Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
The Highlander

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av The Highlander » 10 feb 2007 12:20:12

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:40:46 -0000, "Ian Smith"
<ianinhoose@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote:

In post heens2htkji5197nnvd0i4sd9ku3ve4vc7@4ax.com,
"The Highlander" (micheil@shaw.ca) shared this wisdom:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:52:50 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

NO.

1. They are NOT the same post.

Ergo:

2. The MAJORITY do not.

DO Read More Closely...

Thereby:

Eschew Egregious Pratfall.

DSH

Reading even one of your posts takes one to new depths of sheer
boredom and reinforces one's lack of any expectation of credibility.

To suggest that we read your secondary posts in the hope of spotting a
new niblet of information defies all commonsense, apart from those
whose taste for masochism has run amuck.

It's not as though your name is linked with academic or intellectual
achievement. The overriding impression is more one of self-promotion
and uncontrollable ego; let alone the insane clichés sprinkled like
cats marking territory at the arse-end of every post you have ever
excreted here. The overriding impression is one of monstrous dung
deposits from the rotting bowels of a decaying dinosaur.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

Lol! Particularly liked that last line.

The truth bites, doesn't it?


Interesting to note that despite (or perhaps because of?) a Yale
education, the Dancing Queen of Hyperbole has no answer?

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

Holy Pasha

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Holy Pasha » 10 feb 2007 12:37:07

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?
of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?



mid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Plantagenet." This matter comes up regularly in a number of pogueish
newsgroups.

We usually hit it a glancing blow, questions are asked -- some tentative,
partial, answers are given. Some stock quotations from the _Complete
Peerage_ are trotted out. Misimpressions are created and locked in and we
move on. Typical newsgroup behaviour. Similar to a singles bar, with hard
rock drowning out any serious conversations -- as the body exchange rolls
on. Vide the Saga of Hippo-Troll and "La Nilita" -- far more interesting
than the passion of _Tristan And Isolde.

Gentle Readers and Serious Scholars deserve a more complete explanation.

So, in the spirit of Henry V [1387-1422] at Harfleur, "Once more unto the
breach, dear friends, once more; Or close up the wall with our English
dead!" [Henry V, III, i, 1-2.] I humbly provide the following explanation
of the History of 'Plantagenet' as a sobriquet transformed into a surrogate
surname. [N.B. Henry V is the 7th great-grandson of Geoffroi V 'le Bel',
comte d'Anjou et Maine.]

Geoffrey V 'The Fair' [1113-1151] Count of Anjou and Maine was Duke of
Normandy 1144-1150. Plantagenet, used as a surname, is commonly applied to
members of the Royal House of England between 1154 and 1485. Members of
that house were descended from the union between Geoffrey, Count of Anjou
and Maine, and The Empress Matilda, [1102-1167] daughter of the English
King, Henry I 'Beauclerc' [1068-1135] ---- he who supposedly died from a
"surfeit of lampreys" ---- and his first wife, Matilda of Scotland.

Although the practice is well-established, it has little historical
justification. The name Plantagenet seems to have originated as a sobriquet
or nickname for Count Geoffrey. It has variously been explained as
referring to his practice of wearing a sprig or branch of yellow broom
(Latin: [planta] genista; Old French: plante genêt) in his helm, or more
probably to his habit of planting brooms to improve his hunting cover.

[N.B. Birds will nest under the small broom bushes or shrubs and hunters may
hide behind them.] Both explanations may well be true ---- as they are by
no means mutually exclusive.

"Plantagenet" was not, by any means, a hereditary surname and Geoffrey's
progeny remained without one for more than 300 years, although surnames
became common outside the Royal Family.

Henry II 'Curtmantle' FitzEmpress [1133-1189] [son of Geoffrey and Matilda
The Empress] and his own sons, Richard I and John I, are now generally
styled by historians as the Angevin (from Anjou) kings. For want of a
better name, their successors, notably Henry III, Edward I, Edward II,
Edward III, and Richard II are still described as Plantagenets.

Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI may properly be called the House of
Lancaster; while Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III constitute the monarchs
of the House of York. Edward V, of course, is a quite special case who
hardly "reigned" as king and reportedly died in the Tower of London at 12,
one of the two 'Princes in the Tower.'

The first official use of the surname Plantagenet by any descendant of Count
Geoffrey was in 1460, when Richard, 3rd Duke of York [1411-1460], claimed
the throne in the name of "Richard Plantaginet." [N.B. Yes, there was no
standard spelling of English in 1460.]

Richard, 3rd Duke of York, was Protector of England, Earl of March and
Ulster, and Earl of Cambridge. His attempts to gain power for his House of
York, coupled with many other personal, dynastic and historical factors,
precipitated the Wars of the Roses (1455-1485). The House of York was later
identified with the White Rose and the House of Lancaster with the Red Rose.
As noted above, Richard, 3rd Duke of York, was the first to adopt the
surname of Plantagenet.

The legitimate male issue, in the agnatic line, of Count Geoffrey
'Plantagenet' and Matilda The Empress became extinct with the death, in
1499, of Edward, [1475-1499] 18th Earl of Warwick, grandson of Richard, 3rd
Duke of York.

He was the son of George [1449-1478], Duke of Clarence, who allegedly met
his end in the Tower of London as did his son, but George was supposedly
drowned in the famous butt of Malmsey. The Madeira Wine, "Duke of Clarence"
is named after this event. It is quite palatable, with good body and a bit
of a nose.

Henry VII resented Edward, 18th Earl of Warwick's proximity to the throne
and he was executed at the Tower of London on 28 Nov 1499. Edward was
imprisoned for many years and not allowed to have a tutor, according to some
accounts. Therefore, Henry VII allegedly kept him ignorant and
uneducated -- by design. Clever fellow -- and Machiavellian Prince
indeed -- was that rogue Henry Tudor.

Vide the second edition of George Edward Cokayne's [1825-1911] _The Complete
Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom,
Extant, Extinct or Dormant_; Microprint Edition (half-size in 6 volumes,
condensed from 13); 26 cm; LOC CS421 .C7 1982; Dewey # 929.7/2 19; ISBN
(set) 0904387828; Nobility -- British Isles [First Edition: (1887-1898);
Second Edition (1910-1959). New York, Saint Martin's Press, 1984,
[Reprinted from the British (Alan Sutton Publishing, Ltd.) version] 13
volumes in 6; also, previously, Gloucester: A. Sutton, 1982 (also 13 v. in
6; 26 cm)

[The Sutton version is a reprint of the Second Edition], Volume I
(originally published in 1910), p. 183, note (c):

"It is much to be wished that the surname "Plantagenet," which, since the
time of Charles II, has been freely given to all the descendants of Geoffrey
of Anjou, had some historical basis which would justify its use, for it
forms a most convenient method of referring to the Edwardian kings and their
numerous descendants. The fact is, however, as has been pointed out by Sir
James Ramsay and other writers of our day, that the name, although a
personal emblem [N. B. Latin *planta genista* = broom --- DSH] of the
aforesaid Geoffrey, was never borne by any of his descendants before Richard
Plantagenet, Duke of York (father of Edward IV), [N.B. and also of Richard
III --- DSH] who assumed it, apparently about 1448. V.G."

"V.G." is Vicary Gibbs, one of the Editors of the Second Edition of the
Complete Peerage.

This is obviously a quite complex and multi-faceted account ---- subject to
differing interpretations and shadings. Corrections, additions and
clarifications are most welcome and should be posted to the newsgroup
soc.genealogy.medieval.

Copyright © 2000-2007 by D. Spencer Hines, All Rights Reserved

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth.... This
is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond itself.."
Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]

Illegitimis Non Carborundum.

"For by diligent perusing the actes of great men, by considering all the
circumstances of them, by composing Counseiles and Meanes with events, a man
may seem to have lived in all ages, to have been present at all enterprises,
to be more strongly confirmed in Judgement, to have attained a greater
experience than the longest life can possibly afford."

John Hayward, __The Lives of the III Norman Kings of England, William the
First, William the Second and Henry I__, London, 1612, Preface

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Fortem Posce Animum

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Pax Vobiscum

Sholem Aleichem

Matt Tompkins

Re: Bulkley Ancestors in Normandy 1050-1150

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 10 feb 2007 14:55:56

On Feb 9, 9:11 pm, "taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Feb 9, 12:29 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
The suffix "legh/ley" is so widespread and so demonstrably Anglo-Saxon -
meaning "field" - as to scarcely warrant discussion. The presence of a
bull on the family's coat of arms notwithstanding, a gut response to
this discussion would be to posit a quite prosaic origin for the name:
"the field in which bulls reside", for instance.

This is, in fact, the general consensus for the origin of the name of
Bulkeley - Bullock field.


It's slightly more complicated than that. Leah originally meant a
clearing in woodland (any sort of clearing - not necessarily a field
in the agricultural sense). However in areas where the landscape was
predominantly open leah developed a different and opposite meaning -
here it described an isolated piece of woodland in open country. Both
meanings were in use during the period when Anglo-Saxon place-names
were being formed (it is thought that most -leah names were formed
between c750 and c950 AD), so to determine which sense was being used
in any given place-name it is necessary to try and determine how open
the landscape was in that place during the relevant period - not
always easy! As a broad generalisation areas with many -leah names
may have been woodland while those with just a few isolated -leah
names may have been open country.

After about the mid-10th century the word changed its meaning again,
to 'pasture or meadow', so some late settlement names will incorporate
that meaning. This will also be the case with very minor place-names
- of fields rather than settlements - which tend to be Middle English
in origin.

I don't have anything to hand which would help in determining the
probable nature of the landscape around Bulkeley in the 8th-10th
centuries, but I see from maps that it is an area with many other -
leah names, so the 'clearing in woodland' meaning might be more likely
than the 'wood in open country' one. On the other hand, the specific
element 'bullock' would fit very well to a late 'pasture' derivation.

The two diametrically opposite meanings of leah in place-names were
first noted by Margaret Gelling, in a 1974 article on Warwickshire
place-names in Transactions of the Birmingham and Warwickshire
Archaeological Society. A summary of the current scholarship on leah
can be found in her most recent book 'The Landscape of Place-
names' (Stamford, 2000), at pp. 237-9.

I explained all this the last time Paul Bulkley raised his theories,
in May and June last year, in the two threads headed Boklerplaiers -
see

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... e4976daaa8

and

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 4b5563fc77

Matt Tompkins

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Bulkley Ancestors in Normandy 1050-1150

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 10 feb 2007 15:12:33

In article <1171115756.166787.261980@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote:

I explained all this the last time Paul Bulkley raised his theories,
in May and June last year, in the two threads headed Boklerplaiers ...

You have showed great patience in sharing your expertise!

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Sarah Krans

Re: Another gateway ancestor inquiry

Legg inn av Sarah Krans » 10 feb 2007 16:51:45

I apologize, I was looking at the wrong data. John Gifford and Elizabeth
Throckmorton MARRIED in 1541. He died in 1563. I have seen a date listed
on various websites (though without sources listed) for John Gifford (jr)'s
birth as 1543 in Hampshire. One of the pieces of information that is
throwing this line off is his occupation was listed as Bricklayer (NEGHR Vol
65). Unless I just don't understand Elizabethan England economics, that
occupation does not fit for a grandson of a knight nor the grandfather of a
woman who married a solicitor (William Preston of Giggleswick, Yorkshire,
married Elizabeth Sale whose mother is Elizabeth Gifford, daughter of John
Gifford).

Sarah


On 09/02/2007 23:21, "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

Could you give me some descendants of John Gifford and Elizabeth
Throckmorton? As John Gifford died aged about 18 in 1541, his son should be
born "about 1541" what do you think?
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: Another gateway ancestor inquiry


I apologize if this has been asked before, but I am currently working on
one
of my ancestral lines and have come across a sort of brick wall. I have
proven my lineage to a John Gifford (d 1605, Chesham, Bucks, England). I
have also seen reference to his parents being John Gifford (1523-1541) and
Elizabeth Throckmorton (1523-?) however have yet to find any sources
(other
than from the Mormons and that is not sufficient in my book). I have also
proven the ancestral line of Elizabeth Throckmorton to Edward III. Might
anyone on the list have any information on John Gifford (d1605)? I have
the
listing from NEGHR for the Prestons, Sales, and 2 generations of Giffords,
but not the 2002 article on the Giffords (this line is also not listed in
R600, Magna Carta, and Plantagenet).

I apologize if the request is inappropriate and I thank you.

Sarah



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


Sarah Krans

Re: Another gateway ancestor inquiry

Legg inn av Sarah Krans » 10 feb 2007 16:56:55

I haven't actually seen a full list of the children of Elizabeth
Throckmorton and John Gifford - or at least one that has sources listed.
This site
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/THROCKMORT ... OCKMORTON4
has a list of children (and would prove my line), however I have yet to hear
back from the author about sources.

Sarah


On 09/02/2007 23:59, "WJhonson@aol.com" <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:

In a message dated 2/9/07 9:17:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

On this page they are certain she had children by John Gifford but
ask whether there were children by the second and third husband.
Hope this helps?


At least one child by this couple Elizabeth Throckmorton and John Gifford
should be
Chrisogena /Giffard/
mar
Edward /Grey/ of Byldwas, Co Saloppe
b Came of age in 1568
d Aft 20 Aug 1578

Chrisogena had a son
Edward /Grey/
b 1567/1577
who married a Miss Herbert daughter of
Edward /Herbert/ of Powis Castle d 23 Mar 1594/1595 by his wife Mary
/Stanley/

and then I lose track of any further descendents. See mar settl. below

Will Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------

Shropshire Archives: Moseley Collection
Reference Code: 2089
Moseley Collection
Creation dates: c1300-1911
Creator(s): Moseley family of Buildwas, Shropshire

MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS, MORTGAGES, LEGAL PAPERS
Reference: 2089/4/1/1
Conveyance in trust
Creation dates: 20 August 1578

Scope and Content
1. Sir Edward Herberte of Hendon, co. Mydd.
2. Edward Grey of Byldwas, co. Saloppe'
Before marriage of Edward Grey son of 2. and a dter. of 1., Covenant of 2. to
convey to 1., Henry earl of Pembrok, Robert earl of Leicester, and Sir Robert
Throckmorton, by recovery before 29 September 1578 of barony and lordship of
Powys, the castle of Poole, the boroughs of Poole and llanvyllinge
[Llanfyllin], manors of Powys, Poole, Teirtre, llanerghe hudull
[Llannerch-hudol],
Stratemarcell; Kerenyon, Meghen vchcoyd, Meghen Iscoyd, llanvillinge,
Moghnante,
Ruerthe [Rhiwarth]. and Garthgelynnyn, etc. in Poole, Buttington, Gylsfield,
llanvrvyll [Llanerfyl], llangadvan, Garthbebyo, Llanvair, Llangunio, Castell'
Cayrynion, Llanvihangell', llanvillinge, llanveghen, llansanfraid, Llanwothyn
[Llanwddyn], Pennant, Hyrnante, llangynocke', llanyerhayder [Llanrhaeadr],
Myvod,
etc., co. Mont.; and to levy a fine before 2 Feb. 1578/9 of same.
Covenant of 2. to levy a fine before Easter 1579 to same of manors of
Ponsbury and Charlton, co. Salop; Andever, co. Southampton; Dyppinge, co.
Lincoln;
and Droytewiche, co. Worc., wherein Dame Jane, late wife of Lorde Powys,
dec'd.,
has a freehold for life.
Detailed declarations of uses and provisoes, including covenant of 2. to
convey property late of abbey of Byldwas (excepting a rent of £13 6s 8d from
Harnedge Grange) to same trustees to hold to use of Edward Grey son and dter.
of 1.
Provision for younger sons and dters.
Attached list of current leases of property at castle of Poole [Powis
Castle]. Kereynion [Caereinion], Teirtre, Llanvillinge and llannerchudoll.

Brad Verity

Re: Pickering of Killington/Lascelles of Escrick

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 10 feb 2007 18:28:59

On Feb 9, 10:37 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

I believe it was the son who Margaret married.
That is she married James who died in 1497 and then she died a few years later

Dear Will,

I don't think that's correct. The problem is three James Pickerings
of Killington in a row, which is always confusing.

Sir James Pickering I of Killington (born 29 Aug. 1413), son and heir
of John and Ellen Pickering, would be the one who married 1) Mary
Lowther, and (apparently) married 2) Margaret Norwood. He also is
likely the one who was the M.P., sheriff of Yorkshire 1449-50, and the
one killed at the battle of Wakefield 30 Dec. 1460.

James Pickering II of Killington, son and heir of the above by 1st
wife, we don't have dates on, but he would be the one who married
Margaret Lascelles of Escrick (d. 17 Nov. 1499).

James Pickering III of Killington, was the son and heir of above, and
as he was the father of Sir Christopher Pickering (born about 1485),
would be the one born 15 Mar. 1454. He married Anne Moresby, daughter
and heiress of Christopher Moresby (d. 25 July 1499).

It must be James Pickering III who died 23 May 1497, not his father
James Pickering II. The reason is there is a Proof of Age for James
III, which means he was an heir to lands when he came of age. As we
know his mother Margaret Lascelles did not die until 1499, it couldn't
have been her lands he inherited as a minor, so it had to have been
the paternal Pickering inheritance. James Pickering II, then, had to
have died before 1476/77, when the Proof of Age for James III was
taken.

There don't seem to be IPMs for James Pickering I or James Pickering
II. Either they haven't survived, or were never taken. Perhaps the
family was under attainder in the 1460s. But it may be able to deduce
when James Pickering II died by examing the Fine and Close Rolls.
I'll take a look in them on my next library visit.

Cheers, -------Brad

John Higgins

Re: Milbanke descents from Edward III

Legg inn av John Higgins » 10 feb 2007 18:39:58

Leo below caught a copying error in one of the Milbanke lines I posted.
Line D is missing a generation between D3 and D4. The sequence should be:

D3. Elizabeth de Ferrers; m. Sir John Greystoke, 4th Lord Greystoke
D4. Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Lord Greystoke; m. (1) Elizabeth [or Isabel]
FitzHugh
D5. [not D4] Marjery Greystoke; m. Sir Thomas Grey of Chillingham
[and subsequent generations renumbered accordingly]

Thanks for catching this, Leo....apologies to all for any confusion caused.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: Milbanke descents from Edward III


Dear John,

Your e-mail created several links for me, many thanks for that. Now a
question, see below :
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:32 PM
Subject: Milbanke descents from Edward III



A few weeks ago Brad Verity posted information regarding Adm. Mark
Milbanke, Governor of Newfoundland 1789-92, and showed a number of
descents from Edward III for him. All the descents that Brad listed
were
through the Admiral's paternal line (and specifically his paternal
great-grandmother Elizabeth Acclam, wife of Sir Mark, 1st Baronet).

