Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 00:04:40

Oh, lighten up, people. This is too stupid. You'd think Peter and
Leo were two old women I'd tipped over and stolen the purses of ...

As far as I am concerned, John Brandon could have quit a long time ago.
Because of the viscious way he treated me, I have ignored most of his
messages for quite a long time. As I understand his "contributions" were
very much America after the medieval time frame. My interest in Americans
(up to today) started only a short while ago, but gen-medieval is not the
place for them. The way he treated Merilyn Pedrick was beyond the pale, and
indefensible. Just because he may every now and then supply interesting bits
does that make his viscious behaviour acceptable? If in his viscious attacks
there was also some genealogical information you could say "he says
something, but in an objectionable manner", but I don't think that ever
happened.
Very sad indeed.
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

Leo van de Pas

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 mar 2007 00:15:42

The only way Brandon can communicate is with spiteful remarks. It also
shows how he can be relied upon, whining he maintains he is leaving gen-med,
but here he still is. Is offensive langauge too stupid to take offense to?
This shows what kind of person he is. I once found a quote "to the living we
owe respect, truth to the dead. But some living forfeit respect by their
behaviour.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Latham - but really John Brandon


Oh, lighten up, people. This is too stupid. You'd think Peter and
Leo were two old women I'd tipped over and stolen the purses of ...

As far as I am concerned, John Brandon could have quit a long time ago.
Because of the viscious way he treated me, I have ignored most of his
messages for quite a long time. As I understand his "contributions" were
very much America after the medieval time frame. My interest in
Americans
(up to today) started only a short while ago, but gen-medieval is not the
place for them. The way he treated Merilyn Pedrick was beyond the pale,
and
indefensible. Just because he may every now and then supply interesting
bits
does that make his viscious behaviour acceptable? If in his viscious
attacks
there was also some genealogical information you could say "he says
something, but in an objectionable manner", but I don't think that ever
happened.
Very sad indeed.
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

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 00:27:46

I was _certain_ you wouldn't see this, Leo, since you don't read my
postings! Now I may have to insult you further by calling you a "fat
little fibber." Oh, the outrage ... the horror ... diminishment ...
pain intolerable ... je ne supporte pas cet douleur ...

The only way Brandon can communicate is with spiteful remarks. It also
shows how he can be relied upon, whining he maintains he is leaving gen-med,
but here he still is. Is offensive langauge too stupid to take offense to?
This shows what kind of person he is. I once found a quote "to the living we
owe respect, truth to the dead. But some living forfeit respect by their
behaviour.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Oh, lighten up, people. This is too stupid. You'd think Peter and
Leo were two old women I'd tipped over and stolen the purses of ...

As far as I am concerned, John Brandon could have quit a long time ago.
Because of the viscious way he treated me, I have ignored most of his
messages for quite a long time. As I understand his "contributions" were
very much America after the medieval time frame. My interest in
Americans
(up to today) started only a short while ago, but gen-medieval is not the
place for them. The way he treated Merilyn Pedrick was beyond the pale,
and
indefensible. Just because he may every now and then supply interesting
bits
does that make his viscious behaviour acceptable? If in his viscious
attacks
there was also some genealogical information you could say "he says
something, but in an objectionable manner", but I don't think that ever
happened.
Very sad indeed.
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

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

Leo van de Pas

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 mar 2007 00:37:45

Didn't I say that I do not read _most_ of your messages? And I cannot miss
the ones replying to yours.
But here you go again, a reply has to be spiteful..........what more needs
to be said? What was it again what Spencer Hines used to say?
Don't let the door hit your backside when you leave. You are leaving aren't
you? Or was that a fib on your behalf?

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Latham - but really John Brandon


I was _certain_ you wouldn't see this, Leo, since you don't read my
postings! Now I may have to insult you further by calling you a "fat
little fibber." Oh, the outrage ... the horror ... diminishment ...
pain intolerable ... je ne supporte pas cet douleur ...

The only way Brandon can communicate is with spiteful remarks. It also
shows how he can be relied upon, whining he maintains he is leaving
gen-med,
but here he still is. Is offensive langauge too stupid to take offense
to?
This shows what kind of person he is. I once found a quote "to the living
we
owe respect, truth to the dead. But some living forfeit respect by their
behaviour.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Oh, lighten up, people. This is too stupid. You'd think Peter and
Leo were two old women I'd tipped over and stolen the purses of ...

As far as I am concerned, John Brandon could have quit a long time
ago.
Because of the viscious way he treated me, I have ignored most of his
messages for quite a long time. As I understand his "contributions"
were
very much America after the medieval time frame. My interest in
Americans
(up to today) started only a short while ago, but gen-medieval is not
the
place for them. The way he treated Merilyn Pedrick was beyond the
pale,
and
indefensible. Just because he may every now and then supply
interesting
bits
does that make his viscious behaviour acceptable? If in his viscious
attacks
there was also some genealogical information you could say "he says
something, but in an objectionable manner", but I don't think that
ever
happened.
Very sad indeed.
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@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

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 00:47:30

Don't let the door hit your backside when you leave. You are leaving aren't
you? Or was that a fib on your behalf?

I think that was a little fib on my part. I found a semi-cute picture
of the taf on the web that made me rethink my decision ...

http://molecular.biosciences.wsu.edu/fa ... merie.html

Tony Hoskins

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 29 mar 2007 01:13:37

"It is sad that We can`t all get along".

Yes. What a waste of time this all is. Let's drop this please, and
return to the topic.




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: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 mar 2007 02:11:02

Dear John , Leo, Michael and Peter,
It is sad that We
can`t all get along more of the time than we do. To be honest I enjoy John`s
actual posts more than the Google Books Index series... unless of course He`s in a
row with anyone else the same with Peter, Leo and Michael. When Posts turn
into ugly disagreements their names really ought to be changed to " At it Again
" "Ruckus " or " Fight in Progress" so the unwary lister would catch a clue
as to when Things have gone awry. By the way , John, You have a young
cousin named Kaylis , would that be for the Klingon Emperor ?
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Peter Stewart

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 mar 2007 03:15:26

"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.81.1175127271.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
"It is sad that We can`t all get along".

Yes. What a waste of time this all is. Let's drop this please, and
return to the topic.




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

And when - as on past & current form is almost bound to occur eventually -
John Brandon turns his snapping visage on Anthony Hoskins, we are all to sit
back silently, with hands folded and eyes winking in satisfaction, waiting
for him to show us how well he gets on with his attacker.

How very generous and professional of Anthony Hoskins, History, Genealogy
and Archives Librarian, to be prepared to overlook the slandering of Merilyn
and David in the interests of his own peace & quiet.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: FitzRichards

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 mar 2007 03:27:59

"Wanda Thacker" <wanda_t36@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.83.1175132608.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Here is what I found at the FMG site, and it seems
that their sources were at least plausible.

"Seems" on what basis?

but, conjecture is part of genealogy anyway, in the
absence of DNA. The best you can do is find sources
and state what they were and why you trust them and
then someone will come along and refute them later
anyway. I'm o.k. with, "not definite".

But you haven't stated "why you trust them", so far you have only overstated
what may be speculated from them.

Do you have an idea of how many women like Lucy paid "pro anima" respects to
great magnates who were neither their husbands not their brothers? How do
you assess the likelihood of a relationship for Lucy as high, rather than
merely notable or possible, given what you read on the FMG website?

Peter Stewart

Wanda Thacker

Re: FitzRichards

Legg inn av Wanda Thacker » 29 mar 2007 03:36:02

----- Original Message ----
From: "WJhonson@aol.com" <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: wanda_t36@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:30:03 AM
Subject: Re: FitzRichards

In a message dated 3/27/07 9:14:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wanda_t36@yahoo.com writes:

<< file of over 7500 people of Noble or Royal lineage >>

Beginner.
I have about 50 thousand ;)


Cool!!! Maybe, you will be able to help me some, while I go back through my files.
I have no idea how many people I would have if I hadn't separated out the royal and noble ones
from everybody else. Plus, I have a tangled up yarn ball situation where either me or my husband
descend from the same person two or three times. We were married for about 18 years
before I found out we were 5th cousins. Not quite Jerry Springer material, but still
surprising, considering we grew up 300 miles apart.

Wanda Thacker

Wanda Thacker

Re: FitzRichards

Legg inn av Wanda Thacker » 29 mar 2007 03:46:02

Here is what I found at the FMG site, and it seems that their sources were at least plausible.
but, conjecture is part of genealogy anyway, in the absence of DNA. The best you can do is find sources and state what they were and why you trust them and then someone will come along and refute them later anyway. I'm o.k. with, "not definite".

Wanda Thacker

"Baldwin earl of Exeter" confirmed the donations to the abbey of Sainte-Marie, Montebourg by "his father Richard de Reveriis" by charter dated to [1142/55][1239]. Earl of Devon 1141.

SOURCE: FOUNDATION FOR MEDIEVAL GENEALOGY
MEDIEVAL LANDS PROJECT
CHARLES CAWLEY

BALDWIN de Reviers, son of RICHARD Seigneur de Reviers & his wife Adelise Peverel (-4 Jun 1155, bur Quarr Abbey). He revolted against King Stephen in 1136, was expelled from the Isle of Wight and driven into exile with his wife and children, taking refuge at the court of the Comte d'Anjou. He was created Earl of Devon by Empress Matilda in [1141]. Robert of Torigny records the death in 1155 of "Balduinus de Redviers"[99].

m firstly ADELISA --- (-bur Quarr Abbey). As "Adelicia", she is named as Earl Baldwin's wife in the Chronicle of Ford[100].

m secondly LUCY de Clare, daughter of [RICHARD FitzGilbert de Clare & his wife Agnes of Chester] (-after 1155). She made a grant to Stoke-by-Clare priory for the souls of her husband Earl Baldwin and of Earl Gilbert [de Clare Earl of Hertford], assumed to be her brother




----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:35:06 AM
Subject: Re: FitzRichards


This parentage for Lucy is conjectural, however attractive & plausible
the connection seems, so that the statement "on the female side, it
DOES go back to that line" cannot be so definite.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 mar 2007 04:11:04

The William de la Pole who exerts my interest is stated by Bartrum's Welsh
Genealogies to have had a wife Margaret, previously married to Tudor ap Goronwy
(Acknowledgment to Brice Clagett for the quote).

The Oxford DNB mentions that Tudor ap Goronwy had a wife (unnamed), aunt of
Owen Glendower.

Staffordshire Fines 21-30 Edward III ( Staffordshire Historical Collections,
vol. 11 (1890), pp. 160-69) mentions "William de la Pole the younger,
knight", and his wife Margaret.

Does anybody know whether this Margaret was Glendower's aunt, and whether
she and her (second?) husband William de la Pole were the parents of John, Lord
Mawddwy, d. 1403?

MM

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 12:04:21

How very generous and professional of Anthony Hoskins, History, Genealogy
and Archives Librarian, to be prepared to overlook the slandering of Merilyn
and David in the interests of his own peace & quiet.

How very like you to be continually bringing this back up. It's
almost as though you ... knew ... them.

What is a "snapping visage," by the way? Sounds like a disembodied
turtle head. Which is oddly similar to how I had pictured you (less
neck, though).

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 12:10:52

as to when Things have gone awry. By the way , John, You have a young
cousin named Kaylis , would that be for the Klingon Emperor ?

I'm not sure, James, but that might be correct. My cousin Brooke, his
mom, was possibly into that sort of thing (her step-father at the time
was Budd Hopkins, the UFO-abduction author).

Leo van de Pas

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 mar 2007 13:37:14

I think it is appalling and telling how John Brandon takes it for granted
that he is allowed to be viscious and nasty but others are not allowed to
call him to task. Pull up your socks and stick to the On Topic subjects,
don't reply messages with your continual "smart" answers (usually more snide
remarks) and every body will get on happily. How many times has this been
said? Does John Brandon take notice?

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Latham - but really John Brandon


How very generous and professional of Anthony Hoskins, History, Genealogy
and Archives Librarian, to be prepared to overlook the slandering of
Merilyn
and David in the interests of his own peace & quiet.

How very like you to be continually bringing this back up. It's
almost as though you ... knew ... them.

What is a "snapping visage," by the way? Sounds like a disembodied
turtle head. Which is oddly similar to how I had pictured you (less
neck, though).


-------------------------------
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: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 mar 2007 14:12:52

On Mar 29, 1:37 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I think it is appalling and telling how John Brandon takes it for granted
that he is allowed to be viscious and nasty but others are not allowed to
call him to task. Pull up your socks and stick to the On Topic subjects,
don't reply messages with your continual "smart" answers (usually more snide
remarks) and every body will get on happily. How many times has this been
said? Does John Brandon take notice?

Ah, the joys of Usenet. Unmoderated groups are excellent proof of how
cowards, whose own sense of insecurity and inadequacy lead them to
become bullies behind the safety of internet anonymity, end up setting
the tone if left unchallenged. Well-intentioned remarks about "all
getting on together" and "leaving off the arguing" sadly represent the
moral cop-out of being unwilling or unable to dinstinguish between
bully and victim. Deplorable, of course, but it least it identifies
those participants without moral fibre.

Brandon will always be puerile, sneering and essentially off-topic -
getting het up about it will not change that sad fact. The important
thing is that posters and listers with brains and a capacity for moral
judgment can easily see that you, Leo, are not any of the childish,
boorish things that Brandon vomits about; you are a decent person, and
a valuable contributor to the field of mediaeval genealogy; you post
interesting and relevant material, and you enjoy helping others out.
Brandon, for all his flouncing, only despises you because you are what
he is not. He has chosen to be the news-group gnat, and just needs a
swat every now and then.

I do not agree with much of what Peter Stewart writes, and I am sure
that much of what I post bores him. Nevertheless, I appreciate his
stance against unwarranted bile and off-topic rubbish, both because
they are intrinsically wrong and because they have a clear deleterious
effect on this group. As it happens, I also respect him for the deep
genealogically knowledge e displays in his fields of interest, and for
his willingness to help others. I also deeply admire those who have
stuck their necks out recently to criticise poor behaviour and off-
topic trolling - unlike those who have remained silent or, despite
what I am sure are good intentions, have effectively endorsed it.

So, Leo - don't ignore or put up with unacceptable behaviour, but
equally don't let it get to you, and above all don't let it get in the
way of continuing your contributions to mediaeval genealogy.

Speaking of which, does anyone fancy some mediaeval genealogy for a
change? NB Klingons don't count.

Kind regards, Michael

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 14:55:08

I think it is appalling and telling how John Brandon takes it for granted
that he is allowed to be viscious and nasty but others are not allowed to
call him to task. Pull up your socks and stick to the On Topic subjects,
don't reply messages with your continual "smart" answers (usually more snide
remarks) and every body will get on happily. How many times has this been
said? Does John Brandon take notice?

"Appalling," "viscious [sic]," "nasty," how much loaded language do we
need to use. I was under the impression that the on-going tiff was
pretty much standard, low-level name-calling that has been happening
on this group from the beginning. I may be jinxing something, but
where is DSH when you need him? The man didn't know a lick about
genealogy per se, but he could spot the pious fraud, phony moralistic
attitudinizing, etc. from ten miles away.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Re: Edmund Peverel's wife

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 29 mar 2007 16:59:35

In message of 28 Mar, <pajunkin@bellsouth.net> wrote:

May I ask if the following is the Edmund Peverell under discussion?
"1369 Edmund Peverel (Peverell) v. Robert la Zouche and Margaret his
wife, a messuage, 340 acres of land,10 acres of meadow, 50 acres of
pasture, 20 acres of wood, 50s. rent in [Sussex] Westhanyngfeld; to
Edmund and his heirs, who undertake to pay to Robert and Margaret 10
marks yearly during the life of Margaret. " FF Sussex.

Doubt it. The Edmund Peverel that I referred to is down as dying bef
1350 in my records and the above was still alive in 1369; he was his
gt-uncle's, Walter de Langton bishop of Coventry, heir in 1321; the land
concerned was in Leics or Northants.

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

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 17:00:29

I'm not sure, James, but that might be correct. My cousin Brooke, his
mom, was possibly into that sort of thing (her step-father at the time
was Budd Hopkins, the UFO-abduction author).

