Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bill Arnold

Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 22 nov 2007 15:50:04

Hi, gen-medievalers :)

ADDENDA:

ADDENDUM 4: PEDIGREE OF PECK WITH ACCOMPANYING ARMS, re: PAPERS
OF IRA B. PECK, AUTHOR OF GENEALOGY OF PECKS, 1868:
Ira. B. Peck, author, is a descendant in a long line of Pecks. He is principally
responsible for the dissemination of the Arms and Pedigree. His gateway
ancestor, Joseph Peck, emigrant to America, 1638, was the grandson
of Robert Peck, the Elder, son of John Peck of Wakefield: BML Peck
Pedigree, published by the College of Heralds, 1620 [ see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ]. Another grandson of Robert Peck, the Elder,
was Nicholas Peck, brother of Joseph. Of Nicholas Peck and the pedigree
in the BML for which Nicholas was responsible, Ira. B. Peck wrote:

"The pedigree, as it is here given, may be found in the British Museum,
London, England, excepting the two last families, those of Robert and Joseph,
which are added to it...The arms, which are here given in colors, are in the
British Museum, with the pedigree certified to by the heralds" [Genealogical
History of the Descendants of Joseph Peck, by Ira B. Peck, Mudge, Boston,
1868].

Subsequent to its publication, the actual pedigree, with arms, as it appears
in the BML, has been published in the 1936 NEHGSR: it shows Ira B. Peck
to be correct as to his description above. His publication of the pedigree
without arms in his book was a transcription but accurate as to names
and places with the BML original, except as he accurately noted for the
addition of the gateway ancestors, Joseph and his brother the Rev. Robert.

In 1870, in response to queries about the pedigree and arms, Ira B. Peck
wrote: "It is in the library of the British Museum, and can be found in the
*Additional Manuscripts, No. 5524*...and was evidently prepared at much
expense for Nicholas Peck, the elder brother of Robert and Joseph, who
possessed, after his mother's decease, the most of his father's and uncle's
estates...I have been in correspondence for about 20 years, my correspondence
with...persons in England upon these subjects having commenced in 1850
or '51, and continued with intervals to the present time...with much information
upon these subjects, such as heralds' visitations, pedigrees of the different
branches of the name, coats of arms, crests, copies of wills, extracts from
parish registers, probate records, etc., which, instead of giving in this history,
I have preserved for another work...These arms, of which I have fac-similies,
I could not find room for in my history, but design the drawing for a work which
I hope to publish in relation to my branch of the name in England..." [ "Notes
and Queries," NEHGSR, April 1870, page 188 ].

Be it known: Ira. B Peck preserved for posterity all his materials for another work
on the English ancestors of the American Peck lineage, and:

Be it known: the BML Peck Pedigree Ira. B. Peck refers to contains at every generation
the *Arms* as drawn by the heralds in 1620, and:

Be it known, the papers of Ira B. Peck, member of NEHGS, are housed in Boston
and being studied as we write by researchers interested in the royal ancestry
of the Peck lineage through the Middletons and Plumptons back to Charlemagne.

*Robert Peck, the Elder* son of John Peck, of Wakefield.
No longer is Robert Peck, the Elder known as Robert Peck, of Beccles.
In PRFs at LDS and family trees elsewhere, including ROOTSWEB, the
challenge to Robert Peck, the Elder being one of 9 sons of John Peck,
of Wakefield, is that he would have been the ONLY son born in Beccles.
Obviously: it is a *FRAUD* to make the statement of fact that Robert
Peck, the Elder, was of Beccles, when Medieval English documents
clearly place him elsewhere than Beccles prior to the chancery court
case involving him and a child of John Leeke. Scholars are cautioned
to ignore red herrings such as this violation of *IDENTITY FACTS* about
Robert Peck, the Elder, testator/will 20 Nov 1556, Beccles, Suffolk,
England. In plain English for those who have extreme difficulties
reading the language, Robert Peck, the Elder, died in Beccles,
Suffolk, but was born elsewhere. Period. So all readers can get it
straight and correct, the true and certain IDENTITY FACT is that
Robert Peck, the Elder, was NOT born in Beccles. Any posts to the
contrary show an agenda bias of the im-poster to gen-medieval.

