the
appropriateness of crossposting. It is like saying that because you
are a trained historian, you can move library books to other shelves.
As far as I can tell from
available Google guidelines, it is my right to simultaneously post to
more than one group.
Google? When I use my phone to file my tax return, AT&T guidelines
don't tell me I have to report all of my income. All your training
and you think Google sets the guidelines for USENET? Google is an
avenue by which one reads and posts to USENET. It is not USENET. This
comes up every time we have this conversation. USENET is not
Google:Google is not USENET.
So I do so. In this instance, my various
corrections to ODNB, DNB, and Complete Peerage fall into the category
of being BOTH genealogical AND historical in nature. It's as simple
as that.
We have been over this before. What part of "the group most relevant"
is escaping you?
Yes, there are reasons for crossposting. It has to do with wanting to
engender discussion on a topic of interest to the participants in both
groups. Given that you don't even want to discuss the issue in _this_
group, but rather just repeat the same ex cathedra pronouncements,
this can hardly be your motivation.
This is not black and white. It is not about rights. It is about being
a member of a a community. If you don't respect that community, you
not only make a nuisance of yourself, you also risk damage to the
community. Crossposting is one of those things that seems like a good
idea, but with rare exceptions does not accomplish what it intends,
and it frequently ends badly. This would be the case even if a couple
readers of the groups in question hadn't expressly said that if you
crosspost this type of material there, they will post loads of
irrelevant crap to this group in revenge. (That being said, Hines'
crossposting has managed to bring so much crap into this group
already, it couldn't get much worse.)
Whatever the case, I certainly don't crosspost to irritate you,
Not this time. But your crossposting (everyone's crossposting)
irritates me none the less because it degrades the quality of the
discourse here.
This is just a thought but
perhaps your negative and cynical attitude is why virtually no other
published historians are willing to post to your
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup.
Oh, that's it. Now we know. Because I object to inappropriate
crossposting all of the real historians have left. Like Nat Taylor,
the tosser. He hasn't posted since, . . . what was it . . .
yesterday? Who, exactly, among the published historians have I driven
off? There must be some cadre of grand published historians of which
I am unaware who live to crosspost and who would rather leave the
group than subject themselves to request for references from a member
of the great unwashed masses.
Anyhow (as you very well know) I make no claim to soc.gen.med being
mine, as you seem to imply. It is only mine to the degree that I am a
member of the community, and I wish it to remain useful and
enjoyable. Crossposts, no matter how well intended, are more likely
to lead to a degradation of the atmosphere than a productive
discussion involving the members of the groups in question. It is
unfortunate as the concept, in theory, should lead to more productive
interaction but in practice crossposting draws flies.
This very thread demonstrates it - you post to three groups, Hines
responds with pointlessness now spewed to 6 groups, then some moron
from God knows where (? soc.culture.scotland ?) posts his own idiocy -
that is what happens when you crosspost, and it will go on and on and
on until all of the people in all of the groups get bored with it. A
hundred posts later, how will this exchange have benefited the readers
of soc.genealogy.medieval? Of the posts brought into discussions in
soc.gen.med through crossposting, a proportion that closely
approximates 100% have nothing whatsoever to do with medieval
genealogy.
With regard to the current matter, yes, I possess additional
unpublished original material regarding the Gardiner family.
Well, you could have said that rather than simply repeating your
original pronouncement without further clarification.
In the meantime, please know that I appreciate all of your hard work
and Don's on our behalf to keep the newsgroup functioning in good
working order.
Don and I work to keep the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list functioning in
good order. It is only because the mailing list has a link to the
newsgroup that our actions impact soc.gen.med. That is also why I am
left using persuasion on those whose actions in soc.gen.med have the
potential to negatively impact GEN-MEDIEVAL.
taf
-
Lockehead
Re: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical new
On Aug 30, 10:26 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
O.K.- back to subject. William Gardiner and Helen Tudor had more than
one child (Thomas). The court case mentioned was brought on behalf of
the children of William Gardiner. This indicates to me that there was
more than one ("my" William Gardiner who married Elizabeth Mitchell,
perhaps?). It is also a little more certain to me that Helen Tudor and
William Gardiner were not the parents of Bishop Steven Gardiner. Thank
you all for taking the time to respond to this. It is a great help.
[Silly crossposting again removed]
On Aug 30, 1:12 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Yes, Todd, we see things differently. For one thing, I'm a trained
historian, which you are not.
Oh, not this again. Training is a process, not an outcome. I know a
trained physician, with all the appropriate letters after his name to
prove it, but it would be the height of folly to allow the twit
anywhere near an actual human patient.
With that in mind, when you say "Yes, we see things differently", I
introduced this to the conversation to indicate that I didn't think "
'Tis so " is a strong argument to address a lack of evidence. If your
training as a historian gave you a different viewpoint, as your
statement in context would seem to imply, then the time you spent in
training was wasted.