My first cousin Carol, ex- of Budd, and grandmother of Kaylis, is the
lady in the second and fourth photos ...

http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_budd_hopkins.htm

Gjest

Re: Ogilface, Scotland

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 mar 2007 17:15:54

Dear Rosie,
I do not have a location in Linlithgow, however, William de Veteripont owned Oggilface (in Linlithgow) which he granted to Holyrood in the mid 12thc.
1150 ca. "A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by, i. a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), ....along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of Carriden, and Godwin of 'Carriden.His first wife was Emma St. Hilarie by whom he had three sons, all Williams, was heiress of Blackness and Carriden. (Early Scottish Charters Prior to 1153 and The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History.) His second wife was Maude de Morville.
Hope this may be of help.
Pat

From: "Rosie" <rosie@armadale.org.uk
Date: 2007/03/25 Sun AM 11:59:14 EDT
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Ogilface, Scotland

Looking for any information on Ogilface Castle (Location: West Lothian,
Scotland)

HYPERLINK
"http://www.armadale.org.uk/archaeology.htm"www.armadale.org.uk/archaeology.
htm



Rosie and John








--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/731 - Release Date: 23/03/2007
15:27


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

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 18:02:38

My first cousin Carol, ex- of Budd, and grandmother of Kaylis, is the
lady in the second and fourth photos ...

http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_budd_hopkins.htm

Looking a bit "put out" ...

http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... ame=Rainey

Leo van de Pas

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 mar 2007 21:44:57

It is wonderful to see how John Brandon is always correct, he never errs in
behaviour. He is never wrong, it is always the other person(s) fault.


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Latham - but really John Brandon


I think it is appalling and telling how John Brandon takes it for granted
that he is allowed to be viscious and nasty but others are not allowed to
call him to task. Pull up your socks and stick to the On Topic subjects,
don't reply messages with your continual "smart" answers (usually more
snide
remarks) and every body will get on happily. How many times has this been
said? Does John Brandon take notice?

"Appalling," "viscious [sic]," "nasty," how much loaded language do we
need to use. I was under the impression that the on-going tiff was
pretty much standard, low-level name-calling that has been happening
on this group from the beginning. I may be jinxing something, but
where is DSH when you need him? The man didn't know a lick about
genealogy per se, but he could spot the pious fraud, phony moralistic
attitudinizing, etc. from ten miles away.


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

Peter Stewart

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 mar 2007 22:18:32

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175176508.568189.109110@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

[Leo had written:]
I think it is appalling and telling how John Brandon takes it for granted
that he is allowed to be viscious and nasty but others are not allowed to
call him to task. Pull up your socks and stick to the On Topic subjects,
don't reply messages with your continual "smart" answers (usually more
snide
remarks) and every body will get on happily. How many times has this been
said? Does John Brandon take notice?

"Appalling," "viscious [sic]," "nasty," how much loaded language do we
need to use. I was under the impression that the on-going tiff was
pretty much standard, low-level name-calling that has been happening
on this group from the beginning. I may be jinxing something, but
where is DSH when you need him? The man didn't know a lick about
genealogy per se, but he could spot the pious fraud, phony moralistic
attitudinizing, etc. from ten miles away.

So Brandon is now reduced to assuming that absent correspondents would
unquestionably agree with him - this neatly illustrates the point that
Michael and I have been making about the negative effect of silence, that a
warped personality can so readily twist into support, or indeed complicity.

Compared to Brandon, Spencer Hines in his SGM participation was a class act.
In earlier years he contributed a good deal in discussion of medieval
genealogy: unfortunately he became disillusioned with the forum and lost
respect for it, transferring this attitude to almost everyone here.

But I can understand how disappointment with the newsgroup can set in, when
so many people keep quiet while others actively indulge a juvenile offender
like Brandon, and even pay him compliments.

People who come here to help others can hardly be expected to go on doing so
when the net consumers of SGM, as well as many of the regular posters, think
they are absolved from upholding moral and social standards here.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 22:31:15

It is wonderful to see how John Brandon is always correct, he never errs in
behaviour. He is never wrong, it is always the other person(s) fault.

No, you are right, Leo. I am fundamentally an evil person.

1. I called Merilyn "an aging bleach-blonded cow." Sorry, Merilyn,
that was very rude of me.

2. I called Peter Stewart an "old fool." Sorry, Peter, I shouldn't
have called you "old," as I don't know your age (not even
approximately).

3. I called David Greene "a pompous creep." Errr, I still think that
*is* probably true.

4. I said the picture of Todd was "semi-cute." Hmmm. I think that
could have been a basically accurate description--that particular
photograph probably wasn't the best quality, plus he looks a little
unhappy in it (as someone understandably would if they suddenly
learned they were to be photographed on a moment's notice). But he is
very intense looking. Does anybody know how tall he is?

Rosie Bevan

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 29 mar 2007 23:28:20

Indeed. The increase in non-medieval content clogging up my mailbox,
such as this prime example from John Brandon, is one of the reasons I
unsubscribed from sgm. John Brandon's posts do nothing but manifest an
inconsiderate, attention-seeking personality, barely out of diapers,
judging by his immature behaviour on the newsgroup - as Peter, Leo and
others have so aptly pointed out.

A good reason to dip into sgm these days is to read the posts of
Michael Andrews-Reading, which are like a breath of fresh air blowing
through a stale room. These are thoughtful, original, intelligent and
RELEVANT. John Brandon could learn a lot from them if he wished to,
but as he does not, I too, wish he would play elsewhere.

Rosie Bevan


On Mar 30, 5:02 am, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My first cousin Carol, ex- of Budd, and grandmother of Kaylis, is the
lady in the second and fourth photos ...

http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_budd_hopkins.htm

Looking a bit "put out" ...

http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... 0003593&...

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 29 mar 2007 23:39:06

Funny how folks from this region of the world (Australia, New Zealand,
etc) never have a sense of humor about me ...


Indeed. The increase in non-medieval content clogging up my mailbox,
such as this prime example from John Brandon, is one of the reasons I
unsubscribed from sgm. John Brandon's posts do nothing but manifest an
inconsiderate, attention-seeking personality, barely out of diapers,
judging by his immature behaviour on the newsgroup - as Peter, Leo and
others have so aptly pointed out.

A good reason to dip into sgm these days is to read the posts of
Michael Andrews-Reading, which are like a breath of fresh air blowing
through a stale room. These are thoughtful, original, intelligent and
RELEVANT. John Brandon could learn a lot from them if he wished to,
but as he does not, I too, wish he would play elsewhere.

Rosie Bevan

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 30 mar 2007 01:52:09

Perhaps its because they dont carry on with so much bullshit as you Yanks
and dont have much time to "suffer fools gladly".
Mike

They certainly take pride in thinking that's the case.

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 30 mar 2007 01:53:38

Yes, ma'am, lady (as an old song put it).

Yes, it was extremely rude of you. Just as well I come from hardy pioneer
stock and am fairly impervious to insults. In fact I'm just a harmless old
lady, sitting here at my computer (with my GREY hair). I don't believe it
advances our understanding of medieval genealogy to waste time hurling
insults around.
By all means criticise the methods or the results of someone's research, but
keep your temper under your hat.
Merilyn



-------Original Message-------

From: John Brandon
Date: 03/30/07 07:05:35
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

It is wonderful to see how John Brandon is always correct, he never errs
in
behaviour. He is never wrong, it is always the other person(s) fault.

No, you are right, Leo. I am fundamentally an evil person.

1. I called Merilyn "an aging bleach-blonded cow." Sorry, Merilyn,
that was very rude of me.

2. I called Peter Stewart an "old fool." Sorry, Peter, I shouldn't
have called you "old," as I don't know your age (not even
approximately).

3. I called David Greene "a pompous creep." Errr, I still think that
*is* probably true.

4. I said the picture of Todd was "semi-cute." Hmmm. I think that
could have been a basically accurate description--that particular
photograph probably wasn't the best quality, plus he looks a little
unhappy in it (as someone understandably would if they suddenly
learned they were to be photographed on a moment's notice). But he is
very intense looking. Does anybody know how tall he is?

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

Mick

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Mick » 30 mar 2007 01:54:07

JB
Perhaps its because they dont carry on with so much bullshit as you Yanks
and dont have much time to "suffer fools gladly".
Mike

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175207946.554887.250470@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Funny how folks from this region of the world (Australia, New Zealand,
etc) never have a sense of humor about me ...


Indeed. The increase in non-medieval content clogging up my mailbox,
such as this prime example from John Brandon, is one of the reasons I
unsubscribed from sgm. John Brandon's posts do nothing but manifest an
inconsiderate, attention-seeking personality, barely out of diapers,
judging by his immature behaviour on the newsgroup - as Peter, Leo and
others have so aptly pointed out.

A good reason to dip into sgm these days is to read the posts of
Michael Andrews-Reading, which are like a breath of fresh air blowing
through a stale room. These are thoughtful, original, intelligent and
RELEVANT. John Brandon could learn a lot from them if he wished to,
but as he does not, I too, wish he would play elsewhere.

Rosie Bevan

Douglas Richardson

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 mar 2007 02:13:09

Dear Michael ~

I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.

The first abstract copied below indicates that the de la Pole property
involved in the Staffordshire fine was the manor of Stretton,
Staffordshire. This fine is dated 1354. In the second abstract
below, it shows that Margaret (Peverel) de la Pole's mother,
Elizabeth, widow of Sir Edmund Peverel, sued for dower in several
counties including Staffordshire in 1334. The Sheriff of
Staffordshire replied that Adam Henry, of Stratton, Thomas, Vicar of
the Church of Stratton (Stretton), John, son of William de Draycote,
and William, son of Adam de Stratton had custody of the Peveral lands
in question in that county. Inasmuch as the vicar of Stretton was one
of the custodians for the property in Staffordshire, I assume the
property held by the Peverel family in that county was the manor of
Stretton, Staffordshire, and that it descended on the death of
Elizabeth Peverel's son, John Peverel, to his sister, Margaret
(Peverel) de la Pole.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
#1.

Source: "Staffordshire Fines: 21-30 Edward III," Staffordshire
Historical Collections, 11 (1890): 160-169.

URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... %20Pole%22.

No. 41. At a month from the day of St. Michael. 28 E. III [1354].

Between William le Champion, of Saredon, complainant, and William de
la Pole the younger, Knight, and Margaret his wife, deforciants of the
manor of Stretton.

William de la Pole and Margaret remit all right to William le Champion
and his heirs, for which William le Champion gave them 100 marks of
silver.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
#2.

Source: 'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 7 Edward III', Staffordshire
Historical Collections, 11 (1890): 40-50.

URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=52483.

Staff., Bucks, Bed., Salop, Linc., Lanc, Hunt. In the suit for dower
which Elizabeth, formerly wife of Edmund Peverel, claimed against the
custodes of the lands of John, son and heir of Edmund Peverel, the
Sheriff of Staffordshire returned at Easter, 8 E. III. [1334], that
Adam Henry, of Stratton, Thomas, Vicar of the Church of Stratton
(Stretton), John, son of William de Draycote, and William, son of Adam
de Stratton, the custodes of the land of John in that county, held
lands and tenements of the inheritance of John to the value of 30s.
2d. annually. (fn. 1) m. 266.


On Mar 28, 7:08 pm, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
The William de la Pole who exerts my interest is stated by Bartrum's Welsh
Genealogies to have had a wife Margaret, previously married to Tudor ap Goronwy
(Acknowledgment to Brice Clagett for the quote).

The Oxford DNB mentions that Tudor ap Goronwy had a wife (unnamed), aunt of
Owen Glendower.

Staffordshire Fines 21-30 Edward III ( Staffordshire Historical Collections,
vol. 11 (1890), pp. 160-69) mentions "William de la Pole the younger,
knight", and his wife Margaret.

Does anybody know whether this Margaret was Glendower's aunt, and whether
she and her (second?) husband William de la Pole were the parents of John, Lord
Mawddwy, d. 1403?

MM

Nathaniel Taylor

trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 30 mar 2007 02:15:17

In article <I2WOh.4678$M.1793@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Compared to Brandon, Spencer Hines in his SGM participation was a class act.
In earlier years he contributed a good deal in discussion of medieval
genealogy: unfortunately he became disillusioned with the forum and lost
respect for it, transferring this attitude to almost everyone here.

But I can understand how disappointment with the newsgroup can set in, when
so many people keep quiet while others actively indulge a juvenile offender
like Brandon, and even pay him compliments.

I think these characterizations of the Hawaiian's involvement in sgm are
misleading in several respects. I suspect most old-timers would agree
that at no time in the past 12 years could it be said that he
'contributed a good deal in discussion of medieval genealogy'. Typical
of true trolls, he appears to have been here not to learn (or to
instruct) in the core topic area of the group, but largely to hear the
ripples caused by his own turds. One would be hard pressed to find any
contribution of substance beyond the occasional tidbit from his copy of
the _Complete Peerage_. And as for the circumstances of his departure,
the people whose business it has been to watch such traffic have
observed on more than one occasion that he fits a Usenet norm in
trollery: his activity has varied directly with the amount of reaction
of any kind, including criticism, which appears on list. The
conventional wisdom of Usenet has been that a troll's departure happens
when the troll is consistently ignored; only by a sort of speculative
emphathy could one presume to know that it is because the troll has
'lost respect' for the group in which he is ignored.

From my own observation in soc.genealogy.medieval it seems to me that
the traditional Usenet anti-trollery shunning dictum has a better
success rate for the group, and is arguably morally superior for the
individual participant, than a campaign of aggressive denunciation. Can
someone show convincingly that the latter tactic is both morally
superior for the individual participant, and has a better success rate
at increasing the group's signal to noise ratio?

A relevant analogy in animal training and marital psychology was noted
in the _New York Times_ last year, and made much of in blogs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/fashion/25love.html

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 30 mar 2007 02:41:02

Yes, it was extremely rude of you. Just as well I come from hardy pioneer
stock and am fairly impervious to insults. In fact I'm just a harmless old
lady, sitting here at my computer (with my GREY hair). I don't believe it
advances our understanding of medieval genealogy to waste time hurling
insults around.
By all means criticise the methods or the results of someone's research, but
keep your temper under your hat.
Merilyn




-------Original Message-------

From: John Brandon
Date: 03/30/07 07:05:35
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

It is wonderful to see how John Brandon is always correct, he never errs
in
behaviour. He is never wrong, it is always the other person(s) fault.

No, you are right, Leo. I am fundamentally an evil person.

1. I called Merilyn "an aging bleach-blonded cow." Sorry, Merilyn,
that was very rude of me.

2. I called Peter Stewart an "old fool." Sorry, Peter, I shouldn't
have called you "old," as I don't know your age (not even
approximately).

3. I called David Greene "a pompous creep." Errr, I still think that
*is* probably true.

4. I said the picture of Todd was "semi-cute." Hmmm. I think that
could have been a basically accurate description--that particular
photograph probably wasn't the best quality, plus he looks a little
unhappy in it (as someone understandably would if they suddenly
learned they were to be photographed on a moment's notice). But he is
very intense looking. Does anybody know how tall he is?


-------------------------------
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: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 mar 2007 06:33:01

On 30 Mrz., 02:13, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Michael ~

I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.

Dear Douglas

If this is correct, then some of the usual sources for the de la Poles
of Suffolk are wrong. For instance, Roskell et al (HoP) in the
biography for the first Earl of Suffolk's brother, Sir Edmund de la
Pole (c1337-1419) states that he was the son of Sir William de la Pole
(d 1366) of Kingston-upon-Hull by his wife *Katherine*. It also
states that "following his father's death in 1366 he assisted his
mother..." These dates show that the editors of HoP believed Sir
William of Hull was married at least from c1337 until his death to
Katherine. Unfortunately, HoP follows the unhelpful practice of
lumping all its references together in a block at the foot of the
article.

This is backed up however by ODNB in their biography of Sir Edmund's
elder brother, Michael, 1st Earl of Suffolk, which states he was born
c1330 to Sir William of Hull (d 1366) and his wife Katherine. The
ODNB article on Sir William himself states that Katherine, his widow,
survived until 1382; it seems her origins are unknown.

It seems therefore the Sir William de la Pole and his wife Margaret ff
1354 must be found elsewhere in the family's pedigree. The Castle
Ashby branch is the usual attribution - I haven't looked for any
confirmation of this however.

Best wishes, the other Michael

(PS Good to see you posting again).

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Ogilface, Scotland

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 30 mar 2007 07:56:38

From Groome's Gazeteer:

"Ogilface, an ancient baronial fortalice in Torphichen parish,
Linlithgow (county) 3 1/2 miles west of Bathgate. It belonged to the
ancient family of De Bosco, Barons of Ogilface; passed to the Earls of
Linlithgow; seems to have been a structure of some strength, but of
no great size; and is now represented by only traces of the
foundations."