Originally I, Bill Arnold, came to gen-medieval to establish
the Peck Pedigree prior to gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant
to USA, 1638. Today there are hundreds of thousands of living
descendants of him in America. His grandfather was Robert Peck,
the Elder, testator/will 20 Nov 1556, Beccles, Suffolk, England.
Today there are hundreds of thousands of living descendants
of Robert Peck, the Elder, in England and America, and elsewhere
in the world. With the help a few on gen-medieval, I have been
able to establish a few IDENTITIES OF FACT about Robert Peck,
the Elder.
(1) Robert Peck, the Elder, was not according to lore born in
Beccles but arrived there, date known [see gen-medieval archives,
Oct 2007].
(2) Robert Peck, the Elder, was stipulated in the BML Peck Pedigree,
drafted in 1620 by College of Heralds, provenance to BML 17thC,
to have been the son of John Peck of Wakefield, who had 9 sons
and 9 dau's [see gen-medieval archives, Oct 2007].
(3) Robert Peck, the Elder, links to the Middleton line back to
Charlemagne [see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].
____________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
____________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
____________
Robert Peck, the Elder=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters...siblings
mar. Leyke/Leake/Leeke
____________
(4) Robert Peck, the Elder, named in will of John Peck of Wakefield,
as granted land and as associated with Norton, re: that land [see
gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].
(5) Robert Peck, the Elder, was the "neve" of John Leeke of Beccles,
nephew of John Leeke and brother-in-law of Leeke children,
testator of will 6 Sep 1529 [see gen-medieval, oct-Nov, 2007].
(6) Robert Peck, the Elder, testator of will in Beccles, 20 Nov 1556
[see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].

BA: Peck descendants, and others, with other interests in the matter,
would appreciate any further IDENTITY facts posted to gen-medieval
archives, particularly as they relate to the disputed area of the lineage
noted above in this post, already established as FACT by the noted
sources in gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007. Please post any
new FACTS about the IDENTITY of Robert Peck, the Elder, to
gen-medieval under the subject heading:

*Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT*!

BA: Peck descendants, who have emailed me offlist, have expressed
appreciation for this Peck Pedigree thread on gen-medieval, and on
their behalf and my own, I thank the gentlemen/women and scholars
who have contributed to resolution of the proposed segment which
had been in contention since the 1930s, and no longer is, establishing
the Pecks to have descended from Charlemagne [see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].

BA: Peck descendants welcome anyone so interested to post this
Peck family tree with CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT at LDS, Rootsweb,
and anywhere else with citations as noted to gen-medieval archives,
Oct-Nov, 2007.

Thank you once again, one and all,
I remain your humble servant and scholar,

Bill

*****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 nov 2007 18:35:03

On Nov 22, 6:48 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

ADDENDUM 4: PEDIGREE OF PECK WITH ACCOMPANYING ARMS, re: PAPERS
OF IRA B. PECK, AUTHOR OF GENEALOGY OF PECKS, 1868:
Ira. B. Peck, author, is a descendant in a long line of Pecks. He is principally
responsible for the dissemination of the Arms and Pedigree. His gateway
ancestor, Joseph Peck, emigrant to America, 1638, was the grandson
of Robert Peck, the Elder, son of John Peck of Wakefield:

Not proven.


Subsequent to its publication, the actual pedigree, with arms, as it appears
in the BML, has been published in the 1936 NEHGSR: it shows Ira B. Peck

NEHGR - there is no word that begins with an S anywhere in the title,
and you have been told this enough times that if you had any research
integrity at all you would at least have looked yourself to confirm
it.

In 1870, in response to queries about the pedigree and arms, Ira B. Peck
wrote: "It is in the library of the British Museum, and can be found in the
*Additional Manuscripts, No. 5524*...and was evidently prepared at much
expense for Nicholas Peck, the elder brother of Robert and Joseph, who

See that word "evidently" there? People don't use it when they know
the facts, they use it when they are speculating. This is you basis
for your "FACT" of the provenance? How utterly foolish.


Be it known, the papers of Ira B. Peck, member of NEHGS, are housed in Boston
and being studied as we write by researchers interested in the royal ancestry
of the Peck lineage through the Middletons and Plumptons back to Charlemagne.

And when these mystery researchers actually have something worthwhile
to share, they are free to do so. Until then, they are irrelevant to a
discussion of "true and certain" (gag) facts.


*Robert Peck, the Elder* son of John Peck, of Wakefield.
No longer is Robert Peck, the Elder known as Robert Peck, of Beccles.
In PRFs at LDS and family trees elsewhere, including ROOTSWEB, the
challenge to Robert Peck, the Elder being one of 9 sons of John Peck,
of Wakefield, is that he would have been the ONLY son born in Beccles.

This is sleight of hand. There are better reasons for doubting it,
but you pick the weakest one and dismiss it, then pretend this makes
them all disappear.


Obviously: it is a *FRAUD* to make the statement of fact that Robert
Peck, the Elder, was of Beccles,

No, it is not obvious fraud, because he was "of Beccles", both at the
time of the chancery proceeding and at the time of his will. Far from
fraud, it is accurate to indicate that for a good part of his adult
life that is where he was from. (It is also the _only_ place that he
is known to have lived.)


when Medieval English documents
clearly place him elsewhere than Beccles prior to the chancery court
case involving him and a child of John Leeke. Scholars are cautioned
to ignore red herrings

Which can be hard when Mr. Arnold throws so many out.


such as this violation of *IDENTITY FACTS* about
Robert Peck, the Elder, testator/will 20 Nov 1556, Beccles, Suffolk,

Apparently "identity fact" here is being used as an equivalent term to
"strawman", as that is all this ridiculous "he couldn't have been of
Beccles if he wasn't born there" silliness.


England. In plain English for those who have extreme difficulties
reading the language, Robert Peck, the Elder, died in Beccles,
Suffolk, but was born elsewhere. Period.

And in plain English for those who are dense as a post, someone who is
living in Beccles is "of Beccles". The phrase "of Beccles" makes no
claim as to his place of birth. Period.


So all readers can get it
straight and correct, the true and certain IDENTITY FACT is that

"true and certain" and "identity fact" all in the same run. Invent a
few more of these meaningless buzz-phrases and you will have achieved
your apparent goal of making your prose completely incomprehensible,
thereby fully disguising its vapid nature.


Robert Peck, the Elder, was NOT born in Beccles. Any posts to the
contrary show an agenda bias of the im-poster to gen-medieval.

"So all readers can get it straight and correct", the "true and
certain" FACT is that NO ONE but Bill has been arguing that he was
born in Beccles. Bill is just setting this up to be knocked down and
then implying that this has put others in their place. By destroying
this strawman, he is defeating the "agenda bias" of the mythical
poster to GEN-MEDIEVAL. The implication is that he has defeated those
arguing with him, but all he is doing is playing with himself in
public.


Originally I, Bill Arnold, came to gen-medieval to establish
the Peck Pedigree prior to gateway ancestor Joseph Peck, emigrant
to USA, 1638.

Originally he came here to have his pedigree glorified, and since no
one else will join him in this, he is left with having to gratify
himself.


Today there are hundreds of thousands of living
descendants of him in America. His grandfather was Robert Peck,
the Elder, testator/will 20 Nov 1556, Beccles, Suffolk, England.

On other words, Robert Peck _of_ Beccles.

Today there are hundreds of thousands of living descendants
of Robert Peck, the Elder, in England and America, and elsewhere
in the world.

Well, at least there are as many descendants of the grandfather as
there are of the grandson, as it should be. What is your point?


With the help a few on gen-medieval, I have been
able to establish a few IDENTITIES OF FACT about Robert Peck,

Tell me, how do "IDENTITIES OF FACT" compare to "IDENTITY FACTS",
given that neither seems to correspond with what most of us simply
call "facts"?

the Elder.
(1) Robert Peck, the Elder, was not according to lore born in
Beccles but arrived there, date known [see gen-medieval archives,
Oct 2007].
(2) Robert Peck, the Elder, was stipulated in the BML Peck Pedigree,

That pesky courtroom jargon again, making one think it was true.

drafted in 1620 by College of Heralds,

Not proven.

provenance to BML 17thC,

Clearly false. Reread Nat's post - it is right there in the
archives. It indicates the period when this collection was acquired
by the British Library, and that was not in the 17th century.

to have been the son of John Peck of Wakefield, who had 9 sons
and 9 dau's [see gen-medieval archives, Oct 2007].

Oh, well if he had 9 sons and 9 daughters, that changes things . . . ?

(3) Robert Peck, the Elder, links to the Middleton line back to
Charlemagne [see gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].

far from "established".


BA: Peck descendants, and others, with other interests in the matter,
would appreciate any further IDENTITY facts posted to gen-medieval
archives, particularly as they relate to the disputed area of the lineage
noted above in this post, already established as FACT by the noted
sources in gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007.

What rubbish. It has never been established as such - it has just
been claimed as such by someone who seems to think the sole criterion
for being a fact is him shouting out "IDENTITY FACT". (The actual
rules are more complex - whenever a statement of fact agrees with his
predisposition, it is adopted as FACT and the burden is on others to
disprove it, whenever it disagrees, it is merely an "assertion of
fact", and the burden is on others to prove it. Thus a fact is
anything he wants to be a fact and nothing he doesn't, and all burden
of proof falls on others.)


BA: Peck descendants, who have emailed me offlist, have expressed
appreciation for this Peck Pedigree thread on gen-medieval,

Do you have any idea how trite this is?


To the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean":

The Lurkers support me in e-mail
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand me
But soon you will reap what you sow.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

The lurkers support me in e-mail
"So why don't they post?" you all cry
They're scared of your hostile intentions
They just can't be as brave as I.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

One day I'll round up all my lurkers
We'll have a newsgroup of our own
Without all this flak from you morons
My lurkers will post round my throne.

Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

(Author is Jo Walton....)


and on
their behalf and my own, I thank the gentlemen/women and scholars
who have contributed to resolution of the proposed segment which
had been in contention since the 1930s, and no longer is,

More delusional behavior. This thread has been contending the subject
for 110 posts, and you claim the matter is no longer in contention?


establishing
the Pecks to have descended from Charlemagne [see gen-medieval
archives, Oct-Nov, 2007].

And to prove it you cite a collection of a couple of thousand posts,
knowing both that the claimed proof you not to be found there, but
that no one will read all the posts to find out you are deceiving
them.

taf

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 nov 2007 22:00:03

In one of life's little ironies, I spent the morning filling out an AT
behind a newly-discovered 18th century ancestor in Saybrook Ct. As I
follow the family back, through Denison and Mason, who do I come to,
but Robert bloody Peck of Beccles.

On Nov 22, 6:48 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
BA:Peckdescendants welcome anyone so interested

I guess that would be me you are welcoming to participate.

taf

John Brandon

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av John Brandon » 24 nov 2007 22:18:02

In one of life's little ironies, I spent the morning filling out an AT
behind a newly-discovered 18th century ancestor in Saybrook Ct. As I
follow the family back, through Denison and Mason, who do I come to,
but Robert bloody Peck of Beccles.

Okay, Todd, we expect to see a definitive article refuting BA's
foolishness ...

Actually, the Masons are quite nice (don't know why they hooked up
with those trashy Pecks). ... John Mason is in the new ODNB.

Renia

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 00:56:22

taf@clearwire.net wrote:

In one of life's little ironies, I spent the morning filling out an AT
behind a newly-discovered 18th century ancestor in Saybrook Ct. As I
follow the family back, through Denison and Mason, who do I come to,
but Robert bloody Peck of Beccles.

On Nov 22, 6:48 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA:Peckdescendants welcome anyone so interested


I guess that would be me you are welcoming to participate.

It is to titter. One never knows who one's relatives are, eh?

(What's an AT? Ancestral table?)

John Brandon

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av John Brandon » 25 nov 2007 01:15:04

(What's an AT? Ancestral table?)

Nah, just a worthless list (of the sort *I* supposedly create). Don't
worry your little head about it.

Renia

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 01:15:18

John Brandon wrote:

(What's an AT? Ancestral table?)


Nah, just a worthless list (of the sort *I* supposedly create). Don't
worry your little head about it.

Ahnentafel

I was too busy snorting at dear Taf discovering he's a Peck to realise
that one. And after all we've been through together . . .

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2007 01:30:03

On Nov 24, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

(What's an AT? Ancestral table?)

Ahnentafel - a poorly-used loan word from German, in that in English
it is used to refer to what the Germans call an Ahnenliste, while the
German Ahnentafel is what we call a pedigree. The Ahnentafel (English
usage) is a numbered list of ancestry, starting with some individual
of interest and listing their ancestry, identified by number such that
for any person numbered 'n', their father will be numbered '2n' and
mother '2n+1'.

An AT for Edward I of England would run:

1. Edward I
2. Henry III
3. Eleanor of Provence
4. John
5. Isabel of Aquitaine
6. Raymond Berenger IV of Provence
.. . .

taf

Renia

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Renia » 25 nov 2007 01:46:49

taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 24, 3:56 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


(What's an AT? Ancestral table?)


Ahnentafel - a poorly-used loan word from German, in that in English
it is used to refer to what the Germans call an Ahnenliste, while the
German Ahnentafel is what we call a pedigree. The Ahnentafel (English
usage) is a numbered list of ancestry, starting with some individual
of interest and listing their ancestry, identified by number such that
for any person numbered 'n', their father will be numbered '2n' and
mother '2n+1'.

An AT for Edward I of England would run:

1. Edward I
2. Henry III
3. Eleanor of Provence
4. John
5. Isabel of Aquitaine
6. Raymond Berenger IV of Provence
.. . .

taf

Thanks. Wasn't quick enough off the mark. Don't use them myself, so not
in forefront of my mind.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree Non-Resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT Not Pr

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 nov 2007 04:26:01

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:ef94f656-83f5-403a-bd2b-6ec40664d704@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

In one of life's little ironies, I spent the morning filling out an AT
behind a newly-discovered 18th century ancestor in Saybrook Ct. As I
follow the family back, through Denison and Mason, who [sic] do I come to,
but Robert bloody Peck of Beccles.

On Nov 22, 6:48 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA:Peckdescendants welcome anyone so interested

I guess that would be me you are welcoming to participate.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»