I noted at the time that the Admiral also had quite a number of descents
from Edward III through his mother Anne Delaval. I've collected his
mother's Edward III descents (at least the ones I'm aware of) and have
listed them below. For the sake of brevity, I've eliminated dates
generally - most of these folks are well-known and appear in most
compilations of royal descents. If anyone notes any errors or omissions
in this, I'd be pleased to hear of them.

snip
D2. Joan Beaufort; m. (1) Sir Robert de Ferrers, 2nd Lord Ferrers of
Wemme
[also parents of G3]
D3. Elizabeth de Ferrers; m. Sir John Greystoke, 4th Lord Greystoke
[also parents of E4]

I have Marjery as a daughter of the 5th Lord Greystoke, making her a
granddaughter of Elizabeth de Ferrers, and so the line still stands. Let
me
know what you think.
Leo

D4. Marjery Greystoke; m. Sir Thomas Grey of Chillingham
D5. Anne Grey; m. (1) John Delaval of Seaton-Delaval (d. 4.II.1498)
D6. Sir John Delaval of Seaton-Delaval (16.IV.1493-14.XII.1562); m.
Mary
Cary [C6]
D7. Sir John Delaval of Seaton-Delaval (1512-3.I.1572); m. Anne Ogle
[H8]
D8. Sir Robert Delaval of Seaton-Delaval (1542-1.I.1607); m. Dorothy
Grey of Chillingham [E10]
D9. Sir John Delaval of Dissington (d. 12.VIII.1652); m. (2) Elizabeth
Selby
D10. George Delaval of Dissington (bur. 18.III.1694/5); m. Margaret
Grey
of Bitchfield [F12]
D11. Edward Delaval of South Dissington (bap 28.X.1664-3.VIII.1744);
m.
Mary Blake of Ford Castle
D12. Anne Delaval (bap. 8.IX.1702-21.III.1765); m. (his 2nd) Sir Ralph
Milbanke, 4th Baronet


kevinmccabe@yahoo.com

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av kevinmccabe@yahoo.com » 10 feb 2007 19:02:41

On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha" <Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:
why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 feb 2007 19:13:27

Check her first marriage.

DSH
----------------------------------------------

"Holy Pasha" <Moonyonjet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171107427.117970.187480@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?
of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
-----------------------------------------

"Plantagenet." This matter comes up regularly in a number of pogueish
newsgroups.

We usually hit it a glancing blow, questions are asked -- some tentative,
partial, answers are given. Some stock quotations from the _Complete
Peerage_ are trotted out. Misimpressions are created and locked in and we
move on. Typical newsgroup behaviour. Similar to a singles bar, with hard
rock drowning out any serious conversations -- as the body exchange rolls
on. Vide the Saga of Hippo-Troll and "La Nilita" -- far more interesting
than the passion of _Tristan And Isolde.

Gentle Readers and Serious Scholars deserve a more complete explanation.

So, in the spirit of Henry V [1387-1422] at Harfleur, "Once more unto the
breach, dear friends, once more; Or close up the wall with our English
dead!" [Henry V, III, i, 1-2.] I humbly provide the following explanation
of the History of 'Plantagenet' as a sobriquet transformed into a surrogate
surname. [N.B. Henry V is the 7th great-grandson of Geoffroi V 'le Bel',
comte d'Anjou et Maine.]

Geoffrey V 'The Fair' [1113-1151] Count of Anjou and Maine was Duke of
Normandy 1144-1150. Plantagenet, used as a surname, is commonly applied to
members of the Royal House of England between 1154 and 1485. Members of
that house were descended from the union between Geoffrey, Count of Anjou
and Maine, and The Empress Matilda, [1102-1167] daughter of the English
King, Henry I 'Beauclerc' [1068-1135] ---- he who supposedly died from a
"surfeit of lampreys" ---- and his first wife, Matilda of Scotland.

Although the practice is well-established, it has little historical
justification. The name Plantagenet seems to have originated as a sobriquet
or nickname for Count Geoffrey. It has variously been explained as
referring to his practice of wearing a sprig or branch of yellow broom
(Latin: [planta] genista; Old French: plante genêt) in his helm, or more
probably to his habit of planting brooms to improve his hunting cover.

[N.B. Birds will nest under the small broom bushes or shrubs and hunters may
hide behind them.] Both explanations may well be true ---- as they are by
no means mutually exclusive.

"Plantagenet" was not, by any means, a hereditary surname and Geoffrey's
progeny remained without one for more than 300 years, although surnames
became common outside the Royal Family.

Henry II 'Curtmantle' FitzEmpress [1133-1189] [son of Geoffrey and Matilda
The Empress] and his own sons, Richard I and John I, are now generally
styled by historians as the Angevin (from Anjou) kings. For want of a
better name, their successors, notably Henry III, Edward I, Edward II,
Edward III, and Richard II are still described as Plantagenets.

Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI may properly be called the House of
Lancaster; while Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III constitute the monarchs
of the House of York. Edward V, of course, is a quite special case who
hardly "reigned" as king and reportedly died in the Tower of London at 12,
one of the two 'Princes in the Tower.'

The first official use of the surname Plantagenet by any descendant of Count
Geoffrey was in 1460, when Richard, 3rd Duke of York [1411-1460], claimed
the throne in the name of "Richard Plantaginet." [N.B. Yes, there was no
standard spelling of English in 1460.]

Richard, 3rd Duke of York, was Protector of England, Earl of March and
Ulster, and Earl of Cambridge. His attempts to gain power for his House of
York, coupled with many other personal, dynastic and historical factors,
precipitated the Wars of the Roses (1455-1485). The House of York was later
identified with the White Rose and the House of Lancaster with the Red Rose.
As noted above, Richard, 3rd Duke of York, was the first to adopt the
surname of Plantagenet.

The legitimate male issue, in the agnatic line, of Count Geoffrey
'Plantagenet' and Matilda The Empress became extinct with the death, in
1499, of Edward, [1475-1499] 18th Earl of Warwick, grandson of Richard, 3rd
Duke of York.

He was the son of George [1449-1478], Duke of Clarence, who allegedly met
his end in the Tower of London as did his son, but George was supposedly
drowned in the famous butt of Malmsey. The Madeira Wine, "Duke of Clarence"
is named after this event. It is quite palatable, with good body and a bit
of a nose.

Henry VII resented Edward, 18th Earl of Warwick's proximity to the throne
and he was executed at the Tower of London on 28 Nov 1499. Edward was
imprisoned for many years and not allowed to have a tutor, according to some
accounts. Therefore, Henry VII allegedly kept him ignorant and
uneducated -- by design. Clever fellow -- and Machiavellian Prince
indeed -- was that rogue Henry Tudor.

Vide the second edition of George Edward Cokayne's [1825-1911] _The Complete
Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom,
Extant, Extinct or Dormant_; Microprint Edition (half-size in 6 volumes,
condensed from 13); 26 cm; LOC CS421 .C7 1982; Dewey # 929.7/2 19; ISBN
(set) 0904387828; Nobility -- British Isles [First Edition: (1887-1898);
Second Edition (1910-1959). New York, Saint Martin's Press, 1984,
[Reprinted from the British (Alan Sutton Publishing, Ltd.) version] 13
volumes in 6; also, previously, Gloucester: A. Sutton, 1982 (also 13 v. in
6; 26 cm)

[The Sutton version is a reprint of the Second Edition], Volume I
(originally published in 1910), p. 183, note (c):

"It is much to be wished that the surname "Plantagenet," which, since the
time of Charles II, has been freely given to all the descendants of Geoffrey
of Anjou, had some historical basis which would justify its use, for it
forms a most convenient method of referring to the Edwardian kings and their
numerous descendants. The fact is, however, as has been pointed out by Sir
James Ramsay and other writers of our day, that the name, although a
personal emblem [N. B. Latin *planta genista* = broom --- DSH] of the
aforesaid Geoffrey, was never borne by any of his descendants before Richard
Plantagenet, Duke of York (father of Edward IV), [N.B. and also of Richard
III --- DSH] who assumed it, apparently about 1448. V.G."

"V.G." is Vicary Gibbs, one of the Editors of the Second Edition of the
Complete Peerage.

This is obviously a quite complex and multi-faceted account ---- subject to
differing interpretations and shadings. Corrections, additions and
clarifications are most welcome and should be posted to the newsgroup
soc.genealogy.medieval.

Copyright © 2000-2007 by D. Spencer Hines, All Rights Reserved

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth.... This
is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond itself."
Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]

Illegitimis Non Carborundum.

"For by diligent perusing the actes of great men, by considering all the
circumstances of them, by composing Counseiles and Meanes with events, a man
may seem to have lived in all ages, to have been present at all enterprises,
to be more strongly confirmed in Judgement, to have attained a greater
experience than the longest life can possibly afford."

John Hayward, __The Lives of the III Norman Kings of England, William the
First, William the Second and Henry I__, London, 1612, Preface

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Fortem Posce Animum

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Pax Vobiscum

Sholem Aleichem

Tony Hoskins

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of his mo

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 10 feb 2007 19:22:19

Thanks Don, Leo, and Doug,

Interesting and much appreciated.

Additional weight it seems to me might attach to Charles Constantine,
Count of Vienne's maternal Byzantine ancestry simply by virtue of his
very name: Constantine - to my observation, a name in this period of
time and in this place never before evident.

As son of Anna of Byzantium, Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne's
uncle was the great Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII "Porfyrogenetos"
(reigned 912-959). And, the "Constantinian element" that appears in
Frankish nomenclature from that date was first observed in the Bosonids
and their descendants: Charles Constantine of Vienne's daughter
Constance of Vienne, Countess of Provence, and her granddaughter
Constance of Arles, Queen of France (d.1032).

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 10 feb 2007 20:00:26

<G>

DSH

<kevinmccabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171130561.872766.16110@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha" <Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe

Paul K Davis

RE: The place of political propaganda in our history books

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 10 feb 2007 20:39:49

History is an interpretation of past events. It must always be based
on factual accounts of the actual events, otherwise it is of little or
no value. Political propaganda be it derived from Joseph Goebbels or
John of Gaunt has no serious place in our history books.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


Actually, political propaganda does have a proper and valuable place in our
history books, provided it is properly identified as such when this is
known. This and other pieces of propaganda both reflect what people are
likely to believe, and what is likely to influence their actions. A good
study of history needs to identify those events which were influenced by
propaganda, and separate the propaganda from the facts.

Similarly in genealogy, we need to not delete erroneous and fabricated
relationships, but relegate them to our notes with an explanation that they
are based only on propaganda or fabrication.

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]

Dora Smith

Re: Medieval Help Desk

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 10 feb 2007 20:57:24

That resembles my new co-worker.

Believe me, he'd be squinting intently at that book for half a day trying to
understand the explanation.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: Medieval Help Desk


Rarely does one find on-topic medieval humor, but here is some!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRjVeRbhtRU

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message




--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 12/29/2006 8:22 AM

Paul K Davis

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 10 feb 2007 21:33:35

Then, as now, people would choose words to achieve their result. "Long"
probably meant - "not just yesterday when I realized I would need some
evidence to support my claim".

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]


[Original Message]
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: 1/18/2007 11:45:52 PM
Subject: Re: Giles de Braose

That leaves us Giles born exactly from 1262 to 1270 since William is
supposed
to marry Mary of Ros "in or before 1271"

Interesting choice of words "LONG before he married Mary he enfeoffed his
son...."

I wonder what they thought Long meant?

Will

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Nebulous

Re: The Mediaeval Help Desk

Legg inn av Nebulous » 10 feb 2007 22:02:33

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Liqzh.251$T25.505@eagle.america.net...

Awful Poet who Didn't Know it
IF INDEED there was such a thing as poetic justice, this profile would be
written in rhyming stanzas, fulsomely praising the man who, with undeniable
justification, is known as the world's worst poet. While many have tried,
few have quite caught that which makes McGonagall an original, and far be it
from us to attempt the impossible. But indulge if you will the students of
Glasgow University who, in 1891, composed an ode to their archetype:

Among the poets of the present day
There is no one on earth who can be possible for to gainsay
But that William McGonagall, poet and tragedian.
Is truely the greatest poet that was ever found above or below the
meridian.
Aficionados are not fooled. True, this pallid parody has preserved
McGonagall's banality, the tortuous rhyme and flagrant disregard for metre,
but it lacks that quintessential something, the indefinable quality that
transforms the bad into the execrable. Therein lies McGonagall's genius,
recognised not least by himself. "Dedicated to Himself, knowing none
greater," he inscribed his Autobiography.

Also dedicated to him this week is a McGonagall supper in the manner (and
even the country) of Burns, a sort of prelude to the tribute Dundee bravely
plans to pay later this year as part of its anniversary celebrations.

Self-puffery is not unheard of among poets, a profession even more afflicted
by the heebie-jeebies than golfing. But McGonagall, as ever, was in a class
of his own. With unrestrained immodesty he pronounced his first appearance
on stage in Dundee a triumph. "I received unbounded applause," he recalled.
There is in such remarks the hallmark of an innocent abroad. But William
McGonagall fooled only himself, in his heyday they came to laugh and stayed
to jeer. He was the unwilling recipient of baskets of fruit. Pelted with
rotten eggs, he spouted on, oblivious to the mirth he had perpetrated.

Such self-inflicted cruelty reduced Hugh MacDiarmid, the most fiercely
intellectual of Scottish poets, to pity rather than rage. "William
McGonagall," he said, "was not a bad poet; still less a good bad poet. He
was not a poet at all, and that he has become synonymous with bad poetry in
Scotland is only a natural consequence of Scottish insensitivity to the
qualities alike of good poetry and bad".

To MacDiarmid, McGonagall was the ultimate product of the Ploughman Poet
syndrome. Thanks to the cult anyone who could rhyme "louse" with "mouse"
thought they had the talent to become a poet. By the late 19th century the
movement was in spate and McGonagall, encouraged perhaps by mischievous
friends, went with the flow. But what marked him out from the myriad of
"working-man poets", said MacDiarmid, "was that he knew nothing of poetry...
He was quite incapable of all their stock cliches. their little flights of
fancy, any indication whatever of play of spirit, anything of their range of
subject-matter, and, above all, of any humour".

This last is a serious charge. How can it be, McGonagall sympathisers
ponder, that a man so capable of rendering others incapable with laughter
should be so insensitive to it himself! Is there not a case to be made for
McGonagall the Mocker, laughing up his sleeve in the celestial Hall of Fame?
Could it be that the last dead syllable in every stanza is deliberately
deflationary, an antidote to contemporaries such as Tennyson who had the
knack of getting it right?

In a word, no. When McGonagall was born they broke the mould. As Nicholas T
Parsons noted in The Joy of Bad Verse: "His depth of ungiftedness is
sufficient to deny even the intellectual's desire to create respectable
justifications to enjoy him." But as Parsons would be the first to admit, no
one can ignore him. From Chambers Biographical Dictionary ("His poems are
uniformly bad, but possess a disarming naivety and a calypsolike disregard
for metre which still never fail to entertain") to The Oxford Companion to
English Literature ("His ... unscanned doggerel continues to entertain."),
he is the one Scot certain to be included when the day of reckoning beckons.
"Few people," Parsons remarked, "have acquired a niche in history by
producing what nobody applauded."

McGonagall put his fame down to two events; his visit to Balmoral to pay
homage to Queen Victoria, and his Tay Bridge poem. He was a devotee of the
Queen and wrote several verses, his quest for rhyme prompting him frequently
to pay a back-handed compliment:

"Oh! it was a most gorgeous sight to be seen,
Numerous foreign magnates were there for to see the Queen;
And to the vast multitude there of women and men,
Her Majesty for two hours showed herself to them."
With this rare instance of Royal indecent exposure to hand, McGonagall went
north, to present his personal compliments. "You're not poet to Her
Majesty," said the well-read constable on duly at Balmoral. "You cannot deny
that I am: patronised by Her Majesty," declared McGonagall unconscious of
the irony. Thereafter he styled himself, "Poet to Her Majesty".

But it was the building of a bridge over the Tay that was to put a torch to
his imagination. In three poems he heralded its construction and architects,
before his muse plummeted to new depths in his immortal ode in commemoration
of its collapse. With Tam o' Shanter, The Tay Bridge Disaster is one of the
few -- very few -- Scottish poems ("sic", MacDiarmid) of which natives know
more than a line:

"Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879.
Which will be remembered for a very long time."
After that Dundee and McGonagall were synonymous, which is why some
McGonagallites looked askance when they heard that a supper was to be held
on Thursday in his honour at the Aberdour Hotel, Dumfries, in the heart of
Burns country. Fortified with soup, stovies and Dundce cake, which a
spokesman for the hotel says there is a dearth of in Galloway, those
attending will be regaled with readings from the poet's sundry works: Poetic
Gems, More Poetic Gems, Still More Poetic Gems, Yet More Poetic Gems
Sylvester Stallone eat your heart out.

Dundee's turn to honour him comes later this year when its 800th anniversary
celebrations include a play, just possibly the unveiling of a plaque, and a
proposed appearance by Billy Connolly, who empathises with the way the
"funny wee man" was treated by Dundee. "Time after time he warned Dundee
that if the city didn't treat him better he would seek his fortune
elsewhere."

IT'S a different story now. "We very much want to honour McGonagall with
several events," is the official line from Dundee 800. The question on many
people's lips is why? Why associate yourself with the worst in the world?
Why hold yourself up to ridicule? Why adopt Sir William Topaz McGonagall,
Knight of the White Elephant, so dubbed by students, when he was born in
Edinburgh?

They keep very quiet about this in the Festival City, but the facts are
indisputable. McGonagall was born in the Grassmarket, either in 1825 or
1830, in penurious circumstances. Both his parents were Irish, and it has
been suggested that scholars should look west for peculiarities of the
tragedian's gift, to the Celtic oral tradition. "My parents were poor, but
honest, sober. and God-fearing." he wrote. His father was a hand-weaver.
When the cotton-trade in Edinburgh collapsed the family decamped to Paisley,
then Glasgow, where he went to school. He came to Dundee when he was 11,
starting work in a mill where he "learned to be an expert hand-loom weaver
.... and began to take a great delight in reading books."

Shakespeare was his favourite author and when he made his stage debut he
played Macbeth, prolonging the fight scene with Macduff. While some actors
specialised in dying, McGonagall preferred to give audiences a good duel,
and he would swashbuckle interminably, roared on by the crowd.

It is typical of McGonagall that he never grasped the difference between an
audience yelling "rhubarb" and "encore"; he carried on regardless of public
reaction. His could be a hard role to bear, as he observed in his New Year's
Resolution to Leave Dundee ("Every morning when I go out/ The ignorant
rabble they do shout/ There goes Mad McGonagall") but this was a rare
display of resentment. With more stamina than those who today head straight
for the arts council when creditors chap, he made his way by selling his
poems on the street. Only once was he paid for a poem, two guineas for a
paean to Sunlight Soap:

"You can use it with great pleasure and ease
Without wasting any elbow grease:
And when washing the most dirty clothes
The sweat won't be dripping from your nose."
Such effusions seem to adhere to the page; to catch the essence of
McGonagall, he should be read aloud. As Clive James said of Shirley Conran,
he always tells us exactly what we do not need to know. "He never selects,"
says Parsons, "but piles on details of utter banality in awkward rambling
dirges which often end suddenly and arbitrarily with a perfunctory moral.
The experience is like that of being driven unsteadily down a meandering
road in a rattling old banger, which finally turns abruptly into a brick
wall."