The de Bosco family (vulgariter Boyes) were based in Gillsland
(Cumberland) and Annandale (Dumfries), but I didn't know that they
were here as well. However Groome doesn't give sources.

Torphichen was the base of the Knights of St John, whose lands there
passed to Sandilands of Calder, now Lord Torphichen.

Peter Stewart

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 mar 2007 08:43:53

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175207946.554887.250470@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Funny how folks from this region of the world (Australia, New Zealand,
etc) never have a sense of humor about me ...

That is because you are not funny, another point where Hines was at times
favoured by comparison.

Your common or garden variety low-camp snarkiness is not witty or even
humorous, just boring. A desperate wannabe who never got to be anything but
bitter does not make for enlivening company, in the real world or in a
virtual community.

And even the dumbest mules have sense enough not to foul the ground where
they wish to spend time with each other.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 mar 2007 09:09:54

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-ABCF2E.21151629032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <I2WOh.4678$M.1793@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Compared to Brandon, Spencer Hines in his SGM participation was a class
act.
In earlier years he contributed a good deal in discussion of medieval
genealogy: unfortunately he became disillusioned with the forum and lost
respect for it, transferring this attitude to almost everyone here.

But I can understand how disappointment with the newsgroup can set in,
when
so many people keep quiet while others actively indulge a juvenile
offender
like Brandon, and even pay him compliments.

I think these characterizations of the Hawaiian's involvement in sgm are
misleading in several respects. I suspect most old-timers would agree
that at no time in the past 12 years could it be said that he
'contributed a good deal in discussion of medieval genealogy'. Typical
of true trolls, he appears to have been here not to learn (or to
instruct) in the core topic area of the group, but largely to hear the
ripples caused by his own turds. One would be hard pressed to find any
contribution of substance beyond the occasional tidbit from his copy of
the _Complete Peerage_.

That was the level of discussion at the time, and Hines took part with some
positive enthusiasm at first whether or not you noticed this or care to
remember.

And as for the circumstances of his departure,
the people whose business it has been to watch such traffic have
observed on more than one occasion that he fits a Usenet norm in
trollery: his activity has varied directly with the amount of reaction
of any kind, including criticism, which appears on list. The
conventional wisdom of Usenet has been that a troll's departure happens
when the troll is consistently ignored; only by a sort of speculative
emphathy could one presume to know that it is because the troll has
'lost respect' for the group in which he is ignored.

I didn't suggest this was the reason for his departure, but for his
behaviour _before_ he left.

From my own observation in soc.genealogy.medieval it seems to me that
the traditional Usenet anti-trollery shunning dictum has a better
success rate for the group, and is arguably morally superior for the
individual participant, than a campaign of aggressive denunciation. Can
someone show convincingly that the latter tactic is both morally
superior for the individual participant, and has a better success rate
at increasing the group's signal to noise ratio?

A troll is NOT "shunned" by silence from most participants when a few choose
to pay compliments or post ambivalent indulgence, as happened with Brandon
recently, while only a scattered few make objections. Silence is in most
cases at least as meaningless as some suppose it to be dignified. To twisted
minds it can be an affirmation. Merilyn and David had the good grace not to
respond to Brandon, but that doesn't excuse everyone who respects them and
welcomes their presence here from the obligation to speak up against vile
insults. It may be useless, but efficacy is not the principle at issue.

As for examples of fools and/or abusers of SGM who left off posting after
noisy vituperation, remember Dr Tsambourakis, Annie, Phil Moody, St Neel,
Ken Fitton, the Rockerfeller impostor? These are just a few brought to mind
on the spur of the moment. And do you seriosly think Hines left because he
was ignored? Try looking back over the last threads he was involved in as a
regular. Even Uriah went away when Richardson was made to look silly enough.

Who of their ilk ever went away after being ignored?

There are hundreds of subscribers to GEN-MED, and perhaps as many regular
readers on Google Groups (the number in the 400s given there is probably an
aggregate of posters over time, not reliable for current readership).
Brandon showed the other day how touchy he can be and how discouraged he was
by concerted criticism. Do you think a downpour of hundreds of posts telling
him to behave, apologise and/or quit would have made him any worse? It would
have been an appropriate response, a very brief inconvenience, and just
maybe a quick fix. You can't gainsay this, since the readership in general
has never had the curiosity (not to say energy) to try it.

Even trolls, and perhaps especially trolls, need to imagine they are admired
by someone else, and silence can leave them under this delusion.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 mar 2007 10:07:28

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1175173972.799217.321910@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

I do not agree with much of what Peter Stewart writes, and I am sure
that much of what I post bores him.

Thank you for your kind words, and let me assure you, firstly, that the most
vigorous disagreement with any of my views will not elicit a cantankerous
response if put forward reasonably and (as I see it, perhaps mistakenly at
times) sincerely; and, secondly, that I am not bored by any posts applying
scholarship, logic or good sense to the study of medieval genealogy.

I agree entirely with Rosie Bevan's remarks about your outstanding
contribution to SGM. The late Middle Ages and the English gentry are beyond
my sphere of research, certainly, but I am put off by my own limitations
from working in these subjects, not from appreciating the methods & results
of other people's work.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 mar 2007 11:06:02

Douglas Richardson wrote on 29th March:-
<I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
<wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
<Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
<(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
<Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
<Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.
<snip>

Welcome back, Douglas, and thanks for this interesting contribution.
Strong support for your proposed connection
between Sir William de la Pole's his wife Margaret and
the Peverel family is afforded by a deed cited in Coll.
Top.and Gen, p228. It deals with land which Isabella,
wife of John Peverel, holds in dower ...of the
inheritance of Sir William de la Pole, and which after
the decease of Isabella ought to revert to the said
William and Margaret, and to the heirs of the said William.
Dame Margaret's seal is described: "De la Pole, two bars
wavy, impaling a fess between six crosslets".
This shows that Sir William was not a member of the de
la Pole family of Powys, who bore a lion.

If you right, it would I think follow that the de la Poles of Saredon,
Staffs, were entirely distinct from the de la Pole Lords of Mawddwy, and we would
have to look elsewhere for
the identification of the parents of John "Mouthe", whose IPM I have just
traced at C137/44/34, dated 5 Hen IV, disguised under the name of "Mouche".
Whoever his father was, he must also surely have been the subject of an IPM,
but I have yet to trace one. Unfortunately most of C135 for Edward III's
reign has yet to be listed in the online catalogue.
MM

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 30 mar 2007 14:48:49

In article <mB3Ph.6186$M.5999@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

the traditional Usenet anti-trollery shunning dictum has a better
success rate for the group, and is arguably morally superior for the
individual participant, than a campaign of aggressive denunciation. Can
someone show convincingly that the latter tactic is both morally
superior for the individual participant, and has a better success rate
at increasing the group's signal to noise ratio?

A troll is NOT "shunned" by silence from most participants when a few choose
to pay compliments or post ambivalent indulgence, as happened with Brandon
recently, while only a scattered few make objections. Silence is in most
cases at least as meaningless as some suppose it to be dignified. To twisted
minds it can be an affirmation. Merilyn and David had the good grace not to
respond to Brandon, but that doesn't excuse everyone who respects them and
welcomes their presence here from the obligation to speak up against vile
insults. It may be useless, but efficacy is not the principle at issue.

As for examples of fools and/or abusers of SGM who left off posting after
noisy vituperation, remember Dr Tsambourakis, Annie, Phil Moody, St Neel,
Ken Fitton, the Rockerfeller impostor? These are just a few brought to mind
on the spur of the moment. And do you seriosly think Hines left because he
was ignored? Try looking back over the last threads he was involved in as a
regular. Even Uriah went away when Richardson was made to look silly enough.
Who of their ilk ever went away after being ignored?

These are interesting examples. Aside from 'Uriah' I would characterize
all of these as self-taught researchers who could not dissociate the
substance of an argument from personal context. They were or are crazy
and immature in varying degrees. They took all correction of substance
as vituperation and engaged in same mistaking it for substantive
discussion. My impression for at least some of these is that they
appeared to have been led into that misconception by casual perusal of
the vituperation already on the list: they 'learned' here that abuse was
legitimate.

There are hundreds of subscribers to GEN-MED, and perhaps as many regular
readers on Google Groups (the number in the 400s given there is probably an
aggregate of posters over time, not reliable for current readership).
Brandon showed the other day how touchy he can be and how discouraged he was
by concerted criticism. Do you think a downpour of hundreds of posts telling
him to behave, apologise and/or quit would have made him any worse? It would
have been an appropriate response, a very brief inconvenience, and just
maybe a quick fix. You can't gainsay this, since the readership in general
has never had the curiosity (not to say energy) to try it.

I won't deny that this is a seductive image, but I suspect deeply
unrealistic; it presupposes not just a shared ethical threshold, but a
deeper behavioral sea-change: the idea that Usenet / mail list readers
are obligated to respond in particular situations, to protect the
virtual community. In open Usenet all participation truly is voluntary
(in moderated groups people have already agreed that such obligations
exist but have delegated them ab initio). And I do have no personal
experience of it, but it has been stated here from the experience of
other Usenet groups that what you suggest--a flood of synchronized
denunciation--usually backfires to the detriment of the group.

Even trolls, and perhaps especially trolls, need to imagine they are admired
by someone else, and silence can leave them under this delusion.

It has been said of true trolls that they seek only discord and
attention, and are indifferent to the content of posts; they imagine
they are admired by any, like themselves, who enjoy the disruption of a
group. Of all those mentioned here, only the Hawaiian comes closest to
that definition.

To go back to your original plea: do you purpose that the multitudes
should post simple, restrained tags like "please don't post xxx
here"--drowning him in polite rejection; or that they rise (or sink) to
insult a perceived transgressor in whatever coin he has used? Which
would be more effective, in your model?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 30 mar 2007 17:15:39

Funny how folks from this region of the world (Australia, New Zealand,
etc) never have a sense of humor about me ...

That is because you are not funny, another point where Hines was at times
favoured by comparison.

Your common or garden variety low-camp snarkiness is not witty or even
humorous, just boring. A desperate wannabe who never got to be anything but
bitter does not make for enlivening company, in the real world or in a
virtual community.

And even the dumbest mules have sense enough not to foul the ground where
they wish to spend time with each other.


I agree Hines could be very funny at times. My particular favorite is
rather mean and bigoted and un-PC (but made me giggle inexplicably for
a couple of days) and came from last August...

* * * * * *
Hilarious!

Leticia Cluff [what a name] is still frothing at the mouth and coming
on like a Bull Dyke who is having a bad-hair day.

She is obviously sow-ignorant of the roots of the _Droit de Cuissage_
or _Jus Primae Noctis_.

We all know that the Standard Classical Latin for "First Night" is
_Prima Nox_ -- so Cluff, even in the Duff, is merely spinning her
wheels wildly on that one.

* * * * *

One could visualize how he came up with this (the aural association
between "Cluff" and "muff"). Don't know. Still makes me laugh,
though ...

Gjest

Re: Re: Ogilface, Scotland

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 mar 2007 20:36:40

Alex,
Thank you for this information. Most resources I have found simply state that William Vipont owned Ogilface but not by what means. I find that a William de Bosco witnessed charter of his son, Ivo de Vipont. Do you have any information regarding the time at which the de Boscos became Barons of Ogilface?
Pat
From: "Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com
Date: 2007/03/30 Fri AM 02:56:38 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Ogilface, Scotland

From Groome's Gazeteer:

"Ogilface, an ancient baronial fortalice in Torphichen parish,
Linlithgow (county) 3 1/2 miles west of Bathgate. It belonged to the
ancient family of De Bosco, Barons of Ogilface; passed to the Earls of
Linlithgow; seems to have been a structure of some strength, but of
no great size; and is now represented by only traces of the
foundations."

The de Bosco family (vulgariter Boyes) were based in Gillsland
(Cumberland) and Annandale (Dumfries), but I didn't know that they
were here as well. However Groome doesn't give sources.

Torphichen was the base of the Knights of St John, whose lands there
passed to Sandilands of Calder, now Lord Torphichen.


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

John Pound

[NON-GEN] A Plea - please stop arguing!

Legg inn av John Pound » 30 mar 2007 21:54:34

Oh for goodness sake will all antagonists pause and reflect on the banality
of this ongoing tit-for-tat display?

As a newcomer to the list it has been most disheartening to have my inbox
fill up with these posts, almost swamping the interesting, mature and useful
contributions. Apologies for adding to this volume now - this will be my one
and only post on the matter - could those responsible please continue these
exchanges, if they must, off list? I venture to assert that you are
impressing nobody.

Many thanks,

John Wedgwood Pound
Worcester, UK

http://www.wedgwood.org.uk


-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nathaniel Taylor
Sent: 30 March 2007 14:49
To:
Subject: Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

In article <mB3Ph.6186$M.5999@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

the traditional Usenet anti-trollery shunning dictum has a better
success rate for the group, and is arguably morally superior for the
individual participant, than a campaign of aggressive denunciation. Can
someone show convincingly that the latter tactic is both morally
superior for the individual participant, and has a better success rate
at increasing the group's signal to noise ratio?

A troll is NOT "shunned" by silence from most participants when a few
choose
to pay compliments or post ambivalent indulgence, as happened with Brandon

recently, while only a scattered few make objections. Silence is in most
cases at least as meaningless as some suppose it to be dignified. To
twisted
minds it can be an affirmation. Merilyn and David had the good grace not
to
respond to Brandon, but that doesn't excuse everyone who respects them and

welcomes their presence here from the obligation to speak up against vile
insults. It may be useless, but efficacy is not the principle at issue.

As for examples of fools and/or abusers of SGM who left off posting after
noisy vituperation, remember Dr Tsambourakis, Annie, Phil Moody, St Neel,
Ken Fitton, the Rockerfeller impostor? These are just a few brought to
mind
on the spur of the moment. And do you seriosly think Hines left because he

was ignored? Try looking back over the last threads he was involved in as
a
regular. Even Uriah went away when Richardson was made to look silly
enough.
Who of their ilk ever went away after being ignored?

These are interesting examples. Aside from 'Uriah' I would characterize
all of these as self-taught researchers who could not dissociate the
substance of an argument from personal context. They were or are crazy
and immature in varying degrees. They took all correction of substance
as vituperation and engaged in same mistaking it for substantive
discussion. My impression for at least some of these is that they
appeared to have been led into that misconception by casual perusal of
the vituperation already on the list: they 'learned' here that abuse was
legitimate.

There are hundreds of subscribers to GEN-MED, and perhaps as many regular
readers on Google Groups (the number in the 400s given there is probably
an
aggregate of posters over time, not reliable for current readership).
Brandon showed the other day how touchy he can be and how discouraged he
was
by concerted criticism. Do you think a downpour of hundreds of posts
telling
him to behave, apologise and/or quit would have made him any worse? It
would
have been an appropriate response, a very brief inconvenience, and just
maybe a quick fix. You can't gainsay this, since the readership in general

has never had the curiosity (not to say energy) to try it.

I won't deny that this is a seductive image, but I suspect deeply
unrealistic; it presupposes not just a shared ethical threshold, but a
deeper behavioral sea-change: the idea that Usenet / mail list readers
are obligated to respond in particular situations, to protect the
virtual community. In open Usenet all participation truly is voluntary
(in moderated groups people have already agreed that such obligations
exist but have delegated them ab initio). And I do have no personal
experience of it, but it has been stated here from the experience of
other Usenet groups that what you suggest--a flood of synchronized
denunciation--usually backfires to the detriment of the group.

Even trolls, and perhaps especially trolls, need to imagine they are
admired
by someone else, and silence can leave them under this delusion.

It has been said of true trolls that they seek only discord and
attention, and are indifferent to the content of posts; they imagine
they are admired by any, like themselves, who enjoy the disruption of a
group. Of all those mentioned here, only the Hawaiian comes closest to
that definition.

To go back to your original plea: do you purpose that the multitudes
should post simple, restrained tags like "please don't post xxx
here"--drowning him in polite rejection; or that they rise (or sink) to
insult a perceived transgressor in whatever coin he has used? Which
would be more effective, in your model?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

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

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 30 mar 2007 22:02:26

Sorry if this bored you and cluttered your mailbox, I was in such a
sulky, unhappy mood yesterday (feeling much better today,
fortunately). It's just that my grandmother and mother were very
beautiful women and my cousin Carol also has that quality and
resembles them pretty strongly (my mother only had sons).

Does this make sense? Maybe not. I'm sorry to be a bore.