If, on the other hand, you are referring to appropriate USENET
behavior, that would imply that your historical training included
instruction on the organization and operating principals of the
internet in general and USENET in particular. Given how long you have
been claiming to have been a trained historian, I find it hard to
believe that such essoterica (at the time you must have been trained)
would have been included in your training regimen. So, our choices
are that you were so badly trained that you think "Tis so" is
scholarly rebuttal, in which case we can safely dismiss your training
as having no value, or else you think that training in one field
(history) makes you an expert in another (computer network design and
operation), in which case we can safely dismiss your training as
entirely irrelevant. Either way this makes your training moot, and we
are left with determining the quality of your posts from their
content, just like everybody else's. (That is something I did learn
during my training - you evaluate a work by its content, not by the
letters that come after the author's name.)
That is why I crosspost to both
genealogical and historical newsgroups.
Whether or not the author has been trained has nothing to do with the
appropriateness of crossposting. It is like saying that because you
are a trained historian, you can move library books to other shelves.
As far as I can tell from
available Google guidelines, it is my right to simultaneously post to
more than one group.
Google? When I use my phone to file my tax return, AT&T guidelines
don't tell me I have to report all of my income. All your training
and you think Google sets the guidelines for USENET? Google is an
avenue by which one reads and posts to USENET. It is not USENET. This
comes up every time we have this conversation. USENET is not
Google:Google is not USENET.
So I do so. In this instance, my various
corrections to ODNB, DNB, and Complete Peerage fall into the category
of being BOTH genealogical AND historical in nature. It's as simple
as that.
We have been over this before. What part of "the group most relevant"
is escaping you?
Yes, there are reasons for crossposting. It has to do with wanting to
engender discussion on a topic of interest to the participants in both
groups. Given that you don't even want to discuss the issue in _this_
group, but rather just repeat the same ex cathedra pronouncements,
this can hardly be your motivation.
This is not black and white. It is not about rights. It is about being
a member of a a community. If you don't respect that community, you
not only make a nuisance of yourself, you also risk damage to the
community. Crossposting is one of those things that seems like a good
idea, but with rare exceptions does not accomplish what it intends,
and it frequently ends badly. This would be the case even if a couple
readers of the groups in question hadn't expressly said that if you
crosspost this type of material there, they will post loads of
irrelevant crap to this group in revenge. (That being said, Hines'
crossposting has managed to bring so much crap into this group
already, it couldn't get much worse.)
Whatever the case, I certainly don't crosspost to irritate you,
Not this time. But your crossposting (everyone's crossposting)
irritates me none the less because it degrades the quality of the
discourse here.
This is just a thought but
perhaps your negative and cynical attitude is why virtually no other
published historians are willing to post to your
soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup.
Oh, that's it. Now we know. Because I object to inappropriate
crossposting all of the real historians have left. Like Nat Taylor,
the tosser. He hasn't posted since, . . . what was it . . .
yesterday? Who, exactly, among the published historians have I driven
off? There must be some cadre of grand published historians of which
I am unaware who live to crosspost and who would rather leave the
group than subject themselves to request for references from a member
of the great unwashed masses.
Anyhow (as you very well know) I make no claim to soc.gen.med being
mine, as you seem to imply. It is only mine to the degree that I am a
member of the community, and I wish it to remain useful and
enjoyable. Crossposts, no matter how well intended, are more likely
to lead to a degradation of the atmosphere than a productive
discussion involving the members of the groups in question. It is
unfortunate as the concept, in theory, should lead to more productive
interaction but in practice crossposting draws flies.
This very thread demonstrates it - you post to three groups, Hines
responds with pointlessness now spewed to 6 groups, then some moron
from God knows where (? soc.culture.scotland ?) posts his own idiocy -
that is what happens when you crosspost, and it will go on and on and
on until all of the people in all of the groups get bored with it. A
hundred posts later, how will this exchange have benefited the readers
of soc.genealogy.medieval? Of the posts brought into discussions in
soc.gen.med through crossposting, a proportion that closely
approximates 100% have nothing whatsoever to do with medieval
genealogy.
With regard to the current matter, yes, I possess additional
unpublished original material regarding the Gardiner family.
Well, you could have said that rather than simply repeating your
original pronouncement without further clarification.
In the meantime, please know that I appreciate all of your hard work
and Don's on our behalf to keep the newsgroup functioning in good
working order.
Don and I work to keep the GEN-MEDIEVAL mailing list functioning in
good order. It is only because the mailing list has a link to the
newsgroup that our actions impact soc.gen.med. That is also why I am
left using persuasion on those whose actions in soc.gen.med have the
potential to negatively impact GEN-MEDIEVAL.
taf
O.K.- back to subject. William Gardiner and Helen Tudor had more than
one child (Thomas). The court case mentioned was brought on behalf of
the children of William Gardiner. This indicates to me that there was
more than one ("my" William Gardiner who married Elizabeth Mitchell,
perhaps?). It is also a little more certain to me that Helen Tudor and
William Gardiner were not the parents of Bishop Steven Gardiner. Thank
you all for taking the time to respond to this. It is a great help.
-
John Brandon
Re: Sensible crossposting to genealogical and historical new
Oh, that's it. Now we know. Because I object to inappropriate
crossposting all of the real historians have left. Like Nat Taylor,
the tosser. He hasn't posted since, . . . what was it . . .
yesterday? Who, exactly, among the published historians have I driven
off? There must be some cadre of grand published historians of which
Is Nat Taylor a "real historian"? I thought he was more of a
glorified house-husband. =)~