They were certainly not the stuff of which fortunes are made, and McGonagall
sacrificed much for his art. On good nights he would make 4/9d, once
thwarting a mugger who tried to deprive him of his takings. But he was not
the only one to suffer. Towards the end of his career, William Power
witnessed a performance by Mcgonagall in Glasgow: "He wore a highland dress
of Rob Roy tartan and boy's size. After reciting some of his own poems, to
an accompaniment of whistles and cat-calls the Bard armed himself with a
most dangerous-looking broadsword and strode up and down the platform,
declaiming Clarence's Dream and 'Give me another horse -- Bind up my
wounds.' His voice rose to a howl. He slashed and thrust at imaginary foes.
A shower of apples and oranges fell on the platform. Almost before they
touched it, they were ... cut to pieces. The Bard was beaded with
perspiration and orange juice. The audience yelled with delight; McGonagall
yelled louder still, with a fury which I fancy was not wholly feigned. It
was like a squalid travesty of the wildest scenes of Don Quixote and Orlando
Furioso. I left the hall early, saddened and disgusted."

It was what Tam o' Shanter might have called an "unco sight", the like of
which we will not ever see again.

Don Duncan

Re: Philip Mowbray, Gov. of Stirling Castle

Legg inn av Don Duncan » 10 feb 2007 22:07:23

I was sent privately some information from a book by W. Stephens entitled "The
History of Inverkeithing and Rosyth" that describes, among many other things,
the descent of Philip Mowbray, gov. of Stirling castle at the time of
Bannockburn, from Nigel de Moubray. The short version of the story seems to
go like this:

Nigel de Moubray
|
Philip de Moubray m. Galiena, dau. of Waldeve
|
1. Roger de Moubray m. Christiana Fraser, dau. of Sir Bernard of Fortun and
Linton
2. Nigel fl. 1236-49

Roger died without issue, and his "successor was his nephew, Sir Galfrid or
Geoffrey de Moubray" and "Sir Galfrid married the second daughter of Red John
Comyn, Justiciary of Scotland, and was thus the brother-in-law of Black John
Comyn, husband of Marjory Baliol's sister."

Philip the governor is then listed as a son of Sir Galfrid/Geoffrey, and
apparently Galfrid/Geoffrey was the son of Nigel, brother of Roger who m.
Christiana. Philip married Eve, Lady Redcastle. Philip's and Eve's
descendants are also described.

I haven't tried to research this book or it's reliability yet but it seems to
be thoroughly sourced, although the sources were not attached to what I
received. I'm also no expert on the Comyns.

Any comments appreciated.

Best regards,
Don Duncan

Leo van de Pas

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 10 feb 2007 22:23:13

There is no such thing as a stupid question. If the person knew he/she
wouldn't ask. However there is a stupid or nasty answer.

Empress Matilda, her first husband was Heinrich V, Holy Roman Emperor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <kevinmccabe@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry


On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha" <Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:
why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Another gateway ancestor inquiry

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 00:59:04

In a message dated 2/10/2007 8:00:53 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sarah.krans@charter.net writes:

haven't actually seen a full list of the children of Elizabeth
Throckmorton and John Gifford - or at least one that has sources listed.
This site
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/THROCKMORT ... OCKMORTON4
has a list of children (and would prove my line), however I have yet to hear
back from the author about sources.


I have for the past few months, stopped using tudorplace.com.ar

I find it worse than annoying that they list no sources, and their method of
navigation is just ... I don't know the word... awful ? It's very hard to
cross-cite individuals in their database.

_www.genealogics.org_ (http://www.genealogics.org) is head-and-shoulders
above the competition for completeness, that is breadth.

I also like _www.thepeerage.com_ (http://www.thepeerage.com)
These two sites list sources BY PERSON, which is far better than lumping
them all at the end of long stretches of names and dates.

And try _http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/gensearch.htm_
(http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/gensearch.htm) which is the *search* page for stirnet.
At least stirnet lists sources.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Another gateway ancestor inquiry

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 01:01:02

Sarah can you cite your sources?
Thanks
Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 01:01:40

No, Leo...

With Respect...

There ARE indeed stupid questions.

They are often asked by people who are slothful and lazy and who do not want
to do the most BASIC GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH.

Their risible excuses, when they are CANDID, often run along the FOLLOWING
lines:

1. "I have a very busy life outside USENET and I don't have time to do
research."

2. "It's much faster just to ask someone, rather than look it up."

3. "I didn't know where to look."

In this most recent case, Pogue 'Holy Pasha' [no doubt some Pimply-Faced Kid
(PFK)], was spoon-fed the full particulars on Matilda, which I provided in
my post, and said PFK could easily have Googled for the answer to his
question.

Matilda insisted on being called _Empress Matilda_, thereby mightily
angering the English who rejected her as their monarch and chose Stephen
instead -- but later accepted her son, [after a Civil War and Stephen's
death in 1154], who became the Great English Monarch, Great-Grandfather
Henry II 'Curtmantle' <G>]

Continuing with these risible excuses often offered:

4. "I'm not SO interested in an answer that I want to take MY time to look
it up."

Such pogues and poguettes do indeed deserve a shot across the bow and a
good, hard virtual slap across the face.

Creative Ridicule and Excoriation, such as we see from Kevin McCabe, infra,
are also an entirely appropriate and useful treatment for such lazy
ragamuffins, laggards and blaggards.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3088.1171142625.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

There is no such thing as a stupid question. If the person knew he/she
wouldn't ask. However there is a stupid or nasty answer.

Empress Matilda, her first husband was Heinrich V, Holy Roman Emperor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <kevinmccabe@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha" <Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe

Sarah Krans

Re: Another gateway ancestor inquiry

Legg inn av Sarah Krans » 11 feb 2007 01:09:56

Will-
Which sources would you like? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth
Throckmorton can be found in Richardson¹s Plantagenet Ancestry. The
marriage of Elizabeth Throckmorton and John Gifford is listed in Frances
Grimes Sitherwood¹s Throckmorton Family History which I found in
HeritageQuest (as well as in Richardson).

Sarah


On 10/02/2007 17:59, "WJhonson@aol.com" <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:

Sarah can you cite your sources?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Another gateway ancestor inquiry

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 01:17:02

Can you cite the specific works and page numbers which are giving these
particular dates to the birth, marriage and death of John Gifford and Elizabeth
Throckmorton? I would like to review exactly what they do and don't say and
why they say it.

Thanks
Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 01:17:12

Do you HONESTLY THINK Frances Grimes Sitherwood¹s _Throckmorton Family
History_ can be compared favorably to Douglas Richardson's _Plantagenet
Ancestry_ and put on the same plane?

DSH

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3096.1171152802.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Will-
Which sources would you like? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth
Throckmorton can be found in Richardson¹s Plantagenet Ancestry. The
marriage of Elizabeth Throckmorton and John Gifford is listed in Frances
Grimes Sitherwood¹s Throckmorton Family History which I found in
HeritageQuest (as well as in Richardson).

Sarah

On 10/02/2007 17:59, "WJhonson@aol.com" <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:

Sarah can you cite your sources?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 feb 2007 01:18:17

Of course, there are the obviously stupid questions, but I do not regard
this one to be. Matilda is often quoted as the daughter of her father and as
the wife of her second husband.......the first one is hardly ever mentioned
because too many people are one-eyed, anything across the pond is of no
interest. At least this person realised there was more at foot, but then to
be ridiculed is dreadful..

Slothful and lazy? How can others make that observation when the person
asking is unknown? How do we know, as has been shown up in the past, there
are people in wheelchairs unable to enter libraries, or people living many
miles away from the nearest library.

As Douglas Richardson often has said, we are here to make friends and be
helpful, not sit in judgement without all facts known to the person jumping
to conclusions.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry


No, Leo...

With Respect...

There ARE indeed stupid questions.

They are often asked by people who are slothful and lazy and who do not
want
to do the most BASIC GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH.

Their risible excuses, when they are CANDID, often run along the FOLLOWING
lines:

1. "I have a very busy life outside USENET and I don't have time to do
research."

2. "It's much faster just to ask someone, rather than look it up."

3. "I didn't know where to look."

In this most recent case, Pogue 'Holy Pasha' [no doubt some Pimply-Faced
Kid (PFK)], was spoon-fed the full particulars on Matilda, which I
provided in my post, and said PFK could easily have Googled for the answer
to his question.

Matilda insisted on being called _Empress Matilda_, thereby mightily
angering the English who rejected her as their monarch and chose Stephen
instead -- but later accepted her son, [after a Civil War and Stephen's
death in 1154], who became the Great English Monarch, Great-Grandfather
Henry II 'Curtmantle' <G>]

Continuing with these risible excuses often offered:

4. "I'm not SO interested in an answer that I want to take MY time to
look
it up."

Such pogues and poguettes do indeed deserve a shot across the bow and a
good, hard virtual slap across the face.

Creative Ridicule and Excoriation, such as we see from Kevin McCabe,
infra, are also an entirely appropriate and useful treatment for such lazy
ragamuffins, laggards and blaggards.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3088.1171142625.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

There is no such thing as a stupid question. If the person knew he/she
wouldn't ask. However there is a stupid or nasty answer.

Empress Matilda, her first husband was Heinrich V, Holy Roman Emperor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <kevinmccabe@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha" <Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Leo van de Pas

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 feb 2007 01:34:21

Dear Kevin,

Only yesterday I was complimented on the humour recorded in "Plantagenet
Cousins", so at least some people think I have a sense of humour. Whether
you believe or not that Charlemagne and his successors were called Emperor
of the Holy Roman Empire, is totally irrelevant. It has been a thousand year
tradition which you cannot wipe. Empire in name? Fascinating observation,
what do you regard as an Empire? If you want to discard Holy in Holy Roman
Empire, why not wipe Holy in Holy Father, as many popes have been pretty
unholy.

I do not think I have ever said that I am an Australian, I have lived here
since 1968, and I may identify with Australians as Dutch and Australians
share a blunt approach to nonsense, neither have the polished approach to
unkindness.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin McCabe" <kevinmccabe@yahoo.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry


I don't believe you're an Australian. Aussie's have a
sense of humor. I also don't much believe that there
was ever anything Holy about that particular empire.
Indeed, it was only an empire in name.

--- Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

There is no such thing as a stupid question. If the
person knew he/she
wouldn't ask. However there is a stupid or nasty
answer.

Empress Matilda, her first husband was Heinrich V,
Holy Roman Emperor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <kevinmccabe@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval,
soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry


On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha"
Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:
why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is
named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message







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

Peter Stewart

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of hismot

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 feb 2007 01:42:11

"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.3075.1171131780.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Thanks Don, Leo, and Doug,

Interesting and much appreciated.

Additional weight it seems to me might attach to Charles Constantine,
Count of Vienne's maternal Byzantine ancestry simply by virtue of his
very name: Constantine - to my observation, a name in this period of
time and in this place never before evident.

As son of Anna of Byzantium, Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne's
uncle was the great Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII "Porfyrogenetos"
(reigned 912-959). And, the "Constantinian element" that appears in
Frankish nomenclature from that date was first observed in the Bosonids
and their descendants: Charles Constantine of Vienne's daughter
Constance of Vienne, Countess of Provence, and her granddaughter
Constance of Arles, Queen of France (d.1032).

This is circular reasoning - Countess Constance of Provence is only
conjectured to have been a daughter (or sister) of Charles Constantine
because her name is similar to his, but neither version of the name for
either gender was by any means unique to the Bosonids and their descendants.

Your observation on this point has overlooked a great many instances from
around the appropriate time and place. Try the cartularies of
Saint-André-le-Bas de Vienne, Cluny, Saint-Jean d'Angély (all available on
Gallica), or any of the other sources of examples listed by Marie-Thérèse
Morlet in _Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l'ancienne Gaule..._
volume II.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 01:55:09

Leo, PLEASE CALM DOWN.

You said:

There is no such thing as a stupid question.

Now you are saying:

Of course, there are the obviously stupid questions...

Quite obviously you contradict yourself.

He uses a false name "Holy Pasha" and has access to the Internet.

He does not NEED to go to a LIBRARY.

He could have Googled for it and quickly found out Matilda was previously
married to Heinrich V, Regis Romanorum -- who died young, at 44 in 1125, of
cancer and who was childless.

But he was LAZY and wanted someone else to spoon-feed him.

He even speculated:

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?

This was a TRULY STUPID QUESTION.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE Stupid Questions. Even Leo van de Pas says so.
<G>

Eschew Them With Vigor.

Case Closed.

Me ke aloha pumehana,

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vide infra

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3098.1171153129.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Of course, there are the obviously stupid questions, but I do not regard
this one to be. Matilda is often quoted as the daughter of her father and
as the wife of her second husband.......the first one is hardly ever
mentioned because too many people are one-eyed, anything across the pond
is of no interest. At least this person realised there was more at foot,
but then to be ridiculed is dreadful..

More at HAND? -- DSH

Slothful and lazy? How can others make that observation when the person
asking is unknown? How do we know, as has been shown up in the past, there
are people in wheelchairs unable to enter libraries, or people living many
miles away from the nearest library.

That's ANOTHER Common Excuse some of these anonymous PFK pogues make. They
are ON the Internet and need NOT depend on Libraries for this simple
Information. -- DSH

As Douglas Richardson often has said, we are here to make friends and be
helpful, not sit in judgement without all facts known to the person
jumping to conclusions.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

No, Leo...

With Respect...

There ARE indeed stupid questions.

They are often asked by people who are slothful and lazy and who do not
want to do the most BASIC GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH.

Their risible excuses, when they are CANDID, often run along the
FOLLOWING lines:

1. "I have a very busy life outside USENET and I don't have time to do
research."

2. "It's much faster just to ask someone, rather than look it up."

3. "I didn't know where to look."

In this most recent case, Pogue 'Holy Pasha' [no doubt some Pimply-Faced
Kid (PFK)], was spoon-fed the full particulars on Matilda, which I
provided in my post, and said PFK could easily have Googled for the
answer to his question.

Matilda insisted on being called _Empress Matilda_, thereby mightily
angering the English who rejected her as their monarch and chose Stephen
instead -- but later accepted her son, [after a Civil War and Stephen's
death in 1154], who became the Great English Monarch, Great-Grandfather
Henry II 'Curtmantle' <G>]

Continuing with these risible excuses often offered:

4. "I'm not SO interested in an answer that I want to take MY time to
look it up."

Such pogues and poguettes do indeed deserve a shot across the bow and a
good, hard virtual slap across the face.

Creative Ridicule and Excoriation, such as we see from Kevin McCabe,
infra, are also an entirely appropriate and useful treatment for such
lazy ragamuffins, laggards and blaggards.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3088.1171142625.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

There is no such thing as a stupid question. If the person knew he/she
wouldn't ask. However there is a stupid or nasty answer.

Empress Matilda, her first husband was Heinrich V, Holy Roman Emperor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <kevinmccabe@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha" <Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe

Gjest

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 02:00:03

In a message dated 2/10/2007 4:27:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sarah.krans@charter.net writes:

think that book backs up the information that is also found in Richardson.
Would I submit JUST Sitherwood's book? Probably not. Would I submit it
with other "more reputable' documentation? Yes.


The sole way to know is to start quoting it so we can check what it says.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of his mo

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 feb 2007 02:07:31

Hello Peter,

Thanks very much for this information. I am however rather baffled by a
few points and would appreciate your further comments.

"I should add to this that the man's proper name was simply "Carolus",
from his Western imperial ancestor, as shown by a diploma of his father
and his own charters; he is called "Constantine" in addition to this by
Flodoard copied later by Richer. If a second name had been conferred on
him in order to emphasize a Byzantine ancestry, first this would most
probably NOT have
been "Constantinus" (since his purported Eastern imperial grandfather
was named Leo"

But his would-be uncle, of substantial fame during CC's life, was
Constantine Porfyrogenetos.

"and anyway the names Constant and Constantine were common enough
amongst Franks to make for a quite different set of associations in most
minds locally)".

Were they actually "common enough" among the Franks at the time? And,
I'm not clear what is meant by "a different set of associations in most
minds locally." Do you mean that "Constantine" was a name of heightened
significance in Vienne, or other lands associated with him?

"and secondly one would expect in such circumstances"

To what circumstances do you refer?

"to find that the man himself and his own father would have used the
dynastic name pairing rather than ommitting the second element so that
this comes down to us only incidentally and from a couple of strangers
writing elsewhere.

Again, I regret I don't follow.

"The stronger likelihood seems to me that Charles was the son of an
unknown concubine, whose family used the second name Constantine (by
which he could be identified as from a bastard lineage, as Richer tells
us)

You suspect a concubine mother because of the apparent insignificance
of CC' land holdings, or is there other evidence of this?

"explaining his comparative scrap of rights from his paternal
ancestry."

Might there be other unexamined reasons for this?

I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
(something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?

Perhaps it would be useful for this discussion (it certainly would be
for me) to read and examine the precise and exact reference(s) to CC's
Byzantine connection.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

All best,

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 02:11:48

1. How much of the descent to YOU, or your targeted alleged descendent,
comes SOLELY from Frances Grimes Sitherwood -- IF ANY of it?

2. How many GENERATIONS of the descent -- dating from WHEN [earliest date]
is unique to Sitherwood?

3. What makes you think that part of the descent in PA comes from any OTHER
allegedly credible source than SITHERWOOD?

4. What makes you think SITHERWOOD "backs up" RICHARDSON if Richardson's
source is Sitherwood?

5. Have you asked Douglas about this?

Cheers,

DSH

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3100.1171153549.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I think that book backs up the information that is also found in
Richardson.

Would I submit JUST Sitherwood's book? Probably not. Would I submit it
with other "more reputable' documentation? Yes.

On 10/02/2007 18:17, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Do you HONESTLY THINK Frances Grimes Sitherwood¹s _Throckmorton Family
History_ can be compared favorably to Douglas Richardson's _Plantagenet
Ancestry_ and put on the same plane?

DSH

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3096.1171152802.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Will-

Which sources would you like? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth
Throckmorton can be found in Richardson¹s Plantagenet Ancestry. The
marriage of Elizabeth Throckmorton and John Gifford is listed in Frances
Grimes Sitherwood¹s Throckmorton Family History which I found in
HeritageQuest (as well as in Richardson).

Sarah

On 10/02/2007 17:59, "WJhonson@aol.com" <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:

Sarah can you cite your sources?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of hismot

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 feb 2007 02:17:11

"This is circular reasoning - Countess Constance of Provence is only
conjectured to have been a daughter (or sister) of Charles Constantine."


I should have qualified that. You're right, it would be circular, but
only if she were not his daughter or sister. But, is she were [is it on
the whole more or less likely that she were or weren't?], I think the
logic "squares".

I think I must be missing something - and it must be the exact nature,
words, and derivation of whatever source(s) made the claim in the first
place. Peter's scepticism (which I respect) alerts me to the all
important need for me to see these.

Tony


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 02:21:55

The sole way to know is to start quoting it so we can check what it says.

BINGO!

Quoting it VERBATIM...

With CITATIONS.

See Below.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3106.1171155562.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 2/10/2007 4:27:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sarah.krans@charter.net writes:

think that book backs up the information that is also found in
Richardson.