Indeed. The increase in non-medieval content clogging up my mailbox,
such as this prime example from John Brandon, is one of the reasons I
unsubscribed from sgm. John Brandon's posts do nothing but manifest an
inconsiderate, attention-seeking personality, barely out of diapers,
judging by his immature behaviour on the newsgroup - as Peter, Leo and
others have so aptly pointed out.

A good reason to dip into sgm these days is to read the posts of
Michael Andrews-Reading, which are like a breath of fresh air blowing
through a stale room. These are thoughtful, original, intelligent and
RELEVANT. John Brandon could learn a lot from them if he wished to,
but as he does not, I too, wish he would play elsewhere.

Rosie Bevan

Peter Stewart

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 mar 2007 00:33:07

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-943FCC.09484830032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <mB3Ph.6186$M.5999@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

As for examples of fools and/or abusers of SGM who left off posting after
noisy vituperation, remember Dr Tsambourakis, Annie, Phil Moody, St Neel,
Ken Fitton, the Rockerfeller impostor? These are just a few brought to
mind
on the spur of the moment. And do you seriosly think Hines left because
he
was ignored? Try looking back over the last threads he was involved in as
a
regular. Even Uriah went away when Richardson was made to look silly
enough.
Who of their ilk ever went away after being ignored?

These are interesting examples. Aside from 'Uriah' I would characterize
all of these as self-taught researchers who could not dissociate the
substance of an argument from personal context. They were or are crazy
and immature in varying degrees. They took all correction of substance
as vituperation and engaged in same mistaking it for substantive
discussion. My impression for at least some of these is that they
appeared to have been led into that misconception by casual perusal of
the vituperation already on the list: they 'learned' here that abuse was
legitimate.

I should think Dr Tsambourakis at least had the advantage of some academic
teaching, although this may have been in veterinary science rather than
history. I don't know about Ken Finton (not Fitton as I miswrote). Annie
came here fully armed with her backfiring mental peashooter, and Phil Moody
never showed signs of learning anything, whether by example or precept.

I don't believe it takes more than untutored common sense to make a
distinction between a response saying only that the content of a post is
rubbish from one suggesting that the poster is a fool and/or a nuisance.
This newsgroup tends to handle thoughtlessness, pretension and outright
misinformation roughly. Time and attention for SGM discussions are limited,
and mollycoddling newcomers or patience with inveterate offenders will never
be the rule here.

A lot of readers do not wish to contribute, and that is perfectly
legitimate. Those who do post owe nothing to them but something to each
other: that is, the courtesy of assessing the reasonable meaning of, as well
as any emotional or ulterior intention behind, whatever is said. The latter
can be difficult or indeed impossible at times. When this appears to be some
kind of vanity or simply lazy, preconceived judgment and wishful thinking, a
sharp shock to the misplaced self-esteem is more likely to help a basically
sensible & sincere character in pursuit of medieval genealogy than humouring
them with soft, sweet replies into imagining that their first approach was
an acceptable, or actually welcome, claim on other people's time & effort in
this field.

There are hundreds of subscribers to GEN-MED, and perhaps as many regular
readers on Google Groups (the number in the 400s given there is probably
an
aggregate of posters over time, not reliable for current readership).
Brandon showed the other day how touchy he can be and how discouraged he
was
by concerted criticism. Do you think a downpour of hundreds of posts
telling
him to behave, apologise and/or quit would have made him any worse? It
would
have been an appropriate response, a very brief inconvenience, and just
maybe a quick fix. You can't gainsay this, since the readership in
general
has never had the curiosity (not to say energy) to try it.

I won't deny that this is a seductive image, but I suspect deeply
unrealistic; it presupposes not just a shared ethical threshold, but a
deeper behavioral sea-change: the idea that Usenet / mail list readers
are obligated to respond in particular situations, to protect the
virtual community. In open Usenet all participation truly is voluntary
(in moderated groups people have already agreed that such obligations
exist but have delegated them ab initio). And I do have no personal
experience of it, but it has been stated here from the experience of
other Usenet groups that what you suggest--a flood of synchronized
denunciation--usually backfires to the detriment of the group.

Maybe that depends on where it comes from, and how many at once. If it seems
to be from just a hardened clique, there is little to be gained. On the
other hand if it comes spontaneously from most of the readership, what
satisfaction can a pest or troll hope to obtain by continuing? A lousy
perfprmer doesn't normally choose to stay on stage while being booed &
pelted from the all sides of the auditorium.

In the course of this episode Brandon made a revealing and rather
humiliating pitch for someone who publishes in genealogical journals to take
notice of his findings and sponor these into print. Given that he had also
slandererd the respected editor of a leading journal, there was occasion if
not obligation for those same people to let him, and the observing readers,
know what they thought of his conduct here. Silence is uncomfortably close
to acquiescence, in daily reality and not just as an ancient legal
principle.

Preferring the comfort of saying nothing when someone else is attacked, on
the ground that speaking out will not do any good, is a decision each person
can make but then must live with if & when the attacker turns on them.
Setting this ethical problem into the forefront of civilised thought, from
its _very smallest_ manifestations to the most profound, was the great
witness of the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. People who choose to rationalise
this in terms of their own conduct, or lack of engagement, are in my view
risking the comfort that largely motivates them in the first place.

Even trolls, and perhaps especially trolls, need to imagine they are
admired
by someone else, and silence can leave them under this delusion.

It has been said of true trolls that they seek only discord and
attention, and are indifferent to the content of posts; they imagine
they are admired by any, like themselves, who enjoy the disruption of a
group. Of all those mentioned here, only the Hawaiian comes closest to
that definition.

To go back to your original plea: do you purpose that the multitudes
should post simple, restrained tags like "please don't post xxx
here"--drowning him in polite rejection; or that they rise (or sink) to
insult a perceived transgressor in whatever coin he has used? Which
would be more effective, in your model?

I think it would be proper, and might be useful, for people to express
_themselves_, not to echo me (and anyway I reject the inference that this
must be either rising or sinking - I say what I think ought to be said, and
anyone is free to disagree with me, as you do in this, and to judge my posts
as they will, no matter how vehemently stated on both sides).

Peter Stewart

Louise Staley

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 31 mar 2007 04:56:22

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this Sir William de la Pole the one
who has been previously discussed on the newsgroup as marrying Katharine
Norwich, daughter and heiress of Thomas Norwich? My understanding is the
Katharine has traditionally been assigned as the mother of all the
children but that this assignment has been called into question because
Katharine Norwich was an heiress but her heirs were her Ufford cousins
not the children of Sir William de la Pole. Katharine Norwich was first
married to Richard Breuse of Stinton and took the veil before her death.
I was not aware of any evidence naming the unknown wife of Sir William
de la Pole ho was the mother of the children.

However the posts below suggest two discrepancies with the account I
have given above. Firstly, the origins of Katharine are presented as
unknown and secondly Margaret, daughter of Edmund Peverell is presented
as the wife of Sir William and the mother of the children.

Could anyone clarify this please?

thanks
Louise

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
On 30 Mrz., 02:13, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Michael ~

I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.

Dear Douglas

If this is correct, then some of the usual sources for the de la Poles
of Suffolk are wrong. For instance, Roskell et al (HoP) in the
biography for the first Earl of Suffolk's brother, Sir Edmund de la
Pole (c1337-1419) states that he was the son of Sir William de la Pole
(d 1366) of Kingston-upon-Hull by his wife *Katherine*. It also
states that "following his father's death in 1366 he assisted his
mother..." These dates show that the editors of HoP believed Sir
William of Hull was married at least from c1337 until his death to
Katherine. Unfortunately, HoP follows the unhelpful practice of
lumping all its references together in a block at the foot of the
article.

This is backed up however by ODNB in their biography of Sir Edmund's
elder brother, Michael, 1st Earl of Suffolk, which states he was born
c1330 to Sir William of Hull (d 1366) and his wife Katherine. The
ODNB article on Sir William himself states that Katherine, his widow,
survived until 1382; it seems her origins are unknown.

It seems therefore the Sir William de la Pole and his wife Margaret ff
1354 must be found elsewhere in the family's pedigree. The Castle
Ashby branch is the usual attribution - I haven't looked for any
confirmation of this however.

Best wishes, the other Michael

(PS Good to see you posting again).

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Ogilface, Scotland

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 31 mar 2007 08:22:57

I am afraid that I wasn't aware that they held in Ogilface until now.
I also am not aware of the connection to William de Vipont. Would you
be able to quote the charters which you have found.

The Vipont family I know held Carriden, but there is virtually no data
that I have found on them between William and the arrival of the
Cockburns there. So, please expand, if you have anything on the
family. Many thanks.

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 328

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 mar 2007 10:51:03

Louise Staley just asked:-
<Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this Sir William de la Pole the one
<who has been previously discussed on the newsgroup as marrying Katharine
<Norwich, daughter and heiress of Thomas Norwich?

Louise I think we are dealing with thee different contemporary William de la
Poles here.
We have the Sir William of the Kingston upon Hull family, from which the
Dukes of Suffolk sprang. Then we have the William who married Margaret Peverel,
as discussed in the August 2006 thread. Next we have the William mentioned in
the VCH for Staffordshire, as the descendant of William ap Gruffyd, and
father of John, which John became Lord of Mawddwy and died in 1403.: IPM
C137/44/34 dated 5 Hen IV. The latter William's wife is unknown, but is said (eg in
Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies) to have been an aunt of Owen Glendower.
MM

John Brandon

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av John Brandon » 31 mar 2007 14:13:38

Ah Peter the seasoned armchair psychiatrist ... (or is that
wheelchair)?

I didn't feel humiliated at all by my so-called "pitch for publication
of my little morsels." In retrospect, I felt somewhat more humiliated
by my mention of the semi attractiveness of someone; but fortunately,
they don't seem to have noticed.


I should think Dr Tsambourakis at least had the advantage of some academic
teaching, although this may have been in veterinary science rather than
history. I don't know about Ken Finton (not Fitton as I miswrote). Annie
came here fully armed with her backfiring mental peashooter, and Phil Moody
never showed signs of learning anything, whether by example or precept.

I don't believe it takes more than untutored common sense to make a
distinction between a response saying only that the content of a post is
rubbish from one suggesting that the poster is a fool and/or a nuisance.
This newsgroup tends to handle thoughtlessness, pretension and outright
misinformation roughly. Time and attention for SGM discussions are limited,
and mollycoddling newcomers or patience with inveterate offenders will never
be the rule here.

A lot of readers do not wish to contribute, and that is perfectly
legitimate. Those who do post owe nothing to them but something to each
other: that is, the courtesy of assessing the reasonable meaning of, as well
as any emotional or ulterior intention behind, whatever is said. The latter
can be difficult or indeed impossible at times. When this appears to be some
kind of vanity or simply lazy, preconceived judgment and wishful thinking, a
sharp shock to the misplaced self-esteem is more likely to help a basically
sensible & sincere character in pursuit of medieval genealogy than humouring
them with soft, sweet replies into imagining that their first approach was
an acceptable, or actually welcome, claim on other people's time & effort in
this field.





There are hundreds of subscribers to GEN-MED, and perhaps as many regular
readers on Google Groups (the number in the 400s given there is probably
an
aggregate of posters over time, not reliable for current readership).
Brandon showed the other day how touchy he can be and how discouraged he
was
by concerted criticism. Do you think a downpour of hundreds of posts
telling
him to behave, apologise and/or quit would have made him any worse? It
would
have been an appropriate response, a very brief inconvenience, and just
maybe a quick fix. You can't gainsay this, since the readership in
general
has never had the curiosity (not to say energy) to try it.

I won't deny that this is a seductive image, but I suspect deeply
unrealistic; it presupposes not just a shared ethical threshold, but a
deeper behavioral sea-change: the idea that Usenet / mail list readers
are obligated to respond in particular situations, to protect the
virtual community. In open Usenet all participation truly is voluntary
(in moderated groups people have already agreed that such obligations
exist but have delegated them ab initio). And I do have no personal
experience of it, but it has been stated here from the experience of
other Usenet groups that what you suggest--a flood of synchronized
denunciation--usually backfires to the detriment of the group.

Maybe that depends on where it comes from, and how many at once. If it seems
to be from just a hardened clique, there is little to be gained. On the
other hand if it comes spontaneously from most of the readership, what
satisfaction can a pest or troll hope to obtain by continuing? A lousy
perfprmer doesn't normally choose to stay on stage while being booed &
pelted from the all sides of the auditorium.

In the course of this episode Brandon made a revealing and rather
humiliating pitch for someone who publishes in genealogical journals to take
notice of his findings and sponor these into print. Given that he had also
slandererd the respected editor of a leading journal, there was occasion if
not obligation for those same people to let him, and the observing readers,
know what they thought of his conduct here. Silence is uncomfortably close
to acquiescence, in daily reality and not just as an ancient legal
principle.

Preferring the comfort of saying nothing when someone else is attacked, on
the ground that speaking out will not do any good, is a decision each person
can make but then must live with if & when the attacker turns on them.
Setting this ethical problem into the forefront of civilised thought, from
its _very smallest_ manifestations to the most profound, was the great
witness of the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. People who choose to rationalise
this in terms of their own conduct, or lack of engagement, are in my view
risking the comfort that largely motivates them in the first place.

Even trolls, and perhaps especially trolls, need to imagine they are
admired
by someone else, and silence can leave them under this delusion.

It has been said of true trolls that they seek only discord and
attention, and are indifferent to the content of posts; they imagine
they are admired by any, like themselves, who enjoy the disruption of a
group. Of all those mentioned here, only the Hawaiian comes closest to
that definition.

To go back to your original plea: do you purpose that the multitudes
should post simple, restrained tags like "please don't post xxx
here"--drowning him in polite rejection; or that they rise (or sink) to
insult a perceived transgressor in whatever coin he has used? Which
would be more effective, in your model?

I think it would be proper, and might be useful, for people to express
_themselves_, not to echo me (and anyway I reject the inference that this
must be either rising or sinking - I say what I think ought to be said, and
anyone is free to disagree with me, as you do in this, and to judge my posts
as they will, no matter how vehemently stated on both sides).

John Brandon

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av John Brandon » 31 mar 2007 14:17:52

Sorry for this. I had the afternoon off and had a wee nip too much of
the ole chloral hydrate. I _was_ feeling fine, but see I wasn't
making much sense. (But thank god it didn't get worse than that. I
was in sort of a panic this morning.)

Tony Dyer

Re: Cecilie, sister of Robert fitz Harding

Legg inn av Tony Dyer » 31 mar 2007 17:16:02

It would seem that the two Cecilys are about a generation apart but probably no more than this as there is a reference to the wife of Richard Gaunsell holding 3 virgates of land in old enfeoffment from Roger de Berkeley in 1166 (The Gloucestershire section of Domesday Book: geographical problems with the text, part 1, J S Moore, Trans Bris Gloucs Arch Soc 1987 p.115).

Was there any restriction on the usage of the term "kinsman" in the medieval period - for example no more than first cousins - or was the term very open and vague?

Rosie Bevan <rbevan@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
There was another Cecily (unlikely to be the same for chronological
reasons), related to the Fitz Hardings, and she was wife of Richard
Gaunsell, of Earthcott and La Lea in Gloucestershire. Other lands they
held were the unidentified vills of 'Haueden' and 'Hogeston' which
were the maritagium of Cecily's mother-in-law, Alice, on her marriage
with William Gaunsell. Richard and Cecily's heirs were their two
daughters, and around 1224-29 the inheritance was partitioned between
them. Idonia was to have the chief messuage in Earthcott, while Alice
had that of La Lea - after the death of Cecily who was then holding as
dower. Their mother appears amongst the list of witnesses to the
agreement ("Cecilia matre predictarum dominarum"). Idonia's share of
lands in La Lea was tenanted by Maurice de Gaunt and held in dower by
his widow, Margaret Marshall in 1233.

Idonia was a patron of St Augustine's abbey, Bristol, (founded by
Robert fitz Harding) and she and her husband, Richard the Huntsman
(Ricardus Venator/ Richard le Venur) gave land in Almondsbury in
return for burial in the abbey.

Idonia was also a patron of St Mark's Hospital, Bristol, which was
founded by Maurice de Gaunt, grandson of Robert fitz Harding. Maurice
had a younger brother named Henry, the first master of St Mark's
hospital, whom Idonia calls her kinsman. Additional evidence of fitz
Harding kinship occurred in 1233 when the rector of the hospital of
the Blessed Mary Magdalen of Bristol (founded by Eve, wife of Robert
fitz Harding) quitclaimed right in the lands which Idonia's ancestors
had given them, to be given to St Mark's. Unfortunately these lands
are not mentioned by name. The principal witnesses of the charter were
Lord Thomas de Berkeley and Lord Robert de Gournay - fitz Harding
descendants who attended by virtue of being heirs of the founders of
the two houses.

While it is difficult to pinpoint her place in the family, the
descendants of Cecily can be easily traced through the charters of St
Mark's in C. D. Ross (ed.). Cartulary of St. Mark's Hospital, Bristol.
(Bristol Record Society, 1959).

1. Cecily fl 1224-1229
+ Richard Gaunsell of Earthcott, son of Wiiliam Gaunsell and Alice
2. Idonia Gaunsell, Henry de Gaunt her kinsman
+ Richard the Huntsman d. c. 1234
3. Robert Gaunsell
4. Richard Gaunsell
4.Peter Gaunsell
2. Alice
+Simon Bochan/Boghan/Bowhan of La Lea
3.Isabella
+ Stephen de Eastbach
+ Simon de Dene
3.Alditha
+ Robert de Malefield
3. Cecily
+ Adam Boudham/de la Wode/atte Wode
3.Edith
+ Robert the Bald

Cheers

Rosie




---------------------------------
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.

CE Wood

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av CE Wood » 31 mar 2007 20:19:16

Are these not two different Williams?
1. William, son of William & Elena, married Katherine de Norwich,
widow of Robert or Richard de Breuse.

2. William, grandson of William & Elena and son of Richard & Joan,
married Margaret Peverel.

CE Wood

On Mar 30, 8:56 pm, Louise Staley <cara...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this Sir William de la Pole the one
who has been previously discussed on the newsgroup as marrying Katharine
Norwich, daughter and heiress of Thomas Norwich? My understanding is the
Katharine has traditionally been assigned as the mother of all the
children but that this assignment has been called into question because
Katharine Norwich was an heiress but her heirs were her Ufford cousins
not the children of Sir William de la Pole. Katharine Norwich was first
married to Richard Breuse of Stinton and took the veil before her death.
I was not aware of any evidence naming the unknown wife of Sir William
de la Pole ho was the mother of the children.

However the posts below suggest two discrepancies with the account I
have given above. Firstly, the origins of Katharine are presented as
unknown and secondly Margaret, daughter of Edmund Peverell is presented
as the wife of Sir William and the mother of the children.

Could anyone clarify this please?

thanks
Louise

m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 30 Mrz., 02:13, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Michael ~

I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.

Dear Douglas

If this is correct, then some of the usual sources for the de la Poles
of Suffolk are wrong. For instance, Roskell et al (HoP) in the
biography for the first Earl of Suffolk's brother, Sir Edmund de la
Pole (c1337-1419) states that he was the son of Sir William de la Pole
(d 1366) of Kingston-upon-Hull by his wife *Katherine*. It also
states that "following his father's death in 1366 he assisted his
mother..." These dates show that the editors of HoP believed Sir
William of Hull was married at least from c1337 until his death to
Katherine. Unfortunately, HoP follows the unhelpful practice of
lumping all its references together in a block at the foot of the
article.

This is backed up however by ODNB in their biography of Sir Edmund's
elder brother, Michael, 1st Earl of Suffolk, which states he was born
c1330 to Sir William of Hull (d 1366) and his wife Katherine. The
ODNB article on Sir William himself states that Katherine, his widow,
survived until 1382; it seems her origins are unknown.

It seems therefore the Sir William de la Pole and his wife Margaret ff
1354 must be found elsewhere in the family's pedigree. The Castle
Ashby branch is the usual attribution - I haven't looked for any
confirmation of this however.

Best wishes, the other Michael

(PS Good to see you posting again).

CE Wood

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av CE Wood » 31 mar 2007 20:19:16

Are these not two different Williams?
1. William, son of William & Elena, married Katherine de Norwich,
widow of Robert or Richard de Breuse.

2. William, grandson of William & Elena and son of Richard & Joan,
married Margaret Peverel.

CE Wood

On Mar 30, 8:56 pm, Louise Staley <cara...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this Sir William de la Pole the one
who has been previously discussed on the newsgroup as marrying Katharine
Norwich, daughter and heiress of Thomas Norwich? My understanding is the
Katharine has traditionally been assigned as the mother of all the
children but that this assignment has been called into question because
Katharine Norwich was an heiress but her heirs were her Ufford cousins
not the children of Sir William de la Pole. Katharine Norwich was first
married to Richard Breuse of Stinton and took the veil before her death.
I was not aware of any evidence naming the unknown wife of Sir William
de la Pole ho was the mother of the children.

However the posts below suggest two discrepancies with the account I
have given above. Firstly, the origins of Katharine are presented as
unknown and secondly Margaret, daughter of Edmund Peverell is presented
as the wife of Sir William and the mother of the children.

Could anyone clarify this please?

thanks
Louise

m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 30 Mrz., 02:13, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Michael ~

I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.

Dear Douglas

If this is correct, then some of the usual sources for the de la Poles
of Suffolk are wrong. For instance, Roskell et al (HoP) in the
biography for the first Earl of Suffolk's brother, Sir Edmund de la
Pole (c1337-1419) states that he was the son of Sir William de la Pole
(d 1366) of Kingston-upon-Hull by his wife *Katherine*. It also
states that "following his father's death in 1366 he assisted his
mother..." These dates show that the editors of HoP believed Sir
William of Hull was married at least from c1337 until his death to
Katherine. Unfortunately, HoP follows the unhelpful practice of
lumping all its references together in a block at the foot of the
article.

This is backed up however by ODNB in their biography of Sir Edmund's
elder brother, Michael, 1st Earl of Suffolk, which states he was born
c1330 to Sir William of Hull (d 1366) and his wife Katherine. The
ODNB article on Sir William himself states that Katherine, his widow,
survived until 1382; it seems her origins are unknown.

It seems therefore the Sir William de la Pole and his wife Margaret ff
1354 must be found elsewhere in the family's pedigree. The Castle
Ashby branch is the usual attribution - I haven't looked for any
confirmation of this however.

Best wishes, the other Michael

(PS Good to see you posting again).

Andrew and Inge

RE: some Lancaster questions

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 31 mar 2007 21:23:16

Pardon me but I found some more on the second:
Heraldry, Historical and Popular By Charles Boutell, 1864
p.199
"In like manner, the shiled of SIR THOMAS LANCASTER (Calais Roll), bears,
gu., a lion rampt. guard. or, gorged with a collar of France - a blue collar
that is, charged with three golden fleurs de lys; Nos. 451R, Pl.LXXII."

....still don't know who he is, but his arms are definitely similar to those
of Westmorland de Lancasters.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew and Inge [mailto:andrew.en.inge@skynet.be]
Sent: Saturday, 31 March 2007 10:13 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: some Lancaster questions


Hello all,

1. I see many references in heraldry works to a family of Lancasters with a
coat of arms, in Richmond. I can find nothing else about them apart from the
fact that they have arms which seem similar to some of the arms recorded for
Lord John de Lancaster of Grisedale in the 1290s.

2. I only see one reference to the following, but he is equally mysterious:
Sir Thomas Lancaster:

J. Foster (1902) Some Feudal Coats of Arms from Heraldic Rolls 1298-1418.
pp.145-7. London

"bore at the siege of Calais 1345-8, two bars gules, on a canton of the
second a rose or - in the margin also - gules, a lyon rampant gardant or,
collared azure; Ashmole Roll."

Any know anything about either of these cases?

By the way in the last one I assume the margin is a red border around the
shield and the lion is superimposed over the whole shield, or do I have this
wrong?

Regards
Andrew Lancaster

Louise Staley

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 31 mar 2007 23:05:33

CE Wood wrote:
Are these not two different Williams?
1. William, son of William & Elena, married Katherine de Norwich,
widow of Robert or Richard de Breuse.

2. William, grandson of William & Elena and son of Richard & Joan,
married Margaret Peverel.

Oh, I see. Thanks for that clarification. The unexpected twist was both

Williams dying in 1366, one on 21 June and the other about 1 October and
both being buried in the Holy Trinity Church at Kingston-upon-Hull,
Yorkshire.

CE Wood

On Mar 30, 8:56 pm, Louise Staley <cara...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this Sir William de la Pole the one
who has been previously discussed on the newsgroup as marrying Katharine
Norwich, daughter and heiress of Thomas Norwich? My understanding is the
Katharine has traditionally been assigned as the mother of all the
children but that this assignment has been called into question because
Katharine Norwich was an heiress but her heirs were her Ufford cousins
not the children of Sir William de la Pole. Katharine Norwich was first
married to Richard Breuse of Stinton and took the veil before her death.
I was not aware of any evidence naming the unknown wife of Sir William
de la Pole ho was the mother of the children.

However the posts below suggest two discrepancies with the account I
have given above. Firstly, the origins of Katharine are presented as
unknown and secondly Margaret, daughter of Edmund Peverell is presented
as the wife of Sir William and the mother of the children.

Could anyone clarify this please?

thanks
Louise

m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 30 Mrz., 02:13, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Michael ~
I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.
Dear Douglas
If this is correct, then some of the usual sources for the de la Poles
of Suffolk are wrong. For instance, Roskell et al (HoP) in the
biography for the first Earl of Suffolk's brother, Sir Edmund de la
Pole (c1337-1419) states that he was the son of Sir William de la Pole
(d 1366) of Kingston-upon-Hull by his wife *Katherine*. It also
states that "following his father's death in 1366 he assisted his
mother..." These dates show that the editors of HoP believed Sir
William of Hull was married at least from c1337 until his death to
Katherine. Unfortunately, HoP follows the unhelpful practice of
lumping all its references together in a block at the foot of the
article.
This is backed up however by ODNB in their biography of Sir Edmund's
elder brother, Michael, 1st Earl of Suffolk, which states he was born
c1330 to Sir William of Hull (d 1366) and his wife Katherine. The
ODNB article on Sir William himself states that Katherine, his widow,
survived until 1382; it seems her origins are unknown.
It seems therefore the Sir William de la Pole and his wife Margaret ff
1354 must be found elsewhere in the family's pedigree. The Castle
Ashby branch is the usual attribution - I haven't looked for any
confirmation of this however.
Best wishes, the other Michael
(PS Good to see you posting again).


Peter Stewart

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 apr 2007 00:00:24

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175346818.590524.162920@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Ah Peter the seasoned armchair psychiatrist ... (or is that
wheelchair)?

I didn't feel humiliated at all by my so-called "pitch for publication
of my little morsels." In retrospect, I felt somewhat more humiliated
by my mention of the semi attractiveness of someone; but fortunately,
they don't seem to have noticed.

Brainless.

The words in inverted commas above are, of course, not a direct quotation as
misrepresented.

And the fact that Brandon is too dense to realise his humiliation is neither
here nor there. He has assiduously presented himself in this newsgroup as
someone to whom ordinary rules do not apply, and who cares nothing for the
opinions of others. His crack-pot moral, social and studious
self-sufficiency came unglued when he showed us that he does in fact need,
and badly wants, help of a kind from SGM readers.

He did more careful work with links and citations in his cry for assistance
than he has perhaps ever done in a post that might conceivably be useful to
someone else. Yet another sour disclaimer from him, after trashing any
slight residue of credibility with a self-pitying falsehood about leaving
the newsgroup, is of no worth at all.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av John Brandon » 01 apr 2007 00:31:57

**I'm a bit on the 'sauce' today as well, hope I can a bit of sense
without mentioning the beauty of eather my female relatives of of
other men in the newgroup. This is getting to be a bad habit, looks
like.

The words in inverted commas above are, of course, not a direct quotation as
misrepresented.

What difference does that make? Isn't that accurate summary of your
general atitude?

He did more careful work with links and citations in his cry for assistance
than he has perhaps ever done in a post that might conceivably be useful to
someone else. Yet another sour disclaimer from him, after trashing any
slight residue of credibility with a self-pitying falsehood about leaving
the newsgroup, is of no worth at all.

That "work" had been all done in a posting from years ago--just click
on the lik. You realize that, don't you. That posting _would_ be
very helpful to someone with a descent from Mr. William Sargent (lots
of people have this, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, for instance. Douglas
had used quite a few of my 'tidbits' in his Magna Charta volume, just
check under Hawes, Dudley, and Marshall, where he very nicely thanks
me. I'm glad he used them. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the other
stuff in a small note in a journal. I'm not ashamed of wanting that
at all. Why do you think I would be ashamed? "It's no skin off mty
teeth ..." In fact, it's like a fresh visit to the dental
hygienist :-)... God, my spelling is getting attrocious.

CE Wood

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av CE Wood » 01 apr 2007 00:32:47

Brad Verity, in his post, Cobham of Cobham Corrections - Part 1, on 26
Nov 2003, goes into great detail on the family and which William
married Margaret Peverel, and why.

CE Wood

On Mar 31, 3:05 pm, Louise Staley <cara...@bigpond.com> wrote:
CE Wood wrote:
Are these not two different Williams?
1. William, son of William & Elena, married Katherine de Norwich,
widow of Robert or Richard de Breuse.

2. William, grandson of William & Elena and son of Richard & Joan,
married Margaret Peverel.

Oh, I see. Thanks for that clarification. The unexpected twist was both
Williams dying in 1366, one on 21 June and the other about 1 October and
both being buried in the Holy Trinity Church at Kingston-upon-Hull,
Yorkshire.

CE Wood

On Mar 30, 8:56 pm, Louise Staley <cara...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this Sir William de la Pole the one
who has been previously discussed on the newsgroup as marrying Katharine
Norwich, daughter and heiress of Thomas Norwich? My understanding is the
Katharine has traditionally been assigned as the mother of all the
children but that this assignment has been called into question because
Katharine Norwich was an heiress but her heirs were her Ufford cousins
not the children of Sir William de la Pole. Katharine Norwich was first
married to Richard Breuse of Stinton and took the veil before her death.
I was not aware of any evidence naming the unknown wife of Sir William
de la Pole ho was the mother of the children.

However the posts below suggest two discrepancies with the account I
have given above. Firstly, the origins of Katharine are presented as
unknown and secondly Margaret, daughter of Edmund Peverell is presented
as the wife of Sir William and the mother of the children.

Could anyone clarify this please?

thanks
Louise

m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 30 Mrz., 02:13, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Michael ~
I believe the William de la Pole, Knt., styled "the younger" and his
wife, Margaret, who you have indicated were involved in a
Staffordshire fine dated 1347-1357 are the Sir William de la Pole
(died 1366), of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, Ashby David and
Brington, Northamptonshire, Grimston, Suffolk, etc., and his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edmund Peverel.
Dear Douglas
If this is correct, then some of the usual sources for the de la Poles
of Suffolk are wrong. For instance, Roskell et al (HoP) in the
biography for the first Earl of Suffolk's brother, Sir Edmund de la
Pole (c1337-1419) states that he was the son of Sir William de la Pole
(d 1366) of Kingston-upon-Hull by his wife *Katherine*. It also
states that "following his father's death in 1366 he assisted his
mother..." These dates show that the editors of HoP believed Sir
William of Hull was married at least from c1337 until his death to
Katherine. Unfortunately, HoP follows the unhelpful practice of
lumping all its references together in a block at the foot of the
article.
This is backed up however by ODNB in their biography of Sir Edmund's
elder brother, Michael, 1st Earl of Suffolk, which states he was born
c1330 to Sir William of Hull (d 1366) and his wife Katherine. The
ODNB article on Sir William himself states that Katherine, his widow,
survived until 1382; it seems her origins are unknown.
It seems therefore the Sir William de la Pole and his wife Margaret ff
1354 must be found elsewhere in the family's pedigree. The Castle
Ashby branch is the usual attribution - I haven't looked for any
confirmation of this however.
Best wishes, the other Michael
(PS Good to see you posting again).

Peter Stewart

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 apr 2007 01:14:13

Can't you keep your fingers off the keyboard? You are no less tedious drunk
than sober.

Obviously you are not ashamed of wanting your stuff in print, or even you
would have the nous not to plead for this publicly.

The point is that you can't or won't shift for yourself in this directly,
and yet you want help from a group whose members you insult at random when
derisive behaviour happens to gratify your bruised ego.

Peter Stewart


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175383917.767986.286750@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
**I'm a bit on the 'sauce' today as well, hope I can a bit of sense
without mentioning the beauty of eather my female relatives of of
other men in the newgroup. This is getting to be a bad habit, looks
like.

The words in inverted commas above are, of course, not a direct quotation
as
misrepresented.

What difference does that make? Isn't that accurate summary of your
general atitude?

He did more careful work with links and citations in his cry for
assistance
than he has perhaps ever done in a post that might conceivably be useful
to
someone else. Yet another sour disclaimer from him, after trashing any
slight residue of credibility with a self-pitying falsehood about leaving
the newsgroup, is of no worth at all.

That "work" had been all done in a posting from years ago--just click
on the lik. You realize that, don't you. That posting _would_ be
very helpful to someone with a descent from Mr. William Sargent (lots
of people have this, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, for instance. Douglas
had used quite a few of my 'tidbits' in his Magna Charta volume, just
check under Hawes, Dudley, and Marshall, where he very nicely thanks
me. I'm glad he used them. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the other
stuff in a small note in a journal. I'm not ashamed of wanting that
at all. Why do you think I would be ashamed? "It's no skin off mty
teeth ..." In fact, it's like a fresh visit to the dental
hygienist :-)... God, my spelling is getting attrocious.

John Brandon

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av John Brandon » 01 apr 2007 01:56:55

On Mar 31, 7:14 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Can't you keep your fingers off the keyboard? You are no less tedious drunk
than sober.


Tedious, wedious.

Obviously you are not ashamed of wanting your stuff in print, or even you
would have the nous not to plead for this publicly.

Isnt nous something like cous cous.I think I had some once.

But pleading,that's another thing entirely. Why always pleading, you
say always I'm pleading. I'm not pleading, just merely stating nicely
(asking nicely?].Nicely for me at any rate. It's no use to
micharacterize what someone bhas said, just merely merely to win an
argument. That is you, unfortunately.Deeply deeply deeply
untruthful.What was it Mary MacCarthy said about Miss Lillian
Helman...something like "every word she eversays is a lie, even the
ANDs an THES."
The point is that you can't or won't shift for yourself in this directly,
and yet you want help from a group whose members you insult at random when
derisive behaviour happens to gratify your bruised ego.

Peter Stewart

"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1175383917.767986.286750@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...



**I'm a bit on the 'sauce' today as well, hope I can a bit of sense
without mentioning the beauty of eather my female relatives of of
other men in the newgroup. This is getting to be a bad habit, looks
like.

The words in inverted commas above are, of course, not a direct quotation
as
misrepresented.

What difference does that make? Isn't that accurate summary of your
general atitude?

He did more careful work with links and citations in his cry for
assistance
than he has perhaps ever done in a post that might conceivably be useful
to
someone else. Yet another sour disclaimer from him, after trashing any
slight residue of credibility with a self-pitying falsehood about leaving
the newsgroup, is of no worth at all.

That "work" had been all done in a posting from years ago--just click
on the lik. You realize that, don't you. That posting _would_ be
very helpful to someone with a descent from Mr. William Sargent (lots
of people have this, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, for instance. Douglas
had used quite a few of my 'tidbits' in his Magna Charta volume, just
check under Hawes, Dudley, and Marshall, where he very nicely thanks
me. I'm glad he used them. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the other
stuff in a small note in a journal. I'm not ashamed of wanting that
at all. Why do you think I would be ashamed? "It's no skin off mty
teeth ..." In fact, it's like a fresh visit to the dental
hygienist :-)... God, my spelling is getting attrocious.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter Stewart

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 apr 2007 02:10:33

Pleading is entreating.

In the context of your arrogant presentation here, hissing & spitting at
anyone to whom you take an instant dislike, the exercise of trying to prompt
someone, anyone in the group to take up your findings and publish them WAS a
plea.

The fact that you did this with a link and citation to your previous posts,
when you won't normally take the trouble to cite material explicitly or give
any background to information, underlines the importance of the entreaty to
your ego.

Like everyone else, you don't get to exist in a moral and social vacuum
where you write the script for everyone's assessment of you.

Intoxication is every bit as revealing as your usual toxicity. You are like
a rather ugly and tatty goldfish that thinks the universe is inside a bowl
while it is the free master & cynosure of all it surveys.

Peter Stewart


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175389015.909360.150480@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 31, 7:14 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Can't you keep your fingers off the keyboard? You are no less tedious
drunk
than sober.


Tedious, wedious.

Obviously you are not ashamed of wanting your stuff in print, or even you
would have the nous not to plead for this publicly.

Isnt nous something like cous cous.I think I had some once.

But pleading,that's another thing entirely. Why always pleading, you
say always I'm pleading. I'm not pleading, just merely stating nicely
(asking nicely?].Nicely for me at any rate. It's no use to
micharacterize what someone bhas said, just merely merely to win an
argument. That is you, unfortunately.Deeply deeply deeply
untruthful.What was it Mary MacCarthy said about Miss Lillian
Helman...something like "every word she eversays is a lie, even the
ANDs an THES."

The point is that you can't or won't shift for yourself in this directly,
and yet you want help from a group whose members you insult at random
when
derisive behaviour happens to gratify your bruised ego.

Peter Stewart

"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1175383917.767986.286750@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...



**I'm a bit on the 'sauce' today as well, hope I can a bit of sense
without mentioning the beauty of eather my female relatives of of
other men in the newgroup. This is getting to be a bad habit, looks
like.

The words in inverted commas above are, of course, not a direct
quotation
as
misrepresented.

What difference does that make? Isn't that accurate summary of your
general atitude?

He did more careful work with links and citations in his cry for
assistance
than he has perhaps ever done in a post that might conceivably be
useful
to
someone else. Yet another sour disclaimer from him, after trashing any
slight residue of credibility with a self-pitying falsehood about
leaving
the newsgroup, is of no worth at all.

That "work" had been all done in a posting from years ago--just click
on the lik. You realize that, don't you. That posting _would_ be
very helpful to someone with a descent from Mr. William Sargent (lots
of people have this, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, for instance. Douglas
had used quite a few of my 'tidbits' in his Magna Charta volume, just
check under Hawes, Dudley, and Marshall, where he very nicely thanks
me. I'm glad he used them. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the other
stuff in a small note in a journal. I'm not ashamed of wanting that
at all. Why do you think I would be ashamed? "It's no skin off mty
teeth ..." In fact, it's like a fresh visit to the dental
hygienist :-)... God, my spelling is getting attrocious.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -






John Brandon

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av John Brandon » 01 apr 2007 02:26:57

On Mar 31, 6:31 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
**I'm a bit on the 'sauce' today as well, hope I can a bit of sense
without mentioning the beauty of eather my female relatives of of
other men in the newgroup. This is getting to be a bad habit, looks
like.

The words in inverted commas above are, of course, not a direct quotation as
misrepresented.

What difference does that make? Isn't that accurate summary of your
general atitude?

He did more careful work with links and citations in his cry for assistance
than he has perhaps ever done in a post that might conceivably be useful to
someone else. Yet another sour disclaimer from him, after trashing any
slight residue of credibility with a self-pitying falsehood about leaving
the newsgroup, is of no worth at all.

That "work" had been all done in a posting from years ago--just click
on the lik. You realize that, don't you. That posting _would_ be
very helpful to someone with a descent from Mr. William Sargent (lots
of people have this, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, for instance. Douglas
had used quite a few of my 'tidbits' in his Magna Charta volume, just
check under Hawes, Dudley, and Marshall, where he very nicely thanks
me. I'm glad he used them. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the other
stuff in a small note in a journal. I'm not ashamed of wanting that
at all. Why do you think I would be ashamed? "It's no skin off mty
teeth ..." In fact, it's like a fresh visit to the dental
hygienist :-)... God, my spelling is getting attrocious.


Okay big fellow I am going to try the my best to delete these 2,just
mainly because I don't want to even even have to read them "on the
morrow," as they used to say in this biblical times. God I casn't
do shit but embarrass my damn self these few days.Hate it hate it.

John Brandon

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av John Brandon » 01 apr 2007 02:56:53

On Mar 31, 8:10 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Pleading is entreating.

In the context of your arrogant presentation here, hissing & spitting at
anyone to whom you take an instant dislike, the exercise of trying to prompt
someone, anyone in the group to take up your findings and publish them WAS a
plea.

The fact that you did this with a link and citation to your previous posts,
when you won't normally take the trouble to cite material explicitly or give
any background to information, underlines the importance of the entreaty to
your ego.

Like everyone else, you don't get to exist in a moral and social vacuum
where you write the script for everyone's assessment of you.

Intoxication is every bit as revealing as your usual toxicity. You are like
a rather ugly and tatty goldfish that thinks the universe is inside a bowl
while it is the free master & cynosure of all it surveys.

Your little fish sounds quitesweet in it's own way.Although you might
would probably try to poison it at the first opportunity _malfeasance
aforethought, as they say ;-) Or maybe it would try desperately to
jump the bowl to only escape your homely face looming, filling up its
big picture widndow, closing out the sun making the poor thing sad





Peter Stewart

"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1175389015.909360.150480@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...



On Mar 31, 7:14 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Can't you keep your fingers off the keyboard? You are no less tedious
drunk
than sober.

Tedious, wedious.

Obviously you are not ashamed of wanting your stuff in print, or even you
would have the nous not to plead for this publicly.

Isnt nous something like cous cous.I think I had some once.

But pleading,that's another thing entirely. Why always pleading, you
say always I'm pleading. I'm not pleading, just merely stating nicely
(asking nicely?].Nicely for me at any rate. It's no use to
micharacterize what someone bhas said, just merely merely to win an
argument. That is you, unfortunately.Deeply deeply deeply
untruthful.What was it Mary MacCarthy said about Miss Lillian
Helman...something like "every word she eversays is a lie, even the
ANDs an THES."

The point is that you can't or won't shift for yourself in this directly,
and yet you want help from a group whose members you insult at random
when
derisive behaviour happens to gratify your bruised ego.

Peter Stewart

"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1175383917.767986.286750@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

**I'm a bit on the 'sauce' today as well, hope I can a bit of sense
without mentioning the beauty of eather my female relatives of of
other men in the newgroup. This is getting to be a bad habit, looks
like.

The words in inverted commas above are, of course, not a direct
quotation
as
misrepresented.

What difference does that make? Isn't that accurate summary of your
general atitude?

He did more careful work with links and citations in his cry for
assistance
than he has perhaps ever done in a post that might conceivably be
useful
to
someone else. Yet another sour disclaimer from him, after trashing any
slight residue of credibility with a self-pitying falsehood about
leaving
the newsgroup, is of no worth at all.

That "work" had been all done in a posting from years ago--just click
on the lik. You realize that, don't you. That posting _would_ be
very helpful to someone with a descent from Mr. William Sargent (lots
of people have this, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, for instance. Douglas
had used quite a few of my 'tidbits' in his Magna Charta volume, just
check under Hawes, Dudley, and Marshall, where he very nicely thanks
me. I'm glad he used them. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the other
stuff in a small note in a journal. I'm not ashamed of wanting that
at all. Why do you think I would be ashamed? "It's no skin off mty
teeth ..." In fact, it's like a fresh visit to the dental
hygienist :-)... God, my spelling is getting attrocious.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gjest

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 apr 2007 08:35:34

On Mar 31, 6:17 am, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for this. I had the afternoon off and had a wee nip too much of
the ole chloral hydrate. I _was_ feeling fine, but see I wasn't
making much sense. (But thank god it didn't get worse than that. I
was in sort of a panic this morning.)



You know, it would be a shame if you stopped posting.

Youve given Mr Stewart something to do, because obviously,
he has a lot of free time. Have you noticed, he responds to all
of your postings? He probably likes you, at least a little.

Leslie

Peter Stewart

Re: Latham - but really John Brandon

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 apr 2007 08:47:40

<lmahler@att.net> wrote in message
news:1175412934.930075.234460@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 31, 6:17 am, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for this. I had the afternoon off and had a wee nip too much of
the ole chloral hydrate. I _was_ feeling fine, but see I wasn't
making much sense. (But thank god it didn't get worse than that. I
was in sort of a panic this morning.)



You know, it would be a shame if you stopped posting.

Youve given Mr Stewart something to do, because obviously,
he has a lot of free time. Have you noticed, he responds to all
of your postings? He probably likes you, at least a little.

Not all - unlike you, I leave drunks alone to sleep it off.

And no, I don't like either of you in the least.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce and FitzRichards

Legg inn av John Brandon » 01 apr 2007 21:28:40

Yeah, it wasn't you at all. People are just having a pensive moment
considering the rich and varied manifestations of the "April Fool's
Day" tradition.


I am not sure what got everyone so upset, but, I surely do hope it wasn't my asking about the Richards.
I'm new to the list, so maybe I don't understand the environment here, but, I don't mind debate.

Argument is a totally different animal. Debate allows you to agree to disagree and be open to other opinions. Argument tends to put people in a destroy or be destroyed frame of mind.

At any rate, I hope I didn't cause the problems. I have decided that the Richard's are the subject of many opinions and I want to let it go at that. My genealogy is just for purposes of tracing ancestry. Since I can trace my family through many other noble lines, I don't need to stress on this one. I have a potentially life threatening disease and to me, life is too short for BS.

I believe we can all shake it off and move along.

Wanda Thacker

Gjest

Re: Margaret m William de la Pole

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 apr 2007 22:11:38

On 1 Apr., 00:32, "CE Wood" <wood...@msn.com> wrote:
Brad Verity, in his post, Cobham of Cobham Corrections - Part 1, on 26
Nov 2003, goes into great detail on the family and which William
married Margaret Peverel, and why.

Ah, the archives - thanks for that. I had never imagined that two
knights of the same name should have died the same year and have been
connected with the same place. In fairness. Douglas did specify that
he was speaking of the Castle Ashby man. Apologies for not having
checked the archives myself first.

MA-R

Wanda Thacker

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce and FitzRichards

Legg inn av Wanda Thacker » 01 apr 2007 22:26:02

I am not sure what got everyone so upset, but, I surely do hope it wasn't my asking about the Richards.
I'm new to the list, so maybe I don't understand the environment here, but, I don't mind debate.

Argument is a totally different animal. Debate allows you to agree to disagree and be open to other opinions. Argument tends to put people in a destroy or be destroyed frame of mind.

At any rate, I hope I didn't cause the problems. I have decided that the Richard's are the subject of many opinions and I want to let it go at that. My genealogy is just for purposes of tracing ancestry. Since I can trace my family through many other noble lines, I don't need to stress on this one. I have a potentially life threatening disease and to me, life is too short for BS.

I believe we can all shake it off and move along.

Wanda Thacker

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce and FitzRichards

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 01 apr 2007 23:05:16

In message of 1 Apr, Wanda Thacker <wanda_t36@yahoo.com> wrote:

I am not sure what got everyone so upset, but, I surely do hope it
wasn't my asking about the Richards. I'm new to the list, so maybe I
don't understand the environment here, but, I don't mind debate.

Argument is a totally different animal. Debate allows you to agree
to disagree and be open to other opinions. Argument tends to put
people in a destroy or be destroyed frame of mind.

That use of 'argument' is indeed found in certain parts of England where
it is used to denote a fighting and shouting match. But this use of
'argument' is not universal and in other circles it merely means a
reasoned argument.

I am quite happy to argue.

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

Gjest

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 apr 2007 23:58:10

"John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1175383917.767986.286750@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

**I'm a bit on the 'sauce' today as well, hope I can a bit of sense
without mentioning the beauty of eather my female relatives of of
other men in the newgroup. This is getting to be a bad habit, looks
like.

John

I mean this kindly - take a break, for heaven's sake stop posting
stuff like this, and come back when you're ready to contribute
material useful and relevant to a mediaeval genealogy discussion
forum.

MA-R

Peter Stewart

Re: FITZRICHARDS

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 apr 2007 04:34:21

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:WI3Nh.1139$M.135@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Wanda Thacker" <wanda_t36@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.563.1174707076.3661.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
O.K., Now that we have established that Godfrey was
Richard I's son, do you think that the Richard FitzGilbert
who founded the Earls of Devon is the same or different
than the one who founded the De Clare line?

You are confusing people and names.

Godfrey of Brionne's son Count Gilbert had two sons: Richard fitz Gilbert
whose descendants were the Clare family (later earls of Gloucester and
Hertford), and Baldwin fitz Gilbert whose son Richard was sheriff of
Devon.

But this Richard (died 136) had no known offspring, and the later earls of
Devon of the Redvers family were descended from another Richard (de
Reviers, not fitz Gilbert) of unknown parentage.

To make this second paragraph clearer, for the record, it should read:

"But this Richard (fitz Baldwin, i.e. son of Baldwin fitz Gilbert), lord of
Okehamptom & sheriff of Devon (died 1136) had no known offspring...."

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Countess Lucy of Devon [was Re: FitzRichards]

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 apr 2007 10:35:08

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:PuFOh.3310$M.206@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Wanda Thacker" <wanda_t36@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.83.1175132608.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Here is what I found at the FMG site, and it seems
that their sources were at least plausible.

"Seems" on what basis?

but, conjecture is part of genealogy anyway, in the
absence of DNA. The best you can do is find sources
and state what they were and why you trust them and
then someone will come along and refute them later
anyway. I'm o.k. with, "not definite".

But you haven't stated "why you trust them", so far you have only
overstated what may be speculated from them.

Do you have an idea of how many women like Lucy paid "pro anima" respects
to great magnates who were neither their husbands not their brothers? How
do you assess the likelihood of a relationship for Lucy as high, rather
than merely notable or possible, given what you read on the FMG website?

It appears that Wanda doesn't intend to respond further, and I can't find
that the matter has been discussed before on SGM apart from a brief exchange
between Paul Reed and Douglas Richardson in August 2003 (subject "C. P.
Addition: Lucy, wife of Gilbert de Clare, 1st Earl of Hertford, and Baldwin
de Redvers, 1st Earl of Devon").

The connection that Wanda found in the Medieval Lands database on the FMG
website, making Countess Lucy of Devon a sister of Gilbert de Clare, was
taken from Katherine Keats-Rohan, _Domesday Descendants_ (2002) p. 246,
stating:

"On the basis of an endorsement of her only known charter, a grant to
Stoke-by-Clare priory for the souls of Earl Baldwin (her husband) and Earl
Gilbert, she has been identified as the wife of Gilbert, earl of Hertford,
though there is no other evidence that he ever married (Comp. Peer. vi,
499). The endorsement reads: 'Carta de comitissa de Clara'. It is obvious
from the beneficiary and from the charter text that Lucy was a countess -
the widow of Earl Baldwin - and that she was a member of the de Clare
family, a fact noted acceptably and comprehensibly by a scribe of a Clare
foundation when he endorsed the charter. Her name strongly suggests as
affiliation with Ranulf I of Chester and his wife the Coutness Lucy. She
should be identified as a daughter of Richard fitz Gilbert and Adelisa of
Chester, daughter of Ranulf and Lucy, and hence sister, NOT wife, of Earl
Gilbert of Hertford, who died 1152/3. Lucy's charter was doubtless given
shortly after the death of her husband in 1155, two or three years after the
death of her brother who was buried at Stoke-by-Clare priory. She must have
died soon afterwards as there is no further record of her."

I don't agree with this at all, and in my view Douglas Richardson's subject
line above, following Robert Bearman in his edition of the Redvers family
charters, is a more plausible reading of the meagre evidence than Dr
Keats-Rohan's assertions.

First, it is of little consequence if there is no other evidence, apart from
the possible indication of one charter, that Earl Gilbert ever married - we
have no more than this for many marriages of his rank and time, and in his
case there is no direct evidence or statement that he was never married. The
fact that CP reports this as said for lack of evidence to the contrary,
while not even mentioning the Stoke priory charter, only suggests that this
document was unknown to the writer who ought to have considered it if known.

Secondly, the peripheral conclusions in DD are not supportable: to say that
Lucy "must" have died soon after this record because there isn't another is
scarcely more logical than to say she "must" have been a girl bride in the
early 1150s because there is no other record of her beforehad (and for that
matter, since Earl Gilbert's parents were most probably both born before
1100 this obverse pointless speculation would make it less likely that Lucy
was his sister). Some countesses of the 12th century didn't leave much of a
mark as widows, and she could have survived for years after Baldwin's death
for all we know. Also, her name _might_ suggest an affiliation with the more
famous Countess Lucy, but not particularly with that lady's third husband
Earl Ranulf of Chester - she had offspring by two other men as well as by
him. It seems to me that the name Lucy could be misleading, and just a
co-incidence as far as we can tell: Earl Baldwin's brother William de Vernon
was also married to a woman named Lucy, daughter of William de Tancarville,
so that this name alone is hardly compelling evidence for a specific
relationship.

Thirdly, the beneficiary and the charter text do not make it "obvious" that
Countess Lucy of Devon belonged to the Clare family, as claimed, while the
endorsement clearly enough suggests that the scribe at Stoke - who should
have known - thought she did not. The gift being to Stoke priory makes it
obvious only that Lucy had a connection to this house, but whether by birth
or marriage into the founding family cannot be discerned. Earl Gilbert's
married sister or remarried widow might equally have made a donation
remembering him a few years after his death. The text doesn't help much: it
is written in the third person, so is only a paraphrase of Lucy's actual
charter, and the relevant passage is as follows: "pro anima comitis
Baldewini et comitis Gilberti et omnium antecessorum suorum et pro seipsa et
omnibus amicis suis" (for the soul of Earl Baldwin and of Earl Gilbert and
of all their predecessors and for herself and all her loved ones) [see
_Stoke by Clare Cartulary, BL Cotton Appx. xxi_, edited by Christopher
Harper-Bill & Richard Mortimer (1982-84) part 1 p. 49 no. 69]. There is
nothing here to imply a different relationship to Gilbert from that to
Baldwin, whom we know to have been Lucy's husband.

It would be much less usual, I think, for a woman to refer to her brother in
this way than to a former husband. Gilbert's predecessors would have been
his sister's blood relatives, and in this event some language to distinguish
between them and her in-laws who were Baldwin's predecessors might be
expected. We don't know, of course, if the original charter contained more
detail, perhaps with more specific possessive pronouns making the meaning
plainer.

However, the endorsement in itself could not be plainer: Lucy if a sister of
Earl Gilbert would not have used "de Clara" as a surname, either before or
after marriage, and no scribe at Stoke would have called a daugher of the
family who was not an heiress "countess of Clare" anyway. Several other
Stoke priory charters of countesses of Clare with similar endorsments make
it perfectly clear that Lucy was supposed to have been the wife of an earl
of Clare, presumably Gilbert. Compare, for instance, op. cit. p. 47 no. 65,
charter of Countess Amice, wife of Gilbert's nephew Richard de Clare, earl
of Hertford, on folio 31r of the cartulary endorsed "Carta comitisse de
Clara"; this is identical to the endorsement of Lucy's charter on folio 32r
(that by the way correctly reads "Carta comitisse de Clara...", not "de
comitissa de Clara" as misquoted in DD). If the scribe oddly thought that a
sister of Gilbert could be meaningfully called "comitissa de Clara" he might
just as well have called Amice "comitissa de Gloucestria" after her own
family's earldom.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: trolls -- ignore or denounce

Legg inn av John Brandon » 02 apr 2007 12:04:54

John

I mean this kindly - take a break, for heaven's sake stop posting
stuff like this, and come back when you're ready to contribute
material useful and relevant to a mediaeval genealogy discussion
forum.

MA-R

Oh ... shut up ... you pompous twit. I'm sure you were eating it up
like candy anyway.

Hint: people are bored with your d*** photographs.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: What has it got to do with genealogy? Quite a lot, somet

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 apr 2007 17:36:32

In message of 2 Apr, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/2/2007 3:55:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

As a matter of technical irrelevance, there is no web-site associated
with this newsgroup. It is either a Newsgroup which has a totally
separate protocol requiring news-fetcher and -reader software OR it is a
Mailing List hosted by Rootsweb; they are joined together by a Gateway
maintained by Rootsweb.


But that said, I don't think most people understand the difference between a
"website" and Google Groups which has the appearance of being just another
bulletin board-like, static, web site.

Of course not. And Google deliberately confuses things by hosting
web forums through the same user interface as their portal onto
newsgroups. But this does not alter the fact the Google interface to
soc.gen.med is merely a form of news-fetcher and reader from Usenet.

PS: You need to insert some quote marks when you are quoting. All it
needs is a right-facing chevron at the start of each quoted line.

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

Gjest

Re: What has it got to do with genealogy? Quite a lot, somet

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 apr 2007 18:21:02

In a message dated 4/2/2007 3:55:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

As a matter of technical irrelevance, there is no web-site associated
with this newsgroup. It is either a Newsgroup which has a totally
separate protocol requiring news-fetcher and -reader software OR it is a
Mailing List hosted by Rootsweb; they are joined together by a Gateway
maintained by Rootsweb.


But that said, I don't think most people understand the difference between a
"website" and Google Groups which has the appearance of being just another
bulletin board-like, static, web site.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Gjest

Re: What has it got to do with genealogy? Quite a lot, somet

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 apr 2007 18:54:02

<<In a message dated 4/2/2007 9:50:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

But this does not alter the fact the Google interface to
soc.gen.med is merely a form of news-fetcher and reader from Usenet.



And a news-poster :)
Will



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

William Marshall

Re: FITZRICHARDS

Legg inn av William Marshall » 02 apr 2007 23:11:01

Peter Stewart wrote:
First, stemming from the Norman ducal family -
1. Richard I, duke of Normandy (by unknown concubine)
|
2. Godfrey, count of Eu & Brionne
|
3(a). GILBERT, count of Brionne
3(b). Robert, probably father of a daughter, recorded as GILBERT's niece,
who married Baudry the German
|
sons of Gilbert #3(a):
4(a). Richard fitz Gilbert, lord of Clare, agnatic ancestor of the earls of
Hertford from his marriage to Rohese Giffard
4(b). Baldwin fitz Gilbert, lord of Okehampton & sheriff of Devon, whose
male descent ended with his sons including two other sheriffs of Devon.

Second, agnatically unrelated to the first as far as we know -
1. GILBERT I Crispin, castellan of Tilli€res, parentage unknown, married
Gunnora (daughter of Baudry the German by the niece of GILBERT of Brionne
above)

CP IV p308, refers to Baldwin fitz Gilbert as "son of Gilbert, called
Crispin, Count of Brionne in Normandy..."

Were they both called Crispin, or is this an error in CP?

And, is Baudry the German (who had a son Foulques of Anjou) somehow
related to the Counts of Anjou also named Foulques?

Bill Marshall
wtm@research.att.com

taf

Re: FITZRICHARDS

Legg inn av taf » 03 apr 2007 01:40:28

On Apr 2, 3:11 pm, William Marshall <w...@research.att.com> wrote:

And, is Baudry the German (who had a son Foulques of Anjou) somehow
related to the Counts of Anjou also named Foulques?

Not Anjou, it is Fulk de Aunou. (. . . also not to be confused with
Fulk de Alnou, a contemporary of this Fulk, who was son of Osmund de
Conteville, and grand-nephew of Gunnora).

taf

Robert forrest

Re: FITZRICHARDS

Legg inn av Robert forrest » 03 apr 2007 01:43:13

To re-muddy the waters, here's a comment by TAF on SGM in Aug 2000:

"...As I have mentioned elsewhere, based on the fact that Fulk d'Aunou had a
sister Gunnor, Keats-Rohan has suggested that these two somehow got switched,
and that it was Baldric who married the Gunnorid, while Nicholas [de
Bacqueville] married Gilbert's niece. This works better chronologically,
since Gilbert de Brionne was two generations after Gunnor, his niece three and
Nicholas four, while the wife of Nicholas would be just one, or perhaps two
generation removed from Gunnor. Reversing them as
Keats-Rohan suggests makes the wife four, and the husband three or four
(because some of the nieces appear to have been grandnieces)."

Comments, anyone?

Robert Forrest

John Brandon

Re: Michael Mitton, gent.

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 apr 2007 22:32:07

Dear John,
My own Assessment.

Well put. It sounds like an authorial aside from a Henry James
novel: "He was a gentleman; in the strict social sense, at least."

Gjest

Re: Michael Mitton, gent.

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 apr 2007 23:11:03

Dear John,
My own Assessment.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

wjhonson

Re: Descents From Edward III For Sir Marmaduke Beckwith, 3rd

Legg inn av wjhonson » 04 apr 2007 00:10:09

This is fascinating.

Without parents for this Elizabeth Greystoke (b 1471), the shortest
royal ascent I could do for her children was ten steps to Castile,
which left me pondering how well the family was placed to be able to
have all their children marrying sixth generation descendents from
England's throne.

With this new information... each of Elizabeth's children is also a
sixth generation descendent from England. Do you think they planned
that? That each child, a sixth-generation descendent should marry
spouses who are also sixth-generations descendents. Its so precise,
of course my data could still be missing more pieces.

Will

Gjest

Re: Descents From Edward III For Sir Marmaduke Beckwith, 3rd

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2007 00:31:02

Dear Brad and Leo,
You also have 1 (or 2) lines of descent from
Edward III via John of Gaunt and his 1st wife Lady Blanche de Lancaster.their
daughter Elizabeth de Lancaster (1363-1425) married 2nd John, 1st Duke of Exeter
(aft 1350- executed 1400) and had a daughter Constance de Holand(abt 1387-
1437), wife of Sir John Grey of Badmondisland ( d 1439), heir apparent to
Reynold de Grey, 3rd Baron Grey de Ruthin who were parents to Edmund de Grey, 1st
Earl of Kent (in the Grey line) (b 1416- d 1490) who was husband to Katherine
de Percy (Brad`s G 2), The Second descent is dependent on whether one
follows Faris (Mary le Scrope) or Richardson (Anne Neville) as to the maternity of
Christopher Conyers, 2nd Lord Conyers of Hornby. Anne Neville descends via
Constance`s brother John de Holand, 3rd Duke of Exeter (abt 1395/6- 1447) married
Anne de Stafford ( d 1432), daughter of Edmund de Stafford, 5th Earl of
Stafford by Anne, daughter of Edward III`s youngest son Thomas, Duke of Gloucester
and his wife Alianor de Bohun. John de Holand, 3rd Duke of Exeter and Anne de
Stafford had a daughter Anne de Holand d 1486 married Sir John de Neville
killed in battle at Towton 1481 (son of Sir John Neville (abt 1387- 1420) and
Elizabeth de Holand (1388- 1423)heir apparent of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of
Westmoreland and his 1st wife Margaret de Stafford, Sir John Neville and Anne de
Holand were the parents of Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmoreland (abt 1456-
1499) who married Isabel Booth, They were the parents of Christopher Conyers
possible mother Anne Neville, 2nd wife of William Conyers, 1st Lord Conyers of
Hornby.

Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont , Maine USA
(Sources: Dr David Faris Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth Century
Colonists (1st edition) Gurdon, Haviland, Douglas Richardson Plantagenet Ancestry:
A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families Lancaster, Exeter, Stafford, and
Neville



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Peter Stewart

Re: FITZRICHARDS

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 04 apr 2007 09:28:29

"William Marshall" <wtm@research.att.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.307.1175551890.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

First, stemming from the Norman ducal family -
1. Richard I, duke of Normandy (by unknown concubine)
|
2. Godfrey, count of Eu & Brionne
|
3(a). GILBERT, count of Brionne
3(b). Robert, probably father of a daughter, recorded as GILBERT's niece,
who married Baudry the German
|
sons of Gilbert #3(a):
4(a). Richard fitz Gilbert, lord of Clare, agnatic ancestor of the earls
of
Hertford from his marriage to Rohese Giffard
4(b). Baldwin fitz Gilbert, lord of Okehampton & sheriff of Devon, whose
male descent ended with his sons including two other sheriffs of Devon.

Second, agnatically unrelated to the first as far as we know -
1. GILBERT I Crispin, castellan of TilliÂ?res, parentage unknown, married
Gunnora (daughter of Baudry the German by the niece of GILBERT of Brionne
above)

CP IV p308, refers to Baldwin fitz Gilbert as "son of Gilbert, called
Crispin, Count of Brionne in Normandy..."

Were they both called Crispin, or is this an error in CP?

He is not called "Crispin" in the very few contemporary occurrences, and he
was not given any byname in Père Anselme - I can't guess what authority or
prior statement the CP writer was relying on. It could have been just some
old confusion.

Of course, "said to be" or "called" without reference are a kind of claim
that can't readily be proved in error, and too many genealogists have
exploited these uninformative & irritating locutions to project themselves
as knowing their subject inside out. If such hearsay is known, from a record
or from scholarly chatter, and the gist is worth reporting at all, it is
surely worth citing or at least identifying the source properly.

Peter Stewart

John Brandon

Re: Christopher Branch line for Anna Nicole?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 04 apr 2007 15:01:48

In case anyone is interested, there's the most stunning recent (Jan.
'07) photograph of ANS on the cover of the April 9 "Us" (or is that
"U.S."?). I sort of agree it couldn't have been suicide; she looks so
full of life. Something about that woman is so touching to me (I
sheepishly admit I've seen every episode of her reality show). Her
family background was fairly similar to my dad's--poor Southern
families that were nonetheless "spunky" and made something of
themselves.


Gjest

Re: Christopher Branch line for Anna Nicole?

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2007 16:31:32

On Apr 4, 3:01 pm, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In case anyone is interested, there's the most stunning recent (Jan.
'07) photograph of ANS on the cover of the April 9 "Us" (or is that
"U.S."?). I sort of agree it couldn't have been suicide; she looks so
full of life. Something about that woman is so touching to me (I
sheepishly admit I've seen every episode of her reality show). Her
family background was fairly similar to my dad's--poor Southern
families that were nonetheless "spunky" and made something of
themselves.

If you think that sitting in a library mis-spending your working day
by posting off-topic trash on a mediaeval genealogy news-group
constitutes "making something of yourself", then you have set your
sights remarkably low.

Do you have anything relevant to this group to contribute, or have you
descended to being a full-time troll? There's plenty of good stuff
currently being posted about colonial GARDs - such as the thread that
Brad Verity initiated - that you would be eminently qualified to
participate in, instead of pathetically seeking attention in such a
manifestly negative fashion. How sad.

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Christopher Branch line for Anna Nicole?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 04 apr 2007 16:50:46

If you think that sitting in a library mis-spending your working day
by posting off-topic trash on a mediaeval genealogy news-group
constitutes "making something of yourself", then you have set your
sights remarkably low.

What are you carrying on about? Who said anything about sitting in a
library, etc.?

Gjest

Re: Christopher Branch line for Anna Nicole?

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2007 08:01:42

On 4 Apr., 16:50, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you think that sitting in a library mis-spending your working day
by posting off-topic trash on a mediaeval genealogy news-group
constitutes "making something of yourself", then you have set your
sights remarkably low.

What are you carrying on about? Who said anything about sitting in a
library, etc.?

Er, you work in a library, remember? I do hope you haven't lost your
job as well as your dignity.

When you first started posting to s-g-m, your contributions were
insightful, on-topic and interesting. You clearly have an excellent
knowledge of your period which gained you sufficient respect here that
several posters have stuck by you even when you have been a loutish,
immature boor. In one of your few lucid posts last week, you yourself
acknowledged that it was probably best that you stopped posting here,
because you seem to have descended to the lowest quality of posts.
It's none of our business what kind of personal rut you are stuck in,
but it's not too late for you for return to useful, on-topic
contributions, using your knowledge and ability in the field of
colonial GARDs for instance, rather than pursuing the route of
attention-seeking through trollery; if you do not, I expect you will
go the way of all trolls: you will burn out internally. Up to you, of
course.

Kind regards, Michael

John Brandon

Re: Christopher Branch line for Anna Nicole?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 05 apr 2007 12:42:36

On Apr 5, 3:01 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 4 Apr., 16:50, "John Brandon" <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

If you think that sitting in a library mis-spending your working day
by posting off-topic trash on a mediaeval genealogy news-group
constitutes "making something of yourself", then you have set your
sights remarkably low.

What are you carrying on about? Who said anything about sitting in a
library, etc.?

Er, you work in a library, remember? I do hope you haven't lost your
job as well as your dignity.

When you first started posting to s-g-m, your contributions were
insightful, on-topic and interesting. You clearly have an excellent
knowledge of your period which gained you sufficient respect here that
several posters have stuck by you even when you have been a loutish,
immature boor. In one of your few lucid posts last week, you yourself
acknowledged that it was probably best that you stopped posting here,
because you seem to have descended to the lowest quality of posts.
It's none of our business what kind of personal rut you are stuck in,
but it's not too late for you for return to useful, on-topic
contributions, using your knowledge and ability in the field of
colonial GARDs for instance, rather than pursuing the route of
attention-seeking through trollery; if you do not, I expect you will
go the way of all trolls: you will burn out internally. Up to you, of
course.

Kind regards, Michael

Hmmmmm. Putting the PeptoBismal back in "pep talk," I guess.

As it so happens, I had my performance evaluation yesterday and it was
fine (nothing like a mention of me "spending too much time on the
internet," or similar). If they're not concerned, you _certainly_
should not be.

What is it exactly that _you_ do, Micheal, gallavanting about from
Denmark one day to Winchester on the next, snapping photos all around,
being a disgusting tourist and intrusive pest. Or maybe you don't
have a job. Are you perhaps one of the idle nouveau riche, Michael?
An arriviste hypenating his name and giving himself silly airs ...

John Brandon

Re: Christopher Branch line for Anna Nicole?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 05 apr 2007 15:31:43

What is it exactly that _you_ do, Micheal, gallavanting about from
Denmark one day to Winchester on the next, snapping photos all around,
being a disgusting tourist and intrusive pest. Or maybe you don't
have a job. Are you perhaps one of the idle nouveau riche, Michael?
An arriviste hypenating his name and giving himself silly airs ...

"Mr Michael Andrews-Reading works for the accountancy firm of Price
Waterhouse Coopers, specialises in fraud and vice, and is a Justice of
the Peace. He read English literature at Sydney University and read
also post-graduate law. He posts regularly and profusely on matters
such as nobiliary law and in November last year recorded 502 Internet
posts."

http://www.baronage.co.uk/2003a/stanbury.html

Oh, so I guess you are "really real," not just someone posting under
an alias, as I have suspected "Peter Stewart" to be in some idle
moments.

Is it true that you specialize in fraud and vice?

Gjest

Re: Re: Avilia (d) William Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2007 17:50:17

Alex,
The Hugh de Morville who was complicit in the murder of Becket was the son of Hugh and Beatrice and brother to maud who married William Vipont. I realize there has been some discussion to the contrary, however, believe there is sufficient proof. I think there may be a muddle with the Hugh de Morville who maintained a seat at Burgh.
Pat
From: "Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com
Date: 2007/04/05 Thu PM 12:24:45 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Avilia (d) William Lancaster

I had understood that the Hugh de Morville who was a murderer of
Becket was of the Scottish family, so not from Cumberland, tho
obviously probably related. He was Lord of Westmorland and had the
farm of Knaresborough Castle to which the murderers retired (Hoveden).


-------------------------------
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: Re: Avise de Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2007 19:12:28

K.J. Stringer, ed. Essays of the Nobility of Medieval Scotland (Edinburgh, 1985), p. 64, gives name of Richard de Morville's wife as Avicia.
G.W.S. Barrow, The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History (Oxford, 1980), p. 17: "In 1200 . . . Helen de Morville, heir of her father Richard and of her grandmother Beatrice de Beauchamp, was entitled to four knights' fees respectively at Bozeat, Northants, Whissendine and Whitwell in Rutland, Offord in Huntingdonshire, and Houghton Conquest beside Bedford--the 5 hides at Houghton having been originally acquired by Hugh de Beauchamp, Beatrice's grandfather, probably not long before 1086."
Hugh de Morville the elder died in 1162. Based other dates, I beleve Maud de Morville, sister of Richard de Morville who married Avice de Lancaster, to have been born 1135-40. Maud's son Ivo is said to have married 1) Sybil (possibly Thoresby) and 2) Isabel de Lancaster. Could Isabel have been the younger sister of Avice or would this have posed a problem?
Pat
From: "AnnG" <anngodden@googlemail.com
Date: 2007/04/04 Wed AM 06:30:33 EDT
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Avise de Lancaster

On 4 Apr, 03:26, "CE Wood" <wood...@msn.com> wrote:
Is there any proof that there were NOT two Avices?

One, born about 1088, the daughter of Roger, the Pointevin,
Montgomery, married to William the Younger Peverel, and mother to
Margaret and Robert.

The other, born about 1115, daughter of William I de Lancaster, and
mother of Elena Morville.

It WOULD solve many problematic birth dates (including children's
spouses) and Avice's age at these births, among others.

CE Wood

On Apr 3, 4:38 pm, "Gordon and Jane Kirkemo" <kirk...@comcast.net
wrote:



Hi,

In response to your question, it appears that Avise de Lancaster married
both William Peverel and Richard de Morville. I find the following in
"Domesday Descendants" on page 603 under "de Morville, Ricardus":

"Son of Hugh de Morville (q.v.) and Beatrice de Beauchamp. He succeeded his
father c.1162 as constable of Scotland, though he lost land held of the
honour of Huntingdon in 1173. He married Avice, daughter of William of
Lancaster and widow of William II Peverel of Nottingham (d.1154). He died
in 1189 leaving a son William (d.1196), and a daughter and eventual heiress
Helen, wife of Roland fitz Uctred of Galloway. Cf. Farrer ii, 357."

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo

-----Original Message-----
From: AnnG [mailto:anngod...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:51 PM
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Avise de Lancaster

Apologies if this is a silly question. Various sources show an Avise
de Lancaster married to William Peverel in the 11th century. Is this
the same Avise de Lancaster who is shown by other reputable sources
(including the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) as married to
Richard de Morville.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you to everyone.


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

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Avise de Lancaster

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 05 apr 2007 22:02:56

I understand that Isabel was the daughter of his second marriage to
Gundred de Warenne, while Avice was a daughter of his first marriage
(unknown spouse) and therefore signifiacantly older.

Does this help?

Gjest

Re: Avilla (d) William Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2007 00:01:03

Dear Alex and Others,
When You consider that Cumbria, Durham,
York, Huntingdon and Nortumberland all lay within the realm of the King of
Scots` influence from circa 1138- 1154 and that no few "English" nobles continued
to witness Scots royal charters in the time of William the Lion; for example
Roger de Coigniers (later known as Conyers) witnessed a charter of that king to
Hexham priory in York in the 1170s as given in the Black Book of Hexham
(sometimes available in the Google library on-line) Consider further that Alan of
Galloway, Constable of Scoland was such a powerful individual within England
that King John named him fifth among the nobles friendly to him following the
pelates named in the preamble to Magna Carta following William, Earl of
Pembroke, Marshal of England, John`s half brother William, Earl of Salisbury, his
first cousin William, Earl of Warrene, and William, Earl of Arundel preceding
him. just after are named Warin son of Gerald, Peter son of Herbert and Hubert
de Burgo at that point strward of Poitou. the Magna Carta was translated from
latin by Israel Smith Clare and included as a supplement in volume X of his
" Standard History of the World" copyright 1927 H F McGee in the United
States. The translated text of Magna Carta occupys pp vii -xvi of the supplement.
All that considered it is likely that it is the same Morville family.
Apology to Paul Bulkley for my earlier mispost.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Dora Smith

Re: Christopher Branch line for Anna Nicole?

Legg inn av Dora Smith » 06 apr 2007 01:23:40

Not I should be commenting on threads that don't interest me - but Anna
Nicole's only ancestry is White Trash.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175695308.552770.273140@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
In case anyone is interested, there's the most stunning recent (Jan.
'07) photograph of ANS on the cover of the April 9 "Us" (or is that
"U.S."?). I sort of agree it couldn't have been suicide; she looks so
full of life. Something about that woman is so touching to me (I
sheepishly admit I've seen every episode of her reality show). Her
family background was fairly similar to my dad's--poor Southern
families that were nonetheless "spunky" and made something of
themselves.

Peter Stewart

Re: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 apr 2007 04:48:55

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.456.1175827551.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Carolyn,
I have a facsimile copy of Turton`s The Plantagenet
Ancestry which shows Raoul de Gand Sire d`Alost as husband of Gisele of
Luxembourg and as son of Adalbert de Gand on page 199 but shows the
connection with a
?. In the index He gives Courcelles as his source, but I can`t locate the
book
in his List of Sources at the front of the book.

This is most probably a reference to _Histoire généalogique et héraldique
des Pairs de France, des grands dignitaires de la couronne, des principales
familles nobles du royaume, et des maisons princières de l'Europe_ by
Jean-Baptiste-Pierre de Courcelles, 12 volumes (1822-1833).

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Re: Avilla (d) William Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2007 05:08:10

G.W.S. Barrow, The Kingdom of the Scots (London, 1973), pp. 323-4: "Morville is from Morville, a few kilometres south-west of Brix, and the Morvilles were prominent tenants on the Honour of Huntingdon. The family's main stem were vassals of the Norman Honour of Vernon, which had its caput at Nehou a few miles further south. The closeness of the Scottish Morvilles to the Norman and Wessex lines of the family is shown by the fact that Morville charters in Scotland were witnessed by Alexander de Nehou, Richard de Nehou, and William de Nehou." D.G. Manuel, Dryburgh Abbey (Edinburgh, 1922), p. 47: quotes Chalmers, Caledonia iv, ch. 1, p. 503: "Hugh de Morville came from Burg in Cumberland. . . . [He] became Constable of Scotland. . . . He was the original founder of the monastery of Dryburgh, and died in 1162. By Beatrice de Bello Campo, his wife, he left Richard de Morville, who . . . became the principal minister of William the Lion." Hugh had "assumed the canonical robe of th!
e monks of Dryburgh." References submitted Gen-Med by kathleen@CASBS.STANFORD.EDU, 3 jan 1996....
Pat
From: Jwc1870@aol.com
Date: 2007/04/05 Thu PM 05:57:56 EDT
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
CC: Jwc1870@AOL..com
Subject: Re: Avilla (d) William Lancaster

Dear Alex and Others,
When You consider that Cumbria, Durham,
York, Huntingdon and Nortumberland all lay within the realm of the King of
Scots` influence from circa 1138- 1154 and that no few "English" nobles continued
to witness Scots royal charters in the time of William the Lion; for example
Roger de Coigniers (later known as Conyers) witnessed a charter of that king to
Hexham priory in York in the 1170s as given in the Black Book of Hexham
(sometimes available in the Google library on-line) Consider further that Alan of
Galloway, Constable of Scoland was such a powerful individual within England
that King John named him fifth among the nobles friendly to him following the
pelates named in the preamble to Magna Carta following William, Earl of
Pembroke, Marshal of England, John`s half brother William, Earl of Salisbury, his
first cousin William, Earl of Warrene, and William, Earl of Arundel preceding
him. just after are named Warin son of Gerald, Peter son of Herbert and Hubert
de Burgo at that point strward of Poitou. the Magna Carta was translated from
latin by Israel Smith Clare and included as a supplement in volume X of his
" Standard History of the World" copyright 1927 H F McGee in the United
States. The translated text of Magna Carta occupys pp vii -xvi of the supplement.
All that considered it is likely that it is the same Morville family.
Apology to Paul Bulkley for my earlier mispost.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

-------------------------------
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: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2007 05:15:03

Dear Carolyn,
I have a facsimile copy of Turton`s The Plantagenet
Ancestry which shows Raoul de Gand Sire d`Alost as husband of Gisele of
Luxembourg and as son of Adalbert de Gand on page 199 but shows the connection with a
?. In the index He gives Courcelles as his source, but I can`t locate the book
in his List of Sources at the front of the book.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

John Brandon

Re: Christopher Branch line for Anna Nicole?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 apr 2007 06:22:33

Not I should be commenting on threads that don't interest me - but Anna
Nicole's only ancestry is White Trash.

I don't really like that term. My paternal grandfather did
sharecropping and may have heard that term used, and that is why I
don't like it. But at least all of his descendants were Democrats--so
they had some sense and dignity within them (more than I can say for
some Northern relatives).

Andrew and Inge

RE: Re: Avise de Lancaster

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 06 apr 2007 06:35:50

By Ivo you mean Ivo de Veteripont? I don't think we have strong evidence of
who Isabel was, but she perhaps she is more likely to be a daughter of
William de Lancaster II, who was brother of the Avice who has been under
discussion. Keep in mind that this William also had a daughter Avice, and a
wife Avice (apparently a de Stutevill), and he must have had children from a
younger mother (probably not wife) also, including Gilbert de Lancaster of
Sockbridge (first of that name). Maybe Isabel was a sister to this Gilbert.

My Lancaster notes are here:
http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/De%20L ... rland.html

Regards
Andrew Lancaster

-----Original Message-----
From: pajunkin@bellsouth.net [mailto:pajunkin@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2007 8:12 PM
To: AnnG; gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Re: Avise de Lancaster


I beleve Maud de Morville, sister of Richard de Morville who married Avice
de Lancaster, to have been born 1135-40. Maud's son Ivo is said to have
married 1) Sybil (possibly Thoresby) and 2) Isabel de Lancaster. Could
Isabel have been the younger sister of Avice or would this have posed a
problem?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»