King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of Kings Ri
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of Kings Ri
Dear Newsgroup ~
A while back, I posted evidence which showed that Edmund Stafford,
Bishop of Exeter (died 1419), was styled "kinsman" [consanguineus,
consanguineum] by King Richard II of England [Reference: Perroy,
Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. 48)
(1933): 80-81, 93, 113, 152-155, 157-158].
Since my original post, I've learned that Bishop Edmund Stafford was
also styled "kinsman" by King Henry IV of England in 1412 [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rollls, 1408-1413 (1909): 474].
See the following weblink for the Patent Rolls reference:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0474.pdf
Reviewing Bishop Stafford's ancestry, it is difficult to explain his
kinship to either king. The two kings shared much ancestry in
common. However, the common ancestry of the two kings consists mostly
of highborn English and French families which yield no likely link to
anything in Bishop Stafford's ancestry. In any case, King Richard
often acknowledged people as kinsfolk who were related to him through
his mother's English ancestry. These would typically be people
related to him through the Wake, Quincy, Fiennes, or Mortimer
families.
At the present time, the identity (or parentage) of two of Bishop
Stafford's great-grandmothers remain uncertain or unknown. My feeling
is that Bishop Stafford's kinship to the two kings probably comes
through one of these ladies. The first of these ladies is [?Joan],
wife of Sir William de Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, which lady was
presumably born about 1265-70. The second of these ladies was Hawise,
wife of Ralph Basset, of Drayton, Staffordshire, who I have speculated
was a member of the Despenser family.
..
It is possible that the wife of Sir William de Camville could be one
of the unmarried sisters of John Wake, Lord Wake, who was mentioned in
a Patent Rolls record dated 1291. If so, such a match would make
Bishop Stafford related to King Richard II in the 4th and 4th degrees
of kindred. This would also make Bishop Stafford distantly related to
King Henry IV through the Quincy family, as John Wake's mother was a
Quincy. However, I presently know of no evidence which would link the
Camville and Wake families together.
I believe this genealogical puzzle can be solved.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
A while back, I posted evidence which showed that Edmund Stafford,
Bishop of Exeter (died 1419), was styled "kinsman" [consanguineus,
consanguineum] by King Richard II of England [Reference: Perroy,
Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. 48)
(1933): 80-81, 93, 113, 152-155, 157-158].
Since my original post, I've learned that Bishop Edmund Stafford was
also styled "kinsman" by King Henry IV of England in 1412 [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rollls, 1408-1413 (1909): 474].
See the following weblink for the Patent Rolls reference:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0474.pdf
Reviewing Bishop Stafford's ancestry, it is difficult to explain his
kinship to either king. The two kings shared much ancestry in
common. However, the common ancestry of the two kings consists mostly
of highborn English and French families which yield no likely link to
anything in Bishop Stafford's ancestry. In any case, King Richard
often acknowledged people as kinsfolk who were related to him through
his mother's English ancestry. These would typically be people
related to him through the Wake, Quincy, Fiennes, or Mortimer
families.
At the present time, the identity (or parentage) of two of Bishop
Stafford's great-grandmothers remain uncertain or unknown. My feeling
is that Bishop Stafford's kinship to the two kings probably comes
through one of these ladies. The first of these ladies is [?Joan],
wife of Sir William de Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, which lady was
presumably born about 1265-70. The second of these ladies was Hawise,
wife of Ralph Basset, of Drayton, Staffordshire, who I have speculated
was a member of the Despenser family.
..
It is possible that the wife of Sir William de Camville could be one
of the unmarried sisters of John Wake, Lord Wake, who was mentioned in
a Patent Rolls record dated 1291. If so, such a match would make
Bishop Stafford related to King Richard II in the 4th and 4th degrees
of kindred. This would also make Bishop Stafford distantly related to
King Henry IV through the Quincy family, as John Wake's mother was a
Quincy. However, I presently know of no evidence which would link the
Camville and Wake families together.
I believe this genealogical puzzle can be solved.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Normandy
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 1189492003.860934.135680@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
II calls all hereditary peers My Cousin when she speaks to them.
Normandy
>
news: 1189492003.860934.135680@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
A while back, I posted evidence which showed that Edmund Stafford,
Bishop of Exeter (died 1419), was styled "kinsman" [consanguineus,
consanguineum] by King Richard II of England [Reference: Perroy,
Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II (Camden Soc. 3rd ser. 48)
(1933): 80-81, 93, 113, 152-155, 157-158].
Since my original post, I've learned that Bishop Edmund Stafford was
also styled "kinsman" by King Henry IV of England in 1412 [Reference:
Calendar of Patent Rollls, 1408-1413 (1909): 474].
See the following weblink for the Patent Rolls reference:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0474.pdf
Reviewing Bishop Stafford's ancestry, it is difficult to explain his
kinship to either king. The two kings shared much ancestry in
common. However, the common ancestry of the two kings consists mostly
of highborn English and French families which yield no likely link to
anything in Bishop Stafford's ancestry. In any case, King Richard
often acknowledged people as kinsfolk who were related to him through
his mother's English ancestry. These would typically be people
related to him through the Wake, Quincy, Fiennes, or Mortimer
families.
At the present time, the identity (or parentage) of two of Bishop
Stafford's great-grandmothers remain uncertain or unknown. My feeling
is that Bishop Stafford's kinship to the two kings probably comes
through one of these ladies. The first of these ladies is [?Joan],
wife of Sir William de Camville, 2nd Lord Camville, which lady was
presumably born about 1265-70. The second of these ladies was Hawise,
wife of Ralph Basset, of Drayton, Staffordshire, who I have speculated
was a member of the Despenser family.
.
It is possible that the wife of Sir William de Camville could be one
of the unmarried sisters of John Wake, Lord Wake, who was mentioned in
a Patent Rolls record dated 1291. If so, such a match would make
Bishop Stafford related to King Richard II in the 4th and 4th degrees
of kindred. This would also make Bishop Stafford distantly related to
King Henry IV through the Quincy family, as John Wake's mother was a
Quincy. However, I presently know of no evidence which would link the
Camville and Wake families together.
I believe this genealogical puzzle can be solved.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
May be a bit more confusing our Queen and monarchs before her since William
II calls all hereditary peers My Cousin when she speaks to them.
Normandy
>
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
Dear Normandy ~
Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.
Yes, I'm aware that the present Queen addresses all hereditary peers
as her "cousin," whether she is related to them or not. I'm not sure
when this practice began.
What I can tell you from my research is that before c. 1215-1250 (date
is a little uncertain), English and French kings and German Emperors
could and did address someone as their cousin only if they were
related within the 4th degree. At the present time I have only one
exception in my files to this (a bishop who was related to the German
emperor in the 2nd and 6th degrees). The acknowledged kinships in
this period were usually very simple, say 1st or 2nd cousins. About
c. 1250 it widened out to the 5th degree in both England and France.
It was usually within the 5th degree on at least one person's side,
usually the king's. Starting in the reign of King Edward III, the
English kings started addressing their fellow kings as "brother."
This custom may have started earlier than that, but it certainly is
noticeable by the time of Edward III. Starting with the reign of the
Stuart monarchs in England (King James I and his successors), I begin
to see what appears to be regular examples of people being called
"cousin" by the king who as far as I can tell are not near related. I
haven't established that as fact, however. I'm still collecting
examples of people called kinsfolk in the Stuart period.
These "conventions," by the way, apply only to public records. In
private correspondence at least as early as the 1320's, people could
and did address relatives of their spouses as their cousins. So one
must always be careful to distinguish between a public record and
private correspondence.
I still have a handful of people in my files addressed as cousin by
the English kings for whom I can find no proven kinship. Bishop
Edmund Stafford is one of them. In most cases, it is relatively easy
to determine the nature of the relationship. A few people addressed
in public records as kinsfolk for whom I can find no obvious kinship I
suspect were actually related to the king by marriage. I say suspect
because there are holes in the other person's ancestry which prevents
a clear determination of the exact nature of the possible kinship
involved.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< May be a bit more confusing our Queen and monarchs before her since
William
< II calls all hereditary peers My Cousin when she speaks to them.
<
< Normandy
Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.
Yes, I'm aware that the present Queen addresses all hereditary peers
as her "cousin," whether she is related to them or not. I'm not sure
when this practice began.
What I can tell you from my research is that before c. 1215-1250 (date
is a little uncertain), English and French kings and German Emperors
could and did address someone as their cousin only if they were
related within the 4th degree. At the present time I have only one
exception in my files to this (a bishop who was related to the German
emperor in the 2nd and 6th degrees). The acknowledged kinships in
this period were usually very simple, say 1st or 2nd cousins. About
c. 1250 it widened out to the 5th degree in both England and France.
It was usually within the 5th degree on at least one person's side,
usually the king's. Starting in the reign of King Edward III, the
English kings started addressing their fellow kings as "brother."
This custom may have started earlier than that, but it certainly is
noticeable by the time of Edward III. Starting with the reign of the
Stuart monarchs in England (King James I and his successors), I begin
to see what appears to be regular examples of people being called
"cousin" by the king who as far as I can tell are not near related. I
haven't established that as fact, however. I'm still collecting
examples of people called kinsfolk in the Stuart period.
These "conventions," by the way, apply only to public records. In
private correspondence at least as early as the 1320's, people could
and did address relatives of their spouses as their cousins. So one
must always be careful to distinguish between a public record and
private correspondence.
I still have a handful of people in my files addressed as cousin by
the English kings for whom I can find no proven kinship. Bishop
Edmund Stafford is one of them. In most cases, it is relatively easy
to determine the nature of the relationship. A few people addressed
in public records as kinsfolk for whom I can find no obvious kinship I
suspect were actually related to the king by marriage. I say suspect
because there are holes in the other person's ancestry which prevents
a clear determination of the exact nature of the possible kinship
involved.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< May be a bit more confusing our Queen and monarchs before her since
William
< II calls all hereditary peers My Cousin when she speaks to them.
<
< Normandy
-
Michael Kuettner
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1189533593.653274.303630@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
There were no "German Emperors" until 1871.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
news:1189533593.653274.303630@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Dear Normandy ~
Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.
Yes, I'm aware that the present Queen addresses all hereditary peers
as her "cousin," whether she is related to them or not. I'm not sure
when this practice began.
What I can tell you from my research is that before c. 1215-1250 (date
is a little uncertain), English and French kings and German Emperors
could and did address someone as their cousin only if they were
related within the 4th degree.
snip
There were no "German Emperors" until 1871.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 11, 10:59 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
We have been through this before as well. You have numerous cases in
which you cannot document such a relationship. In these cases, you
either hypothesize a relationship that will fit your rule of thumb, or
you conclude that there must be one, we just don't know what it is.
This is very much begging the question. There have even been a few
cases where you have insisted on 'correcting' a pedigree because it
must fit the rule. Thus it is not surprising that every case matches
this rule of thumb - it could not be otherwise.
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
What I can tell you from my research is that before c. 1215-1250 (date
is a little uncertain), English and French kings and German Emperors
could and did address someone as their cousin only if they were
related within the 4th degree. At the present time I have only one
exception in my files to this (a bishop who was related to the German
emperor in the 2nd and 6th degrees).
We have been through this before as well. You have numerous cases in
which you cannot document such a relationship. In these cases, you
either hypothesize a relationship that will fit your rule of thumb, or
you conclude that there must be one, we just don't know what it is.
This is very much begging the question. There have even been a few
cases where you have insisted on 'correcting' a pedigree because it
must fit the rule. Thus it is not surprising that every case matches
this rule of thumb - it could not be otherwise.
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 11, 10:59 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
We have been through this before as well. You have numerous cases in
which you cannot document such a relationship. In these cases, you
either hypothesize a relationship that will fit your rule of thumb, or
you conclude that there must be one, we just don't know what it is.
This is very much begging the question. There have even been a few
cases where you have insisted on 'correcting' a pedigree because it
must fit the rule. Thus it is not surprising that every case matches
this rule of thumb - it could not be otherwise.
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
What I can tell you from my research is that before c. 1215-1250 (date
is a little uncertain), English and French kings and German Emperors
could and did address someone as their cousin only if they were
related within the 4th degree. At the present time I have only one
exception in my files to this (a bishop who was related to the German
emperor in the 2nd and 6th degrees).
We have been through this before as well. You have numerous cases in
which you cannot document such a relationship. In these cases, you
either hypothesize a relationship that will fit your rule of thumb, or
you conclude that there must be one, we just don't know what it is.
This is very much begging the question. There have even been a few
cases where you have insisted on 'correcting' a pedigree because it
must fit the rule. Thus it is not surprising that every case matches
this rule of thumb - it could not be otherwise.
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 11, 10:59 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
We have been through this before as well. You have numerous cases in
which you cannot document such a relationship. In these cases, you
either hypothesize a relationship that will fit your rule of thumb, or
you conclude that there must be one, we just don't know what it is.
This is very much begging the question. There have even been a few
cases where you have insisted on 'correcting' a pedigree because it
must fit the rule. Thus it is not surprising that every case matches
this rule of thumb - it could not be otherwise.
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
What I can tell you from my research is that before c. 1215-1250 (date
is a little uncertain), English and French kings and German Emperors
could and did address someone as their cousin only if they were
related within the 4th degree. At the present time I have only one
exception in my files to this (a bishop who was related to the German
emperor in the 2nd and 6th degrees).
We have been through this before as well. You have numerous cases in
which you cannot document such a relationship. In these cases, you
either hypothesize a relationship that will fit your rule of thumb, or
you conclude that there must be one, we just don't know what it is.
This is very much begging the question. There have even been a few
cases where you have insisted on 'correcting' a pedigree because it
must fit the rule. Thus it is not surprising that every case matches
this rule of thumb - it could not be otherwise.
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 11, 10:59 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
We have been through this before as well. You have numerous cases in
which you cannot document such a relationship. In these cases, you
either hypothesize a relationship that will fit your rule of thumb, or
you conclude that there must be one, we just don't know what it is.
This is very much begging the question. There have even been a few
cases where you have insisted on 'correcting' a pedigree because it
must fit the rule. Thus it is not surprising that every case matches
this rule of thumb - it could not be otherwise.
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
What I can tell you from my research is that before c. 1215-1250 (date
is a little uncertain), English and French kings and German Emperors
could and did address someone as their cousin only if they were
related within the 4th degree. At the present time I have only one
exception in my files to this (a bishop who was related to the German
emperor in the 2nd and 6th degrees).
We have been through this before as well. You have numerous cases in
which you cannot document such a relationship. In these cases, you
either hypothesize a relationship that will fit your rule of thumb, or
you conclude that there must be one, we just don't know what it is.
This is very much begging the question. There have even been a few
cases where you have insisted on 'correcting' a pedigree because it
must fit the rule. Thus it is not surprising that every case matches
this rule of thumb - it could not be otherwise.
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
< What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis
of
< the question - now that would be more convincing.
<
< taf
Your complaints would have far more weight, Todd, if you set forth
examples of your own, with proper source citations. Then we could
have a real scholarly debate. Your current strategy of playing the
armchair expert, while supplying no work of your own, makes you look
rather lazy. It's hard to take someone serious when they haven't done
their homework. And you, good sir, haven't done your homework.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis
of
< the question - now that would be more convincing.
<
< taf
Your complaints would have far more weight, Todd, if you set forth
examples of your own, with proper source citations. Then we could
have a real scholarly debate. Your current strategy of playing the
armchair expert, while supplying no work of your own, makes you look
rather lazy. It's hard to take someone serious when they haven't done
their homework. And you, good sir, haven't done your homework.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 11, 1:48 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
So much for training. The responsibility of proof falls on the person
making the claim. If one presents appropriate evidence to meet this
burden of proof, then it is up to critics to show why this evidence is
insufficient to demonstrate the case. In the case of a general rule,
it takes more than arbitrary examples to make the case - it takes an
unbiased analysis of a large set of records. You keep saying "see,
these specific people were related that closely so that proves it,"
but it does nothing of the sort. My posting a single record would
likewise fail to make any valid point (particularly with your
willingness to rewrite any pedigree that disagrees) - it takes a
thorough analysis, and as the person making the claim, that falls
firmly in your lap.
taf
On Sep 11, 1:20 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
What you have yet to do is a scholarly (i.e. statistical) analysis
of
the question - now that would be more convincing.
taf
Your complaints would have far more weight, Todd, if you set forth
examples of your own, with proper source citations.
So much for training. The responsibility of proof falls on the person
making the claim. If one presents appropriate evidence to meet this
burden of proof, then it is up to critics to show why this evidence is
insufficient to demonstrate the case. In the case of a general rule,
it takes more than arbitrary examples to make the case - it takes an
unbiased analysis of a large set of records. You keep saying "see,
these specific people were related that closely so that proves it,"
but it does nothing of the sort. My posting a single record would
likewise fail to make any valid point (particularly with your
willingness to rewrite any pedigree that disagrees) - it takes a
thorough analysis, and as the person making the claim, that falls
firmly in your lap.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
Dear Newsgroup ~
Researching the extended family of Bishop Edmund Stafford, I've
learned that Bishop Stafford was related in some manner to his fellow
priest, William Langeton, died 1413, who is buried in Exeter
Cathedral. An online resource at http:// http://www.creditonparishchurch.org.uk/History.html
includes a photograph of the medieval brass of [Master] William
Langeton (died 1413) in Exeter Cathedral, on which brass Langeton is
specifically styled "kinsman" [consanguineus] of Edmund Stafford,
Bishop of Exeter. Langeton also bears the badge of the Stafford knot
on the orphrey of his cope [also see Antiquary 31 (1895): 234].
Elsewhere, I see the National Archives catalogue has an entry for a
Chancery proceeding dated 1407-1419, in which Edmund Stafford, Bishop
of Exeter sued Robert de Lee, of Roden, and Peronelle his wife,
William Banastre, and Alice Somerford regarding tenements in Astley,
Hadnall, Middle (Mudele), Burton? (Byryton), and Hunkington (in Upton
Magna), Shropshire. [Reference: PRO Document, C 1/16/72 (abstract of
document available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp)].
I don't know how Bishop Stafford came to have an interest in these
tenements in Shropshire. However, they could well be part of the
maritagium of the unknown wife of his great-grandfather, William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville. If so, these properties could be a clue
to her identity.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Researching the extended family of Bishop Edmund Stafford, I've
learned that Bishop Stafford was related in some manner to his fellow
priest, William Langeton, died 1413, who is buried in Exeter
Cathedral. An online resource at http:// http://www.creditonparishchurch.org.uk/History.html
includes a photograph of the medieval brass of [Master] William
Langeton (died 1413) in Exeter Cathedral, on which brass Langeton is
specifically styled "kinsman" [consanguineus] of Edmund Stafford,
Bishop of Exeter. Langeton also bears the badge of the Stafford knot
on the orphrey of his cope [also see Antiquary 31 (1895): 234].
Elsewhere, I see the National Archives catalogue has an entry for a
Chancery proceeding dated 1407-1419, in which Edmund Stafford, Bishop
of Exeter sued Robert de Lee, of Roden, and Peronelle his wife,
William Banastre, and Alice Somerford regarding tenements in Astley,
Hadnall, Middle (Mudele), Burton? (Byryton), and Hunkington (in Upton
Magna), Shropshire. [Reference: PRO Document, C 1/16/72 (abstract of
document available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp)].
I don't know how Bishop Stafford came to have an interest in these
tenements in Shropshire. However, they could well be part of the
maritagium of the unknown wife of his great-grandfather, William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville. If so, these properties could be a clue
to her identity.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 15, 10:36 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
But that is a big IF, given that he had 8 great-grandparents, and it
could have come from any of them, or by grant.
taf
I don't know how Bishop Stafford came to have an interest in these
tenements in Shropshire. However, they could well be part of the
maritagium of the unknown wife of his great-grandfather, William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville. If so, these properties could be a clue
to her identity.
But that is a big IF, given that he had 8 great-grandparents, and it
could have come from any of them, or by grant.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
< On Sep 15, 10:36 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com>
wrote:
<
< > I don't know how Bishop Stafford came to have an interest in these
< > tenements in Shropshire. However, they could well be part of the
< > maritagium of the unknown wife of his great-grandfather, William
de
< > Camville, 2nd Lord Camville. If so, these properties could be a
clue
< > to her identity.
<
< But that is a big IF, given that he had 8 great-grandparents, and it
< could have come from any of them, or by grant.
<
< taf
Not such a big IF. Bishop Stafford got most of his lands through the
Camville family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< On Sep 15, 10:36 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com>
wrote:
<
< > I don't know how Bishop Stafford came to have an interest in these
< > tenements in Shropshire. However, they could well be part of the
< > maritagium of the unknown wife of his great-grandfather, William
de
< > Camville, 2nd Lord Camville. If so, these properties could be a
clue
< > to her identity.
<
< But that is a big IF, given that he had 8 great-grandparents, and it
< could have come from any of them, or by grant.
<
< taf
Not such a big IF. Bishop Stafford got most of his lands through the
Camville family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 15, 12:49 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Which means we assume all of his land came from them? hardly.
taf
On Sep 15, 1:18 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:36 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com
wrote:
I don't know how Bishop Stafford came to have an interest in these
tenements in Shropshire. However, they could well be part of the
maritagium of the unknown wife of his great-grandfather, William
de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville. If so, these properties could be a
clue
to her identity.
But that is a big IF, given that he had 8 great-grandparents, and it
could have come from any of them, or by grant.
Not such a big IF. Bishop Stafford got most of his lands through the
Camville family.
Which means we assume all of his land came from them? hardly.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
I said most of the Bishop's lands came from the Camville family. I
didn't say all. I also said that the Bishop's interest in tenements
in Shropshire was a possible clue to the identity of his great-
grandmother Camville, whose given name and parentage are presently
unknown.
Somewhere in Bishop Stafford's ancestry is a high born woman who is
the link to his kinship to Kings Richard II and/or Henry IV. This
woman may or may not be the Bishop's great-grandmother Camville.
In any case, do try being more positive, Todd. And please cite your
sources. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
didn't say all. I also said that the Bishop's interest in tenements
in Shropshire was a possible clue to the identity of his great-
grandmother Camville, whose given name and parentage are presently
unknown.
Somewhere in Bishop Stafford's ancestry is a high born woman who is
the link to his kinship to Kings Richard II and/or Henry IV. This
woman may or may not be the Bishop's great-grandmother Camville.
In any case, do try being more positive, Todd. And please cite your
sources. Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 15, 2:52 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I will, when you give me something worthy of being positive about. As
it is, you seem to be positive enough for the both of us. The major
problem with your line of reasoning here, and with all of these
speculations (that come to be presented as near-certainties) is that
you repeatedly ignore the possibility that land might have passed by
means other than inheritance. Land could also be granted, and just
because 200 years later someone was holding a particular property is
not de facto evidence that the more recent was heir to the earlier.
(I am not even going to get into the 'kinsman' conundrum again - I
have told you where yous reasoning fails, and you seem unable to
understand what I am saying, so further discussion seems pointless.)
.. . . . he sanctimoniously requests, having again added inappropriate
crossposts to his favorite irrelevant groups. He does this knowing
full well that my choices are now to either repeat his obnoxious
crosspost in order to set the record straight in all of the groups
against this "please quit kicking your dog" accusation, or to act
responsibly with regard to appropriate newsgroup behavior and remove
the crosspost, thereby leaving the disingenuous accusation
unchallenged in the other groups. (Not that this childishness comes
as a surprise.)
I typically do cite my sources when I am presenting something that
merits citation. If you have any questions, you are free to ask for
clarification, and you won't find me responding with "look at this
list of two dozen sources - it will probably be one of them" as you
are so fond of doing. However, given that you usually only demand a
citation when you are caught in a logical fallacy, for which your
demand for primary documentation only demonstrates your failure to
understand the nature of the problem, I am not sure a clarification
will serve the purpose. For this I can't help you - only better
training has a chance of address this problem.
taf
I said most of the Bishop's lands came from the Camville family. I
didn't say all. I also said that the Bishop's interest in tenements
in Shropshire was a possible clue to the identity of his great-
grandmother Camville, whose given name and parentage are presently
unknown.
Somewhere in Bishop Stafford's ancestry is a high born woman who is
the link to his kinship to Kings Richard II and/or Henry IV. This
woman may or may not be the Bishop's great-grandmother Camville.
In any case, do try being more positive, Todd.
I will, when you give me something worthy of being positive about. As
it is, you seem to be positive enough for the both of us. The major
problem with your line of reasoning here, and with all of these
speculations (that come to be presented as near-certainties) is that
you repeatedly ignore the possibility that land might have passed by
means other than inheritance. Land could also be granted, and just
because 200 years later someone was holding a particular property is
not de facto evidence that the more recent was heir to the earlier.
(I am not even going to get into the 'kinsman' conundrum again - I
have told you where yous reasoning fails, and you seem unable to
understand what I am saying, so further discussion seems pointless.)
And please cite your sources. Thanks!
.. . . . he sanctimoniously requests, having again added inappropriate
crossposts to his favorite irrelevant groups. He does this knowing
full well that my choices are now to either repeat his obnoxious
crosspost in order to set the record straight in all of the groups
against this "please quit kicking your dog" accusation, or to act
responsibly with regard to appropriate newsgroup behavior and remove
the crosspost, thereby leaving the disingenuous accusation
unchallenged in the other groups. (Not that this childishness comes
as a surprise.)
I typically do cite my sources when I am presenting something that
merits citation. If you have any questions, you are free to ask for
clarification, and you won't find me responding with "look at this
list of two dozen sources - it will probably be one of them" as you
are so fond of doing. However, given that you usually only demand a
citation when you are caught in a logical fallacy, for which your
demand for primary documentation only demonstrates your failure to
understand the nature of the problem, I am not sure a clarification
will serve the purpose. For this I can't help you - only better
training has a chance of address this problem.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 15, 4:28 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
<
< . . . . he sanctimoniously requests, having again added
inappropriate
< crossposts to his favorite irrelevant groups.
Dear Todd ~
Google has always allowed me to post simultaneously to more than one
group. You're fully aware of this. On occasion, I chose to exercise
that option. That is my right. If you disagree with Google's policy,
I suggest you take it up with Google.
And, do try to be civil and collegial when you reply to my posts.
Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
<
< . . . . he sanctimoniously requests, having again added
inappropriate
< crossposts to his favorite irrelevant groups.
Dear Todd ~
Google has always allowed me to post simultaneously to more than one
group. You're fully aware of this. On occasion, I chose to exercise
that option. That is my right. If you disagree with Google's policy,
I suggest you take it up with Google.
And, do try to be civil and collegial when you reply to my posts.
Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
taf
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 15, 4:29 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
And you are fully aware that Google has nothing to do with it. Google
does not set the standards of propriety for USENET - it just allows
the willfully ignorant to pretend that those standards don't exist.
You might as well claim the right to call a radio talk show and swear
a blue streak, because the phone company does not prohibit swearing.
You can't honestly think you can pretend not to understand the
distinction, after having been told so many times.
You have the right to paint your house hot pink with glow-in-the-dark
lime green polka dots, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate, given
the disrespect it shows for your neighbors.
You remind me of the worst of the early AOL users, who continually
operated under the misconception that AOL _was_ the internet. The
difference is that they had no way to know better, where as you have
chosen to parade this ridiculous (supposed) misconception long after
you can possibly claim not to know the truth.
Has it occurred to you that if you have the 'right' to arrogantly
crosspost your 'discoveries' (which apparently now include taking
credit for 'correcting' a source you didn't even know had 'incorrect'
information), then others likewise have the right to tell you what
they think of your disrespectful sanctimonious arrogant obstinate
behavior - there is nothing in Google's rules, in fact, that would
stop someone from saying anything they want about you, in any group
they wish to do it, or even in every group. You see, that is the
problems with playing net-lawyer. Others can read the rules too, and
make a mockery of them just as much as you do. You, though, are
taking advantage of the supposition that others will not descend to
your level of misbehavior, which is ungentlemanly and decidedly
uncollegial, to say the least.
Your definition of collegiality seems to be rather self-centered,
basically meaning that you can do whatever you want, and everyone else
has to thank you for being so wonderful. Anyhow, do try to be less
pompous, and respect the other participants in this and other USENET
communities when you post.
taf
On Sep 15, 4:28 pm, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
. . . . he sanctimoniously requests, having again added
inappropriate
crossposts to his favorite irrelevant groups.
Dear Todd ~
Google has always allowed me to post simultaneously to more than one
group. You're fully aware of this.
And you are fully aware that Google has nothing to do with it. Google
does not set the standards of propriety for USENET - it just allows
the willfully ignorant to pretend that those standards don't exist.
You might as well claim the right to call a radio talk show and swear
a blue streak, because the phone company does not prohibit swearing.
You can't honestly think you can pretend not to understand the
distinction, after having been told so many times.
On occasion, I chose to exercise
that option. That is my right.
You have the right to paint your house hot pink with glow-in-the-dark
lime green polka dots, but that doesn't mean it is appropriate, given
the disrespect it shows for your neighbors.
If you disagree with Google's policy,
I suggest you take it up with Google.
You remind me of the worst of the early AOL users, who continually
operated under the misconception that AOL _was_ the internet. The
difference is that they had no way to know better, where as you have
chosen to parade this ridiculous (supposed) misconception long after
you can possibly claim not to know the truth.
Has it occurred to you that if you have the 'right' to arrogantly
crosspost your 'discoveries' (which apparently now include taking
credit for 'correcting' a source you didn't even know had 'incorrect'
information), then others likewise have the right to tell you what
they think of your disrespectful sanctimonious arrogant obstinate
behavior - there is nothing in Google's rules, in fact, that would
stop someone from saying anything they want about you, in any group
they wish to do it, or even in every group. You see, that is the
problems with playing net-lawyer. Others can read the rules too, and
make a mockery of them just as much as you do. You, though, are
taking advantage of the supposition that others will not descend to
your level of misbehavior, which is ungentlemanly and decidedly
uncollegial, to say the least.
And, do try to be civil and collegial when you reply to my posts.
Your definition of collegiality seems to be rather self-centered,
basically meaning that you can do whatever you want, and everyone else
has to thank you for being so wonderful. Anyhow, do try to be less
pompous, and respect the other participants in this and other USENET
communities when you post.
taf
-
Matthew Connolly
Re: King's Kinsfolk: Bishop Edmund Stafford, kinsman of King
On Sep 15, 7:36 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
According to the ODNB sub-entry (by Carole Rawcliffe) for Richard
Stafford- the bishop's father- the former left estates in Shropshire
(among many other places); so if that should prove to include the
lands in question, it would at least show the bishop didn't acquire
them himself. The source looks to be his IPM, as the list at the end
does mention "CIPM, 6, no. 354"; but the article is shared with his
elder brother.
I don't know how Bishop Stafford came to have an interest in these
tenements in Shropshire. However, they could well be part of the
maritagium of the unknown wife of his great-grandfather, William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville. If so, these properties could be a clue
to her identity.
According to the ODNB sub-entry (by Carole Rawcliffe) for Richard
Stafford- the bishop's father- the former left estates in Shropshire
(among many other places); so if that should prove to include the
lands in question, it would at least show the bishop didn't acquire
them himself. The source looks to be his IPM, as the list at the end
does mention "CIPM, 6, no. 354"; but the article is shared with his
elder brother.