Would I submit JUST Sitherwood's book? Probably not. Would I submit it
with other "more reputable' documentation? Yes.

She thinks Douglas CONFIRMS Sitherwood -- whereas he may simply be repeating
what she says.

We Shall See...

DSH
The sole way to know is to start quoting it so we can check what it says.

Sarah Krans

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av Sarah Krans » 11 feb 2007 02:22:38

One citation about the death of John Gifford, Esq (and its a footnote
even!). Most of the documentation from my to my gateway ancestors is
actually birth, death, and marriage records when they exist - with citations
from NEGHR as the primary secondary source of information.

Both books basically have the same information in them. Why would I talk to
Mr. Richardson unless I have a question that only he can answer? I have not
reached that point in my research yet - same with contacting Mr. Roberts.
When the registrar for the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne e-mails me
pages from PA, I take that as accepted as a reputable source.


On 10/02/2007 19:11, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

1. How much of the descent to YOU, or your targeted alleged descendent,
comes SOLELY from Frances Grimes Sitherwood -- IF ANY of it?

2. How many GENERATIONS of the descent -- dating from WHEN [earliest date]
is unique to Sitherwood?

3. What makes you think that part of the descent in PA comes from any OTHER
allegedly credible source than SITHERWOOD?

4. What makes you think SITHERWOOD "backs up" RICHARDSON if Richardson's
source is Sitherwood?

5. Have you asked Douglas about this?

Cheers,

DSH

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3100.1171153549.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I think that book backs up the information that is also found in
Richardson.

Would I submit JUST Sitherwood's book? Probably not. Would I submit it
with other "more reputable' documentation? Yes.

On 10/02/2007 18:17, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Do you HONESTLY THINK Frances Grimes Sitherwood¹s _Throckmorton Family
History_ can be compared favorably to Douglas Richardson's _Plantagenet
Ancestry_ and put on the same plane?

DSH

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3096.1171152802.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Will-

Which sources would you like? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth
Throckmorton can be found in Richardson¹s Plantagenet Ancestry. The
marriage of Elizabeth Throckmorton and John Gifford is listed in Frances
Grimes Sitherwood¹s Throckmorton Family History which I found in
HeritageQuest (as well as in Richardson).

Sarah

On 10/02/2007 17:59, "WJhonson@aol.com" <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:

Sarah can you cite your sources?
Thanks
Will Johnson



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 02:29:04

Wise Query.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3097.1171152955.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Can you cite the specific works and page numbers which are giving these
particular dates to the birth, marriage and death of John Gifford and
Elizabeth
Throckmorton? I would like to review exactly what they do and don't say
and
why they say it.

Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 02:30:04

In a message dated 2/10/2007 5:26:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sarah.krans@charter.net writes:

One citation about the death of John Gifford, Esq (and its a footnote
even!).


I don't see the citation in your message...

Tony Hoskins

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity ofhismoth

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 feb 2007 02:41:40

"His legitimacy is usually accepted, although this was specifically
denied by Richer."

Would be very eager to see Riciher's statement. I'd be most grateful
for a citation.

Thanks.

Tony




Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Gjest

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 02:48:02

In a message dated 2/10/2007 5:44:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

This work does also reproduce an IPM of William Gifford, Knt and calls that

IPM states that John Gifford is his son and this work makes that John and
this
John the same person. I have to review this again when I'm back in my
office to see if it all fits.


_http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC11728558&id=fT4JAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA13-PA460&
lpg=RA13-PA460&dq=Throckmorton+Gifford_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC1 ... on+Gifford
)

Gjest

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 03:00:03

You know what forget it.
Sarah has been exchanging private emails with me in which she has made
several things quite clear to me, to the point of no longer being interested in
helping her at all.

I won't go into the details.

Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 03:01:00

Startling, to say the least.

Why are you no longer interested?

You don't need to quote her emails.

DSH
------------------------------------------------

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3120.1171159108.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

You know what, forget it.

Sarah has been exchanging private emails with me in which she has made
several things quite clear to me, to the point of no longer being
interested in
helping her at all.

I won't go into the details.

Will

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity ofhismoth

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 11 feb 2007 03:04:13

In article <mailman.3117.1171158154.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:

"His legitimacy is usually accepted, although this was specifically
denied by Richer."

Would be very eager to see Riciher's statement. I'd be most grateful
for a citation.

It's his chronicle, _Historiarum libri IIII_ or whatever it's usually
called. There are two editions complete on Gallica (from 1845 and 1855;
both Latin & French); I could not find the Pertz MGH SSRG in usum
scholasticum online at DMGH, though (but the first of the two French
eds. is based on Pertz' text from the scriptores in folio, which you can
find online at DMGH, but I didn't check which volume). In the 1855 ed.
Charles Constantine is indexed only to book 2, cap. 98, which is pp.
234-236.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 03:10:06

When people come here asking for help I expect them to be somewhat
complacent and willing to provide whatever information they have in exchange.

When I ask people direct question, I expect direct answers. When I get a
lot of circumlocution and vague off-hand responses and then when they follow up
by questioning my intelligence, I tend to get turned off

Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 03:10:23

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3100.1171153549.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I think that book backs up the information that is also found in
Richardson.

Would I submit JUST Sitherwood's book? Probably not. Would I submit it
with other "more reputable' documentation? Yes.

On 10/02/2007 18:17, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Do you HONESTLY THINK Frances Grimes Sitherwood¹s _Throckmorton Family
History_ can be compared favorably to Douglas Richardson's _Plantagenet
Ancestry_ and put on the same plane?

DSH

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3096.1171152802.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Will-

Which sources would you like? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth
Throckmorton can be found in Richardson¹s Plantagenet Ancestry...

Which page and numbered entry in PA?

DSH

Leo van de Pas

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 feb 2007 03:15:28

Dear Will, see below

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: John Gifford d 1563
<snip>

It also is specific in naming "Sir Robert Throckmorton, knight, John
Throckmorton and Kenelm Throckmorton, Esq my brothers-in-law, to be my
executors."
This by itself of course doesn't *prove* that Elizabeth was a
Throckmorton
herself, as John could have been married previously

John Gifford dies, his wife is still alive, would he have chosen husbands of
his sisters or brothers of a previous wife as executors?
It is good to ask the question but there are other indications that
Elizabeth was a Throckmorton.

Sadly Cahiers de Saint Louis is only an indication, not proof. On page 931
Elizabeth Throckmorton, sister of Robert and Kenelm, is shown with her three
husbands. You have to go to page 954 to find the sources list of this
(whole) chapter.

The Complete Peerage
Burke's Extinct Peerage (which one ?)
Visitation of the North of England (Surtees Society, 144)
Visitation of Yorkshire (Harleian Society 16)
History of Northumberland (1593-1940)
Yorkshire Archeological Society
Foster's Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire
Foster's Pedigrees of the County Families of Lancashire
Visitations of Sussex (Harleian Society)
Visitations of Cambridgeshire (Harleian Society)
Visitations of Norfolk (Harleian Society)
Visitations of Warwickshire (Harleian Society)
Visitations of Leicestershire (Harleian Society)
Burke's Landed Gentry (which one ?)
St.Leger family (A. Y. St.Leger, 1951)
History of Parliament (J.C. Wedgewood II 1936)

Here for the wood you can't see the trees. How can you pinpoint the
appropriate source?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity ofhismoth

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 11 feb 2007 03:15:42

In article
<nathanieltaylor-B479B8.21041310022007@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <mailman.3117.1171158154.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:

"His legitimacy is usually accepted, although this was specifically
denied by Richer."

Would be very eager to see Riciher's statement. I'd be most grateful
for a citation.

It's his chronicle, _Historiarum libri IIII_ or whatever it's usually
called. There are two editions complete on Gallica (from 1845 and 1855;
both Latin & French); I could not find the Pertz MGH SSRG in usum
scholasticum online at DMGH, though (but the first of the two French
eds. is based on Pertz' text from the scriptores in folio, which you can
find online at DMGH, but I didn't check which volume). In the 1855 ed.
Charles Constantine is indexed only to book 2, cap. 98, which is pp.
234-236.

Actually, the new MGH edition, ed. Hartmut Hoffman (Scriptores 38, 2000)
*is* online at DMGH:

http://www.dmgh.de/index.html

You can't download the whole volume, only view page-by-page online.
Using the hierarchical menu, it is at Reihenubersicht > Scriptores
[Geschichtsschreiber] > Scriptores in Folio (SS) > v. 38 (the most
recent one) > p. 167.


Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of hismot

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 feb 2007 03:18:40

"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.3108.1171156125.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Hello Peter,

Thanks very much for this information. I am however rather baffled by a
few points and would appreciate your further comments.

"I should add to this that the man's proper name was simply "Carolus",
from his Western imperial ancestor, as shown by a diploma of his father
and his own charters; he is called "Constantine" in addition to this by
Flodoard copied later by Richer. If a second name had been conferred on
him in order to emphasize a Byzantine ancestry, first this would most
probably NOT have been "Constantinus" (since his purported Eastern
imperial grandfather was named Leo"

But his would-be uncle, of substantial fame during CC's life, was
Constantine Porfyrogenetos.

But Anna was the daughter of Leo VI, also famous, and Charles Constantin was
certainly born during his reign in Byzantium (Leo died in 912) since he was
already acting in his own right as count of Vienne in 927. How many examples
are there of a name introduced through a female connection that bypassed the
name of her famous, and reigning, imperial father in favour of a brother yet
to distinguish himself, when the alleged purpose was to underscore the
dynastic link?

"and anyway the names Constant and Constantine were common enough
amongst Franks to make for a quite different set of associations in most
minds locally)".

Were they actually "common enough" among the Franks at the time? And,
I'm not clear what is meant by "a different set of associations in most
minds locally." Do you mean that "Constantine" was a name of heightened
significance in Vienne, or other lands associated with him?

I pointed out that the name can be found in the most important cartulary
from Vienne, in generations before and after Charles Constantin, amongst
families who could not possibly be related to the Greek emperor. As to
whether this name was "common enough" locally to account for one more
occurrence, there is no recognised cut-off point but a single other instance
might be "enough", and there are several. The local associations in Vienne
would be with other men of property living in the vicinity rather than a
distant figure in the East.

"and secondly one would expect in such circumstances"

To what circumstances do you refer?

The alleged connection to Byzantium purportedly indicated by the name
Constantine - if this were so, why would not Louis the Blind refer to his
son with the second name, and why would Charles himself drop this in his own
charters? What would be the circumstantial purpose of giving a name in order
to advertise a connection and then not using it?

"to find that the man himself and his own father would have used the
dynastic name pairing rather than ommitting the second element so that
this comes down to us only incidentally and from a couple of strangers
writing elsewhere.

Again, I regret I don't follow.

I regret that I don't see how the point can be made any clearer. Flodoard
got the second name from hearsay, presumably, since it does not appear in
documents of Louis or Charles himself. Why would people speak of Charles
with a second name that was comparatively frequent at a lower social level
where he ruled in order to suggest an exotic link to an emperor of whom most
Franks had probably never heard?

"The stronger likelihood seems to me that Charles was the son of an
unknown concubine, whose family used the second name Constantine (by
which he could be identified as from a bastard lineage, as Richer tells
us)

You suspect a concubine mother because of the apparent insignificance
of CC' land holdings, or is there other evidence of this?

There is no evidence that his father Louis the Blind had any wife before
Adelais who first appears in January 915. Charles Constantine was certainly
born years before she occurs, and her only recorded son was named Rodulf.

"explaining his comparative scrap of rights from his paternal
ancestry."

Might there be other unexamined reasons for this?

Yes, but the sources don't tell us, so that "unspeculated" would be more
precise than "unexamined".

I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
(something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?

No, Richer specifically says that Charles Constantin was from a royal line
but that his ancestry was tainted with illegitimacy to the third generation
("Hic ex regio quidem genere natus erat sed concubinali stemmate usque ad
triuatum sordebat"). This presumably meant on his mother's side, and efforts
have been made to suggest that this description is fulfilled by the
concubinage of Anna's mother Zoe Zaoutzaina before her marriage to Emperor
Leo VI, and further ancestry through that line. However, such a tainted
background would hardly be more remarkable to Richer than the imperial
grandeur of it if the connections he meant were Byzantine, and would
scarcely be remarkable at all in this context if the sullying illegitimacy
had been terminated anyway with the marriage of Charles Constantin's
parents.

Perhaps it would be useful for this discussion (it certainly would be
for me) to read and examine the precise and exact reference(s) to CC's
Byzantine connection.

There aren't any in the sources, this is merely an older speculation that
was taken up by Christian Settipani.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 03:19:02

In a message dated 2/10/2007 6:15:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

The Complete Peerage
Burke's Extinct Peerage (which one ?)


Ha! This is great. They should just cite "Some guy told me", would be as
useful.
Will

Peter Stewart

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of hismot

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 feb 2007 03:27:28

PS Reginald Lane Poole suggested that Floadoard called Charles
"Constantinus" not as a second name but as a byname to place him, indicating
that he was from Arles (occasionally, though rarely, referred to as
"Constantina urbs").

Peter Stewart



"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42vzh.5820$sd2.2181@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.3108.1171156125.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Hello Peter,

Thanks very much for this information. I am however rather baffled by a
few points and would appreciate your further comments.

"I should add to this that the man's proper name was simply "Carolus",
from his Western imperial ancestor, as shown by a diploma of his
father
and his own charters; he is called "Constantine" in addition to this by
Flodoard copied later by Richer. If a second name had been conferred on
him in order to emphasize a Byzantine ancestry, first this would most
probably NOT have been "Constantinus" (since his purported Eastern
imperial grandfather was named Leo"

But his would-be uncle, of substantial fame during CC's life, was
Constantine Porfyrogenetos.

But Anna was the daughter of Leo VI, also famous, and Charles Constantin
was certainly born during his reign in Byzantium (Leo died in 912) since
he was already acting in his own right as count of Vienne in 927. How many
examples are there of a name introduced through a female connection that
bypassed the name of her famous, and reigning, imperial father in favour
of a brother yet to distinguish himself, when the alleged purpose was to
underscore the dynastic link?

"and anyway the names Constant and Constantine were common enough
amongst Franks to make for a quite different set of associations in
most
minds locally)".

Were they actually "common enough" among the Franks at the time? And,
I'm not clear what is meant by "a different set of associations in most
minds locally." Do you mean that "Constantine" was a name of heightened
significance in Vienne, or other lands associated with him?

I pointed out that the name can be found in the most important cartulary
from Vienne, in generations before and after Charles Constantin, amongst
families who could not possibly be related to the Greek emperor. As to
whether this name was "common enough" locally to account for one more
occurrence, there is no recognised cut-off point but a single other
instance might be "enough", and there are several. The local associations
in Vienne would be with other men of property living in the vicinity
rather than a distant figure in the East.

"and secondly one would expect in such circumstances"

To what circumstances do you refer?

The alleged connection to Byzantium purportedly indicated by the name
Constantine - if this were so, why would not Louis the Blind refer to his
son with the second name, and why would Charles himself drop this in his
own charters? What would be the circumstantial purpose of giving a name in
order to advertise a connection and then not using it?

"to find that the man himself and his own father would have used the
dynastic name pairing rather than ommitting the second element so that
this comes down to us only incidentally and from a couple of strangers
writing elsewhere.

Again, I regret I don't follow.

I regret that I don't see how the point can be made any clearer. Flodoard
got the second name from hearsay, presumably, since it does not appear in
documents of Louis or Charles himself. Why would people speak of Charles
with a second name that was comparatively frequent at a lower social level
where he ruled in order to suggest an exotic link to an emperor of whom
most Franks had probably never heard?

"The stronger likelihood seems to me that Charles was the son of an
unknown concubine, whose family used the second name Constantine (by
which he could be identified as from a bastard lineage, as Richer tells
us)

You suspect a concubine mother because of the apparent insignificance
of CC' land holdings, or is there other evidence of this?

There is no evidence that his father Louis the Blind had any wife before
Adelais who first appears in January 915. Charles Constantine was
certainly born years before she occurs, and her only recorded son was
named Rodulf.

"explaining his comparative scrap of rights from his paternal
ancestry."

Might there be other unexamined reasons for this?

Yes, but the sources don't tell us, so that "unspeculated" would be more
precise than "unexamined".

I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
(something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?

No, Richer specifically says that Charles Constantin was from a royal line
but that his ancestry was tainted with illegitimacy to the third
generation ("Hic ex regio quidem genere natus erat sed concubinali
stemmate usque ad triuatum sordebat"). This presumably meant on his
mother's side, and efforts have been made to suggest that this description
is fulfilled by the concubinage of Anna's mother Zoe Zaoutzaina before her
marriage to Emperor Leo VI, and further ancestry through that line.
However, such a tainted background would hardly be more remarkable to
Richer than the imperial grandeur of it if the connections he meant were
Byzantine, and would scarcely be remarkable at all in this context if the
sullying illegitimacy had been terminated anyway with the marriage of
Charles Constantin's parents.

Perhaps it would be useful for this discussion (it certainly would be
for me) to read and examine the precise and exact reference(s) to CC's
Byzantine connection.

There aren't any in the sources, this is merely an older speculation that
was taken up by Christian Settipani.

Peter Stewart

Leo van de Pas

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 feb 2007 03:29:04

I agree it is not helpful, but I would not say "some guy" as most of the
sources mentioned are pretty solid.
Many books only give a full list of sources for the whole book. Here they
gave all sources for a chapter.
It doesn't make Cahiers de Saint Louis discardable.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: John Gifford d 1563


In a message dated 2/10/2007 6:15:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

The Complete Peerage
Burke's Extinct Peerage (which one ?)


Ha! This is great. They should just cite "Some guy told me", would be as
useful.
Will

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sarah Krans

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av Sarah Krans » 11 feb 2007 03:30:28

For what? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth?

p562, #15
p561-62, #14
p326, #11
p510-11, #11
p540-41, #10
p75-77, #8
p23-29, #7


On 10/02/2007 20:10, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3100.1171153549.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I think that book backs up the information that is also found in
Richardson.

Would I submit JUST Sitherwood's book? Probably not. Would I submit it
with other "more reputable' documentation? Yes.

On 10/02/2007 18:17, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Do you HONESTLY THINK Frances Grimes Sitherwood¹s _Throckmorton Family
History_ can be compared favorably to Douglas Richardson's _Plantagenet
Ancestry_ and put on the same plane?

DSH

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3096.1171152802.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Will-

Which sources would you like? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth
Throckmorton can be found in Richardson¹s Plantagenet Ancestry...

Which page and numbered entry in PA?

DSH



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 03:39:04

In a message dated 2/10/2007 6:29:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

It doesn't make Cahiers de Saint Louis discardable.



No I agree. I'd probably just cite it as the source without regard to its
sources lumped in the chapter endings. Then some day when I go to *those*
sources independently, I'd just replace the Cahiers as a source with the
specific CP citation as a source, as I find the specific statements in CP.

I try to improve my sources as I go along where I can. So I might start
just saying "Patron Sheets on the IGI" and then when I find a better source,
remove that and put up genealogics ID=92054 or if I'm being particularly
ambitious I'd add something like "citing Antiquities by Rawson".

Now if I actually were to personally read this source, I'd use it.

When I first starting using your site, I'd cite it just by
_www.genealogics.org_ (http://www.genealogics.org) but later I realized that's not too helpful
because I don't always *call* people the same thing you do. So now I've
started adding the exact URLs to the notes of each person. So I hope you don't
rearrange them in the future!

Will

Sarah Krans

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av Sarah Krans » 11 feb 2007 03:39:08

I think Spencer doesn't believe that I actually have sources OR the book
sitting right next to me - just someone else out to discredit me. So be it.


On 10/02/2007 20:24, "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

Spencer, you who likes to be finicky, read what she said: the line to, she
did not say including but.............

As you have this book you should know she is talking about page 562, nr.15
being the parents of Elizabeth, and even Elizabeth wife of John Gifford is
mentioned. Who is Sloppy and Lazy now? Why ask a question when you have the
answer? Or are you just "testing"? Who knows Holy Pasha was testing the
waters, and finding it rather unpleasent. I cannot blame him, and as the
sage said
"Nuff said".
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry


"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3100.1171153549.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I think that book backs up the information that is also found in
Richardson.

Would I submit JUST Sitherwood's book? Probably not. Would I submit it
with other "more reputable' documentation? Yes.

On 10/02/2007 18:17, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Do you HONESTLY THINK Frances Grimes Sitherwood¹s _Throckmorton Family
History_ can be compared favorably to Douglas Richardson's _Plantagenet
Ancestry_ and put on the same plane?

DSH

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3096.1171152802.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Will-

Which sources would you like? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth
Throckmorton can be found in Richardson¹s Plantagenet Ancestry...

Which page and numbered entry in PA?

DSH




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 03:46:02

In a message dated 2/10/2007 6:43:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sarah.krans@charter.net writes:

I think Spencer doesn't believe that I actually have sources OR the book
sitting right next to me - just someone else out to discredit me. So be it.


Is the book PA or Slitherwood?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: John Gifford d 1563

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 03:46:23

Fair Enough, Will.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3122.1171159734.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

When people come here asking for help I expect them to be somewhat
complacent and willing to provide whatever information they have in
exchange.

When I ask people direct question, I expect direct answers. When I get a
lot of circumlocution and vague off-hand responses and then when they
follow up
by questioning my intelligence, I tend to get turned off

Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 04:26:42

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3097.1171152955.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Can you cite the specific works and page numbers which are giving these
particular dates to the birth, marriage and death of John Gifford and
Elizabeth Throckmorton? I would like to review exactly what they
do and don't say and why they say it.

Thanks
Will
========================================================


That's certainly NOT at PA [2004], p. 562/15, which simply says "Elizabeth,
wife of John Gifford, Knt., William Lygon, and George Peyto".

Previously she said THIS:

I think that book [Sitherwood] backs up the information that is also found
in Richardson.

Would I submit JUST Sitherwood's book? Probably not. Would I submit it
with other "more reputable' documentation? Yes.

As noted above, PA [2004] doesn't say anything about the CHILDREN of
Elizabeth and which ones were by which HUSBAND or anything about B, M, D
dates for ANY of them [her and her husbands, OR the children] -- so she must
be getting THAT just from Sitherwood.

Yet she says:

I think that book [Sitherwood] backs up the information that is also found
in Richardson.

Richardson says NOTHING about Elizabeth and John Gifford's CHILDREN or their
DATES -- and does NOT cite Sitherwood in his index, nor need he.

She also said THIS, but it's not helpful because she won't QUOTE it
VERBATIM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.3096.1171152802.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Which sources would you like? The lineage from Edward to Elizabeth
Throckmorton can be found in Richardson¹s Plantagenet Ancestry. The
marriage of Elizabeth Throckmorton and John Gifford is listed in Frances
Grimes Sitherwood¹s Throckmorton Family History which I found in
HeritageQuest (as well as in Richardson).

Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right, Will, she's not being candid and straight with us.

DSH

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

Wise Query.

DSH

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3097.1171152955.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Can you cite the specific works and page numbers which are giving these
particular dates to the birth, marriage and death of John Gifford and
Elizabeth Throckmorton? I would like to review exactly what they
do and don't say and why they say it.

Thanks
Will

Renia

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Renia » 11 feb 2007 04:37:57

The Highlander wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:40:46 -0000, "Ian Smith"
ianinhoose@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote:


In post heens2htkji5197nnvd0i4sd9ku3ve4vc7@4ax.com,
"The Highlander" (micheil@shaw.ca) shared this wisdom:


On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:52:50 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:


NO.

1. They are NOT the same post.

Ergo:

2. The MAJORITY do not.

DO Read More Closely...

Thereby:

Eschew Egregious Pratfall.

DSH

Reading even one of your posts takes one to new depths of sheer
boredom and reinforces one's lack of any expectation of credibility.

To suggest that we read your secondary posts in the hope of spotting a
new niblet of information defies all commonsense, apart from those
whose taste for masochism has run amuck.

It's not as though your name is linked with academic or intellectual
achievement. The overriding impression is more one of self-promotion
and uncontrollable ego; let alone the insane clichés sprinkled like
cats marking territory at the arse-end of every post you have ever
excreted here. The overriding impression is one of monstrous dung
deposits from the rotting bowels of a decaying dinosaur.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

Lol! Particularly liked that last line.


The truth bites, doesn't it?

Interesting to note that despite (or perhaps because of?) a Yale
education, the Dancing Queen of Hyperbole has no answer?

He never answers. Haven't you noticed that yet?

Gjest

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 05:18:02

Hmm turns out the Sitherwood book is also online at ancestry.com

_http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx=BookList&dbid=15155&offerid=0%3a7858%3
a0_
(http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... d=0:7858:0)

I searched on Giffard, Gifford.
with no results.

So either the search function isn't working or the name Giffard/Gifford
isn't in this book at all.

I'll read through part of the book tonight or tomorrow and see what it does
and doesn't say.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Gifford / Elizabeth Throckmorton

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 05:46:02

Since Sarah does not with to do the extract, I've researched the Sitherwood
book and will type out what it says about this couple.

"Throckmorton Family History being the Record of the Throckmortons in the
United States of America with Cognate Branches", Frances Grimes Sitherwood.
Pantagraph Printing & Stationary, Bloomington, Indiana. 1929 [the year is hard
to read, so I'm not sure this is accurate - wj]

On page 22-23 we see, in the text the following:
"Of the daus of Sir George Throckmorton: Mary, d.s.p.; Anne, wf of John
Digby, Esq; Elizabeth (Katherine?) wf. first of Robert Winter, and second of
Thomas Smith, Esqs; Margaret, wf first of Caresby and afterwards of Brian Cave,
Esqs.; Elizabeth, wf first of John Gifford, (footnote) second of George Peyto,
Esqs.; Mary wf of Sir John Huband, Knt; Elizabeth, Merial and Elizabeth, who
d young"

Then in the footnote we find: "Hampshire. John Gyfford, Esq, heir apparent
to Sir William Gyfford, 1563, and wife Elizth., dau. of Sir George
Throckmorton, with five sons and eight daus., wife and sons lost (?) Mural - (Against the
wall) Altar Tomb, C."

And further: "Gloucestershire-Hampshire, Weston-sub Edge, William Hodges,
1590; he married the dau. of Sir George Throckmorton of Kaughton (Coughton), and
widow of John Gifford, Esq., of Weston-under-Edge." (Monumental Brasses,
British Isles, Part II, Rev H. Haines)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: John Gifford / Elizabeth Throckmorton

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 05:52:57

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3139.1171169082.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Since Sarah does not wish to do the extract, I've researched the
Sitherwood
book and will type out what it says about this couple.

Does NOT wish to do the extract? Curious. Why not? -- DSH

"Throckmorton Family History being the Record of the Throckmortons in the
United States of America with Cognate Branches", Frances Grimes
Sitherwood.
Pantagraph Printing & Stationary, Bloomington, Indiana. 1929 [the year is
hard
to read, so I'm not sure this is accurate - wj]

On page 22-23 we see, in the text the following:
"Of the daus of Sir George Throckmorton: Mary, d.s.p.; Anne, wf of John
Digby, Esq; Elizabeth (Katherine?) wf. first of Robert Winter, and second
of
Thomas Smith, Esqs; Margaret, wf first of Caresby and afterwards of Brian
Cave,
Esqs.; Elizabeth, wf first of John Gifford, (footnote) second of George
Peyto,
Esqs.; Mary wf of Sir John Huband, Knt; Elizabeth, Merial and Elizabeth,
who
d young"

NO mention of William HODGES there. -- DSH

Then in the footnote we find: "Hampshire. John Gyfford, Esq, heir apparent
to Sir William Gyfford, 1563, and wife Elizth., dau. of Sir George
Throckmorton, with five sons and eight daus., wife and sons lost (?)
Mural - (Against the
wall) Altar Tomb, C."

NO names of CHILDREN. -- DSH

And further: "Gloucestershire-Hampshire, Weston-sub Edge, William Hodges,
1590; he married the dau. of Sir George Throckmorton of Kaughton
(Coughton), and
widow of John Gifford, Esq., of Weston-under-Edge." (Monumental Brasses,
British Isles, Part II, Rev H. Haines)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 07:42:38

Recte:

Leo, PLEASE CALM DOWN.

You PREVIOUSLY said:

There is no such thing as a stupid question.

NOW you are saying:

Of course, there are the obviously stupid questions...

Quite obviously you CONTRADICT yourself.

He uses a false name "Holy Pasha" and OBVIOUSLY has access to the Internet.

He does not NEED to go to a LIBRARY.

He could have Googled for it and quickly found out Matilda was previously
married to Kaiser Heinrich V -- who died young, at 44 in 1125, and who was
childless.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor>

But he was LAZY and wanted someone else to spoon-feed him.

He asked these questions:

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Those were TRULY STUPID QUESTIONS.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE Stupid Questions. Even Leo van de Pas says so.
See above. <G>

Eschew Them With Vigor.

Case Closed.

Such pogues and poguettes do indeed deserve a shot across the bow and a
good, hard virtual slap across the face.

Creative Ridicule and Excoriation, such as we see from Kevin McCabe,
infra, are also an entirely appropriate and useful treatment for such
lazy ragamuffins, laggards and blaggards.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Me ke aloha pumehana, Leo.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vide infra

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3098.1171153129.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Of course, there are the obviously stupid questions, but I do not regard
this one to be. Matilda is often quoted as the daughter of her father and
as the wife of her second husband.......the first one is hardly ever
mentioned because too many people are one-eyed, anything across the pond
is of no interest. At least this person realised there was more at foot,
but then to be ridiculed is dreadful..

More at HAND? -- DSH

Slothful and lazy? How can others make that observation when the person
asking is unknown? How do we know, as has been shown up in the past, there
are people in wheelchairs unable to enter libraries, or people living many
miles away from the nearest library.

That's ANOTHER Common Excuse some of these anonymous PFK pogues make. They
are ALREADY ON the Internet and need NOT depend on Libraries for this SIMPLE
BIOGRAPHICAL Information. Even WIKIPEDIA has it. -- DSH

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor>

As Douglas Richardson often has said, we are here to make friends and be
helpful, not sit in judgement without all facts known to the person
jumping to conclusions.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

No, Leo...

With Respect...

There ARE indeed stupid questions.

They are often asked by people who are slothful and lazy and who do not
want to do the most BASIC GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH.

Their risible excuses, when they are CANDID, often run along the
FOLLOWING lines:

1. "I have a very busy life outside USENET and I don't have time to do
research."

2. "It's much faster just to ask someone, rather than look it up."

3. "I didn't know where to look."

In this most recent case, Pogue 'Holy Pasha' [no doubt some Pimply-Faced
Kid (PFK)], was spoon-fed the full particulars on Matilda, which I
provided in my post, and said PFK could easily have Googled for the
answer to his question.

Matilda insisted on being called _Empress Matilda_, thereby mightily
angering the English who rejected her as their monarch and chose Stephen
instead -- but later accepted her son, [after a Civil War and Stephen's
death in 1154], who became the Great English Monarch, Great-Grandfather
Henry II 'Curtmantle' <G>]

Continuing with these risible excuses often proffered:

4. "I'm not SO interested in an answer that I want to take MY time to
look it up."

Such pogues and poguettes do indeed deserve a shot across the bow and a
good, hard virtual slap across the face.

Creative Ridicule and Excoriation, such as we see from Kevin McCabe,
infra, are also an entirely appropriate and useful treatment for such
lazy ragamuffins, laggards and blaggards.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3088.1171142625.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

There is no such thing as a stupid question. If the person knew he/she
wouldn't ask. However there is a stupid or nasty answer.

Empress Matilda, her first husband was Heinrich V, Holy Roman Emperor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <kevinmccabe@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha" <Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe

Leo van de Pas

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 feb 2007 09:09:16

When people ask genealogical questions, no there is no such thing as stupid
questions. Badly informed questions, yes.
He did not ask is the moon made from cheese. You have no right to expect
other people to do what or how you think things should be done, researched
or whatever. You have no right to demand that people appear with their own
name, next you demand they use e-mail addresses other people can send
messages to. God forbid!!

Spencer, when will you re-appear from the Irish mist and do genealogy for a
change, instead of needling and harassing people?
I know it is too much to ask or hope for.


----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry


Recte:

Leo, PLEASE CALM DOWN.

You PREVIOUSLY said:

There is no such thing as a stupid question.

NOW you are saying:

Of course, there are the obviously stupid questions...

Quite obviously you CONTRADICT yourself.

He uses a false name "Holy Pasha" and OBVIOUSLY has access to the
Internet.

He does not NEED to go to a LIBRARY.

He could have Googled for it and quickly found out Matilda was previously
married to Kaiser Heinrich V -- who died young, at 44 in 1125, and who was
childless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V,_H ... an_Emperor

But he was LAZY and wanted someone else to spoon-feed him.

He asked these questions:

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Those were TRULY STUPID QUESTIONS.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE Stupid Questions. Even Leo van de Pas says so.
See above. <G

Eschew Them With Vigor.

Case Closed.

Such pogues and poguettes do indeed deserve a shot across the bow and a
good, hard virtual slap across the face.

Creative Ridicule and Excoriation, such as we see from Kevin McCabe,
infra, are also an entirely appropriate and useful treatment for such
lazy ragamuffins, laggards and blaggards.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Me ke aloha pumehana, Leo.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vide infra

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3098.1171153129.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Of course, there are the obviously stupid questions, but I do not regard
this one to be. Matilda is often quoted as the daughter of her father and
as the wife of her second husband.......the first one is hardly ever
mentioned because too many people are one-eyed, anything across the pond
is of no interest. At least this person realised there was more at foot,
but then to be ridiculed is dreadful..

More at HAND? -- DSH

Slothful and lazy? How can others make that observation when the person
asking is unknown? How do we know, as has been shown up in the past,
there
are people in wheelchairs unable to enter libraries, or people living
many
miles away from the nearest library.

That's ANOTHER Common Excuse some of these anonymous PFK pogues make.
They
are ALREADY ON the Internet and need NOT depend on Libraries for this
SIMPLE
BIOGRAPHICAL Information. Even WIKIPEDIA has it. -- DSH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V,_H ... an_Emperor

As Douglas Richardson often has said, we are here to make friends and be
helpful, not sit in judgement without all facts known to the person
jumping to conclusions.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

No, Leo...

With Respect...

There ARE indeed stupid questions.

They are often asked by people who are slothful and lazy and who do not
want to do the most BASIC GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH.

Their risible excuses, when they are CANDID, often run along the
FOLLOWING lines:

1. "I have a very busy life outside USENET and I don't have time to do
research."

2. "It's much faster just to ask someone, rather than look it up."

3. "I didn't know where to look."

In this most recent case, Pogue 'Holy Pasha' [no doubt some Pimply-Faced
Kid (PFK)], was spoon-fed the full particulars on Matilda, which I
provided in my post, and said PFK could easily have Googled for the
answer to his question.

Matilda insisted on being called _Empress Matilda_, thereby mightily
angering the English who rejected her as their monarch and chose Stephen
instead -- but later accepted her son, [after a Civil War and Stephen's
death in 1154], who became the Great English Monarch, Great-Grandfather
Henry II 'Curtmantle' <G>]

Continuing with these risible excuses often proffered:

4. "I'm not SO interested in an answer that I want to take MY time to
look it up."

Such pogues and poguettes do indeed deserve a shot across the bow and a
good, hard virtual slap across the face.

Creative Ridicule and Excoriation, such as we see from Kevin McCabe,
infra, are also an entirely appropriate and useful treatment for such
lazy ragamuffins, laggards and blaggards.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3088.1171142625.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

There is no such thing as a stupid question. If the person knew he/she
wouldn't ask. However there is a stupid or nasty answer.

Empress Matilda, her first husband was Heinrich V, Holy Roman Emperor.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <kevinmccabe@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: alt.history.british, soc.culture.irish,
soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

On Feb 10, 3:37 am, "Holy Pasha" <Moonyon...@gmail.com> wrote:

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Of course, its herself that the famous waltz is named for.

of which Empire ? Holy Roman ?


Australian. Do try and keep up.

McCabe



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 09:51:40

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3144.1171181386.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

When people ask genealogical questions, no there is no such thing as
stupid questions. [sic] Badly informed questions, yes.

He didn't ASK Genealogical Questions.

He asked BIOGRAPHICAL Questions, easy ones:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

why Empress Matilda ?

was she a real Empress ?

Holy Pasha
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answers To Which Are Easily Retrievable from the Internet, as I SHOWED you:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor>

He asked stupid questions -- because he's LAZY.

...You have no right to demand that people appear with their own
name, next you demand they use e-mail addresses other people can send
messages to. God forbid!!

Yes, all the people here worth discussing things with use their OWN names --
they don't call themselves "HOLY PASHA" either and ask stupid
questions.

You're going soft, Leo.

NO, I've never said people need to use a valid email address. Who the hell
wants to be harassed in one's private email Inbox? I've received Death
Threats, Viruses and Trojans from cowardly lesser pogues without the Law.

If someone wants to exchange information they should do it HERE on SGM or
GEN-MEDIEVAL - in MOST cases.

If folks want to exchange private email with each other, as you and I do on
frequent occasions, that's THEIR business.

But I don't expect you to reveal MY email address to anyone else and I would
NOT reveal YOURS without your express permission in writing, even though it
is already public knowledge, by your free choice.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Paul Mackenzie

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Paul Mackenzie » 11 feb 2007 10:15:54

Paul K Davis wrote:
Then, as now, people would choose words to achieve their result. "Long"
probably meant - "not just yesterday when I realized I would need some
evidence to support my claim".

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]



[Original Message]
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: 1/18/2007 11:45:52 PM
Subject: Re: Giles de Braose

That leaves us Giles born exactly from 1262 to 1270 since William is

supposed

to marry Mary of Ros "in or before 1271"

Interesting choice of words "LONG before he married Mary he enfeoffed his
son...."

I wonder what they thought Long meant?

Will

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to

GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message




Actually, the term "long" in this context had an implied meaning. If
William had enfeoffed his son.., AFTER he married Mary, then Mary would
be entitled to a 1/3 life interest in the manor in question,
notwithstanding that it was now in the possession of his son. Thus
"long" in this sense implies BEFORE he married OR intended to marry Mary.

Regards

Paul

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Philip Mowbray, Gov. of Stirling Castle

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 feb 2007 12:19:16

In message of 10 Feb, "Don Duncan" <dpduncan@comporium.net> wrote:

I was sent privately some information from a book by W. Stephens
entitled "The History of Inverkeithing and Rosyth" that describes,
among many other things, the descent of Philip Mowbray, gov. of
Stirling castle at the time of Bannockburn, from Nigel de Moubray.
The short version of the story seems to go like this:

Nigel de Moubray
|
Philip de Moubray m. Galiena, dau. of Waldeve
|
1. Roger de Moubray m. Christiana Fraser, dau. of Sir Bernard of
Fortun and Linton 2. Nigel fl. 1236-49

Much the same story, with complete lack of documentation, is to be found
in Burke's Commoners, Vol I, p. 126 and continues to p. 129.


--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 feb 2007 12:45:05

In message of 11 Feb, Sarah Krans <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote:

One citation about the death of John Gifford, Esq (and its a footnote
even!). Most of the documentation from my to my gateway ancestors is
actually birth, death, and marriage records when they exist - with
citations from NEGHR as the primary secondary source of information.

Both books basically have the same information in them. Why would I
talk to Mr. Richardson unless I have a question that only he can
answer? I have not reached that point in my research yet - same with
contacting Mr. Roberts. When the registrar for the Order of the Crown
of Charlemagne e-mails me pages from PA, I take that as accepted as a
reputable source.

You now have to think about what a reputable source would look like.
Let's take methods of quoting sources as a criterion.

The very best historical and genealogical articles give an account of
the people and events. The make it clear which events are factual by
adding a footnote to show where they got that information from. Having
done this, their interpretations of the facts should be obvious to be
interpretations.

The footnotes should principally be to primary sources. There are
degrees of primary sources. The best primary source is the ancient
document itself or a photocopy of same. The next best is a
transcription where someone has copied the words out and got them
printed in a book. The next best is an abstract where they have
summarised the salient facts, left out everything they do not consider
relevant and translated them into another tongue.

The original primary sources must be documents of the time of the people
being studied. Documents a hundred years later are suspect. Documents
two hundred and more years later are not primary.

All other documents are secondary.

Now for your question: "... PA, I take that as accepted as a reputable
source". It is certainly not a primary source. At best it could be
secondary if it quoted primary sources.

But PA3's method is _not_ to footnote each fact with primary sources
where they come from. Instead it puts a jumble of references of highly
variable quality at the end of the account for each person. Some people
have gone through one or two of these lists of references in detail and
concluded that they do not support specific claimed facts. Further
where so-called primary documents are referenced in the text, at best
mostly they are abstracts in English which are several steps removed
from the original documents. Most of the references are to secondary
documents without making it clear that they are such.

You must make up your own mind whether any book suits your own
standards.

I once owned a copy of PA3. I gave it away. For free - and delivered
it for free too.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles II of Navarre's kinsman, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 18:28:02

Dear Douglas and others,
I have discovered a possible
relationship between Eustace d`Brichecourt and King Charles II of Navarre but it is so
distant that it is in my opinion unlikely that Charles would have referred to
the old man as "tres cheirie et feal cousin " ( ? very dear and faithful
cousin) as Douglas mentioned in his intial post.
Jacques d`Avesnes who married Ameline de Guise

was father of Bouchard d`Avesnes who married Marguerite, Countess of
Hainault and Flanders and of Ida d`Avesnes, wife of Engelbert IV d`Enghien, Lord of
Enghien

Bouchard, in addition to Jan I, Count of Hainault had a son Baldwin, Sire de
Beaumont- Avesnes while Ida had a son Sohier II d`Enghien, Lord of Zottenghem

Baldwin of Beaumont-Avesnes had a daughter Beatrice, wife of Henry III,
Count of Luxembourg while Sohier II d`Enghien had a daughter Ida d`Enghien who was
wife to Gilles III de Traziegnies, Lord of Traziegnies

Beatrice of Beaumont- Avesnes had Henry VII, the Holy Roman Emperor while Ida
d`Enghien had Agnes de Traziegnies, wife of Eustace V, Sire de Roeulx

Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor had John, King of Bohemia while Agnes de
Traziegnies had Gilles dit Rigaut, Sire de Roeulx

John, King of Bohemia had Judith / Bonne , wife of King John II of France
while Gilles dit Rigaut de Roeulx had a daughter (Probably Agnes or Marie) de
Roeulx, wife of Nicholas d`Brichecourt

Bonne of Bohemia had a daughter Jeanne of France, wife of King Charles I of
Navarre while daughter de Roeulx had Eustace d`Brichecourt
Jeanne of France was the mother of Charles II, King of Navarre see
Genealogics.org, Genealogie Famille de Carne (website) and Judy Perry`s Katherine
Swynford blog on the Fall of the House of Roeulx, plus Douglas Richardson`s posts
in this thread.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Another Gateway Ancestor Inquiry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 11 feb 2007 18:45:43

In message of 11 Feb, Sarah Krans <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote:

Both books basically have the same information in them.

[PA3 & Sitherwood] That's simply not true. It's a FALSE statement.

When the registrar for the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne
e-mails me pages from PA, I take that as accepted as a
reputable source.

Hilarious!

Very Foolish...

We see her motives now.

She simply wants to be able to join the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne
and have a certificate to put on her wall.

Charlemagne has tens of millions of descendants -- perhaps hundreds of
millions.

Proving one's descent from Charlemagne through the Plantagenets, or
otherwise, is trivial -- given the records.

A descent from Charlemagne is NOT proof one is a member of some sort of
Elite Corps -- it's just an interesting curiosity.

I'm a descendant of Charlemagne, as are many of the folks on this newsgroup
[SGM].

It's fun fluff and intriguing window dressing....

Nothing More.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: ? Comyn wife of Malise

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 feb 2007 18:47:02

Dear Grothenwell,
According to posts by John P Ravilous, Malise`s
Comyn wife in given in contemporary documents as Margaret. likewise, Elizabeth
Comyn, Countess of Angus is so named in documents under for Edward II, Patrick
Dunbar`s Comyn wife was Marjorie and as you say Elena married David Brechin
leaving only de Soulis` wife`s given name in doubt.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Sally Laine

Re: Hohenstaufen Origins

Legg inn av Sally Laine » 11 feb 2007 19:15:31

Friedrich of Buren died b1094 married Hildegarde of Mousson died 1095
daughter of Otto of Sundgau died 1044. This is probably sourced by
Genealogie Mittlealter. Will be interested if you find out more

Sally


----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 10:25 PM
Subject: Hohenstaufen Origins


In ES (Freytag von Loringhoven) Volume 1 Tafel 5 (published 1975)
We find Friedrich von Bueren died before 1094, married Hildegard von
Schwaben, daughter of Otto, Duke of Schwaben. They married around/before
1050 as they had (six) children in the 1050s

In the same volume Tafel 8
we find Otto (died in 1057), Markgraf von Schweinfurt, Duke of Schwaben,
with five daughters : Eilika, Judith, Beatrix, Gisela and Bertha
(Alberada).-----no Hildegard
-------------------
In ES (Schwennicke) Volume 6 Tafel 1

Otto Pfalzgraf von Lothringen, Duke of Schwaben, had only one daughter
Richenza
(this is a different Otto)

--------------------
ES (Schwennicke) Volume 1.1 Tafel 14 (published 1997)
Here we find Friedrich von Bueren died (1068) no wife, but the same six
children as are mentioned by Freytag von Loringhoven
-------------------------

On http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de we find that Friedrich von Bueren
is married to Hildegard, and there she is mentioned as Hildegard von
Bar-Mousson and as a daughter of Ludwig Graf von Mousson and Sophie of
Lorraine. Her father's mother is a sister of Pope Leo IX.
-------------------------

ES Freytag von Loringhoven makes Friedrich's wife Hildegard a daughter of
Otto Duke of Schwaben
ES Schwennicke has no details for Friedrich's wife
Genealogie mittelalter makes her Hildegard von Bar-Mousson

Would anyone be able to say what the real situation is?

With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles II of Navarre's kinsman, S

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 11 feb 2007 20:39:22

On 11 fév, 18:26, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas and others,
I have discovered a possible
relationship between Eustace d`Brichecourt and King Charles II of Navarre but it is so
distant that it is in my opinion unlikely that Charles would have referred to
the old man as "tres cheirie et feal cousin " ( ? very dear and faithful
cousin) as Douglas mentioned in his intial post.
Jacques d`Avesnes who married Ameline de Guise

was father of Bouchard d`Avesnes who married Marguerite, Countess of
Hainault and Flanders and of Ida d`Avesnes, wife of Engelbert IV d`Enghien, Lord of
Enghien

Bouchard, in addition to Jan I, Count of Hainault had a son Baldwin, Sire de
Beaumont- Avesnes while Ida had a son Sohier II d`Enghien, Lord of Zottenghem

Baldwin of Beaumont-Avesnes had a daughter Beatrice, wife of Henry III,
Count of Luxembourg while Sohier II d`Enghien had a daughter Ida d`Enghien who was
wife to Gilles III de Traziegnies, Lord of Traziegnies

Beatrice of Beaumont- Avesnes had Henry VII, the Holy Roman Emperor while Ida
d`Enghien had Agnes de Traziegnies, wife of Eustace V, Sire de Roeulx

Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor had John, King of Bohemia while Agnes de
Traziegnies had Gilles dit Rigaut, Sire de Roeulx

John, King of Bohemia had Judith / Bonne , wife of King John II of France
while Gilles dit Rigaut de Roeulx had a daughter (Probably Agnes or Marie) de
Roeulx, wife of Nicholas d`Brichecourt

Bonne of Bohemia had a daughter Jeanne of France, wife of King Charles I of
Navarre while daughter de Roeulx had Eustace d`Brichecourt
Jeanne of France was the mother of Charles II, King of Navarre see
Genealogics.org, Genealogie Famille de Carne (website) and Judy Perry`s Katherine
Swynford blog on the Fall of the House of Roeulx, plus Douglas Richardson`s posts
in this thread.

Dates can help. You are confusing your Charles: the one called Charles
II above in that thread is the one you call now Charles I, and your
Charles II is in fact Charles III (and was only five years old in
1366 when Sir Eustace was styled "très chiere et féal cousin" by the
King of Navarre). Ergo Jeanne of France is the wife not the mother of
Charles II.

Pierre

The Highlander

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av The Highlander » 11 feb 2007 21:29:10

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:37:57 GMT, Renia <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:


The Highlander wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:40:46 -0000, "Ian Smith"
ianinhoose@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote:


In post heens2htkji5197nnvd0i4sd9ku3ve4vc7@4ax.com,
"The Highlander" (micheil@shaw.ca) shared this wisdom:


On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:52:50 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:


NO.

1. They are NOT the same post.

Ergo:

2. The MAJORITY do not.

DO Read More Closely...

Thereby:

Eschew Egregious Pratfall.

DSH

Reading even one of your posts takes one to new depths of sheer
boredom and reinforces one's lack of any expectation of credibility.

To suggest that we read your secondary posts in the hope of spotting a
new niblet of information defies all commonsense, apart from those
whose taste for masochism has run amuck.

It's not as though your name is linked with academic or intellectual
achievement. The overriding impression is more one of self-promotion
and uncontrollable ego; let alone the insane clichés sprinkled like
cats marking territory at the arse-end of every post you have ever
excreted here. The overriding impression is one of monstrous dung
deposits from the rotting bowels of a decaying dinosaur.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

Lol! Particularly liked that last line.


The truth bites, doesn't it?

Interesting to note that despite (or perhaps because of?) a Yale
education, the Dancing Queen of Hyperbole has no answer?

He never answers. Haven't you noticed that yet?

Renia, despite being some decades older than you, yet still
functioning, surely you must have grasped by now that I rarely miss
anything, although I don't always respond.

Believe it or not, Mr. Hines does in fact respond when I post
information that interests him and has done so recently on two
occasions. For example, we have ben excngaing notes on the merits of
Lagavulin, Talisker, etc. and other matters of related interest.

Perhaps you should peruse before you post. Or better yet, perhaps you
could rig up some sort of alarm system to warn you that your mouth is
getting ready to change feet?

I do understand that your busy schedule spent reprimanding and
correcting other posters gives you little time to concentrate on the
finer details of reality, like the date of television's appearance in
Scotland - it was after all, a Scottish invention by the late John
Logie Baird and quite a few of us have taken note of that happy event.

However, there are a couple of us here who enjoy your expeditions into
the realms of misinformation about Scotland as it gives us a chance to
feel that perhaps we are not as inferior to your good self as you have
been at such pains to assure us.

If you have any further helpful hints to stop me from crashing into
the hinterland of desuetude and senior moments, do feel free to keep
me advised. I would scarcely know where to turn without you snapping
at my heels...

But I am probably wasting my breath - as always there is a Gaelic
proverb which summarises our situation rather well...

Teagasg ga thoirt do mhnaoi bhuirb, mar bhuille ùird air iarunn fuar.
(Scolding a scold is like hammering cold iron).

(Nì mi rud sam bith bhon a seo gun chead bhon chaillich! - I shall do
nothing from now on without the old bag's permission!)




The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

avgilbert@clearwire.net

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av avgilbert@clearwire.net » 11 feb 2007 21:58:45

Highlander and all:

There's probably not much point in replying to Mr. Hines's longwinded
inanities. I think he just must like to see himself in print
somewhere(hint: he's apparently been banned from a number of e-
lists). You won't learn anything by doing so, and he just continues,
as he has, literally for years, filled this particular Usenet list
with off-topic postings on just about every subject he has an opinion
on, and dislikes. Few of them have much, if at all, to do with
anything medieval. I generally just skip his stuff.
Anne G(an "old" poster who hasn't been around lately, but that's going
to change)



On Feb 11, 12:29 pm, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:37:57 GMT, Renia <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:

The Highlander wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:40:46 -0000, "Ian Smith"
ianinho...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote:

In post heens2htkji5197nnvd0i4sd9ku3ve4...@4ax.com,
"The Highlander" (mich...@shaw.ca) shared this wisdom:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:52:50 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

NO.

1. They are NOT the same post.

Ergo:

2. The MAJORITY do not.

DO Read More Closely...

Thereby:

Eschew Egregious Pratfall.

DSH

Reading even one of your posts takes one to new depths of sheer
boredom and reinforces one's lack of any expectation of credibility.

To suggest that we read your secondary posts in the hope of spotting a
new niblet of information defies all commonsense, apart from those
whose taste for masochism has run amuck.

It's not as though your name is linked with academic or intellectual
achievement. The overriding impression is more one of self-promotion
and uncontrollable ego; let alone the insane clichés sprinkled like
cats marking territory at the arse-end of every post you have ever
excreted here. The overriding impression is one of monstrous dung
deposits from the rotting bowels of a decaying dinosaur.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

Lol! Particularly liked that last line.

The truth bites, doesn't it?

Interesting to note that despite (or perhaps because of?) a Yale
education, the Dancing Queen of Hyperbole has no answer?

He never answers. Haven't you noticed that yet?

Renia, despite being some decades older than you, yet still
functioning, surely you must have grasped by now that I rarely miss
anything, although I don't always respond.

Believe it or not, Mr. Hines does in fact respond when I post
information that interests him and has done so recently on two
occasions. For example, we have ben excngaing notes on the merits of
Lagavulin, Talisker, etc. and other matters of related interest.

Perhaps you should peruse before you post. Or better yet, perhaps you
could rig up some sort of alarm system to warn you that your mouth is
getting ready to change feet?

I do understand that your busy schedule spent reprimanding and
correcting other posters gives you little time to concentrate on the
finer details of reality, like the date of television's appearance in
Scotland - it was after all, a Scottish invention by the late John
Logie Baird and quite a few of us have taken note of that happy event.

However, there are a couple of us here who enjoy your expeditions into
the realms of misinformation about Scotland as it gives us a chance to
feel that perhaps we are not as inferior to your good self as you have
been at such pains to assure us.

If you have any further helpful hints to stop me from crashing into
the hinterland of desuetude and senior moments, do feel free to keep
me advised. I would scarcely know where to turn without you snapping
at my heels...

But I am probably wasting my breath - as always there is a Gaelic
proverb which summarises our situation rather well...

Teagasg ga thoirt do mhnaoi bhuirb, mar bhuille ùird air iarunn fuar.
(Scolding a scold is like hammering cold iron).

(Nì mi rud sam bith bhon a seo gun chead bhon chaillich! - I shall do
nothing from now on without the old bag's permission!)

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter Stewart

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of hismot

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 feb 2007 23:29:27

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42vzh.5820$sd2.2181@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.3108.1171156125.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<snip>

I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
(something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?

No, Richer specifically says that Charles Constantin was from a royal line
but that his ancestry was tainted with illegitimacy to the third
generation ("Hic ex regio quidem genere natus erat sed concubinali
stemmate usque ad triuatum sordebat").

My interpretation of "tritavum" as "the third generation" here could be
misleading.

In canon law this term technically indicated the sixth degree - "Sexto gradu
ueniunt supra tritauus tritauia" (the sixth degree in ascent,
great-great-great-great-grandfather and -mother).

However, I do not consider it plausible that Richer meant this in a
technical sense, or that rumour would have bothered with such a remote
illegitimacy for Charles Constantine that could be found in almost anyone's
pedigree. I think it more likely that Richer used "tritavus" vaguely, to
mean a more proximate ancestor that in memory and report would probably
extend no more distantly than to a great-grandparent, although the precision
to three generations is not literally justified.

Peter Stewart

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of hismot

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 11 feb 2007 23:54:57

On Feb 11, 5:29 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:42vzh.5820$sd2.2181@news-server.bigpond.net.au...



"Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.3108.1171156125.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

snip

I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
(something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?

No, Richer specifically says that Charles Constantin was from a royal line
but that his ancestry was tainted with illegitimacy to the third
generation ("Hic ex regio quidem genere natus erat sed concubinali
stemmate usque ad triuatum sordebat").

My interpretation of "tritavum" as "the third generation" here could be
misleading.

In canon law this term technically indicated the sixth degree - "Sexto gradu
ueniunt supra tritauus tritauia" (the sixth degree in ascent,
great-great-great-great-grandfather and -mother).

However, I do not consider it plausible that Richer meant this in a
technical sense, or that rumour would have bothered with such a remote
illegitimacy for Charles Constantine that could be found in almost anyone's
pedigree. I think it more likely that Richer used "tritavus" vaguely, to
mean a more proximate ancestor that in memory and report would probably
extend no more distantly than to a great-grandparent, although the precision
to three generations is not literally justified.

Peter Stewart



And IF Carolus' mother was Anna of Byzantium, then it could reference
her mother (Zoe Tzautzina) who was a concubine before marriage and/or
be a reference to Leo VI's mother Eudocia who was wife of Basil I and
mistress of Michael III as I recall. Lots of ifs. Certainly would
provide a "tainted" ancestry in some poeple's eyes.

Or as you say, Carolus' mother may have been a concubine which makes
the illegitamacy quite close.

Doug

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles II of Navarre's kinsman, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 01:36:02

Dear Pierre, Denis, Peter, Douglas and others,
I just
found some information on the d`Auberchicourt family in french, apparently, the
first lord was a Walter I d`Aubercourt who died in 1209 when the lordship was
divided between his sons Walter II, Sire d`Auberchicourt celle and his
brother Eustache I d`Auberchicourt, Sire de Bugnicourt. a generation or so later
Nicholas II d`Auberchicourt aller combatre Ecosse avec Jean de Beaumont, his son
Nicholas III succeeded him as Sire de Bugnicourt and He aided England
againest France and was made provost of Valenciennes, captain d`Enghien and captain
of Nottingham, his brother Eustache joined the Grand Compamy, fought at the
battle of Nogent and was captured at Poitiers, He was ta knight of the Order of
the Garter. John, a younger son of Nicholas III also was made a Knight of the
Order of the Garter. Some lands were gained by the Sires d`Auberchicourt and
Bugnicourt were d`Estaimbourg, de Bernissart, de Beuvriere, and Pieton came to
them early on.

Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Peter Stewart

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of hismot

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 feb 2007 02:51:42

<alden@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1171234497.748017.143860@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 5:29 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:42vzh.5820$sd2.2181@news-server.bigpond.net.au...



"Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.3108.1171156125.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

snip

I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
(something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?

No, Richer specifically says that Charles Constantin was from a royal
line
but that his ancestry was tainted with illegitimacy to the third
generation ("Hic ex regio quidem genere natus erat sed concubinali
stemmate usque ad triuatum sordebat").

My interpretation of "tritavum" as "the third generation" here could be
misleading.

In canon law this term technically indicated the sixth degree - "Sexto
gradu
ueniunt supra tritauus tritauia" (the sixth degree in ascent,
great-great-great-great-grandfather and -mother).

However, I do not consider it plausible that Richer meant this in a
technical sense, or that rumour would have bothered with such a remote
illegitimacy for Charles Constantine that could be found in almost
anyone's
pedigree. I think it more likely that Richer used "tritavus" vaguely, to
mean a more proximate ancestor that in memory and report would probably
extend no more distantly than to a great-grandparent, although the
precision
to three generations is not literally justified.

Peter Stewart



And IF Carolus' mother was Anna of Byzantium, then it could reference
her mother (Zoe Tzautzina) who was a concubine before marriage and/or
be a reference to Leo VI's mother Eudocia who was wife of Basil I and
mistress of Michael III as I recall. Lots of ifs. Certainly would
provide a "tainted" ancestry in some poeple's eyes.

These are not minor IFs - there is no proof that Anna was actually married
to Louis in the first place, then there are chronological difficulties, then
there is the peculiarity that Richer does not mention such an imperial
ancestry in a context where it would have far more resonance than a distant
taint of illegitimacy - i.e. in narrating that Charles Constantine swore
loyalty to Louis IV. Plenty of Frankish feudatories in the 10th century had
concubines in their pedigrees, but not Byzantine emperors.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 03:04:03

In a message dated 2/11/2007 1:20:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

Thus
"long" in this sense implies BEFORE he married OR intended to marry Mary.


No one is disputing that "long before" means before. The question is only
what "long" means :)

Will

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles II of Navarre's kinsman, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 03:15:08

In a message dated 2/11/2007 3:07:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr writes:

less deep ignorance and is far less comical than
your senseless "mal Sanche". I doubt any English schoolboy would make
such error after a year of French course.



Wouldn't a French course teach the words for good and bad in the first week
or so? I never took French, but I took Spanish, so I can make very labored
guesses at what a few simple French words might mean.
Will

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles II of Navarre's kinsman, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 03:18:03

In a message dated 2/11/2007 3:51:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid writes:

Et si on continuait cette discussion en français, histoire de voir
qui est francophone ici ?


That would quite possibly (sans doute?) be quite hillarious.

The Highlander

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av The Highlander » 12 feb 2007 04:50:33

On 11 Feb 2007 12:58:45 -0800, "avgilbert@clearwire.net"
<lagarvelho@gmail.com> wrote:

Highlander and all:

There's probably not much point in replying to Mr. Hines's longwinded
inanities. I think he just must like to see himself in print
somewhere(hint: he's apparently been banned from a number of e-
lists). You won't learn anything by doing so, and he just continues,
as he has, literally for years, filled this particular Usenet list
with off-topic postings on just about every subject he has an opinion
on, and dislikes. Few of them have much, if at all, to do with
anything medieval. I generally just skip his stuff.
Anne G(an "old" poster who hasn't been around lately, but that's going
to change)

Thank you for the warning, but we Scots are a contentiuous people,

always quick to jump on misinformation, racism, and claims that one
nation is better than another.

All abound on Usenet and the purveyors of the above like to touch base
with soc.culture.scottish because they know they will get an argument
here. Many however fall into the trap of becoming interested in what
we have to say and our opinions of politis, wars, etc. So they become
residents. Mr. Hines has already invested in two cases of firstclass
Scotch and will probably become an expert in the near future.

So we perform a social sevice - we take your lads and make men out of
them. Do you really think that this shambles in Baghdad would be going
on if we Scots were there instead of the US Marines? No way, Jose!




On Feb 11, 12:29 pm, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:37:57 GMT, Renia <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:

The Highlander wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:40:46 -0000, "Ian Smith"
ianinho...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote:

In post heens2htkji5197nnvd0i4sd9ku3ve4...@4ax.com,
"The Highlander" (mich...@shaw.ca) shared this wisdom:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:52:50 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemid...@hotmail.com> wrote:

NO.

1. They are NOT the same post.

Ergo:

2. The MAJORITY do not.

DO Read More Closely...

Thereby:

Eschew Egregious Pratfall.

DSH

Reading even one of your posts takes one to new depths of sheer
boredom and reinforces one's lack of any expectation of credibility.

To suggest that we read your secondary posts in the hope of spotting a
new niblet of information defies all commonsense, apart from those
whose taste for masochism has run amuck.

It's not as though your name is linked with academic or intellectual
achievement. The overriding impression is more one of self-promotion
and uncontrollable ego; let alone the insane clichés sprinkled like
cats marking territory at the arse-end of every post you have ever
excreted here. The overriding impression is one of monstrous dung
deposits from the rotting bowels of a decaying dinosaur.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

Lol! Particularly liked that last line.

The truth bites, doesn't it?

Interesting to note that despite (or perhaps because of?) a Yale
education, the Dancing Queen of Hyperbole has no answer?

He never answers. Haven't you noticed that yet?

Renia, despite being some decades older than you, yet still
functioning, surely you must have grasped by now that I rarely miss
anything, although I don't always respond.

Believe it or not, Mr. Hines does in fact respond when I post
information that interests him and has done so recently on two
occasions. For example, we have ben excngaing notes on the merits of
Lagavulin, Talisker, etc. and other matters of related interest.

Perhaps you should peruse before you post. Or better yet, perhaps you
could rig up some sort of alarm system to warn you that your mouth is
getting ready to change feet?

I do understand that your busy schedule spent reprimanding and
correcting other posters gives you little time to concentrate on the
finer details of reality, like the date of television's appearance in
Scotland - it was after all, a Scottish invention by the late John
Logie Baird and quite a few of us have taken note of that happy event.

However, there are a couple of us here who enjoy your expeditions into
the realms of misinformation about Scotland as it gives us a chance to
feel that perhaps we are not as inferior to your good self as you have
been at such pains to assure us.

If you have any further helpful hints to stop me from crashing into
the hinterland of desuetude and senior moments, do feel free to keep
me advised. I would scarcely know where to turn without you snapping
at my heels...

But I am probably wasting my breath - as always there is a Gaelic
proverb which summarises our situation rather well...

Teagasg ga thoirt do mhnaoi bhuirb, mar bhuille ùird air iarunn fuar.
(Scolding a scold is like hammering cold iron).

(Nì mi rud sam bith bhon a seo gun chead bhon chaillich! - I shall do
nothing from now on without the old bag's permission!)

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.

Leo van de Pas

Bulkley

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 12 feb 2007 11:08:13

Dear Paul,

I think (expect/hope) that the names Bulkley and Bulkeley are
interchangeable.

On my website is a William Bulkeley, of Cheadle, married to Ellen Griffith,
parents of Rowland born in 1462.
These details come from Gerald Paget's book on the ancestors and relatives
of HRH the Prince of Wales.

OT. Strangely I even found Bulkley in The Netherlands, a Robert Ward Bulkley
(presumably from either Great Britain or USA)
who married a Dutch lady, Marie Catharine Bekking, and they had a daughter
Elisabeth Henrietta born in 1857.

In the USA is a Elizabeth Bulkley married to Rev. Joseph Emerson, their son
Edward Emerson born in 1670
this comes from Waldo Lincoln's "Genealogy of the Waldo Family".

In one Bulkeley family the earliest one is Robert Bulkeley born in 1218,
married Jane Butler. They are ancestors of Royal Gateway Rev. Peter
Bulkeley, from county Bedford, England, he went to Massachusetts. This Peter
is a descendant of Llewellyn Fawr, Prince of Wales; Henry II, King of
England; William the Conqueror, Charlemagne and many more. A fascinating
descendant (to me at least) is Dr. Samuel Prescott who finished the ride of
Paul Revere; more are Jay Gould who was filthy rich; George Herbert Bush,
George Walker Bush; .

In England there was Thomas Bulkeley, 1st Viscount Bulkeley of Cashel, and
his granddaughter Anne Bulkeley married James FitzJames, Duke of Berwick, a
famous general and son of James II, King of England.

I am sure there is a lot more to be found.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles II of Navarre's kinsman, S

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 12 feb 2007 12:48:57

On 12 fév, 03:16, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/11/2007 3:51:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

denis.b-at-francogene....@fr.invalid writes:

Et si on continuait cette discussion en français, histoire de voir
qui est francophone ici ?

That would quite possibly (sans doute?) be quite hillarious.

J'en serais ravi (je poste en français à l'occasion), mais je ne
voudrais pas exclure ainsi de la présente discussion ceux qui ne
maîtrisent pas cette langue. Je n'ai en aucun cas voulu dire qu'il
était indispensable de parler un français impeccable pour avoir le
droit de s'intéresser aux généalogies de familles françaises, mais
cela suppose un minimum de curiosité pour cet idiome et surtout un peu
de modestie : une chose est de ne pas savoir le français, ce qui n'est
nullement un crime (beaucoup dans ce groupe sont prêts à aider ceux
qui rencontrent des difficultés de ce type et demandent poliment
assistance), une toute autre chose est de se prétendre un expert en la
matière et de pérorer sottement alors qu'au vrai l'on n'en comprend
pas un traître mot et que l'on pousse le manque de sérieux jusqu'à se
dispenser de compulser les dictionnaires. Faire de la généalogie,
particulièrement médiévale, cela requiert tout de même un brin
d'effort intellectuel, une dose de bonne foi et une bonne mesure
d'humilité, toutes qualités qui manquent cruellement à Monsieur
Richardson, comme il s'emploie à le démontrer journellement ici depuis
des années.

Pierre

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bulkley Ancestors In Normandy 1050-1250

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 feb 2007 17:19:11

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.3213.1171274929.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

This Peter is a descendant of Llewellyn Fawr, Prince of Wales; Henry II,
King of England; William the Conqueror, Charlemagne and many more. A
fascinating descendant (to me at least) is Dr. Samuel Prescott who
finished the ride of Paul Revere; more are Jay Gould who was filthy rich;
George Herbert Bush, [sic] George Walker Bush;

Bush 41's name is actually George Herbert Walker Bush and he has a home at
Walker Point in Maine.

George Herbert Walker (1875) - 1953) born Saint Louis, died New York City --
Bush 41's Maternal Grandfather.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bulkley Ancestors In Normandy 1050-1250

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 feb 2007 17:48:58

Paul Bulkley has gone as quiet as a Muslim mouse, who lives in a synagogue,
during a Bar Mitzvah.

Amusing...

Now he'll try to hook up to The Reverend Peter Bulkley of Massachusetts --
desperately hoping to find Royal Ancestors.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles II of Navarre's kinsman, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 21:17:06

In a message dated 2/12/07 3:50:42 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr writes:

<< J'en serais ravi (je poste en français à l'occasion), mais je ne
voudrais pas exclure ainsi de la présente discussion ceux qui ne
maîtrisent pas cette langue. Je n'ai en aucun cas voulu dire qu'il
était indispensable de parler un français impeccable pour avoir le
droit de s'intéresser aux généalogies de familles françaises, mais
cela suppose un minimum de curiosité pour cet idiome et surtout un peu
de modestie : une chose est de ne pas savoir le français, ce qui n'est
nullement un crime (beaucoup dans ce groupe sont prêts à aider ceux
qui rencontrent des difficultés de ce type et demandent poliment
assistance), une toute autre chose est de se prétendre un expert en la
matière et de pérorer sottement alors qu'au vrai l'on n'en comprend
pas un traître mot et que l'on pousse le manque de sérieux jusqu'à se
dispenser de compulser les dictionnaires. Faire de la généalogie,
particulièrement médiévale, cela requiert tout de même un brin
d'effort intellectuel, une dose de bonne foi et une bonne mesure
d'humilité, toutes qualités qui manquent cruellement à Monsieur
Richardson, comme il s'emploie à le démontrer journellement ici depuis
des années. >>

And here is the Babelfish translation
"I would be charmed by it (I post in French on the occasion), but I would not
like to thus exclude from this discussion those which do not have a command
of this language. I do not have to in no case desired statement which it was
essential to speak impeccable French to have the right to be interested in the
genealogies of French families, but that supposes a minimum of curiosity for
this idiom and an especially little modesty: a thing is not to know French,
which is by no means crime (much in this group is ready to help those which
encounter difficulties of this type and require assistance politely), anything else
is to claim themselves an expert on the matter and to sottement orate whereas
with truth one does not include/understand a traitor word of it and that one
pushes the lack of serious until exempting itself to examine the dictionaries.
To make genealogy, particularly medieval, that requires all the same a bit of
intellectual effort, an amount in good faith and a good measurement of
humility, all qualities which Mr Richardson misses cruelly, as it gets busy to show
it daily here since years."

Which proves that Pierre has been foisting upon us the cruel hoax that he is
or speaks French. Au revoir mine contraire, etc ad litem infinitum. I think
I've proving my point and there's no use driving sausages into Frankfurt. And
for Pierre I have just one thing to say : "Veuillez enlever votre pied de mon
cheval, ou la police vous battra avec des sandwichs !"

I think my work is done here.

Will Johnson

Kay Allen

Re: Bulkley

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 12 feb 2007 22:01:02

Dear Leo,

I have several Bulkeley lines. Here in US, some
Buckleys are really Bulkleys.

Rev. Peter Bulkeley's descent from the Robert of 1218
is iffy.

K
--- Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

Dear Paul,

I think (expect/hope) that the names Bulkley and
Bulkeley are
interchangeable.

On my website is a William Bulkeley, of Cheadle,
married to Ellen Griffith,
parents of Rowland born in 1462.
These details come from Gerald Paget's book on the
ancestors and relatives
of HRH the Prince of Wales.

OT. Strangely I even found Bulkley in The
Netherlands, a Robert Ward Bulkley
(presumably from either Great Britain or USA)
who married a Dutch lady, Marie Catharine Bekking,
and they had a daughter
Elisabeth Henrietta born in 1857.

In the USA is a Elizabeth Bulkley married to Rev.
Joseph Emerson, their son
Edward Emerson born in 1670
this comes from Waldo Lincoln's "Genealogy of the
Waldo Family".

In one Bulkeley family the earliest one is Robert
Bulkeley born in 1218,
married Jane Butler. They are ancestors of Royal
Gateway Rev. Peter
Bulkeley, from county Bedford, England, he went to
Massachusetts. This Peter
is a descendant of Llewellyn Fawr, Prince of Wales;
Henry II, King of
England; William the Conqueror, Charlemagne and many
more. A fascinating
descendant (to me at least) is Dr. Samuel Prescott
who finished the ride of
Paul Revere; more are Jay Gould who was filthy rich;
George Herbert Bush,
George Walker Bush; .

In England there was Thomas Bulkeley, 1st Viscount
Bulkeley of Cashel, and
his granddaughter Anne Bulkeley married James
FitzJames, Duke of Berwick, a
famous general and son of James II, King of England.

I am sure there is a lot more to be found.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Bulkeleys - Male Chauvinism in Genealogy ? :-)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 22:03:03

For Norman antecedents to Peter Bulkeley how about this line?

Again up to Margaret Mainwaring as you posted and then to
Ralph or Randall /Mainwaring/ of Kermingham d 1473/1474
Randle /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1456/1457
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1364
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d Abt 1341
Roger /Mainwaring/ m Christian de /Bertles/
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d Aft 1285
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1248
Roger /Mainwaring/ of Warmincham, Cheshire
Ralph (Raufe) de /Mainwaring/ , Justice of Chester m Amicia le /Meschines/
Hugh 'Keveliock' le Meschin, 3rd Earl of /Chester/
Maud (Matilda) FitzRobert of /Gloucester/
Robert "The King's Caen", Earl of /Gloucester/ 1122-47
Henry I FitzWilliam, King of /England/ 1100-1135

If this line holds, then the Bulkeleys have a few Norman lines

Will

Gjest

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of hismot

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 22:31:02

In a message dated 2/11/07 5:55:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< These are not minor IFs - there is no proof that Anna was actually married
to Louis in the first place, then there are chronological difficulties, >>

Are you referring here by "Chronological difficulties" to the idea that Anna
would have been somewhere between 12 and 17 when she became a mother to
Charles ("Carolus") ?

I only have a note that she was born between 886 and 889, and that Charles
was born between 901 and 903. Do you have something which pins either of these
two people down more than that?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of his mo

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 22:38:03

In a message dated 2/12/07 3:06:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.bieber@wanadoo.fr writes:

<< Manipulateur, Hughes de Provence fut sans doute à l'origine de la rumeur
qui vers 930 donnait de l'emphase à ce que l'origine d'Anne, la mère de Charles
Constantin fut entaché de bâtardise. Hughes de Provence attendait alors le
soutien de la flotte grecque contre les sarasins du Fraisinet. >>


Do we actually know that Charles' mother's name was Anne? Or is this
speculation based on trying to make his mother be the same person as Anne "of
Byzantium", illegitimate daughter of Leo VI "The Wise", Byzantine Emperor died 912

I think Peter has stated that we know Leo had a daughter Anne, and we also
know that Charles' father was Louis "The Blind", Holy Roman Emperor died 928.
But we don't know is that Anne and Louis knocked boots, or that even should
this have occurred, that the result was Charles.

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Bulkeleys - Male Chauvinism in Genealogy ? :-)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 12 feb 2007 22:50:38

In message of 12 Feb, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

For Norman antecedents to Peter Bulkeley how about this line?

Again up to Margaret Mainwaring as you posted and then to
Ralph or Randall /Mainwaring/ of Kermingham d 1473/1474
Randle /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1456/1457

Randle therefore lived till the ripe age of at least 93. Rather old?
I took my information, which looks the same as yours, from Ormerod's
fairly detailed account in Vol I, pp. 480-2. How sure are you that
Randle lived to that age?

William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1364
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d Abt 1341
Roger /Mainwaring/ m Christian de /Bertles/
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d Aft 1285
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1248
Roger /Mainwaring/ of Warmincham, Cheshire
Ralph (Raufe) de /Mainwaring/ , Justice of Chester m Amicia le /Meschines/
Hugh 'Keveliock' le Meschin, 3rd Earl of /Chester/
Maud (Matilda) FitzRobert of /Gloucester/
Robert "The King's Caen", Earl of /Gloucester/ 1122-47
Henry I FitzWilliam, King of /England/ 1100-1135

If this line holds, then the Bulkeleys have a few Norman lines

Will


--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Gjest

Re: Pickering of Killington/Lascelles of Escrick

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 23:05:04

Your theory of the three James' works of course, as would a theory of two
wives for one of the James' it seems and collapsing the two last into one person.

I'm having a hard time believing the short chronology. There is only 39
years (and a few months) between the birth of your James I and your James III, his
purported grandson.

Although it's *possible* that this family could have a short chronology, I'd
be a little more inclined to view it with skepticism in light of the vagueness
(so far) of the records and would be more leaning toward the idea that
something has been misread.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Bulkeleys - Male Chauvinism in Genealogy ? :-)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 23:08:03

In a message dated 2/12/07 1:56:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<<
Randle therefore lived till the ripe age of at least 93. Rather old?
I took my information, which looks the same as yours, from Ormerod's
fairly detailed account in Vol I, pp. 480-2. How sure are you that
Randle lived to that age? >>

You're right that it's suspicious, as is Randle's father dying when he was
five. I don't have another marriage for the widow Elizabeth Leycaster but
perhaps she had several for all I know on it. I show eight children for Elizabeth
Leycaster by William Mainwaring of Over Peover, his second wife, and one by
his first wife Joan Praers. Elizabeth is said-to-be yet living in 1404

Short History of the Mainwaring Family, by R Mainwaring Finley. Griffith,
Farran, Okeden & Walsh. London (reprint 1976)

I believe this book is at Google Books, but I evidently extracted these
details before I was systematically pasting the URLs into my database.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles II of Navarre's kinsman, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 23:37:03

Dear Will, Douglas and other interested parties,
I
found a website on the area of Bugnicourt which contains the following information
on Eustache d` Auberchicourt namely that He served under Edward, the Black
Prince at the Battle of Poitiers and was taken prisoner. He remained in French
custody until ransom of 12000 francs was paid in 1370. He then entered the
service of Charles II, King of Navarre died 1387. An Interesting tidbit from
Genealogics.org, the Sires de Roeulx would have stood an excellent chance of
becoming Count of Flanders if They had decided to follow a Salic type succession
on the death of Count Baldwin IX., as Eustace I de Roeulx was son of Arnold of
Hainault and grandson of Count Baldwin II of Hainault.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: ? Comyn wife of Malise

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 feb 2007 23:55:03

In a message dated 2/11/07 9:13:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jbrechin@gmail.com writes:

<< (Elizabeth) m Gilbert de Umphraville, >>

That her name was Elizabeth may be cited to this document

#1037. Oct. 3, 1331
The king commands Roger Mauduyt to deliver to Gilbert de Umfraville son and
heir of Robert de Umfraville, late earl of Angus, the dower lands of Elizabeth
the said Robert's mother in Roger's custody by the late king's commission),
with their issues since 6th July last, on which day the king had taken Gilbert's
homage though he had not proved his age, and commanded his escheator ultra
Trent to give him seisin of his father's and grandmother's lands. Westminster.
[Close Rolls, 5 Edw. III, p.1,m.2]

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Philip Mowbray, Gov. of Stirling Castle

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 feb 2007 00:02:02

Stirnet has the line here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... bray02.htm

Just last week John Ravilous posted some more chronological points on the
family.

I'm not sure it's going to be accurate to assert that Roger and Galdrid's
mother was Galiena FitzWaldeve. It's perhaps more chronologically believeable
that she was their grand-mother and that their mother is unnamed.

If your source touches on those points, that would be helpful.

Will Johnson

jonathan kirton

Re: Westmorland High Sheriffs

Legg inn av jonathan kirton » 13 feb 2007 00:57:03

I have now dug out the list which I obtained from the
Cumbria Record office back
in October, 2002, taken from "Westmorland Shrievalty".

It clearly has quite a number of variations from the
Wikipedia list as last amended
21:16, 7 Feb., 2007.

I will repeat the C.R.O. list, with the notes and
references from the other sources,
already mentioned, in (brackets) thus, together with a
number of sources which I
have found, and will add some comments.

1129 Richard filius Gerardi de Appleby.

1174 Ranulf de Glanville.

(1176 Ranulf de Glanville. (D MUS 2/10/24 (c.
1189) (Scope & Content))

1177 Ranulf de Glanville.

1189 Osbert de Longo Campo. (Osbert D MUS 2/10/24)

1192 Hugh Bardulf.

1195 Hugh Bardulf.

1199 Geoffrey filius Petri. (prob. 1199-1201 Geoffrey
FitzPeter & Roger BelloCampo)
(History & Antiquities, Co. of Westm'r'l'd & Cumb. V. 1)
(Roger BelloCampo was prob. the undersheriff.)

1200 William de Stuteville. (until 1202, with undersheriff
Philip Escrope, (c. 1208)
(D MUS 2/10/67)

1203 - 28 Robert de Vetripont, mar. Idonea, dau. & heiress
of John Buily.
(Baron; & Hereditary High Sheriff; died prob. Jan.,
1228)

1228 Hugo de Burgo. [until the coming of age of John,
the heir of Robert de
Vetripont.] (On 1
Feb., 1228 (ref.: CPR 12/13 Henry III,Vol.2,
p.176-7, 296) Gilbert de Kirketon of
Screveton, Notts. was
sent up to Appleby as co-constable / co-
custodian of the
following castles: Appleby, Braham (modern Brougham),
Burgh, Boues (modern Bowes, now in co.Durham) and
Malvestang (just west of Swaledale in NR Yorks; since
about 1300 known as Pendragon Castle). Kirketon was
evidently a lawyer, and was at Appleby by 4
Aug., 1228
when he was appointed as a commissioner of justice.
The writer suspects that Kirketon was also serving as
undersheriff to Hugo de Burgo at this time.
D/WYB/2/32,
(entry not dated, but estimated as "early 13th.
century".))

(1230 Alexander Bachucton Sheriff of Westmorland D/WYB/2/115
(not dated but
c. 1230. Prob. also an undersheriff to Hugo de
Burgo.))

1234-42 John de Vetripont, who married Sibilla, dau. of
William Ferrers, Earl of
Derby. (John, son & heir of Robert, now assumed his
hereditary position as High Sheriff, and it is
suspected
John de Kirketon, of Screveton, Notts.,
younger son of
Gilbert de Kirketon, served as his undersheriff.)
(However
in 1241 John de Vetripont died (ref. CPR) & on 4
Aug.,
1241 from Worcester, CPR 25 Henry III, Vol.3, p.
255, mem.
5, states: "Appointment, during pleasure, of
Gilbert de
Kirketon and Henry de Souleby to the custody of the
castles of Appleby and Brough under Stainmore (Burgo)
and all the lands late of John de Veteri Ponte; and
mandate to the tenants to be intendant to them."

1241 John or Gilbert de Kirketon. (Ref.: DDHV/70/1.
It is almost certain that
it was Gilbert de Kirketon, the father, who was
interim
High Sheriff, and that his younger son, John de
Kirketon
continued on as undersheriff. This seems to have
lasted
until c.1243. Gilbert was still in Appleby
as late as 1247,
Ref.: Nicholson & Burns, (1777) "History of Westmorland &
Cumberland", page 323: "Testibus Magistris
Domino
Gilberto de Kirketon actum Lundon (sic)." but
subsequently
is believed to have returned to his home in
Notts., but
leaving his son John to stay on in Westmorland.)

1246 Ralph de Nottingham.

(c.1250 Roger de Stokes. Ref.: D/WYB/2/35 mid 13th. century.)

1256 Robert de Steynton.

1257 Robert de Vetripont, married Isabella Fitz-Peter,
sister & afterwards co-heir
of Richard, son of John Fitz-Geoffrey.

1261 Richard de Musgrave.

1275 Michael de Arcla.

1277 Isabella Clifford - relict of Roger Clifford & dau.
of Robert de Vetripont.

(c.1283 Sir Thomas de Mussegrave. Ref.: D/WYB/2/38. Not
dated, before 1283)

(1283-9 Sir Richard de Medburn. Ref.: D/WYB/2/42. Not dated.
Prob. High Sheriff)

1284 Richard de Medburn. (1284 Michael de Hartcla Ref.: D/
WYB/116. He was
probably the undersheriff.)

(1288 Robert de Morville. Ref.: D/WYB/2/43. Probably also
an undersheriff)

(c.1290 William de Steynton. Ref.: D MUS 2/10/88. Another
undersheriff ?)

1293 Thomas de Hellebec.

(1294 Thomas de Hellebec. WD D/MD 40)

1295 Ranulf de Mannerby

1297 Nicholas de Cliburne

1298 Robert de Clifford & Idonea de Leyburn (dau. of
Robert de Vetripont).
(Gilbert(2) de Kirketon of Appleby served as
undersheriff to Robert de Clifford.
Ref.: Calendar of Charter Rolls, Vol.2, 1257-1300, p.453.)

1308 Robert de Clifford, son & heir of Roger de
Clifford, & Isabella, [ dau. of
Robert de Vetripont].

(1312 Robert de Morwyll. Ref.: D HC 2/11/6. Probably also
an undersheriff .)

1314 Henry de Warthecop [interim High Sheriff during the
minority of Roger
de Clifford, heir to Robert de Clifford].
(1317 Henry de Warthecopp. Ref.: D/WYB/2/117)

1320 Roger de Clifford [attainted for treason].
(1320 Hugh de Louther. Ref.: SC 8/151/7531) (Interim replacement)

1322 Walter de Stirkeland.

1322 Hugh de Louthre (1320-1322 Hugh de Louther Ref.: Sc
8/151/7531;
served from Oct., 1320 until Feb., 1322, & also
from Dec., 1322 until Jul., 1323)

1323 Patrick de Colewenne

1324-5 Henry de Threlkeld. Ref.: D MUS/2/10/31. [Prob.
Interim High Sheriff.]
(Henry de Threlkeld. Ref.: C 49/45/14).

1327 Robert de Clifford [married Isabel, dau of Maurice,
Lord Berkeley]

(1329 Thomas de Waryekop. Ref.: D/WYB/2/123. Probably as
undersheriff.)

(1330 Nicholas de Grendon. Ref.: SC 8/33/1650.
---------------------------------.)

(1333 Robert de Sandford. Ref.: D MUS 2/10/32.
---------------------------------.)

(1342 Thomas de Musgrave. Ref.: D/WYB/2/124.
---------------------------------.)

1344 John de Wateby, John de Morland, & Thomas de Warthecop.
[All Feoffees of the shrievalty under royal licence.]

(1345 Robert de Clifford. IPM (he evidently died in that
year.))

1345 William de Langwathby.

1345 Ralph de Nevill.

1351 Thomas de Bello Campo [Beauchamp]

1354-89 Roger de Clifford [married Maud de Beauchamp].(SC
8/130/6466)

(1355 Hugh de Boure. Ref.: C 131/9/17. Evidently another
undersheriff.)

(c.1357 Another Gilbert de Kirketon (great-grandson of the
first Gilbert ?) is
shown as undersheriff of Westmorland. Ref.: Nicholson &
Burns, (1777)
"The History of Westmorland & Cumberland", page 33.)

(1360 Henry de Threlkeld. Ref.: D/WYB/2/53. Evidently now
undersheriff,
although he had previously been interim High Sheriff
in 1324.)

(1380 William de Lancaster. Ref.: WD RY/BOX 92/53. (Must be
undersheriff.))

1389 Thomas Clifford. [married Elizabeth, dau. of Thomas, Lord
Roos.]

(1389 Walter de Stirkeland. Ref.: SC 8/222/11077. (Must be
undersheriff.))

1392 Anne, Queen of England. [wife of Richard II.]

1392 Elizabeth, Lady Clifford. (1402 Ref.: Sc 8/119/5945)
Until 1411.

(1403-1406 Thomas Warcop. Ref.: SC 8/23/1108. (Must be
undersheriff.))

(1406-1408 William de Thornburgh. Ref.: SC 8/23/1108.
(undersheriff.))

1411-22 John, Lord Clifford. [Married Elizabeth, dau. of
Lord Henry Percy.]

(1417-1418 Thomas Warcop. Ref.: SC 8/23/1108. (undersheriff.))

1422- 1438 Elizabeth, Lady Clifford, relict of John, Lord
Clifford.

1438 -55 Thomas, Lord Clifford. [Married Johanna, dau. of
Thomas, Lord Dacre.]

1457 William Lancaster, Esq..

1462 John Parr, for life; knighted 1472.

1475 Sir William Parr, Knt..

1483 Sir Richard Radclyffe, Knt..

1485 Roger Bellingham, Esq.,

1485 Richard Clifford, second son of John, Lord Clifford.

1486-1526 Henry, Lord Clifford. [Married Anne, dau. of Sir
John St. John.]
(1512 Ref.: C
131/97/16.)

1526 Henry, 11th. Lord Clifford, 1st. Earl of Cumberland.



I will leave it to others to decide what to add to
Wikipedia !

Hope this is of interest,

Jonathan Kirton

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bulkley Ancestors In Normandy 1050-1250

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 feb 2007 01:05:14

Hilarious!

Now, all Peter Bulkley needs to do is hook himself up to this line. <g>

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3229.1171314105.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

For Norman antecedents to Peter Bulkeley how about this line?

Again up to Margaret Mainwaring as you posted and then to
Ralph or Randall /Mainwaring/ of Kermingham d 1473/1474
Randle /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1456/1457
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1364
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d Abt 1341
Roger /Mainwaring/ m Christian de /Bertles/
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d Aft 1285
William /Mainwaring/ of Over Peover d 1248
Roger /Mainwaring/ of Warmincham, Cheshire
Ralph (Raufe) de /Mainwaring/ , Justice of Chester m Amicia le /Meschines/
Hugh 'Keveliock' le Meschin, 3rd Earl of /Chester/
Maud (Matilda) FitzRobert of /Gloucester/
Robert "The King's Caen", Earl of /Gloucester/ 1122-47
Henry I FitzWilliam, King of /England/ 1100-1135

If this line holds, then the Bulkeleys have a few Norman lines

Will

Gjest

Re: Morley and Hastings lines for the Reymeses and Brewsters

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 feb 2007 01:23:02

Sorry for the delay in responding to the message below.

If this filtration is correct there is a further Hastings/Browne connections.

My records of the Brownes of Elsing are a bit sketchy, but the Thomas Browne
of Elsing mentioned in the following message would seem to be the same
Thomas who was son of Anthony and grandson of William Browne of Elsing by his wife
Anne dau of Hugh Hastings. Hugh appears in the quoted Yorkshire
Visitations, and was, de jure, 14th Baron Hastings dying in 1540. After the death of
his son John on 8 Jan 1541, Anne, with her sister Elizabeth were his coheirs,
and as such the title became abeyant (de jour) amongst them as per CP Vol. VI
p 364-5

The above William Browne's father was Sir Anthony Browne (also father of 1st
Viscount Montague) This Sir Anthony had bought the wardship of Elizabeth
Hastings (and probably Anne Hastings) from Henry VIII. In his will of 1547 Sir
Anthony left Elizabeth Hastings to be married to his younger son Francis
Browne (no doubt his son William Browne was, by this date, already married to Anne
Hastings - all he was left was a feather bed), however the marriage did not
take place. Francis m Anne dau. of Sir William Goring of Burton, co. Sussex
Knt and relict of Sir George Lyne Kt. (als Sir George Delalynde) whilst Anne
Hastings married Hamon le Strange of Hunstanton, Norfolk (their son's second
marriage was to the daughter of Sir William Paston, also her m2)

Adrian




In a message dated 24/01/2007 00:06:30 GMT Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

This source
_"http://books.google.com/books?vid=0SjL18MuOhGuMukJ-5&id=gkAJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA90
&lpg=PA90&dq=%22robert+reymes#PPA90,M1">Norfolk Archaeology_
(mip://03bb9610/<BR)

mentions Martyn Hastings son of Thomas Hastings, Esq of Hindringham by his
wife Frances Tyrell

who married Elizabeth Browne dau of Thomas Browne of Elsing

I do find the marriage of Martin Hasting to Elizabeth Brown
on 30 Oct 1628 at Weasenham All Saints, Norfolk

For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M040851

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Bulkley Ancestors In Normandy 1050-1250

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 feb 2007 02:37:24

This The Reverend Peter Bulkeley line has often been questioned before.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3235.1171318058.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In a message dated 2/12/07 1:56:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

Randle therefore lived till the ripe age of at least 93. Rather old?
I took my information, which looks the same as yours, from Ormerod's
fairly detailed account in Vol I, pp. 480-2. How sure are you that
Randle lived to that age?

You're right that it's suspicious, as is Randle's father dying when he was
five. I don't have another marriage for the widow Elizabeth Leycaster but
perhaps she had several for all I know on it. I show eight children for
Elizabeth Leycaster by William Mainwaring of Over Peover, his second wife,
and one by his first wife Joan Praers. Elizabeth is said-to-be yet living
in 1404

Short History of the Mainwaring Family, by R Mainwaring Finley. Griffith,
Farran, Okeden & Walsh. London (reprint 1976)

I believe this book is at Google Books, but I evidently extracted these
details before I was systematically pasting the URLs into my database.

Will Johnson

Kay Allen

Re: Bulkeleys - Male Chauvinism in Genealogy ? :-)

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 13 feb 2007 03:41:02

Dear Leo,

I do not think that the Margaret Mainwaring who
married Randall Grosvenor is the daughter of Margaret
Savage. I don't have my notes handy, but there is a
reason that she isn't. :-(

K
--- Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

When talking about the origins of the
Bulkeley/Bulkley families and deny their Norman
origin is one thing, but this is, of course,
sticking to the fully male line. But some Bulkeleys
_do_ have Norman ancestors.

William the Conqueror ----- how much more Norman can
you get?
/
Henry I, King of England
/
Matilda
/
Henry II, King of England
/
William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury
/
Stephen Longespee
/
Ela Longespee
/
Alan, 1st Baron La Zouche
/
Maud La Zouche
/
Maud de Holand
/
Sir Robert de Swynnerton
/
Maud de Swynnerton
/
Sir John Savage
/
Margaret Savage
/
Margaret Mainwaring
/
Randall Grosvenor
/
Elizabeth Grosvenor
/
Rev.Edward Bulkeley
/
Rev. Peter Bulkeley
1582-1658

According to my system, the Rev. Peter Bulkeley has
at least four lines to William the Conqueror